Content uploaded by Roger A. Luyun Jr.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roger A. Luyun Jr. on Aug 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Irrigation is one of the key infrastructures that can successfully increase farm
productivity and incomes, and thus boost socioeconomic progress in the countryside.
This is why the government is determined to accelerate the development of national
irrigation systems to cover around 1.3 million hectares of land across the country
identied as “irrigable”.
For our part at the Department of Agriculture, we pursue the development of
effective, appropriate, and efcient irrigation and water management technologies
even as we encourage greater public sector investment in national irrigation and
impounding systems following the Build-Transfer mechanism.
We therefore welcome the publication of this book, Revitalizing Philippine Irrigation:
A Systems and Governance Assessment for the 21st Century, which provides a comprehensive
assessment of the country’ s irrigation program.
Our strong endorsement for this book hinges on its successful attempt to gather
articles that provide valuable insights and expertise in discussing current sectoral
developments and issues, and advocating needed strategies to hasten the national
irrigation program towards stronger growth and competitiveness of the crops subsector
and the agri-shery industry, in general.”
William D. Dar
Secretary of Agriculture
Republic of the Philippines
“This new publication by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) is
timely and comprehensive.
The collection of studies from various PIDS researches on Philippine irrigation
provides a comprehensive assessment of the country’s approach to irrigation
development and is a useful reference for decisionmakers.
Specic issues, such as in the Free Irrigation Service Act, which I authored, are
noted. Indeed, as an agricultural country, the sector is truly essential in economic
growth as well as in poverty reduction.
The holistic and integrated approach to water management, involving other
agencies of government, to sustain soil productivity and efciency in the critical
watershed areas in the country supervised by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, local
government units, irrigators’ associations, and the farmer-beneciaries themselves,
is timely.
I highly recommend this book to policymakers and other stakeholders.”
Cynthia A. Villar
Senator
Chairperson, Committee on Agriculture
Senate of the Philippines, Congress of the Philippines
“I would like to extend my sincere commendation to the Philippine Institute for
Development Studies (PIDS) for the timely publication of this collection of studies
and research projects undertaken both by the PIDS and other research organizations
and individuals as a source of fundamental information on the Philippine
irrigation system.
Accelerating irrigation development through the construction and rehabilitation
of large- and small-scale systems is essential in increasing the productivity and income
of farmers. Hence, this is included in our Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022.
In my capacity as Chairperson of the House Committee on Agriculture and
Food (18th Congress), I will ensure that the various bills led on irrigation sector
development will be fully deliberated and acted upon and this publication will serve
as rich source of information in crafting a better, effective, and responsive Philippine
irrigation development legislations.
Again, I afrm my support and applaud the PIDS and the people behind this
publication for their continued commitment in providing us in Congress relevant,
reliable, and timely policy research to guide the legislators in carrying out our
legislative tasks and functions.”
Wilfrido Mark M. Enverga
Representative, First District of Quezon
Chairperson, Committee on Agriculture and Food
House of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines
“The state of the country’s irrigation systems is a microcosm of the agricultural and
rural economy: comparatively underperforming, falling far short of potentials due
mainly to uninformed policy and governance decisions, both at the local (sectoral)
and national (economywide) levels. Thus, assessing the performance of irrigation
systems and understanding why governments do what they do in irrigation, a
primary vehicle to raise farm productivity, is crucial to building the narrative on the
agricultural economy’s underperformance for most of the post-Second World War
period. This book succeeds in deepening our understanding of the context, structure,
and performance of irrigation systems and providing nuanced policy perspectives
and cost-effective solutions to the irrigation problem moving forward. The book’s
contributors represent some of the country’s foremost experts on irrigation
governance, water resource management and engineering, and agricultural and
resource economics. Thus, the book is an excellent resource for policymakers,
development practitioners, governance advocates, and students seeking ways to
revitalize irrigation toward sustainable food security and rural development.”
Arsenio M. Balisacan
Chairperson, Philippine Competition Commission
Former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary and
Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority
“While agricultural productivity growth is key to achieving structural transformation,
expanding the irrigation system, together with adopting modern varieties and land
tenure reforms, have been indispensable components of the country’s successful
agricultural development. Irrigation, particularly, not only improved agricultural
productivity, but also facilitated income smoothing for farmers by enabling
cropping even during dry seasons, thus helping mitigate both chronic and transient
poverty. This book provides a comprehensive picture of the history, institutions,
achievements, and challenges of the Philippines’ irrigation system. It is a must-read
book for policymakers, researchers, and students, who are interested in issues related
to irrigation, agricultural development, and poverty in the Philippines and in other
countries facing similar challenges.”
Yasuyuki Sawada
Chief Economist and Director-General
Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department
Asian Development Bank
“This book was long in coming but well worth the wait. It contains valuable information
on the national and communal irrigation systems in the Philippines.
Reorganizing irrigation governance is an essential step if the haphazard process
of decisionmaking is to be avoided. This entails the support and cooperation of the
government and the private sector. But there is no time like the present to start.”
Randolph Barker
Professor Emeritus
Cornell University
“Comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and up-to-date—this book, Revitalizing Philippine
Irrigation: A Systems and Governance Assessment for the 21st Century, provides a wealth of
information and knowledge about irrigation in the Philippines.
It presents the natural, physical, and socioeconomic dimensions of this
all-important agriculture resource, making this a condensed reference material
for the understanding of irrigation’s overall ecology in the Philippines and for
crafting irrigation policies and decisions.
By publishing this book, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies once
again reiterates the indispensable role of agriculture in ensuring food security and in
sustaining the country’s socioeconomic development.”
Jose V. Camacho Jr.
Chancellor
University of the Philippines Los Baños
Edited by Roehlano M. Briones
Copyright 2021
Published by
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Printed in the Philippines. Some rights reserved.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the
views of any individual or organization.
Please address all inquiries to:
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower
EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, 1100 Quezon City
Telephone: (63-2) 8877-4000
Fax: (63-2) 8877-4099
E-mail: publications@mail.pids.gov.ph
Website: https://www.pids.gov.ph
This book is under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License. It shall not be
used for commercial purposes. Anyone can use, reuse, distribute, and build upon this material
as long as proper attribution is made.
ISBN 978-971-564-076-3 (softbound/printed version)
ISBN 978-971-564-077-0 (PDF/electronic version)
RP 01-21-600
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes ..................................................................................... ix
Foreword .............................................................................................................................. xv
Preface ................................................................................................................................xvii
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................... xix
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................xxi
Chapter 1
Irrigation and Agricultural Development .......................................................1
Arlene B. Inocencio and Roehlano M. Briones
Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
Rationale for Public Investment in Irrigation ...........................................................2
History of irrigation development in the Philippines..............................................5
Trends in irrigation development .............................................................................10
The irrigation development program of the Philippines: Key issues ..................29
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................34
Chapter 2
National Irrigation Systems .............................................................................. 36
Roberto S. Clemente, Arthur L. Fajardo, Vicente G. Ballaran Jr., and Julie Carl P. Ureta
Introduction .................................................................................................................36
Related literature .........................................................................................................38
Methodology .................................................................................................................40
Findings based on rapid appraisal .............................................................................43
Other analytical ndings ............................................................................................61
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................65
Chapter 3
Communal Irrigation Systems .........................................................................68
Roger A. Luyun Jr. and Dulce D. Elazegui
Introduction .................................................................................................................68
Background and Method .............................................................................................70
vi
Findings from IMO data ..............................................................................................75
Findings from System-level and IA-level Data ........................................................81
Recommendations .......................................................................................................94
Chapter 4
Water Resources Component ............................................................................ 97
Guillermo Q. Tabios III and Tomas Paolo Z. De Leon
Introduction .................................................................................................................97
Hydraulic modeling of irrigation canal network ..................................................104
Summary and recommendations ............................................................................116
Chapter 5
Irrigation Water Governance .........................................................................119
Agnes C. Rola, Therese R. Olviga, Francis John F. Faderogao, and Chrislyn Joanna P. Faulmino
Introduction ...............................................................................................................119
Irrigation water governance in the Philippines....................................................121
Results of the assessment .........................................................................................132
Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................145
Chapter 6
An Assessment of the Free Irrigation Service Act ....................................149
Roehlano M. Briones, Roberto S. Clemente, Arlene B. Inocencio, Roger A. Luyun,
and Agnes C. Rola
Introduction ...............................................................................................................149
Implementation of free irrigation policy ...............................................................150
Related literature .......................................................................................................154
Method of the study ..................................................................................................159
Results and discussion ...............................................................................................161
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................171
vii
Chapter 7
Benet-cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigation System .....................175
Program of the Philippines
Roehlano M. Briones
Introduction ...............................................................................................................175
Background .................................................................................................................176
Methodology ...............................................................................................................184
Findings .......................................................................................................................190
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................197
Chapter 8
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigation Development ....................................199
Program of the Philippines: Synthesis Report
Arlene B. Inocencio, Albert Dale B. Inocencio, and Roehlano M. Briones
Introduction ...............................................................................................................199
Project identication .................................................................................................200
Project design and appraisal ....................................................................................207
Project implementation and procurement ............................................................212
System management and operations and maintenance .....................................214
Project monitoring and evaluation .........................................................................219
Concluding remarks...................................................................................................222
References ...........................................................................................................................225
The Authors ........................................................................................................................235
ix
List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes
Table
Chapter 1
1 Budget appropriation of the Department of Agriculture (DA) .............................11
for irrigation, in PHP millions (current prices)
2 Distribution of irrigation investments by type of project, system, and..............15
funding source, 1965–2016
3 PDP targets for irrigation, 2017–2022 .......................................................................30
4 Priority provinces of the Rice Industry Road Map 2030 ........................................33
Chapter 2
1 List of NIS cases covered in this report ....................................................................41
2 Problems with irrigation encountered by farmers ................................................52
3 Proportion of lined canals, Luzon and Mindanao systems (%) .............................56
4 PCA results for the integrated irrigation performance index ..............................65
Chapter 3
1 Status of irrigation development in the Philippines ..............................................73
2 Frequency distribution of CIS by the size of FUSA and technology type (%) .....75
3 Average cropping intensity of the CIS from the different IMOs visited .............77
4 Distribution of CIS IAs by category of functionality rating (%) ............................78
5 Deployment of irrigators development ofcers (IDOs) to CIS in .........................81
all the sample IMOs
6 Water delivery performance indices in all the IMOs visited ................................84
7 Water management practices in all the IMOs visited ............................................86
8 Silt and seepage levels in the canals of CIS for each IMO ......................................87
9 Performance on water distribution, maintenance of canals, and ........................90
maintenance of control structures in all the IMOs visited
10 Average rating of the individual indicators for IAs’ functionality ......................91
rating in 11 selected provinces in Luzon
11 Average rating of the individual indicators for IAs’ functionality ......................92
rating in four selected provinces in the Visayas
x
12 Average rating of the individual indicators for IAs’ functionality rating ...........92
in four selected provinces in Mindanao
Chapter 4
1 Monthly average releases to MWSS and AMRIS from Angat ..............................100
Reservoir (1996–2013) and NWRB allocation for NIA-AMRIS (in CMS)
2 Historical and watershed model computed daily ows of Angat ......................101
Reservoir inows, Ipo Dam local inows, Bustos Dam local inows, and
Umiray River ow diversions to Angat Reservoir (in CMS)
3 Results of hydraulic simulation for AMRIS north main canal ............................110
with inow of 14.6 CMS
4 Results of hydraulic simulation for AMRIS north main canal ............................111
with inow of 18.0 CMS
5 Results of hydraulic simulation for AMRIS north main canal ............................112
with inow of 26.65 CMS
Chapter 5
1 Institutions involved in irrigation water governance in the Philippines .........122
2 Irrigation project management activities of NIA and responsible units ..........125
3 Project management activities of NIA in NIS and CIS ..........................................127
4 Study sites ...................................................................................................................131
5 Irrigation water-related agencies and their roles in the irrigation ...................133
development cycle at the national level
6 Irrigation water-related agencies and their roles in the irrigation ...................137
development cycle at the meso level
7 Status of irrigation management transfer of NIS to IAs ......................................141
8 Participation of the CIS IAs in the planning and design stage ............................142
of the project cycle
9 Participation of CIS IAs in project construction ...................................................143
10 Participation of the CIS IAs in the M&E of system performance .......................144
Chapter 6
1 Basic responsibilities of NIA and IAs under various models ...............................151
of IMT contracts
2 Options for management and O&M payment........................................................158
3 Share of irrigation service fee in the cost of palay production ..........................162
by region, 2013 and 2017 (%)
xi
Chapter 7
1 Priority medium-yield provinces in the Philippines ............................................184
2 Investment costs of irrigation projects: Philippines, 2008–2015........................190
(PHP millions)
3 Estimated impact of irrigation: Philippines, 2008–2016 (PHP millions) ............191
4 Irrigated palay output (in ‘000 tons) and price (in PHP per kg), projections ...194
for 2017–2045: Philippines
5 Palay output and price, projections for 2017–2045, in PHP millions .................194
6 Palay output and price, projections for 2017 to 2045: Philippines .....................196
(in PHP millions)
Chapter 8
1 Criteria for selection and prioritization of NIA irrigation projects ...................201
under AFMA (%)
2 Status of project preparation activities ..................................................................208
Figure
Chapter 1
1 Theory of change for irrigation systems ....................................................................4
2 Public investments in irrigation, in PHP millions (2000 prices), 1965–2017 ......12
3 Irrigation investments by type of system in PHP billions .....................................13
(2000 prices), 1965–2016
4 Real irrigation investments by type of project, in PHP billions ...........................14
(2000 prices), 1965–2016
5 Average distribution of irrigated area by technology, 2015–2017 .......................16
6 Irrigated area by type of technology, ‘000 hectares (1967–2015) .........................17
7 Area irrigated by type of system, ‘000 hectares, 1964–2017 ..................................18
8 Average distribution of irrigated area by crop (%), 2015–2017 ............................19
9 Trends in irrigated palay production, area, yield, 1970–2017 ..............................20
10 Ratios of irrigated to total palay production and ...................................................21
area harvested, by region, 1970–2017
11 Yield advantage of irrigated over rainfed palay by region (%), 1970–2017 ........24
12 Trends in actual vs target irrigated area ..................................................................27
by type of project (new, restore, rehabilitation), 1990–2018
xii
13 Trends in irrigation intensities in NIS and CIS, 1965–2017 ...................................28
14 Shares in irrigation service area by operationality (%), 2010 and 2017 ..............28
Chapter 2
1 FUSA, program and actual irrigated areas, and ......................................................44
cropping intensities of selected NIS
2 Silted diversion dam of Dipalo River Irrigation System ........................................54
3 Missing gates in MalMar 2 River Irrigation System ...............................................57
4 Vaca Dam of Division 2, UPRIIS ..................................................................................58
5 Check gate with padlocks in Libmanan-Cabusao PIS .............................................59
6 Garbage near the gates of one section of Lateral B NMC, AMRIS .........................60
7 Erosion map for UPRIIS ...............................................................................................62
8 Groundwater map of Bukidnon and service areas of .............................................64
Manupali, Roxas-Kuya, and Pulangui RIS
9 3D map showing the relative elevation of the service area and terrain .............64
of the whole watershed of the NIS covered in Bukidnon
Chapter 3
1 Percentage distribution of communal IAs by functionality rating and ..............79
province in 11 sample IMOs in Luzon: 2014
2 Percentage distribution of communal IAs by functionality rating and ..............79
province in four sample IMOs in the Visayas: 2017
3 Percentage distribution of communal IAs by functionality rating and ..............80
province in four sample IMOs in Mindanao: 2017
Chapter 4
1 Angat Reservoir water resource system, including the .........................................99
Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System (AMRIS)
2 Pampanga Delta Irrigation System and its physical features .............................102
3 Long-term dependable (80%) daily ows over the ...............................................103
Lower Pampanga River (in m3/s)
4 Details of the Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System .........................................105
5 Details of the Pampanga Delta Irrigation System (PDRIS) canal layout ............105
6 Steps in hydraulic modeling of irrigation canal network ...................................106
7 View of irrigation canal network plan and prole data of main .......................107
canal, including irrigation service sub-areas at pertinent lateral outlets
xiii
8 North main canal (NMC) and lateral canals of AMRIS .........................................109
9 Sample graphical display of HEC-RAS computer model results .........................109
in a particular lateral canal of the of AMRIS canal network
10 Differences of simulated water elevations and bank elevations ........................113
at AMRIS north main canal with inow of 14.6 CMS
11 Simulated water depths at AMRIS north main canal ...........................................113
with inow of 14.6 CMS
12 Differences of simulated water elevations and bank elevations ........................114
at AMRIS north main canal with inow of 18.0 CMS
13 Simulated water depths at AMRIS North main canal ...........................................114
with inow of 18.0 CMS
14 Differences of simulated water elevations and bank elevations ........................115
at AMRIS north main canal with inow of 26.65 CMS
15 Simulated water depths at North main canal with inow of 26.65 CMS ..........115
Chapter 5
1 Service process model of the National Irrigation Administration .....................124
2 Management structure and ow of activities between NIA ofces ...................130
Chapter 6
1 Trends in the actual cost of O&M of rmed-up service .......................................152
areas, ISF collected of NIS: 1983–2016
2 Number and area of irrigated farms/holdings: Philippines, 1960–2012 ...........161
3 Cumulative distribution of net rice-producing households, 2015 (%) ..............163
4 Benets from free irrigation based on NIS IAs FGDs, percent of respondents ... 165
5 Reasons given for the change in O&M level, CIS IA respondents (n = 17) ........167
6 Share of NIA respondents by expectation of change in O&M with FISA (%) ....168
Chapter 7
1 Expenditures on irrigation in 2000 prices: ............................................................177
Philippines, 1965–2016 (PHP millions)
2 Irrigated area by system: Philippines, 1990–2019, (in ‘000 ha) ...........................177
3 Area harvested for palay by system: Philippines, 1987–2019 (in ‘000 ha).........178
4 Production (‘000 tons) and yield (tons per hectare) ............................................179
by system: Philippines, 1987-2017
5 Cost and returns by system: Philippines, 2002–2018 (in PHP per kg) ................180
xiv
6 Cropping intensity estimates by system: Philippines, 1990–2019 ......................181
7 Assessment frames for benet-cost analysis .........................................................189
8 Measures of project worth, irrigation investments, ex post: .............................192
Philippines, 2008–2016
9 Palay output (‘000 tons) and palay price (PHP per kg), base and .......................193
counterfactual case: Philippines, 2017–2045
10 Measures of project worth, irrigation investments, ex ante and .......................195
ex post: Philippines, 2008–2045
11 Measures of project worth, irrigation investments, ex ante and .......................196
ex post, xed change in irrigated area, Philippines, 2008–2045
Chapter 8
1 Public expenditures for irrigation, 1996–2016 (2000 prices) and number ........205
of NIA positions before and during the RatPlan
Box
Chapter 1
1 References to research reports from the assessment of the resurgent ................3
irrigation program of the Philippines by the Philippine Institute for
Development Studies
Chapter 2
1 Principal components analysis ..................................................................................40
xv
Foreword
It has been more than two years already since the Philippine government adopted
the radical policy of exempting farmers from payment of irrigation fees. Through
the passage of the Free Irrigation Service Act (FISA), the government has afrmed its
commitment to contribute to the lowering of the cost of production and further relieve
the farmers from the burden and consequence of unpaid irrigation service fees.
However, the passage of FISA is not a panacea for all the ills besieging the
Philippine irrigation system. For instance, a study by the Philippine Institute for
Development Studies (PIDS) found that while the beneciaries of the free irrigation
are poorer than average, a large majority of them are nonpoor.
To provide a basis for discussing the issues of the current irrigation policy
framework, PIDS compiles existing quantitative and qualitative studies that address
the technical, physical, and institutional aspects of the performance of the country’s
irrigation systems. This book focuses on the works done by the Institute in recent
years to assist the government in crafting reforms toward cost-effective irrigation
sector development.
The Institute hopes that this book will help inform the discussions on the
Philippine irrigation system and how it is managed, and thus contribute to the
objective of the country to create a more effective and sustainable irrigation system.
CELIA M. REYES
President
xvii
Preface
Irrigation has been part of the Philippine agriculture since precolonial times. Despite
changes in the policy framework governing the sector, irrigation has only become
more relevant. This is understandable given the rapid expansion of the Philippine
population, with corresponding increased pressures on the food supply. More crops
simply mean higher demands for irrigation water.
This has inspired us to come up with a book that zeroes in on the Philippine
irrigation system. This book features contributions from esteemed researchers from
various institutions and organizations, thus providing a comprehensive assessment
of the country’s irrigation development program. Hopefully, the assessment will
serve as basis for the policy reforms in the area.
We are indebted to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies for fueling
this project and providing us an avenue to share a wide variety of perspectives on
irrigation. This book is our humble contribution to the literature on irrigation,
particularly the national and communal systems and their entire project cycle.
While there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of public investments
in irrigation, the reality is that its development is still hampered by several issues.
This publication offers recommendations to address them.
The Authors
xix
Acknowledgment
This book has been years in the making. It began with the pioneering work of the
late Wilfredo David, former Chancellor of University of the Philippines Los Baños
and continued by the studies of Cristina David, former Senior Research Fellow of the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS). Throughout, PIDS has overseen
this project, from the tenure of President Josef Yap, through to Gilberto Llanto, and,
currently, Celia Reyes. The Department of Budget and Management, under Secretary
Florencio Abad, funded the “Rapid appraisal of irrigation investments” under the
Zero-Based Budgeting Program Studies. Said project was headed by Cristina David
and Arlene Inocencio. Other contributors had authored articles on related studies,
including Miriam Nguyen, Tolentino Moya, Mona de los Reyes, and Alma de la Cruz.
Staff who at the time served as research assistants and associates had been
instrumental to these studies, including Cristina Alvarez, Cristeta Foronda, Alex
Baulita, Armand Christopher Rola, Joseph Daniel Sandoval, Jayson Fumera, Mae
Marie Garcia, Faith Villarma, Kristel Tapire, Arman Baulita, Kris Francisco, Francis
Quimba, Ivory Galang, and Isabel Espineli. Sheila Siar and the Research Information
Department Staff, especially Maria Judith Sablan and Gizelle Manuel, diligently
shepherded these studies to publication. Chito Madamba is the source of the striking
image for the book cover.
The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) has been unwavering in its support
of the PIDS evaluation studies from the 2000s up to the present, providing access to
its ofces, data, staff, and network of stakeholders, from NIA Central Ofce down to
its regional and eld ofces. The Authors are grateful to the stakeholders of irrigation
sector governance, especially the Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Soils and
Water Management, the National Economic and Development Authority, and, of
course, the farmers and operators of the various irrigators’ associations, for their
valuable time and insights on the state of the sector.
xxi
List of Acronyms
AFMA – Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
AMM – asset management method
AMP – asset management plan
AMPLE – Agricultural Market Model for Policy Evaluation
AMRIS – Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System
ARMM – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AWD – alternate wetting and drying
BAR – Bureau of Agricultural Research
BCA – benet-cost analysis
BCR – benet-cost ratio
BOT – board of trustees
BPW – Bureau of Public Works
BSWM – Bureau of Soils and Water Management
CAR – Cordillera Administrative Region
CARP – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
CIDP – Communal Irrigation Development Project
CIP – communal irrigation projects
CIRDUP – Comprehensive Irrigation Research and Development
Umbrella Program
CIS – communal irrigation systems
CMS – cubic meters per second
CRA – Community Relations Assistant
DA – Department of Agriculture
DAR – Department of Agrarian Reform
DBM – Department of Budget and Management
DE – detailed engineering
DEM – digital elevation maps
DENR – Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG – Department of the Interior and Local Government
DP – Discussion Paper
EC – electrical conductivity
EIRR – economic internal rate of return
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD – focus group discussion
FGIS – farmland geographic information system
FIELDS – fertilizer, irrigation, extension, loans for inputs
xxii
FISA – Free Irrigation Service Act
FMB – Forest Management Bureau
FS – feasibility study
FSSP – Food Staples Sufciency Program
FUSA – rmed-up service area
GIS – geographic information system
ha – hectare
HEC-HMS – Hydrologic Engineering Center - Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS – Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
IA – irrigators’ association
ICC – Investment Coordination Committee
IDD – Institutional Development Division
IDMCs – irrigation and drainage management companies
IDO – irrigators development ofcers
IDP – Institutional Development Program
IfSAR – interferometric synthetic aperture radar
IMO – irrigation management ofce
IMT – irrigation management transfer
IPI – irrigation performance index
IROR – internal rate of return
IRR – implementing rules and regulations
IS – irrigation system
ISC – irrigators’ service cooperative
ISF – irrigation service fee
IWM – integrated watershed management
JICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency
kg – kilogram
KII – key informant interview
km – kilometer
LGC – Local Government Code
LGU – local government units
LPS – liter per second
m – meter
MAO – municipal agricultural ofce
MARIIS – Magat River Integrated Irrigation System
MASSCOTE – Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation Techniques
MAV – minimum access volume
MFN – most-favored-nation
MIMAROPA – Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, and Palawan
xxiii
NOAH – Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards
MOA – memorandum of agreement
MT – metric ton
MW – megawatt
MWSS – Metro Manila’s Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
NAMRIA – National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NEDA – National Economic and Development Authority
NGO – nongovernment organization
NHC – National Hydraulic Research Center
NIA – National Irrigation Administration
NIMP – National Irrigation Master Plan
NIP – national irrigation project
NIS – national irrigation systems
NMC – north main canal
NPC – National Power Corporation
NWRB – National Water Resources Board
O&M – operations and maintenance
PCA – Principal Component Analysis
PCs – principal components
PDC – provincial development council
PDP – Philippine Development Plan
PDRIS – Pampanga Delta River Integrated System
PHP – Philippine peso
PIS – pump irrigation system
POWs – program of works
PRDP – Philippine Rural Development Program
PSA – Philippine Statistics Authority
QR – quantitative restriction
RatPlan – rationalization plan
RBCO – River Basin Control Ofce
RDC – regional development council
RIO – regional irrigation ofce
RIS – river irrigation system
ROW – right-of-way
RPMC – Regional Project Monitoring Committee
SDD – small diversion dam
SFR – small farm reservoir
SOCCSKSARGEN – South Cotabato, Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani,
and General Santos
xxiv
SSIS – small-scale irrigation systems
STW – shallow tubewell
SWAT – Soil and Water Assessment Tool
SWIP – small water impounding project
SWISA – Small Water Impounding System Association
TCP3 – Technical Cooperation Project 3
UPLBFI – University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation Incorporated
UPRIIS – Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation Systems
US – United States
USLE – universal soil loss equation
VEVA – Value Engineering/Value Analysis/Assessment
VIG – Variable Incentive Grant
WB – World Bank
WRDP – Water Resources Development Project
WRRC – water resource research centers
WTO – World Trade Organization
Chapter 1
Irrigaon and Agricultural
Development
Arlene B. Inocencio and Roehlano M. Briones
Introducon
Irrigation is a well-known technology for water management. It boosts agricultural
production by allowing more intensive cropping over the same plot of land and
increasing yield on that land. In the Philippines, irrigation development is largely
determined by public sector investment. Ensuring irrigation service delivery is
mandated under key legislations for agriculture, particularly the Magna Carta of Small
Farmers (Republic Act [RA] 7607) and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Act or AFMA (RA 8435). However, budgetary allocations have waxed and waned over
the decades.
Irrigation investments peaked in the 1970s to early 1980s under an ambitious rice
sector modernization program. Irrigation development languished, as government
struggled with a tight scal bind. However, the world food crisis of 2008 and the
2 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
widening of scal space in the ensuing years caused a resurgence in the government’s
irrigation investments. Appropriations for irrigation rose from PHP 8 billion in 2008
to PHP 24.4 billion in 2012. Over the next six years, budget appropriations for the
irrigation program averaged at PHP 32.3 billion a year. The Philippine Development
Plan (PDP) 2017–2022 aims at an irrigation area ratio of 65.07 percent by 2022, up from
57.33 percent in 2015, or an additional 233,700 hectares (ha) of irrigated area over a
six-year period. This corresponds to PHP 70.2 billion at PHP 300,000 development
cost per hectare.
After over a decade of implementation of the resurgent program, careful
stock-taking is in order. This book aims at such a comprehensive assessment. It shall
cover both national and communal system and span the entire project cycle from
planning to implementation, operations, monitoring, and evaluation. It also examines
performance, design, management, and governance issues and compares the benets
of the program with program costs. It also offers recommendations regarding the
ongoing implementation of the irrigation development program. This chapter
provides an overview of a set of studies, which address the technical, physical, and
institutional aspects of performance of the country’s irrigation systems (Box 1).
Most of the government’s budget for irrigation development has gone to the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA). The NIA is mainly responsible for the national
irrigation systems (NIS), the larger irrigation systems in the country. It develops
and operates NIS, though with varying extent of participation of users organized
as irrigators’ associations (IAs). The smaller irrigation systems also developed
by NIA are the communal irrigation systems (CIS), which are then turned over to
IAs for management and operation. Other small-scale irrigation systems (SSIS) are
implemented by the Department of Agriculture (DA), often under the Bureau of Soils
and Water Management (BSWM). They include small-water impounding projects
(SWIPs), diversion dams, and small farm reservoirs.
Raonale for public investment in irrigaon
The theory of change associated with irrigation investments is represented in Figure 1.
Irrigation involves the capture, storage, conveyance, distribution, and application of
water for crop farming. In the case of rice, it offers two types of benets. It enables
the farmer to plant during the dry season, thereby increasing cropping intensity
(i.e., frequency of harvest per unit of physical land area). It also leads to an increase
in yield through greater exposure of palay to sunlight during the dry season and
controlled timing of water delivery during the wet season.
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 3
Box 1. References to research reports from the assessment of the resurgent
irrigaon program of the Philippines by the Philippine Instute for
Development Studies
The full reports of studies from which the chapters of this book are drawn were earlier
disseminated as Discussion Papers (DPs) by the Philippine Instute for Development Studies.
Interested readers may refer to these for a more detailed discussion and presentaon of
the relevant data. Note, however, that DPs represent prepublicaon versions of the papers
compiled in this volume.
Briones, R. 2018. Benet-cost analysis of the resurgent irrigaon system program of the
Philippines. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2018-47. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine
Instute for Development Studies. hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/
pidsdps1847.pdf (accessed on September 1, 2019).
Briones, R., R. Clemente, A. Inocencio, R. Luyun, and A. Rola. 2019. Assessment of the Free
Irrigaon Service Act. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2019-04. Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Instute for Development Studies. hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/
PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1914.pdf (accessed on December 1, 2019).
Clemente, R., A. Fajardo, V. Ballaran, J.C. Ureta, A. Baulita, and K.C. Tapire. 2020. Assessing
the resurgent irrigaon development program of the Philippines - naonal irrigaon systems
component. PIDS Discussion Paper Series 2020-01. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine
Instute for Development Studies. hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/
pidsdps2001.pdf (accessed on February 10, 2020).
Inocencio, A.B., C. Ureta, A. Baulita, A. Baulita, R.S. Clemente, R.A. Luyun, Jr., and D.D.
Elazegui. 2016. Technical and instuonal evaluaon of selected naonal and communal
irrigaon systems and characterizaon of irrigaon sector governance structure. PIDS
Discussion Paper Series 2016-12. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Instute for
Development Studies. hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1612.pdf
(accessed on October 1, 2019).
Luyun, R.A. Jr. and D.D. Elazegui. 2020. Assessing the resurgent irrigaon development
program of the Philippines - communal irrigaon systems component. PIDS Discussion Paper
Series 2020-02. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Instute for Development Studies.
hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps2002.pdf (accessed on March
15, 2020).
Rola, A.C., T.R. Olviga, F.J.F. Faderogao, and C.J.P. Faulmino. 2020. Assessing the resurgent
irrigaon development program of the Philippines - instuonal arrangements for irrigaon
governance. PIDS Discussion Paper Series 2020-08. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine
Instute for Development Studies. hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/
pidsdps2008.pdf (accessed on June 30, 2020).
Tabios, G.Q. III and T.P.Z. de Leon. 2020. Assessing the resurgent irrigaon development
program of the Philippines - water resources component. PIDS Discussion Paper Series
2020-11. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Instute for Development Studies.
hps://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps2011.pdf (accessed on July 30, 2020).
4 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
The increased income from irrigation may lead to increased savings that can then
be reinvested either in farming or in other complementary activities. The farmer
can experience an increase in the level and/or diversication of household incomes.
Furthermore, in addition to the considerations found in Figure 1, irrigation systems
have other benets, namely, water storage/impounding, provision of potable water,
aquaculture or reservoir shery, and power generation.
Some farmers who have the resources provide irrigation for their own needs.
They do this by tapping smaller sources of water, such as creeks, springs, small rivers,
shallow aquifer using low-cost technology, such as pumps and sprinklers. While river
or groundwater systems may require more extensive projects, private investments
can nance these projects with a view to a long-run return on investment. In fact,
irrigation is prone to market failure, which inhibits private investment. This suggests
that state investment in irrigation is a public good.
Figure 1. Theory of change for irrigaon systems
Source: Adapted from Andersen et al. (2015)
Construction
of irrigation
Water for crops is available
when needed
Higher crop yields
per hectare
Expansion of
cultivated area
Multiple crop
cycles
More high-value
crops
Higher total
production
Higher
revenues
Increased
savings
Increase
investments
Increase in
income
Increase in
diversification
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 5
A private good is characterized by rivalry and exclusivity. Hence, it is expected
that a public good is one that does not have these characteristics. The provision of
water is a rival. This means that a liter of water given to a farmer in plot A is no
longer available to a farmer in plot B. However, exclusivity in the provision of water
is problematic owing to difculty in dening and enforcing property rights in water
resources. Downstream users may be willing to pay for irrigation services but are
unable to gain access without the cooperation of the upstream users. Moreover,
precisely owing to rivalry, it may be essential to meter the use of water and charge
accordingly. However, installing water meters may be expensive and not worth the
benets to the investor from being able to charge by the quantity of water used.
Worldwide, therefore, irrigation programs have largely been subsidized by
governments both for capital expenditure and, in many cases, even recurrent or
operational expenditure. In the case of the Philippines, the type of subsidies varies
by cost category and type of irrigation system. Prior to the Free Irrigation Service Act
(FISA) of 2017 (RA 10969), investments in CIS were partly or fully recovered, though
investments in NIS were not. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were partly
recovered from NIS systems, while in CIS, users were solely responsible.
The economic rationale for public intervention in the case of market failure
does not mean that all government expenditure in the sector is socially justied. In
some public irrigation projects, political motivations, such as catering to the interests
of a politically inuential group, may trump economic criteria. In some cases, the
government may allocate excessive funding for irrigation investment. On the other
hand, some economically justied projects may end up not being funded owing
to a lack of constituency for these projects. The question of efciency of research
investment, considering its impact and cost, is a key research question to be revisited
in the remainder of this book.
History of irrigaon development in the Philippines1
Precolonial and colonial periods
Before 1521, an estimated 25,000 ha in the country were made up of farmer-built,
small canal systems (de los Reyes 2017). These excluded the upland rice terraces, an
interesting case for which the historical record is intact. In these systems, no individual
had exclusive rights to the use of water, though the area around the local summit was
1 Much of this section up to the rst Aquino administration largely draws from NIA (1990).
6 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
reserved for untouched forest. The topmost terraces, while having priority to water
from the spring or stream owing down from the peak, were obliged to release excess
water for the lower terraces. Similar water-sharing arrangements were used in other
traditional irrigation systems in the country.
During the Spanish colonial government (1521–1898), development of irrigation
systems was limited to the friar lands and few small irrigation systems. Construction
was carried out by able-bodied residents of the respective estates through forced
labor. Meanwhile, irrigation associations were started as early as 1630, mostly in the
Ilocos area. Known as the Zanjera cooperative irrigation societies, their function was
simply to procure a stable, reliable supply of water for the use of their members. The
privileges of the members of a Zanjera included the allotment to rights to a portion of
the system’s water and the right to vote within the sitio unit and the larger association.
Their major responsibility was to provide labor and construction materials and other
resources required to operate and maintain the system.
Irrigation development under the American period (1898–1946) commenced in
August 1907, when the Philippine Legislature appropriated a permanent reimbursable
sum of PHP 250,000 for irrigation construction. In 1908, an Irrigation Division under
the Bureau of Public Works (BPW) was created by law. Four years later, the Irrigation
Act was passed to regulate the appropriation of public waters, prescribe rules on
water rights, and provide for construction, O&M of irrigation systems, and payments
from farmers. The San Miguel River Irrigation System in Tarlac was constructed in
1913, the rst NIS in the country. Eleven more NIS were built from 1922 to 1930. Along
with small canal irrigation systems for rice monocultures, 12 medium-sized NIS with
a total service area of 91,000 ha of rice farms were constructed during the American
regime (de los Reyes 2017).
Commonwealth Act 87 authorized the President, through the Director of
Public Works, to administer public irrigation systems. In 1938, legislators arrogated
discretionary funding for CIS, effectively deploying “pork barrel”. Throughout the
Commonwealth period, government funds for CIS were coursed through legislators.
Such politicized allocation tends to follow a “divide by N” principle, which resulted
in the construction of dams across streams with insufcient water or on sites where
foundations were unstable and, in many instances, even irrigation projects that were
never completed.
The American period was interrupted by the Japanese Occupation (1941–1945),
where Japanese authorities required farmers to turn over one-half of their palay
produce to the government to feed the occupation army and to serve the wider
Japanese empire. Irrigation development activity during this period was minimal as
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 7
safety and survival during the war against the Japanese invasion was the overriding
concern of the nation. At the end of this period, many irrigation systems were in a bad
state of deterioration and disrepair (de los Reyes 2017).
Post-war period: 1946–1965
After the Second World War, the Roxas administration (1946–1948) focused on
rehabilitating existing systems damaged during the World War II. It implemented
a program to increase rice production, entailing cultivation of 100,000 ha of
new areas every year for ve years by developing disposable forest lands and
lands of public domain. Hence, it implemented a war settlement program under
Commonwealth Act 694 in 1945. In 1947, the Irrigation Division of BPW was
reactivated. Subsequently, the Quirino administration (1948–1953) established the
Rice and Corn Production Administration in 1949 to increase production of rice and
corn. The Irrigation Pump Administration was also created.
The Magsaysay administration (1953–1957) formulated a program to attain
self-sufciency in rice as one of the major objectives of his administration. The
administration made more funds available for irrigation development and accelerated
the construction of CIS. By the end of 1957, the total irrigated area in the country was
about 400,000 ha (de los Reyes 2017).
The Garcia administration (1957–1961) shifted the government’s thrust
to foreign affairs, keeping agricultural development in status quo. In 1958,
RA 2084 was signed into law, creating the Rice and Corn Production Coordinating
Committee to attain self-sufciency in cereals. However, palay yields declined in this
period, leading to large volumes of rice imports.
The Macapagal administration (1961–1964) crafted a “Five-Year Integrated
Socio-Economic Program” aiming at self-sufciency in rice and corn at prices within
the reach of the masses. To achieve this, the government had to provide improved
irrigation and water control facilities. In 1962, the National Economic Council and
the United States Agency for International Development concluded an agreement to
establish a planning program for water resources development in seven major river
basins in the country. The program included an investigation and completion of a
feasibility report for a selected multipurpose project in Central Luzon. The United
States Bureau of Reclamation provided a team of technical consultants to work
with the Philippine government agencies in the formulation of water resources
development plans. In 1963, RA 3601 was passed, granting corporate status, broad
powers, functions, and objectives to NIA, as well as raising its capital.
8 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
The modern era (1965 to the present)
The Marcos administration (1965–1986) invested heavily in irrigation
development. NIA was tasked to make 10- to 20-year period plans upon the passage
of RA 3601. In 1974, the National Water Resources Council was created by virtue
of Presidential Decree (PD) 424 for overall water allocation and coordination. In
the same year, PD 552 granted NIA broader powers and authority to undertake
program-oriented and comprehensive water resource projects for irrigation
purposes, as well as concomitant activities. The law increased its capitalization,
authorized it to incur foreign loans, empowered it to administer all CIS, and
reconstituted its board of directors.
NIA also implemented an upward adjustment of the irrigation service fees (ISF)
together with the nationwide information campaign to encourage irrigation users
to cooperate and be involved in the O&M of irrigation systems. The Water Code
of the Philippines revised and consolidated the laws governing the ownership,
appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development, conservation, and protection
of water resources in the country. Irrigation was identied as the second priority
during times of scarcity. During the 1980s, NIA introduced the participatory
approach, in which CIS were developed then turned over to IAs for O&M.
The national recovery program under the rst Aquino administration (1986–1992)
placed agriculture at the center of development. It adhered to the following
policy goals: (a) free the economy from unnecessary and costly government
institutional and policy interventions; (b) provide the farmers access to land,
technology, credit, infrastructure facilities, and market information, and for landless
wage earners, greater employment opportunities; and (c) increase the effectiveness
of the various government agencies concerned in pursuing the new thrusts in the
agriculture and rural sector.
Priority in the irrigation development program was given to areas with
high production capabilities, mainly the major river basins as identied in the
agricultural sector program. In depressed areas with potential for increased yields
and higher income, irrigation and related inputs were given special attention. NIA
began implementing the Community Employment Development Program in 1986.
In this period, farmer-organizing programs were integrated under the Institutional
Development Department of NIA. The same year, NIA started implementing the
irrigation component of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Under the Ramos administration (1992–1998), DA instituted the key production
area approach. Following accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it
launched Gintong Ani in 1996, a safety net for the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 9
Trade. The Congress approved a lump-sum appropriation under the Ofce of the
Secretary to nance the various rice support programs, such as subsidized seeds,
fertilizers, and credit and the construction of new and rehabilitation of irrigation
systems, with focus on small-scale irrigation. Whereas the WTO Agreement required
the lifting of the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on imports and the conversion of
these into equivalent tariffs, the country managed to obtain a special treatment for
rice allowing QRs to be kept for the next 10 years (up to 2005).
The AFMA was passed in the nal year of the Ramos administration. For
irrigation, AFMA included the (1) prevention of further destruction of watersheds,
(2) rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems, and (3) promotion of the development
of effective, affordable, and efcient irrigation systems. The implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) of AFMA amended the composition of the NIA Board by adding
the Field Operations Service and BSWM of DA as members. They delineated the
jurisdictions of NIA and the BSWM for reservoir projects based on the height of the
dams. AFMA also granted additional funds for agriculture modernization, allocating
30 percent for irrigation.
The short-lived administration of Joseph Estrada (1998–2001) implemented
Agrikulturang Makamasa as its banner program. Initially, ISF was suspended upon
the pronouncement of the President. However, it was later reimposed under a
socialized structure.
Meanwhile, the Arroyo administration (2001–2010) implemented a Ginintuang
Masaganang Ani-Countrywide Assistance for Rural Employment and Services in
2001, with special emphasis on social equity. The national rice program provided
greater focus and support to the adoption of hybrid rice by giving incentives in the
form of free hybrid seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers to encourage irrigated rice
farmers to shift from inbreds to hybrids. The administration negotiated for an
extension of special treatment up to June 30, 2012. As a concession, minimum access
volume (MAV) rose from 238,940 tons to 350,000 tons. In 2008, it adopted an irrigation
management transfer (IMT) policy as stated in Memorandum Circular 47, with
subsequent amendments.
The rice price crisis of 2008 led to the launch of the FIELDS (fertilizer, irrigation,
extension, loans for inputs including shallow tubewells and surface-water pumps,
dryers, other postharvest facilities, and seed subsidy) program. FIELDS led to a
resurgence in irrigation investment aimed at achieving the government’s rice
production targets.
In 2009, the Climate Change Act of 2009 mainstreamed climate change in public
policy. All departments, including the DA, were mandated to integrate climate
10 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
change in all their programs. NIA carried out pilot projects for climate proong of its
irrigation investments. It is yet to mainstream climate change in its programs.
The second Aquino administration (2010–2016) implemented the Agri-
Pinoy program based on four guiding principles: (1) sustainable agriculture,
(2) food security and self-sufciency, (3) broad-based local partnerships, and
(4) support services from farm to table. Among its priority thrusts were irrigation
services, extension services, establishments of trading centers, organic agriculture, and
public-private partnerships.
Part of the Agri-Pinoy was the Food Staples Sufciency Program (FSSP) designed
to ensure self-sufciency in rice while calling for diversication for other staples.
FSSP identied three sets of interventions: (1) raising farm productivity and
competitiveness, (2) enhancing economic incentives and enabling mechanisms, and
(3) managing food staples consumption. Accelerating the expansion of irrigation
services and further investing in small-scale irrigation systems were key interventions
under number (1). The Aquino administration again successfully negotiated for a
waiver postponing tarifcation until July 2017.
The current Duterte administration (2016–present) has adopted and even
intensied the previous administration’s commitment to irrigation development
(Table 1). From 2011 to 2018, budgetary appropriations for irrigation have more than
tripled, from PHP 13.3 billion to PHP 44.3 billion. Increasing allocation for irrigation
is commensurate with the overall budgetary outlays for agriculture under the DA
system, which allocates about 37–44 percent for irrigation. In 2012, the share of
irrigation even rose to 47 percent. NIA obtains about 95 percent of the irrigation
budget, though in recent years the share of the budget being administered directly
by DA has been increasing, i.e., allotted to regional eld ofces, BSWM, and the Ofce
of the Secretary.
Trends in irrigaon development
Public sector irrigation investments
Massive public investments in irrigation began in the 1970s as part of the Green Revolution in
rice farming.
NIA’s mandate to develop and construct irrigation systems requires huge investment
outlays usually not recovered from water users. The government funds the capital
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 11
requirements of NIA through the annual national allocation provided in the General
Appropriations Act. Capital investments have accounted for the bulk of irrigation
expenditures of government, averaging 85 percent of total public expenditures for
irrigation from 1976 to 2015.
Signicant public sector outlays for irrigation really began in the 1970s (Figure 2).
During this period, the government promoted the Green Revolution. Irrigation
expenditure grew rapidly from 1965 to 1975 from a very low base. Angat and the
Pantabangan, the biggest irrigation systems in the country and the rst of the
multipurpose dams, were completed in the 1970s. Irrigation became the largest
single item in the budget for agriculture reaching up to 30–45 percent and as high as
12 percent of public investment in infrastructure (David and Inocencio 2012). These
investments have primarily beneted the rice sector, as the government budget
mostly went to gravity systems suited for rice cultivation.
Table 1. Budget appropriaon of the Department of Agriculture (DA) for irrigaon,
in PHP millions (current prices)
NIA DA Total
Irrigaon
Allocaon
Total DA
System
Budget
Share of
irrigaon in
DA System
Allocaon
(%)
Share of
NIA in total
Irrigaon
Allocaon
(%)
2011 12,791 510 13,301 34,758 38.3 96.2
2012 24,454 618 25,072 52,931 47.4 97.5
2013 27,156 1,282 28,438 64,504 44.1 95.5
2014 21,183 1,143 22,326 68,553 32.6 94.9
2015 28,750 1,338 30,088 67,807 44.4 95.6
2016 32,743 1,198 33,941 91,206 37.2 96.5
2017 38,376 3,292 41,668 95,014 43.9 92.1
2018 41,669 2,669 44,338 109,945 40.3 94.0
Notes: The direct appropriations for DA were through its regional eld ofces, Bureau of Soils and Water
Management, and the Ofce of the Secretary. In 2015 and 2016, NIA was taken out of the DA system
budget and moved to other executive ofces. The ratios were computed as NIA budget divided by DA plus
NIA budgets to be consistent with other years. The total DA budgets include those for all bureaus and
attached corporations.
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Department of Budget and Management (Various years)
12 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Changes in public expenditures in irrigation have tracked changes in world commodity prices.
Hayami and Kikuchi (1978) systematically analyzed the drivers of public irrigation
investments. They were able to establish that the increase in irrigation spending by
governments has been inuenced by short-term changes in world prices of rice. This
is expected as such short-term changes affect the marginal rate of return to irrigation
investment (Azarcon and Barker 1994; Kikuchi et al. 2003). Public investments in
irrigation peaked in the 1970s, declined in the early 1980s, but partly recovered in the
1990s, with the increases in investment following the rise in world rice prices.
From the late-1980s until mid-2000s, public spending on irrigation slumped. The
share of irrigation in public agricultural spending fell by more than half. Its share in
the total infrastructure spending also declined to just 6 percent (David and Inocencio
2012). Since 2005, public expenditures on irrigation have begun a new phase of
resurgence, getting an additional boost in 2008 with the world rice price crisis and
continuing until today.
Figure 2. Public investments in irrigaon, in PHP millions (2000 prices), 1965–2017
PHP = Philippine peso
Sources: NIA Annual and Year-end Reports (Various years)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 13
Investments in irrigation were initially concentrated on NIS. Since the 1990s, communal systems
became more prominent.
From the 1960s to early 1980s, most of government spending on irrigation was poured
on national systems (Figure 3). The share of communal systems only began to rise by
the mid-1980s, from less than 5 percent in the 1970s to more than 40 percent in the
early 1990s. Much of the impetus for CIS development was the CARP in 1988, where
development of agrarian reform communities often involved construction of CIS.
Moreover, donor agencies during this period focused on poverty reduction, which
appeared to be better targeted for smaller systems in disadvantaged communities.
Figure 3. Irrigaon investments by type of system in PHP billions (2000 prices),
1965–2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
NIS CIS Others
Notes: “Others” includes private irrigation systems and other government-funded systems. The 2016
values were preliminary results from the NIA annual report.
CIS = communal irrigation systems; NIS = national irrigation systems; PHP = Philippine peso
Sources: NIA Annual and Year-end Reports (Various years)
Public investments in irrigation were initially concentrated on new construction. From the
1980s onward, expenditures began to shift toward rehabilitation and restoration.
14 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
From the 1970s to 1980s, irrigation investments were mostly allocated to new
construction (Figure 4 and Table 2). Only about 12 percent of irrigation investments
were for rehabilitation and restoration purposes.
Figure 4. Real irrigaon investments by type of project, in PHP billions (2000 prices),
1965–2016
Notes: “New construction” refers to projects that generate only new irrigated areas. “Mostly new
construction” refers to those with more than 50 percent of the irrigated area new, with much smaller
percentage that are rehabilitated and/or restored areas. “Mostly rehabilitation/restoration” is loosely
dened as those with more than 50 percent of the irrigated area rehabilitated and restored, with much
smaller share for new irrigated areas. “Rehabilitation and restoration” refers to projects fully dedicated
to rehabilitation/restoration of existing irrigated areas. “Others” refers to projects or components neither
new nor rehabilitated areas. Others increased starting 2013 due to the provisions for noncomponent of
San Roque Multipurpose project paid to National Power Corporation-Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation. It includes the World Bank-funded Watershed and Erosion Management Project
in the early 1980s.
Sources: NIA Annual and Year-end Reports (Various years)
Investments included medium and large pump systems that drew water from
major rivers, such as the Abra River in Abra, Libmanan Cabusao in Bicol, and Lower
0
5
10
15
20
25
1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
New construction Mostly new construction Mostly rehabilitation/restoration Rehabilitation/restoration Others
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 15
Table 2. Distribuon of irrigaon investments by type of project, system, and
funding source, 1965–2016
1965–1969 1970–1979 1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2016
All projects
New construcon only 49 16 24 20 17 13
Mostly new construcon 18 74 65 17 21 26
Mostly rehab/restoraon 0 2 6 29 25 19
Rehab and restoraon 33 2 1 22 33 35
Others 0 6 3 12 44 8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Naonal irrigaon
systems
New construcon only 50 17 28 35 22 12
Mostly new construcon 14 78 64 21 23 34
Mostly rehab/restoraon 0 2 6 12 25 24
Rehab and restoraon 36 3 1 32 30 30
Subtotal 100 100 100 100 100 100
Communal irrigaon
systems
New construcon only 41 21 1 5 8 26
Mostly new construcon 59 79 92 17 19 45
Mostly rehab/restoraon 0 0 7 65 29 10
Rehab and restoraon 0 0 0 13 44 20
Subtotal 100 100 100 100 100 100
By funding source:
Foreign-assisted projects
New construcon only 51 11 24 33 29 8
Mostly new construcon 49 85 69 28 35 44
Mostly rehab/restoraon 0 2 2 20 32 46
Rehab and restoraon 0 1 1 17 5 3
Others 0 2 4 3 0 0
Subtotal 100 100 100 100 100 100
Locally funded projects
New construcon only 49 41 25 5 8 13
Mostly new construcon 11 16 26 4 9 23
Mostly rehab/restoraon 0 5 46 40 20 19
Rehab and restoraon 40 11 3 28 57 36
Others 0 27 0 23 7 8
Subtotal 100 100 100 100 100 100
Note: “Others” increased starting 2013 due to the provisions for noncomponent of San Roque Multipurpose
project paid to National Power Corporation-Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation.
It includes the World Bank-funded Watershed and Erosion Management Project in the early 1980s.
rehab = rehabilitation
Sources: NIA Annual and Year-end Reports (Various years)
16 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Agusan in Mindanao (David and Inocencio 2012; Inocencio et al. 2013; Inocencio 2016;
Inocencio and Barker 2018). As shown in Table 2, the distribution of type of projects
has changed over the decades. From the late 1960s to the 1980s, new or mostly new
constructions dominated. From 2000 onwards, irrigation spending by government
shifted to more rehabilitation or mostly rehabilitation/restoration projects.
Most irrigation systems in the country are diversion (as opposed to reservoir) systems.
In terms of technology, for 2015–2017, run-of-the-river diversion systems account for
75 percent of the total irrigated area, while storage or reservoir systems account for
only 12 percent (Figure 5). According to Figure 6, there had been more rapid growth
for diversion systems. Reservoir systems very slightly increased while there is very
little improvement in pump systems.
Figure 5. Average distribuon of irrigated area by technology, 2015–2017
Note: “All others” include small farm reservoir and small water impounding system, among others.
Sources: NIA (2015, 2016a, 2017a)
75%
12%
12%
1%
Gravity
Pump
Reservoir
All others *
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 17
Figure 6. Irrigated area by type of technology, ‘000 hectares (1967–2015)
Sources: NIA Annual Reports (Various years) and NIA-Systems Management Division (Various years)
Irrigated areas
The change in irrigated area has largely coincided with the size of public irrigation investment.
Figure 7 shows a measure of irrigation performance, namely, area irrigated. From
mid-2000 onwards, the irrigated area has been growing at an increasing rate, from less
than 1 percent in the second half of the 1990s to close to 3 percent from 2015 to 2017.
While NIS are generally and consistently bigger, the CIS have also been growing even
at seemingly slower rate. Note that the drop in 1994 in CIS was due to a correction
that NIA did after validation from the regional ofces. This growth comes from other
types of irrigation in 2005–2010, CIS in 2010–2015, and NIS in the most recent period.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
1967 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Reservoir Diversion Pump
18 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 7. Area irrigated by type of system, ‘000 hectares, 1964–2017
Note: “Others” include private irrigation systems and other government agencies-assisted irrigation systems.
NIS = national irrigation systems; CIS = communal irrigation systems
Source: NIA Corporate Planning Services (Various years)
The overwhelming proportion of irrigated areas are under rice monoculture or rice-based systems.
From 2015–2017, rice monoculture and rice-based areas accounted for 96 percent
of the irrigated areas (Figure 8). The country’s irrigation systems are largely for the
benet of rice agriculture, and irrigation investments largely focus on rice-growing
areas. Rice-other crop combinations largely occur in four regions: Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR), Region 1, Region 3 (including Upper Pampanga River
Integrated Irrigation Systems [UPRIIS]), and Region 11.
Area harvested, production, and yield of irrigated palay are larger than that of rainfed palay
and have been rising over time.
To see the trends in production and productivity, the study used the data of the
Philippine Statistics Authority over time as NIA does not have consistently generated
data on these variables from its irrigation systems. Figure 9 presents panels (a) and
(b) for irrigated and rainfed palay production, respectively.
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 19
Figure 8. Average distribuon of irrigated area by crop (%), 2015–2017
Note: “All others” include vegetables, diversied crops, banana, shpond and rice, corn, and unclassied.
Sources: NIA (2015, 2016a, 2017a)
Irrigated production and yield are much higher than those for rainfed palay.
Irrigated area is slightly increasing while rainfed area is decreasing, as conrmed by
the trend lines and corresponding regression equations.
Regional trends in irrigated production and harvested area vary substantially across regions.
Yield advantage of irrigated vs. rainfed harvested areas has been narrowing down over time.
Figure 10 shows the regional trends in ratios of irrigated palay production and area
harvested to total production and area, respectively. In CAR, Regions 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12,
the contributions of the irrigated areas to production were signicantly above
50 percent. In almost all regions over time, the shares of irrigated area have generally
Rice
79%
Rice and Banana
2%
Rice, Vegetables &
Annual Crop
15%
All others*
4%
Rice, vegetables,
and annual crop
15%
Rice and banana
2%
20 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 9. Trends in irrigated palay producon, area, yield, 1970–2017
(a) Irrigated
(b) Rainfed
ha = hectares; MT = metric ton
Source: PSA (2018)
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
MT/ha
'000 MT ; '000 ha
Production Area Yield
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
MT/ha
'000 MT; '000 ha
Production Area Yield
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 21
been lower than the percent contributions to production, indicating the higher
productivity of irrigated lands relative to rainfed areas.
On the other hand, the contribution to production of irrigated areas in the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has generally been lower than
50 percent. Region 6 just slightly exceeded the 50-percent mark in terms of
contribution to production. Meanwhile, the yield advantage of irrigated over rainfed
palay (Figure 11) differs widely across the regions. They appear to be higher in
Region 2, CALABARZON, and Region 8, but with decreasing trends from 1970 to 2017.
Of all regions, only in CAR is this ratio increasing, indicating the rising gap between
irrigated and rainfed yields.
Figure 10. Raos of irrigated to total palay producon and area harvested, by
region, 1970–2017
22 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 10. Connued
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 23
CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region; ARMM = Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
Source: PSA (2018)
Figure 10. Connued
24 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 11. Yield advantage of irrigated over rainfed palay by region (%), 1970–2017
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 25
Figure 11. Connued
26 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Accomplishments of NIA in terms of expansion of irrigated area have often fallen below
physical targets.
NIA has seldom met its annual physical targets for new area development (Figure 12).
The same is the case for restoration. Both would have contributed to increase in
annual growth rate area generated. It is possible that the potential irrigable area has
been overestimated, making it difcult to realize unrealistic target.
Irrigation intensity
Irrigation intensity is usually below 100 percent. Improvements in irrigation service indicators
have slowed down considerably in recent vintages (relative to older vintages).
NIS irrigation intensities for the dry season has generally been rising before they
uctuated around 70 percent, or 80 percent relative to rmed-up service area (FUSA),
since the early 2000s. In the last decade, the intensities have generally been at for
NIS and lower than 90 percent (Figure 13). Irrigation intensities for CIS have even
been lower than those for NIS. From 2001 to 2012, the ratio of irrigated area to FUSA
was around 70 percent. However, the ratio of irrigated area to design area was only
about 55 percent. The ratio of effective irrigated area to the design area may even be
lower at 40 percent, if the low ISF collections from farmers dissatised with reliability
of irrigation service are an indication (Chapter 6).
Figure 11. Connued
CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region; ARMM = Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
Source: PSA (2018)
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 27
Figure 12. Trends in actual vs target irrigated area by type of project (new, restore, rehabilitaon), 1990–2018
Sources: NIA Annual Reports (Various years)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
New 51 38 28 36 42 52 45 258 81 38 25 89 67 78 67 56 40 77 60 54 51 72 66 92 42 45 37 34 48
Restored 00085 30 105 98 11 000000000104 98 76 77 63 85 90 53 30 39 39 71
Rehab 55 36 10 60 52 36 60 207 292 195 35 230 85 111 113 90 25 126 95 165 79 107 227 152 45 15 0 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Actual/Target (% )
28 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 13. Trends in irrigaon intensies in NIS and CIS, 1965–2017
NIS = national irrigation systems; CIS = communal irrigation systems; FUSA = rmed-up service area;
SA = service area
Sources: NIA-Systems Management Division (Various years)
Moreover, a worrisome trend in NIS is the downward trend for most indicators,
namely, service area, FUSA, and irrigated area, among others. Irrigated area as a
ratio to design area managed to reach 60 percent for earlier vintages of irrigation
systems. However, the proportion had fallen to less than 40 percent for NIS build after
the mid-1990s.
Converted, nonrestorable, and nonoperational area
The share of operational FUSA has been increasing over time, owing to a decline in
nonoperational area.
NIA has also been collecting data within its service areas covering nonoperational area,
converted area, and permanently nonrestorable area, such as canals and access/service
roads, among others. Since 2010, the share of nonoperational area has fallen because
of the rehabilitation and restoration projects of government (Figure 14).
Meanwhile, the share of permanently nonrestorable land has risen, from
3 to 5 percent. Converted areas have remained fairly constant at 3 percent of service
area, contrary to common perception that they have been increasingly eroding gains
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017
NIS Irrigated Wet/FUSA NIS Irrigated Wet/SA CIS Irrigated Wet/FUSA
NIS Irrigated Dry/FUSA NIS Irrigated Dry/SA CIS Irrigated Dry/FUSA
(%)
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 29
from irrigation investments. Hence, operational FUSA increased to 76 percent, from
72 percent.
The irrigaon development program of the Philippines: Key issues
Philippine Development Plan (2017–2022)
The current administration has adopted the PDP 2017–2022. It is the rst plan
anchored on AmBisyon Natin 2040. It aims to lay a strong foundation for inclusive
growth, a high-trust society, and a globally competitive economy toward realizing
the vision by 2040.
Poverty in agriculture and in lagging regions with high poverty incidence and
inequality will be targeted. Climate-resilient small-scale irrigation systems will be
constructed or retrotted, as necessary. The construction of these irrigation systems
will be accelerated in areas with high irrigation development potential, such as Central
Luzon, Cagayan Valley, SOCCSKSARGEN, ARMM, and Bicol Region. An integrated
watershed management approach will be implemented to sustain soil productivity
and water efciency, particularly in the 143 critical watersheds in the country.
The PDP 2017–2022 targets for irrigation are presented in Table 3. From the
baseline, it aims to grow the new irrigated area by 7.74 percent by 2022, or an average
Figure 14. Shares in irrigaon service area by operaonality (%), 2010 and 2017
M = million; ha = hectares; FUSA = rmed-up service area
Sources: NIA (2010, 2017)
3% 3%
72%
22%
2010 (1.664 M ha)
3%
5%
76%
16%
2017 (1.856 M ha)
CONVERTED LAND
AREAS
PERMANENTLY NON-
RESTORABLE AREAS
OPERATIONAL FUSA
NON-OPERATIONAL
FUSA
Converted land
areas
Permanently non-
restorable areas
Operaonal FUSA
Non-operaonal
FUSA
30 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
of 1.29 percent per year. With this target, the cropping intensity, or the actual wet
plus actual dry season irrigated area divided by FUSA, is expected to increase to
157 percent by the end of the period, or a total growth of 13.42 percent from the
baseline. These targets are broken down into growth in new service areas by type
of systems and scale. For national systems, it is expected to have a total increase of
225,526 ha and for SSIS, 130,799 ha. A total of about 194,500 ha would be restored for
the same period.
Table 3. PDP targets for irrigaon, 2017–2022
Base 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Irrigated area
(‘000 ha) 1,731 1,781 1,825 1,864 1,898 1,929 1,965
Rao, irrigated to
potenal area (%) 57.33 59 60.43 61.72 62.86 63.87 65.07
Cropping intensity (%) 143.58 144 147 150 152 155 157
Canals (km) 1,259 1,600 1,700 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000
PDP = Philippine Development Plan; ha = hectares; km = kilometers
Source: NEDA (2019)
Irrigation master plan
The PDP mandates the preparation of irrigation master plan to set the direction for
irrigation development and a framework for capital and O&M nancing of irrigation
projects will be formulated. The overall plan and framework aim to
• institutionalize a policy providing government subsidy for capital
investment and O&M of irrigation facilities;
• strengthen the capacity of personnel;
• strengthen the implementation of the IMT program;
• review and rationalize ISFs;
• establish and rehabilitate small-scale and community-based irrigation
projects in areas not served by NIS;
• prioritize small over large irrigation projects and rehabilitation over
construction of facilities; and
• conduct complete technical work and site validation in the project planning
stage to eliminate the causes of delays in project implementation.
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 31
Luyun (2016) summarizes the data on water resources of the country. The annual
water potential of the country is about 146 million cubic meters. Of this gure,
126 million cubic meters is surface water and the remaining 20 million cubic meters
is groundwater. As of 2013, water permits granted for surface water cover about 80.6
million in total. Hence, there appears to be enough water resources available on the
aggregate for the targeted expansion. However, as will be discussed in subsequent
chapters, aggregate availability is no guarantee of local availability.
The new masterplan will make new estimates of potential irrigable areas and
recalibrate the PDP targets for irrigation. Past estimates of irrigable area at the
system level have been prone to overestimation owing to absence of site-specic
design criteria. For instance, NIA adopts a standard assumption of 1.5 liters per second
per ha as the irrigation requirement, despite large variations in requirement by site
depending on terrain, soil type, or climate (Ella 2016).
PDP also identies a legislative agendum on abolishing ISFs for small farmers.
The reason is that many of them cannot pay the ISF, though a minimal fee may be
imposed for pump irrigation systems. This agendum is consistent with the campaign
promise of President Duterte. Subsequently, Congress passed the FISA in 2018. An
extensive discussion of the FISA is reserved for Chapter Six.
Rice industry liberalization and Road Map
The QR regime in rice importation was maintained until 2017 when the waiver
provided by WTO ended. In 2018, the current administration pushed for a new law on
rice industry liberalization, which provided for tarifcation of the import QRs. The
law was enacted in early 2019 and its IRR were promulgated in March the same year.
The law liberalizes rice importation subject to the payment of import duties,
equivalent to the following:
• 35 percent for imports from countries with the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN);
• 40 percent for imports from other countries under MAV, equal to 350,000
tons; and
• 180 percent for imports outside ASEAN and beyond MAV.
The law also provides for allocation of the rice import tariff back to rice farmers
as production support in the form of the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund.
The Rice Fund does not contain allocations for irrigation, setting aside rather the rst
PHP 10 billion for rice mechanization, seed dissemination, rice farmer credit, and rice
32 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
farmer extension. Meanwhile, the excess of over PHP 10 billion in tariff revenues is
allocated to rice farmer nancial assistance, including those exiting rice farming,
titling of agricultural rice lands under the agrarian reform program, expanded rice
crop insurance, and crop diversication program.
The law also provides for the development of a rice roadmap. The Philippine Rice
Roadmap was conceptualized to contribute toward attaining the AmBisyon Natin 2040
long-term goal of having a Matatag, Maginhawa, at Panatag na Buhay for Filipinos. It
aims to achieve three goals: improved competitiveness, enhanced resiliency to
disasters and climate risks, and ensured access to safe nutritious rice. The Road Map
explicitly relaxes the goal of 100-percent self-sufciency by adding the provision that
import substitution be done at globally competitive prices.
The Road Map anticipates that rice farms in the country will need to adjust to
lower palay prices, with some even exiting rice production. It introduces the concept
of priority provinces that will be the focus of interventions spread across the rice
value chain, including marketing, while nonpriority provinces will have interventions
to transition from rice to other sources of income (Table 4).
Irrigation development will focus on the priority provinces, particularly on
medium-yield provinces. This covers both NIA projects and DA projects, such as SWIPs
and solar-powered irrigation, among others. The incoming National Irrigation Masterplan
for 2020–2030 will take into account the Rice Road Map and priority provinces.
Past studies and assessments
While the goals of the irrigation development program under PDP are laudable,
serious concerns have been raised in our analysis of past trends (Section 4) as well as
past assessments of irrigation project performance.
The rst wave of irrigation investments in the 1970s and early 1980s was followed
by several evaluations in the 1990s. David (1990) observed that gains in cropping
intensity and yield were low, owing to poor performance of the country’s irrigation
systems. For the nation’s agship irrigation projects, such as the UPRIIS, he noted the
following technical problems:
• Assumptions on water availability, efciency, water requirement, and
sediment inow, were systematically over/understated to raise the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR). For example, at feasibility
study stage, UPRIIS was appraised at EIRR of 13 percent, but ex post was
reappraised at 8.9 percent, which falls below the 12-percent cutoff.
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 33
• Design philosophy tends to be highly unrealistic. For instance, UPRIIS
design engineers introduced double-gated water control structures that
are too sophisticated for farmers and watermasters to operate.
• Irrigation-related agencies fail to coordinate. Design engineers do not
communicate with O&M engineers for feedback and advice. Agencies in
charge of watershed management are not spurred to action by alarmingly
high sedimentation rates, up to 375 percent above appraisal estimate.
Table 4. Priority provinces of the Rice Industry Road Map 2030
High Yield
(More than 4 MT/hectare)
Medium Yield
(3 to 4 MT/hectare)
Low Cost
(Below PHP 12 per kg)
Medium Cost
(PHP 12 to 17 per kg)
Low Cost
(Below PHP 12 per kg)
Medium Cost
(PHP 12 to 17 per kg)
Nueva Ecija Cotabato Camarines Sur Compostela Valley
Isabela Tarlac South Cotabato Negros Oriental
Bukidnon Cagayan Leyte Bohol
Zamboanga del Sur Pangasinan Negros Occidental Occidental Mindoro
Pampanga Bulacan Iloilo
Misamis Occidental Nueva Vizcaya Capiz
Lanao del Norte Ilocos Norte Albay
Biliran Davao Oriental Maguindanao
Bataan Davao del Sur Agusan del Norte
Aurora Davao del Norte Anque
Kalinga Southern Leyte Sorsogon
Laguna Masbate
Zambales Palawan
Quirino Cavite
Misamis Oriental Lanao del Sur
Zamboanga Sibugay Samar (Western Samar)
La Union Surigao del Sur
Ilocos Sur Aklan
PHP = Philippine peso; MT = metric tons; kg = kilogram
Source: Department of Agriculture (2019)
34 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Similar ndings were broached in the World Bank (1992a) report. The study noted
that the potential for increased palay yield and improved irrigation performance was
lower than is commonly supposed. Investment in irrigation should be evaluated on a
project-by-project basis, adopting realistic assumptions and clear economic criteria.
Design improvements are warranted. This means that greater attention should be
devoted to siltation, erosion, and related problems and a more realistic approach to
water control is required, toward staggered and rotational rather than continuous
supply.
A review of the literature up to the mid-1990s (David 1995) conrms these
ndings, with some additional observations. On average, the actual irrigated area was
only 75 percent of design service area. Moreover, large systems had a smaller ratio
than small systems. New irrigation projects (after 1972) tended to have much lower
ratios (56%) compared to older systems (94% for projects before 1965).
Similarly, David et al. (2012) reviewed irrigation post-AFMA and concluded that
the Act had very little positive impact on irrigated agriculture. The same problems
detected in the 1980s and 1990s, such as design mistakes, inadequate O&M, and lack of
coordination, persist in irrigation projects even after AFMA. A rapid appraisal of NIS
(Inocencio et al. 2013) found the following:
• Project identication is often based on a awed measure of potential
irrigable area.
• Design area is overestimated owing to high-resolution features of the
intended service area not properly characterized, i.e., presence of built-up,
ooded, or elevated areas.
• Routine maintenance activities are underfunded, raising the cost of
subsequent rehabilitation.
Conclusion
There is a sound economic rationale for supposing that market failures are pervasive
in the provision of irrigation services as private actors are not willing to develop
and operate the requisite irrigation systems without subsidy. For big systems, the
capital requirement would be large, the commercial risks too high with farmer
incomes generally low leading to likely high defaults in times of calamities. Hence
the argument goes, if irrigation is to be developed, then public-sector involvement in
terms of capital and even operating subsidy becomes necessary.
Irrigaon and Agricultural Development | 35
Since the 1960s, the Philippines has taken the route of large public expenditure
outlays for irrigation development, both to construct systems, as well as in systems
operation. The result has been enormous benet for Philippine agriculture,
particularly rice. Irrigated area has been rising over time, which leads to an expansion
in area harvested of irrigated rice. This, in turn, exhibits a distinct yield advantage
over rainfed rice.
These gains should not obscure some very real issues concerning the
cost-effectiveness of public expenditures:
• Irrigation intensities remain persistently below unity, are lower for CIS,
and have plateaued over time. Some of the difculties in raising irrigation
density relate to the scarcity of water, especially during the dry season.
• The long history of irrigation development implies a preponderance of
ageing systems in varying states of deterioration, siltation, and damage.
Actual irrigated area is often below design area. Hence, irrigation
expenditures are shifting toward rehabilitation/restoration and away from
entirely new construction.
• Since the 1990s, to relieve the burden on public treasury, governments have
encouraged cost-sharing with farmers, as well as delegating wider responsibility
in operations, maintenance, and even ownership of irrigation. However, this
policy appears to be headed for a complete reversal owing to FISA.
There are, in fact, reasons to doubt that purely economic and equity rationale
had motivated the massive public investments. The irrigation programs over several
administrations have been part of a public support package for rice, a heavily
politicized commodity. That package also typically involves isolating domestic from
international rice markets, toward a popular goal of rice self-sufciency.
The existing policy framework exhibits contrasting features, some of which
are consistent with past policies, and some of which represent a policy shift or
reorientation. On the one hand, the subsidy orientation has escalated as capital
budgeting for irrigation systems has ramped up, together with operating cost subsidy,
to the point that irrigation service is now free. On the other hand, rice importation
has been liberalized, compelling the government to genuinely aim for domestic food
sufciency under more competitive conditions, though free trade prices are off the
table given the high levels of remaining tariffs. Far from simply pouring more money
into the problem, the government should study and implement a package of reforms
toward cost-effective irrigation sector development.
Chapter 2
Naonal Irrigaon Systems
Roberto S. Clemente, Arthur L. Fajardo,
Vicente G. Ballaran Jr., and Julie Carl P. Ureta
Introducon
National irrigation systems (NIS) are irrigation systems managed by the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA) with an irrigated area that exceeds 1,000 hectares (ha).
In the Philippines, NIS has a total rmed-up service area (FUSA) of about
723,000 ha numbering to about 220. Most NIS are run-of-the-river type systems.
Larger NIS are typically reservoir systems that account for the three largest systems
in the country with service areas ranging from about 30,000 to 110,000 ha. Some NIS
use large pumps installed along major river systems to lift water.
From 1966 to 2012, the government capital outlays for irrigation were more
for NIS, accounting for approximately 78 percent. For 2008-2012, it went down to
47 percent, as public resources were reallocated for communal irrigation systems
and other smaller irrigation systems. Nonetheless, NIS continue to account for the
majority of capital outlays.
38 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
For years, several studies have underscored the large gap between actual
irrigated area and design area in NIS. World Bank (1992a) summarized the reasons for
the poor performance of NIS, which include overly optimistic technical and economic
design assumptions, inadequate water source supply, inappropriate irrigation system
design, and difculties in system operation and maintenance.
There have been various initiatives to improve planning, construction, operation
and maintenance, and rehabilitation of NIS. Technical data are regularly collected
through eld-level measurements while more technical data through remote sensing
are accessible. The availability of new technology (GIS analysis, mathematical
modeling, and simulations) boost the technical capacity to undertake more modern
and rigorous methodologies for analysis and design. However, the evaluation and
continuous renement of the involvement of farmers to promote participatory
governance of the irrigation sector from planning to rehabilitation remains relevant.
The prevalent constraint seems to be the insignicant demand for improved and
effective governance of the sector.
Given existing performance gaps, this assessment examines the factors explaining
these gaps in NIS.
Related literature
An indicator of NIS performance is irrigation efciency. Problems with irrigation
efciency have plagued irrigation systems worldwide. In the case of Maharashtra, India,
Mahato (2013) and Pradeep et al. (2015) identied the following reasons for low water
use efciency: (i) insufcient or nonmaintenance of canals/distributaries/minors
of irrigation systems resulting in growth of weed and vegetation, siltation, and
damages in lining; (ii) distortion of canal sections due to siltation or collapse of
slopes resulting in some channels carrying much less and some other channels
carrying much more than their design discharges; (iii) nonprovision of lining in canal
reaches passing through permeable soil strata; (iv) leakages in gates and shutters
and damaged structures; (v) lack of regulation gates on head regulators of minors
causing uneven distribution of water; (vi) over-irrigation due to nonavailability of
control structures and facilities for volumetric supply of irrigation water to farmers;
(vii) poor management practices; and (viii) lack of awareness among farmers about
correct irrigation practices and cropping patterns.
The problem of inappropriate design criteria has always been a major constraint
to irrigation development in the Philippines. Due to inadequate baseline information
and poor institutional capacity for project planning, designers and builders of
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 39
irrigation facilities fail to establish the appropriate design criteria (Horst 1998;
Plusquellec 2002; David 2003, 2008, 2009.) Design engineers are not required to
test-run the systems they designed in collaboration with those who are supposed
to operate and maintain them. As a result, design errors repeatedly occur from system
to system without being rectied.
Moya (2014) reported several issues that caused the low performance of
14 irrigation systems studied, including, among others: (1) eld water requirements
used in the design of most irrigation systems had been grossly underestimated;
(2) water losses throughout the system were underestimated; and (3) many irrigation
systems are littered with redundant turnouts and unresponsive and long farm
ditches that had increased project costs due to the use of conventional approach in
designing canals and water control and regulating appurtenances based on maximum
ow conditions.
Water quality is an oft-neglected problem in irrigation systems. The salinity of
the water would be a problem if salt accumulates in the crop root zone to a certain
level, leading to a loss in the yield (Ayers and Westcot 1994). Excessive salt in the root
zone would hinder the crops from extracting enough water from the soil. This could
lead to slow growth and maturity of the crops that can signicantly affect the yield.
Accumulation of toxic ions at sufciently large concentrations also causes damaged
crops and reduced yields (Ayers and Westcot 1994). In Viet Nam, yield loss due to
water pollution was estimated at 0.57–0.75 tons per hectare per crop (Huynh and
Yabe 2012). Water pollution also increased the rice production cost and inicted a
26-percent prot loss.
Various studies have been undertaken to determine the different factors
affecting the irrigation performance and agricultural productivity (e.g., crop yield)
using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a quantitative approach for estimating
a summary performance index (Box 1) for an irrigation system or an associated
governance structure (e.g., user association). Tiewtoy et al. (2010) evaluated the
performance of two projects in the Tha Chin Basin, namely, the Kamphaengsaen and
Phophraya irrigation projects, based on key indicators using PCA. Results indicated
that net farm income, awareness on irrigation water use, management of water
delivery schedule and agricultural operation, and eld application ratio are the major
indicators of performance for Kamphaengsaen. For Phophraya, on the other hand,
the analysis showed that irrigation sustainability is affected by four key indicators—
perception of drained water quality, satisfaction on the adequacy of water distribution,
eld application ratio, and net farm income.
Fang et al. (2017) studied the driving factors of irrigation water-use change
based on 21 measures covering climatic change, resource endowment, economic
40 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
situation, technological level, and management mode. Data from 31 provinces of
China in 2009 were analyzed using the PCA method to extract the main driving factors
affecting the irrigation water-use efciency change. Results revealed that differences in
irrigation use efciency could be attributed to, among others, variation in agricultural
economic development, adoption of water-saving irrigation technology, and water
resource endowment.
Methodology
Scope
The NIS case studies covered 22 systems in Luzon, 9 in the Visayas, and 8 in Mindanao
(Table 1), representing 151 irrigators’ associations (IAs). They represent a diversity
of characteristics such as location (nationwide), size (small to large), performance
(successful/nonsuccessful), and irrigation technology (gravity/pump).
Data collection
The assessment was based on primary and secondary data related to NIS. Secondary
data collected include:
• Technical data (i.e., system prole, service area, irrigation efciency,
construction cost, rehabilitation cost, yield, cropping calendar, cropping
intensity, feasibility studies, technical drawings, layout map); and
Box 1. Principal components analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a stascal procedure that clusters a large set of
variables into small components called “summary indices”, while maintaining most of the
informaon of the larger set. The summary indices allow for beer visualizaon and analysis;
thus, PCA is commonly used for developing indexes, parcularly when considering mulple
indicators. Principal components are derived from eigenvalues, which are the amount of
variance explained by each technical, socioeconomic, instuonal, and environmental
indicators/aribute. The irrigaon performance index (IPI) was developed based on the
principal components dened as linear combinaons of the variables that account for
maximum variance within the data set. IPI was formulated using the score of key indicators
obtained earlier by PCA.
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 41
Table 1. List of NIS cases covered in this report
Island group Region Number Province System
Luzon 1 2 Ilocos Norte Nueva Era River Irrigaon System
(RIS) and Bonga Pump #2 Pump
Irrigaon System (PIS)
1 1 Ilocos Sur Banaoang PIS
1 2 Pangasinan Ambayoan RIS and Dipalo RIS
2 3 Cagayan Magapit PIS, Solana PIS and
Visitacion RIS
2 2 Isabela Divisions 2 and 4 of Magat River
Integrated Irrigaon System
(MARIIS)
3 3 Nueva Ecija Divisions 2, 3, and 4 of Upper
Pampanga River Integrated
Irrigaon System (UPRIIS)
3 1 Pampanga Pampanga Delta RIS (PDRIS)
3 3 Tarlac TGIS, Tarlac RIS, and San Miguel-
O’Donnell RIS
3 1 Bulacan Angat-Maasim RIS
4B 1 Occidental Mindoro Caguray RIS
4A 1 Cavite Balayungan RIS
4A 1 Quezon Dumacaa RIS
5 1 Camarines Sur Libmanan-Cabusao PIS
Visayas 6 1 Capiz Mambusao RIS
6 3 Iloilo Jalaur-Suague RIS, Sibalom-
Tigbauan RIS and Barotac
Viejo RIS
7 3 Bohol Malinao Irrigaon System (IS),
Bayongan IS and Capayas IS
8 2 Leyte Binahaan-Tibak RIS and Daguitan-
Guinarona-Marabong RIS
Mindanao 10 3 Bukidnon Manupali RIS, Pulangui RIS, and
Roxas-Kuya RIS
11 1 Davao del Sur Padada RIS
12 2 North Cotabato M’lang RIS and Maridagao RIS
(MalMar 2)
12 2 South Cotabato Marbel #1 RIS and Banga RIS
Total 39
Source: Authors’ compilation
42 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
• Status of IAs (i.e., prole/institutional report of IAs, source of funding,
nancial status/viability, the program of works [POWs] for all available
years, and national irrigation system performance).
Data were collected in two cycles. The rst cycle (2015) covered Luzon NIS, while
the second cycle (2018) covered Visayas and Mindanao NIS. Primary data were collected
through site visits, eld measurements, and key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus
group discussions (FGDs) that were partly based on structured questionnaires. Most of
the questions were derived from the rapid appraisal procedure of Mapping System and
Services for Canal Operation Techniques or MASSCOTE (Renault et al. 2007).
Walkthroughs and actual eld measurements were also conducted to determine
the status and conditions of the irrigation facilities. Measurements in the eld were
performed using portable equipment (e.g., ow meters, water quality kits, etc.).
Measurements included canal and structure dimensions, canal length, canal ow,
silt depth, and water quality parameters. Depending on the size of the irrigation
system, sections selected were: (a) near the dam or headgate (upstream), (b) in
the middle (midstream), or (c) at the tail end of the system (downstream). These
structures/facilities were photographed and geotagged. Conveyance losses were
measured on selected main and lateral canals. Lastly, water quality parameters
covered pH for acidity/alkalinity, dissolved oxygen for the presence of ambient
organic matter, and electrical conductivity (EC) for the presence of dissolved salts and
other solids. Cutoffs for good water quality are <300 microsiemens per centimeter,
6 parts per million for dissolved oxygen, and around 6 (or neutral) for pH.
Analytical methods
Digital maps were used extensively in the assessment. Available digital elevation
maps (DEM), soil erosion maps, soil maps, built-up area maps, and groundwater
potential maps were compiled for the assessment. Maps were obtained from the DA
and its bureaus (Bureau of Agricultural Research [BAR] and BSWM), Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its attached agencies (National Water
Resources Board [NWRB], National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
[NAMRIA]), the Comprehensive Irrigation Research and Development Umbrella
Program (CIRDUP), and Google Maps.
Service area maps were digitized if no shapeles were available. Walkthrough
maps of specic NIS cases covered were developed using the service area map and GPS
readings of headworks, canal structures and water ow, and quality measurement
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 43
points. Spatial analysis was done by generating hillshade effect on the DEMs acquired
through remotely sensed images from Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and
Reection Radiometer. The erosion map was then juxtaposed with the DEM to explain
sources of siltation visually.
KIIs of key system personnel (e.g., irrigation management ofces, system managers,
irrigators development ofcers [IDOs], operations staff, and IA president/ofcer)
engaged in the NIS operation were also conducted. FGDs with IAs were undertaken in
the upstream, midstream, and downstream sections of the selected NIS.
PCA was applied to assess the performance of the NIS cases at the IA level. Four
major categories of indicators were employed: technical/physical, institutional/
organizational, economic, and environmental. The following steps were performed:
1. A selection of technical, socioeconomic, institutional, and environmental
factors was conducted for the study area.
2. T-test was used to test the normality of data distribution, and Cronbach’s
alpha was used to test the reliability of the questionnaire. Furthermore,
bivariate analysis was used to test the correlation of data.
3. PCA was used to nd the irrigation performance index based on principal
components (Box 1). The index can reect the technical and institutional
effectiveness of the project cycle from project identication and feasibility
up to operations and maintenance (O&M).
Findings based on rapid appraisal
Performance indicators
The performance of the NIS varies widely. Differences in the availability of water, siltation, and
quality of maintenance may account for these variations.
The cropping intensity of selected NIS cases is presented in Figure 1 for the crop
years 2005–2017; here, cropping intensity is dened as the dry and wet season area
irrigated, divided by FUSA (in percentage). Ideally, cropping intensity should be
200 percent. Note that cropping intensity for some of these systems is lower than
the irrigation cropping intensity (which includes a third season, if applicable).
Variations in cropping intensity may be due to the numerator, i.e., irrigated area
(mostly for rice, but for some systems such as Ambayoan-Dapalo RIS, Padada RIS, and
Manupali RIS, it includes other crops in some seasons) include other crops in some
44 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 1. FUSA, program and actual irrigated areas, and cropping intensies of
selected NIS
(a) Luzon NIS
percent (%)
hectares
Banaoang PIS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
seasons. Variations may also be due to the denominator, e.g., decreases in FUSA due to
land-use conversion, or increases due to system rehabilitation (though adjustments
in FUSA are likely to be accompanied by adjustments in the numerator as well).
The average cropping intensity (2005-2017) for the NIS cases ranges from 71 to
205 percent; the range is narrower for Luzon NIS (71 to 195 percent). The average
cropping intensity for the Visayas NIS ranges from 68 to 185 percent. Average
cropping intensity for Mindanao NIS is in a much higher range, from 119 to 205
percent. Systems with low cropping intensity were characterized by siltation and
low water supply, e.g., Pampanga Delta RIS and Caguray RIS. The relatively higher
cropping intensity, especially of South Cotabato NIS, may be attributed to the high
percentage of lined canals and the synchronized scheduling. The cropping intensities
by the pump irrigation systems (Banaoang and Libmanan-Cabusao) were among the
lowest. The performance of large reservoir-type system (MARIIS and UPRIIS) was
relatively higher than the smaller one (Bohol NIS).
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 45
percent (%)
hectares
Ambayoan-Dipalo RIS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
MRIIS Division 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
46 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
UPRIIS Division 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
Percent (%)
hectares
Pampanga Delta RIS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 47
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
Libmanan-Cabusao PIS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
percent (%)
hectares
Jalaur-Suague RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
(b) Visayas NIS
48 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
Malinao IS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Croppi ng intensity
percent (%)
hectares
Bayongan IS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 49
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
Daguitan-Guinarona-Marabong RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
(c) Mindanao NIS
percent (%)
hectares
Pulangui RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Croppi ng intensity
50 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
Padada RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
percent (%)
hectares
M'lang RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 51
Figure 1. Connued
percent (%)
hectares
Marbel 1 RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program Wet Actual Wet
Program Dry Actual Dry Cropping Intensity
percent (%)
hectares
Banga RIS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FUSA Program wet Actual wet
Program dry Actual dry Cropping intensity
PIS = pump irrigation system; RIS = river irrigation system; MRIIS = Magat River Integrated Irrigation System;
UPRIIS = Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation Systems; IS = irrigation system; FUSA = rmed-up
service area
Source: National irrigation system performance data of NIA (Various years)
52 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 2 presents a summary of farmers’ perceptions derived from KIIs and FGDs
regarding the problems encountered with irrigation. The most common problem is
shortage of water for various reasons, whether institutional, technical (engineering),
or environmental. Also mentioned often is siltation, which may be related to canal
repair and concrete lining of earth canals. Repairs are also mentioned in the case of
various facilities (farm-to-market road, gates, dam). The problems encountered can
be grouped into clusters of issues, discussed below.
Table 2. Problems with irrigaon encountered by farmers
Problems Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total
Number of respondents 65 48 39 152
Shortage of water due to internal
reasons (e.g., the)
20 64 53 137
Shortage of water due to due to NIA
(e.g., scheduling)
12 12 40 64
Canal repair 10 15 6 31
Shortage of water due to engineering
limitaon
9 5 16 30
Siltaon 9 4 16 29
Farm-to-market road 10 9 9 28
Shortage of water due to
environmental limitaon
6 18 3 27
Earth canal to be lined 7 3 12 22
Gates for repair 2 3 12 17
Solid waste 6 3 5 14
Dam repair 1 0 0 1
NIA = National Irrigation Administration
Source: Authors’ compilation
Water supply
The most common water supply problem is water shortage during the dry season. During the
wet season, some major systems suffer from ooding, which also reduces cropping intensity.
The lack of water supply can be inferred from the difference between the FUSA and
actual irrigated area during the dry season. The magnitude of the problem can be
seen in the deployment of remedial measures, such as the construction of re-use dam,
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 53
intake dam, installation of open source pumps (re-pump), and installation of shallow
tubewells (STW). Sources of water for pumping are irrigation and drainage canals,
tubewells, lakes, and nearby creeks and streams.
Re-use dams could be observed in UPRIIS, MARIIS, Balayungan RIS, Dumacaa RIS,
Binahaan-Tibak RIS, Daguitan-Guinarona-Marabong RIS, Jalaur-Suague RIS, Barotac
Viejo RIS, Padada RIS, M’lang RIS, Marbel #1 RIS, Banga RIS, and Pulangui RIS. Magapit
PIS, PDRIS, UPRIIS, and MARIIS have re-pump stations. Pumping from irrigation and
drainage canals could be observed in BPIS, Solana and Magapit PIS, UPRIIS, MARIIS,
Libmanan-Cabusao PIS, Malinao IS, Binahaan-Tibak RIS, Sibalom-Tigbauan RIS,
Padada RIS, MalMar 2, and M’lang RIS.
Lastly, STWs were still being utilized in some NIS cases (though few examples
were encountered in the walk-throughs). Based on the groundwater potential maps,
service areas of PDRIS, BPIS, Bonga Pump #2 PIS, TASMORIS, some areas of UPRIIS
and MARIIS, and Solana and Magapit PIS, Binahaan-Tibak RIS, Jalaur-Suague RIS,
Barotac Viejo RIS, Padada RIS, M’lang RIS, and Pulangui RIS are within areas of
shallow-well potential.
Another practice for dealing with water shortage is alternate wetting and
drying (AWD), wherein water delivery is reduced to a level lower than discharge
capacity or design discharge. AWD is being practiced in most irrigation systems in
the study to deal with prolonged water shortage, especially during the dry season.
Flooding problems also exist in most NIS (i.e., PDRIS, Magapit PIS, AMRIS, M’lang
RIS, MalMar 2, and Pulangui RIS), especially during the wet season, which limit
cropping to dry season only. This, in turn, reduces the cropping intensity of the said
NIS. Likewise, this problem is being experienced in Bukidnon due to lack of proper
drainage systems.
Siltation
Siltation decreases the available water in the system and increases the efciency losses of
the canal.
The primary source of siltation is the rivers that supply water for the irrigation
systems. Excessive siltation of the dams and canals was observed in Ambayoan-Dipalo
RIS (Figure 2), Nueva Era RIS, TASMORIS, Caguray RIS, Jalaur-Suague RIS, Padada RIS,
M’lang RIS, and Manupali RIS. In the case of the Jalaur RIS, the 8-meter wide main
canal has been reduced to 1-meter width due to siltation.
54 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Dam siltation can be controlled to some extent by opening the sluice gates during
high river ow; however, in some of the systems, sluice gates are nonfunctional. Canal
siltation, meanwhile, can be controlled by regular maintenance. Silt can be cleared
out of the canals through dredging or use of structures (e.g., silt ejector of PDRIS and
Marbel #1 RIS, by-pass canals). The lack of canal maintenance as a reason for canal
siltation was mentioned during the FGDs by Mapamasa IA in Division 4 of UPRIIS,
Muhara IA in Solana PIS, Zigiran IA in Magapit PIS, Carsan IA in Ambayoan-Dipalo RIS,
and Gamot Bolo Nicolas IA in Caguray RIS, among others.
Siltation is also part of the headwork problems of all pump irrigation systems (PIS)
covered in the study, including the Bonga Pump #2, Banaoang, Libmanan-Cabusao,
Solana, and Magapit. Siltation could not be minimized in these systems because all
of them were drawing water from major rivers (e.g., Cagayan River for Solana and
Magapit PIS, and Libmanan River for Libmanan-Cabusao PIS), which were already
heavily silted.
Figure 2. Silted diversion dam of Dipalo River Irrigaon System
Source: Authors’ documentation
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 55
Canal lining
Earthen canals—the most common type of canal in NIS—are vulnerable to damage and
disrepair.
Few of the NIS are completely lined (Table 3). The systems that are mostly lined (more
than 80% of main canals and laterals) are PDRIS, Bonga Pump #2, Libmanan-Cabusao
PIS, Malinao IS, Capayas IS, Bayongan IS, Manupali RIS, and Marbel #1 RIS. In contrast,
more than 80 percent of the main canals and laterals in AMRIS, Magapit PIS, Jalaur-
Suague RIS, Barotac Viejo RIS, and Mambusao RIS are unlined or earth canals.
The efciency of water distribution depends on the condition of the main
canals and laterals, which depends on the concrete lining. Canal damage may also be
attributable to lack of lining due to carabaos and other animals that frequent earth
canals, causing damage and collapse of the canal-side slopes. In system designs, canal
lining is assumed; hence, lack of canal lining can explain in part the discrepancy
between the design area/FUSA and the actual irrigated area.
State of irrigation structures
Irrigation structures were mostly nonfunctional, missing, damaged, or in a deteriorated
condition.
Walkthroughs of the NIS arrived at the following observations:
• Various canals/structures were damaged, affecting water delivery service, as
in the case of Victoria IA in MARIIS, MalMar 2 (Figure 3), and Manupali RIS.
• Staff gauges, which are part of the ow-measuring structure, are lacking
or missing in most of the NIS cases visited. These include the Libmanan-
Cabusao PIS, Ambayoan-Dipalo RIS, Caguray RIS, Balayungan RIS, BPIS,
Bonga Pump #2 PIS, Nueva Era RIS, and TGIS. Without ow measurement,
the delivery performance ratio, equal to the ratio of actual over design
discharge, cannot be assessed.
• Roadways from the farm to the market are also in poor condition in some
IAs (New Life IA in MARIIS, Dagupan IA in Visitacion IS, Ambayoan-Dipalo
RIS, and Balayungan RIS). They are not passable, especially during the
wet season.
56 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 3. Proporon of lined canals, Luzon and Mindanao systems (%)
Main Lateral
Luzon systems
PDRIS 100.0 79.8
AMRIS 20.5 13.0
Nueva Era RIS 100 6.6
Bonga Pump #2 RIS 100.0 90.6
Magapit PIS 60.9 0.0
Libmanan-Cabusao PIS 94.3 83.4
Visitacion RIS 36.5 47.1
Caguray RIS 85.1 42.8
BALAYUNGAN RIS 53.9 39.1
DUMACAA RIS 30.3 47.5
Mindanao systems
Mambusao RIS 29.8 19.2
Jalaur-Suage RIS 5.7 7.5
Sibalom-Tigbauan RIS 37.9 1.6
Barotac Viejo RIS 2.9 11.4
Malinao IS 100.0 100.0
Capayas IS 100.0 100.0
Bayongan IS 100.0 100.0
Daguitan-Guinarona-Marabong RIS 89.6 66.1
Manupali RIS 100.0 100.0
Pulangui RIS 57.4 33.7
Roxas-Kuya RIS 59.3 46.6
Marbel #1 RIS 100.0 100.0
Note: The following systems show only the aggregate share for main and lateral canals: Binahaan-Tibak RIS
(35.8); Padada RIS (30.5); M’lang RIS (23.5); Malmar2 (32.4); and Banga RIS (80.8).
PDRIS = Pampanga Delta River irrigation system; AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System;
RIS = river irrigation system; IS = irrigation system
Source: Inventory of irrigation systems, NIA (Various years)
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 57
Water quality
Most of the NIS main canal and laterals exhibited reasonably good water quality.
Measurements for the various NIS showed that most reached the EC and DO cutoffs.
However, most NIS cases showed pH levels on the alkaline side (> 7). This was also
seen in most NIS cases in the Visayas and Mindanao. In Iloilo, 14 of 22 samples showed
pH > 7, including 9 locations in Jalaur RIS. High alkalinity can be attributed to excess
sodium. Another source of alkalinity is sodium bicarbonates (Oosterbaan 2003).
Salinity (EC is > 300uS/cm) was also detected in some NIS cases, especially those
pumping groundwater like TGIS. This is due to seawater intrusion, as in the case of
Magapit PIS, or leaching of salts from irrigated lands. The highest measured salinity
was for TGIS Tarlac, where EC was around 700 uS/cm. Soil salinity can pose serious
effects on crop development and yield, if not adequately addressed.
Figure 3. Missing gates in MalMar 2 River Irrigaon System
Source: Authors’ documentation
58 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
The DO was also low (6 < ppm) in some NIS cases, including the downstream
of the Vaca dam and PDRIS end of downstream. This can be attributed to the thick
aquatic vegetation upstream of the Vaca dam, which has caused the reduction of DO
downstream (Figure 4). DO was likewise found to be low (6 < ppm) in the Capayas and
Bayongan IS, Binahaan-Tibak, and Daguitan-Guinarona-Marabong RIS. Seven sites in
Capayas and Bayongan IS have low DO (around 4.5 ppm); all 12 sites in the Leyte NIS
have shown very low DO (about 1.5 ppm).
Typically, the DO increases as it goes upstream since water in the source has less
pollution. Some cases have different ndings, such as measurements in re-use dams,
which exhibited more pollution. DO was likewise found to be low (6 < ppm) in other
NIS cases, such as 6 out of the 14 sites in Bukidnon, 8 out of the 12 sites in South
Cotabato, and 3 out of the 6 sites in M’lang and Padada RIS.
Figure 4. Vaca Dam of Division 2, UPRIIS
UPRIIS = Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation System
Source: Authors’ documentation
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 59
Figure 5. Check gate with padlocks in Libmanan-Cabusao PIS
PIS = pump irrigation system
Source: Authors’ documentation
Institutional assessment
Problems with irrigation service and water quality can partly be attributed to governance
issues, both inside and outside the NIS.
The KIIs and FGDs revealed numerous problems in the governance of the NIS.
Downstream users can experience water shortage owing to the diversion of water
for unauthorized use. Some IAs encountered illegal opening and closing of gates,
compelling them to installed locks and security gates (Figure 5). The ability of an IA
to prevent water theft reects the effectiveness and efciency of IA management.
Majority of the IAs practice scheduling or rotational irrigation. The usually
preferred irrigation ow practiced by the IAs is upstream to downstream, which would
ow through different irrigation zones. IAs are generally satised with the rotation
schedule, though the satisfaction rating tends to decline from upstream to downstream.
In some cases, poor scheduling is cited as a governance issue (secondary to water theft).
60 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
On a positive note, farmers value the services provided by NIA. Majority of the IAs
afrmed that they receive regular support of different types. The most common form
is technical assistance, e.g., training, seminars, and other consultation and advisory
services, to enhance the capability of the farmers in the efcient management of their
system. Less common is physical and structural support, which NIA is less capable of
providing owing to budget constraints.
Meanwhile, outside the IS, NIS with urban areas within its service area have to
contend with illegal settlers and garbage dumping (Figure 6). Some illegal settlers
dump their waste directly into the canals that pass near their homes. Solid wastes
were commonly observed, clogging the headgates going to the laterals and tertiary
canals. This affects the water ow during operation. Removal of these wastes increases
the O&M cost of the NIS. Moreover, structures constructed by illegal settlers along
the canal damage the lining and canal hydraulic shape.
Figure 6. Garbage near the gates of one secon of Lateral B NMC, AMRIS
NMC = north main canal; AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System
Source: Authors’ documentation
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 61
Other analycal ndings
GIS applications
Analysis of siltation
Mapping of erosion maps of NIS watersheds reveals that most of the uplands
from the downstream service areas have moderate to severe erosion.
Runoff and ooding of lowland/irrigated areas depend on the typology and
characteristics of the watershed that surrounds the irrigation service areas. The
upland watershed can be prone to erosion depending on the combined effects of
vegetative cover (land use), soil characteristics (erodibility), slope (topography), and
rainfall patterns (erosivity). Poor watershed management results in upland erosion
and river siltation. Although watershed management is being considered during the
design stage, problems occur during the operation of the system after construction.
Watershed management and control is under the jurisdiction of DENR, not NIA.
Figure 7 shows an erosion map for UPRIIS: moderate to severe erosion could
be observed in the watershed area of UPRIIS. The watershed area is the upper and
right side part of the gure. This accounts for the heavy siltation observed within the
UPRIIS, especially in the middle and downstream areas.
Other GIS applications for irrigation management
GIS can also be used to analyze land suitability, groundwater resources, water
user parcellary layout, and others.
Regarding land suitability, digital map overlays show the unsuitability of
signicant proportions of NIS service areas to irrigated rice farming. A representative
case is the Magat River Integrated Irrigation System (MARIIS), an extensive system
with about 80,000 ha of the service area. The overlaid GIS map indicated only
54 percent of the total FUSA in MARIIS as most suitable to irrigated rice agriculture.
Conversely, 46 percent is unsuitable, which may be why sub-optimal yields were
obtained within the system. Similarly, diagnostics are performed for the other
systems, with varying estimates of irrigated rice suitability. On the other hand, GIS
maps document the degraded state of some NIS watersheds, which partly accounts
for the heavy siltation in these systems.
62 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 7. Erosion map for UPRIIS
UPRIIS = Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation System
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 63
Meanwhile, groundwater maps (Figure 8) show areas with high potential for
groundwater resources to supplement the inadequate water supplies from surface water.
Another useful application of GIS mapping is the three-dimensional (3D) map
(Figure 9). The 3D map revealed the location of the service area of NIS and its
watershed. Merging this with other maps will be an excellent tool for policy and
planning. For example, an input of an updated built-up area or land-use plan may
show areas for expansion or limits for the irrigated area.
Padada RIS, which is part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency project
entitled “Improving Operations & Maintenance of National Irrigation Systems”,
actively uses GIS in irrigation management. The RIS created a new parcellary map
through satellite imagery and farmland database/GIS in 10 pilot sites. Other NIS
that apply GIS were the PDRIS, as well as Caguray, Mambusao, Barotac Viejo, and
Malinao RIS.
Summary index of irrigation performance using PCA
Due to the difference in the nature of data collection between cycles, the PCA model
was specied for the IAs covered in the study, with a separate analysis for each island
group (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao). Using a set of variables common to the two
cycles, an integrated PCA for all the IAs (151) was also estimated.
Based on the PCA model, 70 percent of the IPI is explained by 10 contributing factors,
which, in turn, are classied into four principal components (Table 4). The mean irrigation
performance index of Luzon (= 0.79) was higher than that of Visayas-Mindanao (= 0.49),
which implies that systems in the former perform better than those in the latter. Economic
and nancial factors are the major indicators of the IA’s performance.
Applying the model to all IAs resulted in a classication of Low-, Moderate-, and
High- performing IAs. Results showed that, under this rating scale, 22 percent of the
IAs are rated as high performing, while 33 percent are moderate, and 45 percent are
low performing. For Cycle 2, the performance of the 87 IAs covered shows that the
low-performing IAs are mostly located in the downstream part of the main canal.
This conrms that water distribution and availability is a major factor that affects
irrigation performance at the IA level.
64 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 8. Groundwater map of Bukidnon and service areas of Manupali,
Roxas-Kuya, and Pulangui RIS
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Figure 9. 3D map showing the relave elevaon of the service area and terrain
of the whole watershed of the NIS covered in Bukidnon
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 65
Conclusion
Summary
The ocular inspection, walkthroughs, and measurements of water ows and quality
and siltation conducted in this study reveal numerous technical, institutional, and
environmental issues confronting the NIS studied. On the technical side, results
showed that siltation prevails in most NIS cases. This causes ow capacity reduction
and poor water delivery, especially in downstream areas. Some NIS cases have
nonfunctional, missing, or damaged structures (e.g., check gates, staff gauges, turnout
gates, etc.), which affect ow control and measurement.
On the institutional side, it was found that there is weak enforcement of the policy
on canal maintenance, illegal settlers, and pumping/dumping of garbage/turnouts.
Some NIS sites manifested ooding problems since drainage canals are higher than
Table 4. PCA results for the integrated irrigaon performance index
Variables Component weights
Economic Technical Environmental Instuonal
Number of cropping per year 0.4938
Annual gross prot 0.6094
Annual net prot 0.5966
Performance rate on
distribuon of water
0.5776
Performance rate on the
maintenance of canals
0.6324
Rate on technical advice
to farmers
0.5117
Dissolved oxygen 0.6969
Acidity (pH) 0.7086
Ability to seek outside help 0.7490
Meeng parcipaon rate
for board of directors
0.6397
Weights (%) 22.90 19.67 14.18 12.75
PCA = principal component analysis
Source: Authors’ computation
66 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
irrigation canals in some cases. Low water quality as per DO, EC, and pH standards, on
the other hand, was observed and may have affected yield in some sites.
The analysis also showed that GIS is an essential tool for determining suitable
areas for irrigation project design and development. By using GIS map overlay, the
study was able to show the unsuitability of signicant proportions of NIS service
areas to irrigated rice farming. Diagnostics were also performed for the other systems,
with varying estimates of irrigated rice suitability. GIS maps also documented the
degraded state of some NIS watersheds, which accounted for the heavy siltation in
these systems.
This study found that the performance of NIS is inuenced both by factors beyond
its control and governance issues internal to the systems. External problems include
(i) constriction of waterways, which causes the worsening ooding problems; (ii) rapid
denudation of the water source (watershed), which accelerates the rate of ooding
and canal siltation within the irrigation system and reduces available irrigation water
supply; and (iii) political pressures impinging on the choice of irrigation projects and
contractors, the proper operation and maintenance of irrigation systems, and the
quality of personnel appointments in the bureaucracy.
Recommendations
Watershed management
Watershed management is a key strategy to prevent siltation problems.
Watershed management is a function of the DENR and local governments.
Watershed management activities are not being coordinated with NIA, which accounts
for the deterioration of watersheds and erosion of uplands near NIS. Hence, a requisite
institutional reform is to transfer the mandate of NIS watershed management to NIA.
A Watershed Unit (Ofce) in NIA should be created for the full control of the watersheds
covering all irrigation systems, absorbing the current mandate and function under
the DENR. Watershed management is already part of the NIA’s charter; nonetheless,
implementing this recommendation will require allocating substantial resources and
not just “coordination” with the DENR and local governments.
Naonal Irrigaon Systems | 67
Use of science-based methods
GIS analysis was useful in mapping the location of structures, measurements, and
spatial analysis of erosion, groundwater potential, ooding, and distribution of
IA performance.
GIS applications can be further enhanced in targeting interventions (i.e., helping
NIA and DA improve land productivity) and determining suitable areas for irrigation.
In addition, there is a need to re-evaluate the denition of potential irrigable areas.
This includes the assessment of water supply sources and comprehensive land use
plans of the local government units. In estimating the potential irrigable areas,
improved data collection and management is required. In all feasibility studies on
all NIS in the country, data adequacy and quality have always been the constraints to
correctly estimating irrigable areas.
O&M and system upgrade
The canal and its appurtenant structures require considerable rehabilitation
work and consistent maintenance.
A critical upgrade to many of the NIS assessed in this study is the concrete
lining of main and lateral canals. This is to improve efciency in water allocation
and distribution from upstream to downstream users. The poor water distribution
in most NIS cases is mainly due to water losses, especially in earth (unlined) canals.
A feasibility study should be conducted to determine whether the investment cost of
canal lining is smaller than the present value from the stream of future benets from
improved irrigation service.
Moreover, NIA should allocate sufcient resources for O&M and formulate
effective policies and incentive systems. The current O&M regime is characterized
by inadequate O&M, leading to worsening problems with the systems, until a
major rehabilitation project becomes necessary. A better administration will
be to consistently maintain the system to near its original design condition,
i.e., keeping conveyance losses to the minimum, and ensure that control structures
are working properly.
Chapter 3
Communal Irrigaon Systems
Roger A. Luyun Jr. and Dulce D. Elazegui
Introducon
Communal irrigation systems (CIS) are irrigation systems constructed by the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA) with inputs from farmer-beneciaries in various
phases of the project. These farmers are organized into irrigators’ associations (IAs)
that operate and maintain the irrigation system. CIS have service areas of less than
1,000 hectares (ha). They operate through either gravity system, where water level is
raised by a dam or a weir and water ow by gravity, or through a pump system, where
water is raised by mechanical action.
By virtue of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997, Local
Government Code (LGC), and Executive Order 718, series of 2008, IAs took over the
70 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
management of the completed CIS subject to a cost-recovery arrangement and
repayment scheme.
Most recently, however, the Free Irrigation Service Act heralded a new policy
milieu for CIS beneciaries and managers. Currently, IAs are receiving a subsidy from
NIA for their operations and maintenance (O&M).
While most CIS are constructed by NIA, several others started as private initiatives
and have received some government funding support for the cost of rehabilitation
and new construction. At least 95 percent of CIS are run-of-the-river type gravity
systems obtaining water from rivers or streams, though a few have been given
funding support for medium-sized pumps to also distribute water from a river.
Yields in CIS were lower by 30–40 percent than in the national irrigation systems
(NIS) because of the uncertainty in water supply in the small catchment areas where
CIS are located (FAO 2011). Unreliable water supply is a fundamental problem for CIS
tapping water from less dependable small rivers and creeks or relying on springs
and runoff.
The government has made huge investments in CIS, particularly around 1995-2010,
because more areas can be developed for CIS compared to NIS. Many CIS were found
to have service areas with slopes greater than 3 percent.
To expand the irrigation base, new irrigable areas may be served by small-scale
irrigation systems, including CIS (David 2003). As such, there is a need to assess the
status of CIS development in the country.
Background and Method
Issues raised in previous studies
While O&M problems affect individual users, the persistent problem in water
distribution is due not only to technical aspects but also institutional factors
governing water allocation. These relate to availability, reliability, predictability,
manageability, and equality of the allocation. The rst three relate to water rights.
Manageability refers to the combined control of users over the quantity and timing
of water deliveries. Equality refers to the sharing of benets commensurate to fees
paid and services rendered. The tail-end syndrome indicates the positional advantage
of upstream versus downstream due to topographic and conveyance conditions.
The unequal tenurial, social, and political status leads to differential access to
water (Cruz 1983).
70 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 71
The involvement of farmers in planning the irrigation system is one important
factor in the existence of more functional canals and structures. Effective leadership is
crucial in addressing water distribution conicts between upstream and downstream
farms. A decentralized leadership solves coordination problems in CIS with widely
dispersed farms (de los Reyes and Jopillo 1986).
The management structure of CIS becomes more formal as system size increases.
More successfully managed systems divide their areas into smaller units or sectors for
broader involvement of farmers in managing the system and more organized distribution
of water. The interventions of NIA in the IAs, such as in areas of organizational structure,
leadership, and systems management, yielded positive impacts. These include higher
productivity, stronger associations, improved water distribution, and better compliance
with government policy (de los Reyes and Jopillo 1986).
Government investments in irrigation also suffer from political pressures, rent-
seeking, and corruption perpetuating technical and economic inefciencies in the
irrigation and water sector (Wade 1982; Repetto 1986; Araral 2005a; Huppert 2013).
Problems of sustainability of irrigation infrastructure include overestimation of
benets during the planning stage of the project. The area estimated to be served by
the irrigation system is generally much larger than what is served. Projected yields
are also overestimated although water use efciency declines over the years. Another
cause is the lack of investments in recurrent costs associated with O&M activities once
construction is completed (Ostrom 1990). Donors normally restrict their involvement
in the design and construction and view O&M as the responsibility of the recipient of
the system. Routine maintenance is delayed until the deterioration of the system is
large enough to require rehabilitation.
A wide range of factors causes the poor performance of irrigation systems,
spanning from technical aspects to institution-related issues. Constraints may
be rooted in the inadequacy of relevant data during the planning stage, errors in
design, poor quality of construction, and lack of institutional capacity for system
development. Moreover, the complex operation and socioeconomic and institutional
management of an irrigation system, and the inadequate support services for irrigated
agriculture make it difcult to fully achieve potential performance (David 2003).
Design shortcomings of CIS include errors in estimating design oods and sediment
loads of rivers, lack of head control structures, ungated intake structures, and faulty
design of farm ditches. The rate of deterioration at 140,000 ha per year of both NIS
and CIS between 1996 and 2004 casts doubt on the sustainability of irrigation systems
in the country (UPLBFI 2007).
72 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Development of CIS in the Philippines
CIS covered approximately 663,000 ha, accounting for 35 percent of the total area
served by irrigation systems in the country in 2017 (Table 1). The development of
irrigation system lags in Mindanao, considering the large irrigable area, relative to
Luzon and Visayas.
Construction of simple irrigation systems dates to the Spanish era when
mountain tribes built the Ifugao rice terraces and Spanish friars installed systems
in areas bordering Manila. Farmer associations were building, operating, and
maintaining irrigation systems (World Bank 1990). A set of practices referred to as
the Zanjera system ensured that farmer-beneciaries participate in the maintenance
of the system (de los Reyes and Jopillo 1986). Zanjeras are known for their capacity
to manage gravity-fed CIS and for their rules and regulations, water allocation and
distribution, system O&M, and conict resolution (Yabes 1990).
Under the American regime, an Irrigation Division was created in the Bureau
of Public Works (BPW) in 1908. The legislature provided for the regulation of water
rights and conceptualization of IAs for managing CIS. With the destruction brought
by World War II, BPW provided assistance to both NIS and CIS.
Foreign nancing of CIS projects came in the 1970s as a component of rural
development projects. The rst foreign-assisted project in the Philippines focusing
mainly on CIS and beneciary participation was the Communal Irrigation Development
Project (CIDP) in 1982. By 1983, all NIA-assisted communal irrigation projects were
adopting the participatory approach. The involvement of farmers in the planning of
CIS project and the incorporation of their suggestions in the design contributed to
more functional canals and structures (de los Reyes and Jopillo 1986).
The second CIDP project was implemented in 1990 (World Bank 1992a). NIA
obtained loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
and International Fund for Agriculture and Development. The four components of
the project were construction and rehabilitation of CIS, development of communal
IAs, institutional development of NIA on communal irrigation, and agricultural
development planning.
By virtue of the LGC of 1991, CIS were devolved to local government units (LGUs),
including similar projects funded by municipalities, provinces, and cities. Prior to the
enactment of the Code, NIA implemented locally funded CIS with a budget allocation
of PHP 518 million under the General Appropriations Act. In 1992, the fund for CIS
implementation was transferred to the internal revenue allotment of the LGUs. As
72 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Esmated
Total Irrigable
Areaa/
Service Area (hectares) Share in Total
(%)
Total
Remaining
Area to be
Developed
Naonal
Irrigaon
System
Communal
Irrigaon
System
Private
Irrigaon
System
Other
Government
Agency
Assisted
Total
CAR 111,295.65 15,936.64 55,293.89 23,376.34 3,606.82 98,213.69 88.25 13,081.96
Region 1 264,491.00 61,499.44 57,519.40 20,788.45 50,575.83 190,383.12 71.98 74,107.88
Region 2 457,246.76 176,273.28 54,734.49 44,501.34 21,021.12 296,530.23 64.85 160,716.53
Region 3 483,830.18 219,165.30 75,964.06 9,343.65 19,481.79 323,954.80 66.96 159,875.38
Region 4A 85,929.00 29,034.00 22,778.00 7,288.00 2,553.00 61,653.00 71.75 24,276.00
Region 4B 143,558.95 29,130.59 39,372.92 14,973.91 12,596.00 96,073.42 66.92 47,485.53
Region 5 239,440.00 24,016.05 74,613.04 25,059.00 15,966.30 139,654.39 58.33 99,785.61
Region 6 191,253.16 53,935.08 39,035.13 15,309.81 15,012.30 123,292.32 64.47 67,960.84
Region 7 53,674.35 12,210.99 31,510.00 4,068.00 1,496.00 49,284.99 91.82 4,389.36
Region 8 91,982.90 25,877.00 38,573.90 5,915.75 2,765.00 73,131.65 79.51 18,851.25
Region 9 93,706.00 19,049.59 25,826.15 1,957.00 3,481.00 50,313.74 53.69 43,392.26
Region 10 121,122.69 32,164.82 29,072.05 4,930.54 4,784.25 70,951.66 58.58 50,171.03
Region 11 177,546.92 38,567.98 29,267.33 1,291.00 1,675.27 70,801.58 39.88 106,745.34
Region 12 293,226.24 71,299.41 39,756.18 2,840.00 10,256.00 124,151.59 42.34 169,074.65
Region 13 160,176.75 32,029.70 28,672.00 3,137.00 6,418.00 70,256.70 43.86 89,920.05
ARMM 160,150.45 27,712.86 21,241.75 90.00 295.00 49,339.61 30.81 110,810.84
Total 3,128,631.00 867,902.74 663,230.28 184,869.79 171,983.68 1,887,986.49 60.35 1,240,644.51
* as of December 31, 2017
For provinces with service areas greater than the estimated total irrigable area, it means that more areas are now irrigated beyond the estimated total
irrigable area.
Note: CAR. Region 7, Region 8, Region 9, Region 10, Region 13, and ARMM generated 13,963 ha. of new areas but not yet operational. CAR = Cordillera
Administrative Region; ARMM = Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
Source: NIA (2017b)
Table 1. Status of irrigaon development in the Philippines*
74 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
a result, the construction and rehabilitation of CIS by NIA in areas where concerned
LGUs had no capacity to undertake CIS projects had been stalled. Since 1992, NIA has
implemented CIS in partnership with farmer-beneciaries through their IAs, which
contributed a portion of the direct cost during construction.
Data collection
The performance of CIS was examined at two levels: (1) NIA irrigation management
ofces (IMOs) and(2) IA level. The analysis was based on secondary data, mainly from
NIA, provincial IMOs, and key informant interviews (KIIs) with staff, and primary data
from eld investigation of selected CIS and focus group discussions with IAs.
Technical data included physical state, service area, irrigation efciency, source
of water, access to and availability of water, year constructed, and start of operations,
cropping calendar, and cropping intensity. Field investigation included walk-
throughs and actual measurements for a subset of sample CIS to gauge the physical
conditions of the systems.
Institutional data included the status of IAs, such as prole/institutional report
of IAs, their source of funding, nancial status and viability, program of works for all
available years, and CIS performance.
The assessment was done in two cycles. Cycle 1 covered Luzon while Cycle 2
covered Visayas and Mindanao. The system-level analysis covered 66 sample CIS
and IAs in 11 selected IMOs in Luzon (six each from Laguna, Ilocos Norte, Cagayan,
Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Benguet, Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Camarines
Sur, and Occidental Mindoro); 12 sample CIS and IAs in four IMOs in the Visayas
(three each from Leyte, Iloilo, Capiz, and Bohol); and 12 sample CIS and IAs in four
IMOs in Mindanao (three each from North Cotabato, South Cotabato, Davao del Sur,
and Bukidnon).
To capture possible differences in characteristics, selection of CIS per
province was based on size of rmed-up service areas (FUSA) in hectares:
(1) small (50 ha and below), (2) medium (between 50 and 100 ha), and
(3) large (above 100 ha)—considering one for each size category. Depending on
groundwater potential, at least one pump irrigation system (PIS) was also selected for
the provinces considered.
74 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 75
Findings from IMO data
Firmed-up service area
Based on FUSA, most CIS were small (below 50 ha) gravity systems. A fth were only
partly operational.
Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of CIS based on the size of FUSA, type of
technology (gravity or pump), and operational status in the sample IMOs for Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao. Over 40 percent of 1,606 CIS under the 11 sample IMOs
in Luzon and 464 CIS in four sample IMOs in the Visayas had FUSA below 50 ha
(small) while over 50 percent had 50 ha and above (medium to large). In contrast,
85 percent of the 176 CIS in the four sample IMOs in Mindanao had medium to
large FUSA.
Majority of CIS had run-of-the-river type gravity irrigation systems, except in
Cagayan, Isabela, and Camarines Sur, where more than 50 percent of the systems
were PIS. There were no PIS selected in Leyte and no actual CIS using pumps in the
selected provinces in Mindanao. Farmers with shallow tube wells (STWs) sourcing
water from shallow aquifer systems acquired them through their own initiatives or
from other government agencies. Some CIS were also in rice areas with slopes greater
than 3 percent, particularly in areas outside NIS, such as the Upper Pampanga River
Integrated Irrigation System (UPRIIS) and Magat River Integrated Irrigation System
(MARIIS). Just over 10 percent in Luzon and Visayas used pumps.
Table 2. Frequency distribuon of CIS by the size of FUSA and technology type (%)
Island
Group
FUSA (ha) Technology Extent of Operaon (%)
Small
<50
Medium
50-100
Large
>100
Gravity Pump Others1≤50% > 50 Others2
Luzon 41.10 25.59 33.31 79.64 17.81 2.55 4.73 74.84 20.42
Visayas 46.55 31.90 21.55 86.42 12.5 1.08 11.64 78.45 9.91
Mindanao 14.77 36.36 48.86 100 0 0 11.36 87.5 1.14
1 not classied
2 partially operational/ongoing/deferred/not yet operational
CIS = communal irrigation system; FUSA = rmed-up service areas; ha = hectare
Source: Authors’ data obtained from respective IMOs (Luzon data as of 2013 and 2014; Visayas and Mindanao
data as of 2017)
76 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Over 70 percent of all CIS in Luzon and Visayas and 87 percent in Mindanao were
above 50 percent operational. In Luzon, around 20 percent were partially operational,
or ongoing, deferred, or not yet operational systems. Meanwhile, around 5 percent
were below 50 percent operational due to defective/inadequate facilities. Partially
operational, ongoing, deferred, or not yet operational CIS were more notable in Ilocos
Norte, Bulacan-Neva Ecija, and Cagayan-Batanes. Nonoperational CIS were reported
higher in Occidental Mindoro and Isabela. The causes of these conditions were
discussed in the technical review based on the walkthroughs of the sample systems.
Cropping intensity
CIS maintained an average cropping intensity above 130 percent, though a signicant
proportion (especially in Visayas and Mindanao) fell below this threshold.
Cropping intensity is the ratio of area irrigated to the FUSA (or design area in some
cases) of CIS. Annual cropping intensity could also be the ratio of area irrigated
during the dry and wet seasons to the area irrigated during the wet season expressed
in percentage. According to NIA Camarines Sur IMO, cropping intensity should
be at least 130 percent, i.e., 100 percent for wet and 30 percent for the dry season.
The national average cropping intensity dropped from 133 percent in 2013 to
129 percent in 2014. In 2017, the national average cropping intensity based on FUSA
was 144.5 percent (NIA 2017).
The average cropping intensity of all CIS in all IMOs visited are shown in
Table 3. In the selected 11 IMOs in Luzon, the average annual cropping intensity of CIS
was 158 percent, higher than the national average.
Of the total 1,151 CIS reported by IMOs, 81 percent had cropping intensity
higher than 130 percent, indicating they were better than the national average. The
average cropping intensity was slightly higher in Mindanao (160%) than in Luzon
(157%) and the Visayas (158%). Among the sample IMOs in the three regions, Visayas
had the least percentage of CIS with cropping intensity above 130 percent.
Functionality of CIS IAs
Majority of CIS IAs achieved at least a satisfactory rating in terms of functionality.
NIA conducts functionality assessment of CIS IAs based on parameters related to O&M
performance, nancial performance, and organization and organizational discipline.
76 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 77
Table 3. Average cropping intensity of the CIS from the dierent IMOs visited
Average Cropping Intensity Value (in %)
Luzon 158
Visayas 157
Mindanao 160
Percentage of systems:
Luzon
Below 130 percent cropping intensity 12
Above 130 percent cropping intensity 81
Data not available 7
Visayas
Below 130 percent cropping intensity 22.6
Above 130 percent cropping intensity 64.0
Data not available 13.4
Mindanao
Below 130 percent cropping intensity 24.4
Above 130 percent cropping intensity 73.3
Data not available 2.3
CIS = communal irrigation systems; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: Authors’ data obtained from Seasonal Operational and Maintenance Report of respective IMOs
(Luzon data as of 2013, 2014; Visayas and Mindanao data as of 2017).
Results of the annual or seasonal functionality surveys are used in the search
for outstanding IAs at the provincial, regional, and national levels. This is a good
motivation for IAs and their members. It also helps NIA in identifying appropriate
strategies to enhance IA’s capabilities. The rating is done through discussions and
consultation with IAs and relies heavily on reports provided by irrigators development
ofcers (IDOs), who are NIA staff focused on community organizing.
Currently, indicators and the percentage weight used in rating functionality of
IAs include:
• O&M 35
• Financial performance 26
• Organization and organizational discipline 29
• Assistance program/agri-support services/linkages 6
• Special features 4
O&M indicators include O&M planning, implementation, and performance,
such as annual cropping intensity, irrigated area vis-à-vis programmed area, status
78 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
of irrigation facilities and structures, yield, and collection efciency. Financial
performance includes income generation and fund utilization, and viability index.
Organization and organizational discipline cover information on membership,
meetings, recording/ling system, attendance in meetings and group work, holding
of regular elections, conict resolution, and the imposition of discipline. The overall
score indicates the following functionality rating:
• Outstanding (O): 95–100 percent
• Very satisfactory (VS): 85–94 percent
• Satisfactory (S): 75–84 percent
• Fair (F): 65–74 percent
• Poor (P): below 65 percent
Table 4 shows the distribution of CIS IAs in all sample IMOs based on functionality
rating. A majority (around 76%) of IAs in 11 sample IMOs in Luzon, as well as in the
Visayas, had satisfactory to very satisfactory ratings. Around 19 percent of IAs in
sample IMOs in both regions had fair to poor ratings. In Mindanao, over 16 percent of
IAs in the sample IMOs were outstanding and over 14 percent had fair to poor rating.
Table 4. Distribuon of CIS IAs by category of funconality rang (%)
Area Outstanding Very
Sasfactory
Sasfactory Fair Poor
Luzon 4.30 34.25 42.12 15.04 4.30
Visayas 4.86 45.14 29.86 17.36 2.78
Mindanao 16.47 47.65 21.18 7.65 7.06
CIS = communal irrigation systems; IAs = irrigators’ associations
Source: Authors’ data obtained from respective IMOs
On a per IMO basis, IAs in Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, and Pampanga-Bataan had
very satisfactory ratings. Fair to poor ratings, on the other hand, characterized IAs
in Laguna-Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, and Camarines Sur during the wet season (the
province had seasonal functionality survey during the period (Figure 1).
78 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 79
Figure 1. Percentage distribuon of communal IAs by funconality rang and
province in 11 sample IMOs in Luzon: 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage (%)
Outstanding
Very
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
*Functionality survey is done only once a year except in Camarines Sur where it is done every wet and dry season.
IAs = irrigators’ associations; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of respective provincial IMOs (as of
2013 and 2014)
In the Visayas, 80 percent of Bohol IAs had very satisfactory ratings. In contrast,
majority of IAs in Iloilo and Capiz were rated as fair and satisfactory, respectively.
Only Leyte had IAs with poor ratings (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Percentage distribuon of communal IAs by funconality rang and
province in four sample IMOs in the Visayas: 2017
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bohol Leyte Iloilo Capiz
Percentage (%)
Outstanding Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Poor
IAs = irrigators’ associations; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of respective provincial IMOs (as of 2017)
80 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
In Mindanao, all IAs in South Cotabato had very satisfactory ratings, with over
40 percent of them rated as outstanding. Poor IAs were noted in North and South
Cotabato, and Bukidnon (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Percentage distribuon of communal IAs by funconality rang and
province in four sample IMOs in Mindanao: 2017
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bukidnon Davao del Sur North Cotabato South Cotabato
Percentage (%)
Outstanding Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Poor
IAs = irrigators’ associations; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of respective provincial IMOs (as of 2017)
Deployment of irrigators development ofcers (IDOs)
NIA’s ability to coordinate with and support IAs was limited by inadequate stafng of IDOs.
Table 5 shows the number and deployment of IDOs to CIS in each of the selected IMOs.
The role of an IDO is very crucial to IAs’ institutional development. Based on KIIs with
IDOs and Institutional Development Division (IDD) ofcials, the IDOs’ workload was
quite heavy. For instance, most of the IMOs in Luzon had fewer than 10 IDOs with
some assigned to both CIS and NIS projects. There were 68 gravity CIS and 28 pump
CIS in Pampanga, and four were under preconstruction. There was one senior IDO for
CIS and one community relations assistant. In Pangasinan, the supervising IDO was
the overall supervisor for both NIS and CIS IDOs. There were IDOs assigned to CIS in
six districts.
As of writing, IDOs still had heavy loads but were not getting adequate incentives,
such as security of tenure and other benets. In the Visayas, one IDO was assigned 14
to 20 CIS. IDOs in Mindanao had a lighter load with one IDO in charge of three to eight
CIS.
80 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 81
Table 5. Deployment of IDOs to CIS in all the sample IMOs
IMO No. of CIS/IAs No. of IDOs
Luzon
Pampanga 68 1 Senior IDO for CIS and 1 Community
Relaon Assistant (CRA)
Nueva Ecija 60 7 IDOs with CRAs helping
Pangasinan 120 8 IDOs are assigned to CIS in 6 districts
Ilocos Norte 116 4 IDOs assigned to CIS; 5 IDOs to both CIS/
NIS; 2 farmer/irrigator organizers
Benguet 431 3 IDOs
Camarines Sur 152 2 IDOs for CARP and SRIP; 6 Research
Assistant B posion covering 5 districts
Nueva Vizcaya 217 4 IDOs are assigned CIS/IAs
Isabela 45 1 assigned to CIS project but there are
many radiaon projects
Cagayan 673 3 IDOs
Laguna 13 3 IDOs in 3 districts
Occidental Mindoro 32 5 IDOs
Visayas
Bohol 213 14
Leyte 186 13
Iloilo 123 7
Capiz 62 3
Mindanao
Davao del Sur 77 10
South Cotabato 35 10
North Cotabato 68 12
Bukidnon 40 14
IDOs = irrigators development ofcer; CIS = communal irrigation systems; NIS = national irrigation systems;
IAs = irrigators’ associations; IMO = irrigation management ofce; CARP = Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program; SRIP = Small Reservoir Irrigation Project
Source: Authors’ data obtained from respective IMOs
Findings from system-level and IA-level data
This section presents results of the survey of 66 sample IAs in 11 selected provinces in
Luzon in Cycle 1 and 12 sample IAs each in both Visayas and Mindanao. Information
include the technical assessment of CIS and institutional assessment of IAs.
82 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Technical assessment of CIS
Location
The scope of irrigable area in the country was probably wider than
current estimates.
The slope maps showed that some CIS were irrigating rice areas with slopes
greater than 3 percent, particularly in areas outside large NIS like UPRIIS and MARIIS.
In some cases, CIS were irrigating small patches of areas under a 3-percent slope. The
3.1-million hectare-potential irrigable areas as dened by NIA based on the 0-3 percent
slope were quite low. There is a vast potential for small-scale irrigation development
if a good surface water source is present or if it is underlain by a good aquifer. This
lends credence to a World Bank study, which included areas up to 8-percent slope
increasing the irrigable areas to more than 6.1 million ha. These show that the basis
for the delineation of potential irrigable areas should be revisited.
Water sources and availability
The lack of surface water during dry season was a key constraint in
CIS performance.
In the feasibility study stage of a typical CIS, historical records of river discharge
are subjected to hydrologic frequency analysis using the 80-percent dependable ow
in the design. In the absence of data, engineers usually rely on empirical equations,
such as rational equation and other site-specic case studies, water balance methods,
or synthetic data generated using hydrologic models, such as the Hydrologic
Engineering Center - Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT). The reliability of these methods should always be tested
and the results calibrated with actual data.
The water sources for the surveyed CIS included lakes, rivers, creeks, springs,
groundwater, and runoff or a combination of one or more sources. Rivers, creeks,
and springs were the major sources of irrigation water in Luzon. Groundwater was
particularly used in Pampanga, Isabela, and Laguna. In the Visayas, only one sample
CIS in Bohol used groundwater as an additional source. In the Mindanao sample
CIS, rivers were the only water source in Davao del Sur while other provinces had
either springs or creeks as other sources. Except for some large rivers, there were no
historical records of the discharges of the river and creek sources for CIS.
Only 29 out of the 90 (30%) CIS visited had river sources deemed capable of
providing irrigation even during dry seasons. Seven of these rivers are very large and
82 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 83
provided water for large NIS as well. If the CIS is sourced from these rivers, dry season
crops are assured of irrigation 80 percent of the time, and only siltation and hardware
problems are left to deal with. However, the majority of CIS were sourced from less
dependable small rivers and creeks, as well as springs and runoff (rainfall excess),
which did not even have historical records of ows that can serve as a basis for
sensible engineering designs. In these cases, the source of water is a major problem.
This was compounded by environmental problems, such as denuded watershed cover
due to logging and kaingin and land use conversion, among others. Moreover, the ow
records showed that even during the 1970s, the minimum measured ows were way
below the mean daily discharge. This indicates that even larger rivers, in some cases,
may not be able to supply irrigation during the dry season.
Many parts of the country had extensive and productive aquifers which can be
tapped as supplementary sources of irrigation water.
Adequate groundwater was found in parts of Isabela, Pampanga, Pangasinan,
Ilocos Norte, Laguna, Leyte, Iloilo, Davao del Sur, and North and South Cotabato.
Meanwhile, localized productive aquifers were present in Cagayan and other parts of
Isabela, Camarines Sur, Benguet, and Occidental Mindoro, Bohol, Leyte, Iloilo, Capiz,
Davao del Sur, and North and South Cotabato. For Benguet, localized perched aquifers
were the sources of springs. Bohol, on the other hand, has many springs due to the
karst formations underlying the province. On the other hand, Nueva Vizcaya and
Nueva Ecija were without signicant or limited pumpable groundwater, particularly
since the visited CIS were located on the outskirts of the Pampanga River Basin.
Water delivery program
Based on IA self-assessment, the implementation of the CIS water delivery
program was satisfactory.
Water delivery performance indicators include exibility, reliability, and
equitability (Table 6). Flexibility refers to the ability of CIS to deviate from an
established irrigation schedule. Based on farmers’ perception, the average exibility
index was computed at 3.3 in Luzon and 3.7 in both Visayas and Mindanao. This
indicates that the exibility was quite high. The highest was 4 in Benguet, Bohol,
Capiz, Davao del Sur, and North and South Cotabato, and the lowest was 1.5 in Nueva
Ecija. The lowest in Mindanao was in Bukidnon at 2.7. Most of the interviewed IAs
had dened schedules for water releases, especially during the dry season when
water is limiting, but is rather exible during the wet season when water is more
than sufcient. Some IAs had strict rules and penalties for noncompliance or water
84 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
stealing. Flexibility in larger irrigation systems may be limited by the lack of control
structures to divide or divert ows between zones.
Table 6. Water delivery performance indices in all the IMOs visited
IMO Flexibility Index Reliability Index Equitability Index
Luzon (average) 3.3 3.5 3.7
Pampanga 3.8 3.2 3.7
Nueva Ecija 1.5 3.2 3
Pangasinan 3.7 3.5 3.8
Ilocos Norte 3.3 3.2 3.8
Benguet 4.0 3.8 3.8
Camarines Sur 3.2 3.8 3.7
Nueva Vizcaya 4.0 3.8 4.0
Isabela 3.0 3.6 3.8
Cagayan 3.0 2.8 3.3
Occidental
Mindoro 2.7 3.8 3.8
Laguna 3.7 3.3 4.0
Visayas (average) 3.7 3.7 3.7
Bohol 4.0 4.0 4.0.
Leyte 3.7 3.7 3.7
Iloilo 3.0 3.0 3.0
Capiz 4.0 4.0 4.0
Mindanao (average) 3.7 3.7 3.5
Davao del Sur 4.0 4.0 4.0
South Cotabato 4.0 4.0 4.0
North Cotabato 4.0 4.0 4.0
Bukidnon 2.7 2.7 2.0
IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: KII with ofcers/members of irrigators’ associations (IAs)
Reliability is an expression of condence by the irrigation system to deliver
water as promised (Murray-Rust and Snellen 1993). It is also the degree to which the
irrigation system conforms to prior expectations of its users (Rao 1993). The average
score for Luzon based on the KIIs was a high 3.5. However, it was higher at 3.7 in
both Visayas and Mindanao, indicating reliable water delivery. Some farmers were
resigned to the fact that water is scarce during a certain dry period to the point they
would not receive water. As such, they usually nd other water sources, such as
84 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 85
STWs or low-lift pump. The almost uniform rainfall distribution in Mindanao and the
reliable water sources in both Visayas and Mindanao were plus factors.
Equitability, referred to as equity in some literature, is the spatial uniformity of
the ratio of the delivered amount to the required amount (Molden and Gates 1990).
It is also an expression of the share for each individual or group considered fair by
all system members (Murray-Rust and Snellen 1993). Based on KIIs, the average
equitability index score in Luzon and Visayas was also high at 3.7 and a bit lower in
Mindanao at 3.5. This means that the members considered the distribution of water
among members per IA as equitable. Most IAs interviewed practiced downstream rst
irrigation scheduling during the dry season. Flexibility, reliability, and equitability
of water delivery was not a problem in Benguet because all CIS were sourced from
springs and mountain rivers. Water is also stored on a series of storage tanks and
distributed to individual patches of lands with the use of high-density polyethylene
hoses. The reliability of water source was the main reason for the high index ratings
of CIS in Bohol, Capiz, Davao del Sur, North Cotabato, and South Cotabato.
Water management practices
Water management practices, such as alternate wet-and-dry and reuse of
drainage water, were adopted in majority of CIS.
The lack of proper water management practices, both by the farmers and the related
agencies, has been identied as one of the reasons for the low irrigation efciency.
To enhance such low irrigation efciency, it is suggested that capacity development
and the introduction of new water-saving technologies be required. IAs were also
asked how they conserve water or cope with expected water decits. Specically,
they were asked if they practice alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or if they reuse
drainage water for irrigation. In Luzon, 27 out of 64 (42%) IAs said they practiced AWD.
Meanwhile, 6 out of 12 (50%) IAs in the Visayas and 9 out of 12 IAs (75%) in Mindanao
practiced AWD. IAs learned the technology by attending training conducted by the
Philippine Rice Research Institute or the International Rice Research Institute and
sponsored by NIA. In Benguet, AWD was not applicable because the crops planted
were not rice. Only 10 percent of IAs in Luzon reused drainage water for irrigation.
Meanwhile, this was again higher in the Visayas and Mindanao, at 50 percent and
83 percent, respectively. Other IAs had no idea whether they practice AWD or
drainage reuse or not. Table 7 shows the result of the KII.
86 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 7. Water management pracces in all the IMOs visited
IMO Praccing AWD Reusing Drainage Water
Yes No Yes No
Luzon 27 37 6 56
Pampanga 5 1 2 2
Nueva Ecija 1 5 0 6
Pangasinan 2 4 0 6
Ilocos Norte 2 4 0 6
Benguet 3 3 3 3
Camarines Sur 4 2 0 6
Nueva Vizcaya 0 5 0 5
Isabela 2 3 0 5
Cagayan 3 3 0 6
Occidental
Mindoro 2 4 0 6
Laguna 3 3 1 5
Visayas 6 6 6 6
Leyte 2 1 0 3
Iloilo 3 0 3 0
Capiz 1 2 0 3
Mindanao 9 3 10 2
Davao del Sur 3 0 3 0
South
Cotabato 3 0 3 0
North
Cotabato 3 0 3 0
Bukidnon 0 3 1 2
IMO = irrigation management ofces; AWD = alternate wetting and drying
Source: KII with ofcers/members of IAs
Sedimentation and silt control
Many CIS were rated by their IAs as being heavily silted.
The IAs from Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Bohol, North Cotabato, South Cotabato,
and Bukidnon rated their silt level as high, which veried the observations from the
walkthroughs (Table 8). Silt levels in canals were also high in Nueva Vizcaya, but the
values assigned by IAs were relatively low. Members in these areas conducted regular
cleaning of canals since CIS canals were small and did not require renting a backhoe,
unlike that in NIS. Heavy siltation was mostly observed in the dams of most systems
86 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 87
during the walkthroughs. IAs also reported relatively high undesired seepage,
primarily because most them still wanted all their canals to be concrete-lined.
The provision of silt control devices was not included in the CIS design manual
of NIA. However, several silt control devices were encountered during the eld visits,
all of which were observed in Mindanao. This is quite understandable given that the
catchment management program of the Water Resources Development Project (1998)
was piloted in Mindanao.
Table 8. Silt and seepage levels in the canals of CIS for each IMO
IMO Silt Level Grade Undesired Seepage Grade
Luzon (average) 1.7 2.7
Pampanga 1.5 2.8
Nueva Ecija 1.8 3.8
Pangasinan 3.0 2.7
Ilocos Norte 1.3 2.5
Benguet 0.8 3.7
Camarines Sur 3.3 2.0
Nueva Vizcaya 0.7 2.0
Isabela 1.5 2.8
Cagayan 1.7 2.5
Occidental Mindoro 2.7 0.5
Laguna 0.6 4.0
Visayas (average) 1.3 3.6
Bohol 3.3 3.3
Leyte 0.0 4.0
Iloilo 2.0 3.0
Capiz 0.0 4.0
Mindanao (average) 2.8 2.7
Davao del Sur 0.0 0.0
South Cotabato 4.0 4.0
North Cotabato 4.0 4.0
Bukidnon 3.3 2.7
Note: For silt level grade, the ratings go from 0 = low to 4 = high. For Undesired seepage grade, the ratings
go from 0 = high to 4 = very low seepage
CIS = communal irrigation systems; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: KII with ofcers/members of IAs
88 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Design considerations
Shortcomings in system design complicated subsequent O&M.
The CIS dams are mostly run-of-the-river types with simple designs, such as
ogee-type or glacis spillways, gated weirs, and gabions. Some dams are quite old, with
exposed rock cores, damaged spillways, or silted storage area. Most of the dams visited
had sediments almost at the crest level. These would require dredging to increase the
storage capacity and increase water available for irrigation. Large-scale silt problems
that will require the use of backhoe need the assistance of NIA.
The sluice gates are used to control the water level at the dam and ush out
sediments preventing it from entering the intake gates, which control the amount of
water entering the system. Most of the sluice gates and intake gates usually made of
steel were replaced with ashboards, sandbags, or stones. In one CIS, the steel sluice
gates were not even installed. In some relatively larger CIS, the lifting mechanisms
were defective or rather slow. IAs in Visayas and Mindanao resorted to using second-
hand or rented chain blocks to facilitate lifting and closing the gates. These gates
should be repaired or replaced to ensure proper control of the water and sediment
intake.
Since CIS have small FUSA, infrastructure costs are more for canal linings and
control structures. Most of the CIS visited had lined main canals while some have
lined canals up to the laterals. The conditions of the lined and unlined canals depend
primarily on whether the IA have good O&M and cleanup activities. Siltation was a
major problem but usually, the IA can manage to clean the canals themselves
Since the discharge capacity was small, only simple structures were found in
most CIS. While some were well maintained, others have deteriorated and the control
structures were not functioning well as originally intended. These included cross
regulators, check gates, drop structures, division boxes, and farm turnouts. Cross
regulators were found only in the main canals of some large CIS while check gates
were more common on small main canals and laterals. In most new CIS, the steel gates
were still in good condition and the screws and turning wheels were still operating.
In older and improperly managed CIS, the gates were already damaged and replaced
by wooden slabs or, in some cases, none.
Drop structures are ubiquitous in all systems and are lined to prevent channel
scouring and erosion. They are often combined with check gates and division boxes
to minimize costs. Division boxes are also usually made of concrete with slots for
wooden slabs, which serve as control gates. The control of ow direction is done by
88 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 89
the water master based on agreed upon irrigation schedules. The density of farm
turnouts depends on the FUSA of CIS. Together with the check gates, it inuences
the exibility and efciency of water delivery within the system. Only four CIS had
digitized maps of their system and some of the maps did not indicate the kind of
structures present in the system. Some CIS had inverted siphons channeling water
under roads or rivers. Most of these structures have been rehabilitated or desilted
already. Still, some were under request for repair. Elevated umes can also be found
in some CIS.
There were no ow measuring structures. Any form of ow measurement was
done at the headworks, but these were only based on staff gauge readings and rating
curves, most of which have not been recalibrated since the CIS construction. Other
miscellaneous or appurtenant structures commonly found in all CIS included road
and thresher crossings, end checks, and service roads. IAs generally regarded poorly
the availability of roads along canals. Most service roads were rough roads with most
dams accessible only by walking or by motorcycle, which added more cost to the
farmers to deliver their harvest to rice mills and storage facilities. One of the main
requests of IAs was the provision of farm-to-market roads to ease this burden.
There were no specic drainage canals at CIS. Normally, the downstream farm
ditches receive the excess water from paddies, sometimes used to irrigate downstream
areas. In most systems, water distribution downstream was from paddy to paddy,
without individual farm ditch for each paddy. Again, the downstream canal serves as
the drainage canal. These are done to maximize areas devoted to planting. However,
the absence of drainage canals more often contributes to ooding or a longer time for
ood recession.
Maintenance
Based on IA self-assessment, maintenance of CIS was rated as mostly satisfactory.
As shown in Table 9, most IAs regarded the water distribution as more than
satisfactory with an average rating of 3.2 in Luzon, 3.5 in Visayas, and 3.4 in Mindanao.
The results also showed that the canals and control structures were deemed well
maintained, indicating the management and policy implementation of the individual
IAs themselves. A major contributing factor was the small size of CIS, which makes
them easier to manage and maintain, even with the occurrence of high siltation in
the canals.
90 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 9. Performance rang on water distribuon, maintenance of canals,
and maintenance of control structures in all the IMOs visited
Province Water Distribuon Maintenance of
Canals
Maintenance of
Control Structures
Luzon (average) 3.2 3.1 2.9
Ilocos Norte 2.7 3.0 2.0
Pangasinan 3.0 2.8 3.0
Cagayan 2.7 2.8 3.0
Isabela 3.2 3.5 2.8
Nueva Viscaya 2.7 2.8 2.8
Pampanga 3.7 3.3 3.5
Nueva Ecija 3.5 3.7 3.2
Camarines Sur 3.3 3.2 3.2
Laguna 4.0 3.4 3.6
Occ. Mindoro 3.2 2.7 2.5
Benguet 3.0 2.8 2.8
Visayas (average) 3.5 3.3 3.4
Bohol 4.0 3.0 3.0
Leyte 4.0 4.0 4.0
Iloilo 3.0 3.0 3.0
Capiz 3.0 3.0 3.3
Mindanao (average) 3.4 3.4 3.3
Davao del Sur 4.0 4.0 4.0
South Cotabato 3.7 3.7 3.7
North Cotabato 3.0 3.0 3.0
Bukidnon 2.7 2.7 2.3
Note: 0 - Very Poor; 1 – Poor; 2 – Average; 3 – Satisfactory; 4 - Excellent
IMOs = irrigation management ofces
Source: KII with ofcers/members of IAs
Institutional assessment of IAs
Performance indicators
Based on specic indicators of functionality, IAs in Luzon were getting relatively
lower ratings on O&M and nancial indicators, compared to organization and
organizational discipline.
On average, majority of the provinces had IAs far from the 40-percent score in
O&M and 30 percent in nancial performance. IAs had scores closer to organization-
90 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 91
related indicators (Table 10). In the Visayas, only Iloilo got an overall fair rating. Its
IAs had the lowest average score in the different indicators, except in organizational
discipline where it was highest. Leyte had the highest rating in O&M, Capiz in nancial
performance, and Bohol in assistance program and linkages (Table 11). In Mindanao,
only Davao del Sur got an overall rating of outstanding, securing the highest score in
O&M and nancial. Other provinces’ IAs also did well with a very satisfactory rating.
Bukidnon was the highest in linkages (Table 12).
Table 10. Average rang of the individual indicators for IAs’ funconality
rang in 11 selected provinces in Luzon
Province (Rang) O&M
(40%)
Organi-
zaon
(15%)
Financial
(30%)
Organi-
zaonal
Discipline
(15%)
Average
Scores in
addional
indicators
Final
Rang
(Total)
Pampanga (S) 30.88 12.67 24.69 12.89 2.58 83.71
Nueva Ecija (S) 30.90 12.75 20.91 12.24 3.79 80.62
Pangasinan (S) 32.58 12.25 18.40 12.48 6.16 81.87
Ilocos Norte (S) 32.87 14.21 20.58 14.69 7.72 82.95
Camarines Sur (S) 29.45 13.37 19.67 13.71 3.25 79.42
Nueva Vizcaya (VS) 34.60 12.85 22.10 12.39 3.76 85.69
Isabela (VS) 35.47 13.03 21.09 12.67 2.79 87.83
Cagayan (S) 32.51 12.43 19.35 13.26 5.50 83.05
Laguna (F) 27.96 11.05 17.49 11.48 4.12 72.10
Occidental
Mindoro (F) 23.18 11.54 21.38 11.40 4.50 72.00
ALL (S) 31.04 12.62 20.57 12.72 4.42 81.16
IA = irrigators’ association; O&M = operations and maintenance
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of respective provincial IMOs (as of
2013 and 2014)
Coping strategies and assistance received
The IAs have adjusted to the limited water access through various coping
strategies with support from NIA.
Over 48 percent of IAs in Luzon reported problems related to water access in
terms of quantity and timeliness of delivery. This was related to the operation and
92 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
management of the system, as well as access to funds needed for rehabilitation.
Similarly, access to funds needed for rehabilitation, followed by O&M, was raised by
the majority of IAs in the Visayas. In Mindanao, access to water and access to funds
were equally important issues to IAs. O&M and access to credit were likewise cited by
majority of IAs.
To supplement irrigation water supply particularly during dry spells, 34 percent
of IAs in Luzon used STWs, low lift pumps, or deep wells, but the members did this
Table 11. Average rang of the individual indicators for IAs’ funconality
rang in four selected provinces in the Visayas
Province
(Rang)
O&M (35%) Financial
(26%)
Organi-
zaonal
Discipline
(25%)
Assistance
Program/
Linkages
(10%)
Special
Features
(4%)
Final Rang
(Total)
Bohol (VS) 31.33 22.00 22.67 9.00 2.33 88.33
Leyte (VS) 35.07 23.50 22.76 8.67 2.37 91.58
Iloilo (F) 28.40 17.12 23.53 4.40 0.35 73.80
Capiz (S) 31.20 24.50 22.77 4.67 1.67 84.80
ALL (S) 31.50 21.78 22.93 6.68 1.68 84.63
IA = irrigators’ association; O&M = operations and maintenance; VS = very satisfactory; F = fair; S= satisfactory
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of four IMOs (as of 2017)
Table 12. Average rang of the individual indicators for IAs’ funconality rang
in four selected provinces in Mindanao
Province (Rang) O&M
(35%)
Financial
(26%)
Organiza-
onal
Discipline
(25%)
Assistance
Program/
Linkages
(10%)
Special
Features
(4%)
Final
Rang
(Total)
Davao del Sur (O) 34.50 24.00 28.55 6.00 3.50 96.55
North Cotabato (VS) 33.53 18.43 27.07 5.50 3.75 88.27
South Cotabato (VS) 32.05 21.25 24.35 4.90 2.63 85.18
Bukidnon (VS) 32.07 22.33 22.90 7.50 2.28 87.08
ALL (VS) 32.99 21.28 25.57 6.10 3.04 88.95
IA = irrigators’ association; O&M = operations and maintenance; O = outstanding; VS = very satisfactory;
Source: Authors’ data obtained from functionality survey reports of four IMOs (as of 2017)
92 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 93
individually. The other 25 percent adjusted water scheduling or practice rotational
irrigation, while another 18 percent planted alternative crops, such as corn, mung
bean, or watermelon. The rest of IAs did nothing to cope with a dry spell. In the
Visayas, majority planted alternative crops but 33 percent did nothing. In Mindanao,
majority resorted to pumps, STWs, deep wells; adjusted water scheduling or practiced
water rotation; or practiced AWD. Other IAs also planted alternate crops.
IAs that rated high performance cited the following good practices:
• resourcefulness of IA president in generating funds, such as through Balik
Tangkilik (patronage refund) from selling to the National Food Authority
and assistance from government programs, such as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and international projects;
• coordination of IA with the barangay council to adopt the IA policy,
such as water distribution, for enforcement of policies through a
barangay resolution;
• strong cooperation of IA members in the strict implementation of the
provisions of by-laws, such as payment of IA fees, imposition of penalties
for absence in meetings and violation in water scheduling, no receipt, no
water, and rst-come, rst-served basis in water delivery;
• effective nancial management to ensure funds for O&M and loan
repayment, incentives for early payment of fees, and income-generating
activities, such as equipment rental, selling farm inputs, and crop
diversication; and
• regular cleaning of dam and main canals, including trimming of the grasses,
before the start of the rainy season. They also avoided using herbicide
which they fear could contaminate irrigation.
Of 66 IAs interviewed in Luzon, 51 reported getting continuous support from
NIA. By province, Ilocos Norte, Cagayan, and Laguna had the least number of IAs
with support from NIA. Assistance from NIA included the use of equipment and other
services, such as desilting. All IAs in the Visayas and Mindanao reported that NIA
provided them continuous support.
Majority (80%) of IAs in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao rated NIA assistance as
excellent in terms of technical, nancial, and institutional aspects, among others.
Technical assistance included rehabilitation of the system, concreting of canal and
construction of irrigation facilities. Meanwhile, nancial assistance primarily came
from LGUs and politicians. Institutional assistance included training and capacity-
building activities. Other services included lending of heavy equipment. Other
94 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
agencies providing assistance as cited by IAs in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
included the Department of Agriculture (DA) and its attached agencies, such as the
Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM).
Recommendaons
Irrigation planning and feasibility
The scope of potential irrigable areas for CIS needs to be widened. However, other key data must
be obtained to properly delimit areas suitable for irrigation.
Three criteria are proposed for identication of potential areas for CIS. The
rst is to consider all areas with up to 8-percent slope, minus the built-up and other
protected areas. This will serve to widen the scope of potential irrigable areas for CIS.
The second criteria should be the presence of a dependable surface water source and a
good shallow aquifer, which may be used as a supplemental water supply. Hydrologic
data acquisition and monitoring should be improved and expanded to smaller rivers,
creeks, and groundwater. Empirically derived ows should also be reviewed, with
special consideration on the effect of climate change. There should be a concerted
effort among concerned government agencies, such as the National Water Resources
Board, NIA, BSWM, and the academe to identify potential sites for diversion dams
and storage reservoirs. The third criteria should be soil texture and its suitability to
different types of crops, which would support crop diversication.
Addressing low water availability
The practice of supplementing irrigation from surface sources with groundwater from STWs should be
encouraged, especially in areas where surface water sources, such as creeks, have very low dependable
discharges during the dry season and for areas underlain by good shallow aquifers.
While using STW pumps and engines incurs additional fuel costs, they do provide
a reliable water source during intense drought periods or El Niño episodes. Moreover,
farmers have control of irrigation schedules and ows, enabling some of them to
increase cropping intensity or diversify into other crops. Some NIA IMOs have already
installed standby STWs, which they only use during periods of prolonged droughts.
94 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon Communal Irrigaon Systems | 95
Farmers’ initiatives in deployment of STWs should receive stronger support from DA
and NIA.
To address low irrigation efciency, IA capacity development and the introduction of new
water saving technologies and cropping practices should be promoted and/or sustained.
In CIS where the dry season ow cannot support anymore the dry season
irrigation requirements, various options are still available to IAs. These include
reliance on water-saving technologies like AWD and adjustment of cropping practices
for rice, such as direct seeding to minimize water use from land soaking and land
preparation. IA may also consider crop diversication like planting nonrice crops or
crops requiring less water, particularly in areas at the tail-end of the system.
Another option that needs to be given greater consideration is the adoption of piped
irrigation systems.
Common suggestions raised by IAs to address problems in their systems usually
refer to physical measures, including lining of canals and rehabilitation of irrigation
systems or structures. Generally, rehabilitation connotes lining of canals. However,
the concreting of canals is impractical if the soil is clayey. With the availability of
low-cost, high-density polyethylene pipes, it is about time to look into the feasibility
of using these materials for subsurface canals, instead of concreting open channels to
convey irrigation to the elds.
Currently, such piped systems are seldom considered in system design owing to
high investment costs. A more sophisticated trash rack or sediment control at the
intake is also needed to prevent clogging. Drain holes and repair vents are also needed
at key locations in the systems, which again increase the investment cost. Other
problems may be rat infestation, which may cause further clogging of the system and
destruction of rice crops.
Nonetheless, the high initial cost and other disadvantages may be offset by
several benets, including:
• lower O&M cost due to reduced rubbish and sediments in the system;
• increased areas for planting as the canal is buried underground and risers
are used to distribute water to farm ditches;
• lower costs for right-of-way acquisitions;
• reduced seepage and percolation losses; and
• easier water control in terms of command and ow.
96 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Lastly, piped systems are easier to modify to install sprinkler systems, thereby
facilitating crop diversication should IAs seek to move out of rice monoculture.
Addressing siltation and other technical issues
Design modications of CIS are needed to anticipate water shortages and siltation.
Provision for rotational irrigation should also be incorporated in the design of canal
system, with more checks or control gates for more efcient water distribution.
Drainage should be taken into consideration in the design criteria to avoid gross
underestimation of on-farm water losses.
In the case of rehabilitation work, existing systems must be checked for design shortcomings,
such as underestimation of ood ows and sediment loads, inadequate provisions for sediment
control, and underestimation of reservoir inow and outow hydrographs.
Generally, the dams and control structures should be properly maintained and
repaired to ensure proper water control and distribution. The dam storage area should
be regularly cleared of sediments to increase storage capacity and extend irrigation
even with diminished river ows. This should be part of regular O&M activities of the
IAs. If heavy equipment is necessary, NIA should extend help to IAs.
Chapter 4
Water Resources Component
Guillermo Q. Tabios III and Tomas Paolo Z. De Leon
Introducon
In the Pampanga River Basin (excluding O’Donnell, Camiling, and west of Agno
River Basins), there are ve major national irrigation systems (NIS), namely, Upper
Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation System (UPRIIS), Casecnan, Balog-Balog,
Pampanga Delta River Irrigation System (PDRIS), and Angat-Maasim River Irrigation
System (AMRIS). Two of these NIS—AMRIS and PDRIS—were constructed with design
service areas of 31,400 hectares (ha) and 11,540 ha, respectively. However, since the
completion of the AMRIS irrigation canal (conveyance) system in the mid-1970s, its
actual irrigated area has only reached as much as 27,000 ha during the dry season and
as much as 18,000 ha during the wet season. Farmers often do not risk planting in
ood-prone areas (Tabios and David 2014). In the case of PDRIS, which was completed
98 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
in 2002, it has irrigated only as much as 6,900 ha during the dry season and 1,000 ha
during the wet season. Same as AMRIS, farmers plant less during the wet season
due to risk of ooding (Tabios and David 2014). In both AMRIS and PDRIS, physical
features like slope, geology, soil, and topography may have led to overestimation of
design service areas. However, other major factors, such as water availability, land-use
change, underdeveloped irrigation facilities, and frequent ood inundation of the
area contributed in actual, historical irrigated areas annually to be below their design
irrigation areas as shown by Tabios and David (2014).
This study assessed the design of irrigation service areas according to its original
plan compared to the actual service areas in relation to water availability, land use
(including ood vulnerability), and status of irrigation facilities. The approach here
is to evaluate the ability (how much) of the water resources (water source), land
resources (slope, soils, and land use), as well as irrigation facilities to irrigate so much
area through watershed and irrigation modeling and simulation.
The background material presented here on the AMRIS and PDRIS were mostly
taken from Tabios and David (2014).
Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System
As shown in Figure 1, the Angat Reservoir inows come from the Angat watershed,
as well as from the Umiray watershed through the Umiray transbasin tunnel. The
bulk of irrigation water supply of AMRIS comes from the Angat Reservoir releases
to Bustos Dam. The local inows from Bustos watershed (i.e., inows between Angat
Reservoir and Bustos Dam) also contribute to Bustos Dam and thus become part of
the AMRIS irrigation water supply. The Angat Reservoir also supplies domestic water
for Metro Manila’s Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) through
the Ipo Dam, which is viewed as competing with AMRIS for water supply intended
for irrigation. Likewise, local inows from Ipo watershed (i.e., inows between Angat
Dam and Ipo Dam) become part of the domestic water supply for Metro Manila.
The watershed areas associated with each watershed in Figure 1 are as
follows: (1) Angat watershed with 546.2 square kilometers (sq. km); (2) Umiray
watershed with 124.4 sq. km; (3) Ipo watershed with 72.3 sq. km; and (4) Bustos
watershed with 233.3 sq. km. As shown in Figure 1, AMRIS has watershed area of
314.8 sq. km.
Data of historical irrigated service areas from NIA Ofce in Quezon City showed
that during the wet cropping season (window between June and October), the irrigated
area declined from 22,000 ha to 17,500 ha in the last 10 years. Likewise, during the dry
cropping season (window between December and April), the irrigated area declined
Water Resources Component | 99
Figure 1. Angat Reservoir water resource system, including the Angat-Maasim
River Irrigaon System (AMRIS)
Source: Tabios and David (2014)
from 27,500 ha to 24,000 ha. The original design service area of about 31,400 ha was
never attained.
Given these historical irrigated areas, Tabios and David (2014) showed,
using simple water balance computation for AMRIS planted with paddy rice,
that the average daily paddy rice water requirement without wasted water is
1.12 liters/second/ha (lps/ha) or 0.00112 cubic meters/second/ha (CMS/ha) and
1.67 lps/ha or 0.00167 CMS/ha with wasted water. During the four-month cropping
season, irrigation water requirement ranges from 19.6 to 29.2 CMS (without and with
wasted water, respectively) during the wet season for a 17,500 ha planted area. For
a 24,000 ha area, irrigation water requirement ranges from 26.88 to 40.1 CMS during
the dry season.
100 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 1 shows the historical releases (in CMS) of Angat Reservoir to AMRIS, as
well as MWSS. Also shown are the monthly water allocations by NWRB based on daily
data from 1996 to 2013. Data are used by NWRB in allocating or scheduling monthly
releases to AMRIS. Note that the target water allocation for MWSS is xed at 46 CMS
but the average historical releases is only 36.28 CMS as shown in Table 1. On the other
hand, the average annual historical releases (on daily basis) for AMRIS are 27.46 CMS,
which is around the midpoint of the range of paddy rice water requirement of 19.6 CMS
(minimum if without wasted water) and 40.1 CMS (maximum if with wasted water).
Table 1. Monthly average releases to MWSS and AMRIS from Angat Reservoir
(1996–2013) and NWRB allocaon for NIA-AMRIS (in CMS)
Month Historical Releases
to MWSS
Historical Releases
to NIA-AMRIS
NWRB Allocaon
for NIA-AMRIS
January 37.97 38.50 36.00
February 39.30 35.80 39.86
March 38.74 27.94 31.00
April 40.01 14.12 15.50
May 41.09 7.94 0.00
June 43.88 15.58 27.90
July 33.17 20.97 28.00
August 29.01 21.51 25.00
September 29.99 24.87 22.73
October 34.21 28.56 13.00
November 32.82 39.80 17.57
December 35.19 53.88 34.00
Annual average 36.28 27.46 24.21
MWSS = Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System; AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System;
NWRB = National Water Resources Board; NIA = National Irrigation Administration; CMS = cubic meters/second.
Source: Tabios (2017)
Table 2 shows the ow duration analysis of historical and computed daily ows
using the Sacramento-based watershed model of Angat Reservoir inows, Ipo Dam
local inows, Bustos Dam local inows, and Umiray River ow diversions to Angat.
As seen in this table, the range of dependable Bustos Dam local inow at 80 percent (about
290 days a year) and 60 percent (about 220 days a year) are 2.97 and 8.66 CMS, respectively,
which cover the decit of about 6 CMS mentioned above. The Angat Reservoir monthly
releases as allocated by NWRB with an average daily ow of 24.21 CMS were adequate
Water Resources Component | 101
for AMRIS despite the higher NWRB allocation for MWSS at 46 CMS. However, it should
be noted that the actual historical releases from Angat Reservoir to AMRIS is 27.46 CMS
while the actual releases to MWSS are only about 36.28 CMS, although the latter may be
augmented by Ipo Dam local inows, which has a daily average of 8.72 CMS.
The big question here is why the historical, actual irrigated area of AMRIS is less than
the designed irrigated area of 31,400 ha. During the dry season, the actual irrigated area of
AMRIS is about 23,000 ha (or about 73% of the design area) while during the wet season,
it is about 17,500 ha (or about 56% of the design area). Tabios and David (2014) and recent
estimates by authors of this chapter showed that during the dry season, out of 31,400 ha
design service area, the effective area is about 23,000 ha because 3,400 ha is above the
18-m elevation, which cannot be served by Bustos Dam since its operational crest elevation
is only 17.5 m, and 5,000 ha is already urbanized. During the wet season, an additional
5,500 ha (mostly below 7-m elevation) is a ood-prone area. Farmers do not risk planting in
this area, leaving only a total of 17,500 ha that is normally planted.
Table 2. Historical and watershed model computed daily ows of Angat Reservoir
inows, Ipo Dam local inows, Bustos Dam local inows, and Umiray
River ow diversions to Angat Reservoir (in CMS)
Angat Reservoir Inows Ipo Dam
Local Inows
Bustos Dam
Local Inows
Umiray
River Flow
Diversions
to Angat
Reservoir
Historical
Data
(1996–2012)
Model
Computed
(1996–2012)
Model
Computed
(1974–2013)
Average 63.01 63.30 65.98 8.72 28.18 15.02
Minimum 0.00 1.68 0.71 0.09 0.31 0.16
Maximum 1526 2309 2988 398 1278 684
Q90%* 4.64 4.78 3.56 0.47 1.52 0.80
Q80% 12.68 8.79 6.97 0.91 2.97 1.58
Q60% 27.99 23.25 20.33 2.66 8.66 4.59
Q40% 46.50 47.11 45.80 6.02 19.53 10.40
Q20% 80.11 89.94 91.91 12.23 39.66 21.08
CMS = cubic meters/second
*Q90% is referred to as the 90-percent dependable ow, which is the amount being equal to or exceeded
90 percent-of-the-time
Source: Tabios (2017)
102 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Pampanga Delta River Irrigation System
The PDRIS was completed around 2002. It has a design service area of 11,540 ha.
As shown in Figure 2, the system is divided into four distinct areas: (1) West Area
(upper west part) at about 2,980 ha; (2) San Mateo Area (lower west part) at 1,380 ha;
(3) Upper East Area at 2,943 ha; and (4) Lower East Area at 4,677 ha.
Figure 2. Pampanga Delta Irrigaon System and its physical features
LU = Land use/cover; Balog = Balog-Balog irrigation service areas for Phases 1 and 2 of the project; color
codes associated to ground elevations in meters (m).
Source: Tabios and David (2014)
Water Resources Component | 103
The water source of the PDRIS is the Pampanga River, which is diverted through
the Cong Dadong Dam diversion structure. The physical features of Cong Dadong Dam
are as follows: (1) the dam elevation is 8.6 meters (m) with a height of 1.3 m; (2) the
length is xed at 850 m plus a movable length of 150 m; (3) a sediment ushing sluice
gate with a width of 36.5 m; and (4) the irrigation water intake water level is at 8.5 m
with a maximum discharge of 20.18 CMS.
For the design service area of 11,540 ha, the irrigation water supply from the
Pampanga River is fairly adequate. It has been computed in this study that the
80-percent dependable ow (Pampanga River ow over 300 days a year) as shown in
Figure 3 is 108 CMS; thus, the only constrain is the intake structure of the diversion
dam, which has a maximum intake discharge of 20.18 CMS. Similar to AMRIS, for a
high end of 0.00167 CMS (1.67 liters/sec) per ha water requirement for paddy rice, the
average daily water requirement is about 19.3 CMS for the design area of 11,540 ha.
Figure 3. Long-term dependable (80%) daily ows over the Lower Pampanga
River (in m3/s)
Source: NHRC (2011)
104 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
The historical irrigated service areas of PDRIS from 2003 to 2014 during the wet
season is about 5,000 ha (about 35% of the design service area of 11,540 ha) and 6,900 ha
at maximum during the dry season (about 60% of the design area) (Inocencio 2016).
Based on a geographic information system map of this area, estimates of areas
covered according to physical features or land use are as follows: (1) the built-up or
urbanized area is about 1,050 ha; (2) areas with sh ponds is about 1,650 ha; (3) areas
with an elevation of 8.5 m or higher, which is above intake level at Cong Dadong Dam,
is about 2,000 ha; and (4) ood-prone areas during the wet season, which are normally
below 3-m elevation, are about 950 ha.
With the above information, the sum of the rst three land areas is 4,700 ha
while the remaining area that can be irrigated out of 11,540 ha is 6,840 ha. During the
wet season, the additional 950 ha that are ood-prone reduce the irrigated area to
5,890 ha. Discussions with NIA personnel during eld visits (see next section) yielded
further explanations, such as: (1) there are locally elevated paddy areas that cannot
be reached by water (by gravity) and therefore require land grading or cutting and
(2) downstream water users may not be able to get water due to overallocation or
extraction upstream.
Hydraulic modeling of irrigaon canal network
Hydraulic model used and the AMRIS and PDRIS canal network
For this study, the unsteady ow model component of the Hydrologic Engineering
Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) of the United States (US) Army Corps
of Engineers (1995) was utilized to simulate the canal hydraulics of AMRIS with
reservoir releases from the Angat Reservoir. The hydraulic model is used to conduct a
simulation of the AMRIS operations for different irrigation water inows as basis for
evaluating the ability and reliability of AMRIS to provide irrigation water in the service
area. Figure 4 shows the details of the AMRIS irrigation canal layout.
To evaluate the ability and reliability of PDRIS to provide irrigation water in its
irrigation area, the unsteady ow model component of the HEC-RAS of the US Army
Corps of Engineers (1995) was used. Meanwhile, the Sacramento watershed model
was utilized to calculate the inows of Pampanga River Basin and the water diverted
through Cong Dadong Dam. Figure 5 shows the details of the PDRIS irrigation system
and the coverage of the Pampanga River Basin watershed model in which the inow to
PDRIS is extracted from the Pampanga River at Cong Dadong Dam diversion structure.
Water Resources Component | 105
Figure 4. Details of the Angat-Maasim River Irrigaon System
Source: NIA Ofce, San Rafael, Bulacan
Figure 5. Details of the Pampanga Delta Irrigaon System (PDRIS) canal layout
Source: NIA Ofce, San Rafael, Bulacan
106 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Procedure for hydraulic modeling of irrigation canal network
The steps in the hydraulic modeling of the irrigation canal network are summarized
in Figure 6. It starts with the preparation of model geometry data from maps of the
canal network provided by NIA. For AMRIS, Figure 7 shows the plan view of the main
canal and associated irrigation service sub-areas together with the prole of the
Figure 6. Steps in hydraulic modeling of irrigaon canal network
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; HEC-RAS = Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
Source: Authors’ illustration
Water Resources Component | 107
canal. These data are needed to create the model geometry of the HEC-RAS model.
Figure 7b shows the actual elevations that were recorded by NIA for their plans when
they surveyed the area in the 1990s. All data were based on NIA plans, which contain
both “actual bottom elevations” and “proposed bottom elevations”. The actual
bottom elevations were erroneous, as HEC-RAS showed, while the “proposed bottom
elevations” were uniform. The actual bottom elevations recorded by NIA at that time
Figure 7. View of irrigaon canal network plan and prole data of main canal,
including irrigaon service sub-areas at pernent lateral outlets
a. Prole data of main canal
b. Plan view of irrigaon canal network
Source: NIA Ofce, San Rafael, Bulacan
108 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
were used, although these elevations were not conrmed in the eld. It was assumed
that NIA did not perform further maintenance and improvement on the irrigation
canals, which would supposedly result in the uniform elevations.
The major boundary conditions in the model are the irrigation water supply
from Bustos Dam (upstream inow) and the water demands calculated based on the
irrigation rates according to the wet and dry cropping seasons, which are imposed
at pertinent locations along the main canal. In the hydraulic model simulations, it is
necessary to check whether the ow demand at each of the irrigation delivery points
can be satised or not according to the crop water requirements and whether there
are areas that can become ooded depending on ow conditions.
Since there was difculty (or perhaps unavailability) of channel network
geometry data for PDRIS, it was decided that only the AMRIS and, in particular, its
north main canal (NMC) be subjected to hydraulic modeling and simulation. The
irrigation service area associated with the NMC portion of AMRIS is about 12,200 ha,
which is about half of the irrigated area normally covered during the dry season.
Discussion of results of hydraulic simulation of AMRIS canal network
The hydraulic simulation was only conducted for the irrigation service area of AMRIS
associated with the NMC covering an area of 12,200 ha (Figure 8). The assumptions
are as follows: (1) ow comes only from the upstream section at the north outlet
of Bustos Dam, which is equal to 14.6, 18.0, and 26.65 CMS (m3/s); (2) the upstream
boundary condition is subcritical ow and downstream boundary condition is critical
ow; and (3) the actual bottom and top river elevations were considered so that the
planned elevations varied with the actual elevations due to erosion and parts of the
river that need to be scoured. Concerning the three sets of inows, the 18.0 CMS
inow is based on a typical design irrigation water requirement of 1.5 lps/ha
(0.0015 CMS/ha). Meanwhile, 14.6 and 26.65 CMS represent the water requirements at
the low end of 1.2 lps/ha (0.0012 CMS/ha) and the high end of 2.2 lps/ha (0.0022 CMS/ha),
respectively. A sample graphical display of the HEC-RAS computer model results in
a particular lateral canal of AMRIS is shown in Figure 9.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the simulation results for inows to NMC at 14.6, 18.0,
and 26.65 CMS, respectively. Figures 10 and 11, 12 and 13, as well as 14 and 15, are the
resulting water elevations and water depths at take-off to the laterals along the NMC,
respectively, for the three sets of inows. In the three tables, the major results shown
are the differences of bank elevation and water surface at NMC highlighted in green if
positive and red if negative. Negative differences indicate that the water at these take-off
Water Resources Component | 109
Figure 8. North main canal (NMC) and lateral canals of AMRIS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System
Note: Inow point is at Bustos Dam along Angat River (located on middle, left portion of the gure)
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Figure 9. Sample graphical display of HEC-RAS computer model results in a
parcular lateral canal of the of AMRIS canal network
HEC-RAS = Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System; AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System
Source: Authors’ documentation
110 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
points (from main canal to lateral canal) is overowing and perhaps simply passed
through wasted downstream of the irrigation service area. Also shown are the water
depths at NMC (main canal) highlighted in green if above 2.5 m, yellow if between 1.0 m
and 2.5 m, and red if below 1.0 m. The lower the water depth relative to the lateral
depth, the higher lift is required to move from the main canal to the lateral canal.
From these results, one may ask how much water is required to sufciently
and uniformly irrigate the target service area, which is 12,200 ha in this case.
NIA typically sets its design irrigation requirements between 1.2 and 1.8 lps/ha
(or 0.0012 and 0.0018 CMS/ha) and at an average of 1.5 lps/ha. As shown in the results
Table 3. Results of hydraulic simulaon for AMRIS north main canal with inow
of 14.6 CMS1
Lateral Staons
14.6 CMS
Water
Surface
Bank
Elevaon Dierence Lateral
Depth
Water
Depth
Grand total A Sta. 6 + 480 12.81 14.3 1.49 3.7 2.21
Grand total B Sta. 6 + 480 12.81 14.3 1.49 3.7 2.21
Grand total C Sta. 8 + 987 11.95 12.7 0.75 2.6 1.85
Grand total
NMC Sta. 9 + 770 11.78 12.9 1.12 2.5 1.38
Grand total D Sta. 10 + 780 11.22 13.0 1.78 3.0 1.22
Grand total E Sta. 11 + 715 10.61 12.6 1.99 2.2 0.21
Grand total F Sta. 11 + 890 10.37 12.5 2.13 2.5 0.37
Grand total N Sta. 12 + 264 10.33 12.4 2.07 2.4 0.33
Grand total G Sta. 13 + 240 9.52 12.0 2.48 2.5 0.02
Grand total J Sta. 16 + 048 7.03 9.0 1.97 2.0 0.03
Grand total H Sta. 20 + 080 4.92 6.1 1.18 1.2 0.02
Grand total K Sta. 21 + 248 4.46 5.0 0.54 1.0 0.46
AMRIS = Angat - Maasim River Irrigation System; NMC = north main canal; CMS = cubic meters per second
Source: Authors’ computation
1 In Tables 3, 4, and 5, the difference of bank elevation and water surface at NMC is green if positive while
red if negative, thus overowing. For the water depth at NMC (main canal): green if above 2.5 m, yellow
if between 1 m to 2.5 m, and red if below 1 m. The lower the water depth relative to the lateral depth, the
higher lift is required to move from main canal to lateral canal.
Water Resources Component | 111
Table 4. Results of hydraulic simulaon for AMRIS north main canal with inow
of 18.0 CMS
Lateral Staons
18 CMS
Water
Surface
Bank
Elevaon Dierence Lateral
Depth
Water
Depth
Grand total A Sta. 6 + 480 13.05 14.3 1.25 3.7 2.45
Grand total B Sta. 6 + 480 13.05 14.3 1.25 3.7 2.45
Grand total C Sta. 8 + 987 12.26 12.7 0.44 2.6 2.16
Grand total
NMC Sta. 9 + 770 12.09 12.9 0.81 2.5 1.69
Grand total D Sta. 10 + 780 11.68 13.0 1.32 3.0 1.68
Grand total E Sta. 11 + 715 11.12 12.6 1.48 2.2 0.72
Grand total F Sta. 11 + 890 11.05 12.5 1.45 2.5 1.05
Grand total N Sta. 12 + 264 10.95 12.4 1.45 2.4 0.95
Grand total G Sta. 13 + 240 9.83 12.0 2.17 2.5 0.33
Grand total J Sta. 16 + 048 7.12 9.0 1.88 2.0 0.12
Grand total H Sta. 20 + 080 4.93 6.1 1.17 1.2 0.03
Grand total K Sta. 21 + 248 4.47 5.0 0.53 1.0 0.47
AMRIS = Angat - Maasim River Irrigation System; NMC = north main canal; CMS = cubic meters per second
Source: Authors’ computation
here, for inow cases (delivered to the NMC) of 14.6 CMS and 18 CMS (associated
with 1.2 and 1.5 lps/ha deliveries, respectively, for a 12,2000-ha area), both
Tables 3 and 4 show that the water depths (last column) in the main canal relative
to the laterals are relatively low that it will require some pumping to transfer water
from the main canal to the lateral canal. On the other hand, the inow of 26.65 CMS
required to sufciently and uniformly supply the target irrigation service area,
which is equivalent to a requirement of 2.2 lps/ha for 12,200 ha, is quite wasteful
and excessive. The result here shows that not all of the 12,200 ha of AMRIS can be
sufciently and uniformly irrigated unless there is excessive water applied at 2.2 lps/ha.
This can be attributed to several factors. The major factor is that certain channel
sections have reduced capacities (i.e., shallowing canal) due to sedimentation.
112 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 5. Results of hydraulic simulaon for AMRIS north main canal with inow
of 26.65 CMS
Lateral Staons
26.648 CMS (Original)
Water
Surface
Bank
Elevaon Dierence Lateral
Depth
Water
Depth
Grand total A Sta. 6 + 480 13.61 14.3 0.69 3.7 3.01
Grand total B Sta. 6 + 480 13.61 14.3 0.69 3.7 3.01
Grand total C Sta. 8 + 987 12.91 12.7 -0.21 2.6 2.81
Grand total
NMC Sta. 9 + 770 12.77 12.9 0.13 2.5 2.37
Grand total D Sta. 10 + 780 12.44 13.0 0.56 3.0 2.44
Grand total E Sta. 11 + 715 11.91 12.6 0.69 2.2 1.51
Grand total F Sta. 11 + 890 11.84 12.5 0.66 2.5 1.84
Grand total N Sta. 12 + 264 11.68 12.4 0.72 2.4 1.68
Grand total G Sta. 13 + 240 10.59 12.0 1.41 2.5 1.09
Grand total J Sta. 16 + 048 8.71 9.0 0.29 2.0 1.71
Grand total H Sta. 20 + 080 6.40 6.1 -0.30 1.2 1.50
Grand total K Sta. 21 + 248 6.12 5.0 -1.12 1.0 2.12
AMRIS = Angat - Maasim River Irrigation System; NMC = north main canal; CMS = cubic meters per second
Source: Authors’ computation
Consequently, channel gradients or slopes of the channel network are reduced,
resulting in the inability to effectively deliver water over the entire area. Thus, the
inability to efciently move water from the main canal to the lateral canal even at
certain take-off points in the channel network leads to difculty in proper allocation
and uniformity of water delivery to the target irrigation service areas. Periodic
appraisal or assessment—every three years or as deemed necessary—of the efciency
of irrigation water delivery operations as illustrated here through hydraulic model
simulations must be conducted for proper maintenance and upgrade of irrigation
facility if needed.
Water Resources Component | 113
Figure 11. Simulated water depths at AMRIS north main canal with inow
of 14.6 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Figure 10. Dierences of simulated water elevaons and bank elevaons at
AMRIS north main canal with inow of 14.6 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
114 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Figure 13. Simulated water depths at AMRIS North main canal with inow
of 18.0 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Figure 12. Dierences of simulated water elevaons and bank elevaons at
AMRIS north main canal with inow of 18.0 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Water Resources Component | 115
Figure 15. Simulated water depths at North main canal with inow of 26.65 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
Figure 14. Dierences of simulated water elevaons and bank elevaons at
AMRIS north main canal with inow of 26.65 CMS
AMRIS = Angat-Maasim River Irrigation System; CMS = cubic meters/second
Source: Authors’ processed/developed map
116 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Summary and recommendaons
Findings
1. The original design irrigation area of 31,400 ha of NIA-AMRIS has
now reduced to about 17,500 ha during the wet cropping season and
24,000 ha during the dry cropping season. This reduction is due to
urbanization, lowered height of Bustos Dam that renders certain areas
unfeasible to be irrigated, and ooding in some areas during the wet
season. This study urged the NWRB to reduce the Angat water allocation
to irrigation from 22 to 36 CMS, wherein the difference of 15 CMS is unused
water of NIA-AMRIS and was re-allocated to MWSS for domestic water
supply (referred conditional water right of MWSS since 1988).
2. With the above changes in physical conditions that limit the irrigation
service area of AMRIS and together with the reduced Angat water
allocation to irrigation, it should be recognized and accepted that this
is the current status of AMRIS as an irrigation system. However, there
is still the complicating issue of competing water use with hydropower
generation since the 200-megawatt (MW) plant of the San Miguel
Corporation and Korean Water joint venture (SMC/K-Water JV) is
through the irrigation water release gates to NIA-AMRIS versus the
18-MW hydropower plant (also owned by SMW/K-Water JV). With the 28-MW
hydropower plant owned by MWSS, a total only of 46 MW is through
the domestic water release gates to MWSS (Metro Manila water supply).
3. The PDRIS system has likewise only realized half of the target irrigation
service area from the originally planned service area of 11,540 ha due to
urbanization and ooding problems, as well as operational issues with Cong
Dadong Dam as described below. In the last few years, PDRIS only irrigated
about 7,000 ha during the dry cropping season and 5,000 ha during the wet
cropping season. While the irrigation water available from Pampanga River
through the Cong Dadong Dam (diversion structure) is not limiting, the
diversion dam height of 8.6 m is not high enough, so it is unable to irrigate
over 2,000 ha of the target irrigation service area.
4. Both AMRIS and PDRIS have reduced irrigation service area from their
original plan due to urbanization and ooding problems, as well as technical
issues. In the case of urbanization in the AMRIS area, a signicant portion
of the agricultural land was converted for industrial and/or residential
Water Resources Component | 117
uses being near to Metro Manila. Urbanization has also taken a toll on
the agricultural areas in PDRIS being adjacent to the growing metropolis
development of New Clark City and San Fernando City of Pampanga.
Concerning ooding problems, both AMRIS and PDRIS have low-lying areas
in their lower ends being in the vicinity of the Pampanga Delta. There is not
much that can be done to encourage the rice farmers to plant rice during
the wet season.
5. In this study, the AMRIS irrigation canal network was thoroughly investigated
through hydraulic modeling and simulation. The simulation showed that
there are areas that may not be irrigated at all. Since most canals had
reduced capacities due to sedimentation, consequently, the channel slopes or
gradients needed for gravity ow are no longer efcient. Thus, there is a need
to develop an effective canal maintenance scheme of the AMRIS and also to
reassess the operation schemes for efcient canal operations.
Recommendations
First, the dry and wet cropping season schedules should be revisited to maximize
the conjunctive use of the Angat watershed streamow (through the reservoir) with
the seasonality of rainfall to minimize its competing use with Metro Manila’s water
supply demand, which is xed and uniform all year round. The irrigation water supply
to AMRIS from Angat Reservoir (including the contribution from Bustos watershed)
may be curtailed due to episodic occurrences of critical dry years associated with
Pacic Equatorial anomalies such as El Niño. It can also be constrained due to
competing water uses with domestic water supply, which has a higher release policy
during low Angat Reservoir water levels or equivalently, water shortage conditions.
Although the AMRIS irrigation water demand has reduced in the last 20 years or so,
the irrigation water requirement of AMRIS is still signicant, particularly during the
dry cropping season from December to March, which coincides with the onset of the
dry season when the Angat Reservoir should be lling up or saving water for the dry
months of April and May.
Second, consider raising the height of the diversion structure of PDRIS. Water
supply to PDRIS is not at all limiting since there is more than enough water owing
from the Pampanga River at the point of diversion. The only constraint is that
the diversion dam elevation is not high enough to cover the entire design service
area of PDRIS. As such, over 2,000 ha cannot be irrigated. The economics of this
recommendation should be carefully studied.
118 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Third, for AMRIS, it is worthwhile to properly mitigate the sedimentation problem
and also design the canal maintenance with dredging or rehabilitation optimally,
satisfying both the slope and canal width/depth, including alignment requirements.
Canal network simulation shows that there are areas in AMRIS that may not at all
be irrigated because of canal shallowing due to sedimentation. Consequently, the
channel slopes needed for gravity ow are no longer efcient.
Fourth, conduct periodic operational studies once the system is already built.
Such studies are crucial to make adjustments based on actual observations and
experiences. Likewise, periodic assessment of the efciency of irrigation water
delivery operations should also be made for proper maintenance and upgrade of
irrigation facilities, if needed. Hydraulic model simulations should be conducted for
proper maintenance and upgrade of irrigation facility, as this type of analysis and
operations studies can only be done through canal network model simulation.
Fifth, reassess the details of operations under extreme conditions. A review of the
feasibility studies (reports) of these irrigation systems showed the absence of detailed
technical assessment of performance of the irrigation systems with regard to reliability
of water sources (in time and space), such as simulation of the hydraulic performance
of canal system under “dry year” or under “ooding” conditions. Hence, should such
conditions arise, there is limited time to prepare and apply countermeasures. Detailed
simulation analysis, on the other hand, can support planning toward improved
resilience of irrigation systems.
Chapter 5
Irrigaon Water Governance
Agnes C. Rola, Therese R. Olviga, Francis John F. Faderogao,
and Chrislyn Joanna P. Faulmino
Introducon
Agriculture is the highest consumer of water, accounting for 84 percent of total water
use in Asia and 72 percent globally (David 2003). Ironically, agriculture generates the
lowest economic return per unit of water (Turral et al. 2011). The Comprehensive
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture asserted that improvement in
water use in agriculture is crucial to meet the challenges of increasing pressure on
water resources due to rising water demand. A looming water crisis may be averted
if reforms in the ways water is managed and governed are put in place (FAO 2012).
In the Philippines, accelerated irrigation development signicantly contributed
to rice self-sufciency/rice surplus in 1968 and 1977. However, over the years,
120 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
irrigation development has faced many technical and institutional constraints.
The poor performance of irrigation systems has been attributed to several factors
including inadequate database for planning, inadequate institutional capacity
and mechanisms for development, design mistakes, poor quality of construction,
inadequate and fragmented support services for irrigated agriculture, and complexity
of operation, such as socioeconomic and institutional management (David 2003). All
of these factors relate to water governance.
An emerging lesson is the need for a governance regime that connects various
actors and decisionmakers in setting rules for managing water resources to sustain
the desired state. Irrigation can no longer be addressed in isolation, implying
coordinated and integrated water resource planning and management among
institutions. Implementation of policies (e.g., devolution to local government units
[LGUs] and irrigators’ associations [IAs], free irrigation versus cost recovery-schemes)
at the national irrigation system (NIS) and communal irrigation system (CIS) levels
has to be evaluated to see what works and what does not work so that appropriate
policy reforms can be formulated.
This chapter discusses the institutional arrangements in irrigation water
governance in the Philippines. Institutional evaluation is conducted on the stages
of the project cycle, namely, project identication; project preparation, appraisal,
and selection; project implementation, operations and maintenance; and monitoring
and evaluation.
1. For the planning and design stage, the chapter analyzes the institutional
capacity of the project proponent (selected NIS or CIS) in arriving at an
appropriate, science-based, and economically viable design of an irrigation
project; describes the institutional capacity of the project decision-making
system in conducting an independent and competent appraisal of proposed
irrigation projects; and recommends strategies for addressing institutional
capacity gaps and delineation of roles of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agriculture (DA), National
Irrigation Administration (NIA), IAs, and LGUs, and in ensuring proper
coordination across agencies and meaningful consultations with end-users.
2. For the implementation stage, the chapter assesses the institutional
capacity of NIA, LGUs, and Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM)
in implementing irrigation projects, including timeliness and transparency
in procurement, and delineates the proper role, if any, of farmers in project
implementation, including right-of-way (ROW) issues.
Irrigaon Water Governance | 121
3. For the operations and maintenance (O&M) stage, the discussions focus on
assessing the capacity of IAs, NIA, and LGUs in terms of O&M, particularly
in coming up with recommendations for the O&M strategy to address
capacity gaps of IAs, cost recovery, and the perennial problems of siltation
and inadequate water supply.
4. For the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) stage, the chapter discusses ways
to institutionalize an efcient M&E system covering NIS and CIS, ensuring
the timely collection of proper information that can be used for operations
and planning.
Irrigaon water governance in the Philippines
Institutional arrangements
At least 13 national agencies play a part in irrigation water governance (Table 1). The
agencies are grouped into four: (i) irrigation implementation, (ii) other agriculture
and natural resources agencies, (iii) oversight agencies, and (iv) other agencies
competing in the use of water.
Aside from implementing large-scale irrigation projects, NIA is also concerned with
water use and watershed management. Ideally, NIA should coordinate with the DENR in
watershed management. Currently, however, no personnel is assigned to tasks related to
this function due to rationalization. Moreover, no clear institutional link exists between
NIA and DENR with respect to watershed management (Rola and Elazegui 2016), a
noncompliance to the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA).
Water governance in NIA
The project cycle
The project cycle starts with project identication. Potential irrigation project
identication is recommended by technical specialists or farmers/irrigators’
associations or local politicians. Preliminary assessments on irrigation potential are
conducted before detailed planning of the project is undertaken. This assessment
is done at the regional irrigation ofce (RIO) level for smaller projects and at the
RDC level for big-ticket projects. For small CIS projects, irrigation project proposals
emanate from the LGU while the IAs prepare the proposal for endorsement by the
122 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 1. Instuons involved in irrigaon water governance in the Philippines
Group Agency Responsibilies
Oces involved
in Irrigaon
implementaon
Naonal Irrigaon
Administraon (NIA)
Administers irrigaon development in the
Philippines
Bureau of Soils and Water
Management
Builds small-scale irrigaon projects
Agriculture and
natural resources
agencies involved
in irrigaon
Department of Agrarian
Reform
Invests in irrigaon systems located in
agrarian reform communies
Naonal Water Resources
Board
Issues water permits for all irrigaon
systems
Forest Management Bureau Implements joint memorandum of agreement
with NIA for watershed-level acvies.
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-River
Basin Control Oce
Monitors river basin management plans
from which irrigaon systems obtain water
Naonal Power Corporaon Sits as a member of the NIA board;
comanages with the NIA the Pantabangan
and Magat watersheds and water releases
Department of the Interior
and Local Government
Supervises and does capacity building for
small impounding systems. It also ensures
that local government units connect with
the provincial development plans (PDP) and
that the comprehensive land-use plan and
PDP central plans are linked.
Oversight
agencies
Naonal Economic and
Development Authority
(NEDA)
Approves big-cket projects through its
Investment Coordinaon Commiee. Its
regional development council reviews
and endorses smaller projects to the NIA
Central Oce.
Governance Commission for
Government-Owned and
Controlled Corporaons
Coordinates and monitors the operaons
of government-owned and controlled
corporaons
Department of Budget and
Management
Oversees the budget together with the
Department of Finance, Land Bank of the
Philippines, and NEDA
Agencies
compeng in the
use of water
Local Water Ulies
Administraon
Connects with NIA for domesc water
supply needs when the water source permit
is owned by NIA
Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System
Coordinates with NIA during water crises,
when irrigaon water use is second only to
domesc water use
Source: Rola et al. (2019)
Irrigaon Water Governance | 123
Provincial Development Council to the RDC. On the other hand, the regional ofces of
NEDA provide technical support to the Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) and
the NEDA Board in project planning and design of big-ticket NIS projects.
Project planning includes environmental and social assessments. Once accepted,
the technical aspects, such as structural design and water management, are
investigated through feasibility studies, which are usually conducted by NIA or as
contracted by NIA. Some projects bundle appraisal of feasibility with the design stage
while others treat this as an independent phase. In either case, a critical review is
undertaken before large investments are poured into a project.
The RDC endorses the acceptance of projects below PHP 200 million while
projects above this threshold are submitted to the ICC of the NEDA for approval.
The implementation of approved projects entails procurement and construction of
facilities, usually supervised by NIA with oversight from DBM and the NEDA regional
ofce where the project is to be undertaken. Ideally, this has high coordination and
participation of farmers and, when applicable, other stakeholders at the provincial
level. Although not explicitly identied in many basic project cycles, irrigation
development includes system management and O&M following the formation
of irrigation facilities. NIS is managed by NIA and turned over to the IAs once the
irrigation management transfer (IMT) is successful. In cases of CIS, IMT takes place
with IAs at the forefront. Lastly, M&E should also be done as part of the irrigation
process.
For big-ticket projects, NEDA, together with DILG and DBM, monitors project
implementation through the Regional Project Monitoring Committee (RPMC), a
special committee under the RDC that monitors expenditures vis-à-vis the progress in
construction. The monitoring is carried out by the RPMC quarterly, with a threshold
for monitoring set at PHP 10 million. For appraisal purposes, the RIO conducts the
evaluation, then sends its irrigation reports to the Public Investment Staff of NEDA.
These reports contain progress of indicators and impacts of the projects. Local
monitoring teams at the provincial and municipal levels are also established, with
NEDA providing training for them.
Monitoring and evaluation of the projects reveal areas for improvement that may
be specic for the project or applicable to managing irrigation projects in general.
Crucial to this stage is the sufciency and quality of data collected for a comprehensive
review of the project cycle processes (Inocencio et al. 2013; Rai et al. 2017).
The responsibilities of other national agencies also affect the development
cycle management of the irrigation systems. For instance, delays in the decision of
124 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
NEDA and delays in fund release by DBM will potentially affect the performance of
NIA, in general.
NIA’s Service Process Model (Figure 1) shows irrigation project management as the
core process of the institution and is broadly subdivided into three major processes:
project preparation, project construction/implementation, and NIS operation and
maintenance. There is no provision for M&E, except in the management processes that
monitor and assess performance mostly of the IAs. System performance is monitored
at the region and irrigation management ofce (IMO) levels, but not indicated in the
Service Process Model. All core processes are supplemented by NIA’s Institutional
Development Program (IDP) geared toward organizing IAs and building their capacity to
partially or fully manage irrigation systems under the irrigation management transfer
program for NIS or system turnover program for CIS. The service processes cover the
central, regional, and IMOs of NIA.
Figure 1. Service process model of the Naonal Irrigaon Administraon
Source: NIA (2018)
MANAGEMENT PROCESSESS
CORE PROCESSESS
Deliver
Cus tome r’s
Expectation
Plan
Agency
Operations
Deliver
Leadership
and Good
Governance
Manage
Improvement
and Change
Monitor and
Assess
Performance
Project Preparation Project Construction/
Implementation
NIS Operation and
Maintenance
Institutional Development Program
Human
Resources
Management
Financial
Resources
Management
Physical
Resources
Management
Goods and
Services
Procurement
Information
and External
Relations
Management
Legal
Services
Internal
Audit
Customer
(Requirements)
Farmer
Beneficiaries/
Irrigators'
Associations
Relevant
Interested
Parties
Result of
Performance
Scorecard and
Other Feedback
Management
Tools
Customer
(Satisfaction)
Farmer
Beneficiaries/
Irrigators'
Associations
NIA Frontline
Services and
Strategic
Objectives
Externally Provided Products, Services, and Processes
Irrigaon Water Governance | 125
Activities
The activities and corresponding responsible units per core process of the NIA are
summarized in Table 2. Responsible units for project preparation are the Central
Ofce Engineering Department, RIO Engineering and Operations Division, and
IMO Engineering Section. The same ofces are responsible for the construction of
irrigation systems. However, several departments within the CO are responsible for
the O&M of NIS. The IMO has a dedicated O&M Section for NIS. The Institutional
Development Division (IDD) takes care of the institutional development programs,
mostly on the organization and capacity building of the NIS IAs. The CIS IAs are, by
law, to be supervised by the LGUs. Thus, NIA does not reect this function. In reality,
NIA IDD renders technical support to the CIS IAs.
Table 2. Irrigaon project management acvies of NIA and responsible units
Phase Acvity Responsible Units
Project
preparaon
Project Planning
• Project idencaon
• Project invesgaon/validaon
• Project design studies
• Plan formulaon
• Feasibility report
• Project authorizaon
• CO-Engineering Department
• RIO-Engineering and
Operaons Division
• IMO-Engineering Secon
Project Detailed Engineering Design
• Preparaon of conceptual designs
• Determinaon of project feasibility
Considering:
- Surveys and mapping
- Hydrology
- Geology
- Agronomy
- Irrigaon
- Drainage
- Economic
- Watershed management and
environmental study
Project Procurement
• Program of works
• Project procurement management
plan
• Annual procurement plan
126 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Phase Acvity Responsible Units
Construcon • Construcon planning and scheduling
• Contract administraon
• Project evaluaon and monitoring
(Construcon Management Division
follows the Implemenng Rules and
Regulaons of Republic Act 9184,
Commission on Audit, and oce policies
and foreign nancing procurement
guidelines)
• CO-Engineering Department
• RIO-Engineering and
Operaons Division
• IMO-Engineering Secon
O&M • Water delivery
• Irrigaon service fees collecon
• Repair and improvement
- Irrigaon facilies
- Drainage facilies
- O&M equipment
• CO-System Management
Division under the Operaons
Department
• CO-Irrigaon Engineering
Center under the Operaons
Department
• CO-Equipment Management
Division under the Operaons
Department
• RIO-Engineering and
Operaons Division
• IMO-Operaon and
Maintenance Secon
Instuonal
Development
Program
• Organizaon of irrigators’
associaons (IAs)
• Capacity building of IAs
• Instuonal Development
Division under the Operaons
Department but with supervision
from the Engineering oce on
oversight funcons on irrigaon
projects.
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; O&M = operations and maitenance; CO = central ofce;
RIO = regional irrigation ofce; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: NIA (2018)
In a more detailed work plan, NIA presents its activities per phase for NIS and
CIS (Table 3). It can be observed that because farmers are involved, CIS projects
also entail more activities and actors, particularly in the preconstruction and
construction phases. The project cycle is not complete in the absence of an M&E
function within the core activities. It should also be noted that CIS IAs are organized
during the preconstruction phase while NIS IAs are organized after the construction
phase. Meanwhile, monitoring after the O&M, which refers to the performance of the
irrigation system, is not listed within the core activity of NIA.
Table 2. Connued
Irrigaon Water Governance | 127
Table 3. Project management acvies of NIA in NIS and CIS
NIS Duraon
(NIS)
CIS Duraon
(CIS)
Phase 1 – Idencaon, Invesgaon, and Selecon Phase
Project idencaon
Selecon and evaluaon
1 month
Project idencaon
Selecon and evaluaon
6 weeks
• Pre-engineering study
-Gathering of climac
data
-Topographic survey
-Date gathering for
project prole
• Pre-engineering study
-Gathering of climac data
-Topographic survey
-Date gathering for project
prole
• Feasibility study and
detailed engineering
design
-Planning and design
-Surveys and mapping
-Hydrology
-Geology
-Agronomy
-Irrigaon
-Drainage
-Economic
-Watershed
management and
environmental study
6–8
months
• Feasibility study
-Hydrology
-Geology
-Agriculture and land resources
-Economic and nancial analysis
-Environmental impact
assessment
• Detailed engineering design
-Contract document and technical
specicaons
-Derivaon of unit cost esmates
-Design plans and computaons
-Survey mapping
Phase 2 – Preconstrucon Phase
• Preconstrucon works
-Row requision and
acquision
-Preconstrucon survey
-Construcon of
project facilies and
access road to the
dam site
• Preconstrucon acvies
-Right-of-way
-Survey works
-Dam and project facilies
invesgaon
-Detailed design
-Project development
presentaon
-Plans and esmates preparaon
-Detailed survey
-Paddy mapping parcellary survey
-Working commiee formaon
-Farmers mobilizaon
-Planning and formal reecon
sessions
-By-laws (By-Laws Commiee)
disseminaon and racaon
-Regional and provincial
orientaons
-Community IAs integraon
-SEC registraon of IAs (IA
Registraon Commiee)
128 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
NIS Duraon
(NIS)
CIS Duraon
(CIS)
-Water applicaon preparaon
and submission of (Water Permit
Commiee)
-POW preparaon
-POW presentaon to IA
- POW submission for approval
-Legal requirements compleon
-Right-of-way negoaon (ROW
Commiee)
-Construcon working commiee
mobilizaon
• Detailed engineering
design
• Disseminaon and signing of MOA
-Construcon reconciliaon
workshop
• Environmental
compliance cercate
• Preparaon and submission of
cercaon for project construcon
-IA viability evaluaon
• Geologic exploraon
• Procurement
Phase 3 – Construcon Phase
• Construcon of
diversion works
• Procurement and delivery of
construcon materials
-Receiving and recording
delivered materials
• Construcon of
irrigaon facilies
-Canalizaon
-Canal structures
-Drainage canal
-Drainage structures
-Service road
-On-farm acvies
• Moving in of manpower
and equipment
-Condion of equipment checking
by IAs
-Bodega and bunkhouse
construcon
-Manpower and locally available
materials provision by IAs
• Construcon of
project facilies
-IA oce
-Gatekeepers’ quarter
• Construcon of other major
structures
-Diversion works construcon
-Canal structures construcon
• Preparaon of FFCC
-System turnover
-Physical and nancial
reconciliaon review
-Repayment scheme approval
Table 3. Connued
Irrigaon Water Governance | 129
NIS Duraon
(NIS)
CIS Duraon
(CIS)
Phase 4 – Operaons and Maintenance Phase
• Conduct of training
once the IAs are
organized and when
the IAs need training
• Assessment, evaluaon, and
planning of operaons and
maintenance acvies
-Calendar of farming acvies
formulaon/implementaon/
updang
• Water distribuon and system
maintenance
• Connuous educaon and training
from management
• Issuance of water service invoice
-Water service bill
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; NIS = national irrigation systems; CIS = communal irrigation
systems; POW = program of work; IA = irrigators’ association; SEC = Securities and Exchange Commission;
FFCC = nal nancial construction cost; ROW = right-of-way
Source: NIA (2013)
Project Management Structure
The NIA irrigation project management structure consists of three distinct ofces:
the central ofce, the RIO/integrated irrigation systems ofce (for two
big irrigation systems Pantabangan and Magat), and the IMO (Figure 2).
NIA central ofce’s performance is very much dependent on the reporting
activity of the RIO and the IMO. The IMOs are responsible for the construction
and rehabilitation of irrigation projects and systems in one or a cluster of
provinces. They also implement the O&M plans of irrigation systems in
collaboration with the farmer-beneciaries (NIA-MIMAROPA n.d.). On the
other hand, RIOs prepare regional irrigation development, implement irrigation
projects, manage O&M of NIS and IA development and assistance, and render
technical assistance to LGUs on CIS development.
Table 3. Connued
130 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Other irrigation institutions
Before the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991, NIA had been the
sole provider of irrigation services. Currently, there are three government entities
concerned with irrigation: NIA, LGUs, and DA-BSWM, each of them having its own
legal frameworks and mandates for irrigation.
The LGC provides that CIS should be under the supervision of the LGU. Thus,
LGUs have the mandate to construct inter-barangay irrigation infrastructure, which
is part of the basic services they provide so that their communities can be self-reliant.
But recognizing the lack of expertise at the local level, the AFMA mandated NIA to
provide technical and nancial support to LGUs.
The third player, as provided by AFMA, is the DA through BSWM, which is
charged with the promotion of the small-scale irrigation projects under the Small
Water Impounding Project (SWIP), Small Diversion Dam (SDD), Shallow Tube Well
(STW), and Small Farm Reservoir (SFR) for organized farmer associations. It provides
Figure 2. Management structure and ow of acvies between NIA oces
NIA = National Irrigation Administration
Source: NIA (2017)
CentralOffice
RegionalOffice/Integrated
IrrigationSystemsOffice
IrrigationManagementOffice
Monitoringand
Evaluation
Monitoringand
Evaluation
Report
Report
Irrigaon Water Governance | 131
supplemental irrigation and incidental function such as ood control structure and
other economic uses of irrigation (e.g., shery and livestock production). The Small Water
Impounding System Association (SWISA) was established because of these programs.1
Other institutions involved in irrigation include the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), which funds irrigation projects in agrarian reform communities
with technical support from NIA and in close partnership with LGUs, especially in
right-of-way issues.
Method of the Study
In the Luzon phase of the study, respondents were NIA ofcers from the 7 RIOs and
14 IMOs (Table 4). These areas have a high rmed-up service area (FUSA) served by
CIS relative to other provinces in the country, with Camarines Sur (43,729 ha) and
Pangasinan (29,783 ha) topping the list (NIA 2013). The Visayas and Mindanao phase
covers NIS and CIS in 8 IMOs and 6 RIOs in the Visayas and Mindanao regions.
Table 4. Study sites
Luzon Visayas and Mindanao
Region Province Region Province
1 Ilocos Norte 6 Capiz
1 Pangasinan 6 Iloilo
2 Isabela 7 Bohol
2 Nueva Vizcaya 8 Leyte
2 Cagayan 10 Bukidnon
CAR Benguet 11 Davao del Sur
3 Nueva Ecija 12 North Cotabato
3 Pampanga 12 South Cotabato
4-A Laguna
4-B Occidental Mindoro
5 Camarines Sur
CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region
Source: Authors’ compilation
Primary data collection was done through key informant interviews (KIIs) in the
national government agencies with irrigation functions such as DA-BSWM, DILG, DAR,
National Water Resources Board (NWRB), National Power Corporation (NPC), and
DENR-River Basin Control Ofce (RBCO). For the national agencies, data generated
1 http://www.bswm.da.gov.ph/successstory/002/small-scale-irrigation-systems (accessed on October 25, 2018)
132 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
included legal mandates in irrigation, compliance to the mandates, and activities
related to these mandates. Data on irrigation budget source, amount, and allocation
were also generated, as well as information on stafng sufciency. Linkages with
other agencies such as DAR, DENR, and BSWM were also identied. Guide questions
on the roles and responsibilities of the various institutional participants across the
irrigation development and project cycle were likewise formulated.
The RIO and IMO ofcials were interviewed about the institutional arrangements
and project cycle management. During Cycle 1, key informants included all
RIOs and IMOs in the study sites. During Cycle 2, the RIOs interviewed were from
Regions 6, 11, 12, and 8. The IMOs from all provinces listed in the scope of the study
were also interviewed.
Interview questions for RIOs consisted of irrigation water governance indicators
and their role in the irrigation project cycle. For the irrigation project cycle, data
gathered included representation/participation in the planning and design of
systems of stakeholders, implementation details, information on the operations
and maintenance stage, monitoring and evaluation information, irrigation water
governance arrangements, and incentive mechanism provided for by the Free
Irrigation Service Act (FISA). Data collected from IMO included information on the
IMO budget, personnel matters, governance/organizational structure/administration,
project cycle governance, and incentive mechanisms.
Questions asked during the focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted for NIS
IAs included awareness of policy changes particularly those under the FISA, changes
due to new policy, incentives for sustaining Model 2/3, details on the planning and
design stage, as well as implementation and O&M stage, monitoring and evaluation,
and incentive mechanisms for NIS IAs. Information gathered from CIS IAs included prole
of the IA they belong to, irrigation system prole, operational aspects, cropping
information, and organizational aspects.
Analysis relied mostly on qualitative techniques. Institutional landscape analysis
is used to identify the various actors in irrigation water governance and their roles
and responsibilities, especially in the implementation of irrigation projects and the
whole project cycle. The descriptive analysis of governance mechanisms in the RIO
and IMO levels is also discussed, integrating both the Cycle 1 and 2 results. Data and
data analysis on project management cycle are only for the Visayas and Mindanao.
Descriptive analyses were used in processing data for the NIS and CIS IAs.
Irrigaon Water Governance | 133
Results of the assessment
Macro level
Current planning framework
Coordination of multiple national agencies is a major challenge in irrigation
sector planning.
Aside from NIA, both BSWM and DENR-RBCO also have their master plans for
irrigation and river basin management, respectively, that indicate potential sites for
irrigation development (Table 5). Respondents from BSWM, DAR, and DILG felt that
double-counting of beneciaries and service areas could be avoided through close
collaboration with NIA. Also, it was suggested that it would be more efcient to have
one comprehensive irrigation plan agreed upon by all stakeholders with NIA as the lead.
Table 5. Irrigaon water-related agencies and their roles in the irrigaon
development cycle at the naonal level
Project
Idencaon,
Planning, and
Design
Implementaon Operaon and
Management
Monitoring and
Evaluaon
NIAa****
DA-BSWM * * *
DAR *
NEDA *
NWRB *
DENR-FMB *
DENR-RBCO *
DILG *
a NIA’s role in irrigation service is limited to NIS.
NIA =National Irrigation Administration; DA-BSWM = Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Soils and
Water Management; DAR = Department of Agrarian Reform; NEDA = National Economic and Development
Authority; NWRB = National Water Resources Board; DENR = Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; FMB = Forest Management Bureau; RBCO = River Basin Control Ofce; DILG = Department of
the Interior and Local Government
Source: Rola et al. (2019)
134 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Following a set of criteria, NIA’s Project Management Ofce decides on whether to
do new construction or rehabilitation. But right now, the budget is allocated more for
construction (70%) than rehabilitation. Location of the sites for rehabilitation depends
on the proposal of the IAs, with NIA evaluating and suggesting if these are feasible.
Modern techniques, such as geographic information system (GIS) mapping that can
inform about sites needing rehabilitation, are not being used. Government funds
through the General Appropriations Act are the sources of funds for rehabilitation.
NEDA plays an important role in the review and approval of new irrigation
projects. According to NEDA memorandum dated June 27, 2017, the ICC
must review and approve national projects amounting to PHP 2.5 billion
and above. Meanwhile, national and LGU/local projects amounting from PHP 200 million
to PHP 2.5 billion must be submitted to the ICC for review and notation only. LGU
projects costing PHP 50 million to PHP 200 million require an endorsement by the
RDC and/or Provincial Development Council (PDC). For projects that require approval
by the ICC, the NEDA regional ofce is the lead evaluating unit and can request
inputs from NEDA central ofce staff (i.e., Infrastructure Staff, Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Environment Staff, etc.).
In deciding the location of big-ticket NIA projects, NEDA requires the conduct of
Value Engineering/Value Analysis/Assessment (VEVA), which is an environmental
and social assessment that requires all sector reports/assessment before NIA submits
the engineering design. With the VEVA method, sector studies are done rst before
the engineering design.
NIA and BSWM implement the construction of irrigation systems. The DA
regional ofces implement the BSWM projects and set these projects up for bidding or
memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the LGU. On the construction part, the LGU
provides the engineer while the DA monitors the progress of the implementation. For DAR
projects, the municipal agricultural ofce (MAO) identies the recipients of the irrigation
project while the DAR engineer monitors the implementation of the construction.
At present, service areas of 200 ha and above are served by NIA while the smaller
ones are managed by DA-BSWM. However, in the eld, it seems to respondents
that the new service areas of 200 ha and above are hard to nd. Thus, NIA may have
difculties in identifying contiguous areas. Meanwhile, BSWM is also concerned with
developing these contiguous areas individually. So, where will NIA get its future new
areas?
While it has a set of personnel monitoring the construction, DAR solicits the
technical support of NIA. It also seeks help from LGUs in the settlement of right-
of-way. But LGU’s equity is limited to the resolution of right-of-way and not as
Irrigaon Water Governance | 135
co-implementer. For example, if the source of irrigation water for a proposed project
is a spring, DAR collaborates with the LGU or NIA or whoever has the right to the
source of water to secure permits from the owners.
The M&E of the irrigation system performance is mainly done by the regional
ofces of NIA and BSWM through the regional eld ofces of DA. Despite the
availability of modern technologies, M&E still depends on reports from the eld.
Problems in the planning process
The planning process is spread out across too many agencies with insufcient
integration at the basin level.
The preceding discussion makes it clear that the various agencies involved in
irrigation governance have mandated lines of collaboration. In practice, however,
data reporting problems are common, requiring further convergence from the
national to local levels. There are also insufcient organizational links among the
various agencies. For instance, DENR has the mandate to protect the watershed,
thereby protecting the source of water supply for irrigation. There is a MOA between
DENR-FMB and NIA to the effect that DENR-FMB should ensure the protection of the
water sources of NIA. However, the implementation of this agreement leaves much
to be desired.
While it is agreed that NIA builds the larger systems and DA-BSWM together with
LGUs and DAR builds the smaller systems, planning for these systems are currently
done in parallel. A better planning approach for a given river basin would be to
integrate physical planning of LGUs, ood control plans, intersectoral plans, and the
Agrarian Reform Community Development Plan so that they are all harmonized. A
single irrigation development plan will compel coherent data reporting and analysis
and avoid duplication. Moreover, service areas of 200 hectares and above are served by
NIA while the smaller ones are served by DA-BSWM. Contiguous areas for new
irrigation projects spanning at least 200 ha are already difcult to nd. DA-BSWM
is increasingly taking over the niche of small irrigation systems in the country.
Integrated planning for irrigation requires a close connection between
DENR-RBCO and NIA and the involvement of LGUs to ensure that it is linked with the local
development plan. The DENR-RBCO plan can be a guide for LGUs in the development of
their local development plans and other plans needed by national agencies.
At the regional level, there is a need to push for the characterization of the critical
watersheds. NIA, LGUs, and DA-BSWM may use the RBCO plan as a guide in deciding
136 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
where to place the irrigation facility and which facility to rehabilitate. RBCO believes
that water issues are more local and should be viewed at the watershed level.
The absence of coordination by NIA and DENR at the local level can create conict
in the choice of project sites. Meanwhile, the LGUs are tasked to help in the right-of-
way issues, especially for small projects, and mandated to supervise the CIS. The IAs,
which are the beneciaries of the irrigation projects, were also engaged in the project
planning.
Data compilation, gathering, analysis, and research are functions spread out
across various agencies to the detriment of integrated, science-based planning.
There is a need for a reliable database that various agencies can use for their
planning activities. Data for planning are available but these are located in various
agencies, such as those from the National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority; Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services
Administration; NWRB; BSWM; Project Nationwide Operational Assessment of
Hazards (NOAH); and Department of Public Works and Highways. There is currently
no mechanism for consolidating these various data sources to arrive at a coherent
database that is useful for integrated planning. This is discussed further in the nal
section of this chapter.
Allocation of water rights
The system of water rights is failing to keep pace with demands from various
irrigation development plans and other water systems.
NWRB’s procedure in issuing water permits to NIS IAs is done government-to-
government. First, technical evaluation is conducted by computing standards per
hectare to determine the water demand for areas to be irrigated. Second, if there
is available water supply to be allocated, water permits are then evaluated and
recommendation for approval is issued. Meanwhile, CIS IAs are treated as private
entities in their water permit application.
According to NWRB, NIA has already applied for permits to use most rivers for
irrigation. Thus, LGUs, which are demanding to use the water from the rivers for
domestic needs, have to seek the approval of NIA to access the water. In issuing water
permits, NWRB thus needs to assess whether the water source can still supply the
water needed by LGUs for domestic purposes after irrigation needs are met. However,
NWRB lacks the data needed to make this assessment.
Irrigaon Water Governance | 137
Meso level
Meso-level planning process
Responsibility for meso-level planning is largely borne by NIA RIOs in
coordination with IAs and LGUs.
At the meso level, the NIA RIOs, together with the LGUs and the IAs, craft
the irrigation development plan (Table 6). Meanwhile, the IMOs, in coordination
with the IAs, implements the construction of irrigation projects. DAR solicits LGU
participation, especially in right-of-way issues. Other actors include NEDA, which
solicit input from the Regional Land Use Committee, which it also chaired; Mines
and Geosciences Bureau of the DENR, which produces the Engineering Geological and
Geohazard Assessment Report concerning data on faults and other geological issues;
and Project NOAH, which generates data on geologic faults.
Table 6. Irrigaon water-related agencies and their roles in the irrigaon
development cycle at the meso level
Project
Idencaon,
Planning and
Design
Implementaon Operaon and
Management
Monitoring and
Evaluaon
Regional irrigaon
oces of the NIA * *
NIA IMOs * * *
Regional eld oces
of the DA * * *
LGUs *
RDC-NEDA *
Regional ocers of
NCIP *
NGOs *
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; IMOs = irrigation management ofces; DA = Department
of Agriculture; LGUs = local government units; RDC-NEDA = Regional Development Council-National
Economic and Development Authority; NCIP = National Commission on Indigenous Peoples;
NGOs = nongovernment organizations
Source: Rola et al. (2019)
138 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
During the project planning, the civil society and nongovernment organizations
(NGOs) at the barangay level are consulted for the social acceptability of the project.
NGOs usually work with indigenous people and the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples. The RDC endorses big-ticket projects (above PHP 10 million) and
approves the smaller ones.
Other agencies are also part of irrigation development at the meso level but
divergent priorities compromise their functions.
NEDA, together with DILG and DBM, supports irrigation development planning
and M&E through the Regional Project Monitoring Committee (RPMC), a special
committee under the RDC. The RPMC monitors expenditures relative to the progress
in construction quarterly. Provincial and municipal counterparts of these monitoring
teams are also in place, with NEDA providing training for them. For appraisal
purposes, the Regional Investment Ofce under NEDA evaluates and then sends
irrigation reports to NEDA’s Public Investment Staff. These reports contain progress
of indicators and impacts.
As mandated by AFMA, CIS are supposedly devolved to LGUs. However, eld data
show that there is only one LGU that has successfully managed a CIS (Elazegui 2015)
from a total of 6,000 CIS in the country. The devolution of CIS to LGUs is rarely
implemented because of LGUs’ low priority for irrigation concerns or lack of capacity
to operate and manage CIS (Celestino et al. 2016). By default, the rehabilitation
and restoration of existing irrigation systems, whether national or communal, are
continuously being conducted by NIA.
The sorry state of watersheds critical to major irrigation systems in the country is
another manifestation of the divergent priorities of national agencies. DENR-FMB provides
technical guidance to the DENR central and eld ofces for the effective protection,
development, and conservation of forest lands and watersheds. Ideally, NIA must work
with DENR-FMB to ensure sustainable water supply for the irrigation systems. While
NIA does have a joint MOA with DENR-FMB for watershed-level activities, such MOA
is yet to be nalized and implemented.
Effects of the RatPlan
The ability of NIA to develop and manage irrigation systems has been severely
depleted by the rationalization implemented in 2011–2012.
The rationalization plan (RatPlan), which took effect in 2011–2012, was aimed
at creating a “lean and mean” organization that is more suitable to a farmer-centric
system. However, because of the RatPlan, NIA’s technical personnel are now in short
Irrigaon Water Governance | 139
supply relative to the needs of its clients. This is validated in Laguna, where CIS IAs
said that they did not receive any technical support from NIA even if their system
needs technical diagnosis.
In general, the implementation of the RatPlan has reduced NIA’s manpower by
50 percent and created an imbalance between the number of technical and administrative
staff. In one case, the provincial CIS ofcer is also the irrigation superintendent of an
NIS. Thus, in almost all regions, a lot of activities are being outsourced. The insecurity
of tenure is also affecting NIA’s work negatively. For instance, there is less time to
monitor the staff gauges resulting in theft. Because staff are overloaded, the time
for monitoring collection of fees, for instance, has also been reduced. In short, the
RatPlan resulted in decreased personnel to implement project activities.
NIA personnel also have to devote time for meetings convened by other agencies
and preparing reports in various formats requested by different ofces (such as NEDA,
Ofce of the Presidential Assistant on Food Security and Agricultural Modernization,
and DA) and NIA central ofce. Too much ofce work has therefore reduced the time
for farmer interaction and monitoring among NIA staff.
In one RIO, there were 400 personnel with only 100 permanent staff. Of the 400
employees, only 30 percent are technical staff. In Region 3, the RatPlan eliminated such
positions as hydrologists, environmental engineers, and other engineers. As a result, no
one is in charge of water supply data. There is also no link between NIA and DENR for
watershed management, considering that the main problem of siltation in irrigation
canals is caused mostly by soil erosion upstream. If left unmonitored because of the
lack of personnel from NIA, the siltation problem is likely to aggravate. One respondent
emphasized the need for an environmental management unit that will check the
availability of water in an area and a hydrologist who will help in the design. In addition,
NIA has stopped generating data on streamow of rivers after the RatPlan.
The RatPlan has forced NIA staff to do considerable multitasking. From four
divisions, regional operations now just have two—Engineering and Operations
Division and Administrative and Finance Division. One regional ofcial said that
because of the rationalization, many employees retired early as permanent positions
were reduced.
In reality, the main challenge in watershed protection is the dynamics and the
level of collaboration among the various agencies that deal with the environment and
land use. Interagency collaboration involves various national government agencies,
such as DENR (for forest management) and DA (for agricultural land use). In contrast,
multisectoral collaboration involves national government agencies, LGUs and local
communities, youth, among others.
140 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
System level
Governance within NIS
NIA is primarily responsible for planning, construction, and operation of NIS,
with varying degrees of farmer participation.
As NIS are mostly big projects, the participation of farmers in the planning
and design stage is not signicant. Almost all of them do not participate in the
decisionmaking during the planning stage. A small percentage of the respondents said
that social acceptability by the community is part of the assessment. Most farmers
are also not involved in the implementation phase of the project. Concerning the
O&M, Luzon respondents mentioned that funds come from NIA. NIS IAs respondents
felt that they are not capable of O&M activities and their technical background is
nearly adequate.
In Visayas and Mindanao, NIS IAs were active in the O&M phase of the project
cycle. Most of them are aware of the payment rate by NIA for the O&M of the system
and that these payments are not enough for their needs.
There are four models of IMT or the transfer of O&M responsibilities for NIS from
NIA to NIS IAs (Table 7). O&M of turnouts and farm-level facilities is the inherent
responsibility of IAs. As of 2014, IMT accomplishments involved models 1 and 2 (95%
of IAs) and very minimal involving models 3 and 4 (Table 7). This rate raises concern
on whether the devolution of management of NIS has reached sufcient depth given
that model 1 is limited only to maintenance of canals and model 2 to the management
of lateral canals—far from a complete turnover of the system.
For monitoring and evaluation of the system, the participation of the NIS IAs
is high. Monitoring is done manually by staff gauge or through ocular inspection
by NIA. Almost all NIS IAs have an existing monitoring system for ow rates. Both
NIA and IAs monitor the ow rates. Defects in the system can be reported directly to
NIA. There is also a system of reporting concerning problems in ow rates and other
issues to NIA or NIS IA management. Monitoring of service areas is also done daily and
monthly by IA members. The information contained in the monitoring report by IAs,
which is submitted to the IMOs, serves as the basis for future decisions, especially on
water allocation.
The NIS systems management committee meeting is conducted with the IAs,
LGUs, and national government agencies to propose a crop calendar and pattern of
planting to be approved by the provincial governor. The municipal ofce decides on
the issuance of the patalastas (bulletin), which informs both NIA and the IAs of the
irrigation schedule for the next season.
Irrigaon Water Governance | 141
Table 7. Status of irrigaon management transfer of NIS to IAs*
IMT Model Descripon Number of
IAs
Share of
Total (%)
Model 1
Maintenance of canals delegated to IAs; IAs are
compensated based on canal area maintained
and exisng labor rate
1,192 49.7
Model 2
Turnover of management of lateral canals to
IAs; IAs get a share of ISF collected; typical ISF
sharing—NIA: 70%; IA:30%
1,103 46.0
Model 3
Turnover of management of main and lateral
canals to IA Federaon (headworks/dam not
included); IAs get a share of ISF collected; typical
ISF sharing—NIA: 70%; IA:30%
77 3.2
Model 4
Complete turnover of irrigaon system to IAs;
IAs pay NIA rental fee at a rate of 75–100 kg of
dry palay per hectare per year
27 1.1
Total IMTs 2,399 83.0
Total systems 2,891 100.0
*as of October 31, 2014
NIS = national irrigation systems; IMT =irrigation management transfer; IAs = irrigators’ associations;
NIA =National Irrigation Administration; ISF = irrigation service fee; kg = kilogram
Source: NIA (2016b)
Governance within CIS
IAs in CIS participate actively in all phases of irrigation development and take
over the system at the O&M stage, with occasional technical and other support
from NIA.
Governance of CIS is less formal and uses more customary rules. The AFMA
provides for LGUs to oversee CIS operations and investments. However, CIS irrigation
project development remains dependent on national government’s (i.e., NIA)
assistance. CIS projects were often in response to requests/proposals/resolutions
submitted by IAs, farmer organizations, and LGUs to NIA (IMO), which, in turn, taps
sources for funding. IAs’ awareness/knowledge and institutional network are crucial
in enhancing CIS programs (Luyun and Elazegui 2019).
Respondents noted high participation in drafting resolutions when planning
for new CIS irrigation systems (Table 8). NIA, with some participation from IAs, still
decides on the location of new systems, particularly if water availability is a criterion
in the site selection. IAs participate in writing the proposal, with NIA deciding mainly
142 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
on the size of the structure. Since social acceptability by the community is part of
the assessment, farmers, in general, are consulted on the location of the irrigation
structure. Meanwhile, it is the role of IA ofcers to validate the list of the beneciaries
and their tenure.
Table 8. Parcipaon of CIS IAs in the planning and design stage of the
project cycle
Item Frequency Percent
Parcipaon of IAs in draing a
resoluon when planning for new CIS
Yes
No
Total (n)
20
4
24
83
17
100
Decisionmaker on the locaon of the
new systems
IA
NIA
Both IA and NIA
Driller and IA member
Don’t know
2
14
3
1
2
8
58
13
4
8
Parcipaon of IAs in the selecon of
locaon of new irrigaon
Yes
No
No response
Total (n)
13
9
2
24
54
38
8
100
Whether water availability is a criterion
in the site selecon
Yes
No
Total (n)
24
0
24
100
0
100
Parcipaon in wring the proposal IA
NIA
IA with LGU assistance
No response
Total (n)
14
8
1
1
24
58
33
4
4
100
On whether social acceptability by the
community is part of the assessment
Yes
No
Total (n)
23
1
24
96
4
100
On whether farmers, in general, are
consulted on the locaon of the
irrigaon structure
Yes
No
Total (n)
22
2
24
92
8
100
Person in charge of validang list of
farmer-beneciaries
IDO
IA/ IA Ocers
IMO
No response
Total (n)
1
15
2
6
24
4
62
8
25
100
Person in charge of validang the
tenure of farmers
IDO
IA/ IA Ocers
IMO
No response
Total (n)
1
15
2
6
24
4
62
8
25
100
CIS = communal irrigation system; IA = irrigators’ association; NIA = National Irrigation Administration;
IDO = irrigators development ofcer; IMO =irrigation management ofce; n = number of samples
Source: Authors’ calculations
Irrigaon Water Governance | 143
IAs are formed before the project construction. Unlike the NIS IAs, the CIS IAs
participate actively in project implementation, mostly to provide labor equity (Table
9). NIA involves farmers in the construction of projects. IAs perceive that CIS projects
are done on time.
Table 9. Parcipaon of CIS IAs in project construcon
Item Frequencies Percent
Parcipaon in project implementaon Ye s
No
No response
Total (n)
22
1
1
24
92
4
4
100
On whether construcon schedules are
followed (Timeliness of construcon )
Yes
No
No idea
No response
Total (n)
14
5
1
4
24
58
20
4
17
100
Roles of farmers in general in the
project implementaon* Labor
Monitoring/supervision
No response
17
6
2
71
25
8
Persons who involve farmers in the
construcon NIA/IDOs
No response
Total (n)
21
3
24
88
12
100
Periods when IAs are formally formed Before construcon
Total (n)
24
24
100
100
*Multiple responses
CIS = communal irrigation system; NIA = National Irrigation Administration; IAs = irrigators’ association;
IDOs = irrigators development ofcers; n = number of samples
Source: Authors’ calculations
NIA supports CIS projects by funding diversion and conveyance facilities, with
CIS IAs funding the rest of the O&M, mostly for canal cleaning, repairs, and routine
maintenance. Farmers develop other farm-level facilities such as the turnouts
(Elazegui 2015).
As provided for by the AFMA, LGUs must be provided capacity-building programs
for them to sustainably manage CIS. Technical and nancial assistance, training,
and other logistical support are part of the capacity-building needs of LGUs. DA is
expected to lead this activity.
144 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 10. Parcipaon of CIS IAs in the M&E of system performance
Item Frequency Percent
On whether the results of
the monitoring of the ow
rates are reported to the IA
management
Yes
No
No response
Total (n)
21
1
2
24
88
4
8
100
Follow-up acons done by
the IA management in such
incidents
Rotaon or water scheduling
Reported to NIA, LGU to seek
assistance
Requested water pump from DA
Created proposal/resoluon for
system rehab, canal lining
3
3
2
2
13
13
8
8
Timeliness of system repairs
needed
Always
Somemes
Never
No repair yet since newly
constructed
Total (n)
17
5
1
1
24
71
21
4
4
100
On whether a monitoring
system for service area of the
CIS exists
Yes
Total (n) 24
24
100
100
Strategies used in the
monitoring system for service
area of the CIS
By sector, BOT
Water Tender/Master
Barangay, IDO, NIA
No response
13
5
2
4
54
21
8
17
Decisionmaker on water
allocaon for the following
season
Decided during the general
assembly
IA ocers and BOT
No response
6
11
7
25
46
29
Role of IAs in the water
allocaon decision
Decided during the general
assembly meeng regarding the
water allocaon plan
Scheduling of water delivery
No response
15
1
8
63
4
33
On whether CIS IAs perceive
that personnel within the IAs
are adequate to monitor the
structures of the system for
maintenance and operaons
Yes
No
No response
Total (n)
19
2
3
24
79
8
13
100
CIS = communal irrigation system; IA = irrigator’s association; M&E = monitoring and evaluation;
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; BOT = Board of Trustees; IDO = irrigators development ofcer;
n = number of samples
Source: Authors’ calculations
Irrigaon Water Governance | 145
Due to uncoordinated efforts by agencies concerned, only a few capacity-building
programs for LGUs and IAs had been accomplished. Despite the shortage in the
provision of capacity-building programs, it was observed that 80 percent of the 5,322
CIS IAs organized had achieved complete turnover of irrigation systems.
Monitoring of the ow rates is reported to the IA management, which, in turn,
does rotation or water scheduling with the assistance of NIA and the LGU (Table 10).
Mostly, the MAO of the LGUs offers some technologies from DA as part of its
institutional links with the IMO. Timeliness of the repairs is always observed. There
is also a monitoring system for service area of the CIS involving the board of trustees
(BOT) of the IA, water tender/master of the IAs, barangay ofcials, and irrigators
development ofcer of NIA. Decisionmaking on water allocation for the following
season is done by IA ofcers and BOT of IAs during the general assembly. CIS IAs
perceive that there is enough personnel within the IAs to monitor the structures of
the system for maintenance and operations.
Conclusions and recommendaons
Summary
Decisionmaking in the Philippine irrigation sector, which involves multiple
institutions that are not necessarily linked to one another, is fragmented at
the various phases of the irrigation development cycle. Before the devolution,
NIA had been the sole provider of irrigation services in the country. Currently,
there are three government entities concerned with irrigation governance: NIA,
DA-BSWM, and LGUs, each of them having its own legal frameworks and mandates for
irrigation. These institutions plan and implement irrigation projects, and therefore,
no integrated irrigation plan is being followed. This results in double-counting of
areas and even of beneciaries. Activities are also disjointed due to many plans.
According to the AFMA, the LGU has the responsibility to manage the CIS or
the small systems. This is not happening because of LGUs’ low priority for irrigation
concerns, limited funds for project implementation, and lack of capacities to do
planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. LGUs also lack enough
personnel to operate and manage irrigation systems.
The various government regional ofces that are members of the RDC participate
in the identication of sites, planning, and endorsement of projects to the national
level. The regional DA monitors the CIS project implementation. The RIO and the IMO
146 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
both participate in the planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) of the systems’ performance and report these back to the NIA central ofce. The
meso-level agencies are deemed effective in what they do.
NIS IAs do mainly ISF collection. They are also involved in the planning, and
depending on the level of the IMT they are in, they are also involved in the O&M. NIA
and the IAs are in charge of monitoring the ow rates.
CIS IAs, on the other hand, have more autonomy. Once the project is turned over
to them, they do the full O&M of the system. They also claim to be engaged from the
planning to implementation of the project, as well as in the O&M, and even in the
monitoring of water ows. Over 48 percent of the CIS IAs reported problems related to
access to water, particularly in terms of quantity and the timeliness of delivery. They
also raised concerns related to the O&M of the system as well as access to funds needed
for rehabilitation. O&M involves different activities such as minor repair, routine
maintenance, emergency, and annual repairs, which are not adequately covered in
their collection targets.
Recommendations
Craft an integrated irrigation development plan that includes a national master
plan at the macro level, a river basin plan at the meso level, and a comprehensive
land-use plan at the micro level.
An integrated irrigation development plan for the country implies coordination
among agencies in terms of projects, sites, and IAs. At the national level, there is a
need for an integrated and rolling irrigation development master plan led by NIA. At
the meso level, plans should be harmonized with the river basin plans of DENR- RBCO,
together with the ood control plan of Project NOAH, and other intersectoral plans.
Lastly, at the micro level, the local irrigation development plan should be harmonized
with the ARC and LGU plans.
Incorporate watershed protection and restoration as part of integrated
planning at the basin level to ensure sustained availability of water resources.
Watershed management is very important for irrigation water security as
watersheds protect the freshwater supply. Key to reversing the trend of watershed
deterioration is to build high levels of trust and commitment among the various
government agencies, a measure that can make collaboration more effective. Other
important measures that can promote successful collaboration include clear guidelines
for sharing knowledge, information, and other resources; distributing leadership; and
sharing accountability (Cruz 2018).
Irrigaon Water Governance | 147
Establish water resource research centers (WRRCs) at the macro and meso levels.
To address the need for an integrated database and analysis, the study proposes
a network of water resource research centers at the macro and meso levels. The
proposed WRRCs are centralized units specializing in water-related concerns. WRRCs
can provide science-based and technical support to water-related government
agencies. They can assist in the planning and design of irrigation systems, managing
M&E of projects, and assessing the performance of facilities and operations. Intensive
data gathering is also necessary, especially if recharge rates of groundwater as a
function of rainfall, runoff, evapotranspiration, inows/outows, and percolation
and upward ux need to be checked (Clemente et al. 2018). Databases for such local
data can be housed at the state universities and colleges that can store time-series
data from a watershed or a cluster of watersheds in the locality. Researchers can
analyze these data for policy while students can use the data for academic purposes.
The end goal is to have a systematic database for watershed-based water information
to support policy and foresight exercise for water allocation decisions. WRRCs can
also assist NEDA in evaluating foreign and large locally funded water projects and
preparing medium-term development plans for the water sector. The rst step in
moving forward is to pilot such a structure with the full support of the NWRB and
other water-governing bodies.
Water rights allocation should be kept consistent with assessed levels of
water resources.
The assignment of water permits by NWRB can benet greatly from the creation
of WRRCs. These resource centers can consolidate technical expertise currently
scattered across multiple agencies as well as funding for water resource assessment
initiatives. A reliable and updated database on water supply and demand will enable
more precise water rights allocation.
Institutionalize M&E system at the macro, meso, and system levels.
Although the M&E system is not part of NIA’s core activities, information from this
activity is needed for foresight and planning activities at all governance levels. Thus,
M&E must be institutionalized as one of the agency’s core activities. At the national
level, GIS applications can be further enhanced in targeting interventions (i.e., in
helping the NIA and the DA improve land productivity) and in programming areas for
irrigation (e.g., construction, rehabilitation, etc.). Checking of water quality should also
be done seasonally and should be part of M&E programs of NIA as information from
this activity can be used as a basis for policy formulation. Evaluating water quality is
148 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
important to avoid water quality deterioration in the future, which could affect yield
(Clemente et al. 2018). At the meso level, NIA has a system called System Management
Committee, where NIA, IAs, and even LGUs meet days or weeks before the start of
planting, especially during dry spells, to discuss water allocation and schedules/water
ow. In addition, simulation models to forecast rainfall during the wet season can guide
water allocation in a particular region or province. There are also new technologies for
monitoring physical targets, such as irrigated areas and water supply. More training for
NIA staff may be needed for them to be conversant with these tools.
Boost the technical capacity of NIA. The IMT, which was a major component of
the RatPlan, resulted in the downsizing of NIA, and eventually, an exodus of
technical expertise.
There is a need to restore the technical capacity of NIA to be able to address the
demand by other agencies. NIA needs more operations personnel (rather than nancial
personnel) as IAs have lamented the inadequacy of NIA staff complement to monitor
the system structure.
Create an apex body for water that can harmonize policies and plans for the
whole water sector.
An apex body is dened as a national organization that guides the water
sector in reforms for both water services and resource management. Its focus is
interdepartmental/intersectoral or interministry coordination. It can take on a variety
of forms, such as a national water resource council, committee, commission, board, or
authority, together with its supporting ofces or secretariats (ADB 2006). Establishing a
national apex body is a complex task, requiring the participation of all national partner
agencies. To avoid conict of authority, clear distinctions between the apex body and
existing water agencies must be made. Creating a water sector apex body is a proactive
step a country can take to manage its reform process and to ensure reforms reach the
target beneciaries (Birch 2004). While the creation of this possibly new institution is
necessary, the mandates of existing water agencies and sectors should also be reviewed.
Their existing roles and responsibilities would have to be reoriented for them to be
synchronized with the regulatory and policymaking role of the proposed water apex
body of the Philippines.
Chapter 6
An Assessment of the Free
Irrigaon Service Act
Roehlano M. Briones, Roberto S. Clemente, Arlene B. Inocencio,
Roger A. Luyun, and Agnes C. Rola
Introducon
The Philippines used to implement a policy of cost recovery for the operations and
maintenance (O&M) of its irrigation facilities. In national irrigation systems (NIS)
managed by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), farmers using irrigation
service were charged an irrigation service fee (ISF). Meanwhile, in communal
irrigation systems (CIS), associations of water users or irrigators’ associations (IAs)
would typically collect an ISF among themselves to pay for O&M of CIS. NIA also
collected fees from IAs to amortize the capital cost of CIS.
The cost-recovery policy was repealed in February 2018, when the President
signed into law the Free Irrigation Service Act (FISA). The law exempts most members
of IAs in NIS from paying the ISFs. It also provides a subsidy for O&M of CIS. Only
150 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
farmers cultivating more than 8 hectares (ha) are required to pay ISF. Moreover, for
farmers cultivating 8 ha or lower, all unpaid ISF and corresponding penalties owed to
NIA are condoned. For IAs, all loans, past due accounts, and corresponding interests
and penalties owed to NIA are likewise condoned. By 2019, the budget for funding free
irrigation for farmers reached PHP 2.6 billion (DBM 2019).
In 2015, the income of NIA from ISF was about PHP 1.8 billion, representing
signicant cost recovery on irrigation maintenance. The waiver of ISF effectively
transferred income to farmers equivalent to the amount of ISF with associated
interest and penalties for past due payments. On the other hand, there was a real
cost for irrigation maintenance. FISA shifts the burden of paying irrigation O&M from
direct users, namely, farmers, to the public treasury funded by taxpayers, effectively
establishing an in-kind transfer scheme.
This study evaluated the policy of making irrigation service free for farmers.
Specically, it described the implementation of the free irrigation policy at the level of
budget, NIA, and IAs. It also evaluated the free irrigation policy in terms of its impact
on farmers, the irrigation sector, and public nances and advanced recommendations
for irrigation service pricing in the Philippines.
Implementaon of free irrigaon policy
Cost recovery before FISA
Before the implementation of FISA, NIA actively collected ISF from IAs in NIS to
defray the cost of O&M in these systems. In contrast, ISF was not collected from IAs
in CIS, which had taken over system O&M. Instead, collections went to amortize the
investment cost of NIA in constructing CIS. ISF was denominated in palay and set on a
system-by-system basis in consultation with the IAs. The factors considered include
type of system (diversion, reservoir, pump), crops planted, and season.
Nor was O&M solely the function of NIA. Before FISA, NIA implemented an
irrigation management transfer (IMT) program, where both O&M responsibilities and
ISF fees were shared between NIA and IAs, following a scheme summarized in Table 1.
Before the implementation of FISA, several issues had arisen in O&M among NIS,
most notable of which was the lack of funds for proper O&M and rehabilitation. The
internally generated funds of NIA, mostly composed of ISF, were insufcient such
that the national government had to subsidize O&M of national systems (Figure 1).
The collection rate was way below 100 percent. However, farmers had little incentive
to clear their arrears, as NIA could not exclude delinquent farmers from its service.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 151
Table 1. Basic responsibilies of NIA and IAs under various models of IMT contracts
IMT Contract NIA’s Responsibility IAs’ Responsibility
Model 1 Management of the enre
system but transferred specic
operaons and maintenance
(O&M) responsibilies to
the IAs
(a) Maintenance of canals (poron of main
canals, laterals, and other irrigaon facilies
and structures within the coverage of the IA
service area); (b) Operaon acvies, such as
discharge monitoring and preparaon of list of
irrigated and planted area; and (c) Distribuon
of irrigaon service fee (ISF) bills and campaign
for payment. Depending on the capacity and
willingness of the IA, ISF collecon was an
added responsibility of the IA, especially in
NIS that had minimal NIA sta under the NIA
raonalized structure.
Model 2 Management of the main
system, from the headworks
to the head gates of
lateral canals
Management, O&M of the laterals, sublaterals,
and terminal facilies. ISF collecon.
Model 3 Management of the
headworks and poron of
the main canal up to the
juncon of the rst lateral
canal headgate
Management, O&M of the rest of the system
from the juncon of the rst lateral canal
headgate down to the farm-level facilies. This
was an expanded form of Model 2.
Model 4 Monitoring, evaluaon, and
technical assistance of the IAs
Full management, O&M of the enre system,
including the headworks.
Note: The share of the IA in ISF collection is negotiated on a system basis; however, the share of the IA
typically increases from Model 1 to 3. In Model 4, only a system rental fee is paid by the IA.
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; IAs = irrigators’ associations; IMT = irrigation management transfer
Source: NIA (2012)
Preparatory phase of FISA implementation
The NIA Board of Directors through Resolution 8396-17 series of 2017 has approved
the Guidelines on Free Irrigation Service provided in NIA Memorandum Circular 13,
series of 2017. According to the guidelines, IAs in NIA will be compensated based on the
length of canal section transferred to them by NIA for maintenance. The equivalent
of one canal section shall be: lined canal = 3.5 kilometers (km) of earth main or lateral
canal; lined canal = 7 km of concrete main or lateral canal. For each canal section,
the IA, after satisfactorily complying with its maintenance obligations stated in the
contract, shall be paid PHP 1,750 per month for a maximum of six months in a year.
152 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
For operations-related responsibilities, the IAs/federation will be paid PHP 150 per ha
per cropping of irrigated and planted areas.
For CIS, NIA will stop collecting amortization and equity payments from farmers
and/or IAs. This policy also applies to small irrigation systems, pump irrigation
systems, including shallow tube wells, and small reservoir irrigation systems. For
projects with participation of local government units (LGUs), the equity requirement
from the concerned LGU will be maintained.
IAs, as part of their internal policies, may collect an additional amount from members
on top of the regular dues (membership fees, annual dues, capital buildup, among
others) to cover or augment their O&M budget. Their respective general assemblies
must approve such collection. A subsequent amendment repealed this provision to
allow the IA to decide freely whether to pursue internal cost-recovery schemes.
Figure 1. Trends in the actual cost of O&M of rmed-up service areas,
ISF collected of NIS: 1983–2016
O&M = operations and maintenance; ISF = irrigation service fee; NIS = national irrigation systems;
PHP = Philippine peso; ha = hectare
Source: Inocencio and Barker (2018)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
(Pesos at 2000 prices/ha)
ISF Collectible ISF Collected O&M Actual
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 153
Implementation after the passage of FISA
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of FISA cover the scope of free
irrigation, condonation, O&M of both NIS and CIS, collection and use of ISF, technical
assistance to IAs and irrigators service cooperatives (ISCs), and appropriations.
• Scope: All farmers with landholdings 8 ha and below are exempted from
paying ISF in NIS, CIS, and other systems developed by NIA or other
government agencies. This covers reservoir systems, diversion systems,
and pump systems. It also covers natural persons. Corporate farms and
plantations, regardless of size, are not covered.
• Condonation: All past due ISF, amortization of CIS, interest due, and
penalties assessed owed by exempted persons are condoned and written
off from NIA’s books.
• O&M of NIS: NIA will be responsible for developing, operating, and
maintaining NIS. In particular, the main facilities of an NIS, such as dams,
reservoirs, intakes, headworks, diversion works, pumping stations, main
canals, and large lateral canals, shall be managed by NIA.
Secondary facilities and structures of NIS, namely, medium-size laterals,
sublaterals, turnouts, farm ditches, farm drains, and other terminal facilities, will be
transferred to IAs, ISCs, or federations of the same. The delegation will be done under
the IMT program of NIA and formalized by an IMT contract.
For areas covered by IMT, NIA will provide the following subsidies:
1. Operations subsidy – PHP 150 per ha per season
2. Maintenance subsidy – PHP 1,750 per canal section every 45 days (maximum
of six times per year). A canal section is equivalent to a 3.5 km length of
canal for earth canals and a 7 km of canal for concrete-lined canals.
IAs/ISCs are free to formulate policies to generate funds for their O&M, subject to
the approval of their respective general assemblies.
The scope of an IMT contract will be determined by a functionality
survey, to be conducted annually and administered by senior water resources
development technicians, water resources development technicians, or irrigators
development ofcers (IDOs) of NIA. Every IMT contract will be subject to a seasonal
performance evaluation.
154 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Based on a sample contract found in Attachment 2 of the IRR, an IMT contract
may be suspended in case of noncompliance and poor performance of the IA/ISC as
determined through the performance evaluation. Upon suspension of the contract,
NIA takes over the management of NIS. The sample provisions state that “When the
IMT Contract is suspended, the NIA through the irrigation management ofce (IMO)
under the direction and supervision of the regional irrigation ofce (RIO) shall take
over the management of irrigation O&M of the area covered by the IMT contract
and the NIA shall have the option to hire ‘contract of services’ to complement its
manpower in the management of the area covered by the contract.”
• O&M of CIS: The IMT policy governing NIS is adopted as well for CIS, according
to Rule 7.2. Implicitly, IMT for CIS goes even further than in NIS. In these
smaller systems, the management of primary structures is also delegated
to IA.
• Collection and use of ISF: NIA shall collect ISF and other payments due from
nonexempt farmers and corporations. NIA may also enter into ISF collection
agreements with relevant IA/ISC to be covered by an IMT contract.
Such collections shall be used to augment the O&M subsidy received
from NIA.
• Technical assistance to IAs: NIA shall continue to be responsible for organizing
IAs/ISCs, as well as federations of IAs at the system level, develop their
technical and institutional capacity, and facilitate delivery of support
services from other agencies.
• Appropriations: The funding for O&M will be obtained from the annual
General Appropriations Act (GAA). The GAA will also fund the irrigation
systems development program, irrigation systems restoration, repair and
rehabilitation program, and support to operations.
Related literature
Options for water pricing
Postwar agricultural development in many developing countries involved massive
investments, often funded by ofcial development assistance, primacy of political
over economic criteria, and low-cost recovery, if any. In the 1970s, the World Bank
and other agencies began to introduce cost-recovery schemes in its irrigation
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 155
nancing. One of the primary motivations was the generation of public savings,
thereby increasing public resources for agricultural development. However,
governments failed to implement the various schemes thoroughly, owing to political
clout of farmers and the lack of credibility of water providers given the unreliable
irrigation service. Various partial cost-recovery schemes were instead implemented
A typology of water-pricing schemes is described in Molle and Berkoff (2007):
• Area-based charge: ISF is charged per unit area served. This is often combined
with adjustment for type of crop and other factors, such as season
and location, among others. Countries practicing this include Nigeria,
Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, and Japan.
• Volumetric charge: ISF is charged per unit volume of water delivered. This
is practiced in several Middle East and North African countries, Southern
European countries, Australia, and the United States.
• Mix of area-based and volumetric price: This is practiced in Spain, Colombia,
Lebanon, and Morocco.
• Quota and xed charge: The user is charged a xed rate up to a certain amount
or quota. This is often implemented as a mix of quota, xed charge, and
volumetric price above-quota.
• Market-based pricing: Unlike the aforementioned schemes, where prices are
set by the irrigation service provider, prices are set by supply and demand
in market-based pricing, such as by auctioning off water access.
Viet Nam presents a valuable case study of a policy shift from water pricing to free
water (Cook et al. 2013). In 2008, the government waived water charges for irrigation
under Decree 115. The policy was intended to provide relief from high production
costs to farmers and raise productivity. However, the government expected a
farmer’s counterpart that is self-reliance for the management of tertiary canals and
farm ditches. Favorable impacts of the policy include the following:
• Farm net income increased by an average of about USD 20 per household
per year as a result of reduced payments for irrigation O&M.
• Irrigated areas increased by 3–5 percent in some areas. These increases were
because the government provided a steady ow of income to irrigation and
drainage management companies (IDMCs), allowing them to overcome the
problem of undercollection of ISF.
156 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
However, there were some negative outcomes:
• The government is slow to update cost norms of IDMCs, leading to
underfunding and erosion of O&M.
• Making irrigation free effectively severs the link between water user
organizations and IDMCs.
In the case of the Philippines, Fullon et al. (2018) gave a highly positive evaluation
of FISA. NIA has shouldered a large share of O&M activities, leaving IAs free to
undertake maintenance activities using their own funds. This is contrary to the
notion that incentives toward O&M will be weakened by free irrigation. Moreover,
the subsidy is conditional on IA effectiveness, incentivizing effort and coinvestment
in maintenance and repairs.
NIA (2016c) prepared a position paper on free irrigation. The paper cited the
following advantages of collecting ISFs:
1. The funding of O&M is better ensured.
2. Partnerships with IAs are better sustained.
3. Self-reliance of IAs is strengthened.
4. Management of the irrigation system is incentivized.
On the other hand, the removal of the ISF has its advantages:
1. Cost of production of farmers is estimated to decline by 3.4 to 6.1 percent.
2. NIA can better focus on planning, design, construction,
restoration/rehabilitation, and O&M of NIS.
3. NIA can better focus on strengthening and capacity building of IAs.
Scope of cost recovery and categories of maintenance
The scope of cost recovery through water pricing is distinguished by the type of cost
to be covered. At a lower range of values for cost recovery, the aim is partial to full
recovery of O&M cost. At an upper range of values for cost recovery, the aim is
partial to full recovery of capital cost.
The maintenance level is another variable to be selected depending on the desired
benet stream from the asset. Alternative strategies for asset management are the
cyclical approach and the regular maintenance approach. The former is characterized
by little to no maintenance input over time, rapid deterioration of the irrigation
system, and sporadic rehabilitation to bring the system back to full functionality.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 157
The latter is characterized by regular maintenance inputs precisely to avoid rapid
system deterioration. Rehabilitation, if any, is done only after prolonged enjoyment
of irrigation services. The latter approach is likely to be a better approximation of an
optimal asset management schedule than the former (Skutch and Evans 1999).
Distinctions within the regular maintenance approach can be made according to
the following categories (Svendsen and Huppert 2003):
• Minimum maintenance: This refers to a xed and low level of funding. After a
short period of maximum performance, the irrigation service declines, rst
rapidly, then at a decreasing rate.
• Pragmatic maintenance: Successively higher levels of funding are provided
for upkeep. This lengthens the period during which maximum service is
delivered.
• Maximum or gold-plated maintenance: A very high level of maintenance
funding is sustained period after period. Irrigation service is delivered at a
maximum level at virtually all times.
Under cost recovery of O&M, governments and users do not only agree on
cost-sharing. They will need to also agree on the objectives and standards of
maintenance. Securing users’ agreement on these and other matters is part of
participatory management, discussed in the following.
Participatory management schemes and free irrigation
Most gravity irrigation systems worldwide have relied on public investment for their
initial construction. Their management, however, can remain under government
auspices, or it can be turned over to water users. The decision to turn over management
is separate from the decision to charge for irrigation service, which leads to various
options for pricing and management (Table 2).
The upper left (GG) and lower right (UU) quadrants are the opposites among
the options. In the former, the government is responsible for both management and
funding of O&M. In the latter, users are entirely responsible for management and
O&M. Other combinations are found in the upper right (GU) and lower left (UG)
quadrants. In the former, the government manages the system but users contribute
to O&M. In the latter, the government contributes to O&M while the users are
responsible for managing the system.
158 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
This schema, while useful, is a gross simplication of reality. There are gradations
in terms of management responsibility, such as the division of tasks between the
government and users, and cost-sharing between government and users.
The column on the right (GU and UU) represents the pre-FISA policy of cost
recovery, with GU mapping to NIS and UU mapping to CIS. Users in NIS pre-FISA
may not pay for O&M completely, such that the government shoulders the balance
of O&M cost.
Meanwhile, the column on the left (GG and UG) represents the free irrigation
policy. Clearly, UG maps to CIS. However, free irrigation in NIS may map to either GG
or UG depending on the following:
• GG prevails when the NIS is not covered by an IMT program
• UG prevails when the NIS is covered by an IMT program.
Table 2. Opons for management and O&M payment
Who pays?
Who Manages?
Government (G) Users (U)
Government (G)
(GG)
Government manages system
Government shoulders O&M
(GU)
Government manages system
Users contribute to O&M
Users (U)
(UG)
Users manage the irrigaon system
Governments contribute to O&M
(UU)
Users manage system
Users shoulder O&M
O&M = operations and maintenance
Source: Authors’ own
This uncovers a critical problem in the current schema involving IMT under
FISA. NIA’s takeover of the management of irrigation O&M and hiring of a contract
of services will merely free the IAs/ISCs of the responsibility and nancial burden of
topping up the inadequate O&M subsidy. The irrigation service will not be necessarily
suspended and the erring IAs/ISCs can still benet from the free irrigation service. In
this sense, this supposed disincentive can potentially serve as an incentive for IAs/
ISCs to perform poorly.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 159
There are gradations in the degree of user participation and government
contribution in UG. UG in CIS involves greater user participation than UG in NIS as
the former exercises full management over the irrigation system, whereas the latter
covers only secondary facilities and structures.
IMT remains the main institutional solution for irrigation management problems
and poor system performance in the developing world. Earlier studies by the World
Bank (1992a) indicated some favorable results from IMT. The literature on IMT and
participatory management is far from a consensus on whether such policy generally
succeeds or fails (Garces-Restrepo et al. 2007). The impacts of management transfer
are rarely uniform across the various social, technical, and nancial indicators the
process is theoretically intended to effect.
A more prudent approach is for research to focus on knowledge gaps about
how IMT works and what factors contribute to IMT success (Rap 2006 as cited by
Senanayake et al. 2015). For instance, Araral (2011) found that in NIS, IA-managed
turnout service areas (TSA) are better-managed than NIA-managed TSAs, owing in
part to the perception of legitimacy. In the former, an offense is committed against
peers while it is committed against an impersonal bureaucracy in the latter.
Method of the study
As mentioned previously, FISA embraces equitable access to opportunities as one of
its key strategies to raise the quality of life of rural areas. To this end, it provides for
the reduction of farm production cost by waiving recovery of irrigation cost from
farmers. Implicitly, it deems it more equitable to transfer resources from taxpayers
to provide cost-savings for farmers.
However, it is also an efciency issue. First, the budget for irrigation may be
more efcient as an instrument for promoting equity. This can be done by targeting
it to a group more disadvantaged than the main beneciaries of FISA, particularly
farmers cultivating less than 8 ha.
Second, any incentive effect from water-pricing schemes is problematic under
free irrigation. Water-saving must be a voluntary act on the part of farmers. Given
that agriculture is the main user of the country’s freshwater supply, which faces
threats from climate change, the effectiveness of the policy for future water resource
management needs to be carefully reviewed (Cabangon et al. 2016).
Third, as an operational matter, free irrigation may complicate the management
of irrigation systems. Operational concerns include issues, such as underfunding
160 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
of O&M by the government and weakening of incentives to cooperate and actively
participate in irrigation management on the part of users.
To address the issues, the study adopted the following strategies:
1. Equity was analyzed by examining the poverty and income prole of rice
farmers, drawing on secondary data.
2. Efciency in terms of operations and incentive effects was explored based
on eld investigation and primary information.
Data gathering was part of a broader evaluation study implemented by the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Its respondents and study sites were
• NIA ofcers from the seven RIOs and 14 IMOs in the following provinces
covering all regions of Luzon: Laguna, Ilocos Norte, Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva
Vizcaya, Benguet, Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Camarines Sur, and
Occidental Mindoro;
• NIA ofcers in 8 IMOs and 6 RIOs in the following regions and provinces of
Visayas and Mindanao: Regions VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, and Capiz, Iloilo, Bohol,
Leyte, Bukidnon, Davao del Sur, North Cotabato, and South Cotabato; and
• other government agencies found in the National Capital Region, namely,
the central ofces of NIA and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted among IA ofcers in NIS and
CIS in the provinces. During these FGDs, a structured questionnaire was administered,
with some questions related to the implementation and impacts of free irrigation.
The reference period of the study was 2017. During that year, free irrigation
law had yet to be enacted, though the policy of waiving ISF in NIS and amortization
in CIS was already in place. The feedback from IA ofcers and government staff
was therefore based only on preliminary versions of the law and mostly based on
opinions and subjective impressions. Moreover, the sample was very small and
not based on random selection. Inferences made should be seen as hypotheses for
further validation.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 161
Results and discussion
Analysis of equity
Free irrigation has the potential to benet millions of individuals and households.
Based on the Census of Agriculture (PSA 2015), the number of irrigated farm
holdings had been consistently increasing, from just 374,000 in 1960 to nearly
2.3 million holdings in 2012, spanning 1.81 million ha (Figure 2).
The number of farmers cultivating these holdings was less than 2.3 million, as
some farmers may cultivate multiple parcels. However, the actual number was likely
to be close to 2 million. A vast majority of them planted palay and fell under the
8-ha cutoff. In 2012, holdings of 7 ha or below accounted for 77.8 percent of all
holdings by area, and 98.2 percent of all holdings by number (PSA 2015).
Free irrigation led to only small savings in palay production cost.
In an earlier cited position paper, NIA (2016c) estimated 3.4 to 6.1 percent as
the share of ISF in the production cost of palay. It turns out that estimate refers to
Figure 2. Number and area of irrigated farms/holdings: Philippines, 1960–2012
374 506
873
1,473
1,984
2,265
621
865
1,206
2,296
2,930
1,810
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1960 1971 1980 1991 2002 2012
Number of holdings with irrigation Physical area of holdings (ha)
Source: PSA (2015)
162 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
cash cost. Table 3 shows the relative size of ISF (paid both in cash and in kind) in
2017. The 2013 estimates were compared to show that cost shares remained largely
the same, despite the implementation of free irrigation in 2017. Nationwide, ISF
accounted for as little as 1.5 to 1.6 percent of cash cost (Region VIII) to as much as
6.8 to 7.3 percent in Region XII.
Table 3. Share of irrigaon service fee in the cost of palay producon by region,
2013 and 2017 (%)
Share in Cash Cost Share in Total Cost
2013 2017 2013 2017
Philippines 4.0 4.2 1.9 1.9
CAR 2.4 3.0 1.2 1.3
Region I 3.1 3.1 1.5 1.4
Region II 4.0 3.8 1.9 1.8
Region III 3.7 4.0 1.9 1.8
Region IV-A 4.1 4.4 1.9 2.0
Region IV-B 3.1 3.2 1.6 1.6
Region V 3.3 3.3 1.7 1.6
Region VI 5.4 5.6 2.3 2.2
Region VII 4.0 4.2 2.0 1.9
Region VIII 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.7
Region IX 3.6 3.6 1.8 1.7
Region X 5.5 5.7 3.0 2.9
Region XI 6.5 6.7 2.6 2.6
Region XII 6.8 7.3 2.6 2.6
Region XIII 6.9 6.2 3.2 2.9
ARMM 5.4 5.2 2.9 2.6
CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region; ARRM = Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
Source: PSA (2020)
As a share in total cost, ISF averaged under 2 percent for the entire country. The
share was lowest in the Cordillera Administrative Region at 1.2 to 1.3 percent and
highest in Region XI at 2.9 to 3.0 percent. Making irrigation free conferred only small
savings in cost for palay farmers. Based on 2017 estimates of cost of production and
total production of irrigated palay, removal of the ISF will save palay farmers the
equivalent of PHP 3.4 billion.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 163
Palay farmers were poorer than the average household, but most were not poor.
Based on a merging of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey and the Labor
Force Survey in 2015, about 4.1 percent of all households were identied as net
rice producers, i.e., households whose heads identied their primary occupation as
growing of paddy rice and whose household crop income exceeded household rice
expenditure (Figure 3). If farmers (i.e., net rice producers) were poorer than most of
the population, then they would account for a disproportionate share of the number
of poor households. Palay farmers accounted for 4.8 percent of poor households, that
is, poverty incidence among rice-farming households was higher than average by
about 17-percentage points. This implies, on the other hand, that the share of palay
farmers among nonpoor households was 4 percent, almost identical to the share of
palay farmers in all households.
Alternatively, Figure 3 shows the cumulative distribution of palay-farming
households by per capita income decile. As the poverty incidence of families in 2015
was only 16.5 percent, the poor fell only among the rst and second deciles. The rst
two deciles accounted for about 28 percent of rice-farming households.
However, this implies that 72 percent of rice-farming households were in the
third to top deciles, among the nonpoor. When combined with the fact that most
palay farmers were below the 8-ha cutoff, an income transfer to palay farmers had a
chance of 3 in 4 of beneting a nonpoor household. In short, free irrigation performed
better at targeting the poor than a general transfer to the population, but not by
much. Far better are means-tested schemes for transferring incomes, such as the
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.
Figure 3. Cumulave distribuon of net rice-producing households, 2015 (%)
12.0
25.9
38.5
51.7
61.7
71.0
80.2
88.0
95.6 100.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
12345678910
Source of basic data: PSA (2015)
164 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Results of FGDs and key informant interviews
National systems
In NIS, cost recovery was associated with distorted incentives, failures in ISF
collection, and inadequate level of O&M.
As discussed in previous sections, the cost-recovery scheme was fraught with
problems. Area irrigated was often underdeclared to reduce payment, as ISF was
charged on a per hectare basis. Another was that the collection of ISF was typically
below 100 percent. As explained earlier, cost recovery is difcult when access to the
service is not tied to the payment. According to IAs, the top reasons for nonpayment
were (1) personal difculties of the IA member, (2) insufcient water, and (3) damaged
state of irrigation systems. The second and third reasons imply that members were
reluctant to pay ISF if they believe they are not receiving value for their money.
IAs in NIS viewed the level of O&M as being generally inadequate, consistent with
the literature on the subject. Given the political unwillingness to raise ISF rates, the
government was also complicit, given its failure to raise budgetary outlays for O&M.
The main benet to farmers from free irrigation was the savings from paying ISF.
The repeal of ISF provided some cost savings on the part of farmers. An
overwhelming majority (87%) of IA respondents in NIS found the free irrigation policy
to be more benecial than the cost-recovery policy. Views on the specic benets of
free irrigation are summarized in Figure 4.
The cost savings translated to higher incomes. There were also supposedly
other effects, such as increased yield and cropping intensity, due to the extra income
enjoyed by farmers from the waiving of ISF.
The shift to free irrigation in NIS addressed some distortions, though with
unclear implications for IMT.
Under free irrigation, the incentive to underdeclare the area irrigated was
removed. However, with the costing of O&M subsidy dependent on area planted,
there might be a tendency to overstate in the opposite direction. Moreover, resources
expended in collecting ISF can be saved and diverted elsewhere. Nonetheless, IAs
mentioned that miscellaneous contributions from members were still being collected,
but under a different label, such as irrigation maintenance fee, association fee, water
maintenance, among others.
The idea of giving farmers or IAs bigger roles and more responsibilities in
the operation and management of national systems was meant to address the
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 165
sustainability concerns given limited funds for O&M. However, NIA can no longer
incentivize management transfer by sharing its ISF collection with the IA. Under its
current IRR, the free irrigation policy may have therefore diminished the incentive
for IAs to participate and contribute more toward managing and sustaining the NIS.
Funding for O&M has declined under the initial stage of free irrigation.
It is too early to assess whether the shift to free irrigation has led to a net
improvement of O&M outcomes. According to NIA informants, O&M subsidy under
cost recovery was about PHP 650 per ha per season. This corresponds to 30 percent
of the average value of the ISF per hectare (about 2.5 cavans of palay at the
government support price of PHP 17 per kg). Compare this to the current subsidy
provision consisting of an operating subsidy of PHP 150 per ha per season, together
with a maintenance subsidy per kilometer of lined canal. Using the gure of
34.5 meters of canal per hectare of irrigated service area, of which 84 percent
consisted of earth canals, the maintenance subsidy is another PHP 95 per ha for a total
of PHP 245 per ha per season. This is equivalent to a 62.3 percent decline in the O&M
subsidy.
Likewise, in no case has an IA expressed satisfaction at the level of O&M provided,
whether before or after free irrigation. The impression of IA respondents was that its
Figure 4. Benets from free irrigaon based on NIS IAs FGDs (% of respondents)
83
52 55 58
15
42 43 36
2626
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Increasing Inc ome Increasing yield Increasi ng cropping
intensity
Increasing lan d area
for production
Did not answer
No
Yes
NIS = national irrigation systems; IAs = irrigators’ associations; FGDs = focus group discussions
Source: Authors’ data
166 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
subsidy levels were too low. IAs had to keep collecting from their members to generate
enough funds to properly cover O&M. The subsidy provided by NIA cannot fully cover
the maintenance costs, especially those involving major repairs or rehabilitation. In
some NIS, IAs reported no improvement in system performance when free irrigation
has been introduced.
A minority of IAs expressed overall dissatisfaction with the shift to free
irrigation. These NIS were those located in Jalaur, Iloilo, as well as along the
Mambusao River in Roxas City. Their objections are illustrative of the difculties
associated with free irrigation.
• In the Jalaur system, the main canal from the source suffered water
shortage due to siltation. The subsidy was insufcient, as laterals became
nonfunctional and the main canal was almost fully silted. These NIS
reported that there was no improvement in system performance when free
irrigation was introduced in 2017.
• In Roxas City, some IAs were complaining that laterals were only partially
operational. Management and association fees provided by NIA cannot
fully cover the maintenance costs, especially those involving major repairs
or rehabilitation.
Communal systems
Free irrigation was seen to be benecial in communal systems due to subsidies
for O&M and added incentives to undertake new projects.
Under the cost-recovery policy, IAs in CIS were left to fend for themselves in
terms of funding O&M. Under free irrigation, they became entitled to a subsidy
equivalent to what is received by IAs in NIS. During the period of eldwork, CIS IAs
had not yet received the O&M subsidy but were expecting to receive it. With this
expectation, an overwhelming majority (75%) assessed the free irrigation policy to be
benecial to them.
The removal of CIS amortization minimized conicts between NIA and IAs and
increased funds for the association. Free irrigation not only provided a recurrent
subsidy for O&M but also a capital subsidy for new irrigation projects, as the NIA
no longer required IAs to pay for amortization. Hence, the conrmation of small
irrigation projects and rehabilitation of existing systems became easier as farmers
were no longer hesitant to implement such projects.
The level of O&M in CIS was constrained by the low level of subsidy and increased
difculty in collecting O&M contributions from IA members.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 167
Of the 24 responses obtained from CIS IAs, 17 stated that free irrigation would
affect the level of O&M. Reasons given for the effect are broken down in Figure 5.
Five of them (29%) said that the level of O&M would improve, mainly due to additional
funding from the government that can be used for O&M. The savings in amortization
can also be used for this activity.
However, some IA respondents pointed to potential difculties, the most serious
of which was the inability to collect from their members. Even before IAs had received
a budget for O&M, some members already stopped paying for ISFs. In general, free
irrigation was expected to lead to lower collections (35% of respondents) in the face
of insufcient O&M subsidy from the government (24%).
Figure 5. Reasons given for the change in O&M level, CIS IA respondents (n = 17)
Improvement in
irrigation/use of
savings for O&M
5
Lower collections
for O&M
6
Insufficient funds
for O&M
4
No
response/no
effect
2
n = number of respondents; O&M = operations and maintenance
Source: Authors’ data
Operational and institutional issues: Perspectives from NIA
Overall, free irrigation was expected to increase the level of O&M in irrigation.
NIA staff in regional and eld ofces generally held that the level of O&M would
increase or remain the same. In RIOs, the share of those expecting an increase in
O&M was as high as 75 percent (Figure 6). Given the low level of O&M subsidy in NIS,
this increase must therefore be due to (a) allocation for O&M of CIS where there was
168 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
none before, (b) elevation of maintenance inputs from NIA itself over its management
responsibilities, and (c) continued internal fund generation of IAs for O&M. Still, there
was the dissenting opinion of an NIA Central Ofce staff, who remained skeptical
about the benets of free irrigation policy in terms of managing IAs, since the new
policy has discouraged resource mobilization from IA members.
Figure 6. Share of NIA respondents by expectaon of change in O&M with FISA (%)
25
75
0
42
29 29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Same More Less
RIO IMO
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; O&M = operations and maintenance; FISA = Free Irrigation Service
Act; RIO = regional irrigation ofce; IMO = irrigation management ofce
Source: Authors’ data
The shift to free irrigation has altered the incentive structure of NIA for both
staff and NIA as an institution while facilitating some administrative processes.
Under cost recovery, various incentive schemes staff tied to ISF collections were
in place for NIA. The Variable Incentive Grant (VIG) was given at year-end to fund
personnel incentives. VIG was given to ofces based on physical performance and
nancial self-sufciency indicators. With free irrigation, VIG will need to be replaced
with a different incentive scheme.
As an institution, NIA should become aware of the tendency for IAs to be more
complacent about project viability. IAs perceived that they would still be receiving
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 169
some level of service, however poorly, without paying any of the cost. Unless corrected,
project selectiveness within NIA itself may be compromised under free irrigation.
Under the cost-recovery policy, the interests of NIA and IAs would often be in
conict. NIA sought to collect fees and the latter to avoid paying, often disputing the
value of the service being provided by NIA. Moreover, disbursement of salaries tended
to be tied to the ow of ISF collections, leading to occasional delays in the release
of staff salaries. Under FISA, the conict of interest issue was mooted, facilitating
coordination with IAs. Furthermore, the funding for O&M is remitted directly by the
Department of Budget and Management to NIA from the General Fund, with no delays
in release.
Under free irrigation, NIA would need to recongure its functions and
staff complement.
NIA had previously expended considerable resources and human resource
collecting ISF from NIS and amortization from CIS under the cost-recovery policy. This
function is now removed under free irrigation. NIA must now intensively monitor the
IMT program in both NIS and CIS and allocate more resources for O&M and technical
assistance. IMOs will now need to be considerably strengthened. Under this setup,
IDOs believed that free irrigation could reinforce partnership between NIA and IAs.
Analysis of ndings
A simplistic view of FISA suggests that the government both supplies and pays for
O&M in NIS (GG option) while contributing to the cost of O&M in CIS (UG option).
However, a closer assessment based on the IRR suggests a more nuanced framework.
The IMT strategy provided in the IRR implies that NIA also prefers the UG option
even in NIS. However, the scope of user responsibility is certainly less than that
in CIS. The IMT scheme convinces IAs in NIS to accept at least some management
responsibility, in exchange for a subsidy. NIA is continuing to assign full management
responsibility of CIS to the IAs. In return, they pay a subsidy on equal terms as in
the NIS. This likewise suggests that IAs also have the incentive to continue their
management responsibility.
The incentive for IAs to absorb management responsibility does not always work.
For instance, resource mobilization within the IA may fail if enough members opt out
of making maintenance contributions. This has been observed on the part of several
IAs in the study sites. The failure of an IMT scheme in NIS implies defaulting to the GG
option, as discussed earlier.
170 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
In the case of a CIS, NIA does not have the authority to take over the management
in case of poor maintenance by the IA. The suspension of an IMT contract implies that
the O&M subsidy will also be suspended. However, the IA continues to be responsible
for CIS.
What might be the incentive for participatory management? And what might
make such incentives fail?
For CIS, the rst question is easy to answer. The O&M subsidy provides additional
incentive to continue to manage the system effectively, as poor management will
likely entail a loss of the subsidy. For NIS, the question of incentives is trickier.
Suppose for publicly managed and publicly funded systems, the government only
provides the minimum maintenance. There is strong evidence to suggest that the
government provides even a lower level of maintenance, i.e., low enough to fall into
a deterioration-rehabilitation-deterioration cycle (Araral 2005b). Suppose further
that with pragmatic maintenance, the discounted value of the benet stream of
irrigation service outweighs the discounted value of the cost stream of O&M. The
IA members have an incentive to raise the maintenance level from minimum to at
least pragmatic, especially for assets for which user maintenance is affordable (i.e.,
secondary irrigation structures). This maintenance level is made even more affordable
with additional public subsidy for O&M. Improved system operations and the move
up from minimum to pragmatic maintenance levels offer a two-fold answer to the
rst question.
As to the second question, the answer for both systems is the prospect of free-
riding in the presence of nonexcludability. As discussed earlier, it is difcult to deny
water to irrigation system users. Some users therefore may opt to shirk and let others
pay for asset maintenance, while beneting from irrigation service. This is precisely
the problem around which IAs are organized, an issue which not all are successful in
solving. The presence of O&M subsidy from NIA may perversely embolden some IA
members to shirk their responsibility to contribute to O&M.
This interpretation of FISA IRR is summarized as follows: NIA offers to provide
a minimum level of functionality of irrigation systems. It offers an IMT scheme to
IAs, through which it assigns management responsibilities and a subsidy for O&M for
those who assume management responsibility. The abolition of ISF implies that NIA is
transitioning away from a fee-collecting agency toward one specialized in technical
assistance, contract design, and performance monitoring. Similarly, IAs are in an
adjustment phase, learning that voluntarily absorbing management responsibilities
and costs is in their own best interest even under a policy of free irrigation service.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 171
Conclusion
Summary
Before 2017, the country’s irrigation systems had a long history of cost recovery,
interrupted only briey in 1998. In the late 1990s, it also encouraged water users’
participation in irrigation management, with complete turnover being a standard
practice in communal systems and partial turnover in national systems. In the latter,
turnover was incentivized by the sharing of ISF collections.
All this changed with FISA. The Act provides for free irrigation for farmers with
landholdings of 8 ha or lower. Such landholdings account for over 98 percent of all
farms/holdings. Free irrigation covers both O&M cost and capital cost. For NIS, this
entails repeal of the ISF. For CIS, the IRR of the law provide for a subsidy for O&M.
Based on key informant interviews and FGDs, the study found that cost recovery
in NIS was associated with distorted incentives, failures in ISF collection, and
inadequate level of O&M. Meanwhile, the main benet to farmers of free irrigation
was the savings from paying ISF in the case of NIS and the subsidy for O&M in the
case of CIS.
Despite a likely decline in O&M subsidy for IMT areas, overall O&M funding
was expected to increase. Although the free irrigation policy was implemented
unilaterally, with minimal consultation with IAs, many IA members demonstrated
willingness to continue to contribute toward the delivery of water services. Lastly,
the shift to free irrigation altered the incentive structure of NIA, for both staff and
NIA as an institution. Under free irrigation, NIA will need to recongure its functions
and staff complement.
These ndings from eld investigation narrowly examined irrigation sector
outcomes. More broadly, equity and efciency analysis relating expenditures to
expected impacts raised serious concerns. Despite a signicant budgetary allocation
to free irrigation, the analysis showed that the benets received on a per hectare or
per farmer basis were relatively small. Moreover, while beneciaries of free irrigation
were poorer than average, a large majority of potential beneciaries were nonpoor.
To achieve equity objectives, targeted transfers are probably superior to in-kind
transfers, such as free irrigation.
172 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Recommendations
Continue to pursue IMT within the context of free irrigation for both NIS and
CIS based on minimum maintenance for NIA and transparent maintenance
standards for both NIA and IA to be stipulated in the IMT contract.
The provision for IMT in the IRR of FISA may be contested by advocates who
back a policy of completely free irrigation with zero contribution from farmers.
However, the IMT strategy is probably sound and relieves some of the cost of O&M
on the public treasury. To incentivize management transfer, users must realize they
can do maintenance better and more efciently than NIA. Hence, NIA should adopt a
minimum maintenance strategy, with transparent maintenance standards for itself,
under the default case of government-managed and government-funded O&M.
Provide for sustained and increasing O&M subsidy but only on a performance basis.
The funding for free irrigation service is vulnerable to the vagaries of the
budgeting and approval process. To maintain the credibility of the policy, the
executive department must continue to include O&M subsidy in the annual budget
and Congress must vet and approve the proposal for as long as FISA is in place. Beyond
the nancial sustainability, the government should heed the clamor of farmers and
irrigation sector advocates to increase funding for O&M. However, rather than
providing this on an all-or-nothing basis as in the current IRR, incentives should be
built in by tying a larger subsidy allocation to the IA to better O&M outcomes achieved
by the IA under IMT.
Explore water-saving as a performance criterion in O&M subsidy.
The current set of performance indicators provided in IRR relate only to
irrigation service, rather than longer-term issues of sustainability and water
resource management. Currently, there is no management-oriented measurement
of water delivery, as is done under volumetric pricing, to calibrate payments based
on economizing on water. In the subsidy-based regime under FISA, similar incentive
effects can be obtained by penalties for higher water usage. The penalty can be
collected by subtracting the penalty value from the O&M subsidy.
An Assessment of the Free Irrigaon Service Act | 173
Transform NIA into a service-providing agency specializing in technical
assistance to IAs, contract design, and performance monitoring.
Under free irrigation, NIA is no longer expected to generate income to develop
and maintain irrigation systems. In this setup, its current charter as a government-
owned and controlled corporation makes little sense. It might need to be rechartered
along the lines of a line agency providing a public service. In doing so, it can focus
on its core mandates concerning O&M, namely, technical assistance, contract design,
and performance management. As pointed out by NIA staff and accepted by many
farmers, IAs are badly in need of training in system management, technologies
(e.g, alternate wet and dry irrigation), and institutional capacities in terms of
leadership, nancial management, and value formation.
Introduce a mandatory review comparing FISA with other social assistance and
social protection schemes.
This recommendation ows from the logic of accepting FISA as a state policy.
Given the newness of the legislation, it is prudent to keep the law intact and ensure its
proper implementation along the lines recommended above. However, this approach
should not obscure the broader implications of a policy of deploying public funds
for what is essentially a private good, which is the irrigation service. This warrants
a thorough review of the policy, say after ve years of implementation. It must be
compared with other social assistance schemes, such as subsidized agricultural
insurance and targeted cash transfers, among others. The aim is to evaluate whether
FISA is an effective instrument for delivering benets for the poorest and most
marginalized, relative to other social protection schemes.
Chapter 7
Benet-Cost Analysis of the
Resurgent Irrigaon System
Program of the Philippines
Roehlano M. Briones
Introducon
It is undeniable that irrigation investments have beneted farmers and society at
large. Such benets have been used to justify the massive investments in irrigation,
beginning in 2009, following the rice price crisis (see Chapter 1). The current Philippine
Development Plan (PDP) 2017–2022 targets 65.07 percent of potential area to be covered
by irrigated systems by end of period, higher than the 57.33-percent target in 2015.
The General Appropriations Act for 2019 allocated PHP 36 billion for irrigation
development while appropriations for 2020 are programmed to reach PHP 32.27 billion.
Irrigation development will continue to loom large in the national budget into the
foreseeable future.
The previous chapters have highlighted the myriad difculties encountered in
the design, performance, and maintenance of irrigation systems in the Philippines.
176 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
These problems highlight the gap between the actual and expected benets from these
systems, with the latter determined as early as the planning and feasibility/project
identication stage.
In addition to a more realistic evaluation of the effectiveness of irrigation
investments, a comprehensive assessment should also examine the issue of efciency.
This entails comparison of expected benets of irrigation with the cost of irrigation
development and maintenance. This chapter primarily aims to make this comparison
to assess the net returns to society of the resurgent irrigation program. The assessment
will be used as a basis for drawing policy implications for future public investments
in irrigation.
Background
Irrigation expenditures
Spending on irrigation reached a peak in the late 1970s when expenditures approached
PHP 20 billion in 1979 (Figure 1). With the economic crisis in the early 1980s, expenditures
plummeted to below PHP 5 billion in 1984. Since that time until 2008, irrigation
expenditures stayed within the PHP 5- to PHP 8-billion range. However, the rice price
crisis of 2008—when world price of rice breached USD 1,000 per ton—reinvigorated the
policy of rice self-sufciency. In 2009 expenditure breached the PHP 10-billion mark and
continued to trend steeply upward in the subsequent years until it again approached
the PHP 20-billion high-water mark in 2013.
Production and area trends
The area of irrigated systems has been growing; expansion has accelerated recently, particularly
for communal irrigation systems.
Total irrigated area of the country in 2016 was about 1.86 million hectares (ha), of
which about 46 percent are national irrigation systems (NIS) and 35 percent are
communal irrigation systems (CIS)(Figure 2). The remainder (19%) is composed of
other government systems, plus private irrigation systems. The NIS correspond
to government irrigation systems from 1,000 ha and higher, administered by the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA). CIS consist of systems below 1,000 ha, which
are administered by local government units (LGUs) and fully managed by irrigators’
associations (IAs) (NIA 2020).
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 177
Figure 1. Expenditures on irrigaon in 2000 prices: Philippines, 1965–2016
(PHP millions)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Inocencio and Inocencio (2020)
Figure 2. Irrigated area by system: Philippines, 1990–2019, (in ‘000 ha)
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
NIS CIS Private OGA
ha = hectare; NIS = national irrigation systems; CIS = communal irrigation systems; OGA = other government agencies
Source: Inocencio and Inocencio (2020)
178 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
There was a huge revision in the estimated area of CIS as a result of a validation
exercise by NIA in 1994. In 2011–2012, some NIS and CIS areas were converted to other
government systems, hence the decrease in area for both. Nonetheless, compared to
the baseline gures in 1994, the country’s irrigated area in 2016 was 46 percent larger.
In particular, growth rate of irrigated area was fastest in 2011–2016 at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent, compared to an annual rate of 1.15 percent in 1996–2011, consistent
with the rise in irrigation investment discussed previously. In 1996–2000, growth rate
of CIS was even faster, reaching an annual rate of 5.5 percent.
Over the long term, area harvested for all palay and irrigated palay have been increasing, but
the pace of growth has slowed since 2011.
As expected, the expansion in irrigated area has led to an increase in area harvested
both for all palay and irrigated palay (Figure 3). However, the acceleration in the
growth of area from 2011 onward has been accompanied by a deceleration in growth of
area harvested of irrigated palay and total palay. The reason for this is the contraction
in irrigated area in 2015–2016 and rainfed area in 2014–2016. The former, in turn,
was attributed to a severe El Niño phenomenon in 2015–2016; the area harvested
recovered immediately after the event, but fell again in 2018–2019.
Figure 3. Area harvested for palay by system: Philippines, 1987–2019 (in ‘000 ha)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Irrigated Rainfed
ha = hectare
Source: PSA (2020)
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 179
Compared to rainfed palay, irrigated palay is produced with higher yield and
at lower cost; however, yield and cropping intensity of irrigated palay has recently
been falling.
Palay production has been increasing from just 8.5 million tons in 1987 up to
an all-time high of 19.3 million tons in 2017 (Figure 4). However, output has seen
intermittent dips, most recently in 2015–2016 owing to an El Niño episode.
Figure 4. Producon (‘000 tons) and yield (tons per hectare) by system:
Philippines, 1987-2017
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Production, irrigat ed Production, rainfed Yield, irrigated Yield, rainfed Total y ield
Source: PSA (2020)
Previously, similar bouts of El Niño caused output to fall in 2009–2010, as well as
in 1997–1998. Yield of palay has likewise been in an upward trend, though an erratic one,
reaching a peak of 4.0 tons per ha in 2014, after which, it declined. In 2017, though, it
recovered to the same level of 4.0 tons per ha. While both irrigated and rainfed palay
follow an upward trend, irrigated palay retained a consistent yield advantage over
rainfed palay (40–50%).
Irrigated palay has a signicant cost advantage over rainfed palay and realized a sizable
margin over production cost at farmgate price.
Production cost per hectare for irrigated palay has exceeded PHP 50,000 since 2013,
compared to PHP 40,000 per ha for rainfed palay. However, owing to higher yield,
180 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
irrigated palay has a signicant cost advantage (Figure 5). Production cost of irrigated
palay ranges from PHP 11 to PHP 12 per kilogram (kg) since 2011, compared to rainfed
palay, which ranges from PHP 11 to PHP 13 per kg. The average cost advantage is
about 8 percent. Production of irrigated palay realized a sizable margin of farmgate
price over production cost, averaging 50 percent since 2011; as rainfed palay is priced
nearly the same, the margin over production cost for rainfed palay is somewhat lower.
Figure 5. Cost and returns by system: Philippines, 2002–2018 (in PHP per kg)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Cost per kilogram (pesos) Cost per kilogram (pesos) Average farmgate price (pes os/kg)
PHP = Philippine peso; kg = kilogram
Source: PSA (2020)
Cropping intensity of rainfed systems exceeds unity and has been relatively stable, whereas
that of irrigated systems rose to more than 2 and then declined.
In the following, cropping intensity in irrigated systems is dened as the ratio of
annual area harvested for irrigated palay to total irrigated system area. Meanwhile,
cropping intensity for rainfed systems is the ratio of total area harvested per year
for rainfed palay to area harvested in the second semester (the rainy season). The
ideal is cropping intensity of 2 or more for irrigated systems, while the expectation is
cropping intensity of 1 for rainfed systems.
In fact, cropping intensity for irrigated systems approximated 2 only in 2000–2007
(Figure 6). During the period of resurgent irrigation investment, cropping intensity
began to decline, reaching a low point in 2016. This is consistent with expansion in
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 181
irrigation investment discussed previously, together with area under irrigation, but the
weak growth in area harvested since 2010.
Figure 6. Cropping intensity esmates by system: Philippines, 1990–2019
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Irrigated Rainfed
Source of basic data: PSA (2020)
Past studies on benets and costs of irrigation
Early evaluations of irrigation systems noted large discrepancy between expected and
actual performance.
The rst wave of irrigation investments in the 1970s and early 1980s was followed by
several evaluations in the 1990s. David (1990) observed that gains in CI and yield were
low, owing to poor performance of the country’s irrigation systems. For the nation’s
agship irrigation project—the Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation System
(UPRIIS)—David (1990) noted the following technical problems:
• Assumptions on water availability, efciency, water requirement, and
sediment inow were systematically over/understated to raise the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR). For example, at feasibility study
stage, the UPRIIS was appraised at EIRR of 13 percent, but at ex post was
reappraised at 8.9 percent, which falls below the 12-percent cutoff.
• Design philosophy tends to be highly unrealistic. For instance, UPRIIS
design engineers introduced double-gated water control structures that
are too sophisticated for farmers and watermasters to operate. There is
182 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
no interaction between design engineers and farmers about proper design
and operations.
• Irrigation-related agencies fail to coordinate with one another. Design
engineers do not communicate with operations and maintenance (O&M)
engineers for feedback and advice. Agencies in charge of watershed
management are unable to control sedimentation rates, which reached
up to 375 percent above appraisal estimate. The Pantabangan Watershed
Management and Erosion Control was poorly conceived and unable to
control the ow of sediment into the Pantabangan Dam.
Similar ndings were broached in by the World Bank (WB 1992a). Design
improvements are warranted, such as
• greater attention to siltation, erosion, and related problems, and
• a more realistic approach to water control toward staggered and rotational
rather than continuous supply.
There is also potential for improving O&M in the following areas:
• minimizing silt inows;
• optimizing reservoir rules;
• more effective utilization of rainfall and return ows; and
• systematized rotational distribution and/or staggered transplanting.
Meanwhile, the following principles are propounded as guidelines for
future investment:
• Large multipurpose projects are likely to prove justied only if the costs of
headworks and other joint facilities can be attributed primarily to purposes
such as electric generation.
• New run-of-the-river national projects will continue to be important but
many are high cost with a limited dry season water supply and/or difcult
physical conditions.
• Communal irrigation remains a relatively high priority, subject to rigorous
application of agreed selection criteria to ensure that high-cost and
economically low-return projects are avoided.
The WB report noted with concern the policy thrust of rice self-sufciency, which
is driving large investments in irrigation. The important role of rice self-sufciency was
reiterated in a study of investments in irrigation from 1953 to 1988. Kikuchi et al. (2003)
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 183
showed that public investments in irrigation can be explained by an indicator of rice
self-sufciency, as well as short-run changes in world rice prices (which affect rates
of return to investments).
A review of the literature by David (1995) conrms these ndings, with some
additional observations:
• On average, actual irrigated area is only 75 percent of design service area;
large systems have a smaller ratio than small systems; and new irrigation
projects (after 1972) tend to have much lower ratios (56%) compared to
older systems (94% for projects before 1965).
• Selected foreign-assisted projects exhibit overruns in terms of time (60% on
average) and cost (50% on average), with EIRR at completion dates generally
lower than at appraisal dates, across a wide range of irrigation systems.
• Overestimates of EIRR are not only results of overestimates of service area,
but also due to failure to anticipate declining world prices of rice, which are
the basis for imputing the shadow price of domestic rice.
Wider policy context
Chapter 1 has demonstrated the tight link between irrigation and policies and programs
in relation to rice. Rice policy in the Philippines has been undergoing dramatic shifts in
recent years. In trade policy, the state has reversed decades of self-sufciency targeting
to accede to its international trade obligations by converting nontariff barriers into
equivalent tariffs. In rice industry development, the latest draft of the Rice Industry
Roadmap (DA 2019) continues to target import substitution, but subject to a cost-plus
margin, i.e., 35-percent tariff protection but free trade otherwise. Income of rice
farmers is targeted to increase by 50 percent by 2022. The roadmap adopts a strategy
of irrigation development focusing on priority medium-yield provinces (Table 1), with
percent irrigated area harvested below the national average.
Despite these recent shifts, budget allocation for irrigation appears to follow a
different set of priorities, i.e., as if the previous regime of production targeting and
self-sufciency remain intact. This leads to expenditure allocations sustaining the
levels observed since around 2011, i.e., PHP 30 billion or greater. Such allocations are
justied in terms of the benets, although a proper evaluation of these investments is
to systematically compare benets to costs.
184 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Methodology
Valuation of benets and costs
Benet-cost analysis applies the with-and-without comparison: the with or baseline
is the actual situation with irrigation investments; the without or counterfactual is
the hypothetical situation without irrigation investments. The increment or change
in benet and cost is the difference in benets and costs of irrigation investments
between the two cases.
The cost of an irrigation project involves the following:
• value of resources associated with the irrigation system itself, mainly
construction cost (but also sundries, such as foregone output from land
occupied by canal system); and
• value of resources associated with increased cropping intensity and
increased yield.
Table 1. Priority medium-yield provinces in the Philippines
Low Cost Medium Cost
Agusan del Norte
Aklan
Albay
Anque
Camarines Sur
Capiz
Cavite
Iloilo
Lanao del Sur
Leyte
Maguindanao
Masbate
Negros Occidental
Palawan
Sorsogon
South Cotabato
Surigao del Sur
Western Samar
Bohol
Compostella Valley
Ifugao
Negros Oriental
Occidental Mindoro
Quezon
Note: In the Philippines, medium-yield provinces have an average yield of 3–4 tons per hectare. Priority
medium-yield provinces are those with low cost (below PHP 12 per kg) and medium cost (PHP 12 to PHP 17 per kg).
PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Department of Agriculture (2019)
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 185
Meanwhile, benets from an irrigation arise from a more controlled delivery
of water to a farmer’s eld, as an alternative to rainfall. Benets from an irrigation
project are therefore measured by the incremental value of crop output. In the
Philippines, the crop that captures nearly all the benets from irrigation is rice, i.e.,
irrigation programming is designed primarily to boost rice production. Incremental
rice production is obtained through the following channels:
• Irrigation enables the farmer to plant during the dry season, thereby
increasing cropping intensity, i.e., frequency of harvest per unit of physical
land area.
• Irrigation leads to an increase in yield, through greater exposure of palay
to sunlight during the dry season and controlled timing of water delivery
in the wet season.
Note that water generates multiple types of benets, hence, construction of an
irrigation system generates ancillary benets. Depending on its design, an irrigation
system can be instrumental to production of potable water, electricity, and even sh.
Moreover, it can provide drainage services and ood management. In this chapter,
though, the valuation of benets is limited only to that related to incremental crop
production; the issue of valuing ancillary benets is revisited in the concluding section.
Benet-cost analysis is best done at the level of an actual irrigation project.
However, the thrust of this assessment is to assess the policy of catching-up with
the estimated backlog in irrigation investment over the past decade, hence, will be
implemented at a highly aggregated scale.
Note that at the level of individual systems, benet-cost analysis uses the same
sets of prices used to value with-project and without-project situations. Such an
assumption is questionable when analysis is done at the sector level where incremental
output is large enough to affect market prices. We shall return to this issue later.
Project lifespan and measures of project worth
For an irrigation project, costs are typically incurred upfront, i.e., during the rst
several years as the system is being established. Meanwhile, benets are realized
over an extended time horizon, equal to the duration of irrigation services provided
by the system; by convention, thirty years. To render the two streams comparable,
the suitable method is discounting to present value, using a social rate of discount.
The difference between total discounted benets and total discounted costs is called
NPV (net present value). Denoting t as time periods;
t
B
,
t
C
the benets and costs,
186 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
respectively, for each period; N the total number of periods in the lifespan of the
irrigation project(s); and r the social discount rate; then NPV is calculated as
( )
0
1
N
tt
t
t
BC
NPV
r
=
−
=+
∑
The ofcial social discount rate for evaluating projects is 10 percent, following
the latest National Economic and Development Authority guidelines (NEDA 2016).
Meanwhile, the ratio of total discounted benets to total discounted costs is the
benet-cost ratio (BCR). Lastly, the discount rate needed to equate NPV = 0 is the
internal rate of return (IROR). The project merits social investment when NPV > 0;
BCR > 1; or IROR hurdles the social discount rate.
Time horizon
The time interval over which irrigation investment was implemented is 2008–2016.
Assessment done only over the past horizon is called ex-post assessment. The advantage
of evaluating over a past period is that actual prices and quantities are known. If the
evaluation interval ends in 2016, then incremental benets can be estimated from
differences in yield and cropping intensity between irrigated systems (with investment)
and rainfed systems (without investment). However, the estimate of cost cannot be
the entire development cost, as that cost was incurred to generate a stream of benets
into the future. Rather, the past benets must be made comparable to some measure
of past costs. This can be most readily implemented by converting the total irrigation
investments into a stream of annuity values over the relevant past interval. Letting
PV to denote present value of the asset, then annuity payments P over N periods are
given by the formula
( )
11
N
PV r
P
r
−
⋅
=−+
.
Alternatively, the interval can extend up to the future period wherein the
benet stream from irrigation accrues. In this case, the entire development cost of
the investment can be used, dispensing with annuity value. However, there is no data
about future prices by which to value the incremental output. To generate estimates
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 187
of future prices, a multimarket equilibrium model, the Agricultural Market Model for
Policy Evaluation (AMPLE) is applied. A complete description of AMPLE is found in
Briones (2013).
Using AMPLE to generate baseline and counterfactual scenarios
Note that each year in AMPLE is a three-year average to smooth out vagaries of
agricultural production (a standard practice in multimarket agricultural policy models).
That is, AMPLE year 2015 is a three-year average for 2014–2016. Hence, 2016 (interpreted
as the average for 2015–2017) is a suitable starting point for the projection.
The AMPLE will be used to generate a baseline scenario, which incorporates
the with-irrigation case. The baseline will incorporate a key policy reform to be
implemented in 2019, specically, the repeal of the quantitative restriction (QR) on
importing rice. The QR has hitherto been implemented under the import monopoly
of the National Food Authority conferred by Presidential Decree 4. The QR prevents
the domestic price of rice at wholesale level from converging with the world price
in terms of milled rice. Consequently, palay price is also elevated compared to the
no-QR scenario. In 2018, Republic Act 11203 was passed by Congress. The law converts
QRs into tariffs, equivalent to bound rates of 35 percent for imports coming from countries
in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; 40 percent for most-favored-nation (MFN)
imports in-quota; and 180 percent for imports out-quota where “quota” or minimum
market access is set at 350,000 tons. Its implementing rules and regulations were
released in March 2019.
Implementing the counterfactual scenario involves shocking an area share
parameter in AMPLE that leads to endogenous area harvested for each crop, including
irrigated rice. Relevant equations of the AMPLE model are given in Equations 1 to 7
where i denotes index the crops of AMPLE and j the nonland inputs. Crop output,
i
QSS
is obtained by multiplying area harvested ()
i
A
) by the yield per hectare ()
i
Y
)
(Equation 1). Yield itself is obtained from a Cobb-Douglas production function; at the
prot optimum, per hectare supply is a function of producer prices (
i
PP
), input prices
(
j
w
), and various parameters (Equation 2). The net revenue function
i
NREV
is given
by total revenue, net of the factor share of nonland inputs equal to
i
Y
α
(Equation 3).
188 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
i ii
QSS A Y= ∗
(1)
( )
( )
( )
1
11
01
ji
i
YY
Y
i i i ij j
j
Y PP Y Y w
αα
α
αα
−
= ∗∗
∏
(2)
( )
1
i i ii
NREV Y PP Y
α
=− ∗∗
(3)
( )
1
ii
i
AA
ρρ
β
=
∑
(4)
i
i
atot A=
∑
(5)
**
ii
i
LAM ATRAN atot NREV A=∑
(6)
( )
A
i ii
A ATRAN atot LAM NREV
σ
β
= ∗∗ ∗
(7)
The interesting part of the framework is Equation (4), which expresses total area
harvested as a constant elasticity of substitution function of the area harvested of each
of the crops, together with a share parameter
i
β
. Further imposing the constraint
that total area atot is the sum of area harvested by crop (Equation 5) gives rise to an
adjustment variable ATRAN; in conjunction with minimizing cost by choice of area
harvested, subject to an overall area harvested constraint, then total net revenue
across all crops is a product of the Lagrange multiplier LAM, the adjustment variable
ATRAN, and atot. The same factors, together with the share parameter in Equation (4),
and
i
NREV
, determine area allocation under minimum cost (Equation 7). It is this
share parameter that can be shocked to calibrate the difference in irrigated area due
to investment.
Summary of assessment frames
To synthesize the foregoing discussion, benet-cost analysis (BCA) will be conducted
under several assessment frames, summarized in a ow chart (Figure 7). The rst
decision point for the BCA is the time horizon of the assessment. If the horizon is
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 189
limited to the past, then the assessment frame is ex-post assessment. Incremental benets
are compared to annuity value of development costs over the period 2008–2016. On the
other hand, if the horizon includes the future, then the assessment frame is ex post
and ex ante. The ex-ante projection applies the AMPLE. The baseline incorporates
projections of future price and output, together with policy reform in 2019 as rice
import quotas are converted to tariffs set at 35 percent.
The next decision point is generating the counterfactual scenario. One option is to
apply AMPLE itself, representing the counterfactual by an appropriate shock affecting
the size of irrigated area in 2016. NPV and other measures of project worth are obtained
by comparing the baseline with the counterfactual scenario. Alternatively, AMPLE is
only used to generate projections for baseline scenario for prices; incremental output
is obtained from the cumulative irrigated area, multiplied by difference in cropping
intensity and average yield between irrigated and rainfed systems.
Figure 7. Assessment frames for benet-cost analysis
ex-post:
2008 – 2016
•Annuity values for cost
•Fixed price for with
and without cases
Apply AMPLE:
ex-post and ex-ante
2008–2046;
applies actual
investment cost
Time
horizon?
AMPLE applied for both
baseline and
counterfactual?
Yes
Value incremental output using
difference between baseline a nd
counterfactual
No
•Use baseline scenario prices
to value incremental output
•Impute incremental output
using cumulative irrigated
area in 2016
AMPLE = Agricultural Market Model for Policy Evaluation
Source: Author’s illustration
190 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Findings
Ex-post 2008–2016
Table 2 presents a summary of investment costs for the past horizon for 2008–2015
while the impact of irrigation is shown in Table 3. For Table 2, the investments
summarized in the Total, market prices and Total, 2006 prices both involve projects
under the following classication, with intervals for completion of construction:
• totally new construction: 3 years
• more than 50 percent new construction: 2 years
• less than 50 percent new construction: 1 year
• total rehabilitation: 1 year
• other: 1 year
Table 2. Investment costs of irrigaon projects: Philippines, 2008–2015
(PHP millions)
Total 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total, market
prices 8,327 15,201 14,107 13,858 24,326 30,530 16,969 22,115
Total, 2006
prices 1,423 13,093 11,707 10,990 18,698 22,784 12,164 15,629
Annuity
value 7,632 7,632 7,632 7,632 7,632 7,632 7,632 7,632
NPV, annuity
value 44,788 7,632 6,938 6,307 5,734 5,213 4,739 4,308 3,916
NPV = net present value; PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Author’s calculations
The horizon is truncated at 2015 as the projects with the shortest duration to
realizing benet is one year. Based on market prices, irrigation investments in
nominal terms rose from PHP 8.4 billion in 2008 to PHP 22.1 billion in 2015. Deated
to 2006 prices, the corresponding amounts were PHP 1.4 to PHP 15.6 billion. The
estimated annuity value was PHP 7.63 billion every year, for which the discounted
value, in turn, was PHP 44.8 billion.
As for impact, benets from investments are felt from 2009 onward as irrigation
investment takes at least one year to generate incremental output. The change in
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 191
irrigated area is computed from a base year 2008, i.e., it is the cumulative change in
irrigated area from 2008 onward. The value of incremental output is computed from
the change in irrigated area, multiplied by the palay price, difference in yield, and
difference in cropping intensity. The latter is computed not based on actual difference
in cropping intensity of irrigated areas and nonirrigated areas, but rather as cropping
intensity of irrigated areas less unity. This tends to bias the calculation of incremental
output upwards. The resulting incremental output begins from just PHP 326 million in
2009 and rising to PHP 5.8 billion by 2016.
An additional source of benet is the reduction in incremental cost, computed
as the difference in cost per ton multiplied by the change in irrigated area and the
Table 3. Esmated impact of irrigaon: Philippines, 2008–2016 (PHP millions)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Change in
irrigated area
(ha)
19,995 22,726 74,499 122,253 181,900 211,089 235,730 362,301
Palay price
(PHP per ton) 14,760 14,870 15,170 16,220 16,760 20,070 17,330 17,430
Dierence in
yield 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3
Dierence
in CI 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7
Incremental
returns 326 378 1,154 2,246 3,433 5,210 4,789 5,787
Dierence
in cost (PHP
per ton)
-580 -730 -330 -540 -840 -1,210 -1,390 -1,270
Incremental
cost -46 -66 -99 -280 -653 -1,131 -1,413 -1,958
Total benet,
2006 prices 320 369 993 1,941 3,049 4,545 4,383 5,379
Discounted
value of
benet
291 305 746 1,326 1,893 2,566 2,249 2,509
ha = hectare; CI = cropping intensity; PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Author’s calculations using PSA (2018) data
192 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
total yield in irrigated areas. The resulting incremental cost was PHP 46 million in
2009, rising to about PHP 2 billion in 2016. The total benet in real terms is the sum
of incremental output and cost savings. The sum of discounted benets from 2009 to
2016 was PHP 11,885 million.
The measures of project worth based on Tables 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 8. The
NPV (discounted benets less discounted costs) was PHP 32.9 billion, as costs greatly
exceed benets. This is reected in the BCR, which shows discounted benets are
only 26.5 percent as large as discounted costs. No amount of positive discount rate
can alter this outcome. In fact, the discount rate has to fall to -42.2 percent to achieve
a zero NPV.
Figure 8. Measures of project worth, irrigaon investments, ex post:
Philippines, 2008–2016
0.265
-0.422
-32.902
-35.000
-30.000
-25.000
-20.000
-15.000
-10.000
-5.000
0.000
5.000
BCR IRR NPV (billions)
BCR = benet-cost ratio; IRR = internal rate of return; NPV = net present value
Source: Author’s calculations
Ex post and ex ante, 2008–2045
Next, the author examined the assessment frame involving the combination of
ex-ante and ex-post horizon. The baseline scenario incorporated projected
population and income growth to 2045 to account for changes in demand to 2045. For
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 193
the counterfactual scenario, a change in share parameter by 4.2 percent was set. From
the ex-post analysis, the cumulative area harvested by 2016 was computed, adjusted by
difference in cropping intensity (rainfed vs. irrigated), as 258,673 ha. The aforementioned
shock to
i
β
led to a decline in area harvested for irrigated rice approximately equal to
259,905 ha. The results of the baseline and counterfactual scenarios are shown in
Figure 9.
In the baseline scenario, output rises from 15.8 to 20.4 million tons, whereas in
the counterfactual, output rises from 15.5 to 20.2 million tons (Table 4). In both cases,
rounding off reduces annual growth to just 0.9 percent. Trends in palay price are also
very similar; under the base case, palay price goes from PHP 18.24 per kg in 2017, up
to PHP 18.88 (in 2015 prices) in 2045. Compare this to an actual 2017 price (for “other
paddy varieties”) equal to PHP 18.21 per kg. Meanwhile, in the counterfactual scenario,
2017 palay price is very similar at PHP 18.26 per kg, rising to PHP 18.92 in 2045.
Figure 9. Palay output (‘000 tons) and palay price (PHP per kg), base and
counterfactual case: Philippines, 2017–2045
17.2
17.4
17.6
17.8
18
18.2
18.4
18.6
18.8
19
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Palay output, base case Palay output, counterfactual
Palay price, base case Palay price, counterfactual
PHP = Philippine peso; kg = kilogram
Source: Author’s calculations
194 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Table 4. Irrigated palay output (in ‘000 tons) and price (in PHP per kg), projecons
for 2017–2045: Philippines
2017 2027 2037 2045
Palay output, base case 15,813 17,465 19,107 20,357
Palay price, base case 18.24 17.95 18.27 18.88
Palay output, counterfactual 15,551 17,364 19,001 20,244
Palay price, counterfactual 18.26 17.99 18.31 18.92
PHP = Philippine peso; kg = kilogram
Source: Author’s calculations
Note that palay prices experience a relatively big drop in 2019 whether in the
baseline or the counterfactual scenario. This is attributed to the policy reform of
tarifcation envisaged to be adopted in 2019. The implicit tariff rate for milled rice
(84.3% in 2014–2016) falls by assumption to a 35-percent explicit tariff rate from
2019 onward.
The gures shown in Table 5 imply incremental returns starting at PHP 4.3 billion
in 2017. However, the incremental returns decline to just over PHP 1 billion per
year over the subsequent decades, as the difference between with and without case
narrows over time. Together with the incremental cost savings, total benet deated
to 2006 prices reaches PHP 3.1 billion in 2017, down to just PHP 1 billion or below
in subsequent years. With discounting, benets accruing in later years decline to
single-digit levels (Table 5).
Table 5. Palay output and price, projecons for 2017–2045, in PHP millions
2017 2027 2037 2045
Incremental returns 4,320.22 1,127.70 1,210.78 1,351.72
Dierence in cost (PHP per ton) -861 -861 -861 -861
Incremental cost -225.49 -86.42 -90.91 -97.04
Total benet, 2006 prices 3,157 843 904 1,006
Discounted value of total benet 1,339 138 57 30
PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Author’s calculations
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 195
Across the measures of project worth, expanding the time horizon improves the
evaluation of irrigation investment only for the IROR, which increases to -5.1 percent
(Figure 10), from -42 percent (Figure 8). The reason is that extending the time horizon
allows for a more extended period in which positive returns are accruing to the
project. However, the ratio of benets to costs falls slightly down to 24 percent, from
26 percent under ex-post assessment. Lastly, the NPV falls further to PHP -55 billion,
as extending the benet horizon is simply unable to balance the full investment cost
incurred in 2008–2016.
Figure 10. Measures of project worth, irrigaon investments, ex ante and ex post:
Philippines, 2008–2045
0.242
-0.051
-54.6
-60.000
-50.000
-40.000
-30.000
-20.000
-10.000
0.000
10.000
BCR IRR NPV (billions)
BCR = benet-cost ratio; IRR = internal rate of return; NPV = net present value
Source: Author’s calculations
Ex post and ex ante, 2008–2045, xed loss in irrigated area
A sensitivity analysis was conducted wherein AMPLE is only applied to generate
baseline prices; incremental output uses a xed estimate of the change in irrigated
area in the counterfactual, equal to the cumulative irrigated area for 2008–2016
(Table 6). Incremental returns are now much higher than in the previous ex-post
and ex-ante analysis, as it rules out endogenous adjustment of the agricultural
market to a shock in irrigated area. Incremental output ranges from PHP 8 billion to
PHP 8.4 billion by 2045. In 2006 prices and discounted to present value, the total
benets range from PHP 2.5 billion in 2017 to just PHP 0.2 billion by 2045.
196 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Measures of project worth for the xed irrigated area counterfactual are shown in
Figure 11. With higher benet estimates from 2017 onward, the IROR rises to positive
values, reaching 4 percent. However, it remains far below the hurdle rate of 10 percent.
Likewise, the BCR rises to 51.8 percent, but remains far below the cutoff of 100 percent.
Finally, the NPV rises to negative PHP 35 billion, compared to negative PHP 55 billion
in the previous analysis. However, society continues to incur signicant loss by
overinvestment in irrigation.
Table 6. Palay output and price, projecons for 2017 to 2045: Philippines
(in PHP millions)
2017 2027 2037 2045
Incremental returns 8,071 7,946 8,089 8,356
Dierence in cost (PHP per ton) -861 -861 -861 -861
Incremental cost -381 -381 -381 -381
Total benet, 2006 prices 5,870 5,783 5,882 6,068
Discounted value of total
benet 2,489 946 371 178
PHP = Philippine peso
Source: Author’s calculations
Figure 11. Measures of project worth, irrigaon investments, ex ante and ex post:
xed change in irrigated area, Philippines, 2008–2045
0.518 0.038
BCR = benet-cost ratio; IRR = internal rate of return; NPV = net present value
Source: Author’s calculations
Benet-Cost Analysis of the Resurgent Irrigaon System Program | 197
Conclusion
This study conducted a systematic comparison of irrigation investments undertaken
in 2008–2016. The analysis adopted various assessment frames to arrive at a more
robust set of conclusions about the resurgent irrigation program. Across all frames, the
ndings converge around this conclusion: the costs of irrigation investment are too
large compared with the expected benets. None of the project worth indicators
reached threshold levels. Rather, the BCR tends to fall below unity; IROR estimates tend
to fall below the hurdle rate of 10 percent; and estimated NPV tends to fall below zero.
These ndings are far from original. They simply continue a strand of researches
on irrigation programs in the past decades, which also found that IROR at the feasibility
study stage tends to overestimate actual returns. This is, moreover, consistent with
the ndings of other studies conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies under this research program, which saw considerable gaps between potential
and actual benets of irrigation.
This begs the question of how irrigation projects gain approval at the feasibility
stage. Key informants from NIA have pointed out that actual feasibility studies
incorporate noncrop benets from irrigation, as mentioned in the section on
irrigation expenditures. This highlights a key limitation of this study’s BCA, which
only incorporates benets from incremental rice output.
This paper does not deny wholesale the validity of the government’s policy
on investment programming for irrigation. Certainly, there will be any number of
irrigation projects making appropriate assumptions about future crop and noncrop
benets, which will validly reach favorable ndings about IROR, BCR, and NPV. This
paper argues rather that policy reform abandoning production and self-sufciency
targeting, already underway, be adopted more consistently. The justication for
investment planning in terms of reaching some target level of potential irrigation
area should be treated with greater skepticism. And nally, project evaluation at the
feasibility stage must be stricter about making credible projections concerning future
crop and noncrop benets of proposed irrigation projects.
Chapter 8
Assessing the Resurgent
Irrigaon Development
Program of the Philippines:
Synthesis Report
Arlene B. Inocencio, Albert Dale B. Inocencio, and
Roehlano M. Briones
Introducon
Irrigation sector development is a key policy instrument in the pursuit of improved
agricultural production and crop productivity. It supports the “Ani at Kita” program
of the Department of Agriculture (DA), as well as the food security objectives of the
nation. The rice crisis, threats to food security, and the need to assist smallholder
farmers have been the main drivers of the irrigation program resurgence being
implemented by the government since 2009 (David and Inocencio 2012).
Given the importance of irrigation in terms of national budget allocation and its
expected contributions to agriculture and in addressing food concerns, this chapter
examines the effectiveness and efciency of the government’s irrigation program.
It synthesizes the ndings and recommendations of the previous chapters while
incorporating broader issues of irrigation, with a focus on governance, particularly
200 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
higher-level issues cutting across national irrigation systems (NIS) and communal
irrigation systems (CIS), and across other water sector agencies.
Specically, this chapter focuses on the performance of both NIS and CIS in terms of
technical, physical, and institutional aspects. As a means to structure the discussion,
the synthesis is organized around the research issues clustered under the various
stages of a typical project/program cycle, namely, project identication, design and
appraisal, implementation and procurement, operations and maintenance (O&M),
and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It is hoped that breaking down the analysis by
stage allows a substantive, comprehensive, and systematic analysis of program status,
assessment ndings, and recommendations for improvement.
Project idencaon
Current status
Identifying and scoping potential projects is the rst stage in the cycle. The key
starting point for project identication is the concept of potential irrigable area,
which provides an initial basis of scoping, both at the macro level (in terms of national
targets and budgeting) and the micro level (in terms of possible irrigation projects on
the ground).
For the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), project identication is part
of a set of activities called project preparation, which is a continuing function to
ensure a wider base for the selection of projects. Sources of information for potential
projects are technical specialists at the national, regional, irrigation management and
system ofces, and local leaders.
The next stage after project identication is project preparation and analysis.
The conduct of feasibility studies is included in this stage. The feasibility study (FS)
addresses the question of whether alternative projects are a better way of achieving
the project objectives. In this way, the FS enables planners to redesign the project and
determines whether the project is worth its investment cost. For complex projects, a
succession of increasingly more specic and well-dened projects may be undertaken
as part of project preparation. The methodology of NIA’s selection and prioritization
of projects is summarized in Table 1. The methodology adheres to the Agriculture and
Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) classications of project types, while the criteria
reect NIA’s design philosophies.
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 201
Table 1. Criteria for selecon and priorizaon of NIA irrigaon projects
under AFMA (%)
Categories (Main/Sub) NIP/
NIS New
NIS
Rehab
CIP/ CIS
New
CIS
Rehab
Mul-
purpose
(1) Technical feasibility 33 25 25 25 28
Project components 0 0 0 0 20
Extent of area for rehabilitaon 0 0 0 25 0
Cropping intensity 0 0 20 0 8
Water supply 0 15 0 0 0
Availability of hydrologic data 0 10 0 0 0
Water resources 15 0 0 0 0
Land resources 10 0 0 0 0
Type of project 8 0 5 0 0
(2) Agro-instuonal feasibility 0 50 40 45 0
Status of farmers/ Status of IAs 0 0 15 10 0
Right of way 0 0 10 0 0
Landholdings 00500
Type of soil 00500
Status amorzaon 0 0 0 10 0
Willingness to amorze addional cost 0 0 0 10 0
Willingness to render equity 0 0 0 10 0
Local government acceptance 00550
Rao of present over target no. of
beneciaries 05000
With exisng IAs 0 10 0 0 0
Present performance level of IAs (1-10) 0 10 0 0 0
Commitment of IAs to O&M 0 25 0 0 0
(3) Socioeconomic and nancial feasibility 38 10 20 20 42
Economic internal rate of return 10 10 10 10 15
Level of irrigaon development in the
region 10 0 5 0 9
Development cost per hectare 8 0 5 10 8
Per capita income in the project area 5 0 0 0 5
Populaon density 00005
Average farm size 50000
(4) Environmental and other factors 29 15 15 10 30
Watershed condions 9 10 10 10 10
Environmental impact 55505
202 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Categories (Main/Sub) NIP/
NIS New
NIS
Rehab
CIP/ CIS
New
CIS
Rehab
Mul-
purpose
Reservoir reselement 0 0 0 0 10
Endorsement/acceptability of
beneciaries 50005
Availability of hydrologic data 5 0 0 0 0
Availability of maps 5 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100
NIA = National Irrigation Administration; AFMA = Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act; NIP = national
irrigation project; NIS = national irrigation systems; CIP = communal irrigation projects; CIS = communal irrigation
systems; IAs = irrigators’ associations; O&M = operations and maintenance; rehab = rehabilitation
Source: Schema Konsult Inc. and Eptisa (2016)
Currently, decision criteria for selection and prioritization cover technical,
economic, environmental/social, and institutional considerations. NIA provides
detailed guidance in assessing identied projects according to type. Note that some of
the subcriteria appear to belong to other categories, such as type of soil, availability of
hydrologic data, and maps, which are technical factors while endorsement by project
beneciaries would t better under institutional feasibility.
Assessment issues and ndings
Problems
Micro level: The aforementioned methodology promises to place project identication
on an objective footing. However, critics have charged that, in practice, politicians
interfere in project selection. Further, they co-opt for their own interests project
decisions regarding construction, rehabilitation, distribution of water, and
even staff appointments and promotions (Rola et al. 2019). Political pressures,
rent-seeking, and corruption perpetuate technical and economic inefciencies in the
irrigation and water sector (Wade 1982; Repetto 1986; Araral 2005a; Huppert 2013).
Project identication and selection seem to be the starting point of this interference.
In the Philippine context, interference may be motivated by advocacy over voter
constituencies, as well as naked self-interest given that many of these politicians are
landowners and contractors themselves.
Table 1. Connued
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 203
Macro level: On a broader macro perspective, it is clear that, on the demand
side, rice self-sufciency has been driving the demand for more irrigation projects;
whereas, on the supply side, the notion of potential irrigable area has been enabling
this demand to muster the funding needed by the resurgent irrigation program.
However, inaccuracies in delimiting this potential area could both overestimate the
need for irrigation (i.e., unjustied projects being approved) or underestimate it
(i.e., omission of actually feasible projects). Questions considered in this assessment
include the following: How can the present irrigation potential estimate/estimation
process for the whole country be improved? What is the correct methodology for
estimating the service area of an identied project, considering both engineering and
economic constraints?
Methodology for estimating irrigation potential
Unfortunately, local land-use plans are not often updated. As such, designed
service areas of NIA appear not to properly consider actual land uses. Estimates of
potential irrigable area by NIA have failed to account for the expansion of residential,
commercial, and industrial uses of land.
The NIS and CIS studies found that to improve the present irrigation potential
estimation process, use and updating of certain data would be required. In national
systems, irrigation potential of the available agricultural lands is already low, owing
to limitations due to slope and soil productivity. Moreover, degradation of the
watersheds due to human activities and other factors contribute to unstable water
supply for irrigation, which, in turn, reduces irrigation potential.
These ndings seem to imply that developing new areas will increasingly become
more difcult. On the other hand, a key criterion adopted for delimiting potential
irrigable area is the 0–3-percent slope requirement. In fact, the CIS study shows that
many irrigated systems are already in the 8-percent slope. Relaxing the criteria to an
8-percent slope may substantially expand the potential irrigable area.
Lastly, the following additional considerations, mainly drawn from UPLBFI (2019),
are also needed in scoping of potential irrigable area:
• administrative boundary from the National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority, which provides land cover data (latest available
is for 2015) together with the slopes (usually for 0-3% and 3-8%) from its
interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR);
• soil suitability from the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM);
204 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
• data on existing land uses and water bodies, such as the road network
from OpenStreetMap;
• delineation of ancestral domains from the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples;
• delineation of protected areas from the Biodiversity Management Bureau;
• delineation of inland water bodies, including rivers, streams, and lakes,
from OpenStreetMap and land cover data;
• delineation of built-up areas, also from the land cover data, which can be
updated through Google Earth;
• delineation of forest and mangrove areas from land cover data;
• fault line maps from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology;
• projected land uses, in anticipation of land conversions, especially in
rapidly urbanizing provinces;
• existing demands on water as shown in the water permits already approved
by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB); and
• future status of water resources in view of climate change.
Institutional capacity for project design and appraising proposed projects
The government Rationalization Plan (RatPlan) implemented in 2008 and
completed in 2012 resulted in the reduction in NIA’s staff from 11,451 authorized
plantilla positions (1,021 in NIA Central Ofce and 10,430 in the eld ofces) to just
3,819 plantilla positions (392 in Central Ofce and 3,427 in eld ofces). Many senior
technical staff took advantage of the RataPlan to retire from service. NIA’s budget,
however, continued to increase even if the number of authorized positions remained
the same following the RatPlan (Figure 1).
From merely PHP 12.8 billion in 2011, NIA’s budget increased to PHP 32.7 billion in
2016, PHP 38 billion in 2017, and PHP 41.7 billion in 2018. NIA had to rely even more on
job order personnel and consultants and contracted out some of its work. Currently,
over 50 percent of NIA personnel have no security of tenure because they consist of
casuals and job order personnel. Out of the 12,455 NIA employees as of November
2018, about 35 percent are casual and 21 percent are job order positions. Permanent
positions only represent one-third of the total. The RatPlan reduced the capacity of
NIA, particularly the Central Ofce, to prepare prefeasibility studies and other project
development activities (Cablayan et al. 2014; NIA 2018; Ponce et al. 2019).
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 205
Figure 1. Public expenditures for irrigaon, 1996–2016 (2000 prices) and number
of NIA posions before and during the RatPlan
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Billion PHP (2000 prices)
11,451
3,871
6,622
Reorganization Plan (1989) RATPALN (effective 2008)
Non-Permanent
Permanent
RatPlan
RatPlan = rationalization plan; PHP = Philippine peso; NIA = National Irrigation Administration
Source: Ponce et al. (2019)
Given this gap between expectations and capacities, NIA has been proposing for
a reorganization or organizational strengthening to address the dire staff shortage
resulting from the RatPlan. This is evidenced by the organization strengthening
proposal formulated by NIA, which is yet to be approved by the Board. The NIA Board,
on the other hand, wants the National Irrigation Master Plan (NIMP) completed
before approving the reorganization proposal.
Coordination with the Department of Agriculture and local government units
Identication of irrigation projects had largely been an internal process within NIA.
The NIA central ofce obtains inputs from its regional ofces, but seldom from other
agencies. The transfer of NIA from DA to the Ofce of the President (OP) severed
its connection with DA programs. This is a missed opportunity, as DA has been
facilitating the identication of priority commodities and infrastructure for all the
provinces covered in the World Bank (WB)-funded Philippine Rural Development
Program (PRDP). The process of identication under this project appeared to be very
206 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
consultative and made use of all available data, including suitability and vulnerability
assessments. Coordination with DA will also facilitate crop diversication in irrigated
areas given that DA has lately been promoting higher value crop mixes in view of the
Rice Industry Road Map and the New Thinking on Agriculture.
Recommendations
Build capacity for developing new projects
If NIA is to improve its performance in identifying and developing projects, it has
to rebuild its capacity, which has been largely diminished by the RatPlan and early
retirement of many senior technical staff. As pointed out in the Trends paper, the
signicant gaps between planned versus actual new areas irrigated could partly be
attributed to the slower generation of prefeasibility studies required in programming
projects (UPLBFI 2019).
Increase coordination with the DA and LGUs
NIA should increase its collaboration with DA and the local government units (LGUs).
The priority commodities and infrastructure identied by DA, together with the LGUs
and other government and nongovernment agencies through the PRDP project, can
guide in identifying potential irrigation projects that are relevant to the provinces,
particularly in terms of commodities and locations to support.
Consider land conversion trends in the estimation of irrigation potential
NIA should consider projected changes in land use and land conversions, especially in
larger projects. Trends in converting agricultural lands for industrial and residential
applications must be considered in land suitability assessment and classication.
Adjusting estimates of irrigation potential to anticipate land conversion will save the
government millions or billions of pesos in public funds invested in irrigation only
to be converted for nonagriculture uses. Where irrigated lands are converted, the
government should at least put in place a policy of recovering its investments.
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 207
Include the assessment of water supply sources in dening irrigation potential
The NIS and CIS reports recommended that planning for the annual increase
in irrigated areas should be based on the dependable water supply of the rivers
in the basin. The water balance analysis in the river basin master plans would be
a good starting point in the estimation of water duties for new areas for irrigation
development. Improved data collection and management is required, given that data
adequacy and quality were always found to be the constraints to proper estimation
of irrigable areas. The formula to compute for water supply through time should be
calibrated to account for climate change. Thus, the database to be generated can also
be used by NWRB as basis for issuance of water permits, which shall, in any case, be
required by any planned irrigation project.
Project design and appraisal
Overview
Formal appraisal of proposed irrigation projects is mostly done for big projects,
as stated in the governance report. The funding agency, like the WB or the Asian
Development Bank, creates an appraisal team composed mostly of hydrologists and
engineers while NIA usually assists in the eld. The appraisal is mostly technical.
Project design ideally should be sufciently well developed to allow for
immediate and straightforward project implementation but exible enough to allow
for adaptation without causing undue delay, wasted expenditures, or cost increases
(WB 1981). After project preparation, an appraisal should be conducted. Project
appraisal is the opportunity to review all project aspects and as a nal check before
committing funding for the project (Gittinger 1981).
Project appraisal builds on the project plan, but may also rely on new information
should project specialists deem it warranted. Shortcomings in design appear to have
been a result of projects being approved without sufcient preparation or sufcient
detail to permit implementation. Issues encountered in the assessment studies and
previous literature are summarized in the next section.
208 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Findings
Insufcient resources and time for project preparation
As shown in Table 2, project preparation activities within NIA appeared to have
been given little attention even before the RatPlan implementation. One sign of
improvement, however, can be seen in the 2018 gures with much-increased allocation
and relatively higher percentages of completed FS and detailed engineering. But
relative to the magnitudes of projects, even a 2-percent allocation may seem small if
the critical role of getting the designs right is considered as among the rst few steps
in successfully implementing projects.
Related to this concern, there is the issue of time lag between FS and
implementation with FS that are already 10 years old by the time the project gets
funded (Moya 2014). Also noted by Moya was that engineers know how to design well
but seemingly not why, thus the need for peer-reviewers or third-party reviewers.
According to Moya, engineers usually veer toward traditional design approaches
rather than adapting to actual eld conditions.
Table 2. Status of project preparaon acvies
2018 2017 2013 2012 2008 2007
FSDE obligaon (PHP million) 927 415 283 336 31 32
Total obligaon (PHP million) 41,160 48,710 31,309 24,218 8,327 8,745
As % of total 2.25 0.85 0.90 1.39 0.37 0.37
Completed FS* 191 172 91 3 2 8
Completed DE* 164 111 030
Completed as % of target FS 70 74 31 11 13 53
Completed as % of target DE 54 47 0 21 0
* Figures in 2013 are combined FS and DE.
** FS for 2007–2008, 2012 includes pre-FS/project identication
FSDE = feasibility study detailed engineering; FS = feasibility study; DE = detailed engineering;
PHP = Philippine peso
Sources: NIA inventory of irrigation systems (Various years)
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 209
Lack of consultative process in project design
A key aspect of the design is achieving operational exibility by anticipating the needs
of O&M in system design. There is little interaction happening between the design and
implementation, and the operations units of NIA (Moya 2014). Ideally, in constructing
farm water facilities, the main and lateral canal water elevations (hydraulic working
head) are determined and rmed up rst. Then, the microtopography of the area is
carefully considered by involving the farmers as they have intimate knowledge of their
areas. In fact, upon project completion, the irrigation systems are turned over to the
operations staff, with little or no design inputs from O&M engineers, let alone farmers.
Capability for science-based project design and appraisal
In the implementation of less viable projects, design mistakes in irrigation projects
could partly be attributed to weak capacities for design and appraisal. NIA is now more
dependent on consultants for FS. There appears to be reliance on proponent and donor
design and assessment and insufcient independent checks in the project planning and
appraisal. The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has been funding
more FS in the last few years and commissioning consulting rms, many of which are
tapping experts from the academe.
Absence of geo-referenced data and other science-based information
A key concern on project design has been the systematically smaller service area
found in various studies, relative to the original design area. This suggests that the
potential irrigable area has been consistently overestimated, owing to failure to
account for urbanization, ooding, and so on.
The NIS report points to the benets of high-resolution data using geographic
information system (GIS) and science-based information at the level of the basin
and at the irrigation system, which includes mapping the location of structures,
measurements, and spatial analysis of erosion, groundwater potential, and
identication of ooded and elevated areas. These high-resolution data and
information can also enhance the targeting of interventions and programming areas
for irrigation. However, this type of database will require intensive data gathering
that will not only establish the land-based potential but will also take into account
both surface and groundwater potential. The latter includes determining recharge
rates of groundwater as a function of rainfall, runoff, evapotranspiration, inows/
outows and percolation, and upward ux, among others.
210 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Using GIS analysis, the NIS component found that signicant proportions of
NIS service areas are unsuitable to irrigated rice farming. The analysis points to the
degraded states of the NIS watersheds, accounting in part for the heavy siltation in the
systems. On the other hand, the groundwater maps show areas with high potential for
groundwater resources to supplement inadequate water supplies from surface water.
These applications illustrate the enormous potential of applying geo-referenced data
in planning and appraisal of irrigation projects.
Delineation and coordination of roles with other agencies and LGUs
Chapter 5 of this book identied at least 13 agencies involved in irrigation project
planning, design, and appraisal. Interagency committees have been created
to orchestrate the participation of all the concerned agencies, often including
representatives from nongovernment and people’s organizations.
While roles and functions are clearly spelled out on paper, coordination
problems persist. With the transfer of NIA to OP, DA has now broadened the scope
of DA-BWSM. Small farm reservoirs, small diversion dams with a height of below 3
meters, small water impounding projects, small water irrigation systems associations
(SWISAs), and distribution systems traditionally under NIA are now covered by
DA-BWSM. On the other hand, when El Niño occurs, NIA distributes pumps to farmers,
which has historically been the function of DA.
Per the Local Government Code and the AFMA, the municipal and provincial
LGUs are responsible for the development and funding of inter-barangay and
inter-municipal irrigation systems. However, LGUs have largely sidestepped these
responsibilities owing to limited resources and technical capacities. The IAs or
SWISAs continue to coordinate with national agencies rather than LGUs, save for a
few exceptions (e.g., the Southern Philippines Irrigation Sector Project).
Recommendations
Strictly adhere to rigorous benet-cost analysis in project identication, even if this will require
adjustment of physical targets.
The benet-cost analysis (BCA) in Chapter 7 suggests that, on the aggregate, the
resurgent irrigation program has suffered a shortfall of benets compared to costs
(if benets are conned only to rice production impacts). Favorable assessments
of viability for irrigation projects may be driven by physical targets for irrigation
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 211
rather than the actual merits of the project. Instead, rigor must be maintained in the
implementation of BCA.
Improve irrigation system designs
Luyun (2016) suggests that irrigation system design should consider the ability to
irrigate small patches of lands (including atlands on higher elevations) with limited
sources of water; farmer empowerment or farmers getting a higher degree of control
over the management of irrigation water (or operational exibility); higher water
use efciency (lower conveyance losses because the farm is near the source); and
possibly, exibility for crop diversication. Additional emerging irrigation design
philosophies include environment-friendly; participatory (stakeholder), particularly
for communal and small NIS; and resilient irrigation systems (Moya 2014).
Opt for multipurpose projects
The governance study recommends that NIA should pursue multipurpose projects
with hydropower and/or domestic water supply to increase the benets and make
projects (more) viable. Giving a percentage of income to the host communities of
the dams and structures will engage the local people to protect these structures and
extend the economic viability of the irrigation system.
Such multipurpose projects must engage experts who can do sectoral assessments.
Optimizing incomes from the projects benets NIA by providing revenues from
generating power and addressing long-term water supply concerns in municipalities
and cities downstream through the bulk water supply.
Dene/delineate clearly roles and responsibilities
The governance study recommends a memorandum of agreement (MOA) specifying
the roles and responsibilities of each agency and mechanics to improve the
coordination among the agencies involved. NIA, together with local and national
agencies, can converge on specic projects where a single, integrated rolling plan
that would account for the dynamic nature of human, physical, and institutional
players can be implemented.
Aside from linking with DENR’s Forest Management Bureau (FMB), NIA
should engage with DENR’s River Basin Control Ofce to validate irrigation plans.
Characterization of the critical watersheds should be an input in the design of
212 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
irrigation systems, particularly at the regional level. Also, NIA can actively engage
with LGUs and other provincial stakeholders through the PRDP platform, where
provincial development councils generate priority projects to which NIA can validate
and align its identied and designed projects.
Project implementaon and procurement
Overview
Project implementation is the most important phase of the project cycle. Rather
than mechanically following the project design, revisions may be undertaken during
project implementation, given that some information are not available during the
project design stage.
Gittinger (1981), citing Olivares (1978) on his review of agricultural projects,
indicated that the most common reasons projects run into problems of implementation
can be grouped into ve categories: (1) inappropriate technology; (2) inadequate
support systems and infrastructure; (3) failure to appreciate the social environment;
(4) administrative problems, including those of the project itself, and of the overall
administration within the country; and (5) policy environment, of which the most
important aspect is producer price policy. Furthermore, administrative effectiveness
during implementation can be affected by constraints from various fronts—from
bidding failures for lack of qualied contractors/consultants/rms or absence of
bidders, to right-of-way acquisitions, to the timing of releases of funding, and to
seeking approvals and resistance by affected communities.
Findings
Roles and capacities of NIA, BSWM, LGUs, and farmers
The implementation of irrigation projects is done mainly by NIA and DA-BSWM. NIA
has the technical capacity to implement projects while the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) and the LGUs rely on the technical expertise of NIA and BSWM.
For small-scale irrigation projects, BSWM is supposed to provide technical
assistance, which includes capability building to regional eld ofces, LGUs, and
SWISAs. The DA regional ofces that implement BSWM projects set them up for
bidding, or they enter into MOA with LGUs. The LGUs provide engineers and DA
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 213
monitors the progress of the implementation. For DAR projects, the MOA identies
the recipients of the irrigation project. DAR engineers monitor the implementation
of the construction of DAR projects. Again, owing to rationalization, technical staff of
NIA for project implementation are usually hired under nonplantilla positions. IAs do
benet from support from NIA and other agencies, though there remains much room
for upgrading of capacity through training and networking.
The role of farmers in project implementation is limited to the clearance of the
right of way, participation and membership in IAs, provision of workforce, and other
relevant forms of assistance. They actively participate in the implementation of new
projects, in part due to NIA and the contractors drawing them in as project labor
workers and for their indigenous/local knowledge, especially on the construction
and rehabilitation locations.
Procurement process transparency and timeliness
NIA oversees procurement through the necessary bidding process, which is delegated,
depending on the size of the projects, to the regional irrigation ofces (RIOs) or the
irrigation management ofces (IMOs). Standard bids and awards committee procedure
is followed in the procurement. The reports identied failure in the bidding as the
cause of implementation delays. The governance study nds that delays in budget
releases and the legal requirements for procurement tend to delay construction.
Despite these, more than half of the respondent-farmers who have been active in the
implementation of new projects reported timely implementation (from the formation
of their respective IAs to construction).
Recommendations
Increase capacities to implement projects
As NIA is the organization that regularly implements irrigation projects, the
governance report recommends to beef up its technical capacities to ensure that
it would be able to address the demands of the collaborating agencies on technical
assistance. With the formulation of a national irrigation master plan with even higher
targets for new irrigated and rehabilitated areas, plantilla technical positions need to
be created.
214 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Improve procurement and understand better the bottlenecks in implementation
The governance component recommends revisiting the procurement law because,
instead of facilitating, it is impeding efcient processes and causing delays in project
implementation. Other than this, there is no systematic study that clearly establishes the
most common problems in implementation and causes of delays. While some projects
may have mentioned the weather, politics/corruption, and right-of-way problems, a
better understanding of the bottlenecks will help in formulating effective solutions.
System management and operaons and maintenance
Overview
After construction and turnover of the irrigation system, continuous irrigation
service (conveyance of water to farmers’ elds) entails management and O&M of
the irrigation system. A set of issues arise in this stage of the project, particularly,
addressing key technical issues in management and O&M (e.g., water scheduling
and water diversion, siltation problem, avoiding system deterioration, cost recovery
versus free irrigation, and participatory versus top-down management).
Findings
Increasing degradation and poor system performance
The studies highlighted the relatively poor states of existing irrigation systems due to
inadequate O&M and rehabilitation. They cited increasing degradation of irrigation
infrastructure, control structures in need of rehabilitation/improvement, canals
needing de-silting, or reshaping or heightening of embankments. A good part of the
service roads also need rehabilitation.
A key concern is the lack of funds to do proper O&M and rehabilitation to arrest,
if not slow down, the deterioration even before the Free Irrigation Service Act (FISA).
Pre-FISA, the internally generated funds of NIA, mostly composed of irrigation service
fees (ISF), were insufcient such that the national government had to subsidize O&M
of national systems. The collection rate was way below 100 percent, and yet, NIA
could not exclude from its service farmers who did not pay the ISF.
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 215
Aside from inadequate funds, Moya (2014) raised an equally important
concern—how is the O&M/rehabilitation fund spent? Moya noted that despite the
varied rehabilitation and maintenance works needed, NIA’s rehabilitation projects
in the cases documented by de los Reyes (2017) were largely spent on canal
lining at about 80 percent of the total project cost. Moya also raised the need to
modernize systems and strengthen system resilience. Irrigation modernization entails
upgrading of both technical and social components of existing systems. This
direction will require higher investments in the updating and upgrading of both
hardware/technical and software/social components of irrigation systems (Moya 2014).
Governance within irrigation systems
Governance problems within irrigation systems include compliance with water
delivery scheduling and distribution, illegal diversion of water, and conicts among
users. Another issue is the resistance of farmers to change and adopt new technologies.
Many farmers prefer traditional methods and refuse to follow the crop calendar.
To some extent, participatory irrigation management is a mechanism for farmers
themselves to resolve intra-system conicts and excess withdrawal while mobilizing
resources from among themselves to undertake management and O&M. Cablayan et
al. (2014) indicated that while the IAs have been organized in almost the entirety
of existing NIS, at the time of the study, less than 80 percent had contracts under
the “new” irrigation management transfer (IMT) policy: 40 percent with Model 1,
30 percent with Model 2, 2 percent with Model 3, and 1 percent with Model 4
contracts. With fewer NIA personnel at the system level, IAs had to be strengthened
to accept more responsibilities in the O&M of systems. But IAs with Model 1 or
Type 1/Type 2 contracts were reluctant to convert to Model 2 contract for fear of not
being able to achieve the higher ISF collection targets set by NIA and ending up with
zero shares in the collection. In Model 1 contract, IAs had guaranteed compensation
for clearing canals and possible share from ISF collection if the base collection
efciency is surpassed. There were also ofcers of IAs who simply did not want to
accept responsibility for collecting irrigation fees, which was an IA responsibility in
Model 2 or higher-level contract. Moreover, some IAs were dissatised with their
contracts due to NIA’s failure to honor its commitment to complete repair and
maintenance of facilities agreed upon during contract negotiation and inadequate
support to improve O&M during water shortage and calamities.
216 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Implementation and implications of FISA
With the passage of FISA, all farmers with landholdings of below 8 ha are exempted
from paying ISF for water derived from NIS, as well as making amortization payments
in the case of CIS. The FISA threatens to reverse the IMT process of devolving
more responsibilities to IAs and reducing those of NIA in operating, managing, and
maintaining systems.
NIA, however, came up with a “modied” IMT, which essentially collapses the
four IMT models into a single contract. The incentive mechanism imbedded in the
original IMT program, with the four different models taking into account capacity
and performance, is gone as all IAs/ISCs are offered the same O&M subsidy per
hectare and per 3.5 kilometers (km) (unlined) or 7 km of (lined) canal. While the
annual functionality survey is still done in the “modied” IMT, the results are meant
to determine what interventions and assistance are to be provided to the IAs and
ISCs (irrigation service cooperatives).1 In addition, the modied contract includes
a provision for IMT performance evaluation to be conducted by both NIA and the
IA/ISC. At rst glance, this part provides some “disincentive” for extremely poor
performance, which can lead to suspension of contract and provision of subsidy.
However, if we note that NIA’s takeover of the management of irrigation O&M and
hiring of “contract of services” will, in fact, just free the IAs/ISCs of the responsibility
and nancial burden of topping up the inadequate O&M subsidy, the irrigation service
will not be necessarily suspended and the erring IAs/ISCs can still benet from the
free irrigation service. In this sense, this supposed disincentive can potentially serve
as an incentive for the IAs/ISCs to perform poorly.
The need for baseline geo-referenced data
To address O&M issues in NIS, a 4-year project was implemented from 2013 to 2017
through the NIA-Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Technical Cooperation
Project 3 (TCP3) to adopt an improved O&M system in NIS (NIA 2017c). This project
involved reviewing existing O&M management methods, practices, and monitoring
systems, and proposing methods and strategic plans for an improved O&M system. In
addition, this project included piloting an O&M system with baseline data collection
to initially populate the system. During the baseline survey in the project, some of
1 The annual functionality survey also serves as basis for awards and incentives for annual search for
regional and national outstanding IAs/ISCs in NIS and CIS systems.
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 217
the common issues found were (1) outdated basic information on farmers and their
farmlands; (2) discrepancies in data of NIA and the actual farms; (3) lost data due to ood,
re, and other reasons; (4) unrepaired damages of irrigation facilities; (5) many illegal
turnouts; (6) inequitable water distribution and downstream farms not getting water;
and (7) several canals not constructed according to design, resulting in operational
difculties.
Under the NIA-JICA TCP3, the Farmland GIS (FGIS) with an integrated database
of farmland information using satellite images was generated for a total of 10 pilot
NIS. The basic problem encountered in this project was the collection of data and
submission by the regional ofces. Prompt and correct data submission holds the key
to the success of FGIS. Among the Phase 2 project sites, only 3 out of 8 completed data
validation in two years. Of the Phase 3 project sites, there were turnout service area
groups that did not submit the needed data to the FGIS consultant. With all the failures
and shortcomings in gathering information, TCP3 recommended that data collection
for the NIS systems be continued and that NIA should do some validation even after
the completion of the JICA project. One suspected cause of delay in the submission
of parcellary data was the large number of farmers to get information from or the
numerous parcellary data to be collected. Given the shortage of workforce in each
NIA regional ofce, the collection of data for FGIS was not a priority.
This represents a key missed opportunity as geo-referenced data has the
potential to make a meaningful contribution to system management and O&M.
The GIS generated maps from the NIS report (Chapter 2) show the location of eld
walkthroughs and measurements, erosion sites, and groundwater potential. The
signicance of mapping erosion potential in NIS sites lies in the fact that runoff and
ooding of lowland/irrigated areas depend on the typology and characteristics of
the watershed surrounding the irrigation service areas. The upland watershed can
be prone to erosion depending on the combined effects of vegetative cover (land
use), soil characteristics (erodibility), slope (topography), and rainfall patterns
(erosivity). These factors are used as inputs to the universal soil loss equation (USLE)
to estimate soil loss and erosion potential of a watershed.2 Many studies, validated by
actual observations, have shown that eroded particles from upland areas are carried
downstream and commonly cause siltation of watercourses, irrigation canals, and
surface water systems. By mapping erosion potential, it is possible to assess which part
of the watershed is prone to erosion and propose appropriate land use planning and
2 USLE is a widely used mathematical model that describes soil erosion processes. It predicts the long-term
average annual rate of erosion on a eld slope based on rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop system,
and management practices (Hudson 1993).
218 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
watershed management measures to protect the lowland areas from sedimentation
and siltation that are believed to cause reduced ow capacity of canals and poor water
distribution. This consideration appears to be missing in the identication of projects.
Recommendations
Adoption of asset management method
The adoption of the asset management method (AMM), which considers nancial,
economic, social, and engineering conditions to maintain the function of irrigation
in a most cost-effective manner, is recommended. AMM combines the entire lifecycle
(design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, modication, replacement,
and disposal) of respective irrigation facilities. This management method will be
advantageous as it will reduce the life cycle cost of irrigation systems and the risks of
suspension of water supply or damages caused by sudden and unexpected accidents.
JICA’s and WB’s earlier studies have already been pushing for this. Given the problem
of performance and sustainability, it is imperative to implement a sustainable and
cost-effective asset management plan (AMP). This AMP will enable NIA to utilize and
maintain the condition of its assets in the best possible way—keeping the systems at
good operating standards and providing levels of services that are consistent with
cost-effectiveness and sustainability objectives.
The asset management activities will include the conduct of soundness diagnosis
of irrigation followed by the formulation of long term maintenance plans for each
irrigation system based on the results of the diagnosis. For the AMM to work, baseline
data on the state of the systems will have to be established and then regularly updated.
The AMM module in FGIS will provide information on the soundness of each facility
visually and will make it possible to easily view detailed diagnosis results.
Continuous capacity building
To institutionalize the rst recommendation, more NIA staff will have to be capacitated.
In addition to the TCP3 pilot sites, the key NIA personnel for facility maintenance at
each of the irrigation systems will have to be trained on AMM for the maintenance
of irrigation facilities. Under TCP3, some NIA staff in the 10 pilot NIS have already
been trained on irrigation system maintenance and management. The participants
studied the methodology of soundness diagnosis of irrigation facilities and crafting
of long-term maintenance plan. This initiative can use the TCP3 Maintenance Manual
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 219
for irrigation systems, which includes the methods for carrying out the diagnosis and
planning for the long-term maintenance of irrigation facilities. Resources will need to
be allocated for this to be institutionalized at NIA and scaled up to include the rest of
the NIS, and over time, can also be adopted for CIS.
Determination of appropriate O&M funds
Given the ndings on poor states of many systems, NIA will need to allocate realistic
resources for O&M and formulate effective policies and incentive systems so as not
to defer O&M until the problem becomes a major rehabilitation project. Additionally,
canal lining, while effective in reducing water losses, should be evaluated to conrm
its long-term efciency in comparison to unlined canals. With the use of the AMM,
it is possible to come up with the appropriate estimates of fund requirements for
appropriate O&M of systems.
Integration of watershed management with irrigation system management
The issue of erosion highlights not only the need for proper maintenance within
an irrigation system but also to undertake proper watershed management and
environmental protection outside the irrigation system. Whereas DENR-FMB is
supposed to ensure the protection of the water sources for NIA, major watershed
areas continue to deteriorate. This contributes to widespread siltation and the
shortfall between actual and design service areas of irrigation systems.
Adoption of an integrated watershed management (IWM) is also suggested
to control damaging runoff and degradation. IWM seeks to protect and conserve
the watershed and control soil erosion and sedimentation in downstream areas.
Additional benets are moderation of oods peaks in downstream areas and increase
inltration of rainwater to hasten soil and groundwater recharge.
Project monitoring and evaluaon
Overview
The nal phase in the project cycle is evaluation. The idea is to systematically look
at the elements of success and failure in the project experience to learn how to plan
better for the future. A formalized evaluation may take place several times in the life
220 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
of a project. It may be appropriate when a major capital investment, such as a dam,
is in place and operating, even though the full implementation of the plan to utilize
the water and power is still underway. Ideally, careful evaluation should precede any
effort to plan follow-up projects.
Monitoring consists of tracking inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and other
aspects of the project on an ongoing basis during the implementation period, as an
integral part of the project management function. Evaluation, on the other hand, is
a process by which project results, impacts, and implementation performance are
assessed. Projects are evaluated at discrete points in time (usually at the project’s
midpoint and completion) along some key dimensions (i.e., relevance, efciency,
efcacy, impact, performance). Evaluations often seek an outside perspective from
relevant experts.
For M&E, the study components were supposed to carry out the following:
(1) identify the types of information to be regularly collected from the NIS and CIS
for proper monitoring and evaluation; (2) develop the means to institutionalize
an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system covering both NIS and CIS; and
(3) demonstrate how information can be used for operations and planning of
future projects.
Findings
Types of information to be regularly collected
Water ow is a basic measure critical to system management. However, in the cases
cited in the NIS report, it was found that this information could not be obtained due to
the nonoperational check gauges. Water quality, on the other hand, is characterized
by indicators under the environmental aspect that include dissolved oxygen, pH, and
electrical conductivity, which is related to salinity level.
On the environmental aspect focusing on water quality, pH levels on the alkaline
side (>7) can be attributed to excess sodium that can lead to a sodicity problem in the
future and pose a serious problem in water quality, especially if combined with high
salinity levels. Another water quality indicator that affects photosynthesis and biomass
production is dissolved oxygen (Clemente et al. 2018). Aside from saltwater intrusion,
water quality has been adversely affected by illegal dumping of solid wastes by
community residents.
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 221
Slow annual growth and focus on new investment
The annual growth of newly irrigated areas seems to go at a slow pace despite the
huge investments, supposedly for development projects. The preference for focusing
on new projects instead of rehabilitating inefcient systems is another concern.
In fact, for 2010–2016, only 33 percent of irrigation expenditures were directed to
new or mostly new projects. The emphasis on rehabilitation/restoration or mostly
rehabilitation/restoration projects in recent years has been a remedial action given
years of underspending on irrigation management and repair.
Institutionalizing an M&E system for NIS and CIS
According to the governance report, the participation of NIS IAs in M&E is high.
Monitoring is done manually by ocular inspection of staff gauges by NIA with support
from IAs. Most NIS IAs have an existing monitoring system for ow rates. Water ow is
a basic measure critical to system management. However, for many irrigation systems,
water ow data are unavailable due to nonfunctional check gauges. The IAs oversee
the ow rates and report problems to NIA. Follow-up actions and interventions are
sometimes done on time.
IA members are supposed to monitor the service area regularly, with the data
collected being reported to the IMO to form the basis for next season’s decisions on
water allocation. However, beyond the basic water ow data, no other information
are gathered and used for systems management.
Recommendations
Data collection and use of information technologies
There is considerable potential for more analytical approaches, such as reliance on
GIS, mapping of structures and measurements, spatial analysis of erosion, resource
assessment of water potential (including groundwater), and mathematical modeling
and simulations. The NIS report recommends regular monitoring and collection of
data on water ow and water quality in the irrigated areas and regular monitoring
of structures, such that repair or replacement of damaged or nonfunctional devices
is done on time. This recommendation is part of the AMM mentioned earlier. NIA
222 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
and IAs can perform monitoring of ow rates while the IAs can do the monitoring of
irrigated areas. Modern methodologies of analysis and design should be used, given the
increased technical capacity of NIA. The GIS maps, for instance, should be used to show
the performance of the IAs and the different irrigation systems throughout the country.
Use of modeling in the system for water allocation management
The water resources component proposes to develop, at the river basin level or
large irrigation systems, a hydrologic/hydraulic-based model of the watershed,
reservoir operations, and irrigation distribution associated with the systems. Model
simulations can then be conducted to determine the actual irrigated areas according
to the existing and other what-if scenarios of the water and land resources, as well as
the conguration and dimension of the irrigation facilities. Simulation analysis can
also be used to assess the design service areas concerning actual service areas based
on water availability, land use (including ood vulnerability), status of irrigation
facilities, available water resources, and available land resources (slope, soils, and
land use).
Concluding remarks
After years of relative neglect, irrigation has again emerged as the single largest
budgetary outlay in government-funded agricultural programs after the world rice
price crisis of 2008. Since then, priority for irrigation and rice agriculture has been
sustained over three administrations. Never has the goal of closing the gap between
actual and potential irrigable area been nearer than today.
NIA had initially formulated a 2014–2028 Irrigation Master Plan, which was revised
in the 2017–2026 Irrigation Master Plan. Most recently, NEDA has commissioned the
preparation of a 10-year NIMP covering 2020–2030. The new master plan (which is
yet to be formally adopted) sets forth a medium- and long-term investment program
for the sector. The long-term program must culminate in the completion of the asset
build-up for the sector. Once complete, public spending on irrigation thereafter shifts
to O&M expenditure. Despite the tens of billions already invested, it appears the
country remains far off from the end-goal of completion of asset build-up.
This volume has evaluated the resurgent irrigation development program to date,
covering national systems, communal systems, and various program considerations,
such as water resource assessment, governance issues, recent policy shifts (e.g., FISA),
Assessing the Resurgent Irrigaon Development Program | 223
and benet-cost comparison. The analysis will hopefully serve as input to the
continued implementation of the irrigation development program, which, as
argued earlier, has yet a long way to go. The assessment has sought to combine both
eld-based qualitative and ocular assessment, with state-of-the-art quantitative
assessment (including hydraulic and economic modeling). Based on this assessment,
the authors offer a set of practical and hopefully useful recommendations, primarily
for NIA as well as for the broad set of stakeholders in the national irrigation
development agenda.
References
Andersen, L.E., M. Cardona, and D. Romero. 2015. Do irrigation programs make poor rural
communities in Bolivia less vulnerable to climatic and other shocks? LAJED 24
(Noviembre):9–46.
Araral, E. 2005a. The impacts of irrigation management transfer. In Devolution of resource rights,
poverty, and natural resource management: A review, edited by P. Shyamsundar, E. Araral,
and S. Weeratne. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
———. 2005b. Bureaucratic incentives, path dependence, and foreign aid: An empirical
institutional analysis of irrigation in the Philippines. Policy Sciences 38(1):131–157.
Araral, E.K. 2011. The impact of decentralization on large scale irrigation: Evidence from the
Philippines. Water Alternatives 4(2):110–123.
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2006. Apex bodies: The coordinating eye behind water sector
reforms. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: ADB. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/les/
publication/28706/water-brief-apex-bodies.pdf (accessed on January 25, 2019).
Ayers, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 29 (Rev. 1). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Azarcon, Y. and R. Barker. 1994. Trends and determinants of irrigation development in the
Philippines. APAP Collaborative Research Report Issue 321.
Birch, A. 2004. Direction and experience in water sector apex body development. Paper
presented at the Regional Meeting of National Water Sector Apex Bodies, May 18-21.
Ha Noi, Viet Nam. https://www.pacicwater.org/userles/le/IWRM/Toolboxes/
Development%20of%20APEX%20body.pdf (accessed on January 25, 2019).
Briones, R. 2013. Scenarios and options for productivity growth in Philippine agriculture:
An application of the Agricultural Multi-market Model for Policy Evaluation (AMPLE).
SEARCA Monograph Series on Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture. Laguna,
Philippines: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in
Agriculture, Department of Agriculture–Bureau of Agricultural Research, and Philippine
Rice Research Institute.
Cabangon, R., S. Yadav, and R. Lampayan. 2016. Water-saving technologies for rice production
under water-scarce conditions. In Water in agriculture: Proceedings from annual rice forum
on water in agriculture: Status, challenges, and opportunities, edited by S.J. Banta. Laguna,
Philippines: Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research
and Development and Asia Rice Foundation.
Cablayan, O., A. Inocencio, C. Francisco, V. Saw, and C. Ureta. 2014. Review of national irrigation
service fee policy. Quezon City, Philippines: National Irrigation Administration.
Celestino, J.S., B.P. Sta. Rinala Jr., and D.D. Elazegui. 2016. Devolution of communal irrigation
systems to local government units. In Water in agriculture, edited by S.J. Banta. Laguna,
Philippines: The Asia Rice Foundation.
Clemente, R.S., A L. Fajardo, V.G. Ballaran Jr., A. Baulita, J.C. Ureta, and K.C.J. Tapire. 2018.
Technical and institutional evaluation of selected national irrigation systems cycle 2.
Draft nal report submitted to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Quezon
City, Philippines: PIDS.
226 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Commonwealth Act 694. 1945. An act creating the Agricultural Machinery and Equipment
Corporation. Manila, Philippines: Congress of the Philippines.
Cook, J. D. Ellingson, T. McGrath, T. Dao, and J. van Gijn. 2013. The irrigation service fee waiver
in Vietnam. ADB Briefs No. 12. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30242/irrigation-service-fee-
waiver-viet-nam-rev.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2016.
Cruz, M.C.J. 1983. Social and institutional factors in differential access to canal irrigation: A study
of Philippine communal system. Doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cruz, R.V.O. 2018. Sustaining water resources with environmental protection. In Water policy
in the Philippines: Issues, initiatives and prospects, edited by A. Rola, J. Pulhin, and R. Arcala
Hall. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
David, C. 1995. Philippine irrigation development: Overview, determinants, and policy issues.
PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 95-26. Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies. https://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps9526.pdf (accessed on
June 15, 2019).
David, C. and A. Inocencio. 2012. Irrigation policy and performance indicators in the Philippines.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Indicators Project (Final Report).
Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
David, W. 1990. Irrigation development in the Philippines: problems and policy recommendations.
Philippine Journal of Crop Science 15(1):17–26.
———. 2003. Averting the water crisis in agriculture: Policy and program framework for
irrigation development in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the
Philippine Press and Asia Pacic Policy Center.
———. 2008. Irrigation (Chapter 6). In Modernizing Philippine agriculture and sheries: The AFMA
implementation experience, edited by R.T. Dy, L.A. Gonzales, M.F. Bonifacio, W.P. David,
J.P.E. De Vera III, F.A. Lantican, G.M. Llanto, L.O. Martinez, and E.E. Tan. Pasig City:
University of Asia and the Pacic.
———. 2009. Impact of AFMA on irrigation and irrigated agriculture. Philippine Agricultural
Scientist 91(3):315–328.
David, W., M. de los Reyes, M. Villano, and A. Fajardo. 2012. Design shortcomings of the
headwork and water distribution and control facilities of the canal irrigation systems of
Ilocos Norte, Philippines. Philippine Agricultural Scientist 95(1):61–75.
de los Reyes, M. 2017. Modernization strategy for national irrigation systems in the Philippines:
Balanac and Sta. Maria River Irrigation Systems. Doctoral dissertation. Delft, Netherlands:
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education.
de los Reyes, R. and S. Jopillo. 1986. An evaluation of the Philippine participatory communal
irrigation program. Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de
Manila University.
Department of Agriculture (DA). 2019. Philippine Rice Industry Roadmap 2030. Quezon City,
Philippines: DA. https://asiarice.org/assets uploads/Philippine_Rice_Industry_
Roadmap_2030_v2_std.pdf (accessed on January 15, 2019).
Department of Budget and Management (DBM). 2019. Briefer on the 2019 Proposed National
Budget. DBM, Manila. https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Our%20
Budget/2019/Briefer-on-the-2019-Proposed-National-Budget.pdf (accessed on
November 30, 2019).
References | 227
———. Various years. General Appropriations Act (GAA) archives. Manila, Philippines: DBM.
Elazegui, D.D. 2015. Establishment of technical and institutional baseline information and
preliminary evaluation of socioeconomic impacts of communal irrigation system.
Report submitted to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Makati City,
Philippines: PIDS.
Ella, V. 2016. Irrigation development in the Philippines: Status, challenges and opportunities.
In Water in agriculture: Proceedings from annual rice forum on water in agriculture: Status,
challenges, and opportunities, edited by S. Banta. Laguna: Philippine Council for Agriculture,
Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development and Asia Rice Foundation.
Fang, S., R. Jia, W. Tu, and Z. Sun. 2017. Assessing factors driving the change of irrigation water-
use efciency in China based on geographical features. Basel, Switzerland: MDPI (open
access journal). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/9/10/759/pdf (accessed on December
21, 2018).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. Irrigation in Southern and Eastern Asia in
gures: AQUASTAT Survey-2011. FAO Water Reports No. 37. Rome, Italy: FAO. http://
www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/PHL/PHL-CP_ eng.pdf (accessed on
October 4, 2018).
———. 2012. Coping with water scarcity: An action framework for agriculture and food security.
FAO Water Reports No. 38. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Fullon, E., A. San Pedro, J. Ruz, R.A. Sagun, A. Mariano, and M.T. Florencondia. 2018. Implication
of the implementation of free irrigation service fee to the federation of irrigators
associations of NIA-UPRIIS Division I. Open Access Library Journal 5: e4340. https://doi.
org/10.4236/oalib.1104340 (accessed on July 31, 2019).
Garces-Restrepo, C., G. Munoz, and D. Vermillion. 2007. Irrigation management transfer:
Worldwide efforts and results. FAO Water Reports 32. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
Gittinger, J. 1981. Economic analysis of agricultural projects, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hayami, Y. and M. Kikuchi. 1978. Investment inducement to public infrastructure irrigation in
the Philippines. Review of Economics and Statistics 60(1):70–77.
Horst, L. 1998. The dilemmas of water division: Considerations and criteria for irrigation systems design.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
Hudson, N. 1993. Field measurement of soil Erosion and runoff. FAO Soils Bulletin 68. Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Huppert, W. 2013. Viewpoint-rent-seeking in agricultural water management: An intentionally
neglected core dimension? Water Alternatives 6(2):265–275.
Huynh, V. and M. Yabe. 2012. Rice yield loss due to industrial pollution in Vietnam. Journal of
US-China Public Administration 9(3):248–256.
Inocencio, A. 2016. Water in agriculture: Key challenges and opportunities for the Philippines. In
Water in agriculture: Proceedings from annual rice forum on water in agriculture: Status, challenges,
and opportunities, edited by S. Banta. Laguna, Philippines: Philippine Council for Agriculture,
Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development and Asia Rice Foundation.
———. 2019. Trends in agricultural water resources. In The future of Philippine agriculture: Scenarios,
policies, and investments, edited by M.W. Rosegrant and M.A. Sombilla Singapore: Climate
Change Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Publishing.
228 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Inocencio, A. and R. Barker. 2018. Current challenges in water resource development and
management. DLSU Business & Economics Review (Special Issue on Agriculture Water in the
Philippines) 28(1):1–17.
Inocencio, A., C. David, and R. Briones. 2013. A rapid appraisal of the irrigation program of the
Philippine government. Final report submitted to the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies. https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DBM%20Publications/FPB/ZBB-
2013/A%20RAPID%20APPRAISAL%20OF%20THE%20IRRIGATION%20PROGRAM%20OF%20
THE%20PHILIPPINE%20GOVERNMENT.pdf (accessed on June 30, 2019).
Inocencio A., D. Elazegui, R. Luyun, and A. Rola. 2018. Agricultural water management issues
in the Philippines. In Water policy in the Philippines: Global issues in water policy (Volume 8),
edited by A.C. Rola, J.M. Pulhin, and R.A. Hall. Manhattan, New York: Springer.
Kikuchi, M., A. Maruyama, and Y. Hayami. 2003. Phases of irrigation development in Asian tropics:
A case study of the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Journal of Development Studies 39(5):109–138.
Luyun Jr., R.A. 2016. Water resources in the Philippines. In Water in agriculture, edited by S.J.
Banta. Laguna, Philippines: The Asia Rice Foundation.
Luyun Jr., R.A. and D.D. Elazegui. 2019. Issues on communal irrigation systems in the
Philippines. PIDS Policy Notes 2019-07. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies.
Mahato, S. 2013. Present status of water use efciency on irrigation projects in India and action
taken for its improvement. Presented during the Training Program on Increasing Water
Use Efciency in Irrigation Sector, January 21–February 1, National Water Academy,
Pune, India.
Molden, D.J. and T.K. Gates. 1990. Performance measures for evaluation of irrigation-water delivery
systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 116(6)(November/ December):804–823.
Molle, F. and J. Berkoff. 2007. Water pricing in irrigation: Mapping the debate in the light of
experience. doi: 10.1079/9781845932923.0021 (accessed on July 31, 2019).
Moya, T. 2014. Analysis of technical assumptions and processes of evaluating feasibility of
irrigation projects. PIDS Policy Notes No. 2014-11. Makati City, Philippines: Philippine
Institute for Development Studies.
Murray-Rust, D. H. and W.B. Snellen. 1993. Irrigation system performance assessment and diagnosis.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute, International
Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, and International Institute for
Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering.
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). 2019. 2017–2022 Public Investment
Program (Chapter 19). Pasig City, Philippines: NEDA. http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/PIP-2017-2022-19.pdf (accessed on June 30, 2019).
———. 2016. Updated social discount rate for the Philippines. Investment Coordination
Committee Memorandum. Pasig City, Philippines: NEDA.
———. 2017. Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022. Pasig City, Philippines: NEDA.
National Hydraulic Research Center (NHRC). 2011. Hydro-geological assessment for the
reliability of water supply Philippines: Top metros (Pampanga). Final report submitted
to Manila Water Company Inc. (MWCI). Quezon City, Philippines: MWCI.
References | 229
National Irrigation Administration (NIA). 1990. A comprehensive history of irrigation in the
Philippines. Quezon City: NIA.
———. 2012. Patubigan komiks (Issue 03). Quezon City, Philippines: NIA. https://www.nia.gov.
ph/?q=content/irrigation-management-transfer (accessed on June 30, 2015).
———.2013. Irrigation development milestone for national and communal irrigation systems
and projects. https://www.nia.gov.ph/sites/default/les/newsletter/be-an-ia-member.
pdf (accessed on May 4, 2018).
———. 2015. Irrigation inventory. Quezon City, Philippines: National Irrigation Administration.
———. 2016a. Irrigation inventory. Quezon City, Philippines: National Irrigation Administration.
———. 2016b. Status of irrigation management transfer of NIS. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA-
Institutional Development Division.
———. 2016c. Position on free irrigation service fee. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA. https://www.nia.
gov.ph/?q=content/position-free-irrigation-service-fee (accessed on July 31, 2019).
———. 2017a. Irrigation inventory. Quezon City, Philippines: National Irrigation Administration.
———. 2017b. Status of irrigation development. https://www.nia.gov.ph/sites/default/les/pdf_
reader/CY2017_status-of-irrigation-development.pdf (accessed on December 6, 2018).
———. 2017c. National Irrigation Administration 2017 annual report. Quezon City,
Philippines: NIA.
———. 2018. Quality Management System Manual (ISO 9001: 2015). http://www.nia.gov.ph/
sites/default/les/pdf_reader/nia-qms-manual-rev2.pdf (accessed on August 9, 2018).
———. 2020. Construction of irrigation systems. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA. https://www.
nia.gov.ph/?q=content/construction-irrigation-systems (accessed on June 30, 2020).
———. Various years. Annual reports for 1965–1974 and year-end reports for 1975–2017. Quezon
City, Philippines: NIA.
———. Various years. Inventory of irrigation systems. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA.
———. Various years. National irrigation system performance (NISPER) data. Quezon City,
Philippines: NIA.
National Irrigation Administration-Corporate Planning Services. Various years. Status of
irrigation development. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA-CorPlan.
National Irrigation Administration-MIMAROPA) (n.d.). Ofces and Functions. http://region4b.
nia.gov.ph/?q=content/ofces-and-functions (accessed on May 4, 2018).
National Irrigation Administration-Systems Management Division (NIA-SMD). Various years.
National irrigation system performance (NISPER) and Communal irrigation system
performance(CISPER) data. Quezon City, Philippines: NIA-SMD.
Olivares, J. 1978. Retrospective evaluation of agricultural projects. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Oosterbaan, R.J. 2003. Lecture notes on alkaline-sodic soils and acid-sulphate soils. International
Course on Land Drainage (ICLD), International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement (ILRI). Wageningen, The Netherlands: ILRI.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Crafting irrigation institutions: Social capital and development. Bloomington,
Indiana: Workshop in Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the performance of irrigation projects.
Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Ofce for Asia and the Pacic.
230 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Ponce, E., A. Baulita, and A. Gallado. 2019. Institutional analysis of NIA. A component of the
National Irrigation Master Plan 2020–2030. Report submitted to the National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA). Pasig City, Philippines: NEDA.
Pradeep, B., B.B. Jadia, and S.T. Sangale. 2015. Case studies of innovative irrigation management
techniques. Aquatic Procedia 4(2015):1197–1202.
Presidential Decree 424. 1974. Creating a National Water Resources Council, reconstituting its
membership, vesting the same with powers to coordinate and integrate water resources
development, and providing funds therefor. Manila, Philippines: Ofce of the President
of the Republic of the Philippines.
Presidential Decree 552. 1974. Amending certain sections of Republic Act 3601 entitled “An
act creating the National Irrigation Administration”. Manila, Philippines: Ofce of the
President of the Republic of the Philippines.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). 2015. Special report - Highlights of the 2012 Census
of Agriculture. https://psa.gov.ph/content/special-report-highlights-2012-census-
agriculture-2012-ca (accessed on July 31, 2019).
———. 2018. Openstat. https://openstat.psa.gov.ph (accessed on October 25, 2018).
———. 2020. Openstat. https://openstat.psa.gov.ph (accessed on July 15, 2020).
Rai, R.K., V.P. Singh, and A. Upadhyay. 2017. Irrigation project planning. In Planning and
evaluation of irrigation projects: Methods and implementation. London, UK: Elsevier, Inc.
Rao, P.S. 1993. Review of selected literature on indicators of irrigation performance. Colombo, Sri
Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.
Renault, D., T. Facon, and R. Wahaj. 2007. Modernizing irrigation management – the MASSCOTE
approach. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Repetto, R. 1986. World enough and time: Successful strategies for resource management. Washington,
D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Republic Act 2084. 1958. An act to promote rice and corn production. Manila, Philippines:
Congress of the Philippines.
Republic Act 3601. 1963. An act creating the National Irrigation Administration. Manila,
Philippines: Congress of the Philippines.
Republic Act 7607. 1992. An act providing a magna carta of small farmers. Manila, Philippines:
Congress of the Philippines.
Republic Act 8435. 1997. Agriculture and sheries modernization act. Manila, Philippines:
Congress of the Philippines.
Republic Act 10969. 2017. An act providing free irrigation service, amending for the purpose
Republic Act 3601, as amended, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes.
Manila, Philippines: Congress of the Philippines.
Rola, A.C. and D.D. Elazegui. 2016. Irrigation water governance in the Philippines. In Water in
agriculture, edited by S.J. Banta. Laguna, Philippines: The Asia Rice Foundation.
Rola, A.C., T.R. Olviga, F.F. Faderogao, and C.J.P. Faulmino. 2019. Assessing the resurgent
irrigation development program of the Philippines: Institutional arrangements for
irrigation governance. Final Report submitted to the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies. Quezon City, Philippines: PIDS.
Schema Konsult Inc. and Eptisa. 2016. Irrigation Development Master Plan 2017-2026. Report
submitted to National Irrigation Administration (NIA). Quezon City, Philippines: NIA.
References | 231
Senanayake, N., A. Mukherji, and M. Giordano. 2015. Re-visiting what we know about irrigation
management transfer: A review of the evidence. Agricultural Water Management 149:175–186.
Svendsen, M. and W. Huppert. 2003. Optimal maintenance in irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage
Systems 17(1):109–128.
Tabios, G.Q. III. 2017. Competing water uses of Angat Multipurpose Reservoir. Paper presented
at the 14th INWEPF Symposium, International Network for Water and Ecosystem in
Paddy Fields, November 21, Clark Special Economic Zone, Angeles City, Philippines.
Tabios, G.Q. III and C.C. David. 2014. Appraisal of methodology in estimating irrigable areas
and processes of evaluating feasibility of NIA irrigation projects. PIDS Policy Notes No.
2014-13. Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Tiewtoy, S., R.S. Clemente, S. Perret, M.S. Babel, and S. Weesakul. 2010. Irrigation sustainability
assessment of selected projects in Tha Chin Basin, Thailand. Irrigation and Drain 60:296–307.
Turral, H., J. Burke, and J.M. Faures. 2011. Climate change, water, and food security. FAO Water
Reports No. 36. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. HEC-RAS reference manual. Davis, CA: Hydrologic
Engineering Center.
University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation Inc. (UPLBFI). 2007. Terminal report on
Comprehensive Irrigation Research and Development Umbrella Program (CIRDUP)
submitted to the Department of Agriculture. Laguna, Philippines: UPLBFI.
———. 2019. National Irrigation Master Plan 2020-2030. Draft Report submitted to National Economic
and Development Authority. Pasig City: NEDA.
Wade, R. 1982. The system of administrative and political corruption. Canal irrigation in South
India. Journal of Development Studies 18(3):287–328.
World Bank (WB). 1990. World Bank staff appraisal report for a second communal irrigation
development. Report No. 8724-PH. Washington, D.C.: WB.
———. 1992a. Philippines: Irrigated agriculture sector review. Report No. 9848-PH. Washington,
D.C.: WB.
———.1992b. Project completion report on the Philippines communal irrigation development
report. Report No. 11512. Washington, D.C.: WB.
Yabes, R.J.A. 1990. Obstacles and opportunities of participatory planning in large irrigation
systems: The case of Ilocos Norte irrigation project in the Philippines. Doctoral
dissertation. Cornell University, New York.
The Authors
Vicente G. Ballaran Jr.
is an assistant professor at the Institute of Agricultural
and Biosystems Engineering, University of the Philippines (UP) Los Baños, and an
agricultural engineer by profession. He holds an MA in Agrometeorology from UP
Los Baños. His areas of specialization are agricultural structures, eld hydrology, and
GIS/remote sensing.
Roehlano M. Briones
is a senior research fellow at PIDS, where he conducts
policy research for the Philippine government, with specialization in agriculture,
CGE modeling, and rural development. He is a board member of the consultancy
group Brain Trust Inc., a past board member of the Philippine Economic Society, and
a fellow of the Foundation for Economic Freedom. He has a PhD in Economics from
UP Diliman.
Roberto S. Clemente
had been a professor at Asian Institute of Technology
(Thailand) until 2012 and at UP Los Baños until 2018. He was also a Balik Scientist of
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). He is currently a consultant at the
National Research Council of the Philippines and Philippine Council for Agriculture
and Resources Research and Development of the DOST. He obtained his PhD in
AgroEnvironmental Engineering from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He
specializes in environmental hydrology and land and water resource management.
Tomas Paolo Z. De Leon
is an assistant civil engineer at AMH Philippines Inc. He
obtained his BS in Civil Engineering degree from UP Diliman. He specializes in water
resources engineering and civil works projects, such as design of water supply, storm
drainage, and sewage systems for both commercial and residential developments.
Dulce D. Elazegui
was a university researcher at the Center for Strategic Planning
and Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, UP Los Baños. She
obtained her master’s degrees in Technology Policy and Innovation Management from
the University of Limburg (renamed Maastricht University) in the Netherlands and
Agricultural Development Economics from the Australian National University. She also
took a summer certicate course on Sustainable Environmental Management at the
University of California-Berkeley under the Beahrs Environmental Leadership Program.
Her research work focuses on policy and governance in water and agriculture, climate
change, natural resources and environment, and science and technology.
Francis John F. Faderogao
is a university researcher at UP Los Baños where he
obtained his bachelor’s degree in Statistics. His research interests include integration
of climate information into crop/hydrological simulation models for decision support
in agriculture and water management.
234 | Revitalizing Philippine Irrigaon
Arthur L. Fajardo
is a professor at the Institute of Agricultural and Biosystems
Engineering, UP Los Baños where he obtained his PhD in Agricultural Engineering. His
areas of specialization are in irrigation design and development, machine design and
testing, soil tillage, mechanization, and renewable energy (microhydro and biomass).
Chrislyn Joanna P. Faulmino
is a project research fellow at UP Diliman. She
graduated from UP Los Baños with a bachelor’s degree in Human Ecology. Her research
interests revolve around water governance in the agricultural and domestic sectors.
Albert Dale B. Inocencio
was a project research associate in the Assessment of
the Resurgent Irrigation Program. He obtained his AB in Public Administration from
UP Diliman. He is an MA candidate in the same program at UP Diliman.
Arlene B. Inocencio
is a full professor and department chair at the School of
Economics, De La Salle University (DLSU)-Manila. She teaches business economics,
agricultural economics, environmental valuation, and public nance at DLSU. Her
research areas cover irrigation and agriculture, provincial product accounts, domestic
water, and poverty.
Roger A. Luyun Jr.
is a professor at the Land and Water Resources Division of
the Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-industrial
Technology, UP Los Baños. He has a PhD in Agricultural Engineering from Kagoshima
University, Japan. His areas of specialization include groundwater hydrology,
irrigation engineering, water resources assessment, hydrologic modeling, hydraulic
structures, and soil engineering.
Therese R. Olviga
is a university research associate at UP Los Baños. She has a
BS degree in Agribusiness Management from UP Los Baños. Her research interests
include food security, natural resource economics, climate change, and governance.
Agnes C. Rola
is a professor emeritus at UP Los Baños and a member of the
National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines. She obtained her PhD
in Agricultural Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. Her
research interests are in the elds of sustainable agriculture and natural resources
management, water governance, gender and agriculture, and policy analysis of the
convergence of water, food security, and climate risk management.
Guillermo Q. Tabios III
is a professor emeritus of Civil Engineering at UP Diliman.
He has a PhD in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University. He specializes in
stochastic and computational hydrology and hydraulics as well as water resources
systems engineering.
Julie Carl P. Ureta
is a PhD Candidate in Forest Resources at Clemson University,
South Carolina, USA. He was an assistant professor at the Department of Economics,
UP Los Baños. His areas of specialization are in ecological and natural resource
economics, agriculture and applied economics, spatial analysis and econometric
modeling, and landscape sustainability.
