10.3.1 Farmer Organizations
Development of farmer organization under the KOISP was necessary to help manage the irrigation system and to represent farmer interest. They have been created with government sponsorship and help under Sri Lanka's participatory irrigation system management policy. Organization efforts were initiated in 1986 with the assignment of two Irrigation Management Division Project Managers to Kirindi Oya, but until 1990 the organizations had relatively little importance and were not very effective. According to the IMD, there are cuirently 690 Field Channel Groups and 59 Distributary Channel Organizations in Kirindi Oya and Badagiriya in addition to the 4 Subproject Committees and one Project Management Committee
Although almost all farmers know about the farmer organizations and are acquainted with their Farmer Representatives, are relatively ignorant about many aspects of the functioning of the farmer organizations. Lack of knowledge about meetings and about the status of Farmer Organization funds implies a lack of communication among members. The general dissatisfaction with funds handling implies problems in this area as well. IMD data too, showed that organizational strength is reasonably good except in the area of finances. Also, has not been able to collect a full set of reports since June 1993, indicating weakness in both the and the Institutional
program.
Overall, farmer organizations have over maintenance but not operations. Their performance in maintenance seems to be satisfactory and they clearly have helped improve water distribution, at least on the field channels. The great majority of the farmers feel that they can do routine maintenance better than the Irrigation Department
can. Also, about half the farmers feel the farmer organizations can successfully handle operations if turned over by the Department and about 40 percent of the Ellegala farmers feel that the Ellegala tanks should be operated jointly by Irrigation Department officers and farmers.
Joint Management Committee The
most
important functionof
the jointmanagement committees, particularly of the Project Management Committee, is making seasonal plans, including making the key water allocation decision each season. IIMI reports indicate that the has begun to play a strong and effective role in seasonal planning (IIMI 1994).
As mentioned above, a few years ago farmers were ignorant of this important function of the PMC. Awareness has increased but it is still low.
Fifty-two respondents (34 in the New and 18 in Ellegala) gave reasons why they were not satisfied with the performance of the and PMC. The single most important reason (15 answers) was that decisions of these committees were not implemented by the agencies. Almost as prevalent (14 answers) was the opinion that these committees cannot find solutions to the problems.
Overall Evaluation of the Farmer Organizations The key points about the farmer
organizations are a) they have been formed but are not strong, and there has been only partial turnover of operations and management responsibilities to them.
The data presented here implies the seeriingly paradoxical findings that
The are well known to and accepted by farmers
-
virtually all farmers claim to be members of their local FO-
but are also relatively ineffective.Although the majority of farmers do not know clearly what the Subproject Committees and the Project Management Committee do, these committees now effectively play a part in seasonal planning.
The are the only farmer organizations that are recognized by the agency officers. Thus, no matter what the weaknesses are, they offer the promise of serving as a means of interacting more effectively, from the farmers' point of view, with the agencies conflicts between the and the "independent" FO during
as reported in IIMI 1993). Also, the PMC is clearly the body most fitted to do
seasonal planning (IIMI 1994).
Overall, while the and joint management committees at Oya have problems, they have recognition and legitimacy so that they can be developed to the needed level with appropriate inputs.
Cattle
Owners
Farmer Organizations The Cattle Owners Farmer Organizations have been created recently to help solve the cattle problem. Two strategies are being followed: First, the COFOs are with the Divisional Secretary and others to find alternative graze for the herds. Second, the COFO leaders try to work with the FO leaders to resolve disputes and losser due to cattle damage to crops in an efficient and amicable manner. So far they have not been able to do so, but this initiative should be supported.10.3.2 Government Agencies
Government agencies needed to manage the new infrastructure created by the KOISP under today’s governmental system are described below.
The Irrigation created a special organizational structure for the construction
activities of the KOISP. There has been a gradual change from this organization toward the normal Irrigation Department organization. This process is going on but it has not yet been fully scheduled.
The Irrigation Management Division is responsible for creating and supporting farmer
organizations. Since the farmer organizations are not very strong, there is a real need to strengthen IMD at Kirindi Oya.
The Department of Agriculture is for agricultural research, extension and
training. Few farmers benefit from services and training is not being done. On the other hand research to solve problems at Kirindi Oya is being carried out and is known to the farmers.
Local Government and the Land Commissioner‘s Department. When the settlers first
arrived in the New Areas, the Land Commissioner’s Department provided virtually all services, including government services. The local government structure has been fully created for the New Areas. All of Kirindi Oya is under two Divisions
-
the Lunugamvehera Division and the TI ssamaharama Division. Most local governmentfunctions have been transferred from the LCD to the Divisions.
Various Central Government The LCD created a large number of physical
facilities for communities. The school:;, health centers, post offices, and agrarian service centers were to be turned over to and manned by, respectively, the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Post Office Department, and the Department of Agrarian Services. Basically, none these departments have been able to fully staff and equip these facilities.
Virtually all facilities created by the have now been transferred to the
that will manage them routinely. A most all special project management offices and
bodies have been disbanded. There are exceptions: a) the Irrigation Department has not yet completed the transition for a organization to an organization, and the Land Commissioner's Department maintains a skeleton office that deals with a few remaining responsibilities, including maintenance of hamlet roads.
No full evaluation of the agencies that taken over was attempted. However, it appears that all suffer from the funds and manpower shortages endemic in
government agencies. Solutions to problem will require major changes in government practices and attitudes.