INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on how the irrigation agency at different administrative levels coped with the internal contradictions that developed when implementing Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) after passage of the Water Act. It explains the strategies used by provincial and district governments to undertake the IMT policy changes that occurred with the new Water Act. It illustrates how IMT implementation under Water Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL) was shaped by the project development approach both before and after the IMT policy struggles.

This chapter is divided into six sections. Section I highlights Kimpraswil's Participatory Irrigation Program (PIP) after the passage of the Water Act on 19 February 2004. In Section II, I discuss the provincial governments’ general position on IMT, and then in Section III, I dissect how the irrigation agency in the Kulon Progo district, in particular, dealt with the WATSAL IMT programme. Section IV analyses how WATSAL policy-makers’ attempt to use the stimulant fund as a tool to eradicate rent-seeking practices in the irrigation sector backfired. In Section V, target-oriented IMT implementation and Federation of Water Users Associations (FWUA) organizational development is discussed, while Section VI explains how the implementation of the WATSAL IMT programme was overwhelmed by project procedures and mechanisms.

SECTION I: KIMPRASWIL AND ITS NEW PARTICIPATORY IRRIGATION PROGRAM

In the aftermath of the IMT policy infighting in 2003 and early 2004, Kimpraswil promoted its new IMT policy under its PIP, in which farmers’ involvement was limited to the tertiary level. At the national level two workshops were held, on 11 March and 18 April 2004 at the National Development Planning Agency (NDPA), to inform regional government representatives about the recent passage of the Water Act and the need to halt WATSAL IMT implementation. Present at these workshops were officials from Kimpraswil, the NDPA, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), and regional government representatives from the twenty-nine provinces in Indonesia. At the regional level, Kimpraswil also introduced its new programme through seminars and workshops. For example, in Yogyakarta, a workshop was conducted on the cultural aspects of irrigation management.

Formally, Kimpraswil did not have any authority to direct regional governments’ policy on IMT. In 2001, regional governments had been authorized to define their own development programmes within the overall application of regional autonomy.