• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Identification of plausible...
 Detailed development of soluti...
 Assessment of solutions
 Use of linear programming to price...
 Reference
 Back Cover






Group Title: Water management technical report ;, no. 65
Title: Development process for improving irrigation water management on farms
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055269/00003
 Material Information
Title: Development process for improving irrigation water management on farms
Series Title: Water management technical report
Physical Description: 4 v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Skogerboe, Gaylord V.
Lowdermilk, Max K.
Sparling, Edward W.
Hautaluoma, Jacob E
Colorado State University -- Water Management Research Project.
Publisher: Water Management Research Project, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University
Place of Publication: Fort Collins Colo
Publication Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Water resources development -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Irrigation -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: prepared by Gaylord V. Skogerboe ... et al..
General Note: "Prepared under support of United States Agency for International Development, Contract AID/ta-C-1411."
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055269
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 50330356

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Research and development process
            Page 1
        Interdisciplinary approach
            Page 2
        Client involvement
            Page 3
        Conceptual framework
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
    Identification of plausible solutions
        Page 7
        Resources and priorities for the development process
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Defining available resources
                Page 9
                Examples of constraints
                    Page 10
            Defining priorities
                Page 10
                Page 11
                Page 12
                Page 13
                Page 14
                Page 15
            Strategic considerations
                Page 16
                Temporary versus permanent change
                    Page 16
                Development costs versus implementation costs
                    Page 17
                Centralized versus local control
                    Page 18
                Preserving options versus gaining focus
                    Page 19
        How to look for potential solutions
            Page 20
            Methods for generating ideas
                Page 21
            Identification of plausible solutions
                Page 22
        Classifying and ranking plausible solutions
            Page 23
            Groups affected by solutions
                Page 23
                Page 24
            Uncertainty of the solutions
                Page 25
            Disciplines involved in developing solutions
                Page 26
            Time requirements
                Page 27
            Resource requirements
                Page 27
            Complementarities with other solutions
                Page 28
            Ranking of plausible solutions
                Page 28
                Page 29
        Examples
            Page 30
            Example B: The cotton emergence problem
                Page 30
                Page 31
                Page 32
                Page 33
            Example B: Watercourse efficiency
                Page 34
                Page 35
                Page 36
                Page 37
                Page 38
    Detailed development of solutions
        Page 39
        Methods of developing solutions
            Page 39
            Devising goals
                Page 39
                Page 40
            Communication and feedback
                Page 41
            Farmer involvement
                Page 41
            Research strategies requiring collective action
                Page 42
                Page 43
            Benchmark studies
                Page 44
            Phased withdrawal of support
                Page 45
            Representatives of field studies
                Page 46
            Attention to external effects
                Page 47
            Deciding when to concentrate efforts
                Page 48
        Examples
            Page 49
            Example A: The cotton emergence problem
                Page 49
            Example B: Watercourse improvement plan
                Page 49
                Page 50
                Page 51
                Page 52
                Page 53
                Page 54
            Summary
                Page 55
                Page 56
                Page 57
                Page 58
                Page 59
                Page 60
    Assessment of solutions
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Review of objectives
            Page 63
        Identification of needs for further trials
            Page 64
            Page 65
        Technical adequacy
            Page 66
        Farmer acceptance
            Page 67
            Profitability
                Page 68
            Compatibility with farm management practices
                Page 68
            Complexity with compatibility with farmer skills
                Page 68
            Compatibility with social and cultural environment
                Page 68
        Farmer participation
            Page 69
        Assessing economic adequacy
            Page 70
            Levels of economic analysis
                Page 71
            Individual financial incentives
                Page 71
                Externalities
                    Page 72
                Collective decisions
                    Page 72
            Financial analysis and risk
                Page 73
            Credit and risk sharing
                Page 74
            Future prices
                Page 75
            Regional economic assessment
                Page 75
            National economic assessment
                Page 76
                Shadow prices
                    Page 76
                Price elasticity for agricultural output
                    Page 77
            Pricing water
                Page 78
            Long-term tenure effects
                Page 79
        Social, political, and legal adequacy
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Generalization of local experience
                Page 81
        Organizational adequacy
            Page 81
            Physical facilities and manpower
                Page 81
                Page 82
            Organizational structure
                Page 83
            Incentives for job productivity
                Page 83
                Page 84
        Responsibility and community self-discipline in water management
            Page 85
            Page 86
    Use of linear programming to price water
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Reference
        Page 95
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text



































DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS MANUAL '


Prepared by
Water Management Research Project Staff
Water Management
Technical Report No. 65C


~~_ ___II _I_ ____ ~ ~ID _;_ I __ _II( ~ _I_~ ____


g46, Ole









Development Process for Improving
Irrigation Water Management on Farms


DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS MANUAL


WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 65C


Prepared under support of
United States Agency for International Development
Contract AID/ta-C-1411
All reported opinions, conclusions or
recommendations are those of the
authors and not those of the funding
agency or the United States Government.




Prepared by

Edward W. Sparling
W. Doral Kemper
Jacob E. Hautaluoma
Max K. Lowdermilk
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
William G. Stewart


Water Management Research Project
Engineering Research Center
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado


April 1980







Development Process for Improving
Irrigation Water Management on Farms


DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS MANUAL


ABSTRACT


The Development of Solutions phase is the second of three phases
in the development process for improving irrigation water management
on farms. The first phase is Problem Identification and the final phase
is Project Implementation. The Development of Solutions consists of
three subphases: identification of plausible solutions; testing and
adaption of solutions; and assessment of solution packages. The
Identification of Plausible Solutions subphase consists of: generating
potential solutions to priority problems; screening of potential solutions
and discarding implausible solutions; and ranking of plausible solutions.
The Testing and Adaption of Solutions subphase consists of:
development a work plan; performing tests; conducting demonstrations
and field days; obtaining feedback from clients; and refining solutions
by phasing the withdrawal of team resources. The Assessment of
Solution Packages subphase consists of: assessing solutions according
to program objectives; determining which solutions are acceptable;
synthesis of acceptable solutions into alternative solution packages; and
reporting of alternative solution packages.






TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . ..... 1

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS . . 1

INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH . . .. 2

CLIENT INVOLVEMENT . . . .

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . . .. .

CHAPTER II. IDENTIFICATION OF PLAUSIBLE
SOLUTIONS .. ....... .. ... .. 7

RESOURCES AND PRIORITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
PRO CESS . . . . . . 7

Defining Available Resources . . . 9
Examples of Constraints . . . 10
Defining Priorities . . . . 10
Strategic Considerations . . . .. 16
Temporary Versus Permanent Change . 16
Development Costs Versus
Implementation Costs . . . .. 17
Centralized Versus Local Control . .. 18
Preserving Options Versus Gaining Focus . 19

HOW TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS . .. 20

Methods for Generating Ideas . . .... 21
Identification of Plausible Solutions .. . 22

CLASSIFYING AND RANKING PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS 23

Groups Affected by Solutions . . . 23
Uncertainty of the Solutions . . .. 25
Disciplines Involved in Developing Solutions . .. 26
Time Requirements ... ............... 27
Resource Requirements . . . .. 27
Complementarities with Other Solutions . .. 28
Ranking of Plausible Solutions . . .. 28

EXAMPLES . . . . . . 30

Example A: The Cotton Emergence Problem . .. 30
Example B: Watercourse Efficiency . . .. 34

CHAPTER III. DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS .. 39

METHODS OF DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS . . .. 39

Devising Goals . . . . . 39
Communication and Feedback . . .. 41







TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)


Page


Farmer Involvement . . . ...
Research Strategies Requiring Collective Action .
Benchmark Studies . . .
Phased Withdrawal of Support .. .......
Representativeness of Field Studies ...
Attention to External Effects ... .
Deciding When to Concentrate Efforts: .. ....

EXAMPLES . . .

Example A: The Cotton Emergence Problem ..
Example B: Watercourse Improvement Plan ..
Summary . . .

CHAPTER IV. ASSESSMENT OF SOLUTIONS ... .

REVIEW OF OBJECTIVES ................

IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS FOR FURTHER TRIALS .

TECHNICAL ADEQUACY . . . .

FARMER ACCEPTANCE . ...

Profitability . . . . .
Compatibility with Farm Management Practices .
Complexity and Compatibility with Farmer Skills
Compatibility with Social and Cultural Environment

FARMER PARTICIPATION . . ........

ASSESSING ECONOMIC ADEQUACY . . .

Levels of Economic Analysis . . .
Individual Financial Incentives . . ..
Externalities . . . . .
Collective Decisions .. ..... ....
Financial Analysis and Risk . . .
Credit and Risk Sharing . . . .
Future Prices . . . . .
Regional Economic Assessment . . .
National Economic Assessment . . .
Shadow Prices . . . .
Price Elasticity for Agricultural Output ..
Pricing Water . . . . .
Long-Term Tenure Effects . . .







TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

Page

SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL ADEQUACY . 79

Generalization of Local Experience .. ... . 81

ORGANIZATIONAL ADEQUACY .. .... .. . 81

Physical Facilities and Manpower . ... .. . 81
Organizational Structure ... . . 83
Incentives for Job Productivity ...... . 83

RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMUNITY SELF-DISCIPLINE
IN WATER MANAGEMENT . .... . . 85

APPENDIX: USE OF LINEAR PROGRAMMING TO PRICE
WATER . . . . . . 87

REFERENCES . . . . . 95







LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Flow diagram for the Development of Solutions phase
in the development process for improving irrigation
water management on farms . ... .. 5

2 Flow diagram for the Identification of Plausible Solutions
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase .. 8

3 First solutions/criteria matrix . . .... .24

4 Final solutions/criteria matrix ... .. . 24

5 Example of potential solutions for the cotton emergence
problem ... ............... ... 32

6 Flow diagram for the Testing and Adaption of Solutions
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase . 40

7 Flow diagram for the Assessment of Solution Packages
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase . 62







LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Program Resources Checklist .. .. ..... .. 11

2 Examples of program objectives .. .. ... . 13

3 Solutions-criteria matrix for analysis of research and
development strategies for the cotton emergence
problem ............................. 33

4 Solution criteria matrix for analysis of research and
development strategies for the watercourse efficiency
problem . . . . . . 37

5 Example of goals, responsibility and scheduling of
each activity for the cotton emergence problem . 50

6 Example of work plan by discipline for the cotton
emergence problem .... . .. ... .. 51

7 Example of goals, responsibility and scheduling of
each activity for the watercourse improvement
plan .. . . .. . . .. 56

8 Example of work plan by discipline for the watercourse
improvement plan ... .......... ....... 57

9 Example of cropping activities . .. . 89

10 Example of cropping activities influenced by water
shortages . . . . . .... 92








CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This is the second in a series of three manuals designed as
practical guides to research, development, and transfer of technology in
agricultural water management. The purpose of this volume is to
explain how solutions to problems are developed. Because there is
considerable overlap between the three manuals, it is useful to outline
how the "Development of Solutions" relates to the other two volumes.
Together, the manuals describe three phases that comprise an
entire research and development process. In the Problem Identification
phase, the research and development staff (also referred to in this
manual as the program team, program staff, or team) seeks to
understand the agricultural system as it exists. In the "Development of
Solutions" phase alternative designs for the system are identified and
evaluated. In the Project Implementation phase the program staff
attempts to change the present system to a better one. Described in
this manner, the phases seem distinct. In reality, however, they
usually overlap because information is never complete from any
particular phase. This results in continuous recycling through earlier
phases as new facts reveal a need for further information. For
example, in the process of developing solutions, researchers discover
new facts about farmer management practices. These new facts may
necessitate redefinition of the problem and reordering of the associated
priorities. Thus, it is likely that problem definitions will continue to
change as solutions evolve and are implemented. When one constraint is
relaxed in a production system, other constraints will become critical.
Because implementation occurs on a larger scale than the development of
solutions, it is likely that unforeseen constraints will emerge. This
requires that solutions be flexible enough to be adapted to unexpected
problems. Such flexibility involves a refinement in the development of
solutions and the appearance of these unforeseen problems provides
additional knowledge about problem identification.








CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This is the second in a series of three manuals designed as
practical guides to research, development, and transfer of technology in
agricultural water management. The purpose of this volume is to
explain how solutions to problems are developed. Because there is
considerable overlap between the three manuals, it is useful to outline
how the "Development of Solutions" relates to the other two volumes.
Together, the manuals describe three phases that comprise an
entire research and development process. In the Problem Identification
phase, the research and development staff (also referred to in this
manual as the program team, program staff, or team) seeks to
understand the agricultural system as it exists. In the "Development of
Solutions" phase alternative designs for the system are identified and
evaluated. In the Project Implementation phase the program staff
attempts to change the present system to a better one. Described in
this manner, the phases seem distinct. In reality, however, they
usually overlap because information is never complete from any
particular phase. This results in continuous recycling through earlier
phases as new facts reveal a need for further information. For
example, in the process of developing solutions, researchers discover
new facts about farmer management practices. These new facts may
necessitate redefinition of the problem and reordering of the associated
priorities. Thus, it is likely that problem definitions will continue to
change as solutions evolve and are implemented. When one constraint is
relaxed in a production system, other constraints will become critical.
Because implementation occurs on a larger scale than the development of
solutions, it is likely that unforeseen constraints will emerge. This
requires that solutions be flexible enough to be adapted to unexpected
problems. Such flexibility involves a refinement in the development of
solutions and the appearance of these unforeseen problems provides
additional knowledge about problem identification.







Although the research and development process is a continuous
recycling through phases, the manuals are organized in a separate and
sequential format. Hopefully, by allocating specific blocks of time and
effort to each phase program members will be encouraged to recognize
t.h-; limits of program resources and to keep sight of the goals they
must. r':ach.

INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Generally, the research and development staff hopes to suggest
and encourage changes that will serve the farmers' interest. However,
the implications of change do not always stop with individual farmers.
Widespread changes affecting farmers commonly spread throughout the
area which facilitates implementation. The evaluation of widespread
changes requires that the research and development staff gain a
thorough understanding of how the farm components are integrated.
This understanding is difficult to achieve since the individuals have
been trained to concentrate their methods of investigation on their
discipline, ignoring factors relegated to other disciplines. Therefore,
achievement of an interdisciplinary perspective requires special effort,
especially by project managers.
When the interdisciplinary approach is required it should be
established at the beginning of the project. Specific steps necessary to
facilitate its effective operation are described below.

1. All staff should participate in important decisions about
the project so that solutions will be based on several
perspectives. When all members participate, they tend
to feel responsible for the decisions and are more
committed to their support.

2. An important part of decision making is the setting of
realistic goals by group members. It should be clear
that goal achievement will be used by the manager to
measure individual and group performance.

3. A systematic feedback network should be developed
to evaluate performance relative to the goals. Feedback
between staff as well as between staff and the program
manager are essential to interdisciplinary projects.
Members working on different parts of a problem should
periodically share information about the direction,
progress, and significant interrelationships of the work.







4. Methods should be developed for handling internal
conflicts. Relaxed and objective staff sessions should be
held in which existing or potential conflicts are
recognized and means of resolution are arranged.
Ignoring conflict generally makes it more intense and the
staff tends to work against each other.

A detailed discussion of how to accomplish these steps is offered in the
Project Implementation manual.

CLIENT INVOLVEMENT

Client involvement is an effective method for gaining information
about the dynamics of the farm system and of identifying sources of
support or obstacles to change. Farmers generally have extensive
relevant information as well as an intuitive understanding of how their
system works; yet, they are often ignored by outside experts. The
tendency for staff to discount farmer input is most acute in the
Development of Solutions phase. In the Problem Identification phase the
farmers must at least be studied to determine the problems; and in the
Project Implementation phase they must at least be told how to solve
those problems. However, in the Development of Solutions phase they
are often considered part of the problem and, therefore, are not
expected to know about the solutions. In the approach advocated by
this manual, the farmer is regarded as an important source of ideas for
potential solutions that experts may overlook. Furthermore, because of
their innate "interdisciplinary" familiarity with their system, the farmers
can assist the program in understanding the system's dynamics and in
anticipating consequences of proposed changes. Client involvement and
an interdisciplinary approach are recurring, interconnected themes or
"key concepts" in all three manuals.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The transition from the Problem Identification phase to the
Development of Solutions phase occurs when the staff agrees to change
emphasis from understanding problems to actual attempts at solution.
Development of solutions is characterized by 1) identification and
ranking of plausible alternatives, 2) detailed development of solutions to
priority problems, and 3) assessment, refinement, and assembling the
solutions.







4. Methods should be developed for handling internal
conflicts. Relaxed and objective staff sessions should be
held in which existing or potential conflicts are
recognized and means of resolution are arranged.
Ignoring conflict generally makes it more intense and the
staff tends to work against each other.

A detailed discussion of how to accomplish these steps is offered in the
Project Implementation manual.

CLIENT INVOLVEMENT

Client involvement is an effective method for gaining information
about the dynamics of the farm system and of identifying sources of
support or obstacles to change. Farmers generally have extensive
relevant information as well as an intuitive understanding of how their
system works; yet, they are often ignored by outside experts. The
tendency for staff to discount farmer input is most acute in the
Development of Solutions phase. In the Problem Identification phase the
farmers must at least be studied to determine the problems; and in the
Project Implementation phase they must at least be told how to solve
those problems. However, in the Development of Solutions phase they
are often considered part of the problem and, therefore, are not
expected to know about the solutions. In the approach advocated by
this manual, the farmer is regarded as an important source of ideas for
potential solutions that experts may overlook. Furthermore, because of
their innate "interdisciplinary" familiarity with their system, the farmers
can assist the program in understanding the system's dynamics and in
anticipating consequences of proposed changes. Client involvement and
an interdisciplinary approach are recurring, interconnected themes or
"key concepts" in all three manuals.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The transition from the Problem Identification phase to the
Development of Solutions phase occurs when the staff agrees to change
emphasis from understanding problems to actual attempts at solution.
Development of solutions is characterized by 1) identification and
ranking of plausible alternatives, 2) detailed development of solutions to
priority problems, and 3) assessment, refinement, and assembling the
solutions.







These steps are elaborated in Chapters II, III, and IV,
respectively, and are represented in the flow chart in Figure 1. It will
be useful for the reader to refer to the flow chart while reading the
following summary.
When the problem identification staff arrives, they generally
possess defined objectives and constraints, and a limited understanding
of the farm system they will confront. At the start of the Development
of Solutions phase, objectives have been refined, constraints have been
tran.sl;lt.ed to operational limitations, and there is a partial
underst.;anding of the causality behind the more important problems.
In some cases, solutions to problems may naturally evolve even
before the end of the Problem Identification phase. For example,
farmers may suffer from a problem in water supply scheduling that they
cannot change due to the lack of access to officials. The problem
identification staff may provide the necessary contacts to reach a fast
solution. Most problems are more difficult, having multiple, interrelated
causes, and the development of effective solutions requires planning,
field trials, evaluation, and refinement. These stages are covered in
this manual.
Faced with a situation where solutions are not obvious, a
worthwhile technique to elicit ideas is a "brainstorming session." All
members of the group are encouraged to spontaneously submit ideas
with no threat of judgment. Inputs from farmers can be included
indirectly through the members. After many ideas have been
contributed to each problem, they are evaluated with respect to
program objectives and constraints to eliminate the impractical or
implausible solutions.
Plausible solutions are then classified against several important
criteria such as effects on various groups, disciplines involved,
resources required from various sources, time requirements,
uncertainty, and complementarities with other solutions. It is useful to
jointly display solutions and criteria in a solution/criteria matrix that
gives information about the appropriateness of each plausible solution.
This facilitates comparison of solutions and identification of information
needed to properly evaluate the alternatives.




5

DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS

GENERATE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
TO PRIORITY PROBLEMS


SCREEN POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
o Program Objectives
b Program Constraints
c Strategic Considerations


RANK PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS
a. Groups Affected
b Uncertainty
c Disciplines Involved
d Time Requirements
e Resource Requirements
f Complementarities with
other Solutions


DISCARD
IMPLAUSIBLE
SOLUTIONS


DEVELOP WORK PLAN
a Set Goals
b Design Tests
c. Allocate Team Resources
d. Specify Feedback Mechanisms
e. Specify Deadlines


S PERFORM TESTS


CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIONS,
FIELD DAYS, etc.


OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM CLIENTS
a. Farmers
b. Agencies


REFINE SOLUTIONS WITH PHASED
WITHDRAWAL OF TEAM RESOURCES


ASSESS SOLUTIONS ACCORDING
TO PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
a Technical Adequacy
b. Farmer Acceptance
c. Farmer Participation
d. Economic Adequacy
e. Social and Political Feasibility
f. Organizational Adequacy
Ye No Yes
NEED MORE INFORMATION MORE TESTING NEEDED>

o DISCARD UNACCEPTABLE
SOLUTIONS

SYNTHESIS OF ACCEPTABLE
SOLUTIONS INTO ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION PACKAGES


REPORT ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION PACKAGES


Flow diagram for the Development of Solutions phase in
the development process for improving irrigation water
management on farms.


Figure 1.


i







Identification of groups affected by each solution precludes a more
detailed consideration of the objectives of the group as related to the
solution. These objectives are applied in a valuation of each solution
from different viewpoints. Program objectives are again refined to
reflect what was learned about farmers' interests and then used to help
rank the plausible solutions. Finally, high ranking solutions are chosen
for development.
Detailed development of solutions begins with identification of
information required to judge feasibility and adequacy of each one.
This process should involve interdisciplinary subgroups who are
assigned to outline the description and schedule of tests or trials they
expect to conduct. Periodic checks and coordination meetings should be
held to insure that progress is correctly directed and that information
will be available when needed by other subgroups and project
implementation personnel (see Project Implementation manual).
When sufficient information is available on the solutions, the staff
should meet again to design combinations of solutions which are
designated as "packages." These combinations are evaluated and
refined in field trials until their benefits are clearly perceivable. In
successive trials, government inputs to the program are replaced by
farmer inputs until farmers take as much responsibility as seems
practical and the level of inputs required from the government or some
other off-farm source could be provided in a broad-scale implementation
project.
As field trials progress, it is important to maintain communication
with concerned government agencies. This will avoid costly misdirection
of effort resulting from a lack of understanding of government
objectives. It will also facilitate institutionalizing some of the solutions
by having them become a part of the normal activities of the farming
community.
When field tests are finished, the solutions are given a final,
thorough assessment for technical adequacy, farmer acceptance, farmer
participation, economic adequacy, social and political feasibility, and
organizational adequacy. The last step in solution development is to
redesign the alternatives for widespread dissemination and formal
reporting of the alternative solution packages for distribution to
involved agencies.







CHAPTER II


IDENTIFICATION OF PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Strategy is inherent in the approach advocated by these manuals,
but nowhere is strategy more central than in selecting a set of plausible
solutions for development (Figure 2). This chapter suggests ways to
form strategies consistent with program objectives and constraints.
Certain criteria are discussed as they relate to planning research and
development, and potential sources of ideas and technology are listed.
As with other phases, a team approach and client involvement are
important, and their importance in strategy formation cannot be
overemphasized. Team members and clients become motivated and
self-directed if they are actively involved in the formation of strategies.
Furthermore, farmers and other clients who work closely with team
members can become important sources of information regarding the
system. The team manager may be anxious to progress with what seems
like obviously productive tasks, but time spent involving staff and
clients in strategic planning will help mobilize initiative and establish
communication channels through which reliable information can be
obtained.

RESOURCES AND PRIORITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Initial statements of program objectives and limits come from
outside the program, presumably from a government agency. However,
statements of these guidelines are rarely precise and usually require
refinement before they can be used. This is advantageous in that a
team often has flexibility in defining its own priorities, but it can be a
liability since there may be objectives and constraints which are
unstated, but important. Consequently, program leaders must assume
responsibility for interacting with government officials to discover any
such objectives and constraints. Once there is reasonable confidence
that the team understands what is expected by its sponsorss, it can
begin a process of elimination to narrow the set of alternatives it will
consider for development. Although this should have been done in the
Problem Identification phase, it is reiterated here because of the
importance of specifically defining program objectives in order to
proceed positively in the Development of Solutions phase.







CHAPTER II


IDENTIFICATION OF PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Strategy is inherent in the approach advocated by these manuals,
but nowhere is strategy more central than in selecting a set of plausible
solutions for development (Figure 2). This chapter suggests ways to
form strategies consistent with program objectives and constraints.
Certain criteria are discussed as they relate to planning research and
development, and potential sources of ideas and technology are listed.
As with other phases, a team approach and client involvement are
important, and their importance in strategy formation cannot be
overemphasized. Team members and clients become motivated and
self-directed if they are actively involved in the formation of strategies.
Furthermore, farmers and other clients who work closely with team
members can become important sources of information regarding the
system. The team manager may be anxious to progress with what seems
like obviously productive tasks, but time spent involving staff and
clients in strategic planning will help mobilize initiative and establish
communication channels through which reliable information can be
obtained.

RESOURCES AND PRIORITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Initial statements of program objectives and limits come from
outside the program, presumably from a government agency. However,
statements of these guidelines are rarely precise and usually require
refinement before they can be used. This is advantageous in that a
team often has flexibility in defining its own priorities, but it can be a
liability since there may be objectives and constraints which are
unstated, but important. Consequently, program leaders must assume
responsibility for interacting with government officials to discover any
such objectives and constraints. Once there is reasonable confidence
that the team understands what is expected by its sponsorss, it can
begin a process of elimination to narrow the set of alternatives it will
consider for development. Although this should have been done in the
Problem Identification phase, it is reiterated here because of the
importance of specifically defining program objectives in order to
proceed positively in the Development of Solutions phase.







-I-


GENERATE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
TO PRIORITY PROBLEMS


SCREEN POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
a. Program Objectives
b. Program Constraints
c. Strategic Considerations


RANK PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS
a. Groups Affected
b. Uncertainty
c. Disciplines Involved
d. Time Requirements
e. Resource Requirements
f. Complementarities with
other Solutions


Figure 2. Flow diagram for the Identification of Plausible Solutions
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase.


DISCARD
IMPLAUSIBLE
SOLUTIONS


i







Defining Available Resources
Many of the resources available for the solution development phase
are explicit from the start such as time allotted to research and
development; budgets of capital, manpower, and facilities; and authority
of program leaders to obtain cooperation from government agencies.
The development of solutions may also be facilitated or constrained by
organizational, institutional, or legal factors. Depending upon the
political situation and seriousness of the problems that suggested
solutions solve or create, such "institutional" factors may be subject to
change. Examples of change that may occur are government policies
regarding taxes, subsidies, and price controls on agriculture; minimum
wages; laws restricting size or tenure of landholdings; scarcity of
foreign exchange; limited primary commodities such as cement and
fertilizer; and incentive systems in government agencies.
Resources available for the Project Implementation phase are
generally uncertain. Time and budget allocated to project implementa-
tion depends upon the urgency and importance of the problems as well
as the effectiveness of the solutions developed. Consequently, the
resources available for implementation are uncertain. The
organizational, institutional, and legal resource constraints are less
predictable for implementation than for research and development. For
instance, farmers participating enthusiastically in an initial program may
even convince visiting government officials that new organizations,
institutions, and laws should be formulated to facilitate the
implementation phase of the program.
In spite of uncertainties, staff should be aware of potential
resources available for implementation and recognize their limitations. A
good way to coordinate this approach is to hold a meeting in which
resources are listed and matched against problems they may help solve.
It would be useful to display this information on a blackboard or other
large surface to allow all members to participate. Resources available
will generally be more limited during the Project Implementation phase
than during the Development of Solutions phase. Research and develop-
ment programs are often devised outside of established government
agencies. However, implementation is often allocated to these existing
agencies. Unfortunately, these agencies have less access to the type of







resources required for further adaptation of the solution.
Cons.equently, the testing and adaptation of solutions to be done in the
(evelopment of Solutions phase must take into consideration the
resources that will likely be available in the Project Implementation
phase.

Examples of Constraints

An example of how program resources might be arranged so that
priority problems and their solutions can be matched is shown in
Table 1. Resources listed are examples of categories that could be
applicable in on-farm water management.
The last major category in Table 1 is "Information." Research in
the Development of Solutions phase will increase the available
information. However, many times information from other sources will
have to be substituted because of time limitations. By reviewing the
checklist, information that might be overlooked may be incorporated in
the assessment of the project requirements. The -categories listed are
general and could be further detailed. At the end of the list of
information is "Information regarding interest groups." This includes
sociological and economic aspects that are crucial in developing both
research and implementation strategies. Interest groups exist formally
and informally in all areas of society. For instance, local watercourse
associations serve different groups of farmers with opposing interests:
various government agencies have interagency priorities; and ministries
(e.g., Irrigation and Agriculture) have diverse viewpoints.

Defining Priorities

If the sequence presented in the Problem Identification manual has
been followed, there is already a well-defined set of objectives and
priorities. It is imperative that staff members share an understanding
of the general program objectives and that more specific operational
objectives, which will emerge as plausible solutions, are identified.
One way to define priorities is to list the general program
objectives first. The general objectives, as cited in the Problem
Identification manual are: (1) Increased Agricultural Production;
(2) Increased Equity of Income Distribution; and (3) Resource
Conservation. It is possible that a program will have a narrowly







resources required for further adaptation of the solution.
Cons.equently, the testing and adaptation of solutions to be done in the
(evelopment of Solutions phase must take into consideration the
resources that will likely be available in the Project Implementation
phase.

Examples of Constraints

An example of how program resources might be arranged so that
priority problems and their solutions can be matched is shown in
Table 1. Resources listed are examples of categories that could be
applicable in on-farm water management.
The last major category in Table 1 is "Information." Research in
the Development of Solutions phase will increase the available
information. However, many times information from other sources will
have to be substituted because of time limitations. By reviewing the
checklist, information that might be overlooked may be incorporated in
the assessment of the project requirements. The -categories listed are
general and could be further detailed. At the end of the list of
information is "Information regarding interest groups." This includes
sociological and economic aspects that are crucial in developing both
research and implementation strategies. Interest groups exist formally
and informally in all areas of society. For instance, local watercourse
associations serve different groups of farmers with opposing interests:
various government agencies have interagency priorities; and ministries
(e.g., Irrigation and Agriculture) have diverse viewpoints.

Defining Priorities

If the sequence presented in the Problem Identification manual has
been followed, there is already a well-defined set of objectives and
priorities. It is imperative that staff members share an understanding
of the general program objectives and that more specific operational
objectives, which will emerge as plausible solutions, are identified.
One way to define priorities is to list the general program
objectives first. The general objectives, as cited in the Problem
Identification manual are: (1) Increased Agricultural Production;
(2) Increased Equity of Income Distribution; and (3) Resource
Conservation. It is possible that a program will have a narrowly







Table 1. Program Resources Checklist


Project Personnel


Access to Authority


Agronomists
Engineers
Civil
Agricultural
Hydrologists
Economists
Sociologists/Anthropologists
Lawyers
Managers

Research and Development Budget

Transportation
Clerical
Computational
Laboratory equipment
Field equipment
Field assistants

Equipment

Water supply data
Lab equipment
Field testing equipment
Tractors
Earthmovers
Levelers
Computer

Access to Agencies Resources


Personnel
Agronomists, etc.
Facilities
Laboratories
Experiment station
Field equipment


Irrigation I
National
Regional
Local

Ministry of
National
Regional
Local

Ministry of
National
Regional
Local


departmentt




Agriculture




Transportation


Ministry of Finance
National
Regional
Local

Information (local, regional,
national, and/or international)

Climatic data
Soil data
Water supply data
Hydrologic data
Plant varieties and properties
Data on plant disease and
pests
Economic data
Socio-cultural data
Policy data
Information regarding interest
groups


~~_ 1







defined objective that fits under one of the above general objectives,
probably under "Increasing Agricultural Production." However, the
nature of on-farm water management projects is such that solutions
generally involve all three objectives. These specific program objec-
tives can be determined by detailing the general objective. An example
of how this might be accomplished is shown in Table 2.
As with the constraint list of Table 1, objectives in Table 2 give
general examples of what should be considered. Operational objectives
of an on-farm water management development program will have more
detail. Furthermore, many of the objectives listed will initially be
outside the domain of most on-farm water management development
projects. Nevertheless, such situations are sometimes the unintended
result of development programs and should be considered as potential
by-products of solutions.
As solutions are identified they can be defined in terms of specific
activities such as the "design and construction of watercourse lining,
costing no more than $2 per foot (annualized), designed to carry up to
3 ft3 of water per second with delivery efficiency of 99 percent per
1,000 feet." These goals can be related back to program objectives:

Water is saved thereby increasing acres that can be irrigated
resulting in an increase in farmer incomes.

Deep percolation which causes loss of land resources to
waterlogging is reduced.

Finally, farmers at the ends of watercourses benefit relatively
more than those at the beginning which leads to a more
equitable distribution of wealth.

This example shows how goals are expressed in terms of measurable
performance criteria; and therefore, the "operational objectives"
mentioned at the beginning of the chapter.








Table 2. Examples of program objectives.




Increasing Crop Production

--Optimizing Use of Plant Environment
Identification of best crops and varieties for environment
Breeding new varieties
Improving practices

--Complementing Plant Environment
Reduce costs of agri-chemicals
Add organic matter to soil
Add tillable acreage by modifying terrain

--Optimizing Labor Use
Change cropping patterns to reduce labor bottlenecks
Education of farmers
Improved nutrition
Improved health

--Complementing Labor Use
Introduction of labor-saving machines
Facilitate mobility of seasonal laborers

--Optimizing Use of Current Water Supply and Removal System
Land leveling
Use of bunds
Maintenance of delivery and removal systems
Improved application efficiency
Improvement of scheduling

--Complementing Water Supply and Removal System
Modification of supply and removal systems
Addition of storage capacity
Addition of wells

--Optimizing Use of Current Organizational, Institutional, and
Legal Infrastructure
Rationalization of prices with national priorities
Rationalization of organizational incentive structures
Develop incentives for Water Users' Associations
Education and training of agency staff

--Changing Existing Infrastructure
Add new organizations to service farmers
Development of marketing services for inputs and outputs
Develop new organization to manage interregional water
allocation
Change laws to allocate water rights to individuals
Land consolidation
Land reform
Organize cooperatives or Water Users' Associations







Table 2. Examples of program objectives (continued).



Income Distribution

--Increase Productivity of Resources Belonging to Poorer
Farmers and Laborers
Labor : Education, extension, nutrition, health,
machinery, chemical inputs, new crop varieties
with shorter duration
Land : Consolidation, leveling, increased water
supply, complementing nutrients, higher
yielding crop varieties
Water: Increase application efficiency, increase
delivery efficiency, introduce crop varieties
better adapted to water

--Increase Access to Productive Resources
Land : Reform, consolidate and cooperative use
Water : Redistribution and enforcement of water rights
Capital : Credit, collective ownership, indivisible
capital equipment (tubewells, tractors)
Information: Extension, education, mass media

--Direct Redistribution of Income
Tax relief
Subsidies
Food programs
Free medical care
Direct transfer payments (social security, welfare)

--Increase Demand for Farm Products
Transportation, storage, and other marketing systems
Development of overseas markets
Development of domestic processing industries

--Reduce Uncertainty for Smaller Farmers
Disease and pest control
Regulation of water supply
Regulation of prices
Crop insurance
Organize credit cooperatives
Establish dependable marketing for inputs and outputs

--Increase Access of Small Farmers to Government Agencies
Organize small farmers into politically-effective groups
Furnish small farmers with advocates to plead cases with
agencies








Table 2. Examples of program objectives (continued).



Resource Conservation

--Water
Maintenance of quality of water supplies
Maintenance of sustainable yield from water supplies
Increasing sustainable yields through storage

--Soil
Prevention of soil erosion
Reclamation of degraded soils
Maintenance of acceptable levels of soil salinity

--Air
Maintain safe quality
Maintain aesthetic qualtiy

--Forests
Maintenance of sustainable yields from forests
Extend acreage of forests to increase sustainable yields
Introduce substitutes for wood as fuel and construction
materials

--Fisheries
Maintenance of quality of water
Maintenance of sustainable yields
Increasing sustainable yields

--Rangeland
Maintain sustainable yield
Increase nutritional value of yield
Increase efficiency of animals








Strategic Considerations

Having acknowledged both constraints and objectives, the team
can, without regarding specific solutions, anticipate certain strategic
considerations that will affect the types of solutions selected for
development.

Temporary Versus Permanent Change

Often political realities necessitate immediate results from certain
projects. The program staff may have broadly defined objectives but
are expected to show quick results. In this case, a two-stage strategy
may be appropriate. Temporary solutions that can be developed and
implemented quickly can be utilized while research is done to find
permanent answers. For example, a strategy might be to implement a
short-term solution to a salinity problem by growing some salt-tolerant
crops while developing and evaluating long-term solutions involving
alternatives for lowering the water table and removing the salt. In
another example, insecticides applied by government agencies can be a
temporary solution while insect-tolerant crops are developed or while a
cheaper method of control is developed.
A two-stage strategy has the advantage of satisfying the
impatience of sponsoring agencies for results while lending credibility to
the staff for continuing their work. Restraint, however, must be
exercised in use of temporary solutions. For example, a poor choice of
an insecticide may result in killing beneficial insects such as honeybees
upon which farmers depend for pollination.
Another danger is that farmers may depend too heavily on a
temporary solution so that it is difficult to replace with a superior one.
For instance, subsidized power for tubewells may stimulate the use of
ground water as a temporary solution for water shortages while more
effective methods of water application are developed. But temporary
subsidies tend to become expected, and if farmers are subsequently
asked to invest capital and labor in more efficient water application
systems they may resist.
Distortions of market values and conflicts of interest between
farmers and the government are inherent in subsidies. Probable effects
of these distortions and conflicts should be carefully evaluated when








Strategic Considerations

Having acknowledged both constraints and objectives, the team
can, without regarding specific solutions, anticipate certain strategic
considerations that will affect the types of solutions selected for
development.

Temporary Versus Permanent Change

Often political realities necessitate immediate results from certain
projects. The program staff may have broadly defined objectives but
are expected to show quick results. In this case, a two-stage strategy
may be appropriate. Temporary solutions that can be developed and
implemented quickly can be utilized while research is done to find
permanent answers. For example, a strategy might be to implement a
short-term solution to a salinity problem by growing some salt-tolerant
crops while developing and evaluating long-term solutions involving
alternatives for lowering the water table and removing the salt. In
another example, insecticides applied by government agencies can be a
temporary solution while insect-tolerant crops are developed or while a
cheaper method of control is developed.
A two-stage strategy has the advantage of satisfying the
impatience of sponsoring agencies for results while lending credibility to
the staff for continuing their work. Restraint, however, must be
exercised in use of temporary solutions. For example, a poor choice of
an insecticide may result in killing beneficial insects such as honeybees
upon which farmers depend for pollination.
Another danger is that farmers may depend too heavily on a
temporary solution so that it is difficult to replace with a superior one.
For instance, subsidized power for tubewells may stimulate the use of
ground water as a temporary solution for water shortages while more
effective methods of water application are developed. But temporary
subsidies tend to become expected, and if farmers are subsequently
asked to invest capital and labor in more efficient water application
systems they may resist.
Distortions of market values and conflicts of interest between
farmers and the government are inherent in subsidies. Probable effects
of these distortions and conflicts should be carefully evaluated when








subsidies are considered as part of the solution. Using subsidies to
"bribe" farmers into rapid acceptance of a program is generally inferior
to educating the farmers about the merits of the program. If the
subsidy program becomes formalized and is widely publicized in an
implementation program, it is difficult to reduce the subsidies and
obtain continued participation by the farmers. When using subsidies
for short-term solutions, publicity about them should be limited and the
alternative solution field trials should be sufficiently separated by
distance so farmer-participants are not comparing what they are
receiving with other alternatives.

Development Costs Versus Implementation Costs

A difference exists between (a) changing the amount, properties,
or means of delivery of a given input available to the farmer, and (b)
changing the technique in which inputs are combined by the farmer.
Examples of changing the means of delivery are the introduction of
new seed varieties, chemical fertilizers, tubewells, and tractors. Use
of one of these factors does not necessarily imply changing any other
practices. For example, farmers can easily adapt to seedbed prepara-
tion done by tractor as well as that done by hand, or to water supplied
by a tubewell as opposed to that supplied by a surface water system.
Examples of changing techniques of combining resources are a
switch from basin irrigation to furrow irrigation, a switch from
uncontrolled flood irrigation to utilization of a bund and controlled
paddy irrigation, or a change from dependence on an outside agency
for water supply and regulation to a water users' association that
maintains and regulates use of local watercourses. Generally, changes
of this sort are not standardized and require that farmers adapt the
new technique to their circumstances. This implies an increased
understanding that is not required for changes of the means of
delivery.
Changes in the delivery method generally require adaptation before
implementation. Seed varieties, pesticides, fertilizers, and power
equipment may require adaptation to local conditions. In addition, they
may require elaborate organizations outside the farm or village to
support their use.







However, changes in technique leave part of the adaptation, the
development, to the farmerss. This has implications for time and
money requirements for development relative to time and money require-
ments for implementation: changes in mode of delivery generally require
more careful research and development but they are readily adopted by
farmers, while for changes in technique the reverse is true.
Consequently, if solutions that can be quickly implemented are desired
it is best to use changes in mode of delivery which are easily adapted
to local conditions. This generally excludes comprehensive changes in
husbandry techniques and new crop varieties bred in different climates,
or machinery for which there is no supporting marketing and service
network.

Centralized Versus Local Control

There is another trade-off closely related to that between changes
of delivery method and changes in technique which is the trade-off
between centralized control and local control of resource allocation.
Surface water irrigation systems are often centralized in an organization
because of the highly connected nature of the distribution network.
Ground water irrigation systems are typically not as centralized because
the delivery system is part of nature, although the connectedness of
aquifers and the probable competition between users suggest a need for
some centralized control. A valid argument in favor of decentralization
is that local decision makers are more aware of their environment than
others. Furthermore, taking responsibility for allocating resources
motivates the local people to support the needed action. This latter
argument, a continuous theme throughout the manual, encourages
1) farmer involvement in the research and development process, and
2) democratic team management.
However, there are situations where central control is more
efficient as well as equitable. For example, maintenance and cleaning of
a watercourse is a problem in many countries. A major cause of the
problem is the general lack of social cohesiveness in the villages to
accomplish the work. Water disputes are sometimes a cause of divisions
within village societies and at other times water is used negatively
against opponents. Since this divisiveness is rooted in the cultural and







historical heritage of villages, it is not likely to be improved by asking
farmers at the beginning (head) of a watercourse to contribute their
work or money to projects that benefit those at the end (tail) more than
themselves. Ideally, local farmers should be able to maintain their own
watercourses since they are aware of the conditions. Their maintenance
costs should be low and the quality of workmanship good because the
farmers are personally affected by the performance of the watercourse.
However, local politics may prevent farmers from cooperating. Conse-
quently, it may be worthwhile to use outside control to impose
regularly-scheduled cleaning and maintenance of watercourses. This
could be done by requiring farmers to clean the watercourses
themselves or by maintaining a crew of workers to go from watercourse
to watercourse under the employment of a central agency. Costs could
be recovered through water fees paid by farmers. Alternatively,
watercourses could be lined, thereby eliminating or reducing the need
for cleaning and maintenance.
The issues here involves politics of government agencies. If
authority for resource allocation is assigned to those outside the
community, the community tends to become dependent upon the agencies
making decisions and the agencies tend to preserve their authority.
Therefore, it may be a mistake to regard governmental control as a
temporary expedient while communities learn how to organize for
collective action. Additionally, the creation of a new agency or a new
domain for an old one can lead to jealousies between agencies.
Arguments do favor the encouragement of farmers toward solutions
at a local level .rather than relying upon central authority.
Nevertheless, urgent situations or difficult social problems may warrant
the intervention of outside assistance.

Preserving Options Versus Gaining Focus

Many uncertainties exist at the beginning of comprehensive water
management projects, including those regarding technical feasibility,


Limited surveys on some watercourses in Pakistan and Sri Lanka
indicated a majority of the farmers contacted were discouraged
concerning voluntary cooperative maintenance and would welcome
government enforcement of reasonable standards of watercourse
maintenance that would be done by farmers.







economic feasibility, and interest groups desiring to affect the direction
of solutions. On the other hand, the system is often so complex that
information available surpasses the capability of the staff to do accurate
analysis. The tendency is for individuals to focus their attention on
areas of familiarity which leads to a fragmented, directionless effort.
The program manager needs to direct the staff toward a common focus,
yet anticipate uncertainties that occur from the research-development
process. To attain focus while maintaining flexibility requires anticipa-
tion of the alternatives that may emerge from uncertain situations, along
with appropriate planning. As events develop, unnecessary alternatives
may be abandoned and the staff can direct its attention to remaining
solutions.
For example, if a large irrigation system has a serious misallocation
between regions due to historical origin of water rights, program
personnel should present their data to the appropriate government
officials and suggest reallocation. The decision regarding the matter
will be made by officials who must consider political realities that may
determine the solution. The staff could prepare to respond to a
decision to reallocate by determining the optimal means to use added
water in the water-scarce region. Conversely, they could also prepare
for the alternative by searching for ways to extend the acreage in the
water-abundant area and to efficiently use existing supplies in the
water-scarce area. With an awareness of program resources,
constraints, objectives, and strategic considerations, the project staff
can begin searching for solutions.

HOW TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Ideas for solutions will generally result from the experience of the
project personnel. However, their experiences may be limited to
different environments and may not be easily adapted to new situations.
There will also be a tendency for staff to defer to those in disciplines
most closely identified with the problem. However, since the causes of
a problem may involve several areas, the best solution may require a
variety of changes. Therefore, the program leaders should actively
encourage an interchange of ideas between people of all disciplines and
between clients and the staff.








Methods for Generating Ideas

One technique for facilitating ideas among staff members is a
formalized brainstorming session on each problem. Before each session,
team members must become familiar with program constraints, objectives,
and strategic considerations as well as with the parameters of the
problems under examination. The manager and staff should independ-
ently determine possible solutions. Additionally, the manager should
write questions to guide a discussion of the problem. The project
manager should encourage comments and solutions before presenting his
or her own ideas. This builds self-confidence in the staff, helps gain
their input, and generally establishes the manager's credibility. All
solutions that can be generated should be recorded without evaluating
them. As the discussion slows the manager can offer his solutions if
not already proposed. All of the solutions should be evaluated by the
group. A quick and easy way to make this evaluation is by vote.
Unfortunately, this tends to polarize the staff. A better way is by
achieving a consensus when possible.
Obtaining consensus requires development of an objective attitude
by the project personnel. This can be fostered by the manager and
senior staff if they verbally consider the solutions proposed by
themselves and others. The manager should let the discussion continue
unless it becomes repetitious. When individuals are convinced their
ideas have received fair hearing and their input is being considered in
the selection, consensus is usually achievable. Occasionally, the
manager may have to make a decision without a unanimous consensus.
However, decisions made by consensus produce the most commitment to
action. Consequently, time spent in developing a consensus is
generally worthwhile.
Important inputs to the session are ideas from farmers and officials
close to the problems. Several methods can be used to elicit these
views including: key informants, in-depth interviews, and attitude
surveys. Ideas should then be presented by team members during the
brainstorming session.







Identification of Plausible Solutions

At a later session the staff should identify those solutions that
should be further investigated. Those inconsistent with available
resources or objectives should be rejected. Aspects of a suggestion
identifiable as relevant to the objectives, resources, or strategic
considerations should be noted for attention and assigned to individuals
or committees for investigation. Personnel must review literature, write
to or visit experts, and visit sites where solution ideas may be
observed in various stages of development. Constraints that block good
solutions should be examined to determine whether they may be at least
partially eliminated. For example, a government restriction on import-
ing farm machinery might be relaxed in a special case if it can be
shown that the net effect on foreign exchange would be positive.
Obviously implausible solutions should be eliminated, but care must
be taken not to exclude unconventional ideas simply because they are
different. Unconventional ideas may provide new views of problems
that are important in considering alternatives. Adherence to checklists
of criteria based on program objectives and constraints will help keep
unconventional ideas from quick elimination.
Interdisciplinary management gets one of its most challenging tests
in this exercise. Individuals from some disciplines are antagonistic
toward other disciplines yet are likely to be "conventional" within
themselves. Unconventional ideas coming from other disciplines may
combine with personality differences to start a hostile exchange. A
skilled manager must be able to guide these conflicts toward a construc-
tive conclusion. One method for lowering tension is to hold meetings in
a relaxed and pleasant environment such as a "retreat" where other job
pressures do not add to the tension of participants. This is not to say
that discussion of conflict should be avoided. On the contrary, conflict
resolution is a prerequisite to effective teamwork.
Many managers and individuals tend to suppress discussion of
conflicts. They prefer to ignore that conflicts exist. If conflicts are
not resolved, they often grow to unmanageable proportions. Good
conflict resolution, however, can result in group development and good
ideas for problem solving. The Project Implementation Manual has
suggestions on how to conduct conflict resolution sessions.







CLASSIFYING AND RA-NKING PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS

In large projects the amount of information relevant to each
solution may be more than can be used. Furthermore, concentration on
the attempt to utilize all the information can distract the staff from
their objectives. A method is needed to help assess the quality and
quantity of information available to analyze each problem.
One such method is a solutions/criteria matrix as shown in
Figure 3. Each column of the matrix corresponds to a potential
solution; and each row corresponds to a criterion used to classify the
solution. The box at the junction of a row and a column contains
summaries of the knowledge about the corresponding solutions with
regard to the criterion.
Several versions of the solutions/criteria matrix should be
generated. Successive matrices should have fewer solutions and more
criteria as the final solutions are chosen and developed, and as more
detailed information is gathered for assessment. Figures 3 and 4
illustrate how the solutions/criteria matrix changes between initial
classification and final assessment of solutions. The matrix should be
kept current so staff are constantly reminded of program direction so
they can contribute effectively to its progress.

Groups Affected by Solutions

Groups who might be either positively or negatively affected by
the solution through the market, physical environment, political system,
or social environment are delineated. Some groups are obvious and
include farmers involved in the program, agency officials who will
implement solutions, and agricultural laborers who will be affected by
new technologies that might replace or require their skills. Less
obvious groups are farmer subgroups such as tenant farmers, large
farmers, and landlords; non-agricultural rural workers including village
craftsmen and merchants; religious leaders; and local officials such as
"ditch-riders" or tax collectors. Groups outside of the immediate
watercourse area are even less evident, but they may be affected by
changes. Especialy important is the way in which changed practices in
one watercourse may affect the quantity or quality of water available to
irrigators in neighboring watercourses or downstream. For example,







CLASSIFYING AND RA-NKING PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS

In large projects the amount of information relevant to each
solution may be more than can be used. Furthermore, concentration on
the attempt to utilize all the information can distract the staff from
their objectives. A method is needed to help assess the quality and
quantity of information available to analyze each problem.
One such method is a solutions/criteria matrix as shown in
Figure 3. Each column of the matrix corresponds to a potential
solution; and each row corresponds to a criterion used to classify the
solution. The box at the junction of a row and a column contains
summaries of the knowledge about the corresponding solutions with
regard to the criterion.
Several versions of the solutions/criteria matrix should be
generated. Successive matrices should have fewer solutions and more
criteria as the final solutions are chosen and developed, and as more
detailed information is gathered for assessment. Figures 3 and 4
illustrate how the solutions/criteria matrix changes between initial
classification and final assessment of solutions. The matrix should be
kept current so staff are constantly reminded of program direction so
they can contribute effectively to its progress.

Groups Affected by Solutions

Groups who might be either positively or negatively affected by
the solution through the market, physical environment, political system,
or social environment are delineated. Some groups are obvious and
include farmers involved in the program, agency officials who will
implement solutions, and agricultural laborers who will be affected by
new technologies that might replace or require their skills. Less
obvious groups are farmer subgroups such as tenant farmers, large
farmers, and landlords; non-agricultural rural workers including village
craftsmen and merchants; religious leaders; and local officials such as
"ditch-riders" or tax collectors. Groups outside of the immediate
watercourse area are even less evident, but they may be affected by
changes. Especialy important is the way in which changed practices in
one watercourse may affect the quantity or quality of water available to
irrigators in neighboring watercourses or downstream. For example,







Figure 3. First solutions/criteria matrix.

Potential solutions: candidates for development


Solution 1 Solution 2 1Solution 3


I Solution n


Program Priorities)
)
) (See Tables 1 and 2)
Program constraints)

Time requirements

Interest groups affected

Uncertainties

Complementarities

Resource requirements

Figure 4. Final solutions/criteria matrix.

Developed solutions: candidates for implementation
Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3
Economic productivity effects
Group 1
2
3


m
Total
Income effects
Group 1
2
3


m
Resource conservation effects
Group 1
2
3


m
Uncertainties
Group 1
2
3


m


"Solution n






lining canals or watercourses in some areas might infringe on the water
rights of irrigators who pump from underlying aquifers because reduced
seepage losses from irrigation channels will likely result in lower
groundwater levels and reduced pumping rates. This is thought to be
the case in parts of the United States, and specifically Colorado.
Similarly, new wells can change the water that is available to older
wells ( Persian wheels) drawing from the same aquifer.
Effects of the solutions are unlikely to be noticed by groups
outside the immediate vicinity until the solution is used extensively
during the Project Implementation phase. Then market interactions may
be significant when the prices are depressed because of extra crops
(presuming that prices are not fixed artificially low already) or when
there is competition for scarce commodities such as concrete, fertilizer,
or fuel.


Uncertainty of the Solutions

At this point in the Development of Solutions process, uncertainty
refers to the technical and economic viability of a solution. For
example, a case is considered where tubewells have been designed to
"skim" nonsaline water from aquifers in which nonsaline water overlies
saline water. The rate and frequency of pumping that can be
maintained without drawing saline water has been measured, and a
general theory developed to predict what will occur with fresh water
recharge, aquifer flow, and a few other conditions. However, a
complete description of all the conditions necessary for good predictions
is costly. Consequently, only the least expensive data can be
collected, and the actual salt content of water pumped by the well might
vary as much as + 30 percent from that predicted. If the salinity is at
the upper limit of this uncertainty, the water may be unacceptable for
irrigation. If this should be the case, and such uncertainty is
unavoidable, remedies to recoup the farmers' investment must be
available. For instance, methods to reduce the salt content of the
pumped water, such as through lower pumping rates, blocking off lower
parts of the well, or more fresh water recharge around the well during
the monsoon season, should be considered. Inexpensive data should be
obtained and a generalized theory developed to predict the cost and
effectiveness of such remedies.







Another example of the effect of uncertainty would be the lining of
watercourses when the pre-development cost/benefit ratio appears
marginal and when the effects on the underlying aquifer are unknown.
In this case "uncertainty" may refer to prices as well as information
about the physical system.
An important aspect of uncertainty that can often be diagnosed
before solution development is irreversibility; that is, if a solution can
be undone if it proves to be bad. Examples of reversible changes
include water scheduling, fertilizer recommendations, and watercourse
cleaning. Relatively irreversible changes include the construction of
dams or canals, the investment in electricity distribution systems,
building of roads, or mechanizing farms. Another type of irrevers-
ibility is related to changes in organizational or political structure.
Land reform is generally traumatic, and once done it is difficult to
change.
A form of uncertainty relevant to irrigated agriculture exists in
the requirement for cooperative action. When a solution involves a
common property resource such as a watercourse, an aquifer, or in
some cases even land, there are likely to be complications of alliances,
customs, rules, or laws already governing access to and responsibility
for that resource. Moreover, there will be variances in structure and
strength even between neighboring watercourses, making generalizations
about cooperation difficult. The uncertain flexibility of the interested
farmers in adapting to new ways of using that resource is central to
the Project Implementation phase.
Generally, solutions are uncertain because of a lack of information
about the system. Uncertain solutions require more research before
trials are performed on farmers' fields. On the other hand, trials
might be justified when the solutions are uncertain and the results are
likely to be reversible or remediable.

Disciplines Involved in Developing Solutions

It must be determined which disciplines are more involved in the
development of a solution. An example of a solution requiring minimal
interdisciplinary work would be fertilizer recommendations that require
input mainly from agronomists, especially if the fertilizer supply








infrastructure is already in place. Additionally, uncertainty is
relatively insignificant because farmers may try and reject recommenda-
tions at a small cost. The same is true for new varieties of seed,
recommendations for plant density, and suggestions for amounts of
water application. However, solutions that involve changes in multiple
parts of the system are both more uncertain and require input from
more disciplines.
Solutions requiring new organizations, major capital inputs, or new
skills on the part of individual farmers will require at least economic
analysis. If the new inputs replace old ones, then it is possible that
sociological and legal questions will arise as well. For example, new
machinery that replaces labor can put pressure on traditional relations
between farmers and laborers, and between landlords and tenants.
Many engineering solutions will involve such substitutions.
Solutions involving cooperative action have already been mentioned
as requiring thorough understanding of the social system. Water
supply and removal solutions nearly always imply some change in use of
common property resources.
Entries in the matrix for the involvement of various disciplines
should include man months as part of the required base data. In this
way research costs of the solutions can be evaluated, compared to their
potential returns, and compared with each other.

Time Requirements

Once the solution development is begun, it should be estimated
how long it will take before there is sufficient information to determine
the acceptability of the solution. If the solution is implemented, it is
important to estimate how much time it will require. Time is important,
partly because of the uncertainty inherent in developing countries, and
because of possible short-term opportunities while waiting for a
long-term solution.

Resource Requirements

This item should be divided into requirements for all types of
inputs for each group that is involved including farmers, laborers,








infrastructure is already in place. Additionally, uncertainty is
relatively insignificant because farmers may try and reject recommenda-
tions at a small cost. The same is true for new varieties of seed,
recommendations for plant density, and suggestions for amounts of
water application. However, solutions that involve changes in multiple
parts of the system are both more uncertain and require input from
more disciplines.
Solutions requiring new organizations, major capital inputs, or new
skills on the part of individual farmers will require at least economic
analysis. If the new inputs replace old ones, then it is possible that
sociological and legal questions will arise as well. For example, new
machinery that replaces labor can put pressure on traditional relations
between farmers and laborers, and between landlords and tenants.
Many engineering solutions will involve such substitutions.
Solutions involving cooperative action have already been mentioned
as requiring thorough understanding of the social system. Water
supply and removal solutions nearly always imply some change in use of
common property resources.
Entries in the matrix for the involvement of various disciplines
should include man months as part of the required base data. In this
way research costs of the solutions can be evaluated, compared to their
potential returns, and compared with each other.

Time Requirements

Once the solution development is begun, it should be estimated
how long it will take before there is sufficient information to determine
the acceptability of the solution. If the solution is implemented, it is
important to estimate how much time it will require. Time is important,
partly because of the uncertainty inherent in developing countries, and
because of possible short-term opportunities while waiting for a
long-term solution.

Resource Requirements

This item should be divided into requirements for all types of
inputs for each group that is involved including farmers, laborers,








artisans, the agribusiness sector, technicians or mechanics, extension
workers, government experiment station workers, and other government
agencies. Types of inputs include short- and long-term capital
investments, credit, technical skills, management skills, water, labor,
power, transportation, storage facilities, processing facilities, wholesale
and retail marketing facilities, import-export facilities, and foreign
exchange. The extent of inputs required at each level can then be
compared to the known availability of resources and competing demands
in order to judge the practicality of each solution.

Complementarities with Other Solutions

Complementarities may be used in various phases of the project
including research. It is possible that the same information is needed
for several plausible solutions. For example, rooting depth and evapo-
transpiration relate to irrigation methods, scheduling, timing of
planting, and the value of water supplied to farmers at different points
on a watercourse. Another type of complementarity can be used in
implementation. For example, consolidation of landholdings into
contiguous fields would complement both precision land leveling and
watercourse relocation and improvement. Complementarities often occur
and should be utilized to reduce duplication of effort and to increase
benefits.

Ranking of Plausible Solutions

Culmination of the classification of plausible solutions consists of
ranking them and developing a set of major solutions by the staff.
Utilization of the solution/criteria matrix facilitates orderly ranking. By
involving the whole staff in consideration of each potential solution and
by recognizing their common requirements, there should be less
tendency for individuals to become identified with certain solutions.
Program objectives should be the primary criteria for ranking
solutions. Since the matrix contains information about interests and
objectives of groups within the farm system, it is good to compare the
program objectives with objectives of the groups affected by the
project. It may be possible to redefine program objectives to closely
reflect the interests of target groups (low-income farmers, tenants, or








artisans, the agribusiness sector, technicians or mechanics, extension
workers, government experiment station workers, and other government
agencies. Types of inputs include short- and long-term capital
investments, credit, technical skills, management skills, water, labor,
power, transportation, storage facilities, processing facilities, wholesale
and retail marketing facilities, import-export facilities, and foreign
exchange. The extent of inputs required at each level can then be
compared to the known availability of resources and competing demands
in order to judge the practicality of each solution.

Complementarities with Other Solutions

Complementarities may be used in various phases of the project
including research. It is possible that the same information is needed
for several plausible solutions. For example, rooting depth and evapo-
transpiration relate to irrigation methods, scheduling, timing of
planting, and the value of water supplied to farmers at different points
on a watercourse. Another type of complementarity can be used in
implementation. For example, consolidation of landholdings into
contiguous fields would complement both precision land leveling and
watercourse relocation and improvement. Complementarities often occur
and should be utilized to reduce duplication of effort and to increase
benefits.

Ranking of Plausible Solutions

Culmination of the classification of plausible solutions consists of
ranking them and developing a set of major solutions by the staff.
Utilization of the solution/criteria matrix facilitates orderly ranking. By
involving the whole staff in consideration of each potential solution and
by recognizing their common requirements, there should be less
tendency for individuals to become identified with certain solutions.
Program objectives should be the primary criteria for ranking
solutions. Since the matrix contains information about interests and
objectives of groups within the farm system, it is good to compare the
program objectives with objectives of the groups affected by the
project. It may be possible to redefine program objectives to closely
reflect the interests of target groups (low-income farmers, tenants, or







landless laborers) or to mediate between conflicting interests of groups
within the farming community. For example, two or more villages may
be served by the same watercourse. An objective of the project might
be to design a watercourse lining program that will have the maximum
net revenue. This may mean that some villages and not others will
receive lining. Since a lined watercouse is more suitable for washing
clothes and bathing, lining of the section through a village will have
high value to the inhabitants. Villagers who do not receive lining will
feel denied and may refuse to cooperate in a program that brings more
benefit to the other participants. The program objective could be
changed to allow a higher cost solution that provides more equitable
benefits. In this example, it could be agreed that all sections of
watercourses within 100 meters of any village be lined. The program
objective could be restated to include the equitable distribution of
benefits to all target groups in order to obtain their cooperation in the
project.
The actual ranking of plausible solutions should be based primarily
on the degree to which they will achieve program objectives. Such
ranking requires judgments of the likelihood of success which are
somewhat intuitive. It is important, however, to make the judgments
explicit. In most cases, the program cannot afford to utilize extensive
experimentation to support their judgments, and the staff must reach a
consensus on the probable outcomes based on their experience and
training. The probabilities of success for different activities within a
program are not generally independent because of the complementary
issues mentioned previously. Staff must account for interdependencies
to make sound decisions regarding the combinations of solutions finally
selected.
It is possible to reduce uncertainty by field testing several
solutions; all of which have a low probability of success, but for which
the probability of at least one success is high. As information on
several activities becomes available, alternatives can be narrowed
without losing much opportunity for success. For example, delivery
losses on watercourses are high. The least expensive alternative would
be a program of thorough maintenance, but the success of such a
program may be uncertain due to difficulties of insuring the farmers'







cooperation. Another alternative is watercourse lining, but its economic
success may be questionable because of the high cost of cement and the
poor quality of available lining substitutes. The best strategy might be
to begin testing both alternatives (maintenance and lining) with the
intent of choosing the best one after more evidence is available on the
success of cooperative work arrangements for the maintenance, and the
effectiveness of alternative building materials for the lining.
Under some circumstances, it may be that a highly ranked solution
might be overlooked for developing several lower ranked ones that
require less resources. Alternatively, easy and temporary solutions to
a problem may be developed while better but more long-term solutions
are researched. For example, introduction of salt tolerant crops could
be tried at the same time attempts are made to find ways to lower a
high water table through changes in the water supply and removal
subsystem.

EXAMPLES

The examples used in this section illustrate how the
interdisciplinary group might identify solution ideas, eliminate unfeasible
suggestions, and rank the remaining ones for potential development.
Literature relevant to on-farm water management spans diverse
disciplines and is constantly growing. Therefore, no attempt is made to
name definitive sources of information relating to the irrigation
problems described in this section.

Example A: The Cotton Emergence Problem

It will be assumed that the overall objective of a project was to
increase the productivity of irrigated agriculture with emphasis given to
helping farmers with small cultivated acreages. In discussions with
government officials, it became clear that falling cotton production was
a concern to policy makers because domestic textile mills were having to
import cotton. Thus, a goal was to improve cotton production.
During the Problem Identification phase it was determined that
both cotton yields and cotton acreages were declining. Farmers
indicated insect damage as the main reason that yields were decreasing







cooperation. Another alternative is watercourse lining, but its economic
success may be questionable because of the high cost of cement and the
poor quality of available lining substitutes. The best strategy might be
to begin testing both alternatives (maintenance and lining) with the
intent of choosing the best one after more evidence is available on the
success of cooperative work arrangements for the maintenance, and the
effectiveness of alternative building materials for the lining.
Under some circumstances, it may be that a highly ranked solution
might be overlooked for developing several lower ranked ones that
require less resources. Alternatively, easy and temporary solutions to
a problem may be developed while better but more long-term solutions
are researched. For example, introduction of salt tolerant crops could
be tried at the same time attempts are made to find ways to lower a
high water table through changes in the water supply and removal
subsystem.

EXAMPLES

The examples used in this section illustrate how the
interdisciplinary group might identify solution ideas, eliminate unfeasible
suggestions, and rank the remaining ones for potential development.
Literature relevant to on-farm water management spans diverse
disciplines and is constantly growing. Therefore, no attempt is made to
name definitive sources of information relating to the irrigation
problems described in this section.

Example A: The Cotton Emergence Problem

It will be assumed that the overall objective of a project was to
increase the productivity of irrigated agriculture with emphasis given to
helping farmers with small cultivated acreages. In discussions with
government officials, it became clear that falling cotton production was
a concern to policy makers because domestic textile mills were having to
import cotton. Thus, a goal was to improve cotton production.
During the Problem Identification phase it was determined that
both cotton yields and cotton acreages were declining. Farmers
indicated insect damage as the main reason that yields were decreasing







and that low yields make cotton production unprofitable. Agronomists
noted that cotton yields were far below their potential even without the
insect problem, and that most farmers had very poor stands. At first
the poor stands were attributed to the seeding rate, but observations
of farmers during the planting season showed acceptable rates.
Moreover, the seed germination rate was high. This led to the
discovery that poor stands resulted mostly from poor emergence due to
severe soil crusting problems. Crusting is generally due to the low
organic content and high silt content of the soil in combination with the
basin method of irrigation and high temperatures.
Conversations with farmers revealed that they knew about the
problem and tried to solve it by irrigating before seedbed preparation.
This sometimes allowed farmers to postpone the second irrigation until
after plant emergence, but this preplanting irrigation requires water
during the most water-constrained period. Therefore, the preplanting
irrigation is often not done or not properly timed. During a
"brainstorming session" team members devised the ideas listed in
Figure 5.
During preliminary screening, sprinkler irrigation was eliminated
as implausible due to heavy requirements of capital, energy, foreign
exchange, and technical skills. Increased wood production was also
disregarded because it was outside the ability of the team to change.
Conversion of manure to methane and the use of crop residue was left
as the plausible means for improving soil structure. All three methods
of furrow irrigation were considered plausible solutions although
concern was expressed that use of furrow irrigation would favor
farmers with large landholdings and violate one proposed priority, that
of focusing upon assisting farmers with small cultivated acreages.
The five solutions were then analyzed using a solutions/ criteria
matrix (see Table 3). A first priority was increasing cotton
production, and the cost of delaying this increase was considered high.
The Ministry of Agriculture had already begun a campaign to introduce
the use of insecticides for cotton so the staff decided that first ranking
should be the development of furrow irrigation. There was a serious
question whether to concentrate on hand implements, bullock
implements, or tractor implements. Income distribution considerations









1. Improve structure of soil to reduce crusting tendencies of
the soil.


Animal manure



Find substitute for animal
manure as fuel


Increase wood
production.


Convert manure
to methane; use
by-products as
fertilizer/soil
condition


Crop Residues



Find substitute for crop
residues used as fodder
so more of these residues
can be incorporated in
the soil



Increase fodder
yields


Use sprinkler irrigation to soften the soil crust.


3. Use furrow irrigation rather than basin flooding to allow
capillary wetting of soil around and above the seed as an
alternative to preirrigation which would use less water.


Construct furrows
by hand




Design hand
implement


Construct furrows
with bullock power


I <


Construct furrows
with tractor power


Design animal-powered Design tractor
implement implement


Figure 5. Example of potential solutions for the cotton emergence
problem.


Im


. o








33





Table 3. Solutions-criteria matrix for analysis of research and

development strategies for the cotton emergence problem.







f c j 'R. ; Inre se Fodder Yield.s i.bh.ne F,,Olad t io'i I 'fll. l% 1 ,.'7s I.,

i. lnirre;ar cotton production
a. increase yields
Improve stands Via better soil condition Soil Londittont, Nt + + +
(lag of 2 to 5 year) (Lag of 2-5 years)
Control insects 0 +(by making applic. of

insect. ticides easer)


'-afr 1o.ts





0. ficreate Av-eres
rypr ; r titahilitry


2. I-prove S-ll Farmer Income


PRGl.RAM CONSTRAINTS
1. Per.annel
Agroncrists (2)
Ar. Engineer (1)


Economist (1)

Sociologist (1)

Manager (1)

2. Budget
Lab equipment
Tractor
Field equipment
Field assistants

3. Access to Ministry of Agri.
Experiment Station
Agric. University

4. Three Year Program


INTEREST GROUPS
1. Small Farmers

2. Labor Farmers

3. Landless laborerss


4. Local Mechanics
5. Cotton Mill Owners

UNCERTAINTIES


COMPLEMENTARITIES
1. Govt. Pest Control Frog.
2. Incr. Fodder Yields
3. Methane Production
4. Handmade Furrows
5. Oxen Furrowing Implenent
6. Tr-acctr Furroln Implement

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Farmers
Management
Labor

Water
Cash
Power

2. Nechaoicea
Management

Cash

3. Ministry of Agriculture
Management
Cash

4. Cotton Mills
Capacity

5. Fertilizer Suppliers


?(less time per field,
but may need ,re pole) ?


Inlrect lincrerse by
red clrI fidder A.CR

Direct increase


i man-year



1 m.n-month

0

1/2 .an-.month


+
+

Some results in 2 years


Impact in 4 to 7 years



Relatively greatest
direct impact


Ily favor larger Favors smaller farmers May favor smaller Favors larger
farmers famners fanners


I/4 man-year 1 man-year (Shape of furrows same for all three methods)
1 man-yer 1/2 man-year 1 man-year (Same basic 5 man-year
design adaptable be-
tween oxen & tr;;tor)
1 mo.(assess feast- 2/3 man-year (study differential effctrs)
hllity of
2 mo. cooperative use) 1 man-year (study potential acroptane. .and coop use of
tractor power)
1/4 mo. I mo. I mo. I mo.


0 +
+ 0

Some results In one Some results 1 yr/
year/field model in field use 2 yrs
two years
Impact in 4-7 years Impact 2-3 years



? HI potential

-+(ability to invest LO potential
+ livestock)
-(current right to use +
of manure might
be lost)


0 +
I0 o

Varietal yield potentials, Cost of cookers
fanrer response, nutrient Danger of explosion
response, pests, water Farmer acceptance
response, nutritional Labor requi rements
value


+ +
0 0

Some results 2 yr/field model 3 yr


Impact 4 years Impact 4 years


HI potential

MED potential

+


LO potential

HI potential

-(would displace
in busy season)


0 + +
+ (indirect) direct ) :i (inIrect)

Farmer acceptance )
Labor requirement for planting
Labor requirement for irrigation --
Cost Cost



+ (ease of application)
0
0
0
+(in resea.rch-dsgn of furrow)---
+(in roese.arelh-.'ei at I tii ..1


- ,during planting)
?(d.iing ittig.tion)


+ (Extension) +
+ -+


0 (+ indirect)

+


0 (+ indirect) + + +

- + (Indirect via increased crop response to nutrients
due to stands and water)


fa-r.fames L- ex







seemed to favor hand implements, but uncertainties about their
acceptability, especially for farmers with average- and above average-
sized holdings made adoption of oxen- or tractor-pulled implements more
likely. In any case, the initial step in developing furrow irrigation was
research on the optimal shape of furrows that could be started
immediately using currently available hand implements. Since results of
this research would be applicable to furrows made by all power sources,
an initial decision to emphasize tractor/oxen development did not
eliminate a later focus on development of hand implements.
Because this choice freed some of the agronomist's time, it was
decided to give second ranking to increasing fodder yields as a
long-term investment. It was noted by the agronomists that increased
fodder production could improve cotton production in another way.
Farmers normally allow weeds to grow tall in their cotton before removal
because the weeds are used as fodder. It was hoped that better yields
from fodder crops would satisfy the requirements and that demonstra-
tion of better cotton yields from early-weeded fields would motivate
farmers to weed earlier. Also, increased fodder productivity was
attractive because it favored farmers with small acreage and incomes
proportionately more dependent on livestock.

Example B: Watercourse Efficiency

Waterlogging and low productivity were the reasons for improving
on-farm water management in another area. The Department of
Agriculture was convinced that the waterlogging problem was primarily
a result of water losses from large distributary canals, while the
Irrigation Department thought that farmers' mismanagement of their
water was the source of the problem. Information from the Problem
Identification phase revealed that farmers near the head of each water-
course over-irrigated and their fields were not level. Since they used
basin irrigation, this resulted in low spots that were susceptible to
overirrigation with resulting deep percolation. Farmers at the end of
each watercourse were more careful with their water, spending effort in
leveling their fields during the short time period after harvesting and
before the next planting. This led staff to suspect that farmers at the








end got significantly less water per acre than did those near the
beginning of the watercourse. Measurements were taken and the
delivery efficiency at the end of the watercourses averaged less than
50 percent.
The reason for these losses was suspected to result from a lack of
cleaning and maintenance of the watercourses. Discussion among staff
raised questions as to whether cleaning the watercourses might increase
losses due to the removal of silt which seals the bottoms. The counter
argument was that compacting and subsequent siltation would quickly
restore the seal and eliminate holes made by roots, insects, and
rodents.
When a brainstorming session was held, there were strong opinions
as to the best solutions for the water delivery problems. The civil
engineer said that lining the watercourse with concrete or masonry was
the answer since it eliminates the problem of maintenance. The
agricultural engineer pointed out the high cost of cement and bricks as
an argument for developing a program of improved maintenance. Others
suggested installation of pipe as a possibility. Still others suggested
use of chemicals to control weeds, insects, and rodents that were
making the watercourse banks more pervious. Another suggestion was
to use wells at the midpoints of the watercourses to retrieve the lost
water from the aquifer and distribute it to farmers at the lower end of
the watercourse where supplies were lowest and application efficiency
was the highest. The economist suggested reallocating water to users
not on the basis of time but as a percentage of the land served in
order to motivate all farmers to take an equal interest in the upkeep of
their watercourse.
During the screening session pipe was eliminated as a possible
solution due to problems of siltation and capital costs. Pesticides and
herbicides were also eliminated because of the potential harm to people
and crops. Energy costs involved in pumping caused it to be
considered a poor alternative to reducing water losses. Therefore, the
three solutions considered the best for development were: 1) water-
course lining, 2) improved watercourse maintenance, and 3) a new
method of allocating water. The latter two solutions were not entirely








separate. Another consideration was that a new method of allocating
water might make further government intervention unnecessary. The
three solutions are displayed in a solutions/criteria matrix shown in
Table 4.
Ranking the three alternatives was not unanimous because of the
partially subjective nature of the process. At first lining the water-
courses appeared best. All the farmers would consider lining to their
advantage. Farmers at the start of the watercourse would have a
neatly lined ditch to prevent seepage to adjacent fields, those at the
end would also have a neatly lined ditch and more water, the Irrigation
Department would not have to contend with disputes over poorly
maintained earthen watercourses, and the Ministry of Agriculture would
not need to assign extension personnel to help farmers improve the
watercourses. Delivery efficiency would be greatest under this alter-
native and waterlogging would be reduced the most. However, the cost
of lining would be between $2 and $5 per foot, and if farmers financed
this cost, their enthusiasm for lining might diminish. Previous
experience has shown that when the government finances the cost
farmers do not value the watercourse highly and do not take respon-
sibility for its maintenance. Thus, proponents of lining had to admit
that other alternatives had some advantages.
Improved maintenance appeared to be the lowest cost solution.
Furthermore, it would lead to fairly immediate tangible outputs since the
first watercourse could be completed within a month. On the other
hand, farmers might not continue a maintenance program without some
incentive or inducement, and the likelihood of farmers organizing was
questionable since potential gains to individual farmers varied greatly
depending on the location of their farms along the watercourse. The
result might be a continuous effort by the Ministry of Agriculture to
motivate farmers to maintain their watercourses. However, the Ministry
does not like the prospect of having to use its resources in organizing
water user groups. Furthermore, there was some uncertainty over the
ultimate water delivery efficiency of this alternative.
Lining and improved maintenance competed for the same resources
and tended to be mutually exclusive in application. However, improved
maintenance and reallocation of water resources were complementary









Table 4. Solution criteria matrix for analysis of research and
development strategies for the watercourse efficiency problem.


PROGRAM PRIORITIES

1. Reduce Waterlogging




2. Increase Productivity

PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

1. Personnel
Agri. Engineer
Hydrologist
Civil Engineer
Agronomist
Sociologist


Econonist


2. Budget
3. Access to Ministry
of Agriculture
Policy

Operations


4. Access to Irriga-
tion Dept.
Policy
Operations
5. Three year deadline


Lining of Water-
courses



Most efficient
delivery system;
highest capital
cost
+


1 yr (


9 mos (B/C)





0

0


0
0
1 yr research
2 yrs development
10-15 yrs implemt.
and impact


Improved Maintenance
of watercourses



Efficiency not known;
low cost



+


2 yrs (org. of farmers
into coop assoc.)

9 mos (B/C analysis)





must agree to user
assoc.
must agree to user
assoc.



0
0
1 yr research
1 yr development
10-15 yrs implomt.
and impact


Reallocation of Water




Efficiency not known;
least cost to c.rt.
maximum fIriarmi 1rc's,' n-
hility
+


3 yrs (study effects on
social cohesiveness
and feasibility)
1 yr (design compensation
mechanism)




0

0




must agree to change
must police change
2 yr research
development
1 yr implementation
impact 5 to 10 yrs.


INTEREST GROUPS
Farmers: Head small positive Variable probably negative
Tail large positive positive positive
Local Irrig. Dept. + 0
National Irrig.Dept. + ambivalent
Ministry of Agric. + +


RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Farmers
Labor

Water
Cash
Ministry of Agric.
Extension workers

Dept. of Irrigation
Management


UNCERTAINTIES







COMPLEMENTARITIES
1. Lining
2. Maintenance
3. Reallocation


- Cost of lining
- Life of lining


off season;
price XO
+
=0


shadow


It r


- Efficiency of
delivery
- Ability of farmers
to cooperate with
unequal incentives


off season




+


0


- Feasibility
- Costs in social con-
flict in watercourses
- Method of measurement
- Method of control








because the same watercourse design could be implemented regardless of
the water allocation scheme adopted. Moreover, much of the information
needed to assess the potential for water users' associations is also
needed for assessing the feasibility of a compensation scheme for water
reallocation. The trade seemed to be between high delivery efficiency,
high cost, and loss of local initiative; and lower delivery efficiency,
lower cost, and more local autonomy. Improved maintenance was ranked
first because of its low cost, potential for fostering cooperation among
farmers, and its potential complementarity with any future water
reallocation scheme.
Lining of watercourses was ranked second because of its highly
tangible results. Reallocation of water was ranked last, mostly because
of the uncertainty with which it was associated. Nevertheless, the
staff economist was assigned to research the alternative for six months
and then conduct studies with the sociologist to determine farmer
reactions to the idea. In this way, the option would be investigated
further to determine its feasibility as a long-term solution.








CHAPTER III


DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS


Groundwork for solution development should have begun in problem
identification and during the identification and ranking of solutions. In
this chapter it is assumed the earlier phases have provided a basic
understanding of the system, rapport with farmers, a clearly defined
set of priorities, and a detailed plan of action. Responsibility for
execution of the plan is with the entire group. The manager has
special responsibilities for coordinaing activities; motivating the staff;
and providing the conditions, personal example, and leadership that will
help the group work together and involve their clients in the research
and development tasks. This chapter outlines principles for the testing
and adaption of solutions (Figure 6), and uses the two examples
introduced in Chapter II for illustration.

METHODS OF DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS

Devising Goals

By this time the team should have narrowly defined objectives, and
when research begins these should be refined into operational objectives
and corresponding criteria for measuring the achievement of objectives.
In addition to the detailed research and development activities that have
been planned (Chapter II), tasks must be assigned, expected results
defined, and deadlines set for completing the activities.
Some guidelines for setting goals may be useful. Goals should be
set participatively by the staff. Goals imposed by the manager do not
produce commitment for accomplishment by the project staff. Each goal
should have criteria for monitoring progress toward its completion.
Generally, self-monitoring is best since it fosters commitment and does
not detract from control when measurements are available for the
criteria.
The goals and criteria must be written precisely. First, the goals
must be stated as desired results. Steps to reach the results are then
defined. For example, if an engineer's goal is to find low cost methods
for watercourse lining, the engineer must be able to describe the goal








CHAPTER III


DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS


Groundwork for solution development should have begun in problem
identification and during the identification and ranking of solutions. In
this chapter it is assumed the earlier phases have provided a basic
understanding of the system, rapport with farmers, a clearly defined
set of priorities, and a detailed plan of action. Responsibility for
execution of the plan is with the entire group. The manager has
special responsibilities for coordinaing activities; motivating the staff;
and providing the conditions, personal example, and leadership that will
help the group work together and involve their clients in the research
and development tasks. This chapter outlines principles for the testing
and adaption of solutions (Figure 6), and uses the two examples
introduced in Chapter II for illustration.

METHODS OF DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS

Devising Goals

By this time the team should have narrowly defined objectives, and
when research begins these should be refined into operational objectives
and corresponding criteria for measuring the achievement of objectives.
In addition to the detailed research and development activities that have
been planned (Chapter II), tasks must be assigned, expected results
defined, and deadlines set for completing the activities.
Some guidelines for setting goals may be useful. Goals should be
set participatively by the staff. Goals imposed by the manager do not
produce commitment for accomplishment by the project staff. Each goal
should have criteria for monitoring progress toward its completion.
Generally, self-monitoring is best since it fosters commitment and does
not detract from control when measurements are available for the
criteria.
The goals and criteria must be written precisely. First, the goals
must be stated as desired results. Steps to reach the results are then
defined. For example, if an engineer's goal is to find low cost methods
for watercourse lining, the engineer must be able to describe the goal








CHAPTER III


DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS


Groundwork for solution development should have begun in problem
identification and during the identification and ranking of solutions. In
this chapter it is assumed the earlier phases have provided a basic
understanding of the system, rapport with farmers, a clearly defined
set of priorities, and a detailed plan of action. Responsibility for
execution of the plan is with the entire group. The manager has
special responsibilities for coordinaing activities; motivating the staff;
and providing the conditions, personal example, and leadership that will
help the group work together and involve their clients in the research
and development tasks. This chapter outlines principles for the testing
and adaption of solutions (Figure 6), and uses the two examples
introduced in Chapter II for illustration.

METHODS OF DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS

Devising Goals

By this time the team should have narrowly defined objectives, and
when research begins these should be refined into operational objectives
and corresponding criteria for measuring the achievement of objectives.
In addition to the detailed research and development activities that have
been planned (Chapter II), tasks must be assigned, expected results
defined, and deadlines set for completing the activities.
Some guidelines for setting goals may be useful. Goals should be
set participatively by the staff. Goals imposed by the manager do not
produce commitment for accomplishment by the project staff. Each goal
should have criteria for monitoring progress toward its completion.
Generally, self-monitoring is best since it fosters commitment and does
not detract from control when measurements are available for the
criteria.
The goals and criteria must be written precisely. First, the goals
must be stated as desired results. Steps to reach the results are then
defined. For example, if an engineer's goal is to find low cost methods
for watercourse lining, the engineer must be able to describe the goal






-I-


DEVELOP WORK PLAN
a. Set Goals
b. Design Tests
c. Allocate Team Resources
d. Specify Feedback Mechanisms
e. Specify Deadlines


PERFORM TESTS

CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIONS,
FIELD DAYS, etc.
_~~T~f


V


OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM CLIENTS
a. Farmers
b. Agencies


REFINE SOLUTIONS WITH PHASED
WITHDRAWAL OF TEAM RESOURCES


Figure 6. Flow diagram for the Testing and Adaption of Solutions
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase.


~eE-------------







and the approach to its achievement. Completion dates for each step
should be stated. The first step might involve testing alternative
materials for water retention, durability, and labor costs. The types of
materials and specific tests should be described. Criteria might include
a description of a satisfactory low cost watercourse.


Communication and Feedback

The issue of communication is fundamental to the project's success.
There are principles that can be followed to facilitate effective
communication. These affect both the accuracy of information
transmitted and the morale of the personnel. Techniques for improving
feedback is detailed in the Project Implementation manual.
Critical feedback is of particular concern to a team manager
because if it is done well it can be the primary means by which the
staff can correct mistakes. It is best if feedback is given
continuously, naturally, and informally during the course of a project
rather than waiting for major evaluations. Major evaluations are
essential, but feedback should be continuous.


Farmer Involvement

A special type of communication is that between the staff and its
farmer-clients. Project personnel must remember that farmers who
adopt a new technology or practice must fit it into their existing
cropping system and their social and physical environment as well.
While the agronomist or engineer may be more familiar with the
intricacies of the innovation, the farmer is more familiar with the
context into which the innovation must fit. Therefore, time spent
keeping farmers familiar with the basic motivations and principles
behind proposed solutions result in farmer feedback that will help
identify other alternatives as well as erroneous assumptions or faulty
logic of the team. Some situations virtually demand farmer participation
such as the design of implements for bullocks. The designer knows the
purpose of the implement but the farmer is more knowledgeable about
the abilities and limitations of the bullocks. In other situations the
need for farmer input is less obvious and researchers must use it to
ensure no surprises are likely to occur.







and the approach to its achievement. Completion dates for each step
should be stated. The first step might involve testing alternative
materials for water retention, durability, and labor costs. The types of
materials and specific tests should be described. Criteria might include
a description of a satisfactory low cost watercourse.


Communication and Feedback

The issue of communication is fundamental to the project's success.
There are principles that can be followed to facilitate effective
communication. These affect both the accuracy of information
transmitted and the morale of the personnel. Techniques for improving
feedback is detailed in the Project Implementation manual.
Critical feedback is of particular concern to a team manager
because if it is done well it can be the primary means by which the
staff can correct mistakes. It is best if feedback is given
continuously, naturally, and informally during the course of a project
rather than waiting for major evaluations. Major evaluations are
essential, but feedback should be continuous.


Farmer Involvement

A special type of communication is that between the staff and its
farmer-clients. Project personnel must remember that farmers who
adopt a new technology or practice must fit it into their existing
cropping system and their social and physical environment as well.
While the agronomist or engineer may be more familiar with the
intricacies of the innovation, the farmer is more familiar with the
context into which the innovation must fit. Therefore, time spent
keeping farmers familiar with the basic motivations and principles
behind proposed solutions result in farmer feedback that will help
identify other alternatives as well as erroneous assumptions or faulty
logic of the team. Some situations virtually demand farmer participation
such as the design of implements for bullocks. The designer knows the
purpose of the implement but the farmer is more knowledgeable about
the abilities and limitations of the bullocks. In other situations the
need for farmer input is less obvious and researchers must use it to
ensure no surprises are likely to occur.








There is a tendency that must be controlled if technicians are to
establish rapport with farmers. Because of their broader experience
and training in problem solving, the technician who listens closely to
the farmer will often perceive the new solution before the farmer. At
this point there is a temptation for technicians to claim the solution
their own and thereby emphasize the importance of their contributions
to the development process. This often forces the farmer into
defending the existing situation to maintain self-esteem, Additionally.
farmers have been known to sabotage demonstrations comparing new and
current management practices. When such polarization develops farmers
may refuse to acknowledge and adopt the new practices.
This sequence of negative reactions can be avoided if technicians
will help farmers understand the background of a problem, enlist their
help in thinking of new solutions, and openly acknowledge and publicize
the farmers' role in developing the answerss. By following this
course, the technicians allow the farmers to feel a personal involvement
in choosing the best alternative, and they become objective
experimenters rather than defensive proponents of the currently used
techniques.
A dividend of farmer involvement is that the farmers become
excellent promoters of the best new solutions. They also become
extremely effective in describing the advantages to appropriate
government officials and other farmers considering implementation of the
new solution.

Research Strategies Requiring Collective Action

The common property characteristic of irrigation systems
frequently requires collective action to implement a solution. However,
development of such solutions usually does not lend itself to controlled
and replicated experimental approaches; rather, the alternatives must
be developed through a "learning while doing" process. This is termed
the "case study" approach.
Similarly, through a "learning while doing" process, the staff
builds a basis for prescribing education and incentives that motivate
farmers to take the action that will improve their production system.
Unfortunately, the nature of communities prevents translation of this








action into sets of rules or guidelines to be handed over for
implementation. Therefore, it is suggested that when solutions require
collective action by farmers, the Development of Solutions phase should
overlap the Project Implementation phase so that personnel involved with
the initial stages of implementation can gain experience by being part of
the research and development group. If this is not possible, then the
training program for implementation staff must include field experiences
that require collective action by farmers.
In controlled experiments it is expected that some trials will fail.
In the case study approach it is important the solution not fail both for
the good of the farmers and for the credibility of project personnel.
Consequently, it is important to choose the most cooperative farmers to
compose the initial group. After the solution has been successfully
demonstrated, it can be tried on more difficult groups or under less
favorable conditions.
If the staff cannot convince a significant majority of the farmers
that they may expect a personal gain from the solution, there will be no
cooperation. Furthermore, even a small, strategically placed minority
who feel they are not benefiting can subvert a project. It is essential
to find ways in which some needs of all farmers can be served by the
proposed solution. This strategy requires an investment of time to
understand farmers' needs and to develop components in the program to
compensate those who perceive they will receive less than their share of
the primary benefits.
As an example, the Colorado State University experience in
Pakistan included a major effort to develop a program of collective
watercourse improvement. In the initial case study it was apparent that
many farmers near the beginning of the watercourse were negative
toward collective efforts at watercourse improvement. When the
situation was considered only in terms of delivery efficiency, their
position was understandable. Delivery losses are directly related to the
distance of a farmer's field from the beginning of the watercourse.
Thus, many farmers with land at the start of the watercourse felt they
had enough water and could not see how improvement in the delivery
efficiency of the watercourse would be personally beneficial. Close
observation of water management, the condition of the watercourse, and








discussions between farmers and researchers led to the conclusion that
watercourse improvement held many benefits for farmers near the
beginning or head. For example, the head reach of the watercourse
carried water almost every day of the week. This also meant that the
head reach leaked almost continuously and portions of adjacent fields
were waterlogged and useless for cropping. Constructing better banks
reduced water losses in half, restoring the waterlogged land to
production.
Farmers near the head often had fields that were slightly above
the level of the watercourse due to sediment deposits from the canal
water. Each time the farmers wished to get water onto these fields,
they had to build a high earthen dam to raise the water level, and then
patrol and repair the watercouse which was full. Much water was lost
and this was a difficult, time-consuming and frustrating task.
Improved banks made the process more efficient and concrete diversion
structures, a standard feature of the program, facilitated the task of
backing water onto high fields. In some watercourses a simple jet pump
designed for this purpose was installed to use energy of water falling
from tubewell outlets to lift canal waters to levels from which they could
serve high fields near the pump.
Because upper reaches ran most of the time, they posed significant
barriers to traffic involved in cultivation and harvest of fields in these
areas. Inclusion of a few culverts in the upper reaches provided the
needed access and incentive for many of these farmers to participate
enthusiastically in the program. The lesson of this experience is
although collective projects are difficult because they are complex, their
complexity allows flexibility in design so they can benefit all potential
cooperators.

Benchmark Studies

Generally, research done for on-farm water management projects is
not like a laboratory experiment where only one variable is allowed to
change over a large number of observations. Rather, the team is
trying to introduce several changes into a complex system and to adapt
them until they achieve the desired results. When it is impossible to
control other inputs that could affect the outcome, they should be
monitored and estimates should be made of their effects.







Monitoring can help to spot unforeseen changes. These may be
caused by interactions between components or by unforeseen inputs.
Changes are often apparent only when a current measurable condition
can be related to the quantified condition prior to the field trial.
Thus, it is essential that benchmark studies that define the situation
prior to imposing any changes on the farm system precede field trials in
order to fix a reference point.
Much benchmark information may be available from the Problem
Identification phase. If not, the solutions/criteria matrix can be used
as a guide to the measurements and observations needed and what
subsystems will be directly or indirectly involved. Other questions that
may be answered include expected changes in each of these subsystems,
and the measurements or observations that can be made to assess these
changes.
Sometimes benchmark studies are quite simple. For example, the
effect of cleaning a watercourse can be determined by comparing the
measurement of delivery efficiency before and after cleaning. However,
most benchmark studies become more complex. For instance, if the
objective is to determine how much water can be saved annually by a
regular cleaning program, the delivery efficiency should be measured
several times a year to establish an estimate of the average delivery
efficiency. This average delivery efficiency will be compared to the
average delivery efficiency under a more frequent and regular cleaning
program. Benchmark studies can be very extensive and time-consuming
when effects of water management on overall crop production or socio-
economic factors are evaluated since the affected population is large and
numerous measurements are needed to obtain accurate averages.

Phased Withdrawal of Support

Perhaps one of the most significant extraneous inputs is the
project staff themselves. They have expertise unlikely to be possessed
by members of established agencies to implement solutions; they have
access to authorities in agencies that can ensure cooperation of local
officials; they are not allied to local families, communities, or
organizations; and they generally take a positive attitude toward
change.







Towards the end of the work, it must be determined how the staff
will withdraw from the project. One way is to gradually withdraw their
support to a level commensurate with what is likely to be delivered by
the implementing agency. If project personnel have designed a system
utilizing a bund and water control for flood irrigated rice, these
techniques need to be applied by an extension agent with comparable
background and training that will be available to those participating in
the Project Implementation phase. By shifting to a monitoring role,
staff can find ways in which to modify the equipment, technology.
solutions, training or motivation of the agent, and other related tasks
until the extension agent can successfully bring about change. For
example, simpler instruments for determining elevation differences may
ensure that extension agents will have access to the instruments.
Better, more expensive instruments may demand special skill or care.
To get the solution demonstrated initially on a farmer's field, there
is a strong temptation to "buy the participation of farmers" through
government provision of inputs. If this is done it is necessary to
reduce government inputs in subsequent field trials to test
whether the program will be accepted by the farmers when they assume
costs that the government cannot afford in a large program. This test
should be done as soon as possible in the Development of Solutions
phase so the program can be adapted in the series of case history field
tests. The huge cost in time, money, and human resources in
mobilizing a project, plus public announcements about production goals
for the project, develop momentum in the implementation phase that
makes changes difficult, embarrassing, and in some cases impossible to
accomplish. As a precaution, a new case study designed to test a
lower level of external support should be located sufficiently far from
the earlier study areas to avoid comparison by farmers.

Representativeness of Field Studies

The uncontrolled nature of field trials has already been mentioned.
A closely related problem is the degree of generality of field trial
results. Results of physical experiments can be replicated within a
single field trial so that statistically reliable results are obtained for








that time and place. However, generalization to entire countries,
continents, and other time periods should be resisted until evidence is
obtained to support the generality of conclusions.
The role of social sciences deserves particular emphasis in this
regard. A field trial dealing with a single watercourse is a statistical
sample size of only one for observations of the communities. Therefore,
it is important for social scientists to determine whether other
communities within related regions are similar or dissimilar, and to
assist in planning case histories to determine the applicability or
changes needed in the solution.

Attention to External Effects

Because of the complexity of irrigated systems and the limited
understanding, it is likely that application of solutions from one area to
another will have unanticipated effects. Consequently, care must be
taken to look for external or indirect effects that escaped attention
during the ranking exercise. It is impossible to comprehensively list
potential external effects, otherwise it would have been done in the
solution/criteria matrix, but there are some ways to look for such
effects. One of the most obvious is the marketing system about which
several questions can be asked. Does the new demand for particular
goods harmfully compete with other uses? Are there facilities for
handling added outputs? Is crop storage a problem? Is it possible that
powerful interests control major inputs or that these interests are the
sole buyers of output? Is is possible that certain laborers will be
harmed by new management practices or use of new machinery? If a
new crop is adopted, what happens to those involved in the processing
of the old one?
Another source of external effects is the water resources.
Because it is a common property resource, irrigation water is often the
center of an institutional system of customs, laws, and alliances that
govern its use. If widespread use of a solution such as tubewells
causes a change in access to the water resource there may be pressure
on the institutional system. If the system had been designed to
anticipate changes, such as the assignment of water rights to the







aquifer, it may help adaption. If not, the staff should anticipate the
potential conflict and suggest methods for ensuring equitable and
efficient outcomes.
Pressures toward structural change in the social system are more
difficult to a project than are physical or market changes. This is
particularly true in traditional societies where social obligations are
intertwined with economic functions. In some systems labor is supplied
to a chief or village headman in return for claims upon his influence in
disputes. Variants of such reciprocal obligations are found in extended
family systems and landlord/tenant relationships. Moreover, social
status may define access to land ownership, education, and professions.
If a change in an irrigation system affects the value of and demand for
labor, lower classes may gain or lose leverage against these socially
defined barriers. There is no accurate way to predict or assess a
change in leverage and other resulting social aspects until after it has
occurred. Thus, social scientists must carefully monitor the progress
of field tests to detect signs that indicate a change in leverage.
More predictable is resistance by privileged classes to changes that
redistribute wealth. In fact, resistance from landlords or wealthy
farmers may be a sign the proposed solution will have unanticipated
redistribution effects.

Deciding When to Concentrate Efforts

Chapter II prescribed a strategic response to certainty by
developing alternative solutions with implementation contingent upon
outcomes of research or events outside the control of the program.
Utilizing a contingency plan for action will work for awhile. However,
eventually decisions need to be made to emphasize development of one
set of solutions or another. This is difficult for facilitating teamwork
because as work progresses individuals tend to become identified with
particular solutions. Additionally, they will support solutions they have
helped develop. Two methods can be used to eliminate this tendency
including: 1) involvement of individuals in more than one solution and
recognization of all their contributions so they are less likely to identify
with only one approach; and 2) an early agreement of specific times to
reassess progress on each solution. It should be clear these techniques







are meant for eliminating many of the solutions that have been studied.
Such decisions should be made by using criteria agreed upon in
advance. To use the cotton emergence example, if an agronomist is
spending a large amount of time on fodder improvement, which has clear
long-term payoffs, but his services are needed to conduct tests to
determine optimal furrow shape, which has a more immediate payoff, the
group may decide to stop or delay work on fodder improvement.
If possible, this decision should be made at a time previously set.
In this way the decision is anticipated and is not as likely to be
regarded personally. If the agronomist had been periodically involved
in the furrowing work all along, the shift to that part of the project
might be easily accomplished.

EXAMPLES

To convey an idea of how the principles in the preceding section
are applied, the two examples introduced in Chapter II are utilized in
thi- chapter. It may be helpful to refer back to those examples and in
particular, back to Tables 3 and 4.

Example A: Cotton Emergence Problem

After the decision was made to rank development of the oxen/
tractor furrowing implement first and increasing fodder yields second,
the manager instructed the staff to specify goals under each
alternative, identify general tasks toward these goals, and allocate
responsibility for each task to project members. Assigned members
then specified how they would perform the duties, noting input needed
from other team members and farmers. Staff members were also
encouraged to think of ways to involve farmers in some of the other
activities. Goals specified by the project members, their assigned
responsibility, and the duration of each activity are shown in Table 5.
Examples of the steps specified by different individuals as requested by
the manager are listed in Table 6.

Example B: Watercourse Improvement Plan

After deciding to give first priority to cleaning and maintenance of
watercourses, the staff decided to slightly reinterpret their decision.







are meant for eliminating many of the solutions that have been studied.
Such decisions should be made by using criteria agreed upon in
advance. To use the cotton emergence example, if an agronomist is
spending a large amount of time on fodder improvement, which has clear
long-term payoffs, but his services are needed to conduct tests to
determine optimal furrow shape, which has a more immediate payoff, the
group may decide to stop or delay work on fodder improvement.
If possible, this decision should be made at a time previously set.
In this way the decision is anticipated and is not as likely to be
regarded personally. If the agronomist had been periodically involved
in the furrowing work all along, the shift to that part of the project
might be easily accomplished.

EXAMPLES

To convey an idea of how the principles in the preceding section
are applied, the two examples introduced in Chapter II are utilized in
thi- chapter. It may be helpful to refer back to those examples and in
particular, back to Tables 3 and 4.

Example A: Cotton Emergence Problem

After the decision was made to rank development of the oxen/
tractor furrowing implement first and increasing fodder yields second,
the manager instructed the staff to specify goals under each
alternative, identify general tasks toward these goals, and allocate
responsibility for each task to project members. Assigned members
then specified how they would perform the duties, noting input needed
from other team members and farmers. Staff members were also
encouraged to think of ways to involve farmers in some of the other
activities. Goals specified by the project members, their assigned
responsibility, and the duration of each activity are shown in Table 5.
Examples of the steps specified by different individuals as requested by
the manager are listed in Table 6.

Example B: Watercourse Improvement Plan

After deciding to give first priority to cleaning and maintenance of
watercourses, the staff decided to slightly reinterpret their decision.







are meant for eliminating many of the solutions that have been studied.
Such decisions should be made by using criteria agreed upon in
advance. To use the cotton emergence example, if an agronomist is
spending a large amount of time on fodder improvement, which has clear
long-term payoffs, but his services are needed to conduct tests to
determine optimal furrow shape, which has a more immediate payoff, the
group may decide to stop or delay work on fodder improvement.
If possible, this decision should be made at a time previously set.
In this way the decision is anticipated and is not as likely to be
regarded personally. If the agronomist had been periodically involved
in the furrowing work all along, the shift to that part of the project
might be easily accomplished.

EXAMPLES

To convey an idea of how the principles in the preceding section
are applied, the two examples introduced in Chapter II are utilized in
thi- chapter. It may be helpful to refer back to those examples and in
particular, back to Tables 3 and 4.

Example A: Cotton Emergence Problem

After the decision was made to rank development of the oxen/
tractor furrowing implement first and increasing fodder yields second,
the manager instructed the staff to specify goals under each
alternative, identify general tasks toward these goals, and allocate
responsibility for each task to project members. Assigned members
then specified how they would perform the duties, noting input needed
from other team members and farmers. Staff members were also
encouraged to think of ways to involve farmers in some of the other
activities. Goals specified by the project members, their assigned
responsibility, and the duration of each activity are shown in Table 5.
Examples of the steps specified by different individuals as requested by
the manager are listed in Table 6.

Example B: Watercourse Improvement Plan

After deciding to give first priority to cleaning and maintenance of
watercourses, the staff decided to slightly reinterpret their decision.







Table 5. Example of goals, responsibility and scheduling of each
activity for the cotton emergence problem.


Year 1


Find cooperating manufacturers (AE)
Negotiate contract specifying
cost sharing and rights to sell
implements
Purchase needed manufacturing equipment (AE)
Purchase tractor able to furrow and plant (AE,A)
Implements for use in determining irrigation
labor requirements


Survey
a)
b)


'M'A'M' J J'A'S'O'N'D 'JiF


potential cooperating farmers
Farm budgets (E)
Farmer social position (S)


Determine soil properties on sample farms
Water retention (A)
Capillary action in soil (A)
Compaction (A)
Resistance to implements (A)
Percolation (A)
Field topography (A)
Determine ability of oxen
a) Power (AE)
b) Speed (AE)
c) Precision (AE)
d) Availability (E)
Build Prototypes (AE)
a) Ridger only
b) Ridger/seeder
c) Ridger/seeder/compactor
Determine optimal ridge design (A,AE)
a) Wetting of seed
b) Water use
c) Labor use
Use imported equipment on farmers' fields
a) Labor requirements for irrigation (E,A)
b) Water consumption (A)
c) Effectiveness of insecticide applied (A)
d) Effectiveness of fertilizer (A)
Take designs to farmers' fields
a) Bullock (AE)
b) Tractor (AE)
Improve fodder production (A)
Test fertilizer response
Test alternative fodder crops
Test alternative harvesting techniques
Get Ministry of Agriculture involved


~H -


Year 2


. *


.








Table 6. Example of work plan by discipline for the cotton emergence
problem.


Duration Activity

Agricultural Engineer

2 weeks 1. Find cooperating manufacturers. Contact local
mechanics and craftsmen who make implements
for tractors or bullocks. At the same time
contact dealers and importers of tractors to
assess ability to manufacture prototypes and
expand production during implementation.

2 weeks 2. Negotiate contracts with one or more
manufacturers to build, according to design,
various configurations of ridging implements.
Preference will be given to local manufacturers
over importers even if some training and
equipment are necessary. One-year contracts
will be given to at least two manufacturers
subject to renewal upon conditions of
performance.

1 month 3. Purchase imported tractor and implements so
that agronomists can begin experiments to
determine labor, water, and other requirements
for furrow irrigation on farmers' fields.

4. With aid of an anthropologist, secure
cooperation of farmers with oxen to test oxen
capacity for work. Tests to include power,
speed, and stamina will be conducted using
sleds with various amounts of weight over
periods from one hour to three days and at
various rates. There should be teams of oxen
with differing ages to ensure reliability of
results. Follow-up tests will be scheduled in
the heat of the planting season to judge
effects of heat on bullock efficiency. Report
by July 1. (Economist will submit a report on
the availability of oxen at different times
during planting season.) Cooperating farmers
will be shown sample fields with ridges and the
objective of the ridger/planter will be
explained. In return for the farmers' services
during planting season, the team's tractor will
be used to cultivate their fields.







Table 6. Example of work plan by discipline for the cotton emergence
problem (continued).


Duration Activity

Agricultural Engineer

5. Use preliminary results from March/April tests
to construct prototype ridgers. These will
initially include: 1) a ditching plow only, 2) a
ridger with a planter incorporated, 3) a ridger
with a planter and a compactor.

Objectives will be to keep weight low and
construction simple. Seed depth and spacing
should be variable. Field testing of proto-
types will first be at experiment station and
then on farmers' fields. Some field trials of
ditchers will be done by May. Chief concerns
will be shape of ridges and capacity of
bullocks. Other prototypes ready for first
tests by fall planting season.

It is necessary that there be continuous
feedback from cooperating farmers and close
cooperation with the agronomist.


Agronomist


2 weeks



2 weeks






1 year





Duration of
project


1. Purchase tractor and implements for
experiments in cooperation with agricultural
engineer.

2. Contact potential participating farmers in
cooperation with the sociologist/anthropologist
and agricultural engineer. Discuss program
objectives. Determine their interest and if
they are eager to participate, make plans for
plot layout, soil sampling, and other tasks.

3. Begin tests of soil properties to continue
through a calendar year; finish in April of
Year 2; initial report June 1 this year.
Results will be input to optimal ridge shape
design.

4. Begin optimal ridge design study. Must
consider trade between optimal eynironment
for plants and demands put on implements. In
particular, will determine payoff for compacting
versus planting under loose soil. Results of
compacting on emergence and vigor will be







Table 6. Example of work plan by discipline for the cotton emergence
problem (continued).


Duration Activity


Agronomist

available by July 1. Results of ridge shape,
seed placement, and depth of furrows on water
use and yields will be available by December 1.

Experiments will be done on farmers' fields and
carefully explained to them. Emphasis will be
on explaining the experiments as research for
practices to increase yield, with significant
possibilities of success and failure.

Optimal ridge configuration will require
continuous and close coordination with the
agricultural engineer.

1 year 5. Use imported tractor and implements to
determine labor and water use in irrigation. ,A
number of farmers will be used and each will
have both a furrow irrigated field and a
control field. Economist will cooperate in
assessing demands on labor and water budgets
for both furrow and control fields.

Effectiveness of insecticides and response to
fertilizer will be tested.

Again, careful explanations of every step and
measurement will be given to farmers. After
the initial irrigation using furrows, farmers
will be asked for their suggestions regarding
matters such as shape, spacing, and
compaction of ridges. This will be repeated at
regular intervals throughout harvest. Where
feasible farmers' suggestions will be tried so
they understand their role as experimenters
and decision-makers.

1 year or more 6. Improve fodder production. Farmers will be
surveyed to determine all sources of fodder;
what farmers consider important qualities of
fodder; animal requirements of fodder
(farmers' estimates); and the different
varieties of each crop distinguished by the
farmer.







Table 6. Example of work plan by discipline for the cotton emergence
problem (continued).


Duration Activity


Agronomist

Tests will begin to determine fodder response
to fertilizer.

Non-legumes Legumes
NPK- PK-
NP- P-
N-


Alfalfa and other foreign crops will be tried.

Two-year legume fodders will be tried (not
now done).

Alternative harvesting techniques will be used.

Initial results on fertilizer and new varieties
should be available by December 1.

A decision will be made by January 1 whether
to:

a) Discontinue research,
b) Get Ministry of Agriculture or a
donor agency to take over, or
c) Continue research.







Experience indicated that sections of watercourses near villages were
the least efficient resulting from human and animal use of the
watercourse. Since that use would continue, it was decided to consider
lining those sections as a compromise. Moreover, the economist had
determined that such lining would enhance use of the watercourse for
washing and bathing and this would be considered a benefit. Others
argued that it was impossible to quantify the benefit. However, the
counter argument was that if villagers were willing to pay for the
lining, they were strongly supporting its development. Thus. an
agreement was made to continue some work on reducing the cost of
lining in conjunction with development of a cleaning and maintenance
program. Table 7 shows the goals specified by project members, and
the responsibilities and duration of each activity.
The task assignments for two individuals is given in Table 8. The
economist and civil engineer were used as examples because the solution
requires collective action and involves the water delivery system.

Summary
Examples just given show plans for approximately the first year of
two multi-year solution developments. Eliciting and integrating inputs
from farmers and all disciplines represented by the staff was the means
suggested for developing good solutions. It is worthwhile to note that
explicit provision was made for decision making. In the cotton emer-
gence problem the agronomist was to present evidence after one year
for a decision on fodder improvement. In the watercourse improvement
problem all plans delineated October as the time to decide which
watercourse would be improved first.
Special emphasis should be given to the field day described on
Table 7, but not mentioned in the individual plans of action. It is
hoped to attain two audiences: farmers outside the watercourse and
officials of relevant agencies. Rapid adoption of collective innovations
such as watercourse improvement requires enthusiasm. This can be
generated positively through field days. First, if host farmers feel
responsible for their innovation, attention will generate pride and
enthusiasm. This enthusiasm will spread as visitors react positively to
the host farmers' enthusiasm, and the host farmers will become even












Table 7. Example of goals, responsibility and scheduling of each

activity for the watercourse improvement plan.



TASKS Yer I Y.r


'MA'M'J'J'A'S 'O'N'O'J'F'
Conduct detailed survey to amore acunratelly A:\ 'A S' '
determine causes and location of lI>:s i1n
watercourses
a) Head. middle. and tail set'ients
b) Outlets
c) Near villages
d) Water source

Study of optimal configuration of earthen CE .
watercourses 1 I
a) Shape
b) Compacting

Development of improved outlet (CE)

Develop lower cost lining (CE)
a) Earth and cement
b) Fiberglass plaster

Find potential cooperating watercourses (S)
a) Find cooperative village-,
b) Do benchmark surveys S,E
i) Water budgets A
ii) Delivery losses
iii) Cropping patterns/yields
iv) Labor availability and use
v) Social profile
vi) Application efficiencies

Determine history of cooperation in
watercourse maintenance (S,E)
a) Laws and enforcement
b) Performance
c) Differences between watercourses

Analysis of social and economic factors related (S
to quality of maintenance E.
a) Water supply
b) Productivity of land
c) Tenure system
d) Social structure
e) Social cohesiveness
f) Relationship with government agencies

*Determine strategy for improvement of first (TEAM)
watercourse (Team) and choose watercourse

Organize Watercourse (S.AE)
a) Meet with leaders to explain
b) Decide assignments and schedules
c) Train work crews (S,AE.CE)

Perform Improvement
a) Initiate work (S,AE)
b) Ask for feedback (S,AE)
c) Make adjustments and complete (AE) -

Evaluate results with farmers
a) Measure delivery efficiencies (A,EH)
b) Demonstrate to farmers (AE)
c) Meet with farmers to discuss results (S,AE)

Hold field day (TEAM)
a) Other farmers
b) Dignitaries

Assess first watercourse improvement (TEAM)
a) Design considerations
b) Cost considerations
c) Farmer cooperation
d) Changes in farm practices
e) Changes in farm income

Begin plans for next trial (TEAM)








Table 8. Example of work plan by discipline for the watercourse
improvement plan.


Duration


Activity


Economist and Sociologist/Anthropologist


4 months











6 months




















1 year


1. In cooperation with the agronomist conduct
benchmark surveys of watercourses. Obtain data
on cropping patterns for the past years, labor
budgets, water budgets, oxen, tractors, dairy
animals, land tenure, and application efficiencies for
irrigation. Use data to construct crop budgets to
incorporate into a linear program. Generate shadow
prices for water at different points on the water-
course for different sized farms and different
seasons. Determine present means for facilitating
maintenance of watercourses.

2. Determine the history of cooperation in watercourse
maintenance. In particular, what laws and
regulations govern maintenance, in fact and
principle? -What has been the enforcement
mechanism and how has it worked historically? Are
there regional differences? What legal and
administrative arrangements have been used to good
effect in other countries?

The legal questions are most efficiently answered by
a legal expert, therefore arrange to hire a
consultant within three months for a period of two
months. Meanwhile, search the literature and
survey regional irrigation departments to assess
their perceived roles and their perception of farmer
performance.

Farmers in the region of the study will be consulted
to determine their understanding of the laws.

3. Determine what factors seem to explain the quality
of maintenance of watercburses. Factors to
consider include: water supply, shadow price of
water, potential productivity of soil, social
structure, social cohesiveness, and relationship of
leaders with irrigation department officials.

From this conclude which cooperating farmer groups
are most and least likely to continue a watercourse
maintenance program once it is initiated.







Table 8. Example of work plan by discipline for the watercourse
improvement plan (continued).


I)u ration


Activity


Economist and Sociologist/Anthropologist


4. Decide which watercourse to improve first. Use
information about likely cooperativeness, existing
delivery efficiencies of watercourses, and potential
net benefits from improvement. Economist and
sociologist/anthropologist play major roles here due
to the need to 1) assure success on the first
attempt and 2) assess projected net benefits.

5. Assess watercourse improvement. Repeat benchmark
study after improvement and compare realized net
value versus before net value versus projected net
value. Find discrepancies between "after" and
"projected" values and look for causes of
differences. Assess distribution of benefits and
participate in feedback and joint work on an
incentive system to encourage maintenance.


Civil Engineer


18 months


6 months


1 year


1. With hydrologist, test for optimal watercourse
configuration by slope, soil type, capacity, and
amount of use. Determine the savings due to
compacting for each configuration after 1 week,
1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year.

Consider labor requirements, management require-
ments and ease of maintenance as well as delivery
efficiency.

Discuss the objectives with farmers, encourage them
to express opinions and encourage their
suggestions. Where possible, incorporate their
thinking in design of the trial.

2. Develop an improved outlet which has negligible
leakage when closed. Try metal, concrete and
rubber, and plastic sheets.

3. Develop a lining of minimum cost for sections near
villages. Try: 1) plaster over earthen/cement
bricks, 2) fiberglass plaster over cinder blocks.
Consult with farmers on design of areas near
villages for buffalo baths.


October,
1st year





59


''Tuble 8. Example of work plan by discipline for the watercourse
improvement plan (continued).


Duration


Activity


Civil Engineer

December 4. Supervise watercourse improvement and monitor
1st year performance of leaders in making decisions where
possible.





60


more enthusiastic. Of course, agency officials are likely to be more
skeptical, but they too are affected by the enthusiasm of others.
Because the government agencies will need to cooperate in at least
implementation, and may be responsible for it. feedback from agencies
when solutions are still formative will enhance ability to develop a
solution acceptable to those agencies.








CHAPTER IV


ASSESSMENT OF SOLUTIONS


Solution assessment has been performed all through the detailed
development of solutions described in the previous chapter. A separate
assessment. phase (Figure 7) is distinguished to emphasize the
importance of explicit and detailed comparisons between alternatives.
Assessment begins with a formal assessment of information related
to each solution set. This information is summarized in a revised
version of the solutions/criteria matrix used to display solutions and
their characteristics. Before detailed solution development there are
many solutions with limited information. As solution development
proceeds the number of solutions decreases while the information about
the remaining solutions increases in quantity and quality until, at the
solution assessment stage, the alternatives are few, and their
characteristics are numerous.
Given sufficient information to make meaningful comparisons of
alternatives, assessment proceeds from a review of the purpose to an
analysis of the requirements and effects of each solution set.
Requirements of implementation are included by answering the following
questions:

1. What actions are required or expected to occur and how
are these to be enforced or motivated?

2. What are the resource requirements from each group in
the system?

3. What kind of schedule can be used for implementation?

4. What is required of involved agencies and are they able
to perform their tasks?

Results of implementation include effects on the economy,
environment, social structures, and politics of involved individuals and
communities. Evaluation of these effects and the costs are the basis for
assessing solutions and choosing the best alternatives.




















NEED MORE INFORMATION
INo


ARE SOLUTIONS ACCEPTABLENo
ARE SOLUTIONS ACCEPTABLE
Yes


MNo IYes
-^MORE TESTING NEEDED>


DISCARD UNACCEPTABLE
SOLUTIONS


SYNTHESIS OF ACCEPTABLE
SOLUTIONS INTO ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION PACKAGES


REPORT ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION PACKAGES


Figure 7. Flow diagram for the Assessment of Solution Pack;gess
subphase of the Development of Solutions phase.


ASSESS SOLUTIONS ACCORDING
TO PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
a. Technical Adequacy
b. Farmer Acceptance
c. Farmer Participation
d. Economic Adequacy
e. Social and Political Feasibility
f. Organizational Adequacy








REVIEW OF OBJECTIVES

There are two reasons for reviewing program objectives at this
point: 1) ;assessment and comparison of the solutions can be done more
purposefully and efficiently if objectives are in mind, and 2) any
additional information obtained may indicate that operational objectives
should be revised. A need to change objectives could arise because
operational objectives were based on faulty understanding of the system
or because there are one or more inherent contradictions within the
objectives of the government. If the latter occurs, a formal case
should be made detailing evidence of the contradictions) and
requesting a prioritization of objectives. For example, perhaps the
government has specified objectives to increase grain production and
help farmers on small acreages. Field studies showed that land frag-
mentation has led to a proliferation of watercourses which decreased
water supplies to individual fields and reduced cropped acreage. One
suggestion to increase productivity was land consolidation. However,
an unanticipated result of consolidation was eviction of tenants by
landlords who found their newly consolidated holdings easier to manage.
This effect was increased productivity but tenant farmers cultivating
small acreages were adversely affected by this solution.
If land consolidation was a government objective, then evidence of
conflict between lower priority (land consolidation) and higher priority
(help for smaller farmers) objectives should be presented. If only two
high priority objectives were given such as to increase productivity and
help small farmers, there may still be reason to submit evidence to
guiding agencies. In particular, if productivity gains from land
consolidation or other solutions are high enough, the government may
consider the loss of equity a cost worth paying for the gain in
productivity. In this case, the trade-off is between two high priority
objectives.
Feedback from farmers may also motivate a change in objectives.
For example, increased grain production is the high priority objective
of the program. Discussions with farmers reveal if they have increased
water supplies they will grow oranges instead of food grains because of
low prices on food grains and higher returns on oranges. This








evidence indicates that either the market priorities are different than
government priorities or that government interference with prices (such
as subsidies) is causing a distortion in the market.
A common cause of market distortion is a government objective to
keep basic food grain prices low to reduce probabilities of under-
nourishment of the poor. The need to increase food grain production is
probably tied to a need to decrease expenditures of foreign exchange for
imported wheat. Project personnel may be able to show the costs of
maintaining artificially low domestic prices on food grains while paying
world prices to import grain. It may be that higher grain prices would
be cheaper than production subsidies and importing grain.
In this case, as in many others, resolution of previously
unrecognized conflicts between government objectives may provide a
major part of the solution to the problem. In either case, evidence can
be organized to substantiate the .farmers' case and to motivate
appropriate changes in government policies.
Whether or not there are conflicts between objectives, the
operational objectives of the project should be reviewed with the
guiding agencies. An opportunity should be made to revise the
objectives in view of additional information or recently developed needs.
Having reviewed and perhaps refined the direction of the program,
staff can begin a systematic assessment of information collected during
field trials.

IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS FOR FURTHER TRIALS

It should be determined with what degree of certainty each
solution set can be rated according to relevant criteria. The first step
in answering this question is to examine each element in the solutions/
criteria matrix and assign probabilities to the entries. In some cases,
entries will be outcomes of replicated controlled experiments, and are
subject to confidence intervals computed by statistical analysis. In
most cases, entries will not be based on replicated controlled
experiments, but on results of field trials in a few areas plus sample
surveys used to establish the representativeness of field trial sites.
Consequently, most probabilities must be arrived at through subjective
judgment and group consensus. It is particularly important to identify








any uncertainty and then decide what the costs may be of reducing it
through further study. The cost of added study must be weighed
against the possible costs of not obtaining the information. Costs
should not be regarded as consequences. For example, if a decision is
made to implement a solution that fails due to insufficient knowledge of
the hydrologic structure in regions outside the vicinity of the field
trials, one cost is the capital invested that cannot be salvaged.
Another decision, harder to define monetarily, is the time lost in
pursuing an incorrect idea. Loss of credibility of the government
agencies is another cost that is difficult to quantify but may be
important.
Certain criteria can be used to assess the vulnerability of a
solution package to uncertainty. One criterion is divisibility. It can
be determined if it is possible to begin implementation in small
increments and to adjust along the way. Examples of divisible solutions
are field level technologies such as furrowing implements, new seed
varieties, and pesticides. A somewhat less divisible solution is the
lining of watercourses. A substantial investment is involved, but it can
be done in stages; first lining the upper reaches and proceeding toward
the end as the lined upper reaches demonstrate their value and their
problems are solved. Solution packages that are divisible provide the
opportunity to "learn while doing." Other solutions such as large dams
are not divisible, and potential consequences of uncertainty can be
disastrous. In this case, substantial investment is justified to avoid
uncertainty.
Closely related to divisibility is reversibility. A solution is
reversible if it is possible to return to the old method with little or no
cost. The same examples that were given for divisibility apply to
reversibility. New seed varieties can be abandoned in favor of the old,
fertilizer use can be abandoned or cut back as costs rise, and the cost
of abandoning a new seed planter is the initial cost of the planter.
Conversely, the cost of abandoning a hydroelectric dam is prohibitive
and the government cannot practically reverse its decision.
This manual has repeatedly stressed flexibility is a quality that
may redeem an indivisible or irreversible decision by providing several
options for going forward. For example, building .of a dam was







proposed with the intent of using all of the water to irrigate a
particular valley. However, the water table rose quickly and salinized
a large portion of the land so only a portion of the stored water could
be used in the valley. If surface drainage could be achieved at
reasonable cost or there were areas outside the valley that could use
the water, the project could still be successful.
Consequences of uncertainty may be marginal for the program as a
whole but devastating for a few farmers. If this is the case, the staff
should assess the potential for shared risk-bearing in which farmers
would be insured against unreasonable loss.
If the staff decides that more information is needed on some
solutions, it is still possible to concurrently proceed with assessment of
other solutions. Furthermore, it may be possible to assess the
uncertain solutions and limit the possible negative consequences by
determining which situations involve the "worst possible" consequences.
In the meantime, further tests should be performed to narrow
uncertainties to acceptable levels.

TECHNICAL ADEQUACY

Technical feasibility should have been demonstrated by this time.
Assessment of technical adequacy must examine the broader question of
reliability of the solution under changing conditions. Input-output
relationships should have been specified by defining permissible ranges
for input and output quantities and qualities. However, other
questions must be asked. What if the quality of inputs is outside the
permissible range? Will all the necessary inputs be available? If not,
are there substitutes? For example, tubewells run by diesel engines
require fuel, oil, spare parts, and mechanics. Can local mechanics be
trained to maintain and repair the motors, and is it possible to
manufacture spare parts locally? If fuel becomes scarce, is it possible
to switch to electric motors or steam engines fired by crop residues?
For example, it was assumed that a watercourse lining design
performed reliably in field trials. The project group should try to
anticipate problems that could frequently occur and consider the effects
on the objectives. It should be determined to what degree the quality
of materials can be reduced without appreciable loss of structural







quality. Other questions include: to what extent can variation in soil
conditions endanger the structure? If a structure is endangered due to
poor materials, workmanship, or soil conditions, what can be done to
rectify the problem and at what cost?
Essential to reliability is quality of operation and maintenance of
irrigation facilities. What are the minimum standards of operation and
maintenance that would result in acceptable performance? For example,
public tubewell engines are expected to function for a given time at
rated capacity without overhaul assuming prescribed lubrication and
cleaning. If lubrication and servicing is done only half as often as
prescribed what is the expected life of the well before overhaul? What
is the cost of overhaul?
Do demands for operation and maintenance fall within the capability
of local people? If not, what training is needed? Once trained, how
likely are operators and maintenance people to stay? Is there a means
of contracting with private individuals or companies for operation and
maintenance? Would some sort of leasing arrangement increase quality
of operation and maintenance?
Reliability also applies to seed and chemical inputs. If a crop is
prone to attack by certain insects, and is therefore dependent on use
of pesticides, how sensitive are results to precisely timed and placed
applications? If farmers are to make the applications, what are
reasonable standards to expect? If chemicals to be used by farmers are
toxic for humans, what precautions can be taken to reduce hazards?
Supposing that precautions are not followed, what are the hazards?
Are there reasonably effective antidotes?
Storage is also subject to reliability analysis. Both seed and
fertilizer require special storage and handling. What are reasonable
standards to expect from storehouse managers? What happens when
performance falls below the standards?

FARMER ACCEPTANCE

Lack of farmer acceptance is evidence that the farmer has been
excluded from the development process. If the farmers are involved
and share responsibility for design and testing, researchers will have
continual feedback concerning barriers, and acceptable solutions will








have evolved. Conversely, enthusiastic acceptance by farmers should
be carefully analyzed. It should be determined whether this enthusiasm
is derived from real benefits or intensive encouragement by
professionals, and whether the test area is representative of the region
selected for implementation. In either case, each solution should be
assessed against a set of criteria relevant to the types of farmers in
the implementation region.


Profitability

The profitability to the farmer of each solution can be tested by
means of farm budget analysis performed for representative farms
considering a range of prices, yields, and resource availability that
could occur in the region.

Compatibility with Farm Management Practices

Several questions can help assess the solutions compatibility with
existing farm management practices. Do changes fit with other methods
of husbandry, both for crops and animals? For example, do new
irrigation methods require new seeding and harvesting methods? Does a
new crop decrease the amount of fodder available for animals? Can a
new implement be adapted to animal power?

Complexity and Compatibility with Farmer Skills

Another important issue is whether farmers can effectively utilize
the innovation. Can farmers operate and maintain the new technology?
Do they depend on a sole source for service and parts? To what
degree are they vulnerable to market conditions, for instance, prices of
petroleum, parts, and fertilizer.

Compatibility with Social and Cultural Environment

This includes the farmers' obligations to their household or to
their kinship groups. Does a change require the farmers to alter their
reciprocal work arrangement with relatives or their participation in
community work groups? Is the solution compatible with traditional
modes of cooperation between farmers? Does it alter the work demands
on women in farm households? For example, a new, labor-intensive








have evolved. Conversely, enthusiastic acceptance by farmers should
be carefully analyzed. It should be determined whether this enthusiasm
is derived from real benefits or intensive encouragement by
professionals, and whether the test area is representative of the region
selected for implementation. In either case, each solution should be
assessed against a set of criteria relevant to the types of farmers in
the implementation region.


Profitability

The profitability to the farmer of each solution can be tested by
means of farm budget analysis performed for representative farms
considering a range of prices, yields, and resource availability that
could occur in the region.

Compatibility with Farm Management Practices

Several questions can help assess the solutions compatibility with
existing farm management practices. Do changes fit with other methods
of husbandry, both for crops and animals? For example, do new
irrigation methods require new seeding and harvesting methods? Does a
new crop decrease the amount of fodder available for animals? Can a
new implement be adapted to animal power?

Complexity and Compatibility with Farmer Skills

Another important issue is whether farmers can effectively utilize
the innovation. Can farmers operate and maintain the new technology?
Do they depend on a sole source for service and parts? To what
degree are they vulnerable to market conditions, for instance, prices of
petroleum, parts, and fertilizer.

Compatibility with Social and Cultural Environment

This includes the farmers' obligations to their household or to
their kinship groups. Does a change require the farmers to alter their
reciprocal work arrangement with relatives or their participation in
community work groups? Is the solution compatible with traditional
modes of cooperation between farmers? Does it alter the work demands
on women in farm households? For example, a new, labor-intensive








have evolved. Conversely, enthusiastic acceptance by farmers should
be carefully analyzed. It should be determined whether this enthusiasm
is derived from real benefits or intensive encouragement by
professionals, and whether the test area is representative of the region
selected for implementation. In either case, each solution should be
assessed against a set of criteria relevant to the types of farmers in
the implementation region.


Profitability

The profitability to the farmer of each solution can be tested by
means of farm budget analysis performed for representative farms
considering a range of prices, yields, and resource availability that
could occur in the region.

Compatibility with Farm Management Practices

Several questions can help assess the solutions compatibility with
existing farm management practices. Do changes fit with other methods
of husbandry, both for crops and animals? For example, do new
irrigation methods require new seeding and harvesting methods? Does a
new crop decrease the amount of fodder available for animals? Can a
new implement be adapted to animal power?

Complexity and Compatibility with Farmer Skills

Another important issue is whether farmers can effectively utilize
the innovation. Can farmers operate and maintain the new technology?
Do they depend on a sole source for service and parts? To what
degree are they vulnerable to market conditions, for instance, prices of
petroleum, parts, and fertilizer.

Compatibility with Social and Cultural Environment

This includes the farmers' obligations to their household or to
their kinship groups. Does a change require the farmers to alter their
reciprocal work arrangement with relatives or their participation in
community work groups? Is the solution compatible with traditional
modes of cooperation between farmers? Does it alter the work demands
on women in farm households? For example, a new, labor-intensive








have evolved. Conversely, enthusiastic acceptance by farmers should
be carefully analyzed. It should be determined whether this enthusiasm
is derived from real benefits or intensive encouragement by
professionals, and whether the test area is representative of the region
selected for implementation. In either case, each solution should be
assessed against a set of criteria relevant to the types of farmers in
the implementation region.


Profitability

The profitability to the farmer of each solution can be tested by
means of farm budget analysis performed for representative farms
considering a range of prices, yields, and resource availability that
could occur in the region.

Compatibility with Farm Management Practices

Several questions can help assess the solutions compatibility with
existing farm management practices. Do changes fit with other methods
of husbandry, both for crops and animals? For example, do new
irrigation methods require new seeding and harvesting methods? Does a
new crop decrease the amount of fodder available for animals? Can a
new implement be adapted to animal power?

Complexity and Compatibility with Farmer Skills

Another important issue is whether farmers can effectively utilize
the innovation. Can farmers operate and maintain the new technology?
Do they depend on a sole source for service and parts? To what
degree are they vulnerable to market conditions, for instance, prices of
petroleum, parts, and fertilizer.

Compatibility with Social and Cultural Environment

This includes the farmers' obligations to their household or to
their kinship groups. Does a change require the farmers to alter their
reciprocal work arrangement with relatives or their participation in
community work groups? Is the solution compatible with traditional
modes of cooperation between farmers? Does it alter the work demands
on women in farm households? For example, a new, labor-intensive







technology may seem to fit a period of low farm activity. But are there
nonfarm social activities normally scheduled in that period? If so, it
may be that farmers do not perceive the time as "leisure" and that
either their social relationships must suffer or the new technology will
lose some of its effectiveness.

FARMER PARTICIPATION

Emphasis has repeatedly stressed farmer participation in the
Development of Solutions phase. The objective of a water management
improvement program is not just to initiate a physical change at a
designated time but to facilitate and establish improved management
practices. The farmer is the ultimate agent for change and must be
convinced that the new method has more benefits than the old or the
management practices will not be changed. A few governmental agents
have sufficient credibility that some farmers will take their advice and
adopt a new practice. A larger percentage of the farmers may accept
the new solution if its benefits are clearly demonstrated to them.
However, many farmers will not adopt these methods. Most farmers who
participate in the processes leading to selection of a solution, and in-
vest their resources, will understand the solution well enough and be
sufficiently supportive to continue the new management practice.
An example of the wrong approach in soliciting farmer participation
occurred in the Mohlenwhal Khurd area near Lahore. The farmer was
told that his current water and fertilizer practices were not the best
and that project staff would show him how to obtain improved yields.
His cooperation was "bought" by the staff who agreed to pay for the
seed and fertilizer and said he could take all of the wheat. He was
asked to divide his field and was told to continue his own management
practices on one half, while the project staff used improved management
practices on the other. He began to perceive the demonstration as
competition against the project members. Instead of appreciating the
doubled yield due to the improved practices, he felt that he had failed
and that his failure would cause him to lose respect in his village. He
refused to endorse the new practices or even to admit to his neighbors
that the new practices had increased yields.







Willingness of farmers to participate in new solutions involving
their time and resources in the planning and implementing stages is one
of the best methods to achieve a successful solution. By this invest-
ment of their time and resources they are endorsing the solution in the
most significant way.
It should be determined if the solution changes the amount of the
farmer's control. For example, private tubewells give farmers a new
degree of resource control. However, a cooperative scheme for land
leveling and cultivation may diminish individual farmer control over
those functions even though they improve the precision of water
control. To assess whether the proposed solution increases or
decreases the farmer's autonomy, major decisions the farmer makes
during a cropping year should be listed before and after implementation
of the solution. If dependence on others increased, it should be noted
who gained control along with the farmer's method for communicating
grievances to that authority. Loss of autonomy is not always bad and
farmers recognize the need for reduced autonomy where there is an
important common property resource.
Some cooperative programs such as watercourse improvement
require unanimous participation by all the farmers concerned to be most
successful. As discussed previously, a general prerequisite for
unanimous participation is that benefits be designed for all concerned in
the program. For example, farmers at the beginning of watercourses
do not benefit significantly from decreasing water losses from the lower
reaches. Additional benefits such as culverts to improve access to
their fields and structures to facilitate their control of the water are
often essential to gain their participation. In other cases, there will be
benefits not anticipated or comprehended by the farmers such as
elimination of seepage damage to their land. In these cases, education
such as a visit to another improved watercourse to see these benefits
may achieve the desired participation.

ASSESSING ECONOMIC ADEQUACY

A distinction is sometimes made between financial assessment and
economic assessment of a proposed project. Both are concerned with
income and costs, and both use the same methodology in computing
rates of return. However, "financial assessment" is used to define







analysis of the changes in incomes and costs from the perspective of
individual entities in the economy such as farmers. laborers,
cooperatives, banks, irrigation departments, marketing firms or boards.
national government, lending institutions, and donor agencies.
"Economic analysis" defines the analysis of the aggregate of these
benefits and costs adjusted to consider the results not reflected in
market prices or administered prices. The distinction is useful because
it emphasizes to those who equate economic analysis with financial
analysis that the economists generally have a broader perspective than
market profitability. The distinction also serves to remind the
economist of the importance of using financial analysis to consider
individual incentives and income distribution. In this manual, financial
assessment is regarded as a part of economic assessment, although
there are times when financial analysis needs to be separated to allow
for financial planning of the Project Implementation phase.

Levels of Economic Analysis

Three levels of economic analysis consist of individual, regional,
and national. The first includes farmers, laborers, private business-
persons, and government agencies, and is a financial analysis. The
second, regional economic analysis, considers what might be considered
externalities as well as any secondary effects such as employment of
unused resources. The third, national economic analysis, accounts for
aggregate supply and demand relationships, effects of the solution
package on foreign exchange and compensates for distortions in prices
from "true" social values.

Individual Financial Incentives

Farmers are commonly the group singled out for economic analysis,
but are not the only group that should be considered. Others include
laborers, tenants, landlords, private businessmen, local functionaries,

*
Externalities are effects of the project on those not directly involved.
These can include physical effects such as changes in water table
depth due to increased pumping or increased efficiency of water use.
Externalities are sometimes considered to include market effects such
as a rise in the wages of agricultural labor due to increased work
opportunities provided by the project.







analysis of the changes in incomes and costs from the perspective of
individual entities in the economy such as farmers. laborers,
cooperatives, banks, irrigation departments, marketing firms or boards.
national government, lending institutions, and donor agencies.
"Economic analysis" defines the analysis of the aggregate of these
benefits and costs adjusted to consider the results not reflected in
market prices or administered prices. The distinction is useful because
it emphasizes to those who equate economic analysis with financial
analysis that the economists generally have a broader perspective than
market profitability. The distinction also serves to remind the
economist of the importance of using financial analysis to consider
individual incentives and income distribution. In this manual, financial
assessment is regarded as a part of economic assessment, although
there are times when financial analysis needs to be separated to allow
for financial planning of the Project Implementation phase.

Levels of Economic Analysis

Three levels of economic analysis consist of individual, regional,
and national. The first includes farmers, laborers, private business-
persons, and government agencies, and is a financial analysis. The
second, regional economic analysis, considers what might be considered
externalities as well as any secondary effects such as employment of
unused resources. The third, national economic analysis, accounts for
aggregate supply and demand relationships, effects of the solution
package on foreign exchange and compensates for distortions in prices
from "true" social values.

Individual Financial Incentives

Farmers are commonly the group singled out for economic analysis,
but are not the only group that should be considered. Others include
laborers, tenants, landlords, private businessmen, local functionaries,

*
Externalities are effects of the project on those not directly involved.
These can include physical effects such as changes in water table
depth due to increased pumping or increased efficiency of water use.
Externalities are sometimes considered to include market effects such
as a rise in the wages of agricultural labor due to increased work
opportunities provided by the project.







and government agencies. By nature, irrigation systems involve
common property resources. Thus, whole watercourses or water users'
associations may, for this purpose, be designated as financial
"individuals ."
Farm budgets, which are prepared in the Problem Identification
phase, represent "before solution" cases. During and following field
trials, other budgets were prepared to document economic effects of the
solution as it was adopted. Comparison of "before" and "after" budgets
show the financial costs, benefits, and net effect of the solution for
individual farmers. If decisions to adopt solutions are only at the farm
level (for example, use of improved land leveling techniques or use of
furrow as compared to basin irrigation); then little needs to be done in
assessing financial impacts on other entities except to ensure that
increased commercial crop production can be handled by marketing
outlets.

Externalities

It is possible that individual decisions will affect others who have
no control in decision-making. For example, increased use of tubewells
may lower the water table and increase pumping costs for others or it
may cause intrusion of saline water into overlying sweet water used by
others for irrigation or domestic purposes. If this is the case, equity
requires some method of compensation or collective control which may
involve legal and political questions to be discussed below.

Collective Decisions

If decisions to adopt a solution are made collectively, the issue of
incentives is more complex. Individual budgets must be considered,
but social and political factors also enter the decision more strongly
than in an individual decision. Solutions that benefit some more than
others leave those with smaller benefits feeling slighted, leading to
situations where cooperation disintegrates. For example, watercourse
lining tends to benefit those towards the end of the watercourse more
than those near the beginning. Since those near the head are often
relatively affluent, they may choose to forego benefits of lining in order
to block benefits to those further down the watercourse. However,
because the costs of lining are collective and the benefits individual,







and government agencies. By nature, irrigation systems involve
common property resources. Thus, whole watercourses or water users'
associations may, for this purpose, be designated as financial
"individuals ."
Farm budgets, which are prepared in the Problem Identification
phase, represent "before solution" cases. During and following field
trials, other budgets were prepared to document economic effects of the
solution as it was adopted. Comparison of "before" and "after" budgets
show the financial costs, benefits, and net effect of the solution for
individual farmers. If decisions to adopt solutions are only at the farm
level (for example, use of improved land leveling techniques or use of
furrow as compared to basin irrigation); then little needs to be done in
assessing financial impacts on other entities except to ensure that
increased commercial crop production can be handled by marketing
outlets.

Externalities

It is possible that individual decisions will affect others who have
no control in decision-making. For example, increased use of tubewells
may lower the water table and increase pumping costs for others or it
may cause intrusion of saline water into overlying sweet water used by
others for irrigation or domestic purposes. If this is the case, equity
requires some method of compensation or collective control which may
involve legal and political questions to be discussed below.

Collective Decisions

If decisions to adopt a solution are made collectively, the issue of
incentives is more complex. Individual budgets must be considered,
but social and political factors also enter the decision more strongly
than in an individual decision. Solutions that benefit some more than
others leave those with smaller benefits feeling slighted, leading to
situations where cooperation disintegrates. For example, watercourse
lining tends to benefit those towards the end of the watercourse more
than those near the beginning. Since those near the head are often
relatively affluent, they may choose to forego benefits of lining in order
to block benefits to those further down the watercourse. However,
because the costs of lining are collective and the benefits individual,







there may be ways to allocate costs in proportion to benefits (presuming
individual costs are always below corresponding benefits), or it may be
possible to accommodate and benefit those at the beginning through
added costs such as purchasing and installing additional culverts in
order to achieve net benefits for all.
Trade-offs such as these should have been identified in field trials
so that the sharing of benefits and costs of collective projects meet with
as little opposition as possible. Related factors were discussed in the
"Farmer Participation" section.

Financial Analysis and Risk

Costs and benefits can be compared only when they are expressed
in terms of value at a common time of reference, for example, the value
at present. Computation of the present value of an investment requires
that a detailed schedule of benefits and costs be devised. Up to now,
financial and economic analysis are the same. However, now financial
analysis becomes concerned with the practical matters of flow of funds.
For example, if a large initial outlay is required and if benefits begin
to accrue only after one year, there is a problem of paying now for
future income. Interest rates, sources of credit, and detailed
assurances of income to meet credit terms are concerns of financial
analysis.
Delayed returns also increase investors' risk since future income is
less certain than current costs. If individual farmers are the
investors, they may hesitate to adopt the change because of their
averseness to risk. There is extensive literature in economics on risk
averseness of farmers, but from an implementation viewpoint, the
precise nature of the farmer's risk averseness is not so important as
the order of magnitude. A commonly used "rule-of-thumb" is that an
investment must have a benefit/cost ratio of at least 2:1 before small
farmers are likely to consider its use. Consequently, economic analysis
of risk should allow for individual risk averseness, and emphasis should
be on finding methods to decrease individual risk.
Several factors affect the magnitude of risk relative to the farmer's
income, and consequently, the degree of the farmer's reluctance to
invest. Several of these reasons are discussed elsewhere in this manual
but the discussion here pertains to individuals. One is the size of the




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs