some coastal regions of Libya where irrigated farming is supported by tapping groundwater, the water table is falling at a rate of nine to ten feet a year. The aquifers cannot be refilled at this rate, and there is mounting danger of salt water contamination, leaving the groundwater useless for irrigation. To increase food production, which is so desperately needed in Third World countries, the Brandt Commission correctly identified the key element: the control and management of water. At the technical level, the development of environmentally sound irrigation projects is a complex and challenging task. Yet technical solutions are only a part of the answer. In fact, the most difficult problems are social and political, as we have learned from past water projects. In the 1950s and '60s, dozens of big dams were built in developing nations and were considered to be a sign of progress, potentially attracting industrial development. Experience shows, however, that the initial cost has far outweighed the resulting benefits. There are many problems with large-scale water and irrigation projects. Often the primary motivation for such a project was the production of hydro-electric power to stimulate industrial development. This approach was based on a traditional model of development in which developing countries were encouraged to imitate Western "trickle down" economics. Agricultural development was often a secondary concern. Due to poor planning, even technically successful projects have had many unforeseen drawbacks, both environmental and social. Large-scale projects are also difficult to manage. The ever-present problems of coordination and conflict can be worked out in small groups, but, while problems can be resolved in large scale projects, more communication and transportation technology is required than is available in developing countries. A major reason for the emphasis on large-scale water projects is that they are preferred by multi-lateral and national development agencies, such as the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Large scale projects are impressive to see and appear to be a good investment, which helps when requesting funds for the next fiscal year. Expenses for large projects are easy to account for, while spending a small amount on a number of projects involves too much paperwork and increases administrative costs. These agencies usually focus narrowly on technical solutions and from that point of view more irrigation means more food. This approach allows them to avoid the politically sensitive and more important issues of who benefits from the improved management of water, which is generally large landowners and not the rural poor. The purpose of an irrigation project should be to assist the rural poor, who make up most of the population, to grow food for themselves and to increase their production and income. Small-scale projects are more likely to succeed in this goal. They allow for the primary ingredient: participation at the local level. Sartaj Aziz summarizes the issue well, in Clean Water for All, by stating, "The most important aspect of the water problem is the human problem. Until we are able to organize the people who are going to use this water, we will not be able to use water effectively. A great deal of the water development strategy of the future will depend not on the very large Page 29 RAIN Dec. 821]an. 83 capital-intensive plans, but on very small and medium scale irrigation programmes and flood protection and drainage systems that different communities can develop by using their surplus labor." In recent years, multi-lateral and national development agencies have recognized the importance of local participation. The lesson was learned the hard way when many projects were abandoned when their funding ended, all because people did not feel a sense of ownership of the project. Unfortunately, recognition of the need for local participation does not ensure that it will always happen. An example of the problem is described by Betsy Hartman and James Boyce who spent nine months in a Bangladesh village. World Bank aid, channelled through the Bangladesh government, reached their village in the form of a deep tubewell, one of 3,000 installed in Northwestern Bangladesh. On paper, the World Bank's plan encouraged the peasants to form a democratic cooperative and submit a proposal for the well. In fact, a tubewell designed to serve 25 to 50 farmers became the personal property ofone man, the biggest landlord of the area. He paid less than $300, apparently a bribe, for a well that cost the donors and the government $12,000 to build. According to Hartman and Boyce, he says he will let neighboring farmers use his water but he intends to charge a price too high for most to afford it. Curious as to why the richest man in the village should receive World Bank aid, Hartman and Boyce talked to a foreign expert working on the project who explained, "1 no longer ask who is getting the well. 1 know what the answer will be and I don't want to hear it. One hundred percent of these wells are going to the big boys. . . . First priority goes to those with political clout: judges, the magistrates, the members of parliament, union chairmen. If any are left over, the local authorities auction them off. The rich landlords compete, and whoever offers the biggest bribe gets the tubewell." This case dearly illustrates that while providing water may have increased food production capability, it did not reduce hunger. The wealthy landowner can increase his production and his income, but the rural poor have neither the money to buy food nor the water needed to grow their own. Such disparities persist since those who control the land generally control the water supplies. Itis not uncommon for 70 to 80 percent of rural families to be CeJ/lf. 011 IlL'xl pll~e
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz