FARM WATER AND RURAL POVERTY REDUCTION IN DEVELOPING ASIAy

The study on ‘‘pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia’’ by Hussain (2005) shows that, in 26 major and medium-size canal irrigation schemes in Asia, irrigated areas average 20% lower poverty than adjacent rainfed areas; gains are more with pro-poor management of water for farming (PPMWF) and where distribution of farmland or farm water is more equal. These findings, and the measured endorsement of participatory irrigation management (PIM) of these schemes, look robust, though they need to allow for externalities (interaction with groundwater and micro-irrigation; out-of-scheme downstream effects). This paper explores some implications. The diagnosed ‘‘inefficiency of gross inequality’’ in irrigation echoes similar wider-scale findings on aggregate inequality and vulnerability. The choice among irrigation techniques, and science to develop new ones, need to adapt more to the needs of PPMWF. PPMWF planning must itself adapt – as must design of new schemes – to the needs for sustainable water resources, manageable health impacts, and proper treatment of displaced people. Technical and management design to reduce irrigation corruption – as it relates to poverty impact of irrigation, and to PIM – needs more review. The causal links from various types of irrigation to growth, distribution and poverty need more extensive modelling and testing. The important implications of this study (with the above contexts) for major irrigation in Africa – almost certainly essential for major progress against poverty there – need systematic assessment. Finally, some open issues are listed. Copyright# 2007 John Wiley &