In the last three decades, international donors have promoted Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) in many developing countries as a remedy for solving management problems in government-run irrigation systems. The main argument of this book is twofold. First, IMT's potential to address these problems cannot be achieved if the overseeing irrigation agency does not embrace the need for management transfer. Second, IMT's success cannot be measured without linking local outcomes to the agency's willingness to relinquish its power with the transfer and how it formulates and implements IMT policy.

This book brings to light the close linkage between IMT and the issue of bureaucratic reform. New challenges in water resources management require not only well-formulated reform programmes, but also bureaucracies that value these programmes and are committed to their implementation. Most reform efforts neglect to account for the interests and needs of the bureaucracies that, in essence, are being asked to reform themselves. Taking Indonesia as my main case, I highlight that, if proposed reform is to be meaningful in practice, current authorities must believe in its need; or at least be willing to move forward with the reform. This book analyses the political processes that shape IMT policy formulation and implementation in Indonesia from August 2003 to July 2005, and illustrates how the irrigation agency contested the idea of management transfer vis-à-vis its prominent interests and role in the sector's development.

IMT embodies the aspiration of the international epistemic community to transfer the management of government irrigation systems to farmer organizations — in Indonesia, the Federation of Water User Associations (FWUAs) and the Water Users Associations (WUAs) — as such transfers are regarded as crucial in addressing the problem of poor system performance. International donors and policy-makers viewed the irrigation agency as inefficient in conducting the overall system management and conceded that farmer participation might contribute to increased project effectiveness; therefore, they urged the need for management transfer. This idea of farmer participation is derived from successful experiences in farmer-managed irrigation systems (FMIS). The inclusion of this idea in the policy agenda of the international donors was based on the common perception that government irrigation systems had grown faster than the institutions that had to regulate them and was generated by mounting criticisms concerned about the deterioration of “common property resources” and the impoverishment of the rural community due to government policy interventions.