IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Research article
erdChange in Effectiveness of Stung Chinit Irrigation System
within a Social Economic in Santuk District,Kampong Thom Province
SAVEN THAI *Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Management, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh,Cambodia
Email: savenlypoc@gmail.com

SOKHEM PECH
Pech Climate System Consultancy and Research, North Vancouver, BC, Canada

LYTOUR LOR
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

NARETH NUT
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, CambodiaReceived 16 November 2015

Accepted 11 April 2016(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Functional irrigation system is one of the most important mechanisms for preventing
or minimizing crop failure, and increasing crop yields and cropping calendars. It is functional,
if it is properly designed, built, operated and maintained, as well as climate-proofed. It isprojected that the climate change effects – flood, drought, and temperature rise – will adversely
affect water availability, hence impacting the reliability of the irrigation system and its services.
The findings illustrate that Chinit Irrigation System faces several challenges such as insufficientbudget for operation and maintenance, especially for repairing the broken earthen canals causedby heavy traffic, cattle, crabs and mice, and flooding. After construction, rice yield, land sizeand seasonal growing are increased and most of the farmers within the system coverage could
access enough water for irrigation, so farmers’ livelihood is improved. After completing theinfrastructure, households’ average net-income increased from 2.44 to 3.14 million riel perhousehold. There are other income sources such as small business, construction and factory
workers, taxi-driver and so on that can be further diversified as the competition for water use isexpected due to climate change and an increase in water demand in this Watershed.
Keywords Stung Chinit, irrigation system, effectiveness, climate change

INTRODUCTION
Irrigation system is an artificial construction which ideally can store water and drain in or out the water
when it is needed. Currently, construction and rehabilitation of irrigation have become one of the top
priorities set by the Government, international organizations, private companies, and other donors.
They have actively involved in its development to support farmers and water users to secure water toirrigate their farming in both rainy season’s supplementary irrigation and wet season (Sakhoeurn,2006). Construction of irrigation systems, including their maintenance and operations are supposed tocontribute to poverty reduction and achievement of the ambitious milled rice-export target set by theGovernment (CGIR, 2014). According to the Food of Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2010), theaverage dry season rice yield has increased from 1.39 tons to 2.07 tons per hectares. However, theirⒸ ISERD

130

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

prospects may be challenged by the current climate hazards and long-term climate change as they havebeen identified as significant environmental and developmental issues in Cambodia. Climate variability
and extremes are presently manifested in ways such as floods, droughts, storms, increased coastal
erosion, heat waves, and outbreaks/intensification pests and diseases (MOE 2013). All these changes
have both positive and negative impacts on the agriculture including the irrigated farm land. Thesechallenges affect the irrigation system’s reliability and effectiveness because of drought and whereas
overflow and extreme flood can damage the system (MOE, 2014). For the last 15 years, Cambodia has
severely affected by the climate variability and change’s events such as extreme flood, windstorms,and droughts. These frequent disasters and poor maintenance and operation damaged many
infrastructures such as road, street and irrigation system (FAO/WFP, 2012). Climate change is
expected to exert compounded pressure on Cambodia’s water resources, which will be significantly
altered by hydropower development and withdrawals for irrigation expansion within and beyond
Cambodian borders. Prevailing poor infrastructure conditions and operation and maintenance of thesystem also remain a significant factor contributing to current and future vulnerability of systems toclimate change (MOE, 2013).
OBJECTIVE
The research was conducted for the following two main objectives:
1) To identify the potential and constrains of Irrigation System;2) To compare of farmers’ livelihood level before and after constructing irrigation infrastructure
METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted in 3 villages, namely, Khvaek, Banteay Yumreach, and Pleyplo villages.
To collect the data, primary data and secondary data (asking households, key informants, related
institutes and observation) was implemented. 84 households were sampled for interviews and three
Focus Group Discussion were also carried out to validate and obtain more quantitative information. All
the collected data was analyzed by Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS and Excel).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Change in Rice Cultivation Calendars
The result in Table 1 indicates that before irrigation scheme, most of the farmers in the three villages
cultivated their rice later in rainy season from June to December, because of concern over the water
availability during the early phase of rainy season, as most of them heavily relied on rainfall for 61%,82%, and 67% respectively in Khvaek, Prey Phlu, and Banteay Yumreach villages. Whereas after theChinit irrigation infrastructure was put in place, 65% of households in Khvaek and 77% in Prey Phlu
started to cultivate the rice from May to November relying on water from the irrigation system.
However, the farmers in Banteay Yumreach still continue with old cropping calendar from June toDecember, because of their higher land elevation, and lack of paddy level irrigation canals throughtheir rice field, and some farmers near the canal do not allow the water to the other fields. Furthermore,because of the canals in the upper-land are deeper than the paddy field, it has to operate by more costly
pumping.

Ⓒ ISERD131

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Table 1 Farmers’ calendar rice before and after constructing irrigation schemeWet rice before scheme

Villages

Wet rice after scheme

May-Nov

Jun-Dec

Jul-Jan

May-Nov

Jun-Dec

Jul-JanKhvaek

21.70%

60.90%

17.40%

65.20%

34.80%

0.00%

Prey Phlu

11.77%

82.35%

5.88%

76.50%

23.50%

0.00%

Banteay Yumreach

16.70%

66.70%

16.60%

31.80%

61.40%

6.80%

Means for Irrigation

BeforeSchemeAfterScheme

Fig.1 illustrates that there were only 4.34% of households irrigated their farm by gravity, 21.73% bypumping and gravity, and 73.91% by rainfall before constructing irrigation system. Whereas thefarmers in Prey Phlu village, there were only 5.88% of households irrigating their farm by gravity,
5.88% by pumping and gravity, and 88.25% relying on rainfall while the farmers in Banteay Yumreachwere 27.27% by gravity, 18.18% by gravity and pumping, and 55.55% by rainfall. After constructionof the Chinit irrigation system, 100% of farmers in Prey Phlu, 52.17% in Khvaek, and 72.73% inBanteay Yumreach irrigated their farming by gravity, and they stopped relying on rainfall.

Rainfall

0.00

Drainage and Pump47.83

Drainage

52.17

Rainfall

72.73

73.92

Drainage and Pump
Drainage

27.27
54.55

21.73

18.18

4.34
0%

27.27
20%

40%

Kvaek

Preyplo

60%

80%

100%

Banteay YoumreachFig. 1 Ways of farmer for irrigating their farming before and after scheme
Farmland Size Before and After Constructing Irrigation Scheme
Figure 2 shows the paddy field and crop-land size per hectare per household before and after
constructing the irrigation scheme. The rice-land of the two villages, Khaek and Banteay Yumreach
was slightly increased of 0.04 and 0.12 hectare per household, respectively, whereas the paddy fieldsize of Prey Phlu remained the same. Increasing in paddy field size and production in the two villages
were possible because the farmers could get enough water and reclaim available forest land, andincrease their outputs to generate more income for supporting the everyday lives of their growingfamilies. In contrast, the other crop-land size of three villages has decreased marginally from 0.55 to0.122, 0.32 to 0.30, and 0.37 to 0.30 respectively in Khvaek, Prey Phlu and Banteay Yumreach. Thiswas because some of the farmers could not grow vegetables in the cropland and the fields have toomuch water coming from the canal, and some others grow rice instead of cropping.

Ⓒ ISERD132

Average land size perhousehold

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

2.50

2.22

2.00

2.02

2.26

1.65

2.14
1.65

1.50
1.00

0.55

0.50

0.32 0.37

0.12 0.14

0.30

0.00
Before Scheme

After Scheme

Before Scheme

Rice Land
KhvaekAfter Scheme

Crop Land

Prey Phlu

Banteay YumreachFig. 2 Average farmland size/household before and after constructing irrigation scheme
Rice Yield Before and After Constructing Scheme
According to the data in the Table 2, farmers do not grow any rice during dry season before irrigation
construction. After Chinit system’s completion, Banteay Yumreach and Khvaek cultivate dry season
paddy rice with a higher yield. But Prey Phlu villagers do not grow any dry-season rice, because theconcern over the rampage by domestic animals, insects and so on. Furthermore, because of labor
shortage and low profit from rice cultivation comparing to other occupations in urban areas, factory,collecting/working in the forestry, or other countries. After completing construction irrigation system,
the average of rainy-seasonal rice yield increases only from 0.24 to 0.69 tons per hectare among thethree villages.
Table 2 Average rice yield by seasons before and after scheme
Villages
KhvaekPrey Phlu
Banteay Yomreach

Before scheme
Dry-season rice
Rainy-season rice
01.45
01.59
01.66

After scheme
Dry-season rice
Rainy-season rice
3.95
2.14
0.00
1.96
3.23
1.90

Access to Water Before and After Scheme
Table 3 illustrates the accessibility of water used by farmers among the three villages. According to thetable, it showed that after constructing irrigation scheme, 74% of farmers in Khvaek and 88.20% inPrey Phlu villages have enough water for irrigating while the water security for farmers in Banteay
Yumreach decrease by 15.90%. It was because the lack of paddy field water distribution canals andarrangement as well as, upland areas, and high water evaporation and seepage.
Table 3 The situation of farmers’ accessible enough water use before and after scheme
VillagesKhvaek
Prey Phlu
Banteay Yumreach

Before scheme
Percent (%)
30.4
29.4
61.4

Ⓒ ISERD

133

After Ssheme
Percent (%)
73.9
88.2
45.5

Changes
Percent (%)
43.5
58.8
-15.9

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Causes of Damaging Irrigation SystemFarmers around 88% thought that the irrigation system had been broken by three main factors such as
operating of transportation including trucks, cattle, mice, and crab, or over flow (heavy rain and flood).
Fig.3 indicates that the main canal, distributary canal, release canal and release gates were dramaticallydamaged by flood and heavy rain. These canals were broken due to heavy rain and over flow from theriver and Tonle Sap including cattle stamping, mice and crap digging holes caused the canals eroding
and breaking. The sub-canals were severely affected by cattle, mice, and crab; flood and heavy rain
while the small sub-canals, 50%, were crucially damaged by cattle, mice and crab, because these canals
seemed as dike through the rice field so they were easily affected by cattle, mice, and crabs.
10010075Percent

806150 50604031383150352025 2540

Distributarycanals

sub-canals

250000Main CanalCattle, Mouse and Crab

Small subcanals

Release canals Release Gates

Flood and heavy rain

Transportation

Fig. 3 the causes of damaging irrigation system after constructing irrigation system
The Efficiency of Farmers’ Livelihood Before and After Constructing Irrigation Scheme
The farmers generally expended on agriculture products, general expense (food, electric etc.), andfarmers’ income are mostly from on-farm (cultivation crop, husbandry, fishing etc.) and non-farmincome (small business, teaching, wage, factory worker etc.). The changes of average net income
increaseed 2.51 million riels/household in Prey Phlu, 2.44 million riels/household, in Khvaek, and 3.15
million riels/household in Banteay Yumreach; however there was no significant difference among thethree villages due to P-Value is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05). The efficiency of income in Khvaek village
before constructing irrigation system shows that the farmers invest 1 riel per unit then they gain income2.75 riel means that they got profit 1.75 riel. After constructing irrigation system indicated that farmers
invest 1 riel per unit then they received income 2.11 riel which means that they gain profit 1.11 riel.
Table 4 Comparison of efficiency before and after construction irrigation scheme
Items

Prey Phlu
After
Changes
188.11
95.78
89.17
55.59

Banteay Yumreach
BeforeAfter
Changes285.83 592.40
306.57101.11 306.37
205.26

Before113.0449.56

KhvaekAfter
Changes315.41202.37177.08127.53184.73286.03101.3063.48

138.3374.85

TR (MR)TC (MR)

Before
92.33
33.58

Π

58.75

98.94

Aver π/HH

3.46

5.97

2.51

2.33

4.77

2.44

2.84

5.99

3.15

E (Riel)

2.75

2.11-0.64

2.83

1.93

-0.89

2.28

1.78

-0.50

40.18

P=0.84>0.05 (Change in the average of net income/household)*TR (Total Revenue), TC (Total Cost), π (net income), Aver π (average of net income), * MR (Million Riel), *E (Efficiency)Ⓒ ISERD

134

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

In conclusion, the research demonstrated that even though the average net income of farmers
increased in all three villages, but if we look through the efficiency of households decreases 0.64 riel in
Banteay Yumreach, 0.89 riel in Khvaek, and 0.50 riel in Prey Phlu village, because farmers heavily pay
for agricultural input (fertilizers and pesticide, rice broadcasting or transplanting, harvest, plough etc),
on food, children, illness and inflation.
CONCLUSION
Irrigation system is one of the key tools to boost the agricultural products. Most of the farmers could
access enough water to irrigate their farm, and double their cropping calendar with higher yield, andcultivate the farm on time. Moreover, after constructing irrigating system, it can ensure minimize
vulnerability to flooding and drought. Furthermore, it also sustains farmers’ livelihood because most of
the farmers rely on agriculture. But there are several problems such as extremely flood, heavy rain,over flow, cattle, mice, crabs, and transportation, as well as lack of adequate fund for operation andmaintenance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge for the financial support from Cambodia’s Leading IndependentDevelopment Policy Research Institute (CDRI) and Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) for goodcollaboration.
REFERENCES
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)/Water, Land, and Ecosystems Mekong(WLE Mekong)/International Centre for Environmental Management (ICEM). 2014. The impact of watersupply infrastructure on floods and droughts in the Mekong region and the implication for food security.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Food of Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO). 2010. FAO's information system on water andagriculture. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Food of Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO) / World Food Program (WFP). 2012. Crop andfood security update mission to Cambodia. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Ministry of Environment (MoE). 2013. Synthesis report on vulnerability and adaptation assessment for key
sectors including strategic and operational recommendation. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Ministry of Environment (MoE). 2014. ADB CDTA strategic program on climate resilience (SPCR). Draft
Inception Report. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Sakhoeurn, K. 2006. Effectiveness of irrigation system management by farmers water use community in Poborey
Dam, Preah Sdach and Perm Chor district, Prey Veng Province. Bsc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture ofEconomic and Rural Development, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia.

Ⓒ ISERD135