Water governance in irrigated areas: Old problems and innovative solutions

Abstract

This document summarizes a session with the same title at the 2016 Water Week event of the World Bank. The session counted on presentations by the authors and on contributions and open discussion by the forty attendants, who were for the most part World Bank officers .

The session set the scene with the presentation of scientific approaches to the analysis of new governance models such as Irrigation Management Transfer and Participatory Irrigation Management (IMT/PIM). A discussion of different governance models at the private, collective and public areas of an irrigation project facilitated the introduction of seven case studies stemming from the experience of the authors of this document. Further, answers were provided to specific questions addressed by the Session Leads on the governance of Water Users Associations (WUAs) and Irrigation Agencies (IAs). Finally, discussions held at the session were summarized. All these elements led to the formulation of the following conclusions and solutions to irrigation governance: a) Many of the recent developments in irrigation governance, such as IMT/PIM have not yet been correctly assessed. Evidence does not yet permit to draw firm conclusions on success and failure. A more explicit declaration of project goals and a sustained follow-up would facilitate this assessment. b) There must be a profitable agricultural system at the downstream end of the irrigation system. Irrigation projects seem to have concentrated more on hydraulics and civil engineering than on the source of income for the appreciation and the pay back of irrigation infrastructure. c) The organizational nature of the collective and public intervention levels does not seem as important as their determination to succeed. However, participatory approaches to collective management (WUAs) stand as the preferred choice and the most adequate for success. d) Agriculture is often defined as a very site-specific activity. It therefore comes as no surprise that the optimum public and collective governance structure may different in every irrigation project. e) If irrigation projects directly address the problems of the farmers, farmers will get involved in the governance and will fight for success. Farmers will never be inclined to adopt the responsibilities of the government without a clear, sustainable economic or social benefit. f) Modernization, rehabilitation, IMT and PIM must genuinely address the problems of the end-users. Problems such as fee collection can be a symptom of disinterest, disbelief or low added value of the project. The link between local problems and engineering solutions must be clear from project conception to the final transfer of the infrastructure. g) Farmers’ commitment to public irrigation developments need to go beyond the participation in governance: participation is expected in co-funding public investments. Co-funding needs to be designed for each specific case, taking into consideration farmers’ capacity to pay.