Irrigation Management Transfer

Irrigation Management Transfer: The View from Wuhan (China)

In September 1994, the International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI) and Wuhan University of Hydraulic and Electrical Engineering jointly organized a conference on "Irrigation Management Transfer". The conference, held in Wuhan, China, provided an assessment of the progress and potential of transferring management from public agencies to organized groups of irrigation users. The following has been adapted from an address given by Dr. Doug Vermillion, one of the conference organizers.

Irrigation management transfer can be defined as the transfer of responsibility and authority for irrigation management from the government to non governmental entities. Why is management transfer happening in so many places? The most common reasons are:

• the failure of governments to finance or recover the cost of irrigation management from farmers,
• the desire of governments to reduce costs and reallocate government revenues,
• poor performance of agency managed systems, and
• rising confidence in the capacity of farmers and local groups to take over management.

Is management transfer the solution we have all been waiting for? The following is a summary of some of the important ideas put forward by the participants to the Wuhan conference: [Editor's note: from the original list of 20 points, we have selected 10 which we feel are of particular importance.]

1. Management transfer which is partial or involves incomplete control by farmers leads to unstable management characterized by limited cost efficiency and staff accountability. Turnover is often partial, with agency staff continuing to exercise partial control over water distribution or budgets after turnover. This can create a false impression of failure which can reinforce resistance to turnover policies.

2. Turnover should be treated as an evolving program rather than as a short term project with rigid quotas for turning over set numbers of systems per year.

3. There is a frequent lack of strategic planning to reorient agencies and plan pro actively for staff disposition prior to the implementation of turnover. This compounds agency resistance to turnover programs.

4. Establishing motivating conditions for farmer organizations to take over irrigation management is more important than investing in efforts to motivate and train farmers.

5. Abuse of authority by factions after turnover is seen by less powerful farmers as a risk which is associated with management turnover. They may therefore seek continued agency involvement in auditing, regulating and helping to mediate conflicts.

6. Rehabilitation is often done before turnover without meaningful farmer participation and investment. This can discourage farmers from taking over responsibility for the irrigation system after turnover. In contrast, farmer participation and investment in system improvements prior to turnover can be an effective means of preparing farmers to take over long term responsibility for irrigation systems.

7. Farmer organizations seem to rarely raise capital replacement funds after turnover. This can be a cause for concern about the long term physical sustainability of irrigation systems after management is turned over to farmers, especially if it is questionable that governments will be able to afford to finance rehabilitation in the future.

8. Irrigation systems which were originally designed to be managed by trained engineers or technicians so as to maximize water user efficiency and flexibility of operation is often incompatible with the management capacities of farmers.

9. Management transfer commonly involves increased cost to farmers for irrigated agriculture, especially where farmers were not paying for the full cost of irrigation before turnover. This can be a disincentive for farmers to take over management of irrigation systems.

10. Strong high level political support and support among farmers for management turnover is essential if agency resistance to turnover is to be overcome. It may not be advisable for policy makers to have resistant irrigation agencies implement turnover programs. Consideration should be given to having neutral organizations, such as NGOs or companies, implement turnover programs.