A DISCUSSION ON IRRIGATION INSTITUTIONS DEVELOPMENT

For some time now it has been accepted by development organizations that participatory approaches to water resource management and institutional development can be a powerful tool in irrigation and drainage operation and maintenance (O&M). In this context, INPIM has developed into a real communication tool. During EDI-sponsored seminars many countries share their experiences in developing their arrangements and programs for institutional changes affecting operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems. The extent of the necessary ingredients for creating water users' associations (WUAs) and transferring O&M is being argued, including: appropriateness of different laws; the need for new rules and regulations; modifications to organizational arrangements; political will; and use of participatory approach for the change process.

Q: Is it an absolute necessity to utilize a participatory approach for the change process to be effective? 
A: Yes. It is a very powerful tool that pays dividends, inherent in ``help them to help themselves". In a way, some aspects remind us of managing an investment portfolio. An investor, actively involved in building his fortune and receiving periodic advice becomes more knowledgeable and successful in the long run. Such an investor may also spot a good investment opportunity for his own circumstances sooner than a portfolio manager. Similarly, a user of an irrigation system may find the best solution for a problem. 

Q : Who should participate in the change process?
A : All players involved - stakeholders, beneficiaries, and end-users. They all have something to contribute to the final decision. Sometimes, because they come from different backgrounds, the result may yield more viable alternatives.

Q : Is not the participatory approach, involving all players, too drawn-out?
A: Indeed, it is a long process, but at the same time it is an interactive process, gradually approaching the optimal outcome, therefore increasing chances for sustainability.

Q : How do you envisage sustainability in irrigated (or drained) agriculture?
A: I view it as an overlapping consensus formed around social, economic and ecological goals, substantiated by political will and coherent and detailed vision that is shared by the rural population. 

Sustainability is difficult to achieve without capacity building. Human capacity building is essential for the long-term success of water users' organizations that are financially sound, and accountable to their members. Capacity building also helps set the stage for change, development of action plans, and the implementation of all programs and activities making the change. Human capacity building is generally needed at all levels, from the Ministry official to the farmer. Since most countries emerging from the totalitarian regimes need to be gradually brought to the level of democratic practices, their initial democratic advances in the transformation of economies helps them in underpinning the reform process in the irrigation/drainage sub-sector. It is widely understood that a `blueprint' does not exist and that each country needs to take into account its own socioeconomic context and set of idiosyncrasies. Sensitivity to the countries' history, social traditions, and prior institutional development is important in designing programs and change to avoid destabilizing effects. In addition, the presence of political will and of a government assuming champion change are crucial for steady progress.

Institutional development in irrigation may take on a different format in each country, but it should be linked to the country's cultural, social and economic context, as well as to prior experience or informal arrangements within the rural institutions, and based on participation of the beneficiaries. This is brought out in the following two cases.

MACEDONIA

In Macedonia involvement of farmers in irrigation is not new. Some forty years ago farmers shared river water, distributing it day and night and agreeing on the irrigation sequence without being formally organized. Since those days the situation has changed. In the 1970s and 1980s, large irrigation systems were built. Self-financed water managing organizations (WMOs) were established under true socialistic/people rules, charging farmers a water fee for their O&M service. To make up the difference in funds needed to finance the irrigation O&M, these WMOs became gradually involved in non-irrigation business. In the early 1990's the collection rate became totally unsatisfactory, partially as a result of less irrigation water applied as the bulk of the market for agricultural produce was lost. Maintenance was being deferred as the WMOs lacked the appropriate funds. Change became inevitable.

Currently, the water sector in Macedonia undergoes metamorphosis. Seemingly, a long tradition of proud private farmers and true socialistic/people rules initially made the government proceed cautiously in lending its support towards creating WUAs. Nevertheless, an element in the irrigation subsector of establishing pilot WUAs for O&M at the field level, using participatory approach and self-help, is firmly laid down in a World Bank project. This element strengthens the government's focus on future policies and water strategy. The government's support and commitment are desirable in terms of taking an active role in promoting participatory management in the form of WUAs and filling the gaps in the existing institutional arrangements. It can be expected that the pilot WUAs will lay a basis for future participatory management in irrigation and water-business partnerships so that the potential of the irrigation subsector in Macedonia can be regained.

GEORGIA

A different example of the institutional development in irrigation and drainage can be found in Georgia, a small Caucasus country with an enterprising population. The former regime of central and top-down command had left its marks in rural irrigation development. Prior to the independence, in 1991, the government operated and maintained the major irrigation infrastructure and state and cooperative farms maintained the on-farm network. In 1992, the land reform process began by the passing of new land laws that allowed long leases of arable land to private landowners. Many new farmers did not have basic farming skills. Around the same time, Georgia had lost its principal (Soviet Union) market for food products and farm produce. The government, lacking adequate funds for proper system maintenance, shifted the on-farm irrigation O&M responsibility to the village governments with the intent of transferring it to amelioration service cooperatives (ASCs) later. The ASCs, as newly formed entities by the government, were meant to fill the institutional vacuum resulting from the disappearance of the large state and cooperative farms.

The government achieved considerable success in the establishment of ASCs. However, their efforts, due to the enormous size of the undertaking, combined with financial problems within the sector, were frustrated. The new ASCs generally cover the area of a former state or cooperative farm. They often have the same leadership and were established rather mechanically (top-down) without farmers' participation. The governance of these ASCs, based on complex legal framework, provided for little transparency on financial, membership and management arrangements. Farmers did not understand what the ASCs could do for them. Participatory management was not in the picture.

Considering these problems, the government restructured the ASCs into more democratic associations. As a result, the existing legal and organizational framework for O&M in the irrigation sector is being revised. Farmers are being consulted not only on the proposed changes of the conversion into the associations, including membership rights and duties, but also on rehabilitation of canals and network. It seems that in Georgia the democratic and participatory process to establish self-reliant and financially autonomous amelioration service associations is on its way. Although the initial new development is promising, the government is aware of the tremendous need for human capacity building and training of farmers in irrigation and on-farm business practices.

Steps to reform rural irrigation institutions may differ in each country. But what is common is clear: there is a long road from theory to practice, presenting many challenges. The challenges may be in the design of new arrangements or in the implementation of the change process. To succeed requires hard work and devotion, but primarily a vision of long-term socioeconomic goals, presence of political will, and participation of those affected.

By Vilma Horinkova
Free-lance Consultant, Water Resources & Agriculture Institutional Issues
Alexandria, Virginia, USA - tel/fax: 1(561) 547 -9014
West Palm Beach, Florida, USA - tel/fax: 1(703) 329-8876email: VilmaHorinkova@compuserve.com