Nội dung

www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams Global Development of Farmer Water User Associations (WUA): Lessons from South-East Asia1 Mei Xie2, Ph.D. World Bank Institute The author, Dr. Mei Xie, is a World Bank (WB) expert on Water Resources Development. She has been in Vietnam many times since 1996 in order to collaborate with agencies of the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (MARD) to prepare the Agreement of the ODA Project of Water Resources Development in the Mekong Delta. The Agreement was signed in 2000 between WB & Vietnam State Bank (authorized by the Vietnam Goverment) and WB had appointed her as the Project Leader since then. Her outstanding efforts together with the Vietnamese side cooperation had overcome objective difficulties to implement the Project successfully. In 2006 she was promoted to a new function in the WB Institute. Rural paysages in Vietnam Trends in Irrigation Management Irrigation management is moving towards joint management and partnership between governments and farmers and their water groups. Involving farmers in irrigation management – giving them voice in making decisions regarding water distribution and 1 The content in power-point was presented at the workshop on WUA Development in Vietnam, Halong, May 11-13, 2007. The paper was included in the proceedings of the Regional Workshop on WUA Development, Bucharest, Romania, June 4-7, 2007 2 Dr. Mei Xie, Sr. Water Resources Specialist, World Bank Institute (WBI), World Bank, Washington DC. USA. Email: mxie@worldbank.org 1 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams system O&M - is referred to as Participatory Irrigation Management, or PIM. The process by which government transfers irrigation management responsibilities from its line agencies or companies to farmer groups is referred to as Irrigation Management Transfer, or IMT. Management responsibilities cover the operations and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation infrastructure. In some countries, they also include the determination of irrigation service fees and collection. Many countries are moving towards PIM and IMT, by organizing farmers into water user groups and transferring certain levels of responsibility to them. The name given to these farmer water groups differs from country to country, depending largely on the country’s institutional set up and culture. For example, in many countries (such as Turkey, Mexico, China, India, and most Eastern European countries), the term ‘water user associations’, or WUAs, is adopted. In Pakistan, the term ‘farmer organizations’, or FO, is used. In the Philippines, the term ‘irrigators associations’, or IA, is common. In Iran, ‘farmer cooperatives’ is the nomenclature that is used. To simplify, the term WUA is used in this paper to refer to all of the above farmer water groups. Water suppliers, which can be government or semi-government water companies, wholesale irrigation water to farmers or their groups. Usually, governments manage technically and financially complex structures, such as main systems up to secondary canals and structures, and wholesales water to farmer WUA, who manage lower level systems, such as tertiary level canals and below and minor structures. There are also places where an entire irrigation system that used to be managed by the government is now operated completely by farmer groups, though these are less common. The focus of discussion below is on irrigation infrastructure that is built, financed and operated by government, and not those that are built, funded and maintained traditionally by farmers themselves (or traditional farmer management). Developed countries, such as the US, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc., have implemented IMT since the 1960s and 1970s, while developing countries have done so more recently. Many are developing WUAs to implement IMT, and this is spreading. To name a few, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia in South America; India and Pakistan in South Asia; Turkey and Iran in the Middle East; Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia; Albania and Romania in Eastern Europe; Philippines, China, Indonesia, and Vietnam in East Asia; and Mali, Niger, Tanzania, and Egypt in Africa. These countries are at varying stages of WUA development, and others are planning to introduce similar concepts and institutions. Some view PIM, WUA and IMT as a revolution in irrigation management. Different countries have developed their own WUA and IMT ‘models’, based on their specific cultural, political, institutional, economic and climatic conditions. No two country models are exactly alike. While some are making significant progress, others are facing challenges related to the sustainability of WUA and IMT, and in several countries there has been political or institutional resistance. Many lessons can be learnt and shared among the countries. In order to distill lessons, this paper briefly explores four basic questions and presents some cases from South and East Asia. The four questions are: why were WUAs developed? what did WUA help achieve? who mobilized and supported WUA? how to develop sustainable WUA? 2 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams What Are the Driving Forces for WUA? In the 1970s and 80s, the world witnessed a large expansion of capital investment in irrigation, as part of the ‘green revolution’. These capital investments were mostly in large-scale irrigation funded and managed by governments. Towards late 1980s, the fiscal burden of the public sector in managing and operating irrigation systems emerged as an issue for many governments, and some infrastructure started to deteriorate due to the lack of funds for adequate maintenance and efficient operations. There was then a shift from investment in new construction and irrigation area expansion to that in rehabilitation and area improvement. Irrigation service fees (ISF) were subsequently introduced in many places, aiming to improve O&M cost recovery. Some countries, such as the Philippines and Malaysia, initiated efforts to promote farmer participation in irrigation management jointly with governments. For an irrigation system to be sustainable, there should be full cost recovery of O&M spending related to the infrastructure – i.e. water users should pay irrigation service fees (ISF) that can fully cover O&M costs. However, governments have failed to raise enough revenues from ISF (in some places, ‘water fees’) for O&M, and this in turn has led to the deterioration of infrastructure and inefficient use of water. As a result, the measured productivity of irrigation infrastructure often falls behind design targets, as seen in many irrigation systems worldwide. In fact, with appropriate levels of ISF, farmer water users have the incentives to see that their irrigations systems are functional and productive. Their managed systems often cost less than those managed by government agencies. In the 1990s, institutional reforms took place in many parts of the world, reflected in policies and efforts to improve ISF collection for greater cost recovery, promote farmer participation to improve accountability in irrigation services, and reduce government fiscal burdens. This was done through the devolution of irrigation management responsibilities, especially for lower level irrigation systems, to farmer groups. It was under these conditions that the development of farmer water organizations such as WUA emerged as conduit to communication between the public sector and farmers, and to take over irrigation management. It was done either as a part of national institutional reforms or as pilots under government or donor funded irrigation programs. The specific driving forces for irrigation sector reforms or for WUA development and IMT differ from country-to country, depending on political and economic conditions. For example, § In Mexico, it was the economic crisis of the late 1980s that prompted the transfer of irrigation management and infrastructure to water users through WUA, and saw a reduction in number of staff in the irrigation agency and a shift in the role of government agencies. § In Turkey, it was the need to decentralize management to local governments and to reform the state bureaucracy (DSI), which was struggling with the falling budget for O&M of irrigation infrastructure, and the need to expand irrigation to new areas in Eastern Turkey. Learning from the experience of Mexico, the government started the IMT reform and establishment of WUA, and moved some agency staff to new areas. § In the Philippines, it was the need for better ISF collection, which supported a large part of the O&M costs of the National Irrigation Administration, and the need for streamlining of the public sector following the country’s fiscal crisis. 3 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams § In Andhra Pradesh State in India, the push for reform of its largest public sector entity (the Irrigation Department) and the establishment of WUA were championed by a pro-reform state-level administration and facilitated by the availability of investments in irrigation rehabilitation that were partly-funded by the World Bank. § In China, tertiary and below canal levels used to be the responsibility of village and county authorities through communes. With the economic opening and reform since the 1980s, these levels of authorities largely collapsed and irrigation management at these lower levels were largely left unattended or allowed to deteriorate. This created an institutional ‘vacuum’, for which WUA came at the right time, along with other forms of irrigation arrangements at lower levels. § In Albania, it was the collapse of the communist system and its reform of large state farms into smallholdings cultivated by private farmers that created space for WUA to fill in irrigation management. § In other places, such as Vietnam, Uzbekistan, etc., the development of WUA was promoted by external donor-funded investment projects. Understanding the driving forces in each country is critical to understanding the lessons and experience from that country, as they determine the local demand for such services and organizations and the eventual sustainability of WUA. Mountainous village in North Vietnam What Are Modalities of WUA ? In most cases, WUA are taking over management responsibility (as opposed to property ownership) of tertiary and below canal levels of irrigation infrastructure. In these cases, government agencies manage main and up to secondary canals and structures, own the property, supervise and assist the WUA that manage tertiary and lower level canals and structures. WUA are typically responsible for the simple operation of gates, cleaning of canals, collecting water charges or ISF from their members, managing their 4 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams own accounts, and paying for the government agencies for their services. While some countries give freedom to WUA to charge extra fees for the WUA’s own expenditures (China, Mexico, Albania), others require their WUA to submit all ISF charges to the government agencies, which in turn remit a portion to the WUA for farmer managed O&M costs (e.g., Philippines, Iran, Pakistan). There are also places where WUA (or their federations) have been given the management responsibility for an entire irrigation system –O&M and fee collection, while government agencies simply have regulatory and technical assistance functions (the US, Japan, Albania, some irrigation districts in Mexico, a few cases in the Philippines, etc.). These cases are less common and, typically, such systems are small and less complex. Transfer of ownership of irrigation infrastructure is less common, and it largely depends on the legal framework of a country. Countries such as Mexico, Albania, have set up special laws to allow the transfer of ownership of irrigation infrastructure to WUA or their federations. Others such as Iran, China, and the Philippines do not have the legal basis or are still working on the legal framework for such transfers. Who Develops WUA and Under What Institutional Framework ? The WUA and IMT concepts are relatively new (introduced mainly in the past decade) for many developing countries. Thus, in terms of “who” the main players or implementers are, different modalities have emerged, depending on the institutional set up of a country. To give a few examples, in the Philippines the national irrigation administration (or NIA) has the responsibility for organizing farmer irrigators into irrigators’ associations. This has been defined by its charter since the early 1980s. In Mexico, the national water commission (CNA) was created in 1989 to carry out the IMT program. Similarly, in Pakistan, provincial level irrigation development authorities (for example PIDA in Punjab and SIDA in Sindh) were established in the late 1990s to initiate the organization of WUA in their respective provinces. In China, however, it has been the provincial authorities (local governments) and their irrigation district companies which have taken the major role in farmer mobilization and organization of WUA since 1995. In Iran, the format varies – in some provinces, it was the Operation & Maintenance Companies (OMC), associated with the local water authorities to pilot the WUA; in others, it was the local agriculture branches of the agricultural ministry. In Albania, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, the project management units (PMU) under donor funded investment programs introduced and implemented the WUA, working with the central government agriculture ministries. Some countries formulated special laws, which identify the responsible entities (Mexico, Albania, Romania, India, Pakistan, etc). Others do not have specific laws and, instead, issued ministerial circulars and ordinances to facilitate WUA implementation. How Have WUA Developed ? This question deals with the process of developing WUA – composition of management structures of WUA, sustainability of WUA, legal status, etc. Each country has its own political, institutional and socio-economic settings. Generally speaking, one can summarize a few commonalities and basic principles. The process to develop a WUA can take 6-12 months, assuming other conditions are ready. It involves: 5 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams § Define legal basis for WUA – by either establishing specific laws or regulations or finding ‘common ground’ among existing laws to clearly define the scope within which a WUA functions –responsibilities, nature of the organization, membership, relationship with members and government agencies, administrative and financial arrangements, water rights, etc. § Disseminate information to farmers and their groups, carry out campaigns and promotional activities, and train candidate farmer leaders § Define physical boundaries of each WUA and water group, and collect base data (important for contract negotiations, registration and monitoring & evaluation). § Prepare WUA by-laws and elect farmer leaders § Pass by-laws and register WUA § Provide technical support, capacity building, and supervision WUA should represent farmer water users in a command area democratically; have legal status to enter into contracts and the necessary authority to manage an irrigation system (partial or whole); operate and maintain irrigation infrastructure that is transferred to them or under their jurisdiction; and have administrative and financial autonomy. The management structure of a WUA is similar across many countries. It mainly consists of an executive board that is elected by farmers and an assembly of farmers or their representatives. Two Examples from East & South Asia In the following, examples are drawn from China and India. Both countries started development of WUA around the same time, in the mid-1990s. Both depend heavily on irrigated agriculture. Both initiated institutional reform in the irrigation sector as a part of their broad economic development policies in the past decade, and yet, they differ in many ways and offer valuable lessons to share with other countries. It should be noted that there are varying models of WUA in the different states of India and in different provinces of China. In this paper, WUA in Hunan province of China and those in Andhra Pradesh state of India are examined, as they were both pioneers in their respective countries in the establishment of WUA. These models have now spread widely in other states/provinces of the two countries. Comparisons are made below using the questions above: why? what? who? and how? China, Hunan. WUA has been a recent phenomenon over the past decade. The concept was introduced through the World Bank funded “Yangtze Water Development Project” (1994-2000) that covered Hunan and Hubei provinces. A first WUA was set up in 1995 in China. Since then, over 20,000 WUA have been established across the country. To draw lessons, one should understand why WUA was introduced and the driving forces back then. Water resources – a critical factor in economic development. Water resources in China total 2,800 billion m3, the 4th largest stock in the world. However, per capita water resources are only 1/4 of the world average, so China is among the countries with the most serious water shortages. Water is thus an important factor for development in China. 6 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams This in turn has impact on the management of irrigation, and on how water saving benefits brought by WUA are valued. Water management at different levels of the government. The Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) is the central body making policies and regulations for irrigation management. The actual management of irrigation systems is done locally at provincial level. The bureaus of water resources at the provincial, municipal and prefecture ( ) levels are each responsible for irrigation schemes within their respective jurisdictions. For example, a large-scale irrigation system that benefits two or more prefectures is managed by provincial water resources bureau (PWRB)3. Otherwise, it is managed by a prefecture office. Irrigation management prior to 1995 – Farmers typically viewed irrigation as the government’s business. For medium –large irrigation districts (ID), provincial or prefecture bureaus were commonly responsible for the O&M of main to branch/secondary canals and structures. Tertiary and below levels and small systems were managed by irrigation stations that belonged to the county, township and village administrations (Fig.1). There was little participation from farmers, who had no voice in management decisions. Since the country’s economic restructuring in the early 1980s, the old collective systems by Dam River or main canal communes collapsed and were replaced by household P. W responsibility-contract systems that allowed for pre R B fe c ure tur a eo u s individual small farms. Subsequently, irrigation ffic Provincial e WR Bureau management at village and township levels became ineffective and complex, given the small land holdings and large number of farmers whose production no more depended on central commune planning but on markets. The attention of lower level administrative authorities also shifted to other economic opportunities. Over-staffing, lack of staff incentives, and chronic shortages of government funds led to inadequate O&M of irrigation infrastructure. Unreliable delivery and inefficient use of irrigation water were common. Farmers were unhappy. Who was responsible for what Sec o nd a ry Ca na .. l al Lateral can Township, County, Village levels v ia Collective Ma nagement System Fig. 1 Division of Responsibility for Irrigation Management Prior to WUA Water fees were collected through several layers - from farmers to farmer groups, village, county, and township irrigation stations, and finally to irrigation districts. Other types of fees were often ‘added’ to water fee collection. Farmers were reluctant to pay. Both central and local governments were eager to search for new approaches to irrigation management. The introduction of WUA was timely, as it filled an institutional vacuum. New modality - self-managed I&D district (SIDD). The modality has two key components (Fig.2): ID =WSC+WUA, where WSC represents the water supply company, which could be a government agency or a semi-government company to supply water to urban and rural users, with users represented on the company board. The WUA represents farmer users. There is a contractual relationship between WUA and WSC, based on water and service provision and fee collection. This modality eliminated multilayer fee collection and made the supplier accountable (Fig. 3). While WUA has since 3 There are over 400 large irrigation districts (ID), defined as greater than 20,000 ha each. 7 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams spread across Hunan and China, WSC are still being developed as they require state agency/enterprise reforms, and this has taken time. Dam River or main canal WSC outlet / WUA Inlet for Contract Contractual partnership Water Supply Company Se c o Provincial WR Bureau – nda ry Latera l Ca nal Supply water Water Users Association WSC WUA Water Supply Company WUG3 WUA 3 Pay fees Main canals Set policies, guidelines, & supervise Lower level Water User Associations (WUA) WUA 2 WUA 1 WUG3 WUG3 Fig. 2 New Modality - Self-managed I&D District (SIDD) Fig. 3 SIDD Modality Source: Yangtze River Water Project, WB The story of JingTang (JT) WUA illustrates how WUA were initiated and evolved, and their impacts. JT WUA is located in the Tieshan Irrigation District in Hunan. Established in 1998, it covers 370 ha, consists of 4 villages and a population of 3,632, or 972 farm households. The area grows rice, beans, cotton, and oil seeds. It draws water from the main Tieshan reservoir, 2 small local reservoirs, and 3 pumping stations. It has 3 lateral canals (7.5km.), 13 sub-laterals (8km.), and 108 field canals (26km.). Before 1998, there was no farmer participation in irrigation management, which was considered as government duties. Irrigation fees were collected through multiple layers of administration. Over 30 percent of the collected water fee was for non-water activities, and 55 percent went to pay the salaries of 9 irrigation staff, who were put in place by township authorities. The staff were not accountable to farmers, and had little incentive to improve services. They asked for funds from the local government whenever they needed money for maintenance and repair or for other matters. The shortage of funds and mis-management left infrastructure to deteriorate. Farmers complained often and refused to pay, as there was no guarantee of water delivery to the fields. There were many fights (some resulted in death) among farmers over water and between farmers and local authorities. Irrigation management was viewed as a burden by local administrations, which decided to try the new participatory irrigation management concepts introduced under the World Bankfunded Yangtze Water Resources Project. JingTang became one of the early pilots. In order to ensure success, it was agreed that WUA development would need to follow five principles. WUA should: Executive Committee (5 persons) Representative Assembly (49 persons) Group leaders (37 persons) Members WUA Decision Making Body WUG Farmers in 4 villages 972 HH Fig. 4 JingTang WUA – Management Structure 1. be viewed by farmers as their own organization, with democratically elected committees and freedom in financial management, and relative operational independence from government on routine activities. 2. use the hydrological boundary as the WUA boundary. 3. measure water flows at intakes from the water supplier and pay water fees according to the volume of water supplied. 8 www.vncold.vn 4. 5. Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams collect fees from members and pay directly to the water supplier. have a reliable water supply and functional distribution system. Mountainous fields in Yunnan (China) The provincial government set up leading groups at each level of the administration (from province down to prefecture, county, and village), to guide the WUA program. Extensive training was provided to government officials, farmers, local training institutions in order to raise awareness among public. After the boundary of a WUA was agreed upon with farmers, 37 water groups were defined and group leaders were elected to form a 49person WUA Representative Assembly (more than 1 representative for bigger groups). The Assembly drafted by-laws and elected the WUA executive committee through democratic election by secret ballot, which was a novelty at that time (Fig.4)4. All the ballots were achieved, open for inspection. In China, the size of land holdings is relatively homogenous, with differences in land allocations accounted for mainly by their different quality characteristics. Thus, one vote per household was used. The project provided for a WUA office, with space for farmers to gather, to view WUA by-laws and regulations, maps and system layouts, and to examine the financial records of the WUA if desired. These documents are required to be displayed on the wall of a WUA office. The application for the JT WUA was reviewed by the Civil Affairs Agency for their compliance with the five principles. Irrigation management was transferred from the county-village irrigation stations to JT WUA. In addition, ownership of the 2 small reservoirs and 3 pumping stations (which were funded by the old communes and township governments in the past) were transferred to WUA. JingTang WUA has since been operating and maintaining the infrastructure, determining the level of and collecting water charges from members, and paying fees to the Tieshan Water Supply Company for each seasonal contract. It keeps a certain amount of the collected water fees to meet its own expenditure. The WUA and farmers voluntarily input labor and funds to improve the irrigation infrastructure and 4 As a general rule, if a WUA covers less than 500 ha, the management committee would have 3-5 persons (chairman, deputy chairman, accountant/secretary and technical staff). If it covers over 500ha, a 5-7 person committee may be needed. Tenure is 3 years for committee members. 9 www.vncold.vn Website of the Vietnam National Commission On Large Dams expand coverage to new irrigation areas using water saved since the introduction of IMT. From the large-sized slogans written on walls of the villages that provide guidance and exhortations on individual farmer behavior, it is clear that there has been a massive change of attitudes towards caring for the irrigation infrastructure and towards water savings. Local governments have continued to provide support to rural infrastructure, market access, and agriculture extension to farmers. Four features about the JT WUA should be highlighted. First, its policy of Farmers Addition charge “Three Transparencies” - water price, irrigated as management management fee area and actual water volume. This was fee (3%). No other village charges welcomed by farmers, who disliked the lack of committee information on irrigation management that WUA had characterized the earlier situation. Addition charge Township as management Second, reduced layers of water fee Gov. fee (big %) collection – from four to two (Fig.5). This Irrigation reduced the financial burden on farmers, and District made irrigation providers accountable. Water fees are allowed to vary from year to year, Fig. 5 Typical way of water fee collection before & after WUA depending on savings from the previous year, and on the needs and expenditures of the WUA. A review of the fee structure is done and voted upon by the Representative Assembly. Third, varying water charges between upstream, mid-stream and downstream users, depending on water availability. Fourth, expanding to other ‘business’, in addition to irrigation, to supplement WUA income. For example, JT WUA used the 2 small reservoirs and numerous water ponds to develop fishery, duck and pig breeding. The income reduced water charges by $4/ha for all members. Before After Comparing before and after JT WUA, the changes are striking (Fig.6). 9 staff at Irrigation WUA management staff (5 Water fee is down by 30-45%; water fee station (55% water fees persons) to salary) collection rate is down from 60% in the past Saved water (17%/yr), Wasted water, no one to over 95%; water savings in irrigation by cared. water use = everyone cares. water use = 13,500 m3 /ha 17%; labor input during irrigation is reduced 11,200 m3/ha water fee = $40-46/ha water fee = $22-42/ha by 65%, and the saved labors allowed male 1 crop 2 crops. Increased farmer farmers to seek work outside the villages income farmers paid more water Paid less for good and earned additional income of $0.5 million fees for poor water services, saved labor by 2/3, services each year. Other benefits included got $530,000 more income improvement in irrigation service and canal Fig. 6 Comparison of before and after WUA maintenance, transparencies in financial management of water charges, farmer income, and reductions in irrigation time, farm costs, financial burden of local government and conflict among farmers. Before After China – After 10 years of WUA development. During 1995 – 2004, the concept of PIM and WUA has been widely accepted in China. Most large and medium-sized IDs have adopted the management modality of combining professional management with collective management by farmer groups. There are over 20,000 WUA reported to exist in 10