Context

Poor rural people increasingly find themselves living in a ‘new rurality’. Water management strategies try to satisfy increasing demand, while at the same time coping with limited and declining resources (Rauch 2008). Agriculture remains the driving force of many rural economies, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and water use affects all livelihood sectors.

For this reason, agricultural water management (AWM) – which takes place in a complex institutional context of regulatory functions and management responsibilities – is crucial to rural development and poverty reduction.

A central plank of IFAD’s strategy is to work with rural organizations, in particular water user groups (WUGs),¹ to foster participation in and ownership of change processes that are designed to improve management of natural resources and the resulting benefit streams.

This involves collaborating with both formal and informal rural organizations, complemented by IFAD and partner support to national and regional organizations working with poor rural people.

Current research on water-related rural institutions and organizations finds that there is no single ‘right’ type of institution or organization, there is no one recipe, and that more emphasis should be placed on the interplay between them, and, instead of imposing new institutions and organizations, policies should seek to build on the strengths of existing ones (Meinzen-Dick 2007). Recent research on water-related rural institutions and organizations is inclined to criticize the tendency to establish formal WUGs, regarding them as contracting organizations of the state – and the even more widespread tendency to advocate them as blueprint solutions in diverse contexts globally (Mollinga et al 2007, IWMI 2007, Cleaver 2006).

In the past IFAD has restricted WUGs to irrigation, and almost no experience has been gained with WUGs for livestock or multiple-use systems (MUS). However, the organization is aware that rural livelihoods depend on multiple uses of water (domestic, agricultural and other).

Main challenges

Many researchers and practitioners challenge the overall impact of WUGs on poverty reduction efforts (i.e. in many cases there is an attribution gap). Contrary to the expectations of many water management organizations – both in and outside of government – WUGs have not always been capable of solving the problems related to water resource management (WRM).

Equity-and efficiency-related challenges

• Exclusive formation and participation. Efficiency and effectiveness are often affected by gender inequity, elite capture and marginalization (intentional or otherwise).
• Indirect exclusion from WUGs. This can happen, for example, through language barriers and high transaction costs.
• Lack of context specificity. External actors are (partially) blind to local existing arrangements and fail to recognize local traditions and practices or the dynamics of change.
• Lack of capacity to properly manage operation and maintenance (O&M). Irrigation management transfer is most often established so that state agencies continue to own water distribution and management systems and have a regulatory role.
• Underestimation of the pivotal role of water-related investments. When water infrastructure and management capacities are inadequate, it is often the case that investments in other income-generating activities cannot succeed either.

Sustainability-related challenges

• Sustainability of newly established WUGs. In cases where projects create WUGs or where existing WUGs are bypassed, performance is generally weak and sustainability is very much in doubt.
• Cost recovery in publicly financed schemes. Full cost recovery is unrealistic in poor rural settings, depending on the type of water infrastructure in place, even though WUGs might have appropriate management capacities.
• Lack or absence of economic incentives to participate. Without noticeable tangible or intangible benefits, communities discontinue water management tasks and do not take on extended socio-economic responsibilities.
• Conflict resolution. Provisions are inadequate.
• Failure to take changing external conditions into account (Rauch 2008).

Overall performance-related challenges

• Occurrence of moral hazard (corruption). When information in an institutional setting is unequally distributed (Huppert 2005), corruption can penetrate to all administrative levels and overrule existing regulations (e.g. fee-payment schemes); mutual trust decreases and existing incentive schemes become ineffective.
• Lack of outside support from government agencies and donors. This may particularly be the case for WUGs growing beyond their initial mandates.
• Scaling up or replicating fragile, local successes as a ‘blueprint’ solution. These may potentially exceed WUGs’ capacities.
• Overload of by-laws and regulations. This may prevent the creation of flexible, site-specific regulations.

IFAD approaches

Intersectoral management is a relatively new, holistic approach that offers a promising framework for better understanding and pro-poor mobilization of potential development synergies. In IFAD’s approach to water, this theme is not central, but is considered a holistic element in strengthening poor rural people's livelihoods and resilience. IFAD investment approaches to water-related interface management take into account the country-specific structures of the rural political economy. In so doing, they support the development of pro-poor, community-based natural resource management (NRM) institutions, which in turn improve farmer-led agriculture, natural resource technologies, and the sharing of knowledge of these achievements.

With regard to WUGs, it is of primary importance to consider critically in which contexts to establish or support WUGs (institutional approaches), to render appropriate technical support (technical approaches), and to improve budget allocations (investment approaches).

Institutional approaches

• Leave water users who participate in WUGs with positive net benefits.
• Monitor WUGs to see if they actually improve delivery of water services, water management and increased direct and indirect benefits.
• Render interventions context-specific, for example by applying strategic institutional positioning.
• Take existing structures into account when formalizing and strengthening WUGs.
• Incorporate existing formal and informal governance mechanisms when dealing with conflict resolution.
• Consider the dynamics and realities of local arrangements, as well as of social and power relationships (see IFPRI 2007 and the Influence Network Mapping (NetMap) tool sheet.
• Recognize the multiple uses of water in and around households to ensure greater participation by women.
• Design non-monetary incentive schemes to encourage participation.
• Foster a stable, but responsive political, legal and institutional context. Address the specific challenges of local governance and accountability, particularly in fragile states.

Technical approaches

• Enhance the capacities of WUG members so that they can responsibly handle the tasks of conflict management, arbitration, accounting and reporting. This is crucially important at all scales.
• Grant WUG members access to revenue records and hold their contracting partners accountable. Corruption needs to be addressed where required.
• Render necessary support services to WUGs, such as access to rural financial services in the event of high or unexpected O&M costs.
• Facilitate the financial stability of WUGs to ensure that O&M costs are covered in the short and long term, even though they might not be within the users’ possibilities. Temporary subsidies should not be ruled out a priori as a solution.
• Identify who actually needs to participate in meetings and reduce their costs of participation (Lobo 2008).
• As a general rule, do not introduce full farmer management if the scale and complexity of a scheme precludes it and O&M cost recovery is unlikely.
• Facilitate the evolution of WUGs into multipurpose organizations by enabling their participation in the formation of poverty reduction strategy programmes (PRSPs).

Investment approaches

• Target investments in capacity-building. Accompany infrastructural investment with sufficient capacity investment.
• Sequence interventions and investments with water-related activities in mind.
• Allow for investment flexibility when designing projects – and when there is demand for flexibility.
• Dedicate sufficient time and adequate resources during project design and budget formulation to understanding local arrangements and supporting their evolution.
• Provide the necessary assistance and a facilitating framework for long-term viability of WUGs, especially when they evolve beyond their initial mandate.

IFAD case study

Madagascar: Upper Mandraré Basin Development Project (1995-2001)

This IFAD project was designed to increase the on- and off-farm income of rural inhabitants in order to improve their living conditions and help increase food security. It involved training local farmer organizations, such as WUGs, in planning, management, organization and negotiation. Literacy training and training in the formulation of local development plans were also provided.

Approach

WUG development

The approach was designed to facilitate sustainable WUGs, and not simply build and upgrade physical infrastructure, by:

• increasing transparency and accountability – a protocole d’accord was designed jointly with WUGs that elaborated community contributions, intended results and WUG responsibilities for scheme management.
• continuing support to rural organizations and providing training in the field – this was considered vital in order to sustain existing structures, for example one field visit per week.

Participation and empowerment

The empowerment approach required sufficient implementation funds and adequately trained personnel to:

• apply a variety of methods for identifying problems at the community level through diagnostic and participatory planning (carried out in cooperation with socio-organizational developers from regional non-governmental organizations).
• follow a predetermined, participatory, step-by-step process for engaging with communities.
• prepare internal project process notes to facilitate project staff engagement with communities.

Activities

Inclusive targeting and secure land and water access

• The landless and farmers without large livestock and with limited or no access to irrigated land are the most vulnerable. Within households, the most vulnerable are women and children. Rainfed cultivation, small livestock and income-generating activities were included to meet their needs.
• Other identified risks were the efficacy of service providers and potential conflict between community organizations and local administrations, risking the capture of community benefits by local pressure groups. This was dealt with by:

• tackling the issues of land security and the transfer of scheme management for irrigation
  
• using accompanying measures to eradicate abuses in plot distribution on newly irrigated schemes
  
• facilitating specific plans for the use of irrigation areas in cooperation with social development organizers (cropping of different zones).

Results

• The project succeeded in launching a comprehensive process featuring a high degree of genuine participation and enabling community empowerment.
• In 2005, about half the WUGs had matured to an appropriate level, allowing the external project intervention to progressively disengage. Further institutional strengthening of WUGs also reduced the number of trainers, leaving capable farmers to train their fellows. But the WUGs still faced constraints, namely high illiteracy, a low rate of self-financing, reliance on close advisory support and low uptake of commercial activities. The formation of unions among groups attained mixed results.

Sources: IFAD 2000 and Bullock 2005.

---

1/ Also commonly referred to as water user associations (WUAs).

---

Topic sheet author: Maria Glaetzer               

Peer reviewed by:  David Molden (IWMI)

---

References

• Bullock, A. 2005. Upper Mandraré Basin Development Project, Project Summary, draft. Rome: IFAD.

• Cleaver, F. 2006. Seminar 5, Poverty, participation and empowerment: Beyond the consensus. Paper presented at the ESRC Seminar Series: Water Governance – Challenging the Consensus., Bradford, UK.
• Huppert, W. 2005. Water management in the ‘moral hazard trap’: The example of irrigation. Paper presented at the Stockholm Water Symposium, Stockholm.
• IFAD. 2000. Republique de Madagascar, Projet de Mise en Valeur du Haut Bassin du Mandraré (PHBM), Rapport d’Evaluation Intermediaire. Rome..
• IFAD. 2007. IFAD strategic framework 2007-2010. Rome.
• IFPRI. 2007. Net-Map toolbox: Influence mapping of social networks, by Eva Schiffer. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute; and Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water & Food.
• IWMI. 2007. Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture, by D. Molden. London: Earthscan; and Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
• Lobo, C. 2008. A sourcebook – institutional and organizational analysis for pro-poor change: Meeting IFAD’s millennium challenge. Rome: IFAD.
• Meinzen-Dick, R.S. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) 104 (39): 15200-15205.
• Mollinga, P.P., R.S. Meinzen-Dick and D.J. Merrey. 2007. Politics, plurality and problemsheds: A strategic approach for reform of agricultural water resources management. Development Policy Review 25 (6): 699-719.
• Rauch, T. 2008. The new rurality: Its implications for a new, pro-poor agricultural water strategy. Rome: IFAD.