Agricultural water infrastructure and management

Learning note

print Print this page

This Note relates to KSF3: Alignment of design features with IFAD Strategic Objectives and lessons learnt; analysis and results framework
Version: January 2008

Core issues

Core issues

IFAD investments in agricultural water (AW) infrastructure and management should complement or strengthen the livelihood and coping systems of the rural poor. Building upon local culture, knowledge and institutions, and promoting group participation among target groups, investments should deepen socio-cultural understanding and expand IFAD’s expertise of AW development. Investments need to address the following core issues:

  • AW development in rural development projects must be compatible with the physical resource base and complemented by, or complementary to, up- and downstream activities. It should take account of competing demands especially for domestic and livestock drinking water. Development plans should address issues raised by present efficiency of (rain-fed) water use or irrigation practices. AW proposals for a given area should match mid- and long-term, up- and downstream, agricultural and non-agricultural developments.
  • The target group should participate pro-actively from the earliest possible stages of the life of AW developments, from design, through O&M to rehabilitation and reconstruction. Participation should also extend to decisions to change AW use due to externalities such as droughts, floods or urbanization. Lessons learned from any successful user adaptations to officially-operated schemes should be built upon.
  • Poor rural men and women should be assured of equitable, reliable and sustained access to, use and control of land and water, also of equitable distribution of the benefits of water use.
  • Local and customary laws and regulations for resource allocation, costing/cost recovery, as well as local institutions and organizations governing AW decision-making, should be duly taken into account.
  • Capacity-building for sustained AW use should be promoted through support for local institutional frameworks (traditional frameworks, Community Committees, Water User Associations (WUAs), Municipal Water Boards, Watershed Development Entities, etc.,) as appropriate to the scale of IFAD investments.
  • The policy and institutional framework for water governance applied to AW must provide for and emphasise appropriate gender balance; participation of the poor in formulation, implementation, management and  turnover of irrigation and other AW infrastructure; AW decentralization; equity-oriented usufruct and use rights linked to accessible and respected means for enforcement and conflict resolution; consistently applied claim and appeal structures; public (municipal/decentralized) information, communication and early warning systems; and transparent and participative public investments guided by Social Poverty Indexes or the like.
Key tasks for design and review

The work of design and review teams will need to cover many, and often most, of the following points or caveats:

  • All proposals should take account of the policy and legislative requirements affecting water use.
  • Do not assume that AW management refers solely to irrigation; other rural uses should also be considered, thus making assumptions on the extent and sustainability of water supplies available more accurate.
  • Take sufficient account of the weaknesses, poor management, conflicts of interest or negative mindsets of public water management agencies, limitations of some private sector operators, and reluctance of private sector suppliers/contractors to do business with some public water management agencies.
  • The capacity/will of public agencies to change their approach to AW development should not be over-estimated. Combined with inappropriate water legislation or regulations and poor governance, such organisational inertia can put at risk project plans to improve access to, and control of, AW by the poor. Remedial measures may need to be financed.
  • AW development proposals must give full attention to the rights of access or usufruct of poor beneficiaries to land, as well as water. When compounded by unrealistic assumptions for agricultural development – see Learning Note 3.1 Technology Change for Livelihood Development and failure to take sufficient account of other externalities (e.g. potential damage by transhumant livestock, urban encroachment) AW proposals become implausible.
  • Specify means to overcome the many obstacles to beneficiary participation in planning, construction and O&M.
  • Tendencies to over-design or over-cost AW works vis-à-vis the needs and capabilities of small farmers, or to under-estimate construction and commissioning times, should be resisted by design teams.
  • Alternatives to design assumptions or fall-back options in the event of deviations from expectations need to be explored with beneficiaries and other stakeholders.
  • Clear and realistic plans should be agreed with beneficiaries for O&M handover; the roles of grants and subsidies vs. expectations and the affordability of cost recovery should be clear.
  • Links to broader issues in water governance (upstream vs. downstream, urban vs. rural) should be specified.
  • Disaster forecasting systems (storms, floods, drought) should receive attention as part of design.
  • Summarise findings on institutional capacities, stakeholder involvement & M&E proposals in the Key Files.

Valid CSS! Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional