Irrigation Reforms in Pakistan
Over the last decade, central control of the old Provincial
Irrigations Departments (PIDs) has either been already devolved or is still in
the pipe line to new institutions like Provincial Irrigation and Drainage
Authorities (PIDAs), Area Water Boards (AWBs) at main /major canals and
Farmers’ Organizations (FOs) at secondary canals. With so many drastic changes
in this critical sector of the national economy, failure is not an option;
therefore, the way forward is to keep on creating those conditions that ensure
success & sustainability of these irrigation reforms.
As these reforms did not come on board with due consent of
many stakeholders, misgivings and confusion prevailed in the initial stages. As
a consequence, full concentration is still lacking in devising innovative ways
and creating conducive conditions to make these reforms sustainable as their
reversal will spell chaos in the irrigated sector.
Over a decade or so, the reforms have created new
institutions as well as new realities. When the new and old stakeholders seem
to have developed new stakes in the success of the reforms, we need to think
about those conditions that will support the new institutional entities. These
support arrangements could include aspects such as: (i) Legal Framework, (ii)
Organizational Aspects, (iii) Physical Conditions, (iv) Technical-support, (v)
Financial Viability, (vi) Monitoring and Evaluation, and (vii)
Capacity-Building.
Considering the vast scope of above stated support
arrangements, initially, discussion will be restricted only to the legal and
organizational aspects. However, as the remaining aspects are equally
important, they need an exclusive treatment in a similar effort, later.
Legal Framework: In
1999, J. Brewer and other 6
co-authors of a book about Irrigation
Management Transfer in India have suggested four legal pre-requisites. In
our context, with slight adjustments, these requisites are:
- Legal
recognition of farmers’ participation at different levels of each
provincial irrigation system;
- Legal
authority for FOs to do the following: (i) acquire and distribute water,
(ii) repair and maintain secondary canal, (iii) assess and collect
irrigation water charges, (iv) penalize defaulters and / those who steal
water, and (v) resolve disputes among water users within FO’s secondary canal
command.
- Appropriate legal definition for water allocation and resource mobilization procedures; and
- Legal definition of means for dispute settlement among water users and between water users and state agencies.
At present, water is generally rationed off based on time
per unit area. However, with the passage of time as water rights are
established and users switch to volumetric water acquisition and allocation,
legal provisions may have to be defined by the relevant state agencies and
water users.
In view of the comprehensive institutional reforms at
different levels of each irrigation system, a legal framework has to cover many
aspects. For example, the details of legal framework of Punjab includes the
following documents (PIDA Annual Report 2006):(i) The Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority,
Act 1997, (Amendment) Act 2006; (ii) The Area Water Board (Rules) 2005; (iii)
Farmers Organizations (Rules) 1999, replaced with new Rules, 2005; (iv) FO
(Elections) Regulations 1999; (v) FOs (Registration) Regulations 1999; (vi) FOs
(Financial) Regulations 2000; (vii) FOs (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2000;
and (viii) Irrigation Management Transfer between FO and AWB/PIDA. Similarly,
in Sindh, the Water Management Ordinance (WMO) 2002 is built on Sindh Irrigation
Drainage Authority, Act of 1997.
On the surface, considering the controversies about the
institutional reforms in the irrigation sector, progress towards developing
legal frameworks is significantly lacking. There are still no regulations formulated
for the participation of farmers at the main canal as well as the provincial
levels to ensure proper say of water users in the management of new
institutions and irrigation systems.
So far, the Acts, the rules and regulations are prescribed
from top-down by the provincial governments. In the current environment of dominant
role of PIDs and PIDAs and controlled participation of new farmers’ entities,
it seems to be an inevitable outcome.
However, after a decade of reforms, it is logical to put appropriate
mechanisms like Board of Directors of PIDAs in place, in consultation with
relevant AWBs & FOs, to seek genuine say and participation of water users
in reviewing the provincial legal framework for an efficient and fair
management of water at different levels.
Organizational
Aspects: Provincial Irrigation
Departments (PIDs) have devolved the water management related responsibilities
to PIDAs, AWBs and FOs. In case of PIDs and PIDAs, it is just a matter of
readjustment of existing staff and hiring of additional staff for specific
jobs. However, certain issues regarding organizational aspects for users’
entities still remain.
Although provinces, like Punjab & Sindh, have enforced
regulations for the election of FOs, it appears a huge and expensive job after
a fixed duration of say 5 years. If appropriate, farmers’ representatives
elected from each village under the local body system could be considered as
users’ Electoral College for electing members of FOs, AWBs and Board of
Directors of PIDAs. On one hand, it provides a solid home-base for the water users’ entities and on the other it frees
the PIDs /PIDAs a regular expensive and time consuming diversion.
Since FOs are management committees elected by Water Users
Associations (WUAs) at the tertiary canal level / Electoral College as proposed
above for a fixed term and they have little know-how to managing irrigation
systems above tertiary canals, it is obvious that they need professional staff
for continuity as well as to provide technical support for day to day
operations and maintenance of respective canals, collection of water charges
and settlement of disputes among water users. This should also restrict a need
for capacity building of farmers’ representatives to proper decision making
instead of trying to convert them into engineers and revenue staff.
The Farmers’ Organizations are entirely managed by farmers
only. However, participatory irrigation management is proposed for the
up-stream part of irrigation system by AWBs and PIDA’s Board of Directors
(BOD). For AWBs in Punjab , there will be 10
representatives of farmers as compared to 9 non-farmer members. At provincial
level, BOD comprises of 6 farmers members, 5 non-farmer members and the
Minister of Irrigation will serve as Chairman of the PIDA’s BOD.
The first positive aspect of the PIDA and AWBs in Punjab is that, by fair representation, the farmers can
have an effective say in managing the irrigation systems. Secondly, there is a
worth noting provision that concerns with the way FOs will elect their 10
representatives for each canal. Finally, it is refreshing to note that AWBs in Punjab will have their chair-person from farmers. It will
be beneficial if the other three provinces also review their legal frameworks
to provide a fair say of farmers in managing their respective irrigation
systems.
The Punjab Government also needs to reconsider the mechanism
proposed to seek representation of farmers for the BOD of PIDA. To ensure
effective and positive contributions from farmers, instead of letting the
Government nominate these farmers, all provincial FOs should elect six Board
Members (or, if agreed, the proposed Electoral College can be considered).
Moreover, the elected representatives of farmers at the
canal as well as provincial levels should hire their own team of researchers,
mainly for legal and technical aspects to make their experience based inputs as
significant contributions in a given legal and technical environment. Such a
team of researchers for the farmers’ representatives at the provincial level
will definitely help in making participatory irrigation management a effective
and workable reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment