Economic Opportunity Mailing List Archive

["Martin Fowler" <<address removed>>]

Dear All,

In response to Andy Bullock's even-referenced submission of 03/05, in which he 
advocates more support being given to the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes, 
I would like to agree with him that the sunk costs of such schemes provide the 
potential for attractive returns to be realised from such additional 
investment.  
 
However, in many cases, there are good reasons why the schemes are now in need 
of rehabilitation.  They were: situated in the wrong place (in terms of the 
costs of obtaining inputs and in reaching markets)/are using technology that is 
inappropriate to the capacities of the users/required unsustainable incremental 
input of labour by the scheme 'participants'/ continuing disputes over use 
rights (in spite of Andy's optimistic conclusion on this point), etc.
 
So, yes, certainly let's encourage the potential of each of them to be 
rehabilitated, to be investigated, but let's see this being done alongside 
detailed enquiries into the reasons behind them having become defunct.  
 
Talking to the 'participants' would be a good start.

And, then let's compare the costs and benefits of rehabilitation with those of 
less immediately visible activities associated with water 
conservation/control/harvesting/use at the small farmer household level. 
 
Regards,
 
Martin Fowler