Economic Opportunity Mailing List Archive

["Andy Bullock" <<address removed>>]

Martin Fowler has usefully commented on my encouragement for attention to the 
rehabilitation and modernization of existing irrigation scheme as an important 
complement to interventions in small-scale household food security.

As Martin mentioned, institutional and technical issues often compound 
productivity on existing irrigation schemes, hence modernization goes 
hand-in-hand with rehabilitation. Improved participatory processes have been a 
key feature of several successful irrigation management transfers.

Martin also makes the important point about use rights to water on irrigation 
schemes - quite rightly. But I would like to draw an important distinction here 
between the rights of the irrigation scheme to abstract water from the river 
(since most in Africa are surface water-fed),  and the rights that determine 
allocation amongst users within the scheme. I was being optimistic on the 
former (since these rights are already established and already accommodated 
within wider water resource allocations within river basins, unlike new 
abstraction rights which will increasingly be in competition with other water 
use sectors and which will require major new investment in dam storage to 
satisfy seasonal reliability), and was not discussing the latter where there is 
obvious scope for improvement in many cases.

The significance of this issue? - well, in Africa, around one third of the 
total irrigation potential has been taken up (by any kind of irrigation). 
Large-scale full- or partial- control schemes represents around 80% of that 
development. Getting the most outcomes for the most numbers of people out of 
what is already in place seems a key area for support.

Another reason why this is highly significant is that there are several African 
countries where agriculture (be it for national food needs, economic growth, 
export earnings etc) simply has to be through full- or partial- irrigation - 
there are simply not the environmental opportunities for small-scale water 
control to satisfy self-provisioning across the semi-arid landscapes. And with 
opportunities for new irrigation limited by water scarcity in several river 
basins, there simply is no alternative.

Andy Bullock
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin Fowler 
  To: <address removed> 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:52 AM
  Subject: A second strand to water


  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