Privatizing canal irrigation

Abstract

Widespread dissatisfaction with state management of canal irrigation systems has focused intense interest on potential private sector remedies for the problems afflicting the sector. Privatization promises a number of benefits-lower operating costs, increased productivity, innovation, mobilization of capital, higher service quality, and larger service areas.However, canal irrigation is a natural monopoly, where the large capital investments required preclude multiple private service providers in a given service area. Nevertheless, the paper argues that there are a number of ways to take advantage of positive features of the private sector, without wasteful duplication of infrastructure or leaving farmers at the mercy of greedy investors. Three primary options-renewable management contracts, franchises, and self-provision of services by clients-are described and illustrated.Another way to examine possibilities for privatization is to look at the types of organizations that provide irrigation services. The defining aspects of an organization are governance, source of funds, economic motive, and type of staff. The paper defines a set of five types of service providers based on these characteristics. These types are departments, authorities, districts, associations, and public utilities. The characteristics of each are discussed, with examples.To rise above the basic performance floor provided by a public bureaucracy, an institutional structure including private elements requires a supporting policy environment. Critical elements of a supportive environment include policy stability, legal respect for contracts and agreements, and reasonably impartial regulation, allocation, and adjudication. In the absence of a sufficiently supportive national governance environment, private elements in the irrigation management system are unlikely to flourish or, conversely, may have the ability to take advantage of weaker parties. Copyright  2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.KEY WORDS: privatization; canal irrigation; organizations; institutions; management RÉSUMÉ Les insuffisances avérées de la gestionétatique des périmètres irrigués par gravité ont suscité un intérêt croissant quant au potentiel du secteur privé pour résoudre certains des maux affectant le secteur. La privatisation peut permettre un certain nombre de bénéfices-coûts d'opération réduits, meilleure productivité, innovation, mobilisation de fonds, qualité de service accrue, et une expansion des surfaces desservies.L'irrigation publique est un monopole naturel, où la nécessité de gros investissements ne permet pas le développement de multiples sociétés de distribution dans un périmètre donné. Néanmoins, cet article entend montrer qu'il existe de nombreuses manières de tirer profit des caractéristiques positives du secteur privé, sans * Correspondence to: M. Svendsen, 24144 Price Creek Road, Philomath, OR 97370 USA.

Water Management: The Key Role of the International Agencies

“…Response: A recent article (Svendsen et al, 2003) makes a plea for privatization, citing successes in Mexico and Turkey. However, widespread privatization in countries where landholdings are very small and where illiteracy is high -such as India and China -is of dubious value.…”

“…Such a broadened effort would require participation by sociologists and specialists on management of people and institutions. Above all, leaders at all levels must have the political will to carry out needed reforms and actions; (3) Although some success with the establishment of viable WUAs has been achieved in more advanced developing countries like Mexico and Turkey (Svendsen et al, 2003), one must be cautious in extrapolating that experience to other countries where socioeconomic conditions are markedly different. d) Appropriate technology need not come from the North (meaning the developed countries).…”

Local Experiences in Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT): The Case of the West Kano Scheme in Kenya

“…In the United States IMT has been public policy for over one hundred years (Svendsen et al , ); Huppert and Svendsen () have advised bringing in regulations to manage non‐government irrigation practices resulting from implementation of IMT, as has been the case in California's Central Valley. This is important because if left without proper regulation, a liberal irrigation environment may prove counterproductive.…”

An assessment of the irrigation management transfer programme: case study in the Mustafakemalpaşa irrigation scheme in Turkey

“…The widespread trend to decentralize natural resource management responsibility from the state to communities or local user groups has by and large ignored the implications of intra-community power differences for the effectiveness and equity of natural resource management (Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1997;Svendsen et al, 2003). Irrigation management transfer (IMT) is a process of shifting a number of basic irrigation management functions from a public agency to a private sector entity, a non-government organization, a local government, or to a local-level organization with farmers at its base (Farley, 1994;Svendsen et al, 1997).…”