Abstract/Summary

Irrigation development and management of water resources present serious governance challenges for many stakeholders in Cambodia. Farmers, government agencies, development organisations and the private sector all have a role to play, yet their roles and responsibilities are not always well defined. Contemporary ideas on water governance indicate a greater need for participation and ownership of local resources by the communities that use those resources. As such, there is a need to refine and rethink the way in which key stakeholders relate to each other and make decisions on the use of water for irrigation.

This paper analyses stakeholder roles, relationships and perspectives with respect to Cambodia’s water resources management, with a specific focus on irrigation and catchment management. It also examines the degree of consistency or disparity between different stakeholders, and between formal stakeholder roles and actual practices. Data from key informant interviews, field observations, focus group discussions (FGDs) and dissemination workshops have been analysed to draw out the main issues relating to water governance stakeholders and to resolve knowledge gaps. It examines water-related institutions and stakeholder agencies in depth to gain an understanding of their current capacity and potential. The research findings are presented in a way that will assist public policy decision-makers to compare and evaluate policy alternatives.

Several theoretical approaches guided this study, one of which is the stakeholder typology. Developed as part of the analysis, this perspective has enabled a broad definition of stakeholders in terms of their relative power (influence), legitimacy (interest) and urgency. The analysis is also broadly informed by existing literature on stakeholder relationships and governance mechanisms, especially as they relate to water governance. This includes Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), which advocates for the proper coordination and active participation of stakeholders from all relevant sectors. Its underlying assumption is to consider the social, cultural, political, economic and ecological aspects of water as being interrelated and equally valuable.

Findings

The study found that irrigation schemes and rural infrastructure in Cambodia are often jointly funded by the government and external donors, with in-kind contributions (such as land and labour) from project beneficiaries. Water-related issues are handled by several overlapping ministries and committees with differing, yet specific, mandates, ambitions and policies. Responsibilities for water resources policy and planning are increasingly delegated to sub-national authorities and the Provincial Department of Water Resources and Meteorology (PDOWRAM). This decentralisation of water management is consistent with the government’s wider process of sub-national governance reform, recognising the need to introduce new systems of governance at provincial, municipal and district levels.

The present water governance system, however, is challenged by the lack of effective feedback mechanisms and coordination among the different levels of government. Urgent improvements are needed to improve the functioning of vertical governance mechanisms linking central government, provincial and local authorities and villages, as well as to improve horizontal governance mechanisms in support of decision-making across different departments, commune and village level authorities. For the reforms to be implemented effectively, the responsibilities of government, especially the Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM), PDOWRAM, donors, local authorities (LAs), Farmer Water User Communities (FWUCs) and farmers, need to be clear. 

Participatory Irrigation Management and Development (PIMD) is being introduced in recognition of the need for greater community participation to improve the performance of irrigation systems.1 In the context of Cambodia, PIMD suggests that FWUCs assume the primary responsibility and authority to manage, repair and improve existing irrigation systems, and to promote and guide the development of new irrigation systems. PIMD is accepted as a national policy in Cambodia and a core strategy to promote participation by farmers in the management of irrigation schemes.

 The sustainability of irrigation management relies mainly on the performance of farmers and FWUCs, with technical and financial assistance from concerned institutions such as MOWRAM, PDOWRAM, donors and civil society organisations (CSOs). Village level findings indicate, however, a significant disparity between the FWUC’s formal mandate and its actual effectiveness. Although FWUCs have been granted legal and administrative responsibility for managing irrigation schemes, the way that this has been implemented means that most farmers do not feel a strong sense of ownership over the projects/schemes, and continue to seek LAs’ and PDOWRAM’s assistance to solve their water issues. The perception that the schemes are not fully functional also makes it difficult for the FWUCs to collect irrigation service fees (ISF) necessary for the scheme to remain operational. The lack of community ownership over irrigation schemes is exacerbated by a perceived lack of legitimacy of the FWUCs, caused by difficulties and delays with their registration. Also, despite being independent organisations with a mandate to coordinate and facilitate local waterrelated issues, FWUCs are hampered by the fact that they do not have conflict resolution powers. FWUCs have to coordinate and negotiate with LAs, government institutions and other external organisations in order to carry out their basic functions.

A range of stakeholders have financed the development and management of irrigation systems, but sustainable financial arrangements to support the operation and maintenance of these systems are still lacking. From 1979 to the present, large amounts of funds from the national budget, bank loans and donor funds have been directed to rehabilitate, construct and maintain irrigation systems, establish flood protection dykes and install pumping stations. Financial sustainability of water service delivery should be achievable because the service to identified users is levied. Many FWUCs report, however, that the ISF does not cover the cost of operation and maintenance (O&M). To solve this, the FWUCs have sought financial support from the government, especially from MOWRAM and PDOWRAM, as well as various funding agencies. This has led the government to encourage the private sector, NGOs, international organisations, development partners and donors to invest in and develop small, medium and large scale irrigation systems and pay for their O&M.

Better management of water resources in a river basin context requires effective water governance policy reflecting accountability, transparency, equity and public participation, with a strong commitment from all stakeholders. An improved water governance system developed under the existing legal framework at river basin level would, in turn, support the capacity of FWUCs, LAs and local institutions to sustainably manage water resources in a wider social and environmental context.

The implementation of IWRM, PIMD, Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT)3 and the formation of the FWUCs needs to be undertaken carefully at local level taking into account the existing political, cultural, socio-economic and physical features of each specific area. The coordination and decentralisation work in local communities, however, remains slow, particularly in the water governance sector, and will need to improve over a period of time if it is to reach its desired goals. In many areas of the Tonle Sap Basin (TSB), local people and communities still rely on the coordination or support of local political hierarchies, such as the commune councils (CCs), district governors and concerned institutions, to make important decisions. The Technical Working Group on Agriculture and Water (TWGAW) also acknowledges that some of the functions of stakeholders are poorly coordinated and there are gaps and overlaps in functions which need to be remedied within the present public administration reforms.

In addition to the need for an improved coordination structure and a more accountable governance system, considerable investment is also needed to improve the physical infrastructure of existing irrigation schemes. The irrigation systems will not be technically and financially feasible unless they are fully operational and provide real and timely profits to farmers.

Recommendations

As part of the participatory approach to this study, stakeholders were asked to propose practical solutions that could address their concerns. They described the need for greater technical support and greater clarity at local levels about the role and nature of IWRM and its relationship to other policies such as Decentralisation and Deconcentration (D&D) and PIMD. Although these policies have been implemented at national level, they have not yet been fully implemented in local communities. Successful implementation of these national initiatives is dependent on the strength of local governance structures, local leadership, management capacity and technical expertise.

The research has arrived at the conclusion that there needs to be some kind of structure to improve coordination at catchment or provincial level which could also increase the technical expertise available to support FWUCs, line agencies and other groups without removing their authority to make decisions about their own resources. On the basis of the stakeholder responses, this paper outlines a new coordination structure at sub-national level, which is referred to as the Irrigation and Catchment Management Sub-committee (ICMSC).

There are a number of different forms that the sub-committee could take. To stimulate informed discussion and allow for flexibility, the recommendations below explain the aims and functions of the sub-committee and identify the key options and considerations to setting up said sub-committee. The considerations ensure that past lessons inform the development of the new structure and that the changes support rather than duplicate existing structures or resources. It is also to stimulate discussion towards a consensus about how the proposed sub-committee can be given an effective mandate and remain transparent without diminishing the important local role and authority of the newly established FWUCs.

These policy recommendations were discussed during the community level consultations and refined through a series of provincial level workshops with farmers, FWUCs and representatives from PDOWRAM. They aim to address fundamental issues relating to the local implementation of D&D policy and IWRM as identified in the stakeholder analysis. 

Recommendation 1: Irrigation and Catchment Management Sub-committee (ICMSC)

Create Irrigation and Catchment Management Sub-committees (ICMSCs) at sub-national level to support the coordination of FWUCs, provincial departments and LAs in making decisions on integrated water resources, planning, development and management at catchment level. The subcommittee would assist in building a common understanding among FWUCs, LAs, and provincial departments about IWRM and D&D policy and support the spatial integration of upstream and downstream communities. They would provide a basis for the development of the new governance structures anticipated under the government’s River Basin Management Policy.

Functions of ICMSCs

The ICMSCs would:

·         Promote ‘bottom-up’ processes for small and medium scale irrigation scheme management and development projects within a river basin context taking into account the principles of IWRM, the interests of all stakeholders and the sustainability of natural resources;

·         Collaborate with concerned institutions (MOWRAM, MAFF, PDOWRAM, PDAFF), CSOs, provincial governors, LAs, academic and research centres (CDRI, the Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC), the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP), the Royal University of Agriculture (RUA), foreign universities) and donors (Asian Development Bank (ADB), Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the World Bank (WB), Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)) to seek technical and financial support;

·          Provide an avenue to channel additional technical expertise, including inter-disciplinary advice from different provincial departments, NGOS, donors and external experts on hydrology and IWRM so that the sub-committee may function as a ‘service centre’ for the FWUCs;

·          Offer a forum to raise funds and receive advice from NGOS and donors;

·         Provide an opportunity to resolve conflicts between schemes and for FWUCs to jointly plan their cropping and harvesting activities through an informed process based on hydrological and social knowledge;

·         Conduct monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of water related activities, water policies and the effectiveness of sub-committee activities using a participatory approach.

Considerations

 In determining the governance structure of the ICMSC, careful consideration should be given to the following:

·         Lead agency and sub-committee members: Determining the appropriate government agency and level to lead the sub-committee is important. Consideration should be given to whether it is best managed at provincial or catchment level, and whether a given line agency should chair the sub-committee or whether this would be best done by the provincial office, taking into account the government’s national policies on IWRM and D&D reform.

·         Mandate and authority: The sub-committee needs a full and effective mandate but one that is transparent and does not usurp the decision-making powers of FWUCs and other relevant agencies. Mechanisms for downward accountability are important so that the FWUCs are represented, are able to access the technical and financial support that is channelled through the sub-committee, and are able to call on the sub-committee to exercise authority when negotiation, arbitration and coordination between FWUCs is required. It may be necessary for the sub-committee to have an advisory role rather than full authority in deciding on water allocation at scheme and catchment level, so that local communities retain ultimate control over key decisions.4

·         Variation between catchments and schemes: Situating the sub-committee at a provincial/ catchment level provides a more context-specific structure in which FWUCs, LAs and provincial departments could muster the authority to make decisions about water resources and irrigation. However, in each location the sub-committee may take a different “shape”, depending on the nature of the catchment and the capacity of existing stakeholders. The structure of each ICMSC will depend on the capacity/ expertise in each location and may need to be tailored to individual catchments depending on whether they appropriately overlap with provincial government jurisdictions.

·          Further stakeholder consultation: A sub-committee should only be established once there has been a process of joint study, action or consultation. They should not be imposed simultaneously as “shells” without underlying stakeholder involvement. The establishing of a sub-committee requires facilitation which is integral to their success.

Recommendation 2: Education and Training

 Provide training to local stakeholders, especially PDOWRAM staff, commune councils, farmers and FWUC committee members on important laws and policies, so that they are aware of their rights and duties when using natural resources. The training should cover:

·         Water, Forestry, Fishery, Land and Environment Law;

·         D&D and PIMD policies;

·          Organic Law5;

·          Administrative regulations and guidelines.

Recommendation 3: Building Local Management Leadership and Capacity

Build the capacity of FWUC committees and commune councils so that they manage their resources properly and are able to lead their communities well. Greater capacity is needed in relation to:

·         Leadership, facilitation and communication skills; 

·          Budget allocation and financial management;

·          Natural resources management;

·          Project development and management;

·          Irrigation and farming systems.

Recommendation 4: Improving FWUC Accountability

 Improve FWUC and LA accountability through strong organisational coordination. FWUC committees have to work according to the roles and duties set in its statute, despite the limited support funds. Key areas to take into account include:

·         Encouraging farmers to be aware of the importance of ISF and to satisfactorily participate in O&M for sustainable irrigation systems;

·         Informing and engaging farmers to participate in irrigation management and development early and at every stage;

·         Expanding the profit of irrigation to farmers by seeking new suitable technology for water management and agricultural extension so that farmers get more products and income;

·         Providing timely water and agricultural information and engaging farmers to value common interests.

Considerations

Some FWUCs have raised the issue that if the scheme infrastructure and management capacity are not improved to meet farmers’ expectations regarding the availability of water through the scheme, then there may be additional difficulties in increasing accountability, compliance and participation.

Recommendation 5: Greater Coordination of the Tonle Sap Basin

Decentralisation in water resources management cannot be achieved if stakeholders, especially farmers, are not well informed and do not participate in protecting and maintaining their common property. Some important issues that LAs and concerned institutions within the Tonle Sap Basin should consider are:

·         Working towards a shared understanding of D&D and PIMD principles among stakeholders;

·         Delegating appropriate levels of responsibilities such as planning, implementation, management and decision making in water resources management and development to local level communities (FWUCs), CSOs, and the private sector, etc to increase local involvement;

·         Allocating operational and administrative funds to support local level community functions including accountability and financing or co-financing; and

·         Reforming and improving stakeholder participation at the Tonle Sap Basin level, beyond the sub-committee members, by increasing coordination with local communities, CSOs, private sector and provincial line agencies to prioritise critical and urgent issues and provide a timely and reasonable response to them. 

Recommendation 6: Proposed Further Research

The case studies and workshops in the three provinces suggested that the integration of CC members in the structure of the FWUCs (as FWUC committee members) would help to maintain the legal functions and operation of the FWUCs. Some local stakeholders mentioned that this integration may also build up the role and accountability of the FWUC committees by:

·         Empowering FWUCs in their irrigation management roles;

·         Facilitating and coordinating with key relevant stakeholders;

·         Enhancing the sharing of information on water and agricultural policy;

·         Improving the quality of planning and decision making in investment /development projects; and

·         Reducing potential conflict between LAs and increasing public trust and participation. In the above regard, future research could address the following:

·         How can FWUCs and CCs improve farmer participation or community-based approaches in water resource management to ensure the sustainability of irrigation schemes?

·         In the context of irrigation and catchment governance, how can PIMD and D&D policies be adapted and implemented effectively?

·         How can government-donor-community-private sector partnerships in irrigation water management be developed? What are the most effective mechanisms to strengthen such partnerships?

·         Should CC members be included in the management structures of FWUC committees to provide technical support and authority?