WORKSHOP:

1
WORKSHOP Lessons Learned in Developing
Sustainable WUAs and Forming WUA Federations
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan October 1-6, 2007
2
Vast amount of irrigation development has
occurred since the early 1900s 190040 million
irrigated ha 2000280 million irrigated ha New
irrigation land was developed by irrigation
agencies using Government funds and external
funding organizations. Irrigation changed from
being a local activity to responsibility of the
State. Users became passive recipients of
irrigation services.
3
1950s and 1960spublic irrigation development
followed this model that excluded users from
active involvement. 1970sthis model of
irrigation development had created irrigation
systems that were difficult to operate and
maintain and were becoming less sustainable.
1980sGovernments were forced to minimize
public subsidies for irrigation systems which led
to programs to transfer OM of public water
systems to user associations and federations of
user associations.
4
IMT accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s. Today
most irrigation systems in the world have an
active element of local management.
Table 1 Locally Managed Irrigation Area for
Selected Countries
5
1940s--irrigated area in CARs and S. Caucasus
expanded rapidly, including expansion of
irrigated area for cotton, wheat and rice
production. By late 1980s--in excess of 12
million ha of irrigated land.
Table 2 Irrigated Land in Central Asia and S.
Caucasus Regions
6
Stage One-Initial WUA Formation
1980s -- countries with vastly different economic
systems started to establish Water User
Associations (WUAs) to reduce the financial
burden required to operate and maintain their
irrigation systems.
7
This included WUAs in countries with a tradition
of farmer-based communal irrigation such
as Indonesia Philippines Chile Peru Mexico
In contrast WUAs were established in countries
with large Government irrigation systems such
as China India Turkey Former Soviet Republics
In all countries WUAs were primarily
established to reduce the financial burden on the
State budget for irrigation OM.
8

• In the former Soviet Union State Irrigation
  Departments were reluctant to transfer authority
  to farmer organizations.
• Instead of detailed laws for WUA establishment
  and management many WUAs were formed under
  Presidential decrees.
• As former collective and State farms were broken
  up, the on-farm irrigation system was left
  without an owner.
• In particular, transfer of on-farm irrigation
  infrastructure to WUAs was resisted by local
  government as well as irrigation departments.
• Thus there was uncertainty about legal
  responsibility for managing irrigation water and
  supplying individual farms.

9

• Under pressure from donors and Ministries of
  Finance, countries formed WUAs to take over
  on-farm OM responsibility. Yet, it soon was
  apparent that most countries really had limited
  understanding how WUAs actually function.
• WUAs formed during the first stage of management
  transfer programs were usually controlled by
  irrigation agencies and powerful rural leaders.
  This was due to
• Little understanding about the concept of
  participatory farmer associations
• Lack of laws to specify organization structure
  and rights and responsibility of members
• Fear of loss of power and control and
• Limited, if any, budget to invest in WUA
  strengthening.

10

• WUA establishment and formation
• One major problem large vested public irrigation
  organization that viewed user participation as a
  challenge to their authority and power
• Government agencies were reluctant give up some
  of their authority
• As a result Agencies resisted passage of a WUA
  Law that transferred power and responsibility to
  WUAs
• Consequently, countries formed WUAs that had no
  legal standing or specific legal structure that
  protected rights of WUAs and WUA members.

11

• As a result during Stage One
• In the case of the former Soviet Union WUAs were
  often modeled after collective or State Farms
  with the Director the former head of the State
  Farm or Collective.
• In China farm associations are usually
  controlled by the Communist Party with Village
  and Party officials managing the association.
• In Turkey WUA Directors and Board members are
  usually local government officials and farmers
  have limited power to establish policy.

12
A typical Stage One WUA where instead of a WUA
Board representing farmers the WUA is dominated
by the President and the Board is subsidiary to
the President.
Figure 1 President Controlled Stage One WUA
General Assembly
President
Board
Audit Committee
Technical/Econ Staff
Hydro Engr
Secretary
Accountant
13
This arrangement is very typical for Stage One
WUAs, especially where there is no WUA Law that
defines the roles of members, hired staff and
management committees.
14
This Stage One WUA has a Management Committee
made up of hired staff. Members of the WUA have
no control over policy decisions.
Figure 2 Stage One WUA Organizational Structure
General Assembly Of Water Users
Policy Making
Management Committee -Chairman -Accountant -Engine
er -Field Agents
Implementation
Chairman
Accountant
FA
FA
FA
15
Farmers quickly began to question the management
structure of Stage One WUAs as they were often
organized the same as State and collective farms
that had just been disbanded. Farmers indicated
their unhappiness by refusing to pay irrigation
service fees as long as they had no voice in
determination of the amount and use of their
fees.
16

• Stage One WUAs demonstrated
• WUAs formed by the Government to carry out tasks
  the Government wishes done will never be
  sustainable
• Farmers will only form a sustainable WUA for
  management activities they believe will be
  profitable for them
• Farmers will only participate when they will get
  more out of the activity than what they put into
  the organizational effort and
• Members of the WUA refuse to pay fees when they
  have no control over the amount to be paid and
  the use of the funds.
• WUAs must be a legal association with clear
  rights and responsibilities.

17
Formalization of Legal Basis for WUAs A separate
presentation at this Workshop will focus directly
on legal issues so this section will only address
this briefly. Experience with WUAs, especially
those that have proven successful, have
demonstrated the country must have a WUA law that
clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of
WUAs as well as the water supplier. In many
countries, such as the Kyrgyz Republic, this law
replaced a Government Resolution on Water Users
Associations as Governmental or Presidential
decrees are an inadequate basis for the
establishment of complex organizations such as
WUAs.
18
Stage Two-WUA Restructuring and Re-registration
of WUAs

• Once WUA laws are passed and approved by the
  Government, forming a WUA requires the
  organization to
• Write a Charter of Association, or to rewrite
  their Charter if they were already formed, to be
  in compliance with the new law.
• WUAs have to restructure their organization in
  order to meet the terms of the law.
• WUAs then must register or re-register with the
  Ministry of Justice.

19

• Under WUA Laws WUAs are organized with a clear
  separation between governance and management.
• Responsibility for policy making decisions rests
  with the General Assembly of Farmers (or
  Representative Assembly) and WUA Management
  Board.
• The Presidents powers are subsidiary to that of
  the Board.
• Day-to-day management is the responsibility of a
  hired Manager and other hired staff.

20
Figure 3WUA Restructuring
General Assembly Of Farmers
Policy Making
WUA Council
Chairman
Implementation
Accountant
Engineer
21
Figure 4 Stage Two WUA Organizational
StructureSeparating Governance and Management
Members of WUA
Audit Committee
Representative Assembly
Policy Making
WUA Executive Board ------------------ President
General Manager
Implementation
Chief of Operations
Maintenance Staff
Admin
Fee Collection
Irrigators
22
WUA Executive Board discussing WUA policy
23
Figure 5 Schematic of SPP Water User Groups (WUGs)
WUA With 4 SPPs
SPP 8
1053 ha
SPP 9
786 ha
SPP 11
1120 ha
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Members of WUA
Policy Setting and Decision Making
SPP 10 Reps.
SPP 11 Reps.
SPP 8 Reps.
SPP 9 Reps.
WUA Administrative Council ------------------ Cha
irman
Director
Secretary
Implementation
Accountant
Electro-Mechanic
Hydro-Engineer
Cashier
Bookkeeper
27
Figure 7 WUA with Multiple Terraces
28

• A number of countries were very concerned about
  the re-registration process but it has not proven
  to be that difficult. The main lesson learned
  was that
• Project and WUA Support staff must work closely
  with the Ministry of Justice to establish a
  clear, step-by-step process for registration
• In turn the Ministry needs inform all of their
  regional offices and ensure that they understand
  the process, and follow it and
• Project and WUA Support staff members must
  instruct WUA leaders on the steps of the process
  and help them complete all paperwork as required.

29
Third Stage-Strengthening WUAs
WUA formation and legal registration is not the
final step but only one of many steps in a long
process. WUA Support and Training are critical
to ensure WUAs grow and mature! At this stage it
is critical that Water Resources Departments
encourage and support WUAs. Examples In Mexico
WUA and CNA staff members jointly managed WUA
service areas for 6 months to ensure WUA can
operate and maintain the system after
transfer. In Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan as well as
some Oblast Irrigation Departments in Uzbekistan
WUA support units are an integral part of the
Irrigation Department staffing and operations.
30
Irrigation Department encouraging WUA
development. In order to have successful WUAs,
irrigation officials have to deal with WUAs and
their members as clients. Successful WUAs, and
the members that use the water, are not
beneficiaries but clients that are buying a
service. Irrigation Departments provide a
service and farmers pay for that service in a
business-like relationship--this fosters a
climate of respect between farmers and irrigation
officials.
31
With limited experience with participatory
associations countries must establish a support
system for WUAs. In the US, Canada, Latin
American countries, and Europe support is through
specialized institutes, technical and
agricultural colleges and universities. In many
Republics support system are usually organized
directly through the Irrigation Department as it
has a vested interest in viable WUAs. This is
particularly true when a large percentage of the
Departments budget comes from ISF paid by
WUAs. In Mexico in excess of 80 of the overall
budget comes from ISF paid by WUAs while in the
Kyrgyz Republic in excess of 25 of the
Department budget is from ISF.
32
Figure 8 Central WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Central WUA Support Unit In Water Resources
Dept Engineer Training Specialist WUA Support
Specialist Legal Specialist MIS Specialist
Oblast WUA Support Unit
Oblast WUA Support Unit
Oblast WUA Support Unit
Oblast WUA Support Unit
33
Figure 9 Oblast WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Oblast WUA Support Unit In Oblast Water Resources
Dept Engineer Water Management Specialist WUA
Support Specialist
Raion WUA Support Unit
Raion WUA Support Unit
Raion WUA Support Unit
Raion WUA Support Unit
Raion WUA Support Unit
Raion WUA Support Unit
34
Oblast WUA Support Unit Office
35
Figure 10 Raion WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Raion WUA Support Unit In Raion Water Resources
Dept Engineer Water Management Specialist WUA
Support Specialist
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
36
Raion WUA Support Unit Office in Batken Oblast
37
Table 3 Staffing of WUA SUs and Number of Offices
Source OIP Third Quarterly Report, 2006
38
Training Farmers and irrigation officials in
many countries including the Republics have not
had previous experience with participatory farmer
associations. An intensive training program is
a critical requirement to ensure success of WUAs.
In most countries consultants have worked with
Central WUA SU staff to assess training needs and
develop training courses. In turn Central SU
staff trained Oblast and Raion SU staff to
provide training courses for strengthening WUAs.
39

• Training Required Included the Following Courses
• WUA Formation and Registration
• WUA Governance and Leadership
• Irrigation Service Fee Establishment
• WUA Financial Management and Accounting
• Irrigation Water Allocation and System
  Operation
• Responsibilities of Representatives
• Irrigation System Management
• Maintenance Planning

40
Table 5 Estimated Training Course Days for
500 WUAs Serving 1 Million ha.
Assumes 2,000 ha per WUA and 50 ha per
Representative
41
Figure 11 WUA with Seven Village-Based Service
Areas
42
WUA serves 2,060 ha and, with one Representative
for each 50 ha, has 41 Representatives. Table
6 Area (ha) and Number of Representatives
43
Figure 12 Administrative Council Member-Links to
Representative Zones
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Village Service Area
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Village Service Area
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Administrative Council Member Village 4
44
Figure 13 WUA Organizational Structure with
Village-Based Zones
45

• Training Program Requirements
• Developing training materials
• Training trainers
• Establishing training facilities
• Organizing training courses
• Identifying trainees
• Transportation for trainers and trainees
• Funding training courses
• Monitoring and evaluating training progress
• Permanent continuing training cycle

46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
Table 7 KR Participants Days of Training--2002
to Dec 2006
Source OIP Annual Reports and Third Quarterly
Report, 2006
52

• Advanced Training
• As WUAs mature advanced training courses are
  required. Based on requests from WUAs, second
  generation training courses in the following
  areas are required.
• Practical irrigation management for Hydro-Techs
  and irrigators
• Asset management, maintenance assessment and
  maintenance activities
• Legal issues Asset registration, taxation,
  labor contracts, etc.
• Advanced training for WUA accountants
• Computerized system for budgeting, accounting and
  tracking ISF billing and collections

53
As WUAs are expected to last as long as the
irrigation system, it is important that countries
establish a training system that can train new
staff as well as providing existing staff with
new skills as required. Training can be
provided by WUA SUs, WUA Associations, WUA
Federations, technical institutes, Irrigation
Department or Training consultants. The
critical issue is developing a set of trainers
and establishing a budgetary mechanism to pay
for training.
54
Irrigation Service Fees and Agricultural
Returns Irrigation Service Fees WUA members
must pay sufficient fees to maintain their WUA as
well as pay the water supplier for water
delivered to the WUA. There is a direct
relationship between Agricultural Returns and the
ability of WUA members to support the WUA and pay
for water supplies. Low profitability for their
crops prevents members from paying required
irrigation service fees.
55
In order to properly operate and maintain
irrigation infrastructure there is a minimum
service fee that is required. For most WUAs
this normally varies from 25 to
100/ha 1998Colombia Coello WUA the ISF was
53.86/ha 1996China Bayi Irrigation District
the ISF was 41.50/ha 2000China JiaoKou
Irrigation District the ISF was
54.50/ha 2000China Luohuiqu Irrigation
District the ISF was 80/ha for
grains 1995Indonesia E.Java WUAs using
pumps the ISF was 52.40/ha
56
Table 8a Typical Irrigation Charges for WUAs in
the Western US
57
Table 8b Turkey Range of OM Fees (/ha) for
Irrigation Associations-April 2006
Data Source Collected on field visits-April 2-5
in Region II and April 10-13, 2006 in Region VIII
58
Table 9 Approved ISF for Armenia WUAs - 2003
59
In contrast ISF rates for many WUAs in the
countries at the Workshop are less 15/ha. This
amount is insufficient to properly operate and
maintain WUAs irrigation infrastructure.
Table 10 Example WUA Established ISF For Five
Countries
60

• Agricultural Returns
• The major problem faced by most WUAs in the CARs
  and the S. Caucasus Region is that Agricultural
  Returns are too low to allow farmers to pay the
  required ISF. Low returns are due to
• Poor seed and dated technology
• Lack of credit and limited use of agricultural
  chemicals
• Shortage of agricultural machinery
• Monopoly control of markets
• State crops and Government control of crop
  prices
• Irrigation techniques and poor water management
• Insufficient drainage
• Need to rehabilitate and modernize irrigation
  systems

61
Table 11 Comparison Gross Margins for Cotton and
Wheat (2005)
62
Even if Indonesian farmers must pay international
prices for inputs they still earn a higher profit
if they receive international prices for their
rice crop
Table 12 Cost and Returns for Indonesian Rice
Farmers
63
Farmers in Turkey and Mexico pay market prices
for inputs including water, yet they still earn a
20 time higher profit when they receive
international prices for their cotton.
Table 13 Comparison of Gross Returns for Cotton
(1999)
Sources data from Izmir, Turkey, data from
Lagunera, Torreon, Mexico, data from Department
of Statistics and Forecasting, Government of
Turkmenistan
64
Table 14 Before and After Agricultural
Reforms--Returns for Wheat (1994/95 and
1995/96), Yaqui Valley, Mexico
65

• WUA Federations
• Once WUAs are functioning and providing good OM
  service to their members a number of countries
  have encouraged them to federate and take over
  OM of the off-farm system.
• Benefits of Federations include
• Better coordination of water supplies with WUAs
  served by the same source
• Reduced conflict with other WUAs
• Better maintenance of off-farm and primary
  canals
• Reduced payments to Water Departments
• Economies of scale for Technical Machinery
• Increased ability to provide needed training
  courses
• Stronger voice with respect to Water Resources
  Management

66
WUA E
WUA H
WUA Federation-9 WUAs
WUA C
Main Canal
WUA A
WUA I
WUA F
WUA D
WUA G
WUA B
67
Figure 14 Relationship Between Water
Department, Federation and WUAs
Water Department Responsibility
Water Source
Managed by WUA
Federation
Main Canals
WUA Responsibility
WUA A Area
WUA B Area
WUA C Area
WUA D Area
Secondary Canal
Secondary Canal
Secondary Canal
WUA Responsibility
Tertiary Canals
Tertiary Canals
Tertiary Canals
Water Users
Water Users
Water Users
Water Users Individual Responsibilities
68
Figure 15 Distribution of Water Fees in Mexican
WUA Federations
100 Water Fees
15 Federation
75 Water User Assoc.
10 CNA
OM Headworks
OM Main Canals
OM Secondary Network
Users
69
Figure 16 Association/Federation of 33 WUAs on
Lower Rio Grande
Amistad Dam
United States State of Texas
Drain
Falcon Dam
33 Irrigation Associations
Rio Bravo
Pumping Plant
Rio Bravo
San Juan ID
Rio Bravo ID
Republic of Mexico State of Nuevo Leon
Martes R. Gomez Dam
Republic of Mexico State of Tamaulipas
Cuchillo Dam
San Juan
70

• Critical Considerations for Establishing WUA
  Federations
• Federations must have a firm legal basis
• Federation is based on hydrologic area not
  administrative boundaries
• Off-farm and main canals management legally
  transferred to control of Federation
• Federations belongs to all member WUAs
• Federation Management Board represents all member
  WUAs
• Federation Director reports to Federation
  Management Board
• Schedule for utilizing and sharing Technical
  Machinery is clear and understood by all member
  WUAs
• Federation budget comes from WUA fees and is
  transparent
• Federation has an active Dispute Resolution
  Committee as well as an Audit Committee