Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
can legitimise and support a group's roles by recognising it in legislation,
delegating powers, engaging it in development of plans, sharing data, and by
providing support for training and transition activities. Such entities can also
foster credibility and leverage resources by collaborating with government,
research agencies, and regional natural resource management bodies.
Benefits of self-management entities have been well documented (Ostrom
1992, 2005; Marsden Jacob Associates 2004). They provide a mechanism
to engage irrigators in developing rules for water sharing, recognising their
expertise and knowledge, and gaining their commitment to management
of a common water resource in an empowering way. Flexible management
arrangements can be developed within the overall constraints of a water
resource plan. If effective, self-management reduces the operational demands
on government, facilitates commitment and innovation at a local level,
and engenders a culture of compliance with rules that are seen to be fair
and reasonable. Ostrom and colleagues' studies have shown that successful
self-governing entities can have major roles in monitoring and compliance.
Further, irrigators may also want control through metering, monitoring and
compliance.
On the other hand, there are two main risks with self-governance. First,
irrigators may not perceive that the transactional and financial costs and
additional responsibilities of operating such an entity are worth the benefit,
especially if they were engaged well by government in developing the 'rules'
(through a water resource plan) in the first place. The second risk is that the
entity does not meet its obligations under a plan or agreement and therefore
does not meet government's legal or policy obligations. To address the risks
and be successful, self-management needs to be formalised, rules (a plan)
established in a transparent and inclusive way, and responsibilities accepted
and funded within the capacity of the irrigators to support them (Baldwin
et
al
.2008).
In the case of Lombok in Indonesia (see case study later in this chapter),
it was found that though local rules were not always recorded, water user
associations (WUAs) were formalised structures in the hierarchy of statutory
mechanisms. This reinforcement of WUA legitimacy in legislation is also
seen in other parts of the world. Kenya's Water Bill 2012 (s16) for example,
specifies that:
Water Resource Users Association[s] shall be community based associa-
tions for collaborative management of water resources and resolution
of conflicts concerning the use of water resources. The Water Resource
Users Association shall be established as [an] association of water resource
users at the sub-basin level based on rules issued by the Water Resource
Regulatory Authority.
In the case of the Andhra Pradesh state of India, the
Andhra Pradesh
Management of Irrigation Systems Act 1997
is reported to be 'one of the most
