Local Irrigation Management Institutions Mediate Changes Driven by External Policy and Market Pressures in Nepal and Thailand

Abstract

This article assesses the role of local institutions in managing irrigation water use. Fifty irrigation systems in each country were studied in Nepal and Thailand to compare the influence of local institutions on performance of irrigation systems amid changes in external policy and market pressures. Nepal's new irrigation policy after the re-instatement of multiparty democracy in 1990 emphasized participatory irrigation management transferring the management responsibility from state authorities to water users. The water user associations of traditional farmer-managed irrigation systems were formally recognized by requiring registration with related state authorities. In Thailand also government policies encouraged people's participation in irrigation management. Today water users are directly involved in management of even some large irrigation systems at the level of tertiary canals. Traditional communal irrigation systems in northern Thailand received support for system infrastructure improvement but have faced increased interference from government. In Thailand market development supported diversification in farming practices resulting in increased areas under high water-demanding commercial crops in the dry season. In contrast, the command areas of most irrigation systems in Nepal include cereal-based subsistence farming with only one-third having commercial farming. Cropping intensities are higher in Nepal than in Thailand reflecting, in part, differences in availability of land and management. In both countries local institutions play an important role in maintaining the performance of irrigation systems as external drivers and local contexts change. Local institutions have provided alternative options for irrigation water use by mediating external pressures.

Environmental variability and child growth in Nepal

“…Of this proportion, less than a third is irrigated year-round (Government of Nepal [GON] and Department of Irrigation, 2015). This leaves agriculture and those who depend on it vulnerable to either the vagaries of weather or the rudimentary irrigation schemes under farmer-and agency-managed systems (Bastakoti et al, 2010;Bhatta et al, 2005). Poor seed quality, low rates of fertilizer use, and high rates of land degradation all contribute to Nepal's poor agricultural performance, further compromising food security, with potentially important implications for child growth.…”

Towards characterizing the adaptive capacity of farmer-managed irrigation systems: learnings from Nepal

“…On the other hand, an irrigation system with good infrastructure can fail to function effectively when the social capital is lacking. The erosion of social capital can occur due to inappropriate government policies like state centric government policies; technology adoption like individual groundwater pumps that discourages the community irrigation; and lack of interest in collective actions and irrigated agriculture [3,49]. Siran Baguwa of Sindhupalchowk district suffered from poor performance after the farmers at the head end stopped participating in collective maintenance due to lack of trust [28].…”

“…Most of the literature on assessment of FMIS has concentrated on self-governance and institutional performance [26,28,29]. Some studies have explored the robustness of institutional arrangements to external drivers of change -including climate change -but none has elaborated the adaptive-capacity dimensions [3,30]. This paper contributes to the literature by applying and extending institutional adaptation analyses to FMIS facing global change.…”

“…Effective governance, facilitated by good leaders, is crucial for climate-change adaptation because it addresses underlying factors that produce vulnerability in the absence of equity, inclusiveness, and deliberation. Leaders build trust with farmers and are capable of performing vital organizational functions [25], including facilitating collective action for canal cleaning, conflict resolution over water deliveries, and resource securitization in the face of risks such as upstream water diversions or from natural factors such as landslides [3]. During natural disasters, leaders play important role by maintaining cohesiveness, seeking external and internal funding, and mediating multiple risks.…”

“…Farmermanaged irrigation systems (FMIS) in Nepal and other Asian countries (e.g., Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia), are among the prevalent local resource-governance institutions that have survived decades and even centuries of social, ecological, and cultural changes [1 ,3,4]. FMIS are autonomous institutions whose community members are responsible for overall irrigation management including water appropriation, distribution, canal maintenance, and conflict management through collective action [3,5]. In Nepal, they are characterized by use of low-cost technology appropriate for heterogeneous local conditions such as diverse geographic terrain, autonomous decision making suited to local sociopolitical contexts, and collective action for maintenance and operation of infrastructure [6][7][8].…”