Public–private partnership in irrigation and drainage: need for a professional third party between farmers and government

Abstract

The irrigation and drainage sector (I&D) is facing a variety of issues, the most controversial being poor water efficiency, big public contribution, lack of asset maintenance, and often socio-economic inequity. Numerous attempts have been made to try to find a way out of this vicious circle, and lately the idea of trying to involve the private sector through public-private partnership (PPP) has been growing, nurtured by encouraging ''pilot'' experiences.Recent decades have shown some concern and effort to improve the performance of the sector, with the focus switching from on-farm improvement, to farmer involvement through participatory irrigation management and irrigation management transfer, and to quality service-oriented organisations. PPP should really be viewed as a logical sequence to these successive efforts, with a differentiated treatment of the various functions of I&D projects: private participation hoped for in investment, the governance function strictly public, OMM functions (operation, maintenance and management) wide open to private sector participation, while the agricultural production function remains entirely private.These theoretical conclusions were tested with 21 examples of existing (15) or projected (6) PPPs in I&D, analysed and modelled in terms of demand, offer, content, contracts and risks, with the following main findings: (i) the PPP demand is mostly a government initiative wishing to reduce recurrent public subsidies; (ii) service providers are more reactive than proactive; (iii) while 2/3 of the case studies contracts concern private participation in one or more of the investment functions, 90% of the contracts concern private participation in one or more of the OMM functions; (iv) service (and management) contracts account for 13% of the total, whereas public service delegation (PSD) accounts for 81% of the contracts; and (v) while investment PPPs are understandably more sensitive to country risks (devaluation), PSD arrangements are just as understandably more averse to commercial risks (fee collection from farmers) than service or management contracts.Last but not least, the important point is not so much to find an ''absolutely private'' partner but rather a professional ''third party'' between farmers and government, whether it be public (e.g. a reformed and financially autonomous government agency) or private (e.g. a private service provider looking for business or a WUA turning into a private corporation Les dernières décennies ont montré la réalité de ces efforts pour améliorer les performances du secteur, l'accent étant d'abord mis sur les améliorations à la parcelle, puis à l'implication des irrigants à travers la Gestion Participative de l'Irrigation (Participatory Irrigation Management, PIM) et le Transfert de Gestion de l'Irrigation (Irrigation Management Transfert, IMT), puis enfin à la recherche de la qualité dans le service de l'irrigation. Le PPP doit être considéré comme une suite logique de ces efforts successifs, avec un traitement diversifié des différe...

Le premier partenariat public-privé pour l’irrigation au Maroc : durable pour tous ?

“…Comme le soulignent Préfol et al (2006), les études de cas sur les PPP dans l'irrigation n'abordent que rarement les risques inhérents de façon appropriée. Au vu de l'engouement autour des PPP et du besoin évident de nouveaux instruments dans le secteur de l'irrigation, il convient d'améliorer la réglementation et la gestion des risques afin d'empêcher des répercussions négatives telles que celles décrites ici.…”

“…Préfol et al (2006) appellent à l'intervention d'un « tiers professionnel entre les cultivateurs et le gouvernement » ; nous recommandons vivement l'intervention d'un tel médiateur, capable de rapprocher les intérêts du gouvernement, des agriculteurs et du secteur privé -sans oublier les besoins de l'écosystème. Mais comme en témoigne l'exemple d'El Guerdane, le secteur privé ne se présente pas nécessairement comme un tiers professionnel indépendant lorsque des intérêts à long terme sont en jeu.…”

Regional partnerships to assist public–private investments in irrigation systems

“…By contrast, Zhang (2005), Hartwich et al (2005), Spielman and von Grebmer (2004), Mckay (2003), and Prefol et al (2006) document the failure of public-private partnerships. Zhang (2005) argues urgently for a workable and efficient procurement protocol for improved practices in future PPP projects.…”

“…Mckay (2003), while analysing the regulatory structures in water sector utilities in Australia, stresses that government must monitor the licence operating conditions and establish protocols to ensure water quality. Prefol et al (2006) use a four-box analytical framework to understand the risk and opportunities of public-private partnerships in the irrigation and drainage sector. They conclude that the important point for success of a partnership is not so much to find an -absolutely private‖ partner but rather a professional -third party‖ in addition to farmers and government, whether it be public or private.…”

Options for Operation and Maintenance Partnerships - A Case Study of Rupike Irrigation Scheme, Zimbabwe

“…According to Prefol et al (2006), private participation in the irrigation sector is in investment, operation and maintenance and production function while public sector participation is mainly in governance functions. While it is an undeniable fact that both public and private partnerships are crucial for effective operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure in small-scale irrigation schemes, it is important to analyse the scheme components and identify where these partnerships exist.…”