Summary Remarks

Prepared by Ujjwal Pradhan, Program Officer, The Ford Foundation

Dear Conference participants,

My colleague Fernando Gonzalez has done a wonderful job of providing a summary of the whole set of issues covered by the numerous interventions and the syntheses of the various topics provided by the topic coordinators.

Likewise, I too found the theme notes and synthesis notes extremely informative and based to a great extent on actual field examples. In many cases, these examples provided good insights into what works and what does not and that these scenarios are in fact embedded in some context: the inner dynamism within an ever changing environment.

Clearly then, in our analysis of irrigation systems effected by IMT and IMT policies and practices, these should not be treated as closed systems, a-historical and a-political. In dealing with what types of policies work or fail, the politics of policy making (both the latent and manifest policies) and policy enforcement cannot be ignored. References made to market forces, financial incentives or disincentives that promote or hinder the productivity of IMT systems (see themes on legal issues and financing) clearly allude to the contextual character of IMT systems, their capacity to manage support services or make them demand driven and the nature of the "moving target" called IMT at a distinct juncture.

I would now like to share with you some of the general impressions that came to my mind, since the syntheses and the summary capture the various arguments made on the various important topics so well, so I will refrain from repeating them.

Upon re-reading the syntheses and theme notes, along with the various interventions, the underlying grid of discourse followed the perspective of a predominantly utilitarian approach to thinking about management and governance. Perhaps the preoccupation on profitability and productivity pulls us in this direction. However, the synthesis note on IMT policy and the scope for reform touched on this topic by mentioning that culture and cultural traditions played a significant role in planning and designing an IMT strategy and examples were given regarding temples and other things, cultural dimensions are treated as "peculiar features of community" or the "idiosyncrasies" of the community. The actions of bureaucracies, external actors, concepts of management and governance and water allocation tended to be more uniformly accepted as being generic.

Throughout Asia, particularly in South Asia and Southeast Asia, the number of breached bunds and bent spindles testify of the characteristics of the rational peasant and everyday forms of resistance: farmers resorting to actions that speak a lot about their dissatisfaction with either the design, technology or management of the system.

It may be useful to study how adoption or the dissemination of IMT takes place especially in a larger system with part of the secondary or tertiary canal already under IMT. It would be fruitful to investigate whether, after IMT, there is a reduction in dissent or free-rider behavior of water users.

If at one level, there is "mismanagement" and farmers would welcome IMT or turnover, there are also examples of systems in Northwest India where the farming communities would want the government to "takeover" their systems because of either low productivity or better non-agricultural economic opportunities. Global market forces, grain and food flows and financial and tax policies contribute to an enabling or disabling environment for management turnover or takeover.

A brief revisit to environmental history may provide answers to why a certain policy or practice was adopted more rapidly than at other times; how communities entered into negotiations and agreements (so crucial in setting roles and responsibilities in PIM or turnover); alternative forms of dispute resolutions; customary water rights (secure and sanctioned and enforced however "informal" they may be); and how irrigation is managed within a cash-poor economy. In many countries, it has been the lack of finances (a fiscal crisis) that has brought about more participatory practices in natural resources management.

In late 18th century Nepal, some irrigation systems were managed by a government functionary who was paid in kind (a share of the harvest) and this harvest came from the tail end land of the irrigation system. This was a mechanism used by a cash poor country to ensure water distribution within a system and also instill accountability measures. Times change but certain lessons can be derived from the study of environmental history in outlining social relations, policies, and state-citizen relations.

I would like to end by mentioning one of the cross-cutting themes that was alluded to, which is that of equity and justice. To an extent, promoters of IMT seem to be searching for a new governance model with equity and justice. This includes concerns about stakeholder inputs and voice, accountability measures and checks and balances as was referred to in the synthesis note on financing irrigation, gender relations and the role of women, and so on. A one-farmer-one-vote principle of membership in water users associations was advocated by some (see the synthesis note on organizational change). This would certainly have implications for gender equity, where equity is based on cultural notions and environmental ethics. The low rate of returns in agriculture and thus the feminization of agriculture and poverty do have gender equity implications.

The issue of who the "real" stakeholders are continues. One query that comes to my mind is who has to live by the consequences of whose recommendations. The discussions covered various aspects of property relations and bundles of rights, notions that are very central to IMT and its implications. Class, caste, ethnicity, power notions may be more important as governance institutions become vehicles for power and benefits. Thus, the rules and tools created by the new governance structures, especially that involve the disenfranchisement of women, tenants, sharecroppers, and migrant laborers, have serious equity and justice implications.

As a direct tangible output of this electronic conference, it may be useful to reshape the various synthesis notes and additional papers into a special edition on IMT in the World Development journal or other development journals for wider dissemination beyond those who have email connectivity and access. The International Food Policy Research Institute convened an email conference on property and gender that produced such a special edition in the World Development journal. This was very much welcomed by the community of development professionals.

The toolkit concept is also worthwhile exploring. Lessons and challenges in IMT have invaluable input in thinking about governance of other natural resources systems and this comparative knowledge would prove quite useful in the future as development thinkers and practitioners try to grapple with forestry, watershed, pastures, and coastal resources.

Contact: imt-moderator@fao.org