62) decentralised governance of irrigation water in cambodia - CDRI

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction to Findings
Water governance manifests differently in each of the case study schemes. This is due
to a number of factors including differences in scale, physical infrastructure and structure
of water governance bodies, farmer participation and coordination, internal capacity of the
FWUC committees, and external support for the FWUCs in individual schemes. Findings from
interviews and field observations are presented in the context of how irrigation systems are
actually governed and managed in rural Cambodia, and the extent to which local people are
involved in scheme management. This chapter is divided into three themes that encompass
the information gathered from the interviewees: actual governance arrangements, farmer
participation, and stakeholder coordination. The four elements of irrigation governance
(system maintenance, water allocation, coordination and conflict management), as identified
in the research questions of this study, transcend the thematic divisions of this chapter and are
addressed as case study examples throughout the chapter.
5.2 Actual Governance Arrangements
5.2.1 Legitimacy of FWUCs
The recognition of FWUC legitimacy was strongest at PDOWRAM level; villagers and
MOWRAM did not always fully recognise the FWUC committee as a legitimate governance
body. The FWUCs in DAP and Stung Chinit are formally registered with MOWRAM.
Rolous has had an operational FWUC since 2004, and has already held three elections for its
committee members (in 2004, 2007 and 2010 14 ); however, it has not yet been registered with
MOWRAM even though it is formally recognised by the villagers and PDOWRAM. A Rolous
FWUC representative reported that all requirements stated in the FWUC establishment statute
were fulfilled, but the budgetary limitations of both the FWUC and PDOWRAM meant that
a MOWRAM representative was not invited to attend the election. Although recognising the
existence of the FWUC committee as a governance body, some farmers explained that because
of the lack of formal written registration from MOWRAM they had little trust in the FWUC
committee’s ability to manage the scheme. These feelings were “validated” by the FWUC
committee’s inadequate action in the wake of the Ketsana storm in 2009 and its inability to
demonstrate technical and agricultural capability.
An interview with PDOWRAM representatives in Pursat revealed that donor agencies
had advised that a policy be set in place to prevent community members already holding
positions of authority (e.g., CC members) from being elected as FWUC committee members 15 .
This advice had been fairly influential until recently. The newly established FWUC in DAP
has seven CC members, one from each of the communes within the command area. The Pursat
PDOWRAM justified this, saying that the CC representatives are “well known and popular,
have had management experience, have displayed good leadership in the past, own rice paddies
in the command area and have an adequate economic situation”. Based on these factors, a
14 The most recent election was conducted in May 2010; a PDOWRAM staff member was invited/attended
(communication with FWUC leader in Rolous, 1 April 2011).
15 This was not included in the guidelines on FWUC establishment.
CDRI Working Paper Series No. 62
19