62) decentralised governance of irrigation water in cambodia - CDRI

water catchment scale. There had been some incidents of farmers from DAP scheme, out of
desperation for water, going to upstream schemes to try to illegally release water by breaking
the locks on the head structure. Water conflicts commonly arise during periods of water scarcity.
Despite efforts to manage water allocation and resolve conflicts, there is no firm mechanism to
ensure proper water management at a greater-than-command-area scale.
The level of coordination between locals and external private investors was only
observable in the case of Rolous at the time of study. In this case there had been no consultation
between the private company and local people, not even with the FWUC committee or CC.
Rather, the company and PDOWRAM made the decision and local people were merely told
that from that time on they would have to pay an annual service fee of USD100 to use water
from the canal. The private canal has only benefited approximately half of the farmers – those
with rice fields to the west of the main canal. The lack of farmers’ sense of ownership and
responsibility is because there is no functional avenue for them to participate in irrigation
management decision-making. To a degree, this sentiment extends to the FWUC commitees
as well. The committees had little power as was demonstrated in Rolous with the introduction
of the private canal. They had no opportunity to protest against or reject the investment; they
could only ask the private company to register formally and discuss irrigation issues with
PDOWRAM. The FWUC said that the private company that owned the main canal had agreed
to cooperate with local authorities and provincial departments (in particular PDOWRAM) to
resolve issues, case by case, to achieve an outcome that would bring the expected benefits to
all stakeholders. At the time of study there was no evidence of this happening.
Many established FWUCs in Kampong Thom province had collapsed or were
malfunctioning due to shortage of financial and technical support from external agencies. In
response to this, the FWUC established at Stung Chinit was organised and technically and
financially supported by development partners or NGOs. In particular, GRET and CEDAC
gave regular help with regards to water management and the function of the FWUC. This
external support underpinned the successful operation of the FWUC until June 2009 when the
programme ended. The Stung Chinit FWUC developed a reasonable level of technical capacity
in irrigation scheme management through the support from GRET and CEDAC; the concern
at the time of study was that the monthly budget for operation and administration would not be
covered by the collected ISF.
Even where the will for coordination exists between farmers, village leaders, CCs, FWUC
committee members and the PDOWRAM, regular communication has often been hampered by
geographical distance, which would incur travel and telephone costs that the committees and
farmers could not easily afford. This was the case in DAP, where proposed monthly meetings
to report on water allocation, crop planning and conflict management between the FWUC
members had not been held due to unaffordable out-of-pocket expenses. In Stung Chinit
however, where at the time of study external funding was available, meetings between the
FWUC and PDOWRAM were being conducted weekly and the support committee 21 members
met once a month with reasonable consistency.
21 The support committee is chaired by the district governor, and comprises representatives from concerned
provincial departments, commune and commune councils, police and FWUC.
CDRI Working Paper Series No. 62
29