1. DECENTALISATION and Participatory Irrigation Management
In Egypt
Presented by:
Eng. Yehia Abdel Aziz,
Project Director Water Boards Project
Water Demand Management Forum
Cairo
February 2003
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman for this introduction,
Your Excelency Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Dr. Mahmoud Abu Zeid,
It is my pleasure to present to you the paper on Development of Water Boards in Egypt.

2. Egypt’s Water Resources
High Aswan Dam ensures availability of 55.5 BCM/yr
River Nile provides >95% of water used in Egypt
Ground Water in the Nile aquifer can provide about 7.5 BCM/yr ~ rechargeable live storage, current total abstraction is only about 4.5 BCM/yr
Non-Renewable deep aquifers in western desert and Sinai, current total abstraction is only 0.50 BCM/yr
Recycling agriculture drainage:
- about 4.5 BCM/yr for official reuse
- about 4.00 BCM/yr direct reuse in Upper Egypt
- about 2.8 BCM/yr unofficial reuse

3. Egypt’s Water Requirements
Average annual crop consumptive use is more than 40 BCM/yr
The total diverted water to agriculture is about 61 BCM/yr
Municipal water demand is estimated as 4.6 BCM/yr
The estimated value of the water requirement for industrial sector is about 7.5 BCM/yr

4. Increasing population Increasing urbanisation
THE PROBLEM
Increasing population
Increasing urbanisation
Increasing Industrialisation
 Water demand increases (quantity & quality-wise)
 Water supply remains the same
So what is the problem then??
In Egypt, like in most other countries we face an increase of our population going hand in hand with a process of increasing urbanisation and industrialisation.
These processes place increasing demands on the available water resources;
First of course we need more and more water to satisfy the requirements of the increasing population,
The urbanisation and industrialisation however, is the main cause for the degradation of the water quality we see around us, while the same urban and industrial users demand for better quality of water at the same time.
And let us remind ourselves that the quantity of water that we receive annually is unlikely to increase during the foreseeable future

5. THE SOLUTION Increase the water use efficiencies:
Technical improvements:
Main System
Distribution System
Field System
Management improvements:
Training of staff
Organisational set-up
Automation of data collection and processing
Institutional reform:
Decentralisation
User Participation
Privatisation
Is there a solution for this problem?
Well, yes there is…. And in principle the solution is to be found in increasing the water use efficiencies.
The easiest and quickest way to achieve that is through technical interventions in the infrastructure of our water management system.
But once the technical improvements are in place, further gains can be achieved by improving the management of the system.
After that the next logical step in this quest for increasing water use efficiencies is institutional reform with particular emphasis on decentralisation, user participation and privatisation.

6. Result: a generally satisfactory water supply for all !
THE ACHIEVEMENTS
Technical interventions:
Aswan Dam, Nile Barrages, High Aswan Dam
Irrigation Improvement Program, Drainage Re-use
National Drainage Program, Lined mesqas, Localised irrigation
Continuous Process
Management improvement:
Staff training, Organisational adjustments, Computerisation
That is what we have done in Egypt. More than a hundred years ago we started with technical interventions on a large scale: On the main system we constructed barrages, and the Aswan Dam; We are improving the distribution system and re-use the drainage water; At he field level we construct tile drainage, we line mesqas and introduce sprinkler and drip systems
Since long we continuously improve our management capacity through training, through the introduction of modern techniques such as computers, while we regularly adjust out organisation to improve our performance.
Recently we have started looking even further and we are expecting to benefit from introducing user participation and private sector involvement in water management. It is understood that this would need to go hand in hand with considerable reorganisations in the Ministry itself.
We can distinguish a sequence here:
First there are the technical improvements; most of these have already been completed or have become national programs.
This is followed by the improvement of the management, which already is very much an established continuos process.
All this has, till today, lead to a generally satisfactory water supply for all! This is a great achievement of which we can be very proud. The water use efficiencies we reach here in Egypt rank among the highest in the world. Surely many countries are jealous of us.
Institutional reforms:
Pilot Projects
Ministry reorganisation, User participation, Privatisation
Result: a generally satisfactory water supply for all !

7. THE DILEMMA Potential of technical interventions exhausted
Intensifying Government management is costly
Governments need to scale down
But what about tomorrow?
Can we maintain our record?
What are the new challenges facing us?
First of all we have to acknowledge that we are rapidly approaching the limits - in particular the economic limits - of finding technical solutions to our problems. After the IIP there is little left to technically improve, which is still economically feasible.
So, we opt to further intensify our management: Reduce the size of the Districts, appoint many more Engineers and - as a matter of speech - carry every single drop of precious water from Aswan all the way to the root of the plant.
This is a very costly solution at a time when - in line with world-wide trends - governments are under pressure to scale down and reduce the number of employees instead.
Here we are faced with two contradicting demands…….. A true dilemma!

8. THE WAY OUT The key-question for the future of water management is:
User Participation
The key-question for the future of water management is:
NOT: WHETHER User Organisations should play a role in water management in Egypt?”
BUT: WHICH role will User Organisations play in
water management in Egypt and HOW will this be realised?”
How do we get out of this dilemma?
There is one - and only one - way. Like in all other countries facing the same dilemma Egypt also has chosen the path of user participation
Through user participation in water management the government would not need to increase its staff for the necessary intensification of management…… maybe the government could even reduce its present staffing level.
Also user participation is expected to effect more efficient use of financial resources for water management:
overhead costs would go down due to less government staff
funds generated in an area would be spent in that area
funds would be spent in order of priority of the users
Actually it is not really a question of whether we would need user organisations to play a role in water management in Egypt……..The question now is rather exactly which role these user organisations will play in water management…. and how are we going to achieve that!!!!!

9. THE TRADITION Munawba and mutarfas systems Saqia rings
Haq ul Arab concept
Irrigation and Drainage Act (Law 12/1984)
Water is a public good
MWR&I is charged with the management of the water
Mesqa micro system is private property managed by the users
Now do not think this is something new.
We always have had forms of user participation during our long water management history.
I just remind you of of the Munawba and mutarfas system, which was practised here and of which we still can find remnants around in particular in the Fayoum.
I mention the Saqia Rings in the more recent history, where farmers jointly owned, operated and maintained a saqia.
The principles of Haq ul Arab for centuries have provided the basis for judgement and arbitration in water management conflicts.
The Irrigation and Drainage Act of 20 years ago states that water is a public good and that the MWRI manages the water, but…..also that the mesqa microsystem is owned and managed by the users.
Hence, since long both the Ministry and the users each have their specified role in water management.
Since the promulgation of Law 12 in 1984 developments on user participation in water management quickly accelerated

10. THE PAST DEVELOPMENTS 1977-1984 EWUP
Recommendation to organise farmers at mesqa level (WUAs)
1981 IMS
Establishment of first WUAs
1987 Irrigation Improvement Sector established
IIS in charge of IIPs; incorporates IAS component
1994 Law 12/84 amended (Law 213/94)
Legal framework for WUAs and WUUs
1995 FWMP establishes first “Local Water Board”
User organisations at Branch Canal level
As a result of the EWUP and IMS projects in the early eighties the Irrigation Improvement Sector was established in 1987 formally incorporating an Irrigation Advisory Service component mandated to establish and support WUAs.
In 1994 Law 12 was amended to provide the legal framework for WUAs and WUUs. This amended law is known as Law 213/1994.
In Fayoum the FWMP sarted experimenting with user organisations at the branch canal level and the first (so-called) Local Water Board was established in By Local Water Boards had been established.

11. THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
1999 APRP-EPIQ: establishment of 3 BCWUAs
User organisations at Branch Canal level
1999 Water Boards Project
Develop process and structure and legal framework
2000 FWMP phase III
Expand user participation to District level
2000 APRP-EPIQ
Revision of Law 12; IMT experiment
2000 IIP
Establishment of BCWUAs in completed IIP
2001 APRP-EPIQ
Establishment of 2 IWM Districts
2002 National Conference on Water Boards
Conclusions: up-scaling and rapid management transfer
Through the APRP and EPIQ program the Ministry itself established three experimental Branch Canal Water User Associations in 1999.
Following the experiences in Fayoum the Water Boards Project was formulated and starting from 1999 works on developing a procedure for establishment and structure for Water Boards broadly applicable in Egypt. The Project also tackles the issue of providing the legal framework for Water Boards.
In the year 2000 we have seen an extension of the FWMP, with the objective to pioneer upscaling of the Water Boards and integrating the Ministry’s water management services, we see the APRP-EPIQ program undertaking the revision of Law 12 as well s piloting the concept of IMT. And we see the IIP starting a program of establishing BCWUAs at the same time.
In 2001 this is followed by the establishment of two experimental Integrated water management districts under the APRP-EPIQ program - one in Zifta and one in Ibahameya
Early this year all the experiences were brought together in the National Conference on Water Boards. The main conclusions drawn from all previous experiences was that for Water Boards to succeed and sustain as a water management institution they would need to:
1) be up-scaled to at least the “District” level and,
2) quickly be transferred actual tasks and responsibilities as well as the means to generate the resources for it.

12. THE ACHIEVEMENTS About 50 ”Water Board” organisations established
> ½ concentrated in Fayoum
10 under Water Boards Project
include wide range of circumstances
covering >150,000 feddan, >200,000 families, >700,000 people
Effective procedure for establishing Water Boards
emphasis on awareness, training
involving all stakeholders, in particular local Ministry cadre
But what have we got so far?
We have already about 50 “Water Board”-like organisations established, most of them in Fayoum, but in total covering a wide range of different circumstances such as Old and New lands, Upper Egypt and Delta, Improved and non-Improved areas, with and without rice or sugarcane cultivation, etc. In total covering an area of about 150,000 feddan, involving about 200,000 families.
We now have effective procedures for establishing Water Boards with due consideration of awareness raising, training, involving stakeholders including the local Ministry cadre.
We have a generally applicable structure for Water Boards based on representation of water management interest, democratic procedures, accountability and emphasis on communication as this is where the Ministry’s water management institutions fall short.
I think time allows/does not allow us to show you the structure of Water Boards
The role and the scope for Water Boards have been defined and the required capacities identified. Unfortunately the current legal limitations prohibit us to exploit the full potential of Water Boards in this piloting stages…...Consequently the available opportunities for participation of Water Boards at this moment are in Operation and in Planning of O&M…… Although this comprises maybe less than 20% of the potential scope for Water Boards is does seem to provide already sufficient incentive for the users to invest their time and energy in these Water Board organisations.
And last but not least we see that the the revision of Law 12 has been drafted and is processed, to provide the legal framework for Water Boards.

14. General structure for Water Boards
democratic, representative, based on interests in water
accountability, communication
Role, scope and capacity for Water Boards
legal constraints limit exploiting the full potential
participation in planning of O&M strong incentive
current opportunities for participation mainly in operation
Revision of Law 12 drafted

15. THE LESSONS LEARNED
User organisations can be developed without civil works
involving regular Ministry departments to play their role
enlisting the services of other projects
building on existing local capacity
Users can be mobilised to form capable organisations
poor and illiterate farmers appoint very capable leaders
farmers contribute resources (time, goods, services, etc.)
women participate and contribute
limited control over their resources already strong incentive
We learned a lot in the process. I would like to focus on only those few, which address some common prejudices:
Unlike what we used to think, it is very well possible to establish and develop user organisations without an accompanying infrastructure rehabilitation or improvement project. Water Boards are taught to negotiate and obtain their dues from Ministry Departments, from other Projects or from third parties, but to foremost rely on the resources they can mobilise themselves.
Contrary to expectations the poor and illiterate rural dwellers can form very capable organisations by appointing or electing very capable leaders; Farmers can and do contribute resources such as time, services and contributions.; Women do have a role to play, want to play that role and can play their role in water management.
Despite that Water Boards are not - yet - a legal entity it has proven possible to reach a formalised working relationship between a Water Board and the Ministry.
However……we should not be deceived by the initial successes we score!!!!
The initial co-operation, enthusiasm and energy we see in the young Water Boards is fuelled mainly by expectations and we should realise that if these expectations are not fulfilled within a reasonably short period people will rapidly lose interest. I can illustrate that as follows: show graph
And very important: we conclude that Water boards at Branch Canal level are unlikely to develop in sustainable organisations. Mainly because the scope for transfer of tasks is very limited and as such these Water Boards would hardly relief the government's burden in water management. They are merely filling a void in the existing system.

16. Successful Water Board - Ministry co-operation
agreed annual plans, satisfactory implementation
Initial success of pilot Water Boards deceptive
user’s participation based on expectations
unfulfilled expectations quickly lead to loss of interest
Sustainability of Water Boards at Branch Canal doubtful
insufficient scope for Water Boards
inadequate relief of Government’s burden

17. THE WAY AHEAD status and institutional embedding of Water Boards
Rapid transfer of tasks, resources, mandates
decentralise ministry organisation - subsidiarity principle
reorganise and integrate ministry's services
phase out parallel institution, redefine role of ministry
Efficient establishing procedures
in-house capacity vs outsourcing
training needs, training capacity, training programs
low-cost, low-input, high-speed methodology
Up-scaling
“District” smallest effective organisational unit
Water Boards at Canal level become “Executive Branches”
Approval and implementation of legal framework
status and institutional embedding of Water Boards
adequate mandates and effective sanctions in bylaws
Policy for financing of Water Board activities
So what to do?
We need to aim for a process of rapidly transferring tasks, mandates and resources to the Water Boards. This requires that the ministry organisation itself needs to decentralise following the principles of subsidiarity (i.e. to delegate the decision- and financial powers to the lowest feasible level); the ministry phases out the tasks transferred to the Water Boards, while its own role is redefined and its services reorganised and integrated.
We need to further develop our establishment procedures doing it much more efficient, we have to consider options of outsourcing this task and assess the scope of training required for such a massive program. In short we need a rapid procedure, which is cheap and requires few people….. Easier said than done!!!!!
No more Water Boards should be established unless in the context of the up-scaled version I.e. the “District’” Water Board, which is now - in line with international experiences - generally accepted as the smallest sustainable unit for Water Boards. The Water Boards at Branch Canal level will form the executive Branches of the Water Board.
The legal embedding of Water Boards is now urgently required, with adequate by-laws to govern its mandates, resource generation and punitive measures at its disposal.
Last but not least we are in dire need of a vision and policy for financing Water Boards and its activities.

18. THE FUTURE Ministry withdraws up in the system
Water Boards are charged with the management of the systems “as-they-are”
Water Boards negotiate the rehabilitation, modification and improvement of their system with the Ministry
Ministry features:
Centralised regulatory functions
Decentralised implementation
Water Boards do not “belong” to the MWR&I only
Introduction of Water Boards touches on broader administrative issues, laws and structures not limited to MWR&I
Relation Water Boards versus Local Government
Compare to similar cases e.g. Indonesia
Where would that lead us?
We see the Ministry - as we say - “withdrawing up in the system” . What we mean with that is illustrated here show picture
We see the water management tasks of the lower end systems being transferred to Water Boards. We do not support the concept of first rehabilitating the systems before handing over responsibility to Water Boards but instead promote the idea that the Water Boards themselves identify - in order of priority - the need for rehabilitation and modification and negotiate the implementation with the Ministry. The availability of a special budget allocation for that purpose would be a requirement.
We see the Ministry taking on a regulatory role, with its remaining implementation tasks decentralised.
We cannot hope to contain the Water Boards, their establishment and their functioning within the exclusive control of the MWRI, especially when we think of up-scaling Water Boards to the District level or even above.
Two recent visits to Indonesia by delegations of the MWRI have clearly illustrated how organisations like Water Boards relate and interact with other institutions especially local government institutions.
We need to open up to the concept of Water Boards not belonging exclusively and being fully under the control of the MWRI. We have to start bringing in others outside this Ministry in the discussion. Introducing the up-scaling of Water Boards we dramatically increase the number of stakeholders and interests. This should not scare us off…. We should go for it ourselves and be in control before someone else does it for us and we lose control over the process.

20. THE COSTS Training Ministry staff for establishing Water Boards
Ministry staff for supervising Water Boards
Water Board members to manage their water resources
Implementation
Execute a national program to establish Water Boards
Introduce an income system for Water Boards
Awareness raising and promotion
National program to promote the concept of participation
National program to promote the concept of cost sharing
Reorganisation of the Ministry
Devolve water management tasks at District-level
Decentralise decision-making (subsidiarity principle)
Build up non-engineering capacity
extension services for Water Boards
financial and organisational audit expertise
What would this cost us?
The main cost components would be:
Investments in training: Staff would need to be trained in establishing Water Boards and in supervising Water Boards after they have been established. Water Boards would require training to adequately manage their water resources.
The implementation of a national program - not unlike the IIP - to establish Water Boards comprises a major investment. Parallel to that a system to allow Water Boards to generate their income would need to be introduced nation wide.
Awareness raising: a radical modification of the existing situation as this requires a major media campaign to promote the concepts of participation and cost sharing.
And the introduction of Water Boards needs to go hand in hand with with major reorganisations in the MWRI including devolution of management tasks at the District level, decentralisation of decision-making and financial powers, and build up non-engineering capacity within the Ministry such as water management extension services, financial and organisational audit expertise, etc.

21. THE BENEFITS Reduction of Ministry’s staff Reduce Ministry’s spending
Resolution of conflicts
Improved water management
Better services (addressing “actually felt needs”)
More effective use of resources (cost saving)
Better adherence to cropping pattern
Ministry concentrates on policy and regulation
And what would we get in return?
There is potential for a reduction of Ministry staff in the Governorates in the order of 30% and a potential for reducing Ministry spending on O&M of about 50%; show tables?
Most conflicts between users would be resolved without intervention by the Ministry;
Water Management may be improved in particular with respect to equity;
Water Management services will improve because actually felt needs will be addressed
More effective use of resources would also lead to cost reductions;
Water Boards would be more effective in assuring better adherence to cropping patterns in particular with respect to the cultivated rice areas.
The Ministry can concentrate on policy formulation and regulatory functions.

23. THE SUSTAINABILITY Parameters
Legality: legal framework, adequate mandates (rev. Law 12 ?)
Mission: defined objective, role, tasks and responsibilities
Capacity: skills, means, procedures, etc.
Autonomy: take decisions, generate and control resources
How do we make this work?
For Water Boards to achieve all this and fulfil these functions successfully we will need to address a number of key issues. We call these issues the parameters for sustainability
First we would need to address the issue of Legality and the Mission of Water Boards; We need a legal frame work with a defined objective, role, task and responsibilities together with adequate mandates to carry out that Mission. Does the revision of Law 12 provide for that sufficiently???
Of course Water Boards need the Capacity to carry out their function. This means the necessary skills and facilities, proper procedures, etc.
They would also need a certain degree of Autonomy, that is a freedom to take decisions and means to generate and control their resources.
Water Boards would need to account for their performance and finances, both to the water users whom they represent as well as to the Ministry under whose water management institution they function;
They need to operate with a good degree of cost effectiveness - District Water Boards would greatly benefit from economics of scale;
They have to be come Effectiveness, meaning that they actually achieve what they plan to do;
They would need to be Relevant, or in other words would have to be dealing with issues, which are the concern of the users;
They need to be acknowledged and respected by their counterparts; this Legitimacy would be hard to gain when the Ministry continues to offer the same services in parallel

24. Accountability: representative body (dis)approves, ministry controls
Viability: cost effective, economical scale (Distr. Water Boards)
Effectiveness: implement and complete the plans
Relevance: deal with ”actually felt needs”
Legitimacy: acknowledged by counterpart agencies (MWR&I, etc.)

25. Thank you
I guess this may have raised more questions than it has answered, but I hope that this presentation provides a good direction for future actions and has alerted everybody to the fact that Water Boards is not a panacea, not an answer to all the problems.
I also hope that it has become clear that successful introduction and implementation of the concept of Water Boards requires some tough decision-making, a thorough plan and policy with strong political backing.
Implementation of such a program is an enormous undertaking of a magnitude not quite unlike the IIP program.
With this remarks I would like to conclude and thank you for your kind attention.