15.4 Key Sectoral Reforms
319
The purely public-interest water infrastructure management organization. This
is defined as an agency (shi ye dan wei, a special organization in China fully
supported by a government budget, but not a part of any governmental organization) that conducts the management, operation, and maintenance works for water
infrastructure, including the functions of flood control and drainage.
The quasi-public-interest water infrastructure management organization. This
conducts the management, operation, and maintenance work for water infrastructure
with public-interest functions including flood control and drainage, and operational
functions (with income) including water supply and hydropower. The nature of the
quasi-public-interest organization is defined according to its revenue: as an “agency”
if it cannot support itself through self-financing; or as an “enterprise” if it can.
The operational water infrastructure management organization. This is defined
as an enterprise that conducts the management, operation, and maintenance works
for water infrastructure including water supply and hydropower.
Positions and staffing depend on the defined nature of the organization.
While maintenance staff is separate from management, staff conducting operational
management in a quasi-public-interest agency, and other employees conducting operational management, are not defined because these works could be conducted by a
market mechanism.
The second step of the reform was to standardize the scope of government funding
to each. In a purely public-interest agency, basic expenditures including staffing costs
and management costs would be provided by the government budget. Daily maintenance costs would be listed in annual maintenance capital. Repair and renewal
expenditures would be listed in the infrastructure investment plan. In an agency
with quasi-public-interest, spending with a public-interest including staffing costs,
management costs, maintenance, and repair costs, are the same as those of purely
public-interest agency; however, the expenditures of the daily management should
be afforded by the enterprises. Repair and renewal costs can be arranged by governmental budget, but only if the enterprise’s depreciation capital is not enough to cover
them.
This institutional reform was aimed at solving questions over the status, staffing,
and financing of water infrastructure management organizations. In terms of agricultural water resources management, the main water supply bodies are normally
defined as the quasi-public-interested agencies with governmental financial support.
The reform was finished in 2008. At the end of July 2007, of some 15,154 agencies engaged in the reform, 12,012 had finished their assessments of the position
and staffing, while 8,822 had defined the nature of their agency. But public-interest
staffing costs and engineering maintenance expenditure proved to be a key problem;
only 48% of staff costs and 35% of engineering expenditure had been accounted for
(Chen 2007).
The reform has had a significant impact on agricultural water resources management. It clarifies the nature of the agricultural water service provision agencies, and
319
The purely public-interest water infrastructure management organization. This
is defined as an agency (shi ye dan wei, a special organization in China fully
supported by a government budget, but not a part of any governmental organization) that conducts the management, operation, and maintenance works for water
infrastructure, including the functions of flood control and drainage.
The quasi-public-interest water infrastructure management organization. This
conducts the management, operation, and maintenance work for water infrastructure
with public-interest functions including flood control and drainage, and operational
functions (with income) including water supply and hydropower. The nature of the
quasi-public-interest organization is defined according to its revenue: as an “agency”
if it cannot support itself through self-financing; or as an “enterprise” if it can.
The operational water infrastructure management organization. This is defined
as an enterprise that conducts the management, operation, and maintenance works
for water infrastructure including water supply and hydropower.
Positions and staffing depend on the defined nature of the organization.
While maintenance staff is separate from management, staff conducting operational
management in a quasi-public-interest agency, and other employees conducting operational management, are not defined because these works could be conducted by a
market mechanism.
The second step of the reform was to standardize the scope of government funding
to each. In a purely public-interest agency, basic expenditures including staffing costs
and management costs would be provided by the government budget. Daily maintenance costs would be listed in annual maintenance capital. Repair and renewal
expenditures would be listed in the infrastructure investment plan. In an agency
with quasi-public-interest, spending with a public-interest including staffing costs,
management costs, maintenance, and repair costs, are the same as those of purely
public-interest agency; however, the expenditures of the daily management should
be afforded by the enterprises. Repair and renewal costs can be arranged by governmental budget, but only if the enterprise’s depreciation capital is not enough to cover
them.
This institutional reform was aimed at solving questions over the status, staffing,
and financing of water infrastructure management organizations. In terms of agricultural water resources management, the main water supply bodies are normally
defined as the quasi-public-interested agencies with governmental financial support.
The reform was finished in 2008. At the end of July 2007, of some 15,154 agencies engaged in the reform, 12,012 had finished their assessments of the position
and staffing, while 8,822 had defined the nature of their agency. But public-interest
staffing costs and engineering maintenance expenditure proved to be a key problem;
only 48% of staff costs and 35% of engineering expenditure had been accounted for
(Chen 2007).
The reform has had a significant impact on agricultural water resources management. It clarifies the nature of the agricultural water service provision agencies, and