165
institutional environment within which they operate is not supportive, providing for
little funding whilst demanding a high degree of conformity (1). Their capacity to
operate and maintain irrigation infrastructure is severely limited not only by a lack
of money but also by an inability to mobilise support from water users (2). Many
WUAs in the region are clearly not convinced that the benefi ts of water user participation outweigh the transaction costs involved (3). As a result, WUAs generally
have proven unable to develop effective collective choice arrangements in managing water and water infrastructures (4). In terms of the fi rst core challenge set out in
Chap. 8 , (Moss and Dobner 2015 , in this volume) – relating to the water-land
nexus – they are caught between two powerful institutional regimes, for irrigation
and for agriculture, respectively, with each placing unrealistic and unsustainable
demands on WUAs. Prospects for integrated rural development, taking a crosssectoral approach to the water-land-food nexus, are currently poor. The story of
WUAs in the Fergana Valley is also a rich portrayal of the tensions emerging from
parallel trends of path dependency and transformation – the second core challenge
addressed in this part of the book. The legacy of the Soviet era lives on in many
informal institutions and formal structures of irrigation management. At the same
time, the WUAs are having to cope with enormous changes in the wake of postSoviet land reforms, transboundary relations and emergent modes of governance.
There are important exceptions to this negative picture, situations where WUAs
are exploring innovative ways of coping with the enormity of their tasks, but they
represent only a small minority of WUAs in the region and are, to a large extent,
dependent on temporary donor funding. The rapid growth of WUGs is perhaps the
most promising recent development in irrigation governance in the Fergana Valley,
as it represents an emergent desire of farmers to make their own collective arrangements for water management. It is, however, too early to reach any judgement on
how they are likely to work in the future and what impact they might have on the
practices of WUAs. What current experiences of WUGs indicate is that strengthening the decision-making powers of water users can generate amongst them a greater
sense of collective responsibility for managing water and land in a more sustainable
way and that this can, in favourable circumstances, stimulate learning processes at
the WUA level too. In terms of the future, this recent development would seem to
resonate with what Lankford and Hepworth call the “bazaar” model of water management ( 2010 ). Rather than a “cathedral” model of hierarchical, monocentric rule,
the authors suggest that a polycentric model (the “bazaar”), in which various organisational forms coexist, is especially suited to situations characterised by little reliable data, fl uctual water supply and demand and under-resourced regulatory
agencies – all factors prevalent in the Fergana Valley.
Field Trips and Discussions
1. Central Offi ce of Fergana Irrigation District, Fergana, 4 May 2014
2. Offi ce of South Fergana Canal Management, 5 May 2014
3. WUA Kadyrjon-Azamjon, 5 May 2014
4. Federation of WUAs of South Fergana subbasin, 5 May 2014
5. SANIIRI Research Station, 6 May 2014
11 Where Water Meets Agriculture: The Ambivalent Role of Water Users Associations
institutional environment within which they operate is not supportive, providing for
little funding whilst demanding a high degree of conformity (1). Their capacity to
operate and maintain irrigation infrastructure is severely limited not only by a lack
of money but also by an inability to mobilise support from water users (2). Many
WUAs in the region are clearly not convinced that the benefi ts of water user participation outweigh the transaction costs involved (3). As a result, WUAs generally
have proven unable to develop effective collective choice arrangements in managing water and water infrastructures (4). In terms of the fi rst core challenge set out in
Chap. 8 , (Moss and Dobner 2015 , in this volume) – relating to the water-land
nexus – they are caught between two powerful institutional regimes, for irrigation
and for agriculture, respectively, with each placing unrealistic and unsustainable
demands on WUAs. Prospects for integrated rural development, taking a crosssectoral approach to the water-land-food nexus, are currently poor. The story of
WUAs in the Fergana Valley is also a rich portrayal of the tensions emerging from
parallel trends of path dependency and transformation – the second core challenge
addressed in this part of the book. The legacy of the Soviet era lives on in many
informal institutions and formal structures of irrigation management. At the same
time, the WUAs are having to cope with enormous changes in the wake of postSoviet land reforms, transboundary relations and emergent modes of governance.
There are important exceptions to this negative picture, situations where WUAs
are exploring innovative ways of coping with the enormity of their tasks, but they
represent only a small minority of WUAs in the region and are, to a large extent,
dependent on temporary donor funding. The rapid growth of WUGs is perhaps the
most promising recent development in irrigation governance in the Fergana Valley,
as it represents an emergent desire of farmers to make their own collective arrangements for water management. It is, however, too early to reach any judgement on
how they are likely to work in the future and what impact they might have on the
practices of WUAs. What current experiences of WUGs indicate is that strengthening the decision-making powers of water users can generate amongst them a greater
sense of collective responsibility for managing water and land in a more sustainable
way and that this can, in favourable circumstances, stimulate learning processes at
the WUA level too. In terms of the future, this recent development would seem to
resonate with what Lankford and Hepworth call the “bazaar” model of water management ( 2010 ). Rather than a “cathedral” model of hierarchical, monocentric rule,
the authors suggest that a polycentric model (the “bazaar”), in which various organisational forms coexist, is especially suited to situations characterised by little reliable data, fl uctual water supply and demand and under-resourced regulatory
agencies – all factors prevalent in the Fergana Valley.
Field Trips and Discussions
1. Central Offi ce of Fergana Irrigation District, Fergana, 4 May 2014
2. Offi ce of South Fergana Canal Management, 5 May 2014
3. WUA Kadyrjon-Azamjon, 5 May 2014
4. Federation of WUAs of South Fergana subbasin, 5 May 2014
5. SANIIRI Research Station, 6 May 2014
11 Where Water Meets Agriculture: The Ambivalent Role of Water Users Associations