Presented by:

Siddharth Dasgupta – 09EM033

Ravi Sharma – 09EM028

Parimal Sinha – 09EM024

Mukesh Kr Mishra – 09EM20

Kishor Kumar – 09EM17

Significant Achievements in Food Security:

40% of Food (on 17% Land)Increased Food Availability & Affordability Income and Employment IncreaseInvestments in Rural Infrastructure Multiplier EffectsGrowth in Rural

Economy PIM Experience (in over 60 countries) with

promising results

Costs and Consequences of Past Irrigation Development

Vicious Circle of Inadequate O&M, Poor Service

Delivery, Infrastructure Degradation, Low Cost

recovery, etc

Inefficient Water Use (physical & economic)

Unsustainable Public Subsidies to Irrigation

Growing Environmental and Social Problems

Objective:

Review and Analyze Concrete Examples of PPP and Draw Lessons from These for Guiding Future Interventions in PPP in I&D.

The private sector has been very active in Investing and managing:Irrigated Agricultural Farming and Production

and On-Farm Water Management Traditional Small-Scale Irrigation Systems (ex:

about 40% of Morocco’s irrigated area)Groundwater Development (ex: about 50% of

India’s irrigated area)Water User Associations

BUT Contrary to Water Supply and Sanitation…. There has been little PPP Investments and/or Management of Large-Scale I&D Schemes

Professionalism and Knowledge Transfer Better Governance Corporate Culture Financial Rigor and Budgeting Productivity Gains BUT…

Higher Costs of Private Capital Need for Increased Water Charges Greater Risks in I&D (Financial, Water

Resources, Demand)

duration (years)

Divestiture (asset sale)

35

30Build-Operate-

Own

25Concession

20

Build-Operate-Transfer

15Lease Affermage

10

5

Management contract

0Service contract

public privatecommercial risk or/and investment responsibility

Public Service Delegation

Service/Management Contract

PUBLIC AGENCY

PRIVATE COMPANY

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

WUAs FARMERS

IIIIIIIIIIIII

----------------------------------------------

Com

merc

ial

Ris

k

High

Low

Public Private

Country where cases have been considered and selected for the study

Country where cases have been considered but not selected for the study

Cases «With No Commercial Risk»(Water Service Charged to Local Entity):

1) CACG, ASA, France

2) SAED, Senegal

3) Alaotra, Madagascar

4) Nakhlet, Mauritanie

Cases «With Commercial Risk on OMM » (Water Service Charged to Users): 5) Juazeiro, Brazil6) Toula, Niger7)Pequin Kavaje, Albania8)Sonora, Mexico9)Tieshan, China10) Adasiyeh, Jordan 11) Ormva Reform, Morocco

Cases «With Commercial Risk on Investment» (Water Service Charged to Users):12) Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India13) Gap, Turkey14) CSS, Senegal15) Dina Farm, Egypt16) Business farms, Saudi Arabia17) SCP, France18) CACG Neste, France 19) Irrigation Murray Limited, Australia20) Toshka, Egypt21) Guerdanne, Morocco

Cases

I&D functions

01 -

CA

CG

-AS

A

02 -

SA

ED

03 -

Ala

otr

a

04 -

Nakhle

t

05 -

Juazeir

o

06 -

Toula

07 -

Pequin

Kav.

08 -

Sonora

09 -

Tie

shan

10 -

Adasiy

eh

11 -

OR

MV

A r

ef.

12 -

Easte

rn U

P

13 -

GA

P

14 -

CS

S

15 -

Din

a F

arm

16 -

Busin

ess f.

17 -

SC

P

18 -

CA

CG

-Nest

19 -

Murr

ay

20 -

Toshka

21 -

Guerd

ane

Investment

Decision

Financing

Design

Construction

Regulation & control

Water alloc. and police

Maint.audit & price regul.

OMM

Water alloc. managemnt

Maintenance

System operat. (&CRM)

Water value optimis.

Agricultural production

Service contracts PSD on OMM PSD on Investment

Demand for PPP is Mostly a Government Initiative Motivated by the Need to Reduce Recurrent Public Subsidies to I&D System O&M.

Almost All Contract Cases were for Private Sector Participation in one or more of the “OMM Functions”.

2/3 of the Contract Cases were for Private Sector Participation in one or more of the “Investment Functions”.

In Most Cases, Farmers are Organized in Groups/Associations.

In Terms of Contracts Service/Management Contracts Account for 13% of the

total PSD Contracts represent 81% of the cases, nearly

always including for OMM function as well

In Terms of Risks: Investment PPPs are More Sensitive to:

Financial Risks (Cost Recovery) Water Demand Risks Water Resources Risks “Rural Conditions” Risks (Markets, Poverty,..)

The I&D “Sustainability Vicious Circle” Calls for “Professionalization” of the Service Delivery Functions

This can be Brought by a “Professional Third Party” between Farmers --Preferably Organized in WUAs-- and Government Services.

This “Professional Third Party” could be:

Financially Autonomous Government Agency.

A professionalized Water User Association

A Private Company

Any combination of the above

Development Organizations Should Support the Emergence and Development of PPP Especially for the OMM Functions which are :Key to I&D SustainabilityLess Costly to undertake Less Risky

No Panacea… For Private Sector Involvement as The Unique Solution to improve the Performance of the Sector.

No Mantra… about The Need for Privatization of I&D Assets or Service Delivery Functions.

What the Study highlights is:

“The Need for a Professional Third Party Between Government and Farmers in PPP in I&D”

This Third Professional Party could be Government, Users, Private or Mixed Body, provided that it is legally and financially totally autonomous and accountable for the Users.

Can you bring additional cases of PPP in irrigation and drainage?

What can you suggest to enrich the conceptual framework?

Based on your own experience, is there indeed a need for PPP in I&D?

If yes, what are the most important functions that could benefit from PPP