The conference will include the following themes:

I. Technical Considerations for Irrigation Modernization

Broad range of options from manual through semi-automatic to fully automated systems exists for diversion, regulation and control structures. The same is true for modern techniques at field level. Advances in communications, telemetry and telephones, as well as computers, surveying and optimization technology, facilitates data collection storage and analysis, leading to improved monitoring and evaluation of system operations. Modernization allows the introduction of all these advances. Nevertheless, enhanced managerial capabilities need to go hand in hand with technology upgrades.

II. Policy and Legal Implications

Irrigation modernization can give origin to a particular policy directive at the ministerial or even lower level (irrigation agency or other equivalent governmental body) that would establish a set of rules or guidelines under which one or several irrigation schemes were to undergo a modernization process. This is not to say that political support is not important in wanting to pursue an irrigation modernization program; but this support will not need to be generated at the highest levels of government. Thus, most likely, specific policy on irrigation modernization will be found within broader government's strategy for agriculture. Given the nature of new interventions such as the move towards integrated water resources management, it is likely that more and more they will fall in the hands of the private sector where efficiency and profits are necessary conditions, further justifying the need for a modern irrigated agriculture sub-sector.

Likewise, legal definitions in respect to water constitute a key element of irrigation modernization. Water rights between irrigation systems or between local management units (including WUA) are normally legal entitlements adjudicated by the government. Within an irrigation system, entitlements to water, often referred to as water allocations, are generally fixed and administered by the managing institution. If water rights and type of allocation are not clearly defined beforehand, any modernization effort is unlikely to result in the desired outcome. Very often, it is a water rights issue that prompts the need for change, and depending on the scope of the problem, leading to an irrigation modernization process. Water rights and allocation are, of course, intimely related to water availability. Furthermore, whether water rights are in the hands of individual users, a WUA as a whole, a government agency, or a private service provider (utility company or the like) can shape the nature of the most efficient technical and/or institutional approach to be taken. Link to the water rights would be the structure of the water service fee which, in turn, is the key to system financial sustainability. Therefore, and while not a pre-condition per se careful consideration of water legal implications need to be at the forefront of the irrigation modernization analysis.

III. Institutional Modalities and Financial Implications

A substantial effort on modernization of irrigation has concentrated on seeking new institutional arrangements that would make more efficient the operation and management of the systems. Two broad and interrelated concepts have gained force during the past twenty years or so although they have existed further back. Together they represent the lion's share of those efforts and are the central axis of today's' irrigation sector reform undertakings. These are the Irrigation management transfer (IMT) and the Participatory irrigation management (PIM).

It is the recent irrigation institutional reform trend that has propelled irrigation modernization, or at least the rehabilitation of irrigation systems. However, and oddly enough, the reform has been implemented primarily for financial and economic reasons rather than for institutional or managerial reason per se: governments can no longer afford to sustain costly irrigation systems at current low levels of productivity. Rather than the new management set ups having to adjust to an existing technical structure designed for a different institutional condition, modernization of the systems provide an opportunity to seek a better match between emerging technologies and new institutional realities. This will also dispel the notion that the model of farmer managed irrigation systems would not be applicable to modern schemes. There are now enough examples of organizational arrangements interacting smoothly with technical demands.

Who pays for modernization is a fundamental question. It was until now customary for governments to assume, if not totally, a large share of the funding responsibility, be it through national funds or more likely through international loans. With the institutional arrangements described earlier, of necessity and given the inability of governments to support irrigation development, users are now being asked to share the costs. Financing is the key process, upon which the availability of irrigation institutions depends, and financial self-reliance creates the basic climate incentive for effective and efficient management of schemes by its users, but it does not guarantee it. Good governance, process transparency and know how are critical to realizing the potential. In practice, however, modernization subsidies are still very high; an undesirable situation since they sap incentives for efficiency and create dependency from government which has been, in the first place, a reason for the changes that have been taking place.

With respect to modernization and water pricing the argument can be no different than the on-going international discourse on whether water should be treated purely as an economic good, as originally proposed at the Dublin conference (Ireland) in 1992, or whether water should also be viewed as a basic human right, a financial obligation, a social necessity and a critical environmental resource. These various views make the selection of a set of prices and pricing mechanism that adequately address all those concerned exceptionally difficult.

IV. Monitoring, Evaluations, and Performance

Another important link of irrigation modernization is related to the need to establish the base line condition under which modernization will be established, including the enabling environment. Given that the basic idea of modernizing an irrigation system carries an element of change, and that the forthcoming process should keep in mind the gains of technology, managerial know-how and institutional reform that have taken place since the last intervention took place (from originally designed, a rehabilitation, and even some previous modernization effort) to deal with the past and current status of the scheme becomes an intrinsic part of the process.

There is no suggestion that a whole new approach to monitoring, evaluation and hence performance for modernized irrigation systems is required. Existing tools are already developed in this context. Two well known and complementary techniques are: the Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) and Benchmarking. RAP and Benchmarking can be thought of as two faces of the same coin, they are clearly complementary, but could be used single and independently. What ties the two is the whole theory behind performance indicators.

V. Environmental Implications

Irrigation modernization can be seen as a development process and as such subject to environmental impact (EIA). Thus, the need and the procedure for environmental assessment is a key issue. EIA was developed in the 1970s in order to look into environmental impacts of any development activity, to provide an opportunity to mitigate against negative impacts and to enhance positive ones. An EIA is defined as "a formal process to predict the environmental consequences of human development activities and to plan appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects and to augment positive effects" (FAO, 1995). This process provides an opportunity for mitigation measures to be incorporated to minimize problems, and provides an opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the environment may be improved.

In the context of irrigation and drainage, an EIA would be originally conceived to be applied in the case of development of new areas under irrigation when impact on the environment can be perceived as greater (and certainly to the construction of a dam, if that would be the case). Normally, the physical infrastructure of a system is considered the "hardware" and thus having the potential to cause the "core" damage to the environment; and the sustainable operation is just dependent on the "soft" environment: education, institutional arrangements, legal structures and external support services. Putting all these elements together provides the venue through which a well-balanced and sustainable irrigation system minimizes its impact of the environment.

It should be clear that different types of irrigation will have different types of impacts; but, it should not be directly assumed that the modernization of an irrigation system necessarily means less or no impacts at all. True, irrigation modernization may have the benefit of EIA assessment done at the time of the original irrigation development and if so, that particular study can be the basis for the new analysis.

VI. Capacity Development for Irrigation Modernization

The very need for increased capacity in the field of water resources management was clearly recognized by the ministerial declaration of the 2001 Conference on Freshwater held in Bonn. Accordingly, increased capacity and technology transfer in developing countries, as well as education and training should be demand-oriented, participatory and hands-on. Obviously, changes brought by the process of irrigation modernization would create a situation where demand for capacity development arises.

With respect to training -- within the irrigation modernization process -- its role is so fundamental that it could hardly be overstated; it is seen as the core element of the capacity development component. Numerous authors have emphasised how training spans all projects regardless of climate, culture and nationality, since the basic concepts to be transmitted are universal in nature; and how it can be used to enhance the ability of irrigation professionals to initiate, design, organize and implement irrigation modernization measures. Training should not be limited to a small design team, it should include staff involved in controlling the quality of the construction of “modernization” pilot projects and those who will be assigned to manage them. There is also a serious shortage of trainers that can provide focused and pragmatic instructions that properly incorporate both strategies and details of hardware and management modernization.

A final point on the training issue worth mentioning is that the reason for misuse and mismanagement of water in agriculture is that irrigation is not just a question of dams, canals, pipes and technologies. It is above all a question of human and institutional capacities. The human factor needs to be much more taken into account in investment plans than in the past. The development of new irrigated areas, and modernization of existing irrigation schemes, will in future have to pay more attention to the people and organizations involved. Improving the efficiency and productivity of the use of water for agriculture, while avoiding environmental catastrophes, is first of all a question of providing the right know-how to all stakeholders involved. It is also a question of improving institutions. Capacity development should be seen as an integrated concept that goes well beyond training, and embraces also the concepts of research and demonstration, technology transfer, participation, empowerment, technical assistance and institutional development.