Optimal allocation of water in village irrigation systems of Sri Lanka

This PhD study examines whether water allocation becomes more productive when it is re-allocated from 'low' to 'high' efficient alternative uses in village irrigation systems (VISs) in Sri Lanka. Reservoir-based agriculture is a collective farming economic activity, which inter-sectoral allocation of water is assumed to be inefficient due to market imperfections and weak user rights. Furthermore, the available literature shows that a „head-tail syndrome. is the most common issue for intra-sectoral water management in „irrigation. agriculture. This research analyses the issue of water allocation by using primary data collected from two surveys of 460 rice farmers and 325 fish farming groups in two administrative districts in Sri Lanka. Technical efficiency estimates are undertaken for both rice farming and culture-based fisheries (CBF) production. The equi-marginal principle is applied for inter and intra-sectoral allocation of water. Welfare benefits of water re-allocation are measured through consumer surplus estimation. Based on these analyses, the overall findings of the thesis can be summarised as follows. The estimated mean technical efficiency (MTE) for rice farming is 73%. For CBF production, the estimated MTE is 33%. The technical efficiency distribution is skewed to the left for rice farming, while it skewed to the right for CBF production. The results show that technical efficiency of rice farming can be improved by formalising transferability of land ownership and, therefore, water user rights by enhancing the institutional capacity of Farmer Organisations (FOs). Other effective tools for improving technical efficiency of CBF production are strengthening group stability of CBF farmers, improving the accessibility of official consultation, and attracting independent investments. Inter-sectoral optimal allocation shows that the estimated inefficient volume of water in rice farming, which can be re-allocated for CBF production, is 32%. With the application of successive policy instruments (e.g., a community transferable quota system and promoting CBF activities), there is potential for a threefold increase in marginal value product (MVP) of total reservoir water in VISs. The existing intra-sectoral inefficient volume of water use in tail-end fields and head-end fields can potentially be removed by reducing water use by 10% and 23% respectively and re-allocating this to middle fields. This re-allocation may enable a twofold increase in MVP of water used in rice farming without reducing the existing rice output, but will require developing irrigation practices to facilitate this re-allocation. Finally, the total productivity of reservoir water can be increased by responsible village level institutions and primary level stakeholders (i.e., co-management) sharing responsibility of water management, while allowing market forces to guide the efficient re-allocation decisions. This PhD has demonstrated that instead of farmers allocating water between uses haphazardly, they can now base their decisions on efficient water use with a view to increasing water productivity. Such an approach, no doubt will enhance farmer incomes and community welfare.

The nature of juristic paradigms : exploring the theoretical and conceptual relationship between adversarialism and therapeutic jurisprudence

Problem solving courts appear to achieve outcomes which are not common in mainstream courts. There are increasing calls for the adoption of more “therapeutic” and “problem solving” practices by mainstream judges in civil and criminal courts in a number of jurisdictions, most notably in the United States and Australia. Currently, a judge who sets out to exercise a significant therapeutic function is quite likely to be doing so in a specialist court or jurisdiction, outside the mainstream court system, and, arguably, from outside the adversarial paradigm itself. To some extent, his work is tolerated but marginalized. But do therapeutic and problem solving functions have the potential to define, rather than complement, the role of judicial officers? The basic question addressed in this paper is, therefore, whether the judicial role could evolve to be not just less adversarial, but fundamentally non-adversarial. In other words, could we see--or are we seeing--a paradigm shift not just in the colloquial, casual sense of the word, but in the strong, worldview changing sense meant by Thomas Kuhn?

Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitution : if two is company, is three a crowd?

Court costs, resource-intensive trials, booming prison populations and the obduracy of recidivism rates all present as ugly excesses of the criminal law adversarial paradigm. To combat these excesses, problem-solving courts have evolved with an edict to address the underlying issues that have caused an individual to commit a crime. When a judge seeks to help a problem-solving court participant deal with issues like addiction, mental health or poverty, they are performing a very different role to that of a judicial officer in the traditional court hierarchy. They are no longer the removed, independent arbiter — a problem-solving court judge steps into the ‘arena’ with the participant and makes active use of their judicial authority to assist in rehabilitation and positive behavioural change. Problem-solving court judges employing the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence appreciate that their interaction with participants can have therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences. This article will consider how the deployment of therapeutic measures (albeit with good intention) can lead to the behavioural manifestation of partiality and bias on the part of problem-solving court judges. Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution will then be analysed to highlight why the operation and functioning of problem solving courts may be deemed unconstitutional. Part IV of this article will explain how a problem-solving court judge who is not acting impartially or independently will potentially contravene the requirements of the Constitution. It will finally be suggested that judges who possess a high level of emotional intelligence will be the most successful in administering an independent and impartial problem solving court.