Suchergebnisse

Spatial and temporal attributes of watersheds and the associated market failures that accelerate degradation of agricultural and environmental resources require innovative institutional arrangements for coordinating use and management of resources. Effective collective action (CA) allows smallholder farmers to jointly invest in management practices that provide collective benefits in terms of economic and sustainability gains. The Government of India takes integrated watershed management (IWM) as a key strategy for improving productivity and livelihoods in the rain-fed and drought-prone regions. This study investigates the institutional and policy issues that limit effective participation of people in community watershed programs and identifies key determinants for the degree of CA and its effectiveness in achieving economic and environmental outcomes. We use empirical data from a survey of 87 watershed communities in semi-arid Indian villages to identify a set of indicators of CA and its performance in attaining desired outcomes. Factor analysis is used to develop aggregate indices of CA and its effectiveness. Regression methods are then employed to test the effects of certain policy relevant variables and to determine the potential effects of CA in achieving desired poverty reduction and resource improvement outcomes. We find a positive and highly significant effect of CA on natural resource investments, but no evidence of its effects on household assets and poverty reduction outcomes. This may be attributable to longer gestation periods for realizing indirect effects from collective natural resource investments and the lack of institutional mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution of such gains across the community, including the landless and marginal farmers. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; Theme 3; CAPRi ; EPTD

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to assess the impact of policy interventions through watershed development (WD) on the livelihoods of the rural communities. This is done by assessing the programme in the context of a sustainable rural livelihoods framework, that is, looking at its impact on the five types of capital assets and strategies required for the means of living. The article also examines the vulnerability and stability of these capital assets, as well as analysing which people participate in the programme and enhance their livelihoods through sharing its benefits. In the light of the analysis, it is argued that watershed development holds the potential for enhanced livelihood security even in geo‐climatic conditions where the watershed cannot bring direct irrigation benefits on a large scale. In such fragile environments, however, watershed development is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sustaining rural livelihoods. While the focus of watershed development is primarily on strengthening the ecological base such as water bodies (including traditional tanks), grazing lands and wastelands, it should be complemented with other programmes which focus on landless poor households in order to make it pro‐poor. In the context of low rainfall regions where improvement in irrigation facilities is slow, agriculture alone cannot support the communities. Policies and programmes should aim at creating an environment for diverse livelihood activities, which are the choice of the household rather than distress activities.

In Sarala, C. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Hydrology and Watershed Management (ICHWAM-2010), with a focal theme on climate change - water, food and environmental security, 3-6 February 2010. Vol.2. Hyderabad, India: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Institute of Science and Technology, Centre for Water Resources ; The issue of scale has become paramount for the effective evaluation of WSD programs. Shile terms vary from state to state, the following definitions have been adopted for this study and are deemed appropriate for Andhra Pradesh. Micro scale - less than 1500 hectares; Meso scale 1500 - 10000 hectares; Macro level over 10000 hectares (including basin level investigations). There is a need for a meso-scale benefit and cost evaluation of the WSD programs so that unintended impacts are avoided and that the implementation of programs is improved. Operating at a meso-scale will also provide more effective opportunities to link and address micro and macro scale biophysical and institutional issues. This project will integrate environmental, economic, social, equity and dimensions at meso levels to help ensure that WSD contributes positively to the Indian government's sustainable livelihoods goal and provide the foundations for a resilient and sustainable WSD. Success will not only be determined by spatial scale (e.g. micro versus meso) but will also be determined by the disciplinary scale of analysis (e.g. focusing on short term economic efficiency alone runs considerable risk of ignoring longer term trends in natural and social capital). This paper describes early progress on developing such an evaluation model.