Policies of devolving management of resources from the state to user groups are premised upon the assumption that users will organize and take on the necessary management tasks. While experience has shown that in many places users do so and are very capable, expansion of comanagement programs beyond initial pilot sites often shows that this does not happen everywhere. Yet much is at stake in this, with more widespread adoption of irrigation management transfers and other forms of community-based resource management. It is therefore important to move beyond isolated case studies to comparative analysis of the conditions for collective action. This paper identifies factors affecting organization of water users' associations, and collective action by farmers in major canal irrigation systems in India, based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of a stratified sample of 48 minors in four irrigation systems (two each in Rajasthan and Karnataka). Using key variables suggested by the theoretical and case study literature, the study first examines the conditions under which farmers are likely to form formal or informal associations at the level of the minor (serving several watercourses, and one or more villages). Results indicate that organizations are more likely to be formed in larger commands, closer to market towns, and in sites with religious centers and potential leadership from college graduates and influential persons, but head/tail location does not have a major effect. We then examine factors affecting two different forms of collective action related to irrigation systems: collective representation and maintenance of the minors. Lobbying activities are not more likely where there are organizations, but organizations do increase the likelihood of collective maintenance work.Such studies can assist policymakers by identifying whether there is likely to be a rapid response to management transfer, or if more effort (such as community organizers) is required. For program implementers, this type of analysis can help identify the most "fertile ground" for starting programs to achieve impact, and to expect to devote extra attention in other areas, if devolution programs are expected to achieve high levels of farmer involvement in resource management.

This is the first of a series of papers that review the state of knowledge and practice regarding compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world. The paper begins with an assessment of the historical development of compensation and reward mechanisms within a broader context of changing approaches to nature conservation and environmental policy. The assessment shows that greater interest in compensation and reward mechanisms has emerged within a policy context of changing approaches to nature conservation and flexible multi-stakeholder approaches to environmental management. In the developing world, an even greater variety of perspectives has emerged on the opportunities and threats for using compensation and rewards for environmental services. Within that background, the paper clarifies key concepts-including the distinction between compensation and reward-and presents a conceptual framework for typifying and characterizing different types of mechanisms that link ecosystem stewards, ecosystem service beneficiaries, and intermediaries.

No abstract

Vulnerability assessments can play a vital role in the designing of appropriate adaptation and mitigation policies targeted towards climate change and its impacts on ecosystems, and for those who depend upon the sensitive resources for their livelihoods and well-being. Vulnerability is often reflected in the economic system as well as the socio-economic features of the population living in that system. This article attempts to build a picture of the socio-economic context of vulnerability by focusing on indicators that measure both the state of socio-economic development of the people as well as their capacity to progress further. The result of agricultural vulnerability index suggests indicators such as cropping intensity, gross irrigated area and commercial crop area are the major drivers in determining the vulnerability of the districts of Karnataka. The socio-economic and livelihood index depicts indicators like per capita income, population density and percentage of literacy rate are the major drivers and contribute to the overall livelihood vulnerability of districts.

No abstract