印度面临的流域开发规模问题

Abstract

The issue of scale is examined in the context of a watershed development policy (WSD) in India. WSD policy goals, by improving the natural resource base, aim to improve the livelihoods of rural communities through increased sustainable production. It has generally been practiced at a micro-level of less than 500 ha, as this was seen to be a scale that would encourage participative management. There has been some concern that this land area may be too small and may lead to less than optimal hydrological, economic and equity outcomes. As a result there has been a move to create guidelines for meso-scale WSD of above 5,000 ha in an endeavour to improve outcomes. A multidisciplinary team was assembled to evaluate the proposed meso-scale approach. In developing an adequate methodology for the evaluation it soon became clear that scale in itself was not the only determinant of success. The effect of geographical scale (or level) on WSD is determined by the variation in other drivers that will influence WSD success such as hydrological conditions, land use and available institutional structures. How this should be interpreted at different levels in the light of interactions between biophysical and socio-economic scales is discussed

Water governance across competing scales: Coupling land and water management

“…This is a way to internalize externalities, as recommended by Syme et al (2012), based on an insight that stems from their research in India. It is also a way to ensure that multi-level interactions are profitable to all, as could be the case in the Indus valley investigation of Yang et al (2014), provided that sufficient trust can be built around water reallocation.…”

“…However, flows of knowledge and irreversibility effects limit their effectiveness in the operationalisation of agreements (Guerrin et al, 2014). There is thus a need to integrate the ''wider socio-economic catchment context'' (Syme et al, 2012) and hence investigate the viability of developing problemshed governance arrangements. Polycentric governance (Ostrom, 1999) or multi-level governance (Bache and Flinders, 2004) paves the way for adjustment and coordination between various arenas, including at least one in charge of water and solute flows.…”

“…Klemes, 1983;Bergström and Graham, 1998;Sivapalan et al, 2004;Merz et al, 2009;Syme et al, 2012). Understanding the spatial scale, and how processes at different levels on it interact, has also been a major focus of other related disciplines such as ecology (e.g.…”

“…One of the most common is ''mismatch'' when there is a perceived poor fit between two scales, for example, defined administrative structures and spatial territories or between an actor network and the water management stakes/issues requiring management (e.g. Folke et al, 1998Folke et al, , 2007Moss and Newig, 2010;Syme et al, 2012;Patrick et al, 2014). This kind of conflict is typically managed by either trying to rescale systems to achieve a ''better fit'' or by the most powerful players developing coalitions that manage the conflicts indefinitely with the resultant outcomes furthering their own interests -an approach that we could suggest is ''pure politics''.…”

Exploring the relationship between subjective wellbeing and groundwater attitudes and practices of farmers in Rural India

“…The lack of formal or informal property rights (Ward and Dillon, 2012;Skurray and Pannell, 2012) and a general failure to develop institutional rules and enforceable sanctions to coordinate and manage extractions of individual well owners to meet hydrological limits has focussed attention on irrigator communities, nominally the village level, crafting their own institutional arrangements (Ostrom, 2003;Meinzen-Dick et al, 2002;Syme et al, 2012;Steenbergen, 2006;Maheshwari et al, 2014). Steenbergen (2006) cites two examples of community management in India: Nellore and Saurashtra where communities devised rules banning boreholes, promoting additional recharge and water saving to coordinate individual wells via informal norms, enforced by either local government or religious leaders respectively.…”