Explore the vast range of titles available.

The adoption of innovations in rice cultivation is presumed to operate in a rational manner, wherein new technologies or practices that successfully increase productivity or resource efficiency are adopted by target farmers based on cost-benefit calculations. In contrast, this paper examines a case of a public initiative to promote the system of rice intensification (SRI), wherein farmers widely disadopted the technique despite reporting increasing yields and reduced water consumption. To explain this paradox, we use the concept of the socio-ecological niche to examine a range of social and institutional factors that shape farmers’ decision-making. These included (1) access to land and labour; (2) water management capacity; (3) the quality of networks for knowledge sharing. The research suggests that small variations in these categories among otherwise similar smallholder households can markedly shape farmers’ risk perceptions and tangible outcomes with SRI. The implication is that agricultural innovations should be judged within their wider social context rather than on narrow evaluations of agronomic efficiency. Importantly, this must involve greater feedback mechanisms from smallholders with a variety of socio-economic profiles to help shape the character of agricultural innovations and extension strategies.

In response to the climate crisis, there has been much focus on climate-smart agriculture (CSA); namely, technologies and practices that enhance adaptation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to food security; the so-called triple win. Success has tended to be measured in terms of the number of farmers adopting CSA with less focus given to the impacts especially on human development. CSA can inadvertently lead to ‘maladaptation’ whereby interventions reinforce existing vulnerabilities either by benefitting powerful elites or by transferring risks and exposure between groups. Such maladaptive outcomes often stem from overly technical adaptation programming that is driven by external objectives and discounts the social and political dynamics of vulnerability. Increasingly a more nuanced picture is emerging. This reveals how a failure to contextualize CSA in relation to the structural socio-economic dynamics associated with agricultural systems that render some categories of farmer especially vulnerable to climate change, undermines CSA’s contribution to reducing rural poverty and increasing equity. In response, there is a growing focus on transformative orientations that pursue a more deep-seated approach to social, institutional, technological and cultural change in order to address the structural contributors to vulnerability and differential exposure to climate risk. Addressing these questions requires a robust consideration of the social contexts and power relations through which agriculture is both researched and practiced. For agriculture to be transformative and contribute to broader development goals, a greater emphasis is needed on issues of farmer heterogeneity, the dangers of maladaptation and the importance of social equity. This entails recognizing that resilience encompasses both agro- and socio-ecological dimensions. Furthermore, practitioners need to be more cognizant of the dangers of (i) benefiting groups of already better off farmers at the expense of the most vulnerable and/or (ii) focusing on farmers for whom agriculture is not a pathway out of poverty. The success of these approaches rests on genuine transdisciplinary partnerships and systems approaches that ensure adaptation and mitigation goals along with more equitable incomes, food security and development. The greater emphasis on social equity and human well-being distinguishes climate-resilient from climate-smart agriculture.

The thesis investigates the processes of the formation and functioning of Water Users Associations (WUAs) which have been implemented under the policy of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Maharashtra, Western India. The thesis explores (1) how social and economic hierarchies shape the process of participation in WUAs; (2) the roles played by the State and Non-Governmental Organisations in the process of participatory development; (3) the ways in which processes of neo-liberalisation have influenced water reforms in a developing country like India. The study draws on different critiques of neo-liberalism, and it explores theories of participation to provide a holistic understanding of PIM (Participatory Irrigation Management) reforms carried out in Maharashtra. The study uses a qualitative approach, based on ethnographic fieldwork carried out over twelve months at two Water Users Associations in a village in the Nashik district of Maharashtra. The study finds that processes of participation are complex, and characterized by the vested interests of the different actors involved in the process of the formation and functioning of WUAs in the village. The WUAs have been able to provide water to many farmers in the area. However, the policy has been unable to achieve much success in terms of resolving conflicts among farmers and enhancing the participation of small landholding and marginalized farmers in the WUAs. I found that the process of neo-liberalisation does not challenge or reform traditional institutions such as caste and gender, but rather that it uses them to entrench market reforms. The implementation of WUAs' policy in the wider neo-liberal context has increased the powers of the State and NGO intervention in the formulation and implementation of WUAs policy. Processes of WUAs' formation and functioning are significant examples of the ways in which neo-liberalisation is taking shape in India, including the commodification of water, and thereby, the reproduction of existing hierarchies and power imbalances. The study contributes towards developing an understanding of the wider processes of neo-liberal governance in the water sector.