Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

Water supply and sanitation is the responsibility of sub-national state governments under the Indian Constitution. At present, the national government sets water supply and sanitation policy while states plan, design, and execute water supply schemes accordingly. Furthermore, while state governments are in charge of operation and maintenance, they may pass the responsibility to village or district levels. Given the highly decentralized provision of water and sanitation services, there is no autonomous regulatory agency for the water supply and sanitation sector in India at the state or national level. This report reviews literature on India’s urban sanitation policy. The methodology includes Google, Lexis-Nexis, and University of Washington Library searches, searches of two major Indian newspapers, and searches of websites and blogs sponsored by non-governmental organizations. Sources also include the India Sanitation Portal, a forum on sanitation in India used by governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and WASH Sanitation Updates, a sanitation news feed with considerable material on India. We find that urban sanitation policy, as embodied in the National Urban Sanitation Plan of 2008, remains focused on decentralized approaches. Our research reveals no evidence of a change in official policy, nor evidence suggesting that government sanitation programs conflict with official policy.

In recent years, product supply chains for agricultural goods have become increasingly globalized. As a result, greater numbers of smallholder farmers in South Asia (SA) and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) participate in global supply chains, many of them through contract farming (CF). CF is an arrangement between a farmer and a processing or marketing firm for the production and supply of agricultural products, often at predetermined prices. This literature review finds empirical evidence that demonstrates that the economic and social benefits of CF for smallholder farmers are mixed. A number of studies suggest that CF may improve farmer productivity, reduce production risk and transaction costs, and increase farmer incomes. However, critics caution that CF may undermine farmers’ relative bargaining power and increase health, environmental, and financial risk through exposure to monopsonistic markets, weak contract environments, and unfamiliar agricultural technologies. There is consensus across the literature that CF has the best outcomes for farmers when farmers have more bargaining power to negotiate the terms of the contract. In reviewing the literature on CF, we find a number of challenges to comparing studies and evaluating outcomes across contracts. This literature review summarizes empirical findings and analyses regarding contract models and best practices to increase farmers’ bargaining power and decrease contract default.

Agriculture and Climate Change: Part I

With estimated global emissions of 5,969-6,615 metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, agriculture accounts for about 13.5% of total global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Deforestation contributes about 11.8% of total GHG emissions, releasing about 5,800 Mt CO2 per year. Developing countries are largely responsible for emissions from agriculture and deforestation, with the developing countries of South Asia and East Asia accounting for 17% and 25% of global agricultural emissions respectively. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for about 13% of global emissions from agriculture and 15% of emissions from land use change and forestry. This report examines the biophysical and economic potential of mitigating agriculture and land use GHG emissions, and provides a summary on the current and projected impact of global carbon market mechanisms on emission reductions. 

Agriculture and Climate Change: Part II

This report covers two topics related to agriculture and climate change in developing countries. The first section discusses the role of agricultural offsets in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Recent negotiations around a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement have included debate about whether agricultural carbon sequestration projects should be eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). We examine the reasons for supporting or opposing this type of CDM reform and how these reasons relate to impacts on development goals and smallholder farmers, scientific uncertainty about carbon sequestration, and philosophical disagreement about the use of emission offsets. The second section covers proposed agricultural adaptation activities in Africa and other developing countries. While the majority of developing countries have outlined immediate adaptation needs in National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs), few have made progress in implementing adaptation activities. We find that issues related to financial resources, scientific and technical information, and capacity building continue to challenge developing countries in preparing for the impacts of climate change.