Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 67–76

Conflicts management, social capital and adoption of agroforestry technologies: empirical findings from the highlands of southwestern Uganda

  • Pascal C. Sanginga
  • Rick N. Kamugisha
  • Adrienne M. Martin
Article

Abstract

In the highland ecosystems where actions by some individuals or groups often generate off-site effects among a wide range of social actors and stakeholders, the use and management of natural resources are susceptible to multiple forms of conflicts. This paper examines the hypothesis that conflicts constrain the adoption of agroforestry technologies. Using empirical data from 243 households in Kabale-Uganda, the study identified over 780 different cases of conflicts, and found positive relationships between certain types of conflicts and adoption of agroforestry technologies. The results of this paper challenge the conventional wisdom that conflicts are pervasive, and that the prevalence of conflicts is a major barrier to the adoption of NRM technologies. On the contrary, they seem to suggest that conflicts may have some positive outcomes; they provide incentives for the adoption of NRM technologies, and can be a potential force for positive social change. Conflicts are an essential feature of NRM in the highland systems and cannot therefore be ignored. What matters is the ways such conflicts are managed and resolved, and transformed into a force for positive change. We found that three dimensions of social capital (collective action, byelaws implementation and linking with local government structures) have increased the ability of communities to manage and transform conflicts into opportunities for collective action. These findings suggest new areas for further investigation to improve understanding of adoption decisions and building local capacity for scaling up the impacts of agroforestry innovations.

Keywords

Adoption Byelaws Collective action Conflicts Gender Natural resources management Social capital Uganda 

References

  1. African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) (1999) Policy research on ecological sources of conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajayi OC, Kwesiga F (2003) Implications of local policies and institutions on the adoption of improved fallows in eastern Zambia. Agroforest Syst 59:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckles D (1999). Cultivating peace. Conflict and collaboration in natural resources management. International Development Research centre, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  4. Castro PA, Neilsen E (eds) (2003) Natural resource conflict management case studies: an analysis of power, participation and protected areas. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO-RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. Franzel S (1999) Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of improved tree fallows in Africa. Agroforest Syst 47:305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franzel S, Denning GL, Lilles JPB, Mercado AR (2004) Scaling up the impact of agroforestry: lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia. Agroforest Syst 61(2004):329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzel SC, Scherr SJ (eds) (2002) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI PublishingGoogle Scholar
  8. Haralambos M, Holborn M (1995) Sociology. Themes and perspectives, 4th edn. Collins Educational, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Hart N, Castro P (eds) (2000) Conflict and natural resource management. Community Forestry. Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  10. Izac AMN, Sanchez P (2001) Towards a natural resource management paradigm for international agriculture: the example of agrofrestery research. Agric Syst 69:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindblade K, Carswell G, Tumuhairwe J (1998) Mitigating the relationship between population growth and land degradation. Ambio 27(7):565–571Google Scholar
  12. Means K, Josayma C, Neilsen E, Viriyasakultorn V (2002) Community-based forest resource conflict management. A Training package, vol.1 & 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO-RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics. A review. Agroforest Syst 61(1):311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Montambault J, Alavalapati J (2005) Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: a decade in review. Agroforest Syst 65(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Olsen JM (1995) Natural resource management by farmers in Kabale District Uganda. A report for the AHI research project. Analysis of Changing land use and soil productivity, ICRAFGoogle Scholar
  16. Otsuka K, Place F (eds) (2001) Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Pattanayak S, Mercer ED, Errin S, Jui-Chen (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforest Syst 57(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 32:1912–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raussen T, Ebong G, Musiime J (2001) More effective natural resource management through democratically elected, decentralised government structures in Uganda. Dev Practice 11(4) Google Scholar
  20. Raussen T, Place F, Bamwerinde W, Alacho F (2002) Report on a survey to identify suitable agricultural and natural resources—based technologies for intensification in South-western Uganda. A Contribution to the Strategic Criteria for Rural Investment in Productivity (SCRIP) Policy Framework of the USAID Uganda Mission. International Food Policy Institute. KampalaGoogle Scholar
  21. Rudd MA (2000) Live Long and prosper: collective action, social capital and social vision. Ecol Econ 34(234):131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanginga PC, Martin A, Kamugisha R (2004) Strengthening social capital for improving policies and decision making in NRM. Final Technical Report to DFID Natural Resources Systems Programme, Kampala, Uganda. www.nrsp.uk Google Scholar
  23. Stern RD, Coe R, Allan EF, Dale IC (2004) Good statistical practice for natural resources research. CABI International, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Tiffen M, Mortimore M, Gichuki F (1994) More people, less erosion. Environmental recovery in Kenya. Overseas Development Institute. Kenyan Edition, Acts Press, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  25. Uphoff N, Mijayaratna CM (2000) Demonstrated benefits of social capital: the productivity of farmers organizations in Gal Oya, Srilanka. World Dev 28(11):1875–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warner M (2001) Complex problems, negotiated solutions. Tools to reduce conflicts in community development. ITDG Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal C. Sanginga
    • 1
  • Rick N. Kamugisha
    • 2
  • Adrienne M. Martin
    • 3
  1. 1.CIATInternational Centre for Tropical AgricultureKampalaUganda
  2. 2.African Highlands InitiativeKabaleUganda
  3. 3.Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of GreenwichKentUK

Personalised recommendations