Suchergebnisse

IFPRI3; ISI; CRP2; Land Resource Management for Poverty Reduction ; EPTD; DSGD; PIM ; PR ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

Disputes over land, water, forests, rangelands, and other resources, both privately and commonly-held, are omnipresent across Africa and increasing in number due to the socioeconomic and environmental changes happening on micro- and macro-levels. Communities in Africa have a variety of mechanisms rooted in customary and statutory institutions to deal with disputes. This paper uses community-level survey data from Uganda to investigate the determinants of natural resource conflicts and the type of institutions people turn to for conflict resolution. The findings identify four primary types of conflicts (over private land boundaries, common-pool resources other than water, water resources, and conflicts over other resources) and reveal that several factors such as agroecological potential, poverty level, population density, and proximity to roads and markets affect the likelihood of a resource-related conflict. The results also show that even though most people turn to the local government (a formal institution) for arbitration, customary institutions still play an important role in conflict management, especially for the poorer communities where formal institutions are weak. The type of conflict also matters for the type of institution chosen to resolve it with the conflicts over commons being mediated through customary institutions, while all the others are usually channeled though the local government. The findings point to the importance of both customary and formal institutions for conflict resolution options in Uganda, highlighting the need to examine their potential complementarities. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CAPRi; Land Resource Management for Poverty Reduction ; EPTD

This paper reviews land reform in six emerging market economies with some similarities to South Africa, and in sub-Saharan African countries, which share a similar colonial history. While care needs to be taken when trying to transplant policies that have worked in other countries, the paper suggests a number of broad lessons. Land reform is a process, not an event: reform programmes need not be set out in full and written in stone at the outset. Particular reforms can be phased in over time in different parts of a country, rather than awaiting a grand design. It is neither necessary nor desirable to make a binary decision between state-led and market-assisted reforms; different approaches can advantageously be taken simultaneously. Markets are particularly important for post-reform success. Flexibility and pragmatism can lead to greater learning, improving effectiveness of reforms over time. Democratic politics are important, both in creating the demand for redistribution and in contributing to its success. Land reforms are generally unsuccessful unless accompanied by complementary support. Reforms can lead to broader growth, in part by creating the basis for an inclusive economy. ; IFPRI5; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; SA-TIED ; DSGD; EPTD ; Non-PR

ABSTRACTAt the community level, bylaws and other regulations are commonly used to manage natural resources. However, there is limited research on how communities enact these regulations and what determines awareness and compliance with these regulations. A survey of 273 communities was conducted in Uganda with an objective of analyzing the determinants of enactment, awareness and compliance with community Natural Resource Management (NRM) regulations. Presence in the community of programs and organizations with focus on agriculture and the environment increases the probability to enact and to be aware of NRM regulations. The probability to comply with regulations enacted by village councils was greater than the case with such regulations passed by higher legislative bodies, suggesting the important role played by decentralization in NRM. Poverty is associated with lower compliance with NRM regulations. This supports the poverty-natural resource degradation trap hypothesis, and suggests that measures to reduce poverty can also improve NRM.

PR ; IFPRI4; CRP2; A Ensuring Sustainable food production; D Transforming Agriculture; E Building Resilience; Land Resource Management for Poverty Reduction ; EPTD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

This volume deals with land degradation, which is occurring in almost all terrestrial biomes and agro-ecologies, in both low and high income countries and is stretching to about 30% of the total global land area. About three billion people reside in these degraded lands. However, the impact of land degradation is especially severe on livelihoods of the poor who heavily depend on natural resources. The annual global cost of land degradation due to land use and cover change (LUCC) and lower cropland and rangeland productivity is estimated to be about 300 billion USD. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for the largest share (22%) of the total global cost of land degradation. Only about 38% of the cost of land degradation due to LUCC - which accounts for 78% of the US$300 billion loss - is borne by land users and the remaining share (62%) is borne by consumers of ecosystem services off the farm. The results in this volume indicate that reversing land degradation trends makes both economic sense, and has multiple social and environmental benefits. On average, one US dollar investment into restoration of degraded land returns five US dollars. The findings of the country case studies call for increased investments into the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded lands, including through such institutional and policy measures as strengthening community participation for sustainable land management, enhancing government effectiveness and rule of law, improving access to markets and rural services, and securing land tenure. The assessment in this volume has been conducted at a time when there is an elevated interest in private land investments and when global efforts to achieve sustainable development objectives have intensified. In this regard, the results of this volume can contribute significantly to the ongoing policy debate and efforts to design strategies for achieving sustainable development goals and related efforts to address land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

This volume deals with land degradation, which is occurring in almost all terrestrial biomes and agro-ecologies, in both low and high income countries and is stretching to about 30% of the total global land area. About three billion people reside in these degraded lands. However, the impact of land degradation is especially severe on livelihoods of the poor who heavily depend on natural resources. The annual global cost of land degradation due to land use and cover change (LUCC) and lower cropland and rangeland productivity is estimated to be about 300 billion USD. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for the largest share (22%) of the total global cost of land degradation. Only about 38% of the cost of land degradation due to LUCC - which accounts for 78% of the US$300 billion loss - is borne by land users and the remaining share (62%) is borne by consumers of ecosystem services off the farm. The results in this volume indicate that reversing land degradation trends makes both economic sense, and has multiple social and environmental benefits. On average, one US dollar investment into restoration of degraded land returns five US dollars. The findings of the country case studies call for increased investments into the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded lands, including through such institutional and policy measures as strengthening community participation for sustainable land management, enhancing government effectiveness and rule of law, improving access to markets and rural services, and securing land tenure. The assessment in this volume has been conducted at a time when there is an elevated interest in private land investments and when global efforts to achieve sustainable development objectives have intensified. In this regard, the results of this volume can contribute significantly to the ongoing policy debate and efforts to design strategies for achieving sustainable development goals and related efforts to address land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Uganda introduced the decentralization policy in 1997 under the Local Government Act of 1997 that has since undergone four amendments. The policy inherently decentralized service delivery institutions and their governance in order to improve access to services for the rural poor. Based on an analysis of available literature, the paper documents the state of knowledge regarding rural service provision in Uganda under decentralization and identifies knowledge gaps for further investigation. Its focus is on education, health, and agricultural advisory services, as well as the management of natural resources in Uganda. Although enlightening, a review of the broader decentralization literature is beyond the scope of this work. The analysis revealed that results in terms of attaining the objectives of decentralization are mixed. While as anticipated generally decentralization resulted in greater participation and control over service delivery and governance by local communities, local governments are still grappling with a range of challenges, namely, inadequate local financial resources and over-reliance on conditional central government grants; inability to attract and retain sufficient trained and experienced staff; corruption, nepotism, and elite capture. With regard to the specific services, while universal primary education (UPE) policy under the decentralization framework is credited with a dramatic increase in primary school enrollment, public primary education services are still dogged by concerns over financing, equity, quality, and the need for curriculum reform. Some studies show that there has been no improvement in health services with many health status indicators either stagnating or worsening. In general, decentralization of education and health services has not resulted in greater participation of the ordinary people and accountability of service providers to the community. Regarding agricultural extension and advisory services, except for areas serviced by NGOs, the majority of the country does not readily access extension services, because districts have been unable to prioritize the operational expenses. However, there is some evidence that the devolution of responsibility for natural resource management (NRM) has contributed to greater compliance with some NRM requirements in some areas while in other areas forest conditions have declined following decentralization. Generally, evidence on whether decentralization has improved service delivery in Uganda is still inconclusive, and more research is needed. ; Non-PR ; GRP32; IFPRI1; Land Resource Management for Poverty Reduction ; DSGD

In 2011, in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Democratic Republic of Congo's government launched the Food Production, Processing, and Marketing project—which aimed to raise incomes and improve food security in the target areas by improving agricultural productivity, market efficiency, and the capacity of producers to respond to market signals. In August–October 2013 and February–March 2014, halfway through the project's implementation, a midline survey was conducted to assess progress with respect to intermediate outcomes. The present paper highlights the results of that assessment survey. We pay close attention to accurate attribution of observed changes to the project and employ a double-difference method that compares the changes in indicators before the project and at the time of the survey (project midline) between the beneficiaries and comparable control groups. Overall, the survey results suggest weak impact on most of the outcome indicators, and they highlight challenges in implementing small-scale farmers' capacity building within the context of weak institutions and a fragile political context. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CRP2; D Transforming Agriculture; E Building Resilience; F Strengthening institutions and governance; DRCSSP; Land Resource Management for Poverty Reduction ; DSGD; PIM; EPTD; WCAO ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)