Increasingly, social capital, defined as shared norms, trust, and the horizontal and vertical social networks that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutually beneficial collective action, is seen as an important asset upon which people rely to manage natural resources and resolve conflicts. This paper uses empirical data from households and community surveys and case studies, to examine the role, strengths, and limits of social capital in managing conflicts over the use and management of natural resources. We inventoried over 700 cases ranging from conflicts between multiple resource users to supracommunity conflicts between local communities concerns for better livelihoods and national/international concerns for environment conservation. Results show how different types of social capital are used in preventing and managing conflicts. Endowment in certain dimensions of social capital significantly decreased the occurrence of conflicts and played a significant role in managing them. However, social capital mechanisms have some limits, and are not always effective in resolving some types of conflicts. For such conflicts, people rely on formal mechanisms for arbitration and adjudication. In many cases, these have resulted in exclusion, coercion, and violence. Results show that policies or social capital alone do not possess the resources needed to promote broad-based and sustainable conflict resolution strategies. Rather, people use a range of conflict management strategies of different types and combinations of social capital and local polices. This synergy between social capital and local policy is based on complementarity and embededness: mutually supportive relations between local government and local communities, and the nature and extent of the ties connecting people and communities and public institutions. Better understanding of how this synergy between social capital and local policy can be strengthened is crucial to minimize natural resource management conflicts.

No abstract

In African small-scale agriculture, sustainable land and water management (SLWM) is key to improving food production while coping with climate change. However, the rate of SLWM adoption remains low, suggesting a gap between generalized SLWM advantages for rural development across the literature, and the existence of context-dependent barriers to its effective implementation. Uganda is an example of this paradox: the SLWM adoption rate is low despite favorable ecological conditions for agriculture development and a large rural population. A systemic understanding of the barriers hindering the adoption of SLWM is therefore crucial to developing coherent policy interventions and enabling effective funding strategies. Here, we propose a cross-scale archetype approach to identify and link barriers to SLWM adoption in Uganda. We performed 80 interviews across the country to build cognitive archetypes, harvesting stakeholders' perceptions of different types of barriers. We complemented this bottom-up perspective with a spatial archetype analysis to contextualize these results across different social-ecological regions. We found poverty trap, overpopulation, risk aversion, remoteness, and post-conflict patriarchal systems as cognitive archetypes that synthesize the different dynamics of barriers to SLWM adoption in Uganda. Our results reveal both specific and cross-cutting barriers. Ineffective extension services emerges as a ubiquitous barrier, whereas gender inequality is a priority barrier for large supported farms and farms in drier lowlands in northern Uganda. The combination of cognitive and spatial archetypes proposed here can help to overcome ineffective "one-size-fits-all" solutions and support context-specific policy plans to scale up SLWM, rationing resources to support sustainable intensification of agriculture.

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.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that agricultural commodity value chain development using multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) can fast-track improvement in the livelihoods of rural farming households. With the view that such partnerships can raise farmers’ incomes, the study uses the case of the organic pineapple (OP) value chain in Ntungamo, Western Uganda, to understand the governance features that hold the value chain partners together, to analyse the costs and margins to the participating farmers, to identify opportunities for demand-driven upgrading of the farmers’ skills and knowledge, and the role that partnerships play in such upgrading. Design/methodology/approach The study uses the qualitative tools of value chain analysis: value chain maps of stakeholders, processes and support services of the OP value chain, and a quantitative tool to analyse costs and margins to the participating farmers. Interviews were conducted with key informants from the OP innovation platform, and survey data collected for the planting season, February–July, 2014, across three farmer categories of certified organic, conventional, and farmers not participating in the innovation platform. Findings Careful selection of partnerships to develop the value chain is found to be critical. Partners to involve should be those that enable the upgrading of farmers’ knowledge, skills and technologies to position them for better markets. Partners should also include those that enable the improvement of margins to the farmers and efficiency of the value chain. The strategic MSPs should be bound by formal contracts, to ensure stable relationships in the value chain and hence sustainable market access for the farmers. Research limitations/implications Although carried out on a specific value chain in a specific local context, this is not likely to limit the applicability of the findings to commodity value chains in a range of local contexts. Originality/value The study fulfils the need to highlight the role that stakeholder partnerships can play in value chain development and how they can be sustained by governance and institutional arrangements.