LOOKING BEYOND THE OBVIOUS: Uncovering the features of

natural resource conflicts in Uganda

Ephraim Nkonya and Helen Markelova (with Edward Kato)

Introduction: NR conflicts in Africa and their causes

Trends in conflict resolution in Africa Conflict in Uganda: brief overview Theoretical framework Results Conclusions and policy implications

Overview

NR embedded in production systems:◦ Overlapping claims◦ External and internal pressures (environmental, demographic, etc)

Types of conflict according to level: farm-level, community-level, inter-community, and supra-community

Impacts:◦ Economic (Zimbabwe)◦ Human costs (Rwanda)◦ Resource depletion

Causes of NR conflicts:o Increasing resource scarcityo Domestic and international trade flowso Complex PR systemso Political instability and mismanagement

Natural resource conflicts in Africa

Legal pluralism: multiple institutions outline rules of access

Two broad categories of conflict resolution mechanisms: traditional (informal) vs. statutory (formal)

Traditional institutions: crafted endogenously, based on social norms, enforced by traditional authorities, perceived more trustworthy, but not always egalitarian. Capacity to deal with new trends?

Formal institutions: written laws/regulations enacted by a legislative body (parliament, local government agencies)—third party. Various perceptions, esp with decentralization

Conflict resolution in Africa

Decentralization---more responsive to local needs; effectiveness depends on degree of decision-making power

“Hybrid” systems (e.g. Rural Code of Niger) Literature: preference toward formal

institutions due to decline in customary institutions

Policy/practice: growing interest in community-based NRM

Trends in conflict resolution

Resource-related conflicts: mostly land related---boundary disputes, disagreements over grazing lands and small plot fragmentation, encroachment on common lands

Tenure arrangements: ◦ Customary in the North◦ Freehold in the South (agreement between the British and

kingdoms in Western Uganda)◦ Mailo in central Uganda (previously awarded to absentee

landlords during British rule in Buganda kingdom)◦ Leasehold (introduced by British as agreement between

lessor and lessee---lessee has exclusive possession of the land for a certain period, can be private and statutory---mostly found in urban areas)

Land and natural resources in Uganda

Decentralization in UgandaLocal government level Composition Some functions

Local council 1: Village (composed of about 50 households)

9 members, at least 4 women -Make bylaws-Resolve problems and disputes- Enforce bylaws

Local council 2: Parish (composed of 3-10 villages)

Depending on the number of villages, with at least 4 women from the village

-Monitor administration of projects-Resolve problems and disputes

LC3: Sub-county (composed of 2-10 parishes)

Depending on the number of parishes, with at least 1/3 women, 2 youth, 2 persons with disabilities; include elected councilors from parishes

-Local government-Enact bylaws-Formulate sub-county budget-Resolve problems and disputes

LC4: County (composed of 3-4 sub-counties)

5 members, chairpersons or vice-chairpersons from each sub-county

-Advise district officers and members of Parliament-Resolve problems and disputes

LC5: District (composed of 3-5 sub-countries)

36 members, including 12 female councilors, 2 youth, 2 people with disabilities, and 19 elected councilors

-Exercise all political and executive powers-Ensure implementation and compliance with government policies-Levy and collect taxes

Framework of determinants of NR conflicts and choice of institutions Legitimacy and strength of existing

institutions Community-level socio-economic

characteristics Characteristics of conflict Cost of conflict resolution Stock and condition of natural resources External institutions and market conditions

Community level data covering 123 LC1s (drawn from a sample of 972 rural LC1s sampled randomly in the 2002/03 Uganda National Household Survey)

Representative of 3 levels of poverty and NR endowments (proxied as agricultural potential---abstraction of many factors—including rainfall level and distribution, altitude, soil type and depth, topography, presence of pests and diseases, presence of irrigation, and others—that influence the absolute (as opposed to comparative) advantage of producing agricultural commodities in a particular place)

Data

Expected sign on:

Variable

Choice of formal

institutionProbability of conflict Mean

Type of conflict that occurred in 2002 (% of all conflicts reported)

Private land boundaries +/- 55.98

Common natural resources +/- 8.15

Water +/- 12.50

Other conflicts +/- 9.78

Poverty gap (%) - 13.00Communities with program and organization with focus on agriculture and environment (%) + - 35.87

Literacy rate (%) + +/- 52.30

Distance to all-weather road (km) - - 2.47

Potential market integration (PMI) (index) + + 187.87

Population density (people/km2) + + 367.32

Households with no land (%) +/- + 7.37

Woodland degraded (%) +/- + 16.59

Pasture degraded (%) +/- + 18.15

Cropland with irreversible degradation (%) +/- + 1.23

Land tenure (% of communities with ….)

Customary - - 86.31

Freehold + - 5.40

Mailo + + 8.33

Descriptive Statistics

Objective: to analyze the determinants of conflict occurrence and the choice of institutions used to resolve such conflicts.

Given that the type of conflict also determines the choice of institution for conflict resolution, use maximum likelihood bivariate probit model, which is recursive and therefore addresses the endogeneity.

Empirical model

Land Tenure

 

# of conflict

s

Private land

boundary

Access to commons other

than water

Access to

water

Other conflicts

TotalConflicts resolved

Customary

134 0.82 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.90 0.68

Freehold 8 0.67 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.78 1.00

Mailo 13 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.71 0.80

Total 155 0.64 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.86 0.72

Results 1: Type of conflicts reported

Type of conflict LC1 Higher level government Customary

Private land boundary 77.50 10.00 12.50

Non-water commons 25.00 50.00 25.00

Water 75.00 0.00 25.00

Other conflicts 75.00 6.25 18.75

All conflicts 74.56 10.53 14.91

Conflicts resolved 99 92 100

Results 2: Conflict resolution institutions

Type of conflict

 Private land

conflicts

Conflicts over

commons (other than

water)Conflicts

over waterOther

conflicts

Poverty gap 6.413** 0.038 -7.686*** -21.548

Literacy rate   -24.047***  

Landless (%) 0.000 -0.014 -0.011

Population density 0.001* -0.001 -0.001* -0.002

Distance to all-weather road (km) 0.122** -0.125 -0.085 -0.040

Potential market integration (PMI) 0.004* -0.024*** -0.003 -0.001

Woodland degradation (%) 0.004 -0.063*** -0.003 0.002

Pasture land degradation (%) 0.002 0.031*** -0.023*** -0.021*

Crop land degradation (%) -7.603*** 223.149** -3.68** -1.839

Land tenure -0.136 0.261 -0.071

Programs/NGOs with focus on agriculture and environment    

Agroecological potential (cf. unimodal low rainfall)    

_Bimodal low 0.617   -1.095

_Bimodal medium 1.431** -14.241***   -8.1***

_Bimodal high 0.482 -0.458 -0.745

Constant -1.698** 13.570*** 1.155 2.502

Determinants of occurrence of conflicts

Discussion of results 1 Greater poverty higher probability of

conflict over private land boundaries, but lower probability of conflicts over access to water/other conflicts (effective customary water management institutions)

Low literacy rates higher likelihood of conflicts over commons (low capacity to access legal documents/implement bylaws)

Higher PMI higher probability of private land conflicts (higher land values)

NR conditions:◦ Higher pasture/cropland degradation more

conflicts over commons, but fewer conflicts over private land and access to water (?)

Type of conflict

 Private land

conflicts

Conflicts over

commons (other than

water)Conflicts

over waterOther

conflicts Institution choice model (formal=1, customary=0)        Type of conflict 1.749*** -2.043*** 1.188*** 1.406***Poverty gap -0.432 0.745 1.489 1.911

Literacy rate 0.541 -0.690 -2.210Landless (%) 0.143 0.160 0.147** 0.145Population density 0.001** 0.001 0.001* 0.001Distance to all-weather road (km) 0.052 0.064 0.149* 0.136Potential market integration (PMI)    Woodland degradation (%)    Pasture land degradation (%)    Crop land degradation (%)    Land tenure 0.232 0.084 -0.202 -0.038Programs/NGOs with focus on agriculture and environment 0.467 0.346 0.120 0.187Agroecological potential (cf. unimodal low rainfall)    _Bimodal low    _Bimodal medium    _Bimodal high    Constant -1.725 0.930 0.667 1.601

Share of communities with conflict (%) 64 10 15 12Sample size (# of conflicts reported) 103 103 103 103Likelihood ratio test ρ = 0 (p-value) 0.017 0.035 0.048 0.049

Determinants of conflict resolution institution

Discussion of results 2 Type of conflict:

◦ Communities with private land, water, and other conflicts formal institutions

◦ Communities with commons conflicts customary institutions

Poverty: based on coefficients◦ Poor more likely to choose customary institutions

for private land conflicts; formal for other conflicts Higher population density with private land

and water conflicts formal institutions

In Uganda, formal institutions (local and central) government: resolved 85% of the reported conflicts---effective

Occurrence of conflict: poverty, population density, human capital, environmental conditions, remoteness

Choice of resolution institution: ◦ Private land, water, others: formal institution (but

other factors)◦ Commons: customary institutions (but also other

factors)

Summary

Support formal institutions in conflict resolution roles (fiscal powers, capacity building)

Customary institutions: weakening, esp with increasing socio-cultural diversity within community---but still important in customary tenure and for the poor. How can they be strengthened/integrated into conflict resolution?

Potential complementarity between formal and informal

Conclusions/recommendations