Skip to content

Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi)

The Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) is an on-going inter-center initiative of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) that fosters research and promotes collaboration on institutional aspects of natural resource management between CGIAR research centers, national agricultural research institutions, and other sources. Its Secretariat is located in the Environment and Production Technology Division of IFPRI. The conceptual framework deals explicitly with the effect of differences in the biophysical, socioeconomic, and policy environment. A range of CAPRi-sponsored case-studies on these issues have been carried out in Uganda, the results of which have been published as CAPRi Working Papers.

Nkonya, E. & Markelova, H. 2010. Looking beyond the obvious: Uncovering the features of natural resource conflicts in Uganda. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 95.

Jagger, P. 2008. Forest incomes after Uganda's forest sector reform: Are the rural poor gaining? IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 92.

German, L., Mazengia, W., Tirwomwe, W., Ayele, S., Tanui, J., Nyangas, S., Begashaw, L., Taye, H., Admassu, Z., Tsegaye, M., Alinyo, F., Mekonnen, A., Aberra, K., Chemangeni, A., Cheptegei, W., Tolera, T., Jotte, Z. & Bedane, K. 2008. Enabling equitable collective action for poverty reduction and natural resource management in the Eastern African highlands. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 86.

Ferris, S., Engoru, P. & Kaganzi, E. 2008. Making market information services work better for the poor in Uganda. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 77.

Kaganzi, E., Ferris, S., Barham, J., Abenakyo, A., Sanginga, P. & Njuki, J. 2008. Sustaining linkages to high value markets through collective action in Uganda: The case of the Nyabyumba potato farmers. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 75.

Katungi, E., Edmeades, S. & Smale, M. 2006. Gender, social capital and information exchange in rural Uganda. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 59.

Howard, P. & Nabanoga, G. 2005. Are there customary rights to plants?: An inquiry among the Baganda, with special attention to gender. CAPRi Working Paper no. 44.

Place, F. & Otsuka, K. 2000. The role of tenure in the management of trees at the community level: Theoretical and empirical analyses from Uganda and Malawi. IFPRI – CAPRi Working Paper no. 9.

One Response Post a comment
  1. August 6, 2013

    Some general rermkas:- Agree with Charles Wortmann that it does not make much sense to start talking about something (CA) without saying what you mean by it. That should come first.- I miss a more nuanced view on ‘adoption’ as put forward during the workshop (David Pannell, myself and others). Current comments on who to study (real, dis-, non-, re-adopters [are there more???]), who not, who first, and who also, suggest that there is need to (at least acknowledge to) go beyond bi-modal thinking on adoption.- Given that we’re also talking about Sub-Saharan Africa here, I am surprised that ‘investment’ (of both capital and labour) and particularly, cash-strapped smallholders’ limited capacity to invest does not feature anywhere. I don’t think smallholder farming and technology uptake in SSA is merely defined by profit and food security considerations. Specific points:2. Agree on climate change adaption rermkas (Bruno Gerard) and particularly, the need to stress trade-offs between different goals (David Pannell).2.1. How much we may want to ‘achieve substantial increases in yields’, I think we have learned that evidence is not univocal (Rusinamhodzi et al 2011) and that the advantages of (the three component without add-ons) CA lay often elsewhere (cost reduction for instance). So, why start with this contentious one, and why the extra stress? Why not start with resource saving and use efficiency, and increasing factor productivities?3. Judging from the responses this one is controversial! But semantics also play us part here, I think. So, before we fall into discussions on what qualifies as ‘widespread adoption’, it might be helpful to stress why current evidence is problematic (input-supported uptake, area and practice-based definitions, uptake of component or associated practice taken as CA) and cannot lead to meaningful aggregated adoption figures.4. Agree with rermkas made earlier (Solomon Jemal, David Pannell)5. I agree that turning CA into a ‘container-concept’ in which all kind of agronomic practices can be lodged, won’t help (Christian Thierfelder).6. ‘affect yield, profits…’ add: ‘investment needs and patterns’. There is also a need to better understand how and where these components may fit different smallholder farms and farming systems.9. Agree with earlier critical rermkas on the linear ToT thinking that underpins this statement (Peter Hobbs, Christian Thierfelder, Bernard Triomphe)10. The farm-level focus of this statement is highly problematic. Uptake is driven by forces beyond the farm as already has been pointed out (Bernard Triomphe). I am also wondering whether it is useful to speak in terms of a hierarchy of drivers. Investment needs (labour, capital) may also influence uptake???? (se my general remark)11. Too limited. We need a focus on adoption processes, not just large-scale survey work building on a bi-modal perspective on adoption.12. Are these not two separate statements?

Leave a Reply

Note: You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS