Abstract
This study sought to determine the extent to which local political interests under decentralization influence watershed management. The study was carried out in Soroti, Katakwi and Amuria districts in Eastern Uganda where local governance of watershed resources is being challenged by floods, draughts and mobility of communities. A cross sectional study design using both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods was employed. Factor Analysis and a Logistics Regression Model were used to analyze household survey data gathered from 180 randomly selected households; to determine influence of political factor variables on watershed management. Focus Group Discussions and key informants’ interviews were also used to generate qualitative data with the purpose of explaining the relationships among variables and to analyze the extent to which various factors influenced watershed management. From the correlation results the factors that were significantly correlated to watershed management were: Community involvement in implementation was significantly correlated to watershed management (r=0.289, P<0.01), political interests in decisions r=0.187, P<0.05), Reasons for punishment of offenders (r=0.55, P, 0.001. Results from the logit regression showed that dissatisfaction with regulations had an increasing influence on watershed management by 90.8% (OR=1.908, P<0.05). This means that management systems were highly affected by dissatisfaction of communities with rules and regulations. Similarly, community involvement in implementation of rules and regulations significantly influenced watershed management by 3 fold (OR=3.436537, P<0.05). From the focus group discussions and KII interviews the study found that involving communities in policy implementation had led to compromises between communities and watershed governance institutions, which were perceived to have undermined the effective control of access and management of watershed resource use. The study concludes that some political interest factors and divergent activities of local institutions and actors in the watershed constrained the very processes that they should support thereby escalating degradation in Awoja.
Highlights
The natural resource management and public policy recommends the inclusion of stakeholders and their interests in decision-making and planning processes, suggesting that stakeholder inclusion contributes to, or increases the likelihood of, better decision-making, increased social learning, and community support for project outcomes [1]
Factor six derived from the following factor loadings; benefits of the watershed to the local government; who has the power to allocate communal land for use and how stakeholders are involved in the allocation of resources in the watershed was labeled “local government conflict of Interests” and factor seven defined by high loadings of the factors; ways offenders are punished was labeled “punishment of offenders” which explained 8.9% of the variance of the variables
The findings show that the way the exercise of power was being conducted by local governance institutions determined resource user groups’ dissatisfaction/satisfaction to rules and regulations in the management of resources in Awoja watershed
Summary
The natural resource management and public policy recommends the inclusion of stakeholders and their interests in decision-making and planning processes, suggesting that stakeholder inclusion contributes to, or increases the likelihood of, better decision-making, increased social learning, and community support for project outcomes [1]. The relationship between political interests and natural resource degradation is still not very apparent. Charles Aben et al.: Influence of Political Interests on Management of Resource Access in Awoja Watershed variability [3]. Nowhere is this more evident than in SubSaharan Africa because the majority of Africans’ livelihoods and agricultural systems rely on rain fed farming yet Africa is one of the world’s regions most vulnerable to climate change. Inequalities, and conflicts are present within social-ecological environments. Inequalities, and conflicts are present within social-ecological environments3 This implies that land degradation in a changing climate requires politicaleconomic and ecological explanations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
