Need for Political Willingness to Implement the 2011 National Agriculture Policy of Uganda
1.0. Introduction
This paper seeks to analyze Uganda’s
National Agriculture Policy of 2011 based on the fact that Uganda’s population
depends mainly on agriculture as the source of income and much of Uganda’s
exports are agricultural products. Agriculture is considered to be the backbone
of Uganda’s national and economic development so this paper identifies how it
has or how it can impact the rate of economic development and household income
in Uganda. It looks at the policy achievements or suggestions and analyzes
loopholes and provides possible solutions to the challenges and loopholes in
such a policy. As a form of incite on policy however, this paper first attempts
to give some highlight on what policy, public policies and Policy analysis are.
It then tends to give a background of Uganda and its rate of Economic
development through agriculture sector. Major questions that will be answered
by this paper include political issues, affected policy sector, actors involved
and beneficiaries of the Policy, suggested solutions and the scholar’s
recommendations on certain issues.
1.1. Policy, Public policy and policy analysis
A policy is a more general notion
than decision.[1]
A policy covers a bundle of decisions, and it involves a predisposition to
respond in a specific way.[2] … the Oxford English
Dictionary offers definitions of Policy, covering; “political sagacity;
statecraft; prudent conduct; craftiness; course of action adopted by
government, party etc.[3] According to Wilson 1887,
the modern meaning of the English notion “policy” is that of a course of action
or plan, a set of political purpose as opposed to administration. In simple
terms therefore, policy is a prescribed institutional agenda of a state. It is
what state institutors decide to do or not to do and this includes political
speeches and statements. Therefore, policy should not be mistaken only to mean
written rule of procedure or laws.
Important to note is that public
policy is concerned with how are problems and issues defined and constructed,
how they are placed on political and policy agenda, how policy options emerge,
how and why governments act or do not act in a certain way and what the effects
of government policy are[4].
Therefore, the above brief
explanation expresses the fact that a public policy does not only stop at
formulation but rather implementation and evaluation which is a continuous
process. Different scholars have tried to define public policy as; Public
policy focuses on ‘the public and its problems’ (Dewey, 1927), the study of
‘how, why and to what effect governments pursue particular courses of action
and inaction’ (Heidenheimer, 1990:3), what governments do, why they do it, and
what difference does it make’ (Dye, 1976:1) and the study of the nature,
causes, and effects of public policies’ (Nagel, 1990:4).[5] Wayne goes ahead to argue
that … public policy has to do with those spheres which are so designed as
“public”, as opposed to a similar list we could make of expressions which
involve the idea of “private”.[6] His idea is that in
public policy, there are aspects which are completely public and have nothing
to do with the private realm or cannot be pursued by any private individual. What
Wayne calls Public policy, in Schön's sense, is … really the study of how
societies learn (or fail to learn) about those problems they define as being
public and how they seek to solve (or fail to solve) their problems.[7]
According to Wayne, the aim of government should not be to control and direct,
but to facilitate the growth of individuals, organizations and communities that
are capable of managing their own continuing transformation. Wayne goes ahead
to argue that it is self-evident that decisions on Government policy ought to
be informed by sound evidence and that policy should not guided by 'dogma', but
knowledge of 'what works and why'.[8]
Policy analysis task is to understand
what governments do, how they do it and what difference it makes. According to Hague
and Harrop, policy analysis expresses a more practical spirit than other
aspects of comparative politics. It is
important to note that each policy must have what is called Policy outputs and
policy outcomes meaning what the government does and what the government
achieve respectively[9].
Therefore, any public policy must be accompanied by actions which have to bring
results. It is from the results that one can conclude that a certain policy has
been successful or a failure meaning positive results that match with the
Policy’s set objectives signify success and negative results signify policy
failure.
Policy analysis takes various stages
and approaches. Among the varieties of policy analysis are; Policy
determination which is the analysis concerned with how policy is made, why it
is made, when and for whom it is made, the other is policy content which
involves the description of a particular policy and how it developed in
relation to other earlier policies, or it may be informed by a
theoretical/value framework which seeks to offer a critique of policy.[10] Therefore according to
him, policy analysis is more closely associated with the use of a variety of
techniques to improve or make more rational the decision making process.
Important to consider is also who
policy analysts are and what they do. According to Wayne, policy analysts have
a number of common and overlapping concerns as; being concerned with problems
and the relationship of public policies to these problems, with the content of
public policies, with what the decision-makers and policy makers do or do not
do and the consequences of policy in terms of outputs and outcomes.[11] According to him, policy
analysts are can be found in universities, independent research institutions
and “think-tanks”, in-house policy units, pressure and lobby groups, political
parties and freelance consultants among others[12]. Important also to note is that there are
quite a number of policy arenas/fields networks or communities are involved in
such as; health, transport, education, the environment, social policy, housing,
economic policies, race and urban planning among others
(Parsons 1995: 31).
2.0. About Uganda and the Agricultural status
Uganda,
officially The Republic of Uganda is a landlocked country in East Africa with a
population of over 34 million people. It is governed under a multi-party system
of governance and has a constitution that was enacted in 1995. Uganda was ruled
by the British beginning in the late 1800s. Uganda gained independence from
Britain on 9 October 1962. The period since then has been marked by
intermittent conflicts, most recently a civil war against the Lord's Resistance
Army. Currently Uganda is democratically governed though still with some
democratic challenges hence required international efforts from actors like the
EU, IMF and World Bank among many others to strengthen her (Uganda) democratic
roots. Much of Uganda’s population mainly women depend on Agriculture as their
source of income. According to Statistical Abstract 2011 of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, agriculture employed 66 percent
(8.8 million) of the working population, while by occupation, 60 percent (8.1
million) of the working population were agriculture and fishery workers in
2009/10. But also important to note is that;
The
Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) 2008/09 estimates the number of Agricultural
Households as 3.95 million with the Western Region having the highest percentage
(28.5%) which translates to 1.1 million Households, while the Central Region
had the least (20.5%) equivalent to 0.81 million Households. The National
Livestock Census conducted in February 2008 found out that 4.5 million
Households kept at least one (1) type of livestock in Uganda.[13]
The agriculture sector was reported
in the Financial Year budget speech of 2012/13 FY to have recorded an annual
growth of 3.0% and the performance of the Agricultural sector was said to have
been spurred by increased cash and food crop production[14]. However, important to
note is also that food crop inflation was 42.2% in May 2011 though it declined
to 8% by May 2012.[15] Important also is that
irrespective of quite a number of agricultural challenges, the agriculture
sector had a total contribution to GDP at current prices of 23.8 percent in the
Y 2009/10 compared to 22.5 percent in 2010/11 which translates to Shs. 8,269
and 8,742 billion respectively.[16] However, one can say
that considering the above mentioned population size employed in the sector, if
there would be clear and realistic strategies to promote it, there would have
been a bigger percentage contribution to the total GDP as compared to 23.8%.
Therefore, the current state cannot be considered to be the most desirable. Therefore,
much of Uganda’s population being dependant on the Agriculture sector, there is
need for strong, realistic and achievable policies to promote the sector in
order to meet both national and individual needs.
2.1. The National Agriculture Policy 2011 Political issue/aim
The National Agriculture Policy is
meant to guide all agriculture and agriculture related sub-sector policies,
policy frameworks and strategies existing or to be formulated in future.[17]
It was formulated in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
Objective XI (ii) provides that the state shall “stimulate agricultural,
industrial, technological and scientific development by adopting appropriate
policies and enactment of enabling legislation”, Objective XXII (a) provides
that the state shall “take appropriate steps to encourage people to grow and
store adequate food” therefore the policy is aimed at translating those high
level national obligations into policies and strategies to enable their
achievement.[18]
Most
importantly also is that; the government has a national vision aimed at
achieving prosperity for all of which agricultural development is at the center
of this vision, given that over three quarters of the country’s labor force is
engaged in agriculture.[19]
The important last aim of the policy is; the need to achieve national
development objectives of increasing household incomes, food and nutrition
security and employment as contained in the National Development Plan (NDP) in
which agriculture is identified as one of the primary sources of growth in the
economy (Ibid:6). Therefore, the policy’s major aim is to see improvement in
the agriculture sector not only to benefit individual citizens in Uganda in terms
of increase in household incomes but also to see a significant increase in the
National GDP hence meeting both public and individual needs. Any improvement in
the sector in terms of value addition and improved technology in farming
(modern farming methods), can consequently also reduce on unemployment levels
based on the fact that majority of the youth graduates in Uganda are
unemployed.
2.2. Policy sector; Matters and Rules
The
National Agriculture Policy 2011 aims at providing guidance to all actors in
the agricultural sector to make investments that will increase agricultural
incomes, reduce poverty, improved household food and nutrition security, create
employment and stimulate overall economic growth[20]
among other factors as seen above. Prior to the formulation of the Plan for
Modernization of Agriculture, agricultural interventions were scattered and
there was no comprehensive policy framework to guide the sector hence need for
the guiding tool. Therefore, it is the guide for policies, guidelines and
programmes on how the agriculture sector should operate in Uganda. This is
based on the fact that; agriculture has been and continues to be the most
important sector in Uganda’s economy because it employs the largest proportion,
65.6 percent in 2010, of the population aged 10 years and older and the fact
that in 2010/11, the sector accounted for 22.5 percent of total GDP and agricultural
exports accounted for 46 percent of total exports in 2010.[21]
Most importantly is also that; Agriculture sector is the largest employer of
the majority women in that 83% are employed in agriculture as primary producers
(Ibid: 7). The same sector is also the catalyst behind most of the Local
agro-based industries in Uganda which contributes much to the country’s exports.
Therefore, based on these reasons and the above mentioned, there was need for a
guiding tool to direct the sector in order to improve its performance.
2.3. Actors (implementers and supporters of the Policy)
Agriculture sector in Uganda is
managed through a Multi-sectoral approach where a number of sectors play
significant, independent though somehow contradictory roles both at National
and Local levels of Governance. Some of the sectors include;
Plan
for Modernization of Agriculture; the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture is
a framework which sets out the strategic vision and principles upon which
interventions to address poverty eradication through transformation of the
agricultural sector can be developed.[22]
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and Fisheries; which is responsible
for managing and coordinating agricultural policies and interventions and it
does so through the Ministry’s autonomous and semi-autonomous agencies, local
governments, other ministries, departments and agencies, (Private Sector, Civil
Society and development partners.[23]
But also in a bid to enhance efficiency in delivery of agricultural goods and
services, several statutory bodies were formed under the Ministry and they
include, National Agricultural Research System for research, National
Agricultural Advisory Services for advisory services, National Animal Genetic
Resources Centre and Data Bank for animal genetic development, Uganda Coffee
Development Authority for coffee development, Cotton Development Organization
for cotton development, Dairy Development Authority for dairy development,
Coordinating Office for the Control of Trypanasomiasis in Uganda for control of
trypanasomiasis, and the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture Secretariat for
multi-sectoral coordination. The creation of these bodies left the Ministry
headquarters to concentrate on agricultural policy formulation, planning,
regulation, disease and pest control, and sector monitoring and supervision.[24]
However,
according to the Policy …there are weaknesses in institutions of collective
decision-making and oversight of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, and that
applied to the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture, and will apply to the
National Development Plan and Development Strategy and Investment Plan if there
is insufficient coordination and political supervision.[25]
One can easily analyze that the problem is brought about poor institutional
planning in terms of obligations and jurisdictions. Over the last decade, the
agricultural sector has witnessed the creation of a number of institutions with
overlapping mandates and blurred lines of responsibility and accountability[26].
Therefore, the solution here could have been effective separation of powers
among the above institutions such that decision making powers on some aspects
are consolidated to certain institutions perhaps the responsible ministry or
certain decisions are made at sectoral levels or institutional levels only
guided by this policy with in their operational jurisdictions. The dilemma
therefore is failure to notice that; …decision-making falls between
policy-formation and implementation and that they are however closely
interwoven, with decisions affecting implementations and initial
implementations affecting later stages of decision-making which, in turn, affect
later implementation[27].
However, important to note is also that according to Parsons, the task of
“deciding” pervades the entire administrative organization therefore calling
for a need for consultations on certain policies.
The
other major actors are Local governments; the local governments concentrate on
implementation of delegated and decentralized functions and services (Ibid:
11).
Local
governments continue to play a big role in the performance of the agricultural
sector. They implement government programs like National Agriculture Advisory
Services (NAADS) and provide support to other sector interventions. The local
governments continue to provide, through mobilization, monitoring, supervision
and guidance, and support to agricultural development (Ibid: 12).
However,
as noted in the Policy; ….the link between Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries and local governments remains weak probably because of
poor interpretation of different roles of central and local government agencies
(Ibid: 12). This is one of the biggest challenges faced not only in agriculture
sector but also among many other sectors in Uganda. However, the dilemma is
between who has power over what, when and how which has basically led to none
other than interference of some political actors into bureaucratic work in
order to claim responsibility. Part of solutions here could have been clear
stipulation of Central Government in this case Ministry’s jurisdiction and
Local Government Jurisdiction in this policy paper. Whereas the Ministry could
do the general supervision and monitoring role, local governments are well
placed to effectively implement policies and programmes. This is based on the
fact that the primary aim of decentralization was to bring services closer to
people through decentralized local governments. Therefore continued
interference and collision in roles and responsibilities between the central
government and local governments inevitably continue to hamper the rate of
service delivery in lower local governments.
Other
actors and partners include; Civil Society; Civil Society, including the higher
level farmer organizations, traditional, cultural and faith based institutions
shall undertake the following core functions. They are expected to play a role
of; Mobilising farmers to access credit, farm inputs, and markets and other
relevant agricultural goods and services; advocate for improvement in
agricultural services and the prevailing policy and regulatory environment;
monitor implementation of government programmes; develop and implement
agricultural programmes in line with government policy and plans and contribute
to policy formulation and reviews at all levels.[28]
However, one can say, even though they are expected to pay such roles, most of
them such as traditional, cultural and faith based institutions are less
informed of such policies or even mobilised by government to take part in
implementation apart from just simple calls made by the President in his
speeches.
However
also, there has been perplexity in all the above sectors in terms of who does
what, when, how and controlled by who. There are always cross-cutting issues
when it comes to implementation mainly because of some contradictions in terms
of roles and responsibilities to be played by such sectors. As one can say, the
best solution could have been the responsible ministry consolidating its powers
and taking full charge in terms of supervision but most importantly enactment
of a clear policy that stipulates roles and jurisdictions of each sector and
who reports to whom, who makes which decisions and who operates where in all
agricultural sub-sectors.
2.4. Policy objectives and strategies, beneficiaries, critics
and possible solutions/measures
The Policy’s first objective is “Ensure household and national food and
nutrition security for all Ugandans”.[29] This is what one may call an ambitious objective that intends to
ensure that there is food security and good nutrition among all Ugandans.
Therefore, the primary beneficiaries under this objective are common citizens
of Uganda. According to the policy, this is intended to be
done by; promotion of
production of food security enterprises and consumption of nutrition dense
products, agricultural enterprises that enable households to earn daily,
periodic and long-term incomes to support food purchases, strengthening the
capacity of farmers and farmer groups, promotion of appropriate technologies,
facilitation of the construction of appropriate agro-processing and storage
infrastructure, development and improvement on food handling, marketing and
distribution systems and linkages to local and export markets, supporting the
establishment of a strategic national food reserve system, collating and
disseminating information on food and nutrition security to households and
communities.[30]
However, important to note is that as already
stated above, there is less reality on when and how all aspects on the above
objective will be implemented. One can say if there has to be realization
tangible results in terms of meeting the needs of all citizens there has to be
scientific evidence on how the same is going to be achieved. Whereas the implementation strategies are
stipulated, there are no set approaches on how each objective shall be
achieved. Irrespective of this objective being in place, millions of Ugandans
still suffer from hunger mainly because of less food security and environmental
changes. According to United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisations, nine
million Ugandans are still facing hunger with many affording only one meal a day[31].
Therefore, if the objective is to be achieved, clear strategies on how to
tackle it in order to reach each citizen of Uganda must be set and implementers
identified.
The second objective is; “Increase incomes of
farming households from crops, livestock, fisheries and all other agricultural
related activities[32]”
and the beneficiaries here are individual households. This is intended to be achieved through the
following among other twelve strategies; promotion of the growth of a vibrant
private sector led agricultural input supply system countrywide, developing and
implementing a policy and regulatory framework for biotechnology in agriculture,
promoting the population’s access to agricultural training and skills
development and strengthening national capacity for pest, weed, disease and
vector control. However, one’s argument can basically duel on two aspects of
pest and disease control and promotion of the growth of a vibrant private
sector. In Uganda, most agriculturalists mainly small scale farmers face a very
big problem related to crop pests and diseases and even irrespective of such
suffering, the government does little or nothing to help them out.
One can therefore easily argue that it is one
of the biggest challenges to output rates within the sector. For example
...lack of funding has stalled a campaign to eliminate a deadly bacterial
banana wilt disease that has spread to "worrying levels" in Uganda,
threatening the food security of up to 14 million consumers of bananas as a
staple food, say scientists.[33]
On the same factor, irrespective of some efforts by government to do some
sensitization, there has been less efforts put to ensure that each citizen is
aware of control measures hence a very wide spread of the disease. Therefore,
one can recommend that; the government’s efforts to handle and manage some challenges
of such nature, there has to be the already set strategies and funding in order
to ensure that there is quick response to avoid such catastrophes. Most
importantly is also; its quick action to inform and educate farmers on such
diseases such that prevention measures are implemented before massive spread. Institutions
already in place line the National Agricultural Advisory Services in Local
governments should be highly empowered both financially and with efficient and
skilled human resource to encounter such challenges.
The policy’s third objective is; promote
specialization in strategic, profitable and viable enterprises and value
addition through agro-zoning[34].
Some of the strategies to achieve this objective include; ensuring provision of
basic infrastructure and utilities to encourage investment in agro-processing,
promoting the development and dissemination of efficient and cost-effective
technologies for processing and preservation of agricultural commodities,
supporting establishment and maintenance of out-grower schemes through PPPs and
establishment and enforcement of standards and quality assurance for
agricultural products to compete in domestic, regional and international
markets among others.[35]
First and foremost, important to note is that poor or no necessary
infrastructures in most parts of Uganda are one of the reasons behind poor or
less gro-processing and poor agricultural output in Uganda. Most rural areas with fertile soils and
enough space for agriculture do not have good roads and electricity or even
good markets hence no agro-processing industries and less interests by
investors both private and even public investments to get to such places. For
example,
.....For
the period 2010 to 2011, the national roads network has remained un-changed.
However, there is a notable increase in the length of paved roads from 3,112
kilometres in 2010 to 3,264 kilometres in 2011 giving an increase of 152
kilometres while un-paved roads have decreased from 16,888 kilometres to 16,736
in year 2011 giving a decrease of 152 kilometres.[36]
The above statistical abstract still shows that there
is need for more road-networks in Uganda based on the fact that Uganda’s total
land area is 241,550.7 square kilometres (sq. kms) and open water and swamps
cover 41,743.2 sq. kms.[37]
Such and many others include low levels of rural electrification in Uganda
needs clear and strategic attentions if the objective has to be achieved. This
will automatically facilitate irrigation, modern farming methods, local,
national and international market development and improved output among many
others.
The fourth objective is; Promote domestic, regional
and international trade in agricultural products.[38]
The following however among others are considered by government to promote
trade in agricultural products; develop and expand nationwide a sustainable
market information system that is accessible to all the stakeholders, ensure
the development, maintenance and improvement of physical agricultural market
infrastructure (crop and livestock markets, abattoirs, fish landing sites,
etc), ensure the development of infrastructures and utilities that are key to
agricultural trade (transport infrastructure, energy, etc), strengthen national
capacity for quality assurance, regulation and safety standards to promote
increased trade at all levels, promote Uganda’s agricultural products in local
and international trade fairs and address supply and demand constraints to domestic,
regional and international[39].
Having looked at the
aspect of possible strategies to improve production/output levels in the
agricultural sector, it is important under this number five objective to
evaluate trade in the country. Irrespective of the fact that; Uganda is a
signatory to a number of trade and trade-related agreements including: the East
African Community Customs Union (EACCU), the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA), the African, Caribbean and Pacific- European Union
(ACP/EU) Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement), the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the African Union (AU) and being also a beneficiary of
non-reciprocal unilateral trade preferences such as Everything But Arms (EBA)
by the European Union (EU), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) of
the United States and offers by Canada, Japan and China under the Generalized
System of Preferences (GSP) all which provide the country with a great
potential for improved market access opportunities into the respective markets,[40]
Uganda’s export Sector continues to suffer from small volumes of low
value-added goods and this has heavily affected the country’s capacity to
effectively respond to international demand.[41]
Important also to note is that where as Coffee, for example, employs more than
1.2 million people and supports more than 6 million livelihoods and the fishing
sector employs an estimate of 250,000 people in lake side fishing communities
and about 5,000 in urban factories and more than 5 million people depend on it
for their livelihood[42],
Uganda still exports unprocessed coffee to Europe and fish export is also low
and not of desirable quality. This does not only affect the country’s export
earnings but is also has a very big negative impact on the larger population
which earns less because of selling raw materials rather than finished goods
leading to fetching of low prices. One can therefore suggest that if there has
to be a boom in the export sector earnings, the above mentioned agreements
should effectively be put to use by; production of good quality and finished
products and this can only be done if the country invests much in
industrialisation. This can be approached from a public of private basis that
is; either government can setup its own industries of encourage private
investors to invest in the same. However, this must be done after all
assurances that there will be enough agricultural produce to provide sufficient
raw-materials to such industries and factories.
The fifth and last
objective of the policy is; Ensure
sustainable use and management of agricultural resources[43]. The policy emphasises on
the same objective that ....society needs to be guided on the proper use and
maintenance of key agricultural resources particularly soils and water for
production[44].
Some of the set strategies to ensure that communities as sole beneficiaries
have this realised include; periodically mapping and documenting the state of agricultural resources
and the use patterns in the country, ensuring dissemination of information to
households and communities regarding good practices for proper use and
conservation of agricultural resources and promoting and support the
dissemination of appropriate technologies and practices for agricultural
resources conservation and maintenance among all categories of farmers.[45] However, important to note is that
less has been done in Uganda to ensure that the same is implemented. There is
less land ownership by the poor in Uganda and they operate on small pieces of
land which are used up due to over-cultivation. And important to note is that;
...Uganda is dominated by small-scale farms, which have not been performing
well and policy makers, therefore, have been attempting to focus on larger
farms, with the hope to generate better outcomes.[46] Important also in Uganda is that;
....the non-poor tend to choose to produce more profitable agricultural
products, they receive higher yields and they also get higher farm-gate prices
for their products[47]. Therefore having looked at this
level of differences, it remains a challenge to ensure that land use is in
proper order as the policy suggests. The government also finds it hard to support
small scale farmers as seen above hence majority farmers in Uganda have
remained unattended to by Government leading to poor use of land and other
natural resources like wetlands.
Therefore, the best approach
one can suggest could be establishment of farmers groups comprising of farmers
from same areas such that they operate joint projects and practice modern
farming methods with the support of Government. Such groups can be established
with the help of Agricultural Extension Workers in various sub-counties across
the country. It can only be through such a strategic approach other than only
focusing on large scale farmers that the overall objective of improved
household incomes and welfare of Ugandans can be realised. The fact that small
scale farmers own small pieces of land, when such land is joined mainly that,
which is close or neighbouring each other it makes a big space which can be
jointly invested in by those farmers and get big yields at the end of the day.
However, the problem as seen above has and still remains negligence of such
categories of farmers and failure to incorporate them in the bigger realm of
national policy. So when such farmers
are brought together, it becomes easier even for the government not only to
achieve the objective of having production improved but it also becomes easier
to sensitise them on how to practice modernised agriculture. The policy’s
vision “A Competitive, Profitable and Sustainable Agricultural Sector” and its mission
“Transform subsistence farming to commercial agriculture”[48] can only be achieved if all
stakeholders are involved in agriculture production not only relying on large
scale farmers who already produce for sale.
2.5. Other Agriculture challenges and possible solutions
Apart from some of the challenges
mentioned above in some critics, the agriculture sector in Uganda faces quite a
number of other challenges that possibly may need some form of interventions as
one will try to outline some bellow.
First and foremost, it is important
to note that agriculture sector in Uganda is still under funded compared to
other sectors of the economy. “...the
issue of agricultural sector financing has remained unresolved for decades.
Although political leaders constantly remind us that agriculture is the
backbone or engine of Uganda’s economy, the sector receives one of the smallest
budget allocations annually”.[49]
For example, total proposed direct and indirect
allocations to the agriculture sectors for the 2012/13 financial year amounts
to Shs 585.3 billion[50]
which is a clear sign of underfunding based on the population that is employed
under the sector and the fact that it is the backbone of Uganda’s economy. Therefore,
the best solution to this can be increased funding and this can be done by
implementing the AU agreed 10% of the National Budget allocation to Agriculture
as it was suggested by ACODE
(Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment) and Uganda National
Framers’ Federation in their petition to the President and Parliament of Uganda
among many other strategies.
The
other major challenge is that use of modern inputs has been minimal in Uganda,
resulting in the low yields.[51]
According the same World Bank report, very few farmers use improved seeds,
fertilizers and chemicals irrespective of farm size. Irrespective of the recent
increases in fertilizer application in Uganda, the fertilizer input use today
is still about the level of 4 kg nutrients per ha for food crops compared to 32
kg per ha in Kenya and 51 kg per ha in South Africa[52].
This has been one of the challenges which can be overcome by establishment of
farmer’s Micro-finance Centre or Bank which can constantly provide loans to
farmers (both large scale and small scale) with loans in terms of fertilizers
with an understanding of paying back after production having ensured that there
will be market for the produce. Farmers in Uganda making a large percentage of
the employed citizens is an advantage to have them mobilized and empowered by
the Government to establish a booming financial institution to always meet their financial challenges.
Important to note is also that the same was proposed by Advocates Coalition for
Development and Environment and Uganda National Framers’ Federation in their
petition to the President and Parliament of Uganda[53]
meaning it is an issue that can be given clear attention by responsible
parties.
Constant
reduction in agricultural produce exports is one of the major challenges facing
the sector. One can argue that the same is caused by low local prices for
agricultural products which have consequently discouraged farmers from picking
much interest in the activity. This has consequently led to low production
hence affecting exports. During the 1960s, Uganda was Sub-Saharan Africa’s
largest cotton producer, but political instability and poor policy choices of
the 1970s destroyed the sector[54].
Alongside other challenges like poor policy initiatives, less willingness by
the government to invest in the same and poor infrastructure cannot be
disputed. One should also note that improved production should be the major
emphasis based on the fact that … although
its share in total exports is declining in 2008, exports of primary agriculture
commodities contributed 46 percent of Uganda’s formal exports earnings[55].
Therefore, when paid attention too, there is expected much more increase in
total export earnings, increase in household income and generates much income
for infrastructure development.
The
last but not the least challenge has much to do with agricultural governance
issues. Whereas the National Resistance Movement government expresses the
willingness to develop and improve the agriculture sector, there are a number
of governance challenges it faces right from the Ministry to local level
governance and multi-sectoral management with in the sector. Important to note
as already stressed above is that there is a big challenge in terms of roles,
responsibilities, accountability and reporting systems and most importantly
decision-making challenges in all sectors and even ministers under the
agricultural sector. Since
the adoption of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan in 1997, Government has
continued to respond to the institutional failures in the agricultural sector
by creating new institutions while retaining the existing ones.[56]
Important to note is also that the Agriculture policy stresses the fact that
....managing agriculture through a multi-sectoral approach, such as the PMA,
presents governance challenges[57].
However, it is important to know that it is not only PMA (Plan for
Modernisation of Agriculture) but also many other sectors like; National
Agricultural Research System, National Agricultural Advisory Services, National
Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank, Uganda Coffee Development
Authority, Cotton Development Organization, Dairy Development Authority,
Coordinating Office for the Control of Trypanasomiasis in Uganda for control of
trypanasomiasis, and the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture Secretariat
National Agricultural Advisory Services (as stipulated in the Policy) and not
forgetting the ministry with four State Ministers and a cabinet minister. More
so, each of the above agencies is operating at both national and sub-national
levels, is responsible for the execution of approved plans and resources in
their budgets[58]. The
dilemma therefore has mainly been on not only much public expenses on Officers
managing the agencies but also policy making and monitoring and evaluation
challenges. This therefore calls for a need to restructure the sector by
emerging some of the agencies with contradicting roles and reducing on the
number of Ministers within the Ministry to have a reduction in public
expenditures and allocate much of the resources to productive activities within
the sector.
3.0. Conclusions and recommendations
One can
therefore conclude that; if the 2011 National Agriculture Policy of the Republic
of Uganda is to be effectively implemented, set objectives achieved and
Government’s willingness and commitment to transform the economy not
compromised, a clear implementation approach to meet national and individual
citizens’ needs must be put in place. Such may not only be limited to setting
up of such policies but rather the commitment to allocation of enough funds/resources
to meet agricultural needs and willingness to take up an agricultural
revolution across the country.
There has to
be the willingness to setup clear, realistic and less bureaucratic institutions
and sub-sectors with in the Agricultural sector in order to reduce public
expenditure but rather increase inputs in the production of much output. As
already noted above, the NRM Government tries to express its willingness to
transform the sector, however there is need for guidance on how to make it as
much realistic as possible to make sure that each household benefits from the
government agriculture programmes centrally to what is going on right now.
Therefore, this calls for direct inclusion of all stakeholders not only on
paper but in policy-making and management of agricultural programmes. As noted
above, if the vision of increasing income and food security for each household
in Uganda is to be achieved, then a proactive action must be taken.
All policies
and Legislations in favour of the sector are good looking and impressing but if
they must be well implemented then the government must ensure that the
bureaucratic corruption within the sector is checked. In many of the Districts
across the country for example, there have been reported cases under the
National Agricultural Advisory Services and Prosperity for all Programmes which
has hindered the effectiveness of such programmes irrespective of the
executive’s willingness to see progress. Most importantly also is the
willingness and commitment of all stakeholders including government
departments, employees (both politicians and Bureaucrats), civil society
organisations, domestic and foreign investors and individual citizens if all
the set goals are to be achieved. However, all the above mentioned can only be
triggered to show or express their commitment only if the government does so in
the first place as a way of setting the pace for others to follow.
JULIUS Byaruhagna
[1] Hague Rod and Martin
Harrop (2001), Comparative Government and Politics, an Introduction (5th
Ed) Great Britain, Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire. Pg: 273
[2] Ibid: 273
[3] Wayne
Parsons (1995), Public Policy, An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of
Policy Analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Massachusetts 01060 USA, Pg: 13
[4]
M. Theo Jans (September 2007), A framework for public policy analysis and
policy evaluation, IES research colloqium Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pg: 3
& 4
[5]
Wayne Parsons (1995), Public Policy: XV
[6] Ibid: 3
[7]
Wayne Parsons (2002), From Muddling
Through to Muddling Up - Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernisation of
British Government, Public Policy and Administration Volume 17 No. 3
Autumn 2002 SAGE Publications and PAC. Pg: 7.
[8] Ibid:5
[9] Hague Rod and Martin
Harrop (2001), Comparative Government and Politics: 277
[10] Wayne Parsons (2002), From Muddling Through to Muddling Up: 55
[11] Wayne Parsons (1995),
Public Policy: 29 & 30
[12] Ibid:30
[13] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2011), Statistical
Abstract, Agriculture Planning Department, Entebbe: iv
[14] Republic of Uganda,
Budget Speech Financil Year 2012/13, “Priorities
for renewed economic growth and development”, delivered at the meeting of
the second session of the 9th Parliament of Uganda by Hon. Maria
Kiwanuka, Minister for Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Kampala: 3
[15] Ibid: 5
[16] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry of Agriculture 2011: 3
[17]
Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
(2011), National Agriculture Policy (final Draft), Kampala:6
[18] Ibid:6
[19] Ibid:6
[20] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2011):6
[21] Ibid:7
[22] Oxford Policy Management, Evaluation
Report, the Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture Main Report (2005),
Oxford OX1 1BN, United Kingdom: 5
[23] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2011): 11
[25] Ibid: 11& 12
[26] ACODE & Uganda
National Farmers’ Federation, Farmers Petition to The President of The Republic
of Uganda and Members of Parliament of Uganda, Kampala:16
[31]
Isaac Khisa, 16 October 2010, Uganda: Nine Million Face Hunger,
http://allafrica.com/stories/201010190063.html (seen March 11, 2013)
[33] Humanitarian news and analysis, a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs “UGANDA: Urgent funding needed to stem devastating banana wilt”, 12 June 2012 (IRIN) KAMPALA, http://www.irinnews.org/report/95627/UGANDA-Urgent-funding-needed-to-stem-devastating-banana-wilt (seen March 11, 2013)
[36] Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (2012), Statistical
Abstract, Statistics House Plot 9, Colville Street, Kampala: 52
[37] Ibid: iv
[38]
Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
(2011): 22
[40] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry Of Tourism, Trade And
Industry, National Trade Sector
Development Plan 2008/9-2012/13 “Trading Out of Poverty, Into Wealth and
Prosperity” Farmers House, Parliamentary Avenue, Kampala: 2
[41] Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Tourism Trade and
Industry, (2007), The Uganda National Export Strategy 2008-2012, Kampala:
1 &2
[42] Ibid: 2
[43]
Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
(2011): 22
[44]
Ibid: 22
[46] World Bank (June 2011), Uganda: Agriculture for
Inclusive Growth in Uganda. Draft Final Report, Kampala: 37
[47] Ibid: 27
[49] ACODE
& Uganda National Farmers’ Federation, Farmers Petition to The President of
The Republic of Uganda and Members of Parliament of Uganda, Kampala: 19
[50] Republic of Uganda,
Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development, Uganda Financial Year
Budget Speech 2012/2013, “Priorities for renewed Economic Growth &
Development“ Delivered at the Meeting of the 2nd Session of the 9th Parliament
of Uganda, Thursday 14th June 2012 by Honourable Maria Kiwanuka, Kampala: 19
[53] See; ACODE & Uganda
National Farmers’ Federation, Farmers Petition to The President of The Republic
of Uganda and Members of Parliament of Uganda: 14
[55]
Republic of Uganda, Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries, (July 2010), “Agriculture for
Food and Income Security” Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and
Investment Plan: 2010/11-2014/15, Kampala: 7
[56]
ACODE & Uganda National Farmers’ Federation, Farmers Petition to The
President of The Republic Of Uganda and Members of Parliament of Uganda: 17 and
18
[57]
Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
(2011): 11
[58] Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and
Fisheries, Structure, http://www.agriculture.go.ug/index-page-aboutus-id-76.htm
(seen March 16, 2013)
