Like the biblical prodigal son who “came back to himself” after spending a while in the wilderness of confusion, Government has finally made a U-turn and rescinded its unwarranted five-month suspension of NAADS.
By restoring NAADS, government has only corrected a deliberate fault and does not deserve any applause. In a country where farming is still entirely dependant on weather, farmers strictly align their activities to weather patterns. Whoever wants to support them must synchronise their support with their seasonal calendar. Government should therefore apologise for the gross disruption it caused on farming activities.
Moreover, government has never been convincing on why it banned NAADS in September 2007. The expert government panel which facilitated NAADS design consultations identified lack of farmer access to information, knowledge and technology as the biggest impediment to agricultural growth. It envisaged an agricultural transformation process maturing over at least 25 years and thus recommended that NAADS be given enough time (25 years) to build a firm foundation for sustainable, self-propelling farming enterprises.
However, government now wants to discount the projected achievements of the 25-year programme into two, three or maximum five years. By blasting NAADS for “having nothing to show” other than spending a lot on farmers’ education, government behaved like the impatient idealist, Obi Okwonko, whom Chinua Achebe portrays in his novel No Longer at Ease. Obi is out of touch with reality after spending a while in a western university and clamours upon his return, for space where he “can stand and move the world.” At the end, he becomes a victim of his impatient idealism. He is dejected, rejected by his own people, finally arrested and convicted in court.
Like the impatient idealist, government has expressed its desire to “give Uganda a new face” in the immediate term. It has reportedly completed a restructuring of NAADS so that it primarily focuses on agro input supply rather than information, knowledge, and farmers’ education. The restructuring has in essence converted NAADS into a relief organisation. How despicable!
While I appreciate that farmers are needy, NAADS objective was to fulfil the biblical philosophy: teaching man how to fish rather than give him fish” in accordance with expert panel recommendations. The “trained angler” would obviously need a “hook” to do a good job – which NAADS was providing through its enterprise promotion and technology multiplication strategy.
Obviously, the relief approach will not create a sustainable impact on farming communities. By their nature, relief programmes only provide a cosmetic end product. I have witnessed farmers cooking and eating hybrid seeds meant for demonstration and multiplication. In several parts of the country, there have been reports of farmers slaughtering imported exotic boar goats during Christmas, Easter and weddings rather than rearing them to cross breed with, and improve local goats. In Kabale, an innovative donkey initiative meant to alleviate constrained transportation of farm produce in remote, inaccessible villages ended disastrously when some malicious farmers poisoned and killed all the donkeys. Etc. Looking back, one key lesson learnt was that farmers were not adequately educated before introducing those technologies.
Government must realise that farmer education is the ignition key for agricultural transformation. The adoption process for any innovation starts with awareness. Only when somebody is aware about an innovation is he/she likely to develop interest. Interest will often be followed by a trial and evaluation phase before farmers choose to adopt or not.
Farmer education (demonstrations, seminars and workshops, music, dance drama, etc) catalyses the adoption process and creates necessary farmer demand for innovations. By restructuring NAADS into a relief organisation, government has effectively suffocated a vital catalyst for the adoption process. In the end, agricultural technologies will be thrown at ignorant farmers who will not know what to do with those technologies. Won’t that spell “business-as-usual?”
Let government be forewarned that if it must push more agro inputs to farmers, it ought to ensure that such a precarious detour doesn’t devalue the role of information, knowledge and farmer education. It is said, “You may force a cow to the river but you can’t force it to drink.” The onus is on government to avoid the predicament of Chinua Achebe’s impatient idealist!
20 December 2007
The first 10 years of Poverty Action Fund is woeful
I have always been complementary about Uganda’s policy and programmatic orientation towards poverty alleviation. We have a PEAP (Poverty Alleviation Plan); the PMA (Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture); NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services); Bona Baggagawale (prosperity for all); and other initiatives. All these poverty alleviation strategies are conceptually vibrant. What I find increasingly baffling though is how such vibrancy could fail to catalyse improved household incomes – especially in the rural areas.
Beginning 1998, Government created the Poverty Action Fund (PAF) to channel resources saved from the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief Initiative to PEAP sectors. Through PAF, Government pledged to increase direct funding for agriculture, infrastructure, health, and other social services. However, in contravention of the HIPC principles, millions of dollars worth of savings from international debt payments have continually been disproportionately allocated outside the PEAP thematic areas.
Consequently, PEAP and the PMA have largely remained paper tigers. On the other hand, NAADS and Bona Baggagawale have been catastrophically politicised with their funding hooked into Government’s political objectives rather than economic sustainability principles.
That may explain why poverty is escalating nationwide. More than 70% of the population in some regions (Northern Uganda) lives in abject poverty while one third of the country faces starvation. The recent (2007) UNDP Human Development Report for Uganda has confirmed that indeed Ugandans are in a poverty-freefall – having dropped 10 places on the global Human Development Index from 145 in 2006 to 154 in 2007.
At the programmatic level, the core assumptions underlying PMA, NAADS and Bona Baggagawale need critical re-examination. Farming remains a highly risky business. Seasonal price oscillations on farm inputs and outputs; continued lack of marketing infrastructure; absence of value-addition facilities accessible to rural subsistence farmers; and consequently the infinitesimal shelf life of agricultural produce – seem to have shattered farmers’ agricultural commercialisation dreams.
The reliability of the NAADS enterprise selection mechanism that ideally would orient farmer’s production activities to the market is compromised by vagaries in the market environment. Moreover, increasing land scarcity and fragmentation due to growing populations in some regions, coupled with widespread soil exhaustion have edged poor farmers out of the modernisation initiative.
This year’s Christmas and New Year pilgrimage to the Kigezi Highlands enabled me to interact with frustrated farmers who have given up hope of transforming their subsistence farming. I was struck by the rate at which enterprises (such as poultry and piggery) which had been appraised viable for land-constrained scenarios have been abandoned.
Poor farmers can’t meet livestock feed demands and have failed to expand their enterprises to economical threshold levels above which they would realise profit. In essence, the enterprises had become an added burden upon the impoverished households. Herein lies the evidence for UNDP assertion that more Ugandans have abandoned agriculture (UNDP Human Development Report, 2007).
Since more than 80% of Uganda’s population has nothing else to live on other than farming, abandoning farming without alternative livelihood options places the country into a historic predicament. As agriculture loses relevance to Ugandans, destitution will spiral uncontrollably out of hand. Are there any quick fix solutions to this quagmire? I don’t think so, but we are not stuck either!
Since infinitesimal, fragmented plots of land are economically unfeasible for farming, Government should address the politically unpalatable question of land consolidation. True, land belongs to the people but a package of appropriate incentives could trigger voluntary land consolidation.
A relatively shorter-term and easier solution could be to catalyse “block farming” – where multitudes of farmers with contiguous infinitesimal plots are incentivised to agree to a collective landuse plan. Block farming would build on farmer associations which NAADS is empowering; whereupon only farmers who agree to a block farming system would access NAADS and Bona Baggagawale funds. Setting aside an agricultural commodity stabilisation fund out of PAF would help farmers cope with the seasonally oscillating commodity prices.
Livelihoods diversification towards non-farm enterprises holds significant promise for resource-constrained farmers. Government however needs to devise and implement a regulatory and incentive regime to kick start non-farm business entrepreneurs.
With 10 years of a futile PAF, Government must reenergise the anti-poverty drive and address itself to the HIPC principles, which demand comprehensive commitments to poverty alleviation initiatives.
Published on: http://hdr.undp.org/en/nhdr/monitoring/news/2008/title,6807,en.html
Beginning 1998, Government created the Poverty Action Fund (PAF) to channel resources saved from the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief Initiative to PEAP sectors. Through PAF, Government pledged to increase direct funding for agriculture, infrastructure, health, and other social services. However, in contravention of the HIPC principles, millions of dollars worth of savings from international debt payments have continually been disproportionately allocated outside the PEAP thematic areas.
Consequently, PEAP and the PMA have largely remained paper tigers. On the other hand, NAADS and Bona Baggagawale have been catastrophically politicised with their funding hooked into Government’s political objectives rather than economic sustainability principles.
That may explain why poverty is escalating nationwide. More than 70% of the population in some regions (Northern Uganda) lives in abject poverty while one third of the country faces starvation. The recent (2007) UNDP Human Development Report for Uganda has confirmed that indeed Ugandans are in a poverty-freefall – having dropped 10 places on the global Human Development Index from 145 in 2006 to 154 in 2007.
At the programmatic level, the core assumptions underlying PMA, NAADS and Bona Baggagawale need critical re-examination. Farming remains a highly risky business. Seasonal price oscillations on farm inputs and outputs; continued lack of marketing infrastructure; absence of value-addition facilities accessible to rural subsistence farmers; and consequently the infinitesimal shelf life of agricultural produce – seem to have shattered farmers’ agricultural commercialisation dreams.
The reliability of the NAADS enterprise selection mechanism that ideally would orient farmer’s production activities to the market is compromised by vagaries in the market environment. Moreover, increasing land scarcity and fragmentation due to growing populations in some regions, coupled with widespread soil exhaustion have edged poor farmers out of the modernisation initiative.
This year’s Christmas and New Year pilgrimage to the Kigezi Highlands enabled me to interact with frustrated farmers who have given up hope of transforming their subsistence farming. I was struck by the rate at which enterprises (such as poultry and piggery) which had been appraised viable for land-constrained scenarios have been abandoned.
Poor farmers can’t meet livestock feed demands and have failed to expand their enterprises to economical threshold levels above which they would realise profit. In essence, the enterprises had become an added burden upon the impoverished households. Herein lies the evidence for UNDP assertion that more Ugandans have abandoned agriculture (UNDP Human Development Report, 2007).
Since more than 80% of Uganda’s population has nothing else to live on other than farming, abandoning farming without alternative livelihood options places the country into a historic predicament. As agriculture loses relevance to Ugandans, destitution will spiral uncontrollably out of hand. Are there any quick fix solutions to this quagmire? I don’t think so, but we are not stuck either!
Since infinitesimal, fragmented plots of land are economically unfeasible for farming, Government should address the politically unpalatable question of land consolidation. True, land belongs to the people but a package of appropriate incentives could trigger voluntary land consolidation.
A relatively shorter-term and easier solution could be to catalyse “block farming” – where multitudes of farmers with contiguous infinitesimal plots are incentivised to agree to a collective landuse plan. Block farming would build on farmer associations which NAADS is empowering; whereupon only farmers who agree to a block farming system would access NAADS and Bona Baggagawale funds. Setting aside an agricultural commodity stabilisation fund out of PAF would help farmers cope with the seasonally oscillating commodity prices.
Livelihoods diversification towards non-farm enterprises holds significant promise for resource-constrained farmers. Government however needs to devise and implement a regulatory and incentive regime to kick start non-farm business entrepreneurs.
With 10 years of a futile PAF, Government must reenergise the anti-poverty drive and address itself to the HIPC principles, which demand comprehensive commitments to poverty alleviation initiatives.
Published on: http://hdr.undp.org/en/nhdr/monitoring/news/2008/title,6807,en.html
Government is responsible for collapse of agriculture in Uganda
The 2007 UNDP Human Development Report contains very bad news for those who have been pedalling a rosy portrait of a country that has been having a near double-digit rate of economic development over the last 20 years. In addition to dropping ten points on the global Human Development Index over the last year alone (2006/2007), Uganda according to the report, has reduced its dependence on agriculture – not because farmers have found better livelihood options, but due to desertion of the increasingly risky, loss-making, poverty-entrenching farming enterprises. But why this contradicting state of affairs?
In the immediate aftermath of the bruising fiver-year NRA bush war, the former guerrillas were hasty to practicalise a “fundamental change” which president Museveni promised during his swearing in speech. Their phobia for anything and everything that related with former president Obote drove them into a universal loathing frenzy. They set about dismantling systems, procedures and mechanisms that Obote had ushered in – often without objective evaluation.
The impetus underlying the “fundamental change” seemed to have been to erase “oboteist” principles and policies from the post-Obote Uganda irrespective of whether those principles and policies were rational or not. For the young guerrillas who had won a gruelling bush war against all odds, they felt nothing could possibly fail their post-war revolutionary agenda. How wrong time has proved them wrong!
From the agricultural standpoint, the liberalisation of agricultural markets without adequate marketing infrastructure exposed farmers to “business sharks”. Under the liberalisation framework, government abolished commodity-marketing institutions such as the Coffee Marketing Board, Lint Marketing Board, etc – under the guise of eliminating monopoly and ensuring better returns to farmers. Sadly, government chose to overlook the imperfect market conditions pertaining at the time, which would never allow perfect competition to flourish.
Consequently, the vacuum left by abolished commodity marketing institutions enabled very few individuals close, to or within government to control agricultural trade with even more impunity. It was a case of replacing pro-Obote monopolies with pro-Museveni business entities; of driving farmers from the frying pan to naked fire fames!
Neither government, nor any other authority, has adduced evidence to show that farmers’ returns have improved following abolition of commodity marketing institutions. To the contrary, disorder, chaos and frustration have marred commodity marketing over the last decades. Farmers continually face the historical fleecing game in which they are relentlessly strangled by shrewd business intermediaries. For the poor farmers, it has indeed remained “business as usual” despite the fragrance of the “fundamental change.”
The abolition of agricultural cooperatives as another aspect of Museveni’s post war “fundamental change” agenda could as well be the single most important catalyst for the collapse of farming in Uganda. Where as government was correct when it accused cooperatives of being corrupt, it grossly blundered by prescribing that they be abolished. Typically, this blunder conformed to a classical case of a wrong medical prescription for a correct diagnosis! Were the cooperatives incurably defective that the only choice was to abolish them? Understandably, Obote had cultivated a close relation with cooperatives owing to their grassroot mobilisational power and influence. Was this symbiotic link between Obote and cooperatives the real reason Museveni terminated them?
Allegations of corruption not withstanding, agricultural cooperatives of the time constituted a collective voice for poor rural farmers; an avenue through which village farms linked with urban markets; a mechanism through which poor farmers negotiated and accessed agricultural tools and inputs.
Cooperatives were safety nets; the life-support for rural farmers – without which many were bound to fail. The fact that this failure was reported (by UNDP) in 2007; nearly 20 years after the dismantling of the cooperative infrastructure only means that Ugandan farmers are resilient. Unfortunately, resilience is not limitless and time bombs explode unless defused. Without doubt, the “fundamental change” of the NRM regime has graduated into fundamental disaster – at least with respect to agriculture.
Does government have a chance to salvage the ruins? I would respond in the affirmative – provided it’s ready to “repent” and redress its historical flaws. Being an optimist, I want to think that the recent talk regarding revival of cooperatives is the beginning of the repentance process and that it will yield substance.
In the immediate aftermath of the bruising fiver-year NRA bush war, the former guerrillas were hasty to practicalise a “fundamental change” which president Museveni promised during his swearing in speech. Their phobia for anything and everything that related with former president Obote drove them into a universal loathing frenzy. They set about dismantling systems, procedures and mechanisms that Obote had ushered in – often without objective evaluation.
The impetus underlying the “fundamental change” seemed to have been to erase “oboteist” principles and policies from the post-Obote Uganda irrespective of whether those principles and policies were rational or not. For the young guerrillas who had won a gruelling bush war against all odds, they felt nothing could possibly fail their post-war revolutionary agenda. How wrong time has proved them wrong!
From the agricultural standpoint, the liberalisation of agricultural markets without adequate marketing infrastructure exposed farmers to “business sharks”. Under the liberalisation framework, government abolished commodity-marketing institutions such as the Coffee Marketing Board, Lint Marketing Board, etc – under the guise of eliminating monopoly and ensuring better returns to farmers. Sadly, government chose to overlook the imperfect market conditions pertaining at the time, which would never allow perfect competition to flourish.
Consequently, the vacuum left by abolished commodity marketing institutions enabled very few individuals close, to or within government to control agricultural trade with even more impunity. It was a case of replacing pro-Obote monopolies with pro-Museveni business entities; of driving farmers from the frying pan to naked fire fames!
Neither government, nor any other authority, has adduced evidence to show that farmers’ returns have improved following abolition of commodity marketing institutions. To the contrary, disorder, chaos and frustration have marred commodity marketing over the last decades. Farmers continually face the historical fleecing game in which they are relentlessly strangled by shrewd business intermediaries. For the poor farmers, it has indeed remained “business as usual” despite the fragrance of the “fundamental change.”
The abolition of agricultural cooperatives as another aspect of Museveni’s post war “fundamental change” agenda could as well be the single most important catalyst for the collapse of farming in Uganda. Where as government was correct when it accused cooperatives of being corrupt, it grossly blundered by prescribing that they be abolished. Typically, this blunder conformed to a classical case of a wrong medical prescription for a correct diagnosis! Were the cooperatives incurably defective that the only choice was to abolish them? Understandably, Obote had cultivated a close relation with cooperatives owing to their grassroot mobilisational power and influence. Was this symbiotic link between Obote and cooperatives the real reason Museveni terminated them?
Allegations of corruption not withstanding, agricultural cooperatives of the time constituted a collective voice for poor rural farmers; an avenue through which village farms linked with urban markets; a mechanism through which poor farmers negotiated and accessed agricultural tools and inputs.
Cooperatives were safety nets; the life-support for rural farmers – without which many were bound to fail. The fact that this failure was reported (by UNDP) in 2007; nearly 20 years after the dismantling of the cooperative infrastructure only means that Ugandan farmers are resilient. Unfortunately, resilience is not limitless and time bombs explode unless defused. Without doubt, the “fundamental change” of the NRM regime has graduated into fundamental disaster – at least with respect to agriculture.
Does government have a chance to salvage the ruins? I would respond in the affirmative – provided it’s ready to “repent” and redress its historical flaws. Being an optimist, I want to think that the recent talk regarding revival of cooperatives is the beginning of the repentance process and that it will yield substance.
3 December 2007
It’s sadistic to ridicule family planning
In 1798, the Rev Thomas Robert Malthus raised a storm of international controversy when he anonymously published an essay on the principle of population and society. Through the essay, he warned that disparity between the rate of population growth and the slower increase in food supply would lead to war, famine, and disease. Malthus’s conclusions were dismissed then, and ever since as un-researched, misleading and illusionary.
More than 200 years later (1972), the “Club of Rome,” an elitist association of scholars, businessmen and politicians published an even more controversial report on “the predicament of mankind.” Their article modelled an ultimate uncontrollable crash of both population and industrial production due to exhaustion of physical resources such as cultivable land, minerals and the earth’s capacity to absorb pollution.
Critics to Malthus and the Club of Rome have found ammunition from the fact that unprecedented population growth over the last couple of centuries has been accompanied by an impressive growth of world economies. The standard of living in developed countries has steadily improved even though the Club of Rome had predicted the world will run out resources within 100 years.
The latest critic to Malthus is our own, President Museveni who has openly expressed his support for large populations. His views are based on what is a grossly misguided view that large populations boost development by enlarging markets. Not when: (1) the population lacks purchasing power, (2) government lacks capacity to fully exploit its resources, (3) government uses ad hoc, cosmetic development formulas, (4) a country glorifies, rather fights peasantry!
In the remote villages of Kigezi, and indeed else where in Uganda, congested families who can still harvest some yams and sweet potato tubers from their rapidly degrading gardens eat them raw because they can’t afford to buy fire wood for cooking. In Soroti, it has been reported that the only time UPE classrooms are full is during the fruiting season for wild mango trees. Only then would children rest assured of scavenging for wild fruits to keep them going throughout the day. Hunger keeps most children away from school during the non-fruiting season.
Latest statistics indicate that Uganda’s maternal mortality ratio is 505 per 100000 live births, implying that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. Only 38% of pregnant women deliver in a health unit. Infant and child mortality are on the rise while income poverty is increasing.
With a population growth rate of 3.2% per annum, Uganda’s population could reach 130 million by the year 2050! By all indications, more than three quarters of this will still be living in a peasant household economy denoted by “hand-to-mouth” survival. It is inconceivable that governments which have failed to transform the livelihoods of 30 million people will succeed with 130 million!
Even if government intensifies utilisation of unexploited resources – including protected forests, wetlands and the recently discovered oil, we will at best, end up enabling a minority of Ugandans to become stinkingly wealthy – given the rate of income inequality. On the other hand, Iam tempted to think destitution will reach unprecedented levels, as crammed peasant households exhaust all the possible survival means.
This phenomenon has already unfolded in the dramatically developing countries such as India, China, Brazil and others. In China for instance, with a population of 1.3 billion people, only 400 million have a decent livelihood. Nearly 70% of the population, or 900 million Chinese are destitute. It is estimated that 80% of the Indian population lives precariously on the fringes of life and death – without access to government social services. For the record, India is one of those developing countries where quality of life for its elite population rivals that of Western Europe and North America.
Museveni’s assertion that a bigger population would lead to increased consumption and therefore bigger markets will remain utopian unless a miraculous, divine intervention improves the purchasing power of the destitute peasants.
While I believe Uganda’s economy will thrive, like India and China, only a minority of the population will enjoy the full benefits of economic growth. It would therefore be rational that we preach and reaffirm the importance of family planning to limit the number of households living on raw sweet potato tubers or wild mangoes for their dinner; or pregnant women and children dying for lack of medical care.
No person has been misunderstood like the Rev Thomas Robert Malthus. He simply argued against the widely held view that a nation's resource was determined by the size of its population and that fertility added to national wealth. The core of his reasoning emanated from his humane concern for the sufferings caused by overpopulation and thus recommended moral restraint against large families.
For a country like Uganda where the president’s word becomes national policy, Iam worried that Musevenis’s open campaign for a large population will undermine family planning efforts. If that happens, government will have condemned the lives of millions of Ugandans to eternal destitution and suffering.
More than 200 years later (1972), the “Club of Rome,” an elitist association of scholars, businessmen and politicians published an even more controversial report on “the predicament of mankind.” Their article modelled an ultimate uncontrollable crash of both population and industrial production due to exhaustion of physical resources such as cultivable land, minerals and the earth’s capacity to absorb pollution.
Critics to Malthus and the Club of Rome have found ammunition from the fact that unprecedented population growth over the last couple of centuries has been accompanied by an impressive growth of world economies. The standard of living in developed countries has steadily improved even though the Club of Rome had predicted the world will run out resources within 100 years.
The latest critic to Malthus is our own, President Museveni who has openly expressed his support for large populations. His views are based on what is a grossly misguided view that large populations boost development by enlarging markets. Not when: (1) the population lacks purchasing power, (2) government lacks capacity to fully exploit its resources, (3) government uses ad hoc, cosmetic development formulas, (4) a country glorifies, rather fights peasantry!
In the remote villages of Kigezi, and indeed else where in Uganda, congested families who can still harvest some yams and sweet potato tubers from their rapidly degrading gardens eat them raw because they can’t afford to buy fire wood for cooking. In Soroti, it has been reported that the only time UPE classrooms are full is during the fruiting season for wild mango trees. Only then would children rest assured of scavenging for wild fruits to keep them going throughout the day. Hunger keeps most children away from school during the non-fruiting season.
Latest statistics indicate that Uganda’s maternal mortality ratio is 505 per 100000 live births, implying that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. Only 38% of pregnant women deliver in a health unit. Infant and child mortality are on the rise while income poverty is increasing.
With a population growth rate of 3.2% per annum, Uganda’s population could reach 130 million by the year 2050! By all indications, more than three quarters of this will still be living in a peasant household economy denoted by “hand-to-mouth” survival. It is inconceivable that governments which have failed to transform the livelihoods of 30 million people will succeed with 130 million!
Even if government intensifies utilisation of unexploited resources – including protected forests, wetlands and the recently discovered oil, we will at best, end up enabling a minority of Ugandans to become stinkingly wealthy – given the rate of income inequality. On the other hand, Iam tempted to think destitution will reach unprecedented levels, as crammed peasant households exhaust all the possible survival means.
This phenomenon has already unfolded in the dramatically developing countries such as India, China, Brazil and others. In China for instance, with a population of 1.3 billion people, only 400 million have a decent livelihood. Nearly 70% of the population, or 900 million Chinese are destitute. It is estimated that 80% of the Indian population lives precariously on the fringes of life and death – without access to government social services. For the record, India is one of those developing countries where quality of life for its elite population rivals that of Western Europe and North America.
Museveni’s assertion that a bigger population would lead to increased consumption and therefore bigger markets will remain utopian unless a miraculous, divine intervention improves the purchasing power of the destitute peasants.
While I believe Uganda’s economy will thrive, like India and China, only a minority of the population will enjoy the full benefits of economic growth. It would therefore be rational that we preach and reaffirm the importance of family planning to limit the number of households living on raw sweet potato tubers or wild mangoes for their dinner; or pregnant women and children dying for lack of medical care.
No person has been misunderstood like the Rev Thomas Robert Malthus. He simply argued against the widely held view that a nation's resource was determined by the size of its population and that fertility added to national wealth. The core of his reasoning emanated from his humane concern for the sufferings caused by overpopulation and thus recommended moral restraint against large families.
For a country like Uganda where the president’s word becomes national policy, Iam worried that Musevenis’s open campaign for a large population will undermine family planning efforts. If that happens, government will have condemned the lives of millions of Ugandans to eternal destitution and suffering.
22 November 2007
Revolutionary Justice for Land Arbitration will Breed Anarchy
Central Government and Mengo have drawn daggers at each other over what has always underpinned skirmishes between them – land! This is over Government’s plan to reform the land law and end what it sees as peasant marginalisation by the 1900 Buganda Agreement beneficiaries; the owners of large tracks of redundant mailo land.
As expected, Mengo is crying foul over the proposed reforms and has accused the President and his clique of harbouring a hidden agenda to grab Buganda’s ancestral land.
Landless peasants desperately seeking to curve out a livelihood have often illegally settled on redundant mailo land patches. Obviously the landlords reserved the right to evict the landless squatters and have often done so with impunity.
Since independence, nearly all governments have unsuccessfully attempted to address the thorny land tenure issues. President Amin in his 1975 decree transferred all land ownership rights to the state. People could only use their land on a lease basis. Unfortunately, the decree had more serious implications for land occupants without titles to the land they occupied: they could be evicted at any time without the legal requirement for prior notification.
Dr. Obote had few proposals in early 1980’s but with his government preoccupied with marauding NRA guerrillas, nothing significant ensued.
General Museveni has probably been more passionate about the plight of landless peasants. During his guerrilla war days in the jungles of Luwero, he was reported to have promised landless peasants harbouring him that he would end their landlessness after capturing power.
He has since engineered radical land reforms through the 1995 Constitution that guaranteed security of occupancy to bonafide occupants of mailo, freehold or leasehold.
The constitution however did not solve the historical conflict between mailo landlords and tenants. In fact, it crystallised an ownership stalemate between landlords and bonafide occupants.
Since 1995, land conflicts have intensified with the illusion of ownership created under the new constitution. The 1998 Land Act which could have ironed out the legal contradictions was also incurably defective. Consequently, some evicted peasants seeking to invoke their bonafide occupancy rights through the courts of law have seen their cases thrown out – thanks to inoperable, flawed legislation.
With frustration among landless peasants rising, President Museveni has castigated the courts as biased against the peasants, incompetent and possibly compromised. Instead, he has proposed an alternative revolutionary justice system for land arbitration which he believes will be pro-poor.
The new system will empower the Lands Minister to stop peasant evictions using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees. It will also give powers to the Lands Minister to approve occupancy to a tenant if the landlord does not approve it within six months.
By implication, the proposed revolutionary justice system will render courts of law incompetent to arbitrate over any land cases! Will RDCs, land boards, police and land committees deliver balanced justice? Won’t the revolutionary justice system be prone to political manipulation? To whom will the aggrieved appeal, if he/she is not satisfied with the verdict from the revolutionary justice system? The public already has a skewed perception of RDCs. Won’t using them as the vanguard for protecting peasants’ rights jeopardise the credibility of the outcome?
Truth be told: I support the President’s intentions to secure land ownership rights for the landless peasants. However, I categorically disagree with his approach! I put it to him that the means is probably more important that the result! The proposed revolutionary justice system and the overthrow of the traditional court system for land arbitration could catalyse anarchy and plunge the country into chaos.
While inaction on the part of Government is as anarchical as an extra-judicial revolutionary justice system, the Government has a responsibility to adopt an approach that will not plunge us in the same predicament as that of Zimbabwe.
All that we will need is a serious parliament to craft a good, comprehensive water-tight land law; enhanced capacity of the courts to expedite land cases; and a President who believes in, and respects the professionalism of our judicial system. The courts may have their weaknesses but nothing in the world will justify an extra-judicial revolutionary justice system for land arbitration.
Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/letters/Let_courts_handle_land_cases.shtml
As expected, Mengo is crying foul over the proposed reforms and has accused the President and his clique of harbouring a hidden agenda to grab Buganda’s ancestral land.
Landless peasants desperately seeking to curve out a livelihood have often illegally settled on redundant mailo land patches. Obviously the landlords reserved the right to evict the landless squatters and have often done so with impunity.
Since independence, nearly all governments have unsuccessfully attempted to address the thorny land tenure issues. President Amin in his 1975 decree transferred all land ownership rights to the state. People could only use their land on a lease basis. Unfortunately, the decree had more serious implications for land occupants without titles to the land they occupied: they could be evicted at any time without the legal requirement for prior notification.
Dr. Obote had few proposals in early 1980’s but with his government preoccupied with marauding NRA guerrillas, nothing significant ensued.
General Museveni has probably been more passionate about the plight of landless peasants. During his guerrilla war days in the jungles of Luwero, he was reported to have promised landless peasants harbouring him that he would end their landlessness after capturing power.
He has since engineered radical land reforms through the 1995 Constitution that guaranteed security of occupancy to bonafide occupants of mailo, freehold or leasehold.
The constitution however did not solve the historical conflict between mailo landlords and tenants. In fact, it crystallised an ownership stalemate between landlords and bonafide occupants.
Since 1995, land conflicts have intensified with the illusion of ownership created under the new constitution. The 1998 Land Act which could have ironed out the legal contradictions was also incurably defective. Consequently, some evicted peasants seeking to invoke their bonafide occupancy rights through the courts of law have seen their cases thrown out – thanks to inoperable, flawed legislation.
With frustration among landless peasants rising, President Museveni has castigated the courts as biased against the peasants, incompetent and possibly compromised. Instead, he has proposed an alternative revolutionary justice system for land arbitration which he believes will be pro-poor.
The new system will empower the Lands Minister to stop peasant evictions using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees. It will also give powers to the Lands Minister to approve occupancy to a tenant if the landlord does not approve it within six months.
By implication, the proposed revolutionary justice system will render courts of law incompetent to arbitrate over any land cases! Will RDCs, land boards, police and land committees deliver balanced justice? Won’t the revolutionary justice system be prone to political manipulation? To whom will the aggrieved appeal, if he/she is not satisfied with the verdict from the revolutionary justice system? The public already has a skewed perception of RDCs. Won’t using them as the vanguard for protecting peasants’ rights jeopardise the credibility of the outcome?
Truth be told: I support the President’s intentions to secure land ownership rights for the landless peasants. However, I categorically disagree with his approach! I put it to him that the means is probably more important that the result! The proposed revolutionary justice system and the overthrow of the traditional court system for land arbitration could catalyse anarchy and plunge the country into chaos.
While inaction on the part of Government is as anarchical as an extra-judicial revolutionary justice system, the Government has a responsibility to adopt an approach that will not plunge us in the same predicament as that of Zimbabwe.
All that we will need is a serious parliament to craft a good, comprehensive water-tight land law; enhanced capacity of the courts to expedite land cases; and a President who believes in, and respects the professionalism of our judicial system. The courts may have their weaknesses but nothing in the world will justify an extra-judicial revolutionary justice system for land arbitration.
Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/letters/Let_courts_handle_land_cases.shtml
17 November 2007
Air Uganda must Prove its Praiseworthiness
I hope Daily Monitor’s praise of the emergence of Air Uganda (Daily Monitor, 13th November 2007) will not be premature. Since Ugandans don’t have a record of successful airlines management, I hate to think this might yet be another fiasco in the making.
Iam not a pessimist usually, but I believe in the Rukiga adage that “orumirwe enjoka atiina omwina (one who has ever been bitten by a snake fears any hole)! Airlines management demands prudent management which I doubt that Ugandans will deliver.
From the economics point of view, the introduction of another career will certainly force the airfares down. Indeed, the reported Entebbe-Nairobi fare of $169 (return) and $95 (one way) is quite attractive.
However, air travel is more than just affordable rates. Passengers need a comprehensive package comprising of comfort, reliability, safety, convenience – just to mention a few. The record of Uganda-based or owned or managed airlines certainly falls short of those expectations.
Hence, until Air Uganda proves me wrong, I will not stir with excitement about a Uganda national flag career prying the skies. Potential passengers need to know which model of aircrafts the company is flying; the service history of those aircrafts; and the business acumen of the airline’s owner(s).
While flying is pleasurable, it always entails some emotional and psychological stress as well. This flight stress would be aggravated by the prospect of flying in a pre-world war II aircraft with cockroaches roaming all round the cabin. A cheaper fare can’t make such stress any less.
The onus is therefore upon Air Uganda to assure its potential passengers that the new born flyer is safe; technically sound; well manned; and a class apart the four Uganda-based airlines that have unsuccessfully attempted to capture Ugandan airspace – since the demise of Uganda Airlines.
As a frequent flier, I will look forward to flying Air Uganda – and when I do, I hope I will enjoy my flight.
Iam not a pessimist usually, but I believe in the Rukiga adage that “orumirwe enjoka atiina omwina (one who has ever been bitten by a snake fears any hole)! Airlines management demands prudent management which I doubt that Ugandans will deliver.
From the economics point of view, the introduction of another career will certainly force the airfares down. Indeed, the reported Entebbe-Nairobi fare of $169 (return) and $95 (one way) is quite attractive.
However, air travel is more than just affordable rates. Passengers need a comprehensive package comprising of comfort, reliability, safety, convenience – just to mention a few. The record of Uganda-based or owned or managed airlines certainly falls short of those expectations.
Hence, until Air Uganda proves me wrong, I will not stir with excitement about a Uganda national flag career prying the skies. Potential passengers need to know which model of aircrafts the company is flying; the service history of those aircrafts; and the business acumen of the airline’s owner(s).
While flying is pleasurable, it always entails some emotional and psychological stress as well. This flight stress would be aggravated by the prospect of flying in a pre-world war II aircraft with cockroaches roaming all round the cabin. A cheaper fare can’t make such stress any less.
The onus is therefore upon Air Uganda to assure its potential passengers that the new born flyer is safe; technically sound; well manned; and a class apart the four Uganda-based airlines that have unsuccessfully attempted to capture Ugandan airspace – since the demise of Uganda Airlines.
As a frequent flier, I will look forward to flying Air Uganda – and when I do, I hope I will enjoy my flight.
31 October 2007
Uganda should heed World Bank Advice
In his article entitled “World Bank lacks good intentions for Uganda” (New Vision of Monday October 29, 2007), Warren Nyamugasira launched a stinging attack on World Bank’s recent economic assessment on Uganda. He accused the international lending institution and other development partners of harbouring a hidden agenda aimed at stifling government response to spiralling poverty and declining economic growth.
This was after Wold Bank had released a Country Economic Memorandum, castigating the Ugandan government for loosing focus from its core development strategy – and instead diverting its attention to ad-hoc alternative interventions.
Compared with other developing countries, Uganda is exceptional in the degree it has made poverty the central focus of its intervention. It has a robust development strategy – the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) which provides the long-term framework for catalysing and sustaining economic growth.
According to PEAP, poverty will be reduced through better macro-economic management; enhancing production, competitiveness and household incomes; improving security and governance; and investing in human development.
Boosting private investment; eliminating corruption; enhancing transparency and accountability; modernising agriculture, natural resource conservation, infrastructural improvements and private sector skills development are elements envisaged under PEAP framework to provide a platform for a private-sector led economic growth.
While income poverty incidence reduced in the 1990s, poverty prevalence has increased since 2000. Inequality has worsened since 1997; infant and child mortality have both increased; while the poorest hardly benefit from development. The gross failures in the government’s economic growth strategy are a universal concern.
Despite these failures, World Bank, and some of us strongly believe (to Nyamugasira’s distaste) that the current development strategy is robust enough to deliver economic gains; and that we don’t need a fundamentally new approach. Government only needs to address itself adequately to the core elements of PEAP.
Corruption and abuse of office is rampant; physical infrastructural facilities are rotten; while agricultural production and marketing systems remain in shambles. Trade policies – the few that Government have negotiated are irrelevant to the rural poor – and could in fact be fuelling economic inequalities.
Moreover, fiscal indiscipline is at all-time high – considering recent revelations that government granted and eventually lost trillions of shillings in unsecured loans to its confidant businessmen and companies.
Granted, Universal Primary Education has increased school enrolment but at the expense of education quality. Few people will disagree that Universal Secondary Education will further plunge educational standards in the country – especially given government’s disproportionate attention to education facilities; teacher training, facilitation and motivation.
World Bank’s considered opinion is that rather than dismantle the current economic growth apparatus, Government needs to focus more on inherent weakness therein; plug all the loopholes, and purge the debilitating factors.
Ad-hoc alternatives such as Bona Bagagawale (Prosperity for all) don’t constitute anything fundamentally different from what we have seen. The same government experimented with Entandikwa in the 90s– which ended in disaster. The Bona Bagagawale project will, as World Bank correctly noted, promote selective lending and therefore aggravate rural inequality and poverty.
Since 2001, government has been using NAADS as the main avenue for enhancing household incomes. NAADS has a unique approach that is all inclusive – mainstreaming gender and targeting the poor through its farmer fora mechanism. The only requirement for farmers to access NAADS services is for them to join common interest farmers groups – which as experience shows, tend to be all-inclusive.
NAADS may not be bringing riches to farmers as fast as anybody would have wished but it is, and might remain the best option for three quarters of the Ugandan population. Warren Nyamugasira should explain why more farmer groups are joining NAADS every year despite his assertion that farmers loath it.
World Bank is clear: Let Government give a chance to ongoing development mechanisms rather than animatedly shift goal-posts. Fundamentally, this calls for a sustained focus and concentration on the principles of PEAP coupled with self-cleansing. We don’t have to be like the Batwa (pygmies) of Semliki and Bwindi national parks who desert their forest dwellings every time some one dies in there. Truth is sometimes bitter, but government should heed World Bank advice!
This was after Wold Bank had released a Country Economic Memorandum, castigating the Ugandan government for loosing focus from its core development strategy – and instead diverting its attention to ad-hoc alternative interventions.
Compared with other developing countries, Uganda is exceptional in the degree it has made poverty the central focus of its intervention. It has a robust development strategy – the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) which provides the long-term framework for catalysing and sustaining economic growth.
According to PEAP, poverty will be reduced through better macro-economic management; enhancing production, competitiveness and household incomes; improving security and governance; and investing in human development.
Boosting private investment; eliminating corruption; enhancing transparency and accountability; modernising agriculture, natural resource conservation, infrastructural improvements and private sector skills development are elements envisaged under PEAP framework to provide a platform for a private-sector led economic growth.
While income poverty incidence reduced in the 1990s, poverty prevalence has increased since 2000. Inequality has worsened since 1997; infant and child mortality have both increased; while the poorest hardly benefit from development. The gross failures in the government’s economic growth strategy are a universal concern.
Despite these failures, World Bank, and some of us strongly believe (to Nyamugasira’s distaste) that the current development strategy is robust enough to deliver economic gains; and that we don’t need a fundamentally new approach. Government only needs to address itself adequately to the core elements of PEAP.
Corruption and abuse of office is rampant; physical infrastructural facilities are rotten; while agricultural production and marketing systems remain in shambles. Trade policies – the few that Government have negotiated are irrelevant to the rural poor – and could in fact be fuelling economic inequalities.
Moreover, fiscal indiscipline is at all-time high – considering recent revelations that government granted and eventually lost trillions of shillings in unsecured loans to its confidant businessmen and companies.
Granted, Universal Primary Education has increased school enrolment but at the expense of education quality. Few people will disagree that Universal Secondary Education will further plunge educational standards in the country – especially given government’s disproportionate attention to education facilities; teacher training, facilitation and motivation.
World Bank’s considered opinion is that rather than dismantle the current economic growth apparatus, Government needs to focus more on inherent weakness therein; plug all the loopholes, and purge the debilitating factors.
Ad-hoc alternatives such as Bona Bagagawale (Prosperity for all) don’t constitute anything fundamentally different from what we have seen. The same government experimented with Entandikwa in the 90s– which ended in disaster. The Bona Bagagawale project will, as World Bank correctly noted, promote selective lending and therefore aggravate rural inequality and poverty.
Since 2001, government has been using NAADS as the main avenue for enhancing household incomes. NAADS has a unique approach that is all inclusive – mainstreaming gender and targeting the poor through its farmer fora mechanism. The only requirement for farmers to access NAADS services is for them to join common interest farmers groups – which as experience shows, tend to be all-inclusive.
NAADS may not be bringing riches to farmers as fast as anybody would have wished but it is, and might remain the best option for three quarters of the Ugandan population. Warren Nyamugasira should explain why more farmer groups are joining NAADS every year despite his assertion that farmers loath it.
World Bank is clear: Let Government give a chance to ongoing development mechanisms rather than animatedly shift goal-posts. Fundamentally, this calls for a sustained focus and concentration on the principles of PEAP coupled with self-cleansing. We don’t have to be like the Batwa (pygmies) of Semliki and Bwindi national parks who desert their forest dwellings every time some one dies in there. Truth is sometimes bitter, but government should heed World Bank advice!
25 October 2007
Ugandan women are better off
Every foreigner visiting Afghanistan can not help noticing almost instantly, the gross inequality between men and women. Gender relations in this South Asian country are rooted within the traditional “code of honour” symbolised by the reclusive behaviour of women. Ultra conservative tribal societies have successfully propagated this “code” over the generations using coercive and obnoxiously crude methods.
Reformist governments seeking to emancipate women have often found themselves entangled in crude resistance from traditionalists – who perceive any changes in gender roles as anarchical and a recipe for social disorder.
King Amanullah who ruled Afghanistan in the 1920s for instance learnt bitter lessons too late, when in 1929, traditionalist elements violently terminated his gender reformist government.
In 1978, conservative mujahidin leaders imbued with the belief that sexual anarchy would result if women were allowed to continue moving freely in public, waged a jihad against, and eventually toppled the then communist government.
The worst forms of gender discrimination though, were meted by the ultra-conservative Taliban regime (1996-2001) which considered women as a temptation; an unnecessary distraction from the service of God. Women were therefore neither to be seen nor heard in public because they would otherwise drive men away from the proscribed Islamic ways into wild temptation.
Consequently, Afghanistan has remained one of the countries in the world with the worst gender inequalities. To date, Afghanistan has the lowest female literacy rate in the world (12%). Almost 60% percent of girls under age 11 are out of school. The country has the highest rate of maternal mortality of any country except Sierra Leone. Overall, maternal mortality ratio is estimated at 1600 to 2200 deaths per 100,000 live births. On average, one woman dies every 30 minutes due to pregnancy-related factors! Depending on location, 30% to 90% of rural women can not access health care. More over, 70 - 80% of women face forced marriages, while nearly 52% of the Afghan girls are married before their 18th birthday.
The gender situation for Uganda is not enviable either. Our maternal mortality ratio of 505 per 100000 live births implies that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. This may not be a surprising statistic since only 38% of pregnant women deliver in hospital or with skilled attendants.
Forced marriages are a recurrent phenomenon in Uganda, especially among the pastoral communities where okukiriza (lifting) is still commonly practiced by the Banyankole and Bahima pastoralists who have reasons to think the family of the girl will refuse their marriage proposal. In such cases, the girl victims may sometimes be as young as 14; “lifted” by a 50 year old man.
Moreover, women in Uganda have been noted to participate less in the labour market and face lower wages compared to men.
That not withstanding, there is reason to remain hopeful that gender disparities in Uganda can only diminish as we move ahead. Since it came to power in 1986, the current regime has been committed to addressing gender concerns nationwide – as evidenced by the presence of a Gender Policy and the National Action Plan on Women.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda itself provides for equality for both men and women, and criminalises all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex.
There are more girls going to school; more women working their way into formal and informal employment; and more women accessing medical care. Consequently, maternal and child mortality is retracting. Most importantly though, there is more positive gender perception and sensitivity among the population – which will progressively dissolve the remaining social-cultural barriers to women emancipation.
There is no doubt that women in Uganda are enjoying more freedoms of choice, more responsibilities, more power, and more influence – today than ever before. Yet, I have neither witnessed any forms of gender-induced sexual anarchy, nor heard voices warning of an impending gender-induced social unrest or religious fallouts.
Shouldn’t we be thankful to God therefore, that Ugandans are not as apprehensive about gender-induced sexual anarchy as are our brothers in Afghanistan?
Published in the New Vision, October 30, 2007: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/594523
Reformist governments seeking to emancipate women have often found themselves entangled in crude resistance from traditionalists – who perceive any changes in gender roles as anarchical and a recipe for social disorder.
King Amanullah who ruled Afghanistan in the 1920s for instance learnt bitter lessons too late, when in 1929, traditionalist elements violently terminated his gender reformist government.
In 1978, conservative mujahidin leaders imbued with the belief that sexual anarchy would result if women were allowed to continue moving freely in public, waged a jihad against, and eventually toppled the then communist government.
The worst forms of gender discrimination though, were meted by the ultra-conservative Taliban regime (1996-2001) which considered women as a temptation; an unnecessary distraction from the service of God. Women were therefore neither to be seen nor heard in public because they would otherwise drive men away from the proscribed Islamic ways into wild temptation.
Consequently, Afghanistan has remained one of the countries in the world with the worst gender inequalities. To date, Afghanistan has the lowest female literacy rate in the world (12%). Almost 60% percent of girls under age 11 are out of school. The country has the highest rate of maternal mortality of any country except Sierra Leone. Overall, maternal mortality ratio is estimated at 1600 to 2200 deaths per 100,000 live births. On average, one woman dies every 30 minutes due to pregnancy-related factors! Depending on location, 30% to 90% of rural women can not access health care. More over, 70 - 80% of women face forced marriages, while nearly 52% of the Afghan girls are married before their 18th birthday.
The gender situation for Uganda is not enviable either. Our maternal mortality ratio of 505 per 100000 live births implies that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. This may not be a surprising statistic since only 38% of pregnant women deliver in hospital or with skilled attendants.
Forced marriages are a recurrent phenomenon in Uganda, especially among the pastoral communities where okukiriza (lifting) is still commonly practiced by the Banyankole and Bahima pastoralists who have reasons to think the family of the girl will refuse their marriage proposal. In such cases, the girl victims may sometimes be as young as 14; “lifted” by a 50 year old man.
Moreover, women in Uganda have been noted to participate less in the labour market and face lower wages compared to men.
That not withstanding, there is reason to remain hopeful that gender disparities in Uganda can only diminish as we move ahead. Since it came to power in 1986, the current regime has been committed to addressing gender concerns nationwide – as evidenced by the presence of a Gender Policy and the National Action Plan on Women.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda itself provides for equality for both men and women, and criminalises all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex.
There are more girls going to school; more women working their way into formal and informal employment; and more women accessing medical care. Consequently, maternal and child mortality is retracting. Most importantly though, there is more positive gender perception and sensitivity among the population – which will progressively dissolve the remaining social-cultural barriers to women emancipation.
There is no doubt that women in Uganda are enjoying more freedoms of choice, more responsibilities, more power, and more influence – today than ever before. Yet, I have neither witnessed any forms of gender-induced sexual anarchy, nor heard voices warning of an impending gender-induced social unrest or religious fallouts.
Shouldn’t we be thankful to God therefore, that Ugandans are not as apprehensive about gender-induced sexual anarchy as are our brothers in Afghanistan?
Published in the New Vision, October 30, 2007: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/594523
23 October 2007
Uganda Must Respect its International Climate Change Obligations
The Government of Uganda is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which it signed on 13th June 1992, and later ratified on 8th September 1993. By so doing, it committed itself – without any duress - to uphold the underlying principle of the convention; namely climate change mitigation. Although it is 15 years since government ratified this convention, the country remains on a slippery slope towards a spiral of climatic catastrophes.
Recent study findings show a sustained climate warming throughout Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country which has seen a 0.3 degrees centigrade change over the last ten years. Long-term climatic projections reveal a possible 5.5 degrees centigrade change over the next 100 years.
Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption climate change would impose on agriculture. It warned that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee.
The increasing incidents of flooding, soil erosion and landslides are some of the climatic variability indicators. Although these have wrecked havoc on people’s livelihoods across the entire country over the last few months, the worst is yet to come! Some hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10 - 20% increase in flooding under future climate change scenarios.
Other than flooding, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in severe food shortages. It will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could lead to massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enhanced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of land conflicts and possibly destitution.
Although nearly 15% of Uganda's total area is water, it’s not equitably distributed. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will impose hasher effects on both quantity and quality of water resources.
Unfortunately, the impetus for climate change has been gaining momentum. Deforestation is on the increase; there are unprecedented air pollution levels in the country, wetland encroachment is spiraling unabated; while farmers have stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching and environment-degrading means of production – just to mention a few!
With all this evidence, one wonders why government’s commitment to UNFCCC obligations remains shaky. Why hasn’t government devised and implemented appropriate incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks?
Climate change in Uganda is not a hoax; it’s real! Its causes are clearly known; and so are its implications and remedies. The government of Uganda has a choice to (a) boldly tackle the challenges of climate variability now; or (b) remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial about climate change realities. It should stand warned though, that going for option (b) is tantamount to ignominious betrayal of the people who voted it to office. It will be high order treason against the population!
Recent study findings show a sustained climate warming throughout Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country which has seen a 0.3 degrees centigrade change over the last ten years. Long-term climatic projections reveal a possible 5.5 degrees centigrade change over the next 100 years.
Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption climate change would impose on agriculture. It warned that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee.
The increasing incidents of flooding, soil erosion and landslides are some of the climatic variability indicators. Although these have wrecked havoc on people’s livelihoods across the entire country over the last few months, the worst is yet to come! Some hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10 - 20% increase in flooding under future climate change scenarios.
Other than flooding, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in severe food shortages. It will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could lead to massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enhanced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of land conflicts and possibly destitution.
Although nearly 15% of Uganda's total area is water, it’s not equitably distributed. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will impose hasher effects on both quantity and quality of water resources.
Unfortunately, the impetus for climate change has been gaining momentum. Deforestation is on the increase; there are unprecedented air pollution levels in the country, wetland encroachment is spiraling unabated; while farmers have stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching and environment-degrading means of production – just to mention a few!
With all this evidence, one wonders why government’s commitment to UNFCCC obligations remains shaky. Why hasn’t government devised and implemented appropriate incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks?
Climate change in Uganda is not a hoax; it’s real! Its causes are clearly known; and so are its implications and remedies. The government of Uganda has a choice to (a) boldly tackle the challenges of climate variability now; or (b) remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial about climate change realities. It should stand warned though, that going for option (b) is tantamount to ignominious betrayal of the people who voted it to office. It will be high order treason against the population!
19 October 2007
Let General Idi Amin Rest in Eternal Peace
Jenkins Kiwanuka’s article which was published in Daily Monitor of Thursday, October 18, 2007 (It takes a sadist to defend Amin) was undoubtedly well researched. It was emotionally loaded too.
However, what Jenkins forgot to take into account is the basic principle of our law – namely the “presumption of innocence;” which states that no person shall be considered guilty of an offence until finally convicted by a competent court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince court that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries, including Uganda, journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. They ought to use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of. Iam therefore shocked and extremely disappointed that a seasoned, retired Journalist in the person of Jenkins Kiwanuka could opt for the “guilty-beyond-doubt” tone in his article.
In as far as I can recall, General Idi Amin was never convicted by any court of law, for offences Jenkins alleges he committed. From the legal standpoint, that dismisses his article as hearsay and therefore inconsequential. If Jenkins wants to vindicate himself though, he could initiate posthumous criminal prosecution procedures against the General, with a view of securing a posthumous conviction.
Iam not certain whether our judicial system allows posthumous trials – but our arsenal of seasoned lawyers could advise him accordingly. If Jenkins can’t secure a posthumous conviction for his alleged crimes, its time he left the General to rest in eternal peace. For then, however much he writes, General Idi Amin will, and can only remain a suspect!
However, what Jenkins forgot to take into account is the basic principle of our law – namely the “presumption of innocence;” which states that no person shall be considered guilty of an offence until finally convicted by a competent court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince court that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries, including Uganda, journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. They ought to use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of. Iam therefore shocked and extremely disappointed that a seasoned, retired Journalist in the person of Jenkins Kiwanuka could opt for the “guilty-beyond-doubt” tone in his article.
In as far as I can recall, General Idi Amin was never convicted by any court of law, for offences Jenkins alleges he committed. From the legal standpoint, that dismisses his article as hearsay and therefore inconsequential. If Jenkins wants to vindicate himself though, he could initiate posthumous criminal prosecution procedures against the General, with a view of securing a posthumous conviction.
Iam not certain whether our judicial system allows posthumous trials – but our arsenal of seasoned lawyers could advise him accordingly. If Jenkins can’t secure a posthumous conviction for his alleged crimes, its time he left the General to rest in eternal peace. For then, however much he writes, General Idi Amin will, and can only remain a suspect!
12 October 2007
THE CONTROVERSY OF GOD’S GRACE AND GLORY
God bless my mama with eternal rest! As a devout, born-again Christian, she groomed us based on Christian principles. She would never compromise on un-Godly behaviour from her children, least of all her last born (myself). In particular, she ensured I learnt the “Lords Prayer” by heart before I was four years old and would make me recite it twice a day until the age of 12, when I joined secondary school.
For several years, the recitations were obviously part of the mechanical practice I obediently followed to avert the wrath of my displinarian mama. Frankly, I did not draw sense out of them. As I grew older, I appreciated the Lord’s Prayer as a summary of Jesus’ mission, notably the GRACE of the forgiveness of sins, which he eventually demonstrated on the cross, at Calvary. We had to glorify his name because of this Grace.
Despite this appreciation, multitudes of events occurring around the world have thrown me into quandary as to whether I had misconstrued the real meaning of God’s Grace and Glory. Pastors, priests, reverends, sheikhs and other religious leaders serve their flock “for the glory of God.” Similarly, terrorists, gangsters, hardcore criminals, and other rascals rely on the “Grace of God” to achieve their objectives and often glorify God for their actions and achievements.
There are several examples of this contrasting scenario! In 2004, I visited the site in Kanungu district, where Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere and Sr. Cledonia Mwerinde had on 17th March 2000, cremated alive an estimated 1000 religious cultists. It had been four years since the infernal but I could still smell death! My legs wobbled at the sight of in-house gaping graves, underground tunnels, unventilated one square-meter large torture rooms, and tons of rubble beneath which thousands were buried. A plaque on what used to be a classroom block conspicuously caught my panicky eyes. It had the inscription: “To the Glory of God, this building was constructed….” That specific block had housed nearly 200 children, none of whom survived the infernal!
The new breed of Pentecostal pastors is not only “anointed” to serve God; they are magical in getting people to off-load their wallets! They know the right phrases and arguments to ensure their flock tithe. Pastors K. L. Dickson; Robert Kayanja; Gary Skinner; Imelda Namutebi, and Muwanguzi are examples of the domestic breed who have broken through poverty “by the Grace, and to the Glory of God.” International evangelist, Pastor Benny Hinn and several of his peers fly around the world in private jets. Benny Hinn recently came to Uganda in a luxury Gulf Stream-3 jet, reportedly commandeered by female British pilots.
Pastors attribute their incredible wealth to faithfulness to the Lord. One of them reasoned recently: “God will make you rich if you are faithful to him.” What crap! Does grace not refer to the sovereign favour of God for humankind irrespective of actions, earned worth, or proven goodness? Is his flock not faithful enough to be as rich?
The most significant controversy relating to God’s Grace and Glory though is associated with Islamic fundamentalist movements. You may recall Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s comments shortly after the 11 September 2001 bombing of America’s twin towers and Pentagon: “….Alhamdulilla (all praise be to God), the war against infidels has entered a new phase and will, by the Grace of God succeed.” Osama’s “new phase” warfare had killed more than 3000 people and inflicted economic losses exceeding one trillion dollars.
The scripture according to Job 1:21 tells us how Job declared, after enduring every imaginable suffering: “…may the name of the Lord be praised!” Diego Maradona scored a wining goal with his hand in the FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match between Argentina and England on 22 June 1986 – which he later attributed to the Grace of God. Indeed, football enthusiasts and commentators have since referred to that goal as “the hand-of-God goal.”
It appears “God’s Grace and Glory” works for and against humanity. It’s the stick and the carrot; a means and the end; a divine gift and a fatal motivation! Is there a deeper mind-boggling controversy in the world?
For several years, the recitations were obviously part of the mechanical practice I obediently followed to avert the wrath of my displinarian mama. Frankly, I did not draw sense out of them. As I grew older, I appreciated the Lord’s Prayer as a summary of Jesus’ mission, notably the GRACE of the forgiveness of sins, which he eventually demonstrated on the cross, at Calvary. We had to glorify his name because of this Grace.
Despite this appreciation, multitudes of events occurring around the world have thrown me into quandary as to whether I had misconstrued the real meaning of God’s Grace and Glory. Pastors, priests, reverends, sheikhs and other religious leaders serve their flock “for the glory of God.” Similarly, terrorists, gangsters, hardcore criminals, and other rascals rely on the “Grace of God” to achieve their objectives and often glorify God for their actions and achievements.
There are several examples of this contrasting scenario! In 2004, I visited the site in Kanungu district, where Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere and Sr. Cledonia Mwerinde had on 17th March 2000, cremated alive an estimated 1000 religious cultists. It had been four years since the infernal but I could still smell death! My legs wobbled at the sight of in-house gaping graves, underground tunnels, unventilated one square-meter large torture rooms, and tons of rubble beneath which thousands were buried. A plaque on what used to be a classroom block conspicuously caught my panicky eyes. It had the inscription: “To the Glory of God, this building was constructed….” That specific block had housed nearly 200 children, none of whom survived the infernal!
The new breed of Pentecostal pastors is not only “anointed” to serve God; they are magical in getting people to off-load their wallets! They know the right phrases and arguments to ensure their flock tithe. Pastors K. L. Dickson; Robert Kayanja; Gary Skinner; Imelda Namutebi, and Muwanguzi are examples of the domestic breed who have broken through poverty “by the Grace, and to the Glory of God.” International evangelist, Pastor Benny Hinn and several of his peers fly around the world in private jets. Benny Hinn recently came to Uganda in a luxury Gulf Stream-3 jet, reportedly commandeered by female British pilots.
Pastors attribute their incredible wealth to faithfulness to the Lord. One of them reasoned recently: “God will make you rich if you are faithful to him.” What crap! Does grace not refer to the sovereign favour of God for humankind irrespective of actions, earned worth, or proven goodness? Is his flock not faithful enough to be as rich?
The most significant controversy relating to God’s Grace and Glory though is associated with Islamic fundamentalist movements. You may recall Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s comments shortly after the 11 September 2001 bombing of America’s twin towers and Pentagon: “….Alhamdulilla (all praise be to God), the war against infidels has entered a new phase and will, by the Grace of God succeed.” Osama’s “new phase” warfare had killed more than 3000 people and inflicted economic losses exceeding one trillion dollars.
The scripture according to Job 1:21 tells us how Job declared, after enduring every imaginable suffering: “…may the name of the Lord be praised!” Diego Maradona scored a wining goal with his hand in the FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match between Argentina and England on 22 June 1986 – which he later attributed to the Grace of God. Indeed, football enthusiasts and commentators have since referred to that goal as “the hand-of-God goal.”
It appears “God’s Grace and Glory” works for and against humanity. It’s the stick and the carrot; a means and the end; a divine gift and a fatal motivation! Is there a deeper mind-boggling controversy in the world?
Let President Museveni Freeze NEMA Funding too
A damning State of Environment Report in 1994 blasted the then Department of Environment Protection (DEP) under the Ministry of Natural Resources for being incompetent in coordinating, supervising and advising other ministries on environmental management issues. The report also ridiculed DEP for lacking adequate legal mandate and concluded that its placement under a ministry could not allow it to undertake its mandate effectively.
To address the above institutional weaknesses, government enacted the 1995 National Environment Statute, which legally established National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) with particular mandate to coordinate, monitor and supervise all activities in the field of the environment. NEMA has been operational since January 1996.
A decade after DEP’s demise, Uganda’s environment continues to plummet. We have probably seen more environmental degradation during NEMA’s “reign” than when DEP was in charge. Several protected areas have been de-gazetted, wetlands face ominous encroachment, spiralling land degradation threatens people’s survival, while water and air pollution is slipping out of control. The institutional efficiency and operational effectiveness envisaged under NEMA remains elusive.
Recently, NEMA has come under scathing public criticism for failing to enforce environmental compliance following revelation that most industries in Uganda were not complying with effluent disposal standards.
While the public has been consistent in its disapproval of NEMA’s lacklustre performance, it’s shocking that government has been glaringly silent; unbothered about holding NEMA accountable for their failures. It’s contradictory that President Museveni would readily freeze NAADS funding for alleged poor performance, yet let NEMA continue to preside over gross environmental mismanagement.
Is it because government recognises it’s partly responsible for NEMA’s failures; that political interference has often overridden NEMA’s technical recommendations; that government’s voracious drive for foreign investment and cosmetic economic gains has relegated environmental concerns; that powerful politicians have eclipsed the law and consciously degrade the environment scot-free?
NEMA draws extensive legal leverage from section 57 (2) of the Environment Statute, which states that a person who discharges hazardous waste into the environment commits an offence, and in addition to any other sentence imposed by the court, meets the cost of restoring the damage including paying for reparation and restitution to third parties. The law also empowers NEMA to issue restoration orders and to take other measures in case of non-compliance within 21 days. Unlike the defunct DEP, NEMA has “teeth” to prosecute criminals and enforce environmental compliance. Why isn’t it biting then?
NEMA lacks innovation that is unquestionably required to neutralise complex environmental problems. True, they have succeeded in establishing standards for air quality, water quality, effluent discharge, control of noxious smells, noise and vibration control, and soil quality; but what’s the relevance of standards they cannot enforce?
Taxation, refundable deposits, remedial funds, and direct controls are innovative policy instruments NEMA could use to curb environmental crime. In particular, it could invoke its legal powers under the Environment Statute to unleash the “Polluter Pays Principle” (PPP) which forces environmental criminals to bear the full cost of degradation.
Few people would disagree with the proposition that those who cause environment damage should pay for those damages. The challenge of this approach though, is in the specifics. For NEMA to apply PPP effectively, it needs to address itself to four questions: (1) who are the polluters. (2) to what extent are they polluting? (3) what is the cost of pollution to society and the cost of pollution control? (4) how much must the polluters pay to abate their pollution?
Iam aware there are no quick-fix solutions to environment problems and would therefore be the last to condemn NEMA for their gross failures. Interestingly, those who used to castigate DEP for incompetence are now in NEMA, smouldering in stinging public criticisms. NEMA’s predicament reminds me of an old Rukiga adage: “orufu rwembwa nirwe rwo’muhiigi” (what threatens a hunting dog threatens the hunter).
Luke 6:37 teaches us to be modest in our conclusions: “judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned;” so goes the holly scripture. That not withstanding, I would say if president Museveni must freeze funding to any government institution for poor performance, it should be NEMA!
To address the above institutional weaknesses, government enacted the 1995 National Environment Statute, which legally established National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) with particular mandate to coordinate, monitor and supervise all activities in the field of the environment. NEMA has been operational since January 1996.
A decade after DEP’s demise, Uganda’s environment continues to plummet. We have probably seen more environmental degradation during NEMA’s “reign” than when DEP was in charge. Several protected areas have been de-gazetted, wetlands face ominous encroachment, spiralling land degradation threatens people’s survival, while water and air pollution is slipping out of control. The institutional efficiency and operational effectiveness envisaged under NEMA remains elusive.
Recently, NEMA has come under scathing public criticism for failing to enforce environmental compliance following revelation that most industries in Uganda were not complying with effluent disposal standards.
While the public has been consistent in its disapproval of NEMA’s lacklustre performance, it’s shocking that government has been glaringly silent; unbothered about holding NEMA accountable for their failures. It’s contradictory that President Museveni would readily freeze NAADS funding for alleged poor performance, yet let NEMA continue to preside over gross environmental mismanagement.
Is it because government recognises it’s partly responsible for NEMA’s failures; that political interference has often overridden NEMA’s technical recommendations; that government’s voracious drive for foreign investment and cosmetic economic gains has relegated environmental concerns; that powerful politicians have eclipsed the law and consciously degrade the environment scot-free?
NEMA draws extensive legal leverage from section 57 (2) of the Environment Statute, which states that a person who discharges hazardous waste into the environment commits an offence, and in addition to any other sentence imposed by the court, meets the cost of restoring the damage including paying for reparation and restitution to third parties. The law also empowers NEMA to issue restoration orders and to take other measures in case of non-compliance within 21 days. Unlike the defunct DEP, NEMA has “teeth” to prosecute criminals and enforce environmental compliance. Why isn’t it biting then?
NEMA lacks innovation that is unquestionably required to neutralise complex environmental problems. True, they have succeeded in establishing standards for air quality, water quality, effluent discharge, control of noxious smells, noise and vibration control, and soil quality; but what’s the relevance of standards they cannot enforce?
Taxation, refundable deposits, remedial funds, and direct controls are innovative policy instruments NEMA could use to curb environmental crime. In particular, it could invoke its legal powers under the Environment Statute to unleash the “Polluter Pays Principle” (PPP) which forces environmental criminals to bear the full cost of degradation.
Few people would disagree with the proposition that those who cause environment damage should pay for those damages. The challenge of this approach though, is in the specifics. For NEMA to apply PPP effectively, it needs to address itself to four questions: (1) who are the polluters. (2) to what extent are they polluting? (3) what is the cost of pollution to society and the cost of pollution control? (4) how much must the polluters pay to abate their pollution?
Iam aware there are no quick-fix solutions to environment problems and would therefore be the last to condemn NEMA for their gross failures. Interestingly, those who used to castigate DEP for incompetence are now in NEMA, smouldering in stinging public criticisms. NEMA’s predicament reminds me of an old Rukiga adage: “orufu rwembwa nirwe rwo’muhiigi” (what threatens a hunting dog threatens the hunter).
Luke 6:37 teaches us to be modest in our conclusions: “judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned;” so goes the holly scripture. That not withstanding, I would say if president Museveni must freeze funding to any government institution for poor performance, it should be NEMA!
27 September 2007
Farming will not Guarantee Prosperity to most Ugandans
In 1997, Uganda launched the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) to transform the country into a modern economy. PEAP envisages the creation of an enabling environment for rapid and sustainable economic growth and aims to reduce the population living in absolute poverty, from 44% (1997) to below 10% by 2017. It places stronger emphasis on agricultural transformation, owing to the importance of the agricultural sector to the economy.
To enable farmers shift from predominantly subsistence farming, to producing for the market, government developed the Plan for Modernizing Agriculture (PMA) in 1998. PMA has several components, one of which is National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) which was launched in 2001 to facilitate the envisaged agricultural commercialization by supporting farmers to access agricultural information, knowledge and technology.
Despite these magnificent strategies, recent studies indicate that majority of the country’s population are becoming poorer. The National Household Survey showed a significant increase in the poor from 34% (7.2 million people) in 1999/2000 to 38% (8.9 million people) in 2002/2003.
NAADS has been heavily criticised and blamed for the persistent rural poverty. On his recent Bona Bagagawale (prosperity for all) tour of Luwero, president Museveni slapped a ban on NAADS funding and ordered a review into why it has failed to catalyse agricultural commercialisation.
Is it fair for government to blame NAADS for lack of progress on agricultural commercialisation? Have we critically analysed the basic ingredients for commercialisation, and are we satisfied that all is in place? Isn’t it possible that NAADS is only a scapegoat; that agricultural commercialisation is in fact an illusion that might never occur?
NAADS has definitely done the best it could have done – under the circumstances. It has mobilised farmers; empowered them through their farmers’ fora and procurement committees to articulate their farming constrains and procure advisory services to address those needs. In addition, it has championed the introduction and multiplication of new agricultural technologies such as temperate fruits (apples and grapes) in Kigezi and Rwenzori highlands.
Commercialising agriculture in most parts of Uganda, especially the heavily settled areas, faces a serious hitch over which NAADS has little control though. Consider the case of poor household access to arable land. In Kabale for instance, recent estimates show population density as nearly 300 persons per square kilometre of total land (including forests and other non-arable land cover forms). This increases to nearly 800 people per square kilometre of arable land. High density, coupled with the traditional land inheritance method has fragmented land into meagre plots. Total land holding in Kabale is estimated to be 0.25 – 1.0ha for a six-member household. Who does not agree that such an acute land scarcity would fatally short-circuit NAADS? How much commercialisation will a 6-member household owning fragmented, less than 0.3 ha plots achieve?
For such land-constrained communities, the key to Bona Bagagawale will certainly not be farming! Government should be aware that whatever its intentions, any agricultural spending on such people will not significantly transform their mode of production – which will at best – remain subsistence.
An opportunity which government can, and should pursue for such communities, is to promote Non-Farm Enterprises (NFEs). A landmark study, which DFID recently conducted in Uganda, revealed that NFEs contributed a bigger proportion of household income compared to farming. It also revealed that poverty was reducing fastest amongst women with a high level of NFEs within their livelihood strategies.
Uganda therefore needs to undertake policy reforms aimed at catalysing growth of the NFE sector. However, given the interdependence of NFE with other sectors (agriculture, natural resources, tourism, etc), what may actually be required is to fine-tune existing policies to improve linkages between NFE and other livelihood sectors.
It is important that we identify real issues behind commercialisation failures and proactively put Bona Bagagawale into context. Unfairly blaming NAADS is tantamount to wrong diagnosis. There are definitely areas where NAADS needs to improve to increase its impact and visibility.
NAADS is an evolving programme, which already constantly adjusts its methodological approaches based on regular reviews and critical reflection. A review which the president has ordered will therefore not only be utterly redundant but will miss the point!
Denis Mutabazi
September 2007
To enable farmers shift from predominantly subsistence farming, to producing for the market, government developed the Plan for Modernizing Agriculture (PMA) in 1998. PMA has several components, one of which is National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) which was launched in 2001 to facilitate the envisaged agricultural commercialization by supporting farmers to access agricultural information, knowledge and technology.
Despite these magnificent strategies, recent studies indicate that majority of the country’s population are becoming poorer. The National Household Survey showed a significant increase in the poor from 34% (7.2 million people) in 1999/2000 to 38% (8.9 million people) in 2002/2003.
NAADS has been heavily criticised and blamed for the persistent rural poverty. On his recent Bona Bagagawale (prosperity for all) tour of Luwero, president Museveni slapped a ban on NAADS funding and ordered a review into why it has failed to catalyse agricultural commercialisation.
Is it fair for government to blame NAADS for lack of progress on agricultural commercialisation? Have we critically analysed the basic ingredients for commercialisation, and are we satisfied that all is in place? Isn’t it possible that NAADS is only a scapegoat; that agricultural commercialisation is in fact an illusion that might never occur?
NAADS has definitely done the best it could have done – under the circumstances. It has mobilised farmers; empowered them through their farmers’ fora and procurement committees to articulate their farming constrains and procure advisory services to address those needs. In addition, it has championed the introduction and multiplication of new agricultural technologies such as temperate fruits (apples and grapes) in Kigezi and Rwenzori highlands.
Commercialising agriculture in most parts of Uganda, especially the heavily settled areas, faces a serious hitch over which NAADS has little control though. Consider the case of poor household access to arable land. In Kabale for instance, recent estimates show population density as nearly 300 persons per square kilometre of total land (including forests and other non-arable land cover forms). This increases to nearly 800 people per square kilometre of arable land. High density, coupled with the traditional land inheritance method has fragmented land into meagre plots. Total land holding in Kabale is estimated to be 0.25 – 1.0ha for a six-member household. Who does not agree that such an acute land scarcity would fatally short-circuit NAADS? How much commercialisation will a 6-member household owning fragmented, less than 0.3 ha plots achieve?
For such land-constrained communities, the key to Bona Bagagawale will certainly not be farming! Government should be aware that whatever its intentions, any agricultural spending on such people will not significantly transform their mode of production – which will at best – remain subsistence.
An opportunity which government can, and should pursue for such communities, is to promote Non-Farm Enterprises (NFEs). A landmark study, which DFID recently conducted in Uganda, revealed that NFEs contributed a bigger proportion of household income compared to farming. It also revealed that poverty was reducing fastest amongst women with a high level of NFEs within their livelihood strategies.
Uganda therefore needs to undertake policy reforms aimed at catalysing growth of the NFE sector. However, given the interdependence of NFE with other sectors (agriculture, natural resources, tourism, etc), what may actually be required is to fine-tune existing policies to improve linkages between NFE and other livelihood sectors.
It is important that we identify real issues behind commercialisation failures and proactively put Bona Bagagawale into context. Unfairly blaming NAADS is tantamount to wrong diagnosis. There are definitely areas where NAADS needs to improve to increase its impact and visibility.
NAADS is an evolving programme, which already constantly adjusts its methodological approaches based on regular reviews and critical reflection. A review which the president has ordered will therefore not only be utterly redundant but will miss the point!
Denis Mutabazi
September 2007
19 September 2007
Will East African Federation Succumb to Trivialities?
In 1993, presidents Museveni, Moi and Mkapa agreed to revive the East African Cooperation that had collapsed in 1977. A treaty signed by the same presidents in November 1999 set out principles for economic, monetary, and political union. It provided for a common action on the movement of people and goods between member countries, establishment of a common customs union, elimination of international tariffs, establishment of an East African Legislative Assembly and a common president. This was formalised in a ceremony held in Arusha, in 2001. In December 2006, Rwanda and Burudi formally joined to EAC to make five, the number of countries constituting the federation.
The conditions for economic integration and prosperity cannot be more opportune! The EAC covers an area of over 1.8 million square kilometres with a combined population of almost 100 million. It has a vast economic and trade potential; as well as a common history, language (Kiswahili), culture and infrastructure.
Despite these prospects, we do not seem to have adequate safeguards against a possible collapse such as one we witnessed in 1977. There are ingredients that could undermine the spirit of EAC and possibly kill it off. Compared with factors that annihilated the EAC in 1997, these ingredients are trivial. In 1977, East Africa had become ideologically split, with Kenya advocating capitalist interventions, while Tanzania pursued socialism. Mistrust among the East African leaders mounted after president Amin had grabbed power by force and continuously castigated Tanzania for harbouring and supporting Ugandan rebels. Today, the elements that threaten EAC are of a much lower echelon. Let me elaborate a few of them.
Uganda has ample land conflicts. Some tribal and ethnic groupings have prevented other groupings from lawfully acquiring land and settling in “their” areas. The most vivid example is the Bakiga whom Banyoro have fought for decades with machetes, witchcraft, bullets and legislation. Baganda have dropped hints on several occasions that Buganda is for Baganda. Indeed the 1967 Kabaka crisis is said to have been triggered by an ultimatum Kabaka Mutesa gave President Obote, demanding that he immediately moves the capital of Uganda from Buganda’s soil. How will Ugandans allow Kenyans, Tanzanians, Rwandese, Barundi to freely move in, acquire land and settle, if they cannot allow their fellow citizens?
Nepotism in employments and business is a thorny issue in many institutions. Uganda Revenue Authority is reportedly for southerners. Until 20 years ago, you would not join the army if you were not from a northerner. The current army has often come under spotlight promoting southerners. Religious institutions are not clean either. A catholic bishop of Rwandese origin would never promote a priest into the “inner circle” of Kabale diocese if he was not a “umvandimwe;” a Rwandese word meaning “one who comes from the same womb.” This persisted until non “bavandimwe” priests violently revolted prompting the Pope to dethrone the bishop. If we don’t have displine to share employment opportunities based on merit, what will happen after we federate?
Differences in access to economic opportunities and social services have polarised Uganda into southern; perceived as the government’s “favourite” and northern; the “forgotten and neglected”. The last presidential elections gave prominence to this view when “one Uganda one people” was a campaign slogan for one presidential candidate. The candidate’s pledge to heal the divide uneventfully ended with his dramatic election defeat. Would a polarised Uganda meaningfully federate?
While president Museveni pursued regional integration, he simultaneously “disintegrated” his own country. Uganda had less than 30 districts in 1993. As the EAC initiative gained momentum, so was the disintegration of Uganda. To date, Uganda has over 80 districts. President Museveni’s federation argument has been numbers: a block with 100 million people is economically stronger than a single country with 28 million people. If we pursue the same argument, we would conclude that dismantled districts like Mbarara, Mpigi and others would never be the same. If president Museveni is willing to dismantle his own country, is his enthusiasm for East African federation genuine?
The elements that blew up the EAC in 1977 were quite visible – yet member governments stood by watching as the union collapsed. Will government this time heed issues that could easily pass for trivial?
Published in New Vision, September 24, 2007: https://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/588423
September 2007
The conditions for economic integration and prosperity cannot be more opportune! The EAC covers an area of over 1.8 million square kilometres with a combined population of almost 100 million. It has a vast economic and trade potential; as well as a common history, language (Kiswahili), culture and infrastructure.
Despite these prospects, we do not seem to have adequate safeguards against a possible collapse such as one we witnessed in 1977. There are ingredients that could undermine the spirit of EAC and possibly kill it off. Compared with factors that annihilated the EAC in 1997, these ingredients are trivial. In 1977, East Africa had become ideologically split, with Kenya advocating capitalist interventions, while Tanzania pursued socialism. Mistrust among the East African leaders mounted after president Amin had grabbed power by force and continuously castigated Tanzania for harbouring and supporting Ugandan rebels. Today, the elements that threaten EAC are of a much lower echelon. Let me elaborate a few of them.
Uganda has ample land conflicts. Some tribal and ethnic groupings have prevented other groupings from lawfully acquiring land and settling in “their” areas. The most vivid example is the Bakiga whom Banyoro have fought for decades with machetes, witchcraft, bullets and legislation. Baganda have dropped hints on several occasions that Buganda is for Baganda. Indeed the 1967 Kabaka crisis is said to have been triggered by an ultimatum Kabaka Mutesa gave President Obote, demanding that he immediately moves the capital of Uganda from Buganda’s soil. How will Ugandans allow Kenyans, Tanzanians, Rwandese, Barundi to freely move in, acquire land and settle, if they cannot allow their fellow citizens?
Nepotism in employments and business is a thorny issue in many institutions. Uganda Revenue Authority is reportedly for southerners. Until 20 years ago, you would not join the army if you were not from a northerner. The current army has often come under spotlight promoting southerners. Religious institutions are not clean either. A catholic bishop of Rwandese origin would never promote a priest into the “inner circle” of Kabale diocese if he was not a “umvandimwe;” a Rwandese word meaning “one who comes from the same womb.” This persisted until non “bavandimwe” priests violently revolted prompting the Pope to dethrone the bishop. If we don’t have displine to share employment opportunities based on merit, what will happen after we federate?
Differences in access to economic opportunities and social services have polarised Uganda into southern; perceived as the government’s “favourite” and northern; the “forgotten and neglected”. The last presidential elections gave prominence to this view when “one Uganda one people” was a campaign slogan for one presidential candidate. The candidate’s pledge to heal the divide uneventfully ended with his dramatic election defeat. Would a polarised Uganda meaningfully federate?
While president Museveni pursued regional integration, he simultaneously “disintegrated” his own country. Uganda had less than 30 districts in 1993. As the EAC initiative gained momentum, so was the disintegration of Uganda. To date, Uganda has over 80 districts. President Museveni’s federation argument has been numbers: a block with 100 million people is economically stronger than a single country with 28 million people. If we pursue the same argument, we would conclude that dismantled districts like Mbarara, Mpigi and others would never be the same. If president Museveni is willing to dismantle his own country, is his enthusiasm for East African federation genuine?
The elements that blew up the EAC in 1977 were quite visible – yet member governments stood by watching as the union collapsed. Will government this time heed issues that could easily pass for trivial?
Published in New Vision, September 24, 2007: https://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/588423
September 2007
28 August 2007
Receding Water Resources and the Precarious Battle for Survival in Afghanistan
There is no contradiction about it! Afghans are resilient fighters and don’t easily give up on a struggle for something to which they are committed. They indeed pride themselves for having ignominiously defeated major world powers – including the British and Soviets. Written history also bears witness to the fact that Afghans were a “hard nut to crack” during ancient invasions of Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and others. No doubt those empires collapsed not before long – owing to incessant “liberation attacks” from rag-tag, but highly motivated tribal militias. This historical resilience is in fact behind the growing anxiety within American and NATO barracks, and the sticky campaign against the Taliban guerrillas.
Despite these impressive historical successes at the battlefront, Afghans appear to have conceded, or on are on the verge of conceding an ignominious defeat in a war of survival. Long years of trading rockets and bullets against each other, absence of a credible governance system, rise of warlordism and massive displacements of the population have over time, threatened the livelihoods of the majority poor. These events have triggered a humanitarian disaster characterised by desertification, land degradation, food short shortages, drought, lack of social services, and so on. In particular, the rise of warlordism deprived the central government of enabling power and authority; effectively rendering it too impotent to respond to people’s livelihoods needs, or set up safety nets that would guarantee a decent lifestyle for the population.
Of all the ills associated with Afghanistan wars and lack of governance, environmental degradation stands out in prominence. Indeed, the UNEP Post Conflict Environment Assessment predicted “a future without water,” and warned of dire consequences if action was not taken to arrest the escalating situation. Destruction of forests by warlords and destitute community members; overgrazing by pastoral communities, inappropriate farming methods, lack of a national landuse policy, destructive water access/use regimes – are some of the factors that have contributed to the Afghan water disaster.
Estimates from Ministry of Energy and Water (MoEW) indicate nearly 80 percent of the people in rural areas and 70 percent of those living in cities do not have safe drinking water. Both United Nations and Afghan government have warned that some 2.5 million people face an imminent food crisis due to the water shortage, while a further 6.5 million people are seasonally or chronically food insecure.
Although agriculture is the major water consumer in Afghanistan, years of drought coupled with neglect of irrigation infrastructure have triggered an 81 percent decrease in irrigated land. This is a catastrophic development for a country, whose 85 percent of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods. In addition to precipitating crop failures, receding water resources have catalysed cultivation of illegal drought-tolerant crops such as opium poppy and hashishi. Latest (2007) UN figures show poppy cultivation having shot up by over 30% compared with the 2006 production levels – in effect making Afghanistan the leading producer in the world.
Acute shortage of water for both drinking and irrigation has become a serious problem in western and southern provinces of Afghanistan, forcing some families to leave their villages and migrate into urban centres or neighbouring countries. The drought is bad news for pastoralists too, especially the transhumant Kuchis. Most of the shallow wells providing water for human and livestock consumption have run dry and some rivers have no water. Nearly 80 percent of pasture and brush land is quickly being replaced by sandy desert in southern and much of the central provinces. An equally catastrophic transformation is taking place in the northern region, away from collapsing banks of Amu Darya River – where a 100-kilometre stretch of land is turning into sandy desert at a rate of 1 meter per year.
Is the battle for water lost in Afghanistan? Have Afghans, renown for their valour and commitment to wining surrendered at the water battlefront? I would say: if not yet, they are well on the verge doing so! Its not too late though. The resilience of Afghans, which saw them defeat British and the Soviets should no doubt see them win yet again, this historic battle for conservation of their water resources. There are opportunities on which they can build. For instance, the country still has appreciable water resources, estimated at an annual 75 billion cubic metres; 57 billion cubic metres of surface and 18 billion cubic metres of ground water. Current off take is estimated at only 20 billion cubic meters, implying there is a surplus of 55 billion cubic meters of water. Much of the shortage impinging on the population is therefore caused by absence of proper water-resources management and development plans rather than scarcity.
The struggle to win the Afghan water war will therefore need to be fought at the policy, technological and institutional reform front. The need for sustainable water access incentives and regulatory instruments is long overdue. There will be need to improve water extraction and utilisation technologies, with particular emphasis on waste reduction and utility enhancement. Farmers will need support to effectively control water runoff, seasonal flooding, deforestation, desertification and to protect wetlands. Sustainable land management options, especially using the watershed approach could be vital for winning the water war. The Bakiga say that “orabire omubicupa taratiina ebyatikira byenkyeka” (a person who has safely walked over broken glasses does not fear broken calabashes or clay pots). Afghans have fought and won so many wars. Will they cowardise now and concede defeat to the receding water war? Hopefully not, because the cost of such a defeat will without doubt exert unprecedented livelihoods implications on the already impoverished population. There is no shortage of options; rather, commitment – at national, sub national, community and household level will guarantee Afghans another sweet, priceless victory.
Denis Mutabazi
August 2007
Despite these impressive historical successes at the battlefront, Afghans appear to have conceded, or on are on the verge of conceding an ignominious defeat in a war of survival. Long years of trading rockets and bullets against each other, absence of a credible governance system, rise of warlordism and massive displacements of the population have over time, threatened the livelihoods of the majority poor. These events have triggered a humanitarian disaster characterised by desertification, land degradation, food short shortages, drought, lack of social services, and so on. In particular, the rise of warlordism deprived the central government of enabling power and authority; effectively rendering it too impotent to respond to people’s livelihoods needs, or set up safety nets that would guarantee a decent lifestyle for the population.
Of all the ills associated with Afghanistan wars and lack of governance, environmental degradation stands out in prominence. Indeed, the UNEP Post Conflict Environment Assessment predicted “a future without water,” and warned of dire consequences if action was not taken to arrest the escalating situation. Destruction of forests by warlords and destitute community members; overgrazing by pastoral communities, inappropriate farming methods, lack of a national landuse policy, destructive water access/use regimes – are some of the factors that have contributed to the Afghan water disaster.
Estimates from Ministry of Energy and Water (MoEW) indicate nearly 80 percent of the people in rural areas and 70 percent of those living in cities do not have safe drinking water. Both United Nations and Afghan government have warned that some 2.5 million people face an imminent food crisis due to the water shortage, while a further 6.5 million people are seasonally or chronically food insecure.
Although agriculture is the major water consumer in Afghanistan, years of drought coupled with neglect of irrigation infrastructure have triggered an 81 percent decrease in irrigated land. This is a catastrophic development for a country, whose 85 percent of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods. In addition to precipitating crop failures, receding water resources have catalysed cultivation of illegal drought-tolerant crops such as opium poppy and hashishi. Latest (2007) UN figures show poppy cultivation having shot up by over 30% compared with the 2006 production levels – in effect making Afghanistan the leading producer in the world.
Acute shortage of water for both drinking and irrigation has become a serious problem in western and southern provinces of Afghanistan, forcing some families to leave their villages and migrate into urban centres or neighbouring countries. The drought is bad news for pastoralists too, especially the transhumant Kuchis. Most of the shallow wells providing water for human and livestock consumption have run dry and some rivers have no water. Nearly 80 percent of pasture and brush land is quickly being replaced by sandy desert in southern and much of the central provinces. An equally catastrophic transformation is taking place in the northern region, away from collapsing banks of Amu Darya River – where a 100-kilometre stretch of land is turning into sandy desert at a rate of 1 meter per year.
Is the battle for water lost in Afghanistan? Have Afghans, renown for their valour and commitment to wining surrendered at the water battlefront? I would say: if not yet, they are well on the verge doing so! Its not too late though. The resilience of Afghans, which saw them defeat British and the Soviets should no doubt see them win yet again, this historic battle for conservation of their water resources. There are opportunities on which they can build. For instance, the country still has appreciable water resources, estimated at an annual 75 billion cubic metres; 57 billion cubic metres of surface and 18 billion cubic metres of ground water. Current off take is estimated at only 20 billion cubic meters, implying there is a surplus of 55 billion cubic meters of water. Much of the shortage impinging on the population is therefore caused by absence of proper water-resources management and development plans rather than scarcity.
The struggle to win the Afghan water war will therefore need to be fought at the policy, technological and institutional reform front. The need for sustainable water access incentives and regulatory instruments is long overdue. There will be need to improve water extraction and utilisation technologies, with particular emphasis on waste reduction and utility enhancement. Farmers will need support to effectively control water runoff, seasonal flooding, deforestation, desertification and to protect wetlands. Sustainable land management options, especially using the watershed approach could be vital for winning the water war. The Bakiga say that “orabire omubicupa taratiina ebyatikira byenkyeka” (a person who has safely walked over broken glasses does not fear broken calabashes or clay pots). Afghans have fought and won so many wars. Will they cowardise now and concede defeat to the receding water war? Hopefully not, because the cost of such a defeat will without doubt exert unprecedented livelihoods implications on the already impoverished population. There is no shortage of options; rather, commitment – at national, sub national, community and household level will guarantee Afghans another sweet, priceless victory.
Denis Mutabazi
August 2007
23 August 2007
The Good & Bad of World Bank Grilling at AHI
It was one of those rainy, January 2006 days in Kampala – less than four months after I had joined the World Agroforestry Centre as Programme Officer for its African Highlands Eco-regional Initiative (AHI). I had just finished tucking my files away and with my laptop computer strapped over my shoulder, angrily rambled out of my 1st floor office off Luthuli Avenue.
It hadn’t been quite a good day, having taken a bloddy hell of thorough grilling – along with my colleagues of course, from the World Bank Science Council mission. We had been harassed for “slipping into intellectual slumber” and not doing enough to churn out “International Public Goods (IPGs)” (research papers, working papers, policy briefs and so on) out of the watershed management studies our research teams were conducting in the ecologically fragile highland regions in East and Central Africa. We had also been roasted for having lost not only concentration but also a sense of direction as an Eco-Regional Programme of the CGIAR/World Agroforestry Centre.
The Science Council repeatedly challenged us to demonstrate in emperical terms, to what extent we had achieved our goal of "arresting environmental degradation in fragile highlands of East and Central Africa" to which we inadequately responded. Each time the challenge was posed, Chris Opondo who had led the presentations, would unconfortably drift his gaze from me, to our boss Laura German, to Tilahun Amede, to Tanui Joseph and back to me; hoping to get "reinforcements" and rescueing arguments. Poor Chris, none of us volunteered any appealing ideas so he ended up being crucified much more painfully than the rest of us. Aparently everybody feared crossing the path of the angry Science Council missioners - so we unwillingly gave up Chris Opondo as the sacrificial lamb! Throughout my long integrated conservation and rural development career, I had faced several “hostile” donor evaluation missions, but this particular World Bank Science Council grilling left me physically and emotionally bamboozled.
When I agreed to join AHI of the World Agroforestry Centre in October 2005, I already knew that the institution faced a credibility crisis due to prolonged lack of visibility and programme impact; and a management vacuum to some extent. I however believed that given my intense inclination to impact-oriented project management principles, I would gradually influence an institutional shift in orientation to focus at more programme visibility and relevance to people’s livelihood priorities. Sadly, I could not engineer this envisaged shift as fast as I had hoped, owing to a rigid programme management structure and a restrictive “programme mandate” which placed emphasis on IPGs rather than tangible livelihood outputs.
When the Wold Bank mission arrived, we quite frankly expected some hard talking although not at the magnitude we eventually witnessed. AHI had faced numerous challenges in meeting its targets in the previous two years. Our stakeholders within East and Central Africa were unanimous in their view that “we only hear about AHI but don’t see it;” while farmers with which we worked to “test” watershed management models were increasingly getting disillusioned with our bla –bla “pen and paper” approaches. Donor support for our watershed research programmes was precariously wobbling and this had imposed a severe strain of the institution’s financial base. No body on the AHI team doubted that indeed, we needed to turn over a new chapter, to engage in “business unusual,” and apply “cutting-edge science” to meet our IPG targets, arrest environmental degradation and catalyse livelihood improvements in ecologically fragile highlands of East and Central Africa. The million-dollar question though, was HOW!
In my mind, I was in no doubt as to how we could achieve this. Essentially, we needed to:
1.Mainstream our watershed research activities with development work supported by governments and other non-government players
2.Strengthen the involvement of farmer institutions in identifying their priority watershed research questions
3.Not only to focus on producing IPGs, but also collaborate with and support knowledge, information and technology disseminating institutions to package and scale out our research findings
4.Put more passion in the way we promoted our innovative programmes such as Landcare, which we had hitherto left to run without proper follow up mechanisms, lesson-learning regimes, and institutional capacity building input
5.Collate lessons learnt and feed them into government and private sector agricultural extension support systems
I recall sharing these points with my colleague Chris over a bottle of beer at Rhino Pub (don’t get us wrong – we only wanted something cool after the grilling) and while we agreed that these were loaded suggestions, we pondered over whether the programme structure and senior management would be flexible enough to embrace those suggestions. We resolved that whatever the outcome, we had to present them to the rest of the AHI team for discussion. It’s indeed amazing what the cruel heat of the Science Council grill could do: hearts had gotten soft, cohesion and collective thinking among the team had increased, opposition to livelihood focus had waned. The the team consequently accepted our proposals without ado! We agreed on a roadmap for reforming the African Highlands Eco-Regional Initiative and set out to do what we believed would make a difference.
I would have loved to witness the AHI reforms unfold but I painfully couldn’t resist a call by UNDP in June 2006, to go and serve the battered communities of Afghanistan as their Capacity Building Specialist for Green Afghanistan Initiative. I was at the World Agroforestry Centre for only six month, but I learnt a mountain of lessons worth more than six months. No wonder I have nostalgia for AHI! I hope some body still on the team will loop me sooner, into how the reforms we initiated are going.
Denis Mutabazi
August 2007
It hadn’t been quite a good day, having taken a bloddy hell of thorough grilling – along with my colleagues of course, from the World Bank Science Council mission. We had been harassed for “slipping into intellectual slumber” and not doing enough to churn out “International Public Goods (IPGs)” (research papers, working papers, policy briefs and so on) out of the watershed management studies our research teams were conducting in the ecologically fragile highland regions in East and Central Africa. We had also been roasted for having lost not only concentration but also a sense of direction as an Eco-Regional Programme of the CGIAR/World Agroforestry Centre.
The Science Council repeatedly challenged us to demonstrate in emperical terms, to what extent we had achieved our goal of "arresting environmental degradation in fragile highlands of East and Central Africa" to which we inadequately responded. Each time the challenge was posed, Chris Opondo who had led the presentations, would unconfortably drift his gaze from me, to our boss Laura German, to Tilahun Amede, to Tanui Joseph and back to me; hoping to get "reinforcements" and rescueing arguments. Poor Chris, none of us volunteered any appealing ideas so he ended up being crucified much more painfully than the rest of us. Aparently everybody feared crossing the path of the angry Science Council missioners - so we unwillingly gave up Chris Opondo as the sacrificial lamb! Throughout my long integrated conservation and rural development career, I had faced several “hostile” donor evaluation missions, but this particular World Bank Science Council grilling left me physically and emotionally bamboozled.
When I agreed to join AHI of the World Agroforestry Centre in October 2005, I already knew that the institution faced a credibility crisis due to prolonged lack of visibility and programme impact; and a management vacuum to some extent. I however believed that given my intense inclination to impact-oriented project management principles, I would gradually influence an institutional shift in orientation to focus at more programme visibility and relevance to people’s livelihood priorities. Sadly, I could not engineer this envisaged shift as fast as I had hoped, owing to a rigid programme management structure and a restrictive “programme mandate” which placed emphasis on IPGs rather than tangible livelihood outputs.
When the Wold Bank mission arrived, we quite frankly expected some hard talking although not at the magnitude we eventually witnessed. AHI had faced numerous challenges in meeting its targets in the previous two years. Our stakeholders within East and Central Africa were unanimous in their view that “we only hear about AHI but don’t see it;” while farmers with which we worked to “test” watershed management models were increasingly getting disillusioned with our bla –bla “pen and paper” approaches. Donor support for our watershed research programmes was precariously wobbling and this had imposed a severe strain of the institution’s financial base. No body on the AHI team doubted that indeed, we needed to turn over a new chapter, to engage in “business unusual,” and apply “cutting-edge science” to meet our IPG targets, arrest environmental degradation and catalyse livelihood improvements in ecologically fragile highlands of East and Central Africa. The million-dollar question though, was HOW!
In my mind, I was in no doubt as to how we could achieve this. Essentially, we needed to:
1.Mainstream our watershed research activities with development work supported by governments and other non-government players
2.Strengthen the involvement of farmer institutions in identifying their priority watershed research questions
3.Not only to focus on producing IPGs, but also collaborate with and support knowledge, information and technology disseminating institutions to package and scale out our research findings
4.Put more passion in the way we promoted our innovative programmes such as Landcare, which we had hitherto left to run without proper follow up mechanisms, lesson-learning regimes, and institutional capacity building input
5.Collate lessons learnt and feed them into government and private sector agricultural extension support systems
I recall sharing these points with my colleague Chris over a bottle of beer at Rhino Pub (don’t get us wrong – we only wanted something cool after the grilling) and while we agreed that these were loaded suggestions, we pondered over whether the programme structure and senior management would be flexible enough to embrace those suggestions. We resolved that whatever the outcome, we had to present them to the rest of the AHI team for discussion. It’s indeed amazing what the cruel heat of the Science Council grill could do: hearts had gotten soft, cohesion and collective thinking among the team had increased, opposition to livelihood focus had waned. The the team consequently accepted our proposals without ado! We agreed on a roadmap for reforming the African Highlands Eco-Regional Initiative and set out to do what we believed would make a difference.
I would have loved to witness the AHI reforms unfold but I painfully couldn’t resist a call by UNDP in June 2006, to go and serve the battered communities of Afghanistan as their Capacity Building Specialist for Green Afghanistan Initiative. I was at the World Agroforestry Centre for only six month, but I learnt a mountain of lessons worth more than six months. No wonder I have nostalgia for AHI! I hope some body still on the team will loop me sooner, into how the reforms we initiated are going.
Denis Mutabazi
August 2007
15 August 2007
To the Memory of my Departed Parents; Canon Eldad Masheija (23rd Nov. 2001) & Noreda Masheija (21st Nov. 1997)
The Lyrics of Luther Vandross - A Dance With My Father
----------------------------------------
Back when I was a child
Before life removed all the innocence
My father would lift me high
And dance with my mother and me and then
Spin me around till I fell asleep
Then up the stairs he would carry me
And I knew for sure
I was loved
If I could get another chance
Another walk, another dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
How I’d love, love, love to dance with my father again
Ooh, ooh
When I and my mother would disagree
To get my way I would run from her to him
He’d make me laugh just to comfort me, yeah, yeah
Then finally make me do just what my mama said
Later that night when I was asleep
He left a dollar under my sheet
Never dreamed that he
Would be gone from me
If I could steal one final glance
One final step, one final dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
‘Cause I’d love, love, love to dance with my father
again
Sometimes I’d listen outside her door
And I’d hear her, mama cryin’ for him
I pray for her even more than me
I pray for her even more than me
I know I’m prayin’ for much too much
But could You send back the only man she loved
I know You don’t do it usually
But Lord, she’s dyin’ to dance with my father again
Every night I fall asleep
And this is all I ever dream
----------------------------------------
Back when I was a child
Before life removed all the innocence
My father would lift me high
And dance with my mother and me and then
Spin me around till I fell asleep
Then up the stairs he would carry me
And I knew for sure
I was loved
If I could get another chance
Another walk, another dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
How I’d love, love, love to dance with my father again
Ooh, ooh
When I and my mother would disagree
To get my way I would run from her to him
He’d make me laugh just to comfort me, yeah, yeah
Then finally make me do just what my mama said
Later that night when I was asleep
He left a dollar under my sheet
Never dreamed that he
Would be gone from me
If I could steal one final glance
One final step, one final dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
‘Cause I’d love, love, love to dance with my father
again
Sometimes I’d listen outside her door
And I’d hear her, mama cryin’ for him
I pray for her even more than me
I pray for her even more than me
I know I’m prayin’ for much too much
But could You send back the only man she loved
I know You don’t do it usually
But Lord, she’s dyin’ to dance with my father again
Every night I fall asleep
And this is all I ever dream
30 July 2007
Excerpts of Apartheid
THE FOLLOWING is a speech written for former South African President P.W. Botha to his Cabinet. Excerpts were written by David G. Mailu for the Sunday Times, a South African newspaper, dated August 18, 1985.
".....COLLEAGUES, Pretoria has been made by the White mind for the White man. We are not obliged even the least to try to prove to anybody and to the Blacks that we are superior people. We have demonstrated that to the Blacks in a thousand and one ways. The Republic of South Africa that we know of today has not been created by wishful thinking. We have created it at the expense of intelligence, sweat and blood. Were they Afrikaners who tried to eliminate the Australian Aborigines? Are they Afrikaners who discriminate against Blacks and call them Nigge*rs in the States? Were they Afrikaners who started the slave trade? Where is the Black man appreciated? England discriminates against its Black and their "Sus" law is out to discipline the Blacks. Canada, France, Russia, and Japan all play their discrimination too. Why in the hell then is so much noise made about us? Why are they biased against us? I am simply trying to prove to you all that there is nothing unusual we are doing that the so called civilized worlds are not doing. We are simply an honest people who have come out aloud with a clear philosophy of how we want to live our own White life.
We do not pretend like other Whites that we like Blacks. The fact that, Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings do not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually, we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years. I believe that the Afrikaner is an honest, God fearing person, who has demonstrated practically the right way of being an decent human.
Nevertheless, it is comforting to know that behind the scenes, Europe, America, Canada, Australia-and all others are behind us in spite of what they say. For diplomatic relations, we all know what language should be used and where. To prove my point, Comrades, does anyone of you know a White country without an investment or interest in South Africa? Who buys our gold? Who buys our diamonds? Who trades with us? Who is helping us develop other nuclear weapon? The very truth is that we are their people and they are our people. It's a big secret. The strength of our economy is backed by America, Britain, Germany. It is our strong conviction, therefore, that the Black is the raw material for the White man. So Brothers and Sisters, let us join hands together to fight against this Black devil. I appeal to all Afrikaners to come out with any creative means of fighting this war. Surely God cannot forsake his own people whom we are. By now every one of us has seen it practically that the Blacks cannot rule themselves. Give them guns and they will kill each other. They are good in nothing else but making noise, dancing, marrying many wives and indulging in sex. Let us all accept that the Black man is the symbol of poverty, mental inferiority, laziness and emotional incompetence. Isn't it plausible? therefore that the White man is created to rule the Black man? Come to think of what would happen one day if you woke up and on the throne sat a Kaff*ir! Can you imagine what would happen to our women? Does anyone of you believe that the Blacks can rule this country?
Hence, we have good reasons to let them all-the Mandelas-rot in prison, and I think we should be commended for having kept them alive in spite of what we have at hand with which to finish them off. I wish to announce a number of new strategies that should be put to use to destroy this Black bug. We should now make use of the chemical weapon. Priority number one, we should not by all means allow any more increases of the Black population lest we be choked very soon. I have exciting news that our scientists have come with an efficient stuff. I am sending out more researchers to the field to identify as many venues as possible where the chemical weapons could be employed to combat any further population increases. The hospital is a very strategic opening, for example and should be fully utilized. The food supply channel should be used. We have developed excellent slow killing poisons and fertility destroyers. Our only fear is in case such stuff came in! ! to their hands as they are bound to start using it against us if you care to think of the many Blacks working for us in our homes.
However, we are doing the best we can to make sure that the stuff remains strictly in our hands. Secondly, most Blacks are vulnerable to money inducements. I have set aside a special fund to exploit this venue. The old trick of divide and rule is still very valid today. Our experts should work day and night to set the Black man against his fellowman. His inferior sense of morals can be exploited beautifully. And here is a creature that lacks foresight. There is a need for us to combat him in long term projections that he cannot suspect. The average Black does not plan his life beyond a year: that stance, for example, should be exploited. My special department is already working round the clock to come out with a long-term operation blueprint. I am also sending a special request to all Afrikaner mothers to double their birth rate. It may be necessary too to set up a population boom industry by putting up centres where we employ and support fully White young men and women to produce children for the nation. We are also investigating the merit of uterus rentals as a possible means of speeding up the growth of our population through surrogate mothers. For the time being, we should also engage a higher gear to make sure that Black men are separated from their women and fines imposed upon married wives who bear illegitimate children.
I have a committee working on finding better methods of inciting Blacks against each other and encouraging murders among themselves. Murder cases among Blacks should bear very little punishment in order to encourage them. My scientists have come up with a drug that could be smuggled into their brews to effect slow poisoning results and fertility destruction. Working through drinks and manufacturing of soft drinks geared to the Blacks, could promote the channels of reducing their population. Ours is not a war that we can use the atomic bomb to destroy the Blacks, so we must use our intelligence to effect this. The person-to-person encounter can be very effective.
As the records show that the Black man is dying to go to bed with the White woman, here is our unique opportunity. Our Sex Mercenary Squad should go out and camouflage with Apartheid Fighters while doing their operations quietly administering slow killing poison and fertility destroyers to those Blacks they thus befriend. We are modifying the Sex Mercenary Squad by introducing White men who should go for the militant Black woman and any other vulnerable Black woman. We have received a new supply of prostitutes from Europe and America who are desperate and too keen to take up the appointments. My latest appeal is that the maternity hospital operations should be intensified. We are not paying those people to help bring Black babies to this world but to eliminate them on the very delivery moment. If this department worked very efficiently, a great deal could be achieved. My Government has set aside a special fund for erecting more covert hospitals and clinics to promote this programme. Money can do anything for you. So while we have it, we should make the best use of it. In the meantime my beloved White citizens, do not take to heart what the world says, and don't be ashamed of being called racists. I do not mind being called the architect and King of Apartheid. I shall not become a monkey simply because someone has called me a monkey. I will still remain your bright star…His Excellency Botha. "
".....COLLEAGUES, Pretoria has been made by the White mind for the White man. We are not obliged even the least to try to prove to anybody and to the Blacks that we are superior people. We have demonstrated that to the Blacks in a thousand and one ways. The Republic of South Africa that we know of today has not been created by wishful thinking. We have created it at the expense of intelligence, sweat and blood. Were they Afrikaners who tried to eliminate the Australian Aborigines? Are they Afrikaners who discriminate against Blacks and call them Nigge*rs in the States? Were they Afrikaners who started the slave trade? Where is the Black man appreciated? England discriminates against its Black and their "Sus" law is out to discipline the Blacks. Canada, France, Russia, and Japan all play their discrimination too. Why in the hell then is so much noise made about us? Why are they biased against us? I am simply trying to prove to you all that there is nothing unusual we are doing that the so called civilized worlds are not doing. We are simply an honest people who have come out aloud with a clear philosophy of how we want to live our own White life.
We do not pretend like other Whites that we like Blacks. The fact that, Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings do not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually, we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years. I believe that the Afrikaner is an honest, God fearing person, who has demonstrated practically the right way of being an decent human.
Nevertheless, it is comforting to know that behind the scenes, Europe, America, Canada, Australia-and all others are behind us in spite of what they say. For diplomatic relations, we all know what language should be used and where. To prove my point, Comrades, does anyone of you know a White country without an investment or interest in South Africa? Who buys our gold? Who buys our diamonds? Who trades with us? Who is helping us develop other nuclear weapon? The very truth is that we are their people and they are our people. It's a big secret. The strength of our economy is backed by America, Britain, Germany. It is our strong conviction, therefore, that the Black is the raw material for the White man. So Brothers and Sisters, let us join hands together to fight against this Black devil. I appeal to all Afrikaners to come out with any creative means of fighting this war. Surely God cannot forsake his own people whom we are. By now every one of us has seen it practically that the Blacks cannot rule themselves. Give them guns and they will kill each other. They are good in nothing else but making noise, dancing, marrying many wives and indulging in sex. Let us all accept that the Black man is the symbol of poverty, mental inferiority, laziness and emotional incompetence. Isn't it plausible? therefore that the White man is created to rule the Black man? Come to think of what would happen one day if you woke up and on the throne sat a Kaff*ir! Can you imagine what would happen to our women? Does anyone of you believe that the Blacks can rule this country?
Hence, we have good reasons to let them all-the Mandelas-rot in prison, and I think we should be commended for having kept them alive in spite of what we have at hand with which to finish them off. I wish to announce a number of new strategies that should be put to use to destroy this Black bug. We should now make use of the chemical weapon. Priority number one, we should not by all means allow any more increases of the Black population lest we be choked very soon. I have exciting news that our scientists have come with an efficient stuff. I am sending out more researchers to the field to identify as many venues as possible where the chemical weapons could be employed to combat any further population increases. The hospital is a very strategic opening, for example and should be fully utilized. The food supply channel should be used. We have developed excellent slow killing poisons and fertility destroyers. Our only fear is in case such stuff came in! ! to their hands as they are bound to start using it against us if you care to think of the many Blacks working for us in our homes.
However, we are doing the best we can to make sure that the stuff remains strictly in our hands. Secondly, most Blacks are vulnerable to money inducements. I have set aside a special fund to exploit this venue. The old trick of divide and rule is still very valid today. Our experts should work day and night to set the Black man against his fellowman. His inferior sense of morals can be exploited beautifully. And here is a creature that lacks foresight. There is a need for us to combat him in long term projections that he cannot suspect. The average Black does not plan his life beyond a year: that stance, for example, should be exploited. My special department is already working round the clock to come out with a long-term operation blueprint. I am also sending a special request to all Afrikaner mothers to double their birth rate. It may be necessary too to set up a population boom industry by putting up centres where we employ and support fully White young men and women to produce children for the nation. We are also investigating the merit of uterus rentals as a possible means of speeding up the growth of our population through surrogate mothers. For the time being, we should also engage a higher gear to make sure that Black men are separated from their women and fines imposed upon married wives who bear illegitimate children.
I have a committee working on finding better methods of inciting Blacks against each other and encouraging murders among themselves. Murder cases among Blacks should bear very little punishment in order to encourage them. My scientists have come up with a drug that could be smuggled into their brews to effect slow poisoning results and fertility destruction. Working through drinks and manufacturing of soft drinks geared to the Blacks, could promote the channels of reducing their population. Ours is not a war that we can use the atomic bomb to destroy the Blacks, so we must use our intelligence to effect this. The person-to-person encounter can be very effective.
As the records show that the Black man is dying to go to bed with the White woman, here is our unique opportunity. Our Sex Mercenary Squad should go out and camouflage with Apartheid Fighters while doing their operations quietly administering slow killing poison and fertility destroyers to those Blacks they thus befriend. We are modifying the Sex Mercenary Squad by introducing White men who should go for the militant Black woman and any other vulnerable Black woman. We have received a new supply of prostitutes from Europe and America who are desperate and too keen to take up the appointments. My latest appeal is that the maternity hospital operations should be intensified. We are not paying those people to help bring Black babies to this world but to eliminate them on the very delivery moment. If this department worked very efficiently, a great deal could be achieved. My Government has set aside a special fund for erecting more covert hospitals and clinics to promote this programme. Money can do anything for you. So while we have it, we should make the best use of it. In the meantime my beloved White citizens, do not take to heart what the world says, and don't be ashamed of being called racists. I do not mind being called the architect and King of Apartheid. I shall not become a monkey simply because someone has called me a monkey. I will still remain your bright star…His Excellency Botha. "
26 July 2007
Complacency, Intransigence, Self-denial and the Spiral of Climate Change in Uganda: Implications for Farming
Once upon time, a frog got trapped inside a large clay pot full of water. The frog could have jumped out to safety, but it didn’t think it was necessary. After all life inside the pot wasn’t different from the pond it was used to. It had all the water it needed and it felt safer from its predators. True, its movements were confined, but that wasn’t a big problem at the moment. It had fed prior to being trapped and it could use this opportunity to rest. So comfortable was the frog that it did not realise when some human being lifted the pot onto a firing three stone stove.
Owing to the large volume of water, the change in the water temperature was so gradual that for a moment, the frog did not recognise any changes. It could have catapulted out of the ill-fated pot to safety; at least it still had all the strength to projectile itself over and beyond the pot. As the stove fired relentlessly, the conditions inside the pot became unbearable. Here was a cold-blooded frog now trapped in is lukewarm water, moreover, steam was gathering all over it so breathing was becoming a problem too. You may never have heard about a sweaty frog, but this frog sweated! It consoled itself that whatever is hot gets cold in the end, and thus opted for hope and a little bit of patience.
Halfway to the water’s boiling point, the frog decided it would not contain the situation any longer. It marshalled all the energy it still had and took a sharp vertical dive out of the hot pot. The strength of the dive was enough to get it above the pot, but could not projectile itself horizontally beyond the circumference of the large clay. Weakened by long exposure to high water temperatures, the poor frog came tumbling down, back into the now boiling water. Your guess as to what happened to it thereafter is as good as mine! The poor frog had succumbed to complacency, intransigence and self-denial.
Uganda always joins the rest of the world to cerebrate Environment Day (WED) on every 5th of June. What is not known is whether Ugandans spend such day critically reflecting on environmental trends specifically impacting on the country that was once referred to as “The Pearl of Africa” by British colonialists.
Literature based on research shows a sustained climate warming in Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country where the rate is 0.3oC over the last decade. Researchers have warned of a possible 5.5oC change in climate over the next 100 years, leading to wide-ranging catastrophic consequences. Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. Over the last three decades, the country has experienced increasing incidences of climatically related catastrophes. The national economy, which is largely driven by agriculture, has experienced incessant shocks while some local farmers have been driven into destitution. The aggregate economic value of climatic catastrophes is not known, some estimates have put it in excess of $65 million.
A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption that climate change would impose on agriculture. The report indicated that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee growing in Uganda would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee. Such change would induce acute implications for farmers’ livelihoods and the national economy as a whole, given the importance of coffee farming in Uganda.
Studies in other countries show similar trends. For instance, a recent study on the effects of global warming on paddy rice yields in the Philippines found that yields declined by ten per cent for each 1°C increase in mean daily minimum (night-time) temperature in the growing season. Rice yields can decline with even moderate warming, because rice is grown under conditions close to maximum temperature tolerances.
The problems of flooding, soil erosion and siltation will become more frequent and more severe with the impending climate change. NEMA estimates that soil erosion accounts for over 80% of the total cost of environmental degradation conservatively estimated at 4% - 12% of the Gross National Product (GNP). Hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10% - 20% increase in run-off under future climate change scenarios. This poses a significant livelihood threat to communities in regions that are susceptible to flooding. Over the last few decades, problems of flooding from flashy mountain streams on Mt. Elgon and Mt. Rwenzori have been frequently reported. Affected areas included the lower valleys in Kilembe stretching to Kasese airfield by the river Nyamwamba (from the Rwenzori mountains) and flooding of lower Mbale areas by the river Manafwa (from Mt.Elgon). Heavy rains have led to numerous landslides in the mountainous regions to western and eastern Uganda.
In Kabale district (south western Uganda), severe flooding has often setback government efforts to transform farming through the NAADS framework. Other areas experiencing frequent flooding include Kampala City mostly due to changed landuse activities. With the anticipated climatic changes, these places should brace for the worst forms of flooding and landslides yet!
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in crop damage, land degradation and severe food shortages in developing countries. Climatic variability and change will reduce food production potential due to lack of soil moisture and escalated abundance and distribution of insects, weeds, and pathogens. Drought will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could result into in massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enlaced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of conflicts; sedenterisation of pastoral groups; diversification of livelihood options; and in absence of viable options, destitution. The high yielding dairy cattle found in montane zones like southwestern highlands are known to be particularly vulnerable to climate change. With increasing temperatures, diary cattle could succumb to heat stress symptomised by elevated body temperature and respiration rates; decreased feed in-take, lactogenic hormone production, and milk yield; increased weight loss; decrease in reproduction efficiency; reduced calf weight; and a host of other pathological effects. Moreover, tick-borne diseases in the semi-arid areas could become rampant because of higher temperatures. There also a threat that the tsetse fly belt could expand.
Although up to 15% of Uganda's total area is covered by water, its distribution across the country is not even. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will continue to impose adverse effect on both the quantity and quality of water resources. Competition for water, possibly culminating into “water wars” could ensure. Some primitive water-induced wars have been fought in Uganda; indeed the marauding Karamajong warriors could be said to water-inspired – but this could slip into more bloody confrontations as the world has already witnessed in the vast Okavango river Basin of southern Africa, over which Botswana, Namibia and Angola just fell short of trading rockets and bullets. In the extreme scenario for Uganda, we could see the Karamojong warriors escalating their water-oriented raids into the wider Busoga; Teso; and who knows – even into Buganda. Diminishing water volumes in river Nile and Lake Victoria could usher Nile basin states and Lake Victoria basin countries into violent confrontation over water access and use rights.
So given all this evidence; why aren’t we seeing a more concerted strategy to tackle climate change in Uganda? Why does government continue to undermine climate management options? Indeed the recent cabinet decision to degazette Mabira forest reserve is clear testimony to lack of government commitment to climate change abatement. Why is deforestation on the increase, and why has wetland encroachment spiraled unabated? Why haven’t farmers adopted sustainable natural resource utilisation measures? Why are they stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching means of production? Why hasn’t government devised and implemented incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks? For how long shall we wait for government rhetoric on climate change to materialise into concrete commitments? Where is the leadership from civil society, and what have they done to hold the government accountable to its obligations under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)?
The questions could be endless but the answer is one: complacency, intransigence and self-denial within government on one hand, and Ugandans as a whole! There is no shortage of innovations for tackling climate change in Uganda. The National Communication to the conference of parties to the UNFCCC dated October 2002, provides elaborate methodological options to mitigate climate change in Uganda.
When government of Uganda willingly signed the UNFCCC on 13th June 1992, and later ratified it on 8th September 1993, it committed itself to fully participate and contribute to attainment of the convention objectives; namely climate change mitigation. Although more than a decade has passed since government ratified this convention, the country remains on a slippery slope towards a spiral of climatic crises and livelihood losses. The government and the people of Uganda have a choice: to face the challenges of climate now; or remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial – and ultimately suffer the fate of the frog in the clay pot.
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007
Owing to the large volume of water, the change in the water temperature was so gradual that for a moment, the frog did not recognise any changes. It could have catapulted out of the ill-fated pot to safety; at least it still had all the strength to projectile itself over and beyond the pot. As the stove fired relentlessly, the conditions inside the pot became unbearable. Here was a cold-blooded frog now trapped in is lukewarm water, moreover, steam was gathering all over it so breathing was becoming a problem too. You may never have heard about a sweaty frog, but this frog sweated! It consoled itself that whatever is hot gets cold in the end, and thus opted for hope and a little bit of patience.
Halfway to the water’s boiling point, the frog decided it would not contain the situation any longer. It marshalled all the energy it still had and took a sharp vertical dive out of the hot pot. The strength of the dive was enough to get it above the pot, but could not projectile itself horizontally beyond the circumference of the large clay. Weakened by long exposure to high water temperatures, the poor frog came tumbling down, back into the now boiling water. Your guess as to what happened to it thereafter is as good as mine! The poor frog had succumbed to complacency, intransigence and self-denial.
Uganda always joins the rest of the world to cerebrate Environment Day (WED) on every 5th of June. What is not known is whether Ugandans spend such day critically reflecting on environmental trends specifically impacting on the country that was once referred to as “The Pearl of Africa” by British colonialists.
Literature based on research shows a sustained climate warming in Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country where the rate is 0.3oC over the last decade. Researchers have warned of a possible 5.5oC change in climate over the next 100 years, leading to wide-ranging catastrophic consequences. Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. Over the last three decades, the country has experienced increasing incidences of climatically related catastrophes. The national economy, which is largely driven by agriculture, has experienced incessant shocks while some local farmers have been driven into destitution. The aggregate economic value of climatic catastrophes is not known, some estimates have put it in excess of $65 million.
A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption that climate change would impose on agriculture. The report indicated that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee growing in Uganda would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee. Such change would induce acute implications for farmers’ livelihoods and the national economy as a whole, given the importance of coffee farming in Uganda.
Studies in other countries show similar trends. For instance, a recent study on the effects of global warming on paddy rice yields in the Philippines found that yields declined by ten per cent for each 1°C increase in mean daily minimum (night-time) temperature in the growing season. Rice yields can decline with even moderate warming, because rice is grown under conditions close to maximum temperature tolerances.
The problems of flooding, soil erosion and siltation will become more frequent and more severe with the impending climate change. NEMA estimates that soil erosion accounts for over 80% of the total cost of environmental degradation conservatively estimated at 4% - 12% of the Gross National Product (GNP). Hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10% - 20% increase in run-off under future climate change scenarios. This poses a significant livelihood threat to communities in regions that are susceptible to flooding. Over the last few decades, problems of flooding from flashy mountain streams on Mt. Elgon and Mt. Rwenzori have been frequently reported. Affected areas included the lower valleys in Kilembe stretching to Kasese airfield by the river Nyamwamba (from the Rwenzori mountains) and flooding of lower Mbale areas by the river Manafwa (from Mt.Elgon). Heavy rains have led to numerous landslides in the mountainous regions to western and eastern Uganda.
In Kabale district (south western Uganda), severe flooding has often setback government efforts to transform farming through the NAADS framework. Other areas experiencing frequent flooding include Kampala City mostly due to changed landuse activities. With the anticipated climatic changes, these places should brace for the worst forms of flooding and landslides yet!
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in crop damage, land degradation and severe food shortages in developing countries. Climatic variability and change will reduce food production potential due to lack of soil moisture and escalated abundance and distribution of insects, weeds, and pathogens. Drought will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could result into in massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enlaced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of conflicts; sedenterisation of pastoral groups; diversification of livelihood options; and in absence of viable options, destitution. The high yielding dairy cattle found in montane zones like southwestern highlands are known to be particularly vulnerable to climate change. With increasing temperatures, diary cattle could succumb to heat stress symptomised by elevated body temperature and respiration rates; decreased feed in-take, lactogenic hormone production, and milk yield; increased weight loss; decrease in reproduction efficiency; reduced calf weight; and a host of other pathological effects. Moreover, tick-borne diseases in the semi-arid areas could become rampant because of higher temperatures. There also a threat that the tsetse fly belt could expand.
Although up to 15% of Uganda's total area is covered by water, its distribution across the country is not even. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will continue to impose adverse effect on both the quantity and quality of water resources. Competition for water, possibly culminating into “water wars” could ensure. Some primitive water-induced wars have been fought in Uganda; indeed the marauding Karamajong warriors could be said to water-inspired – but this could slip into more bloody confrontations as the world has already witnessed in the vast Okavango river Basin of southern Africa, over which Botswana, Namibia and Angola just fell short of trading rockets and bullets. In the extreme scenario for Uganda, we could see the Karamojong warriors escalating their water-oriented raids into the wider Busoga; Teso; and who knows – even into Buganda. Diminishing water volumes in river Nile and Lake Victoria could usher Nile basin states and Lake Victoria basin countries into violent confrontation over water access and use rights.
So given all this evidence; why aren’t we seeing a more concerted strategy to tackle climate change in Uganda? Why does government continue to undermine climate management options? Indeed the recent cabinet decision to degazette Mabira forest reserve is clear testimony to lack of government commitment to climate change abatement. Why is deforestation on the increase, and why has wetland encroachment spiraled unabated? Why haven’t farmers adopted sustainable natural resource utilisation measures? Why are they stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching means of production? Why hasn’t government devised and implemented incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks? For how long shall we wait for government rhetoric on climate change to materialise into concrete commitments? Where is the leadership from civil society, and what have they done to hold the government accountable to its obligations under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)?
The questions could be endless but the answer is one: complacency, intransigence and self-denial within government on one hand, and Ugandans as a whole! There is no shortage of innovations for tackling climate change in Uganda. The National Communication to the conference of parties to the UNFCCC dated October 2002, provides elaborate methodological options to mitigate climate change in Uganda.
When government of Uganda willingly signed the UNFCCC on 13th June 1992, and later ratified it on 8th September 1993, it committed itself to fully participate and contribute to attainment of the convention objectives; namely climate change mitigation. Although more than a decade has passed since government ratified this convention, the country remains on a slippery slope towards a spiral of climatic crises and livelihood losses. The government and the people of Uganda have a choice: to face the challenges of climate now; or remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial – and ultimately suffer the fate of the frog in the clay pot.
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007
18 July 2007
Between a "Rock and Hard Place": Leopards in the Firing Line
Uganda will be joining the “leopard-hunters club,” according to a story carried in The New Vision of 8th June 2007. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) had submitted a proposal to CITIES, seeking authorisation to lift the ban on commercial hunting of leopards in Uganda’s National Parks and Game Reserves. Leopards are some of the endangered species, not only in Uganda but else where in the world. According to UWA, Uganda is thought to have a paltry 2700 leopards – scattered across ten or so protected areas, and living under a constant threat of poaching and habitat conversion. Regrettably, UWA does not have information on leopards’ biological recruitment trends; neither does it know in empirical terms, the impact that hunting stress would have on the leopards’ reproductive behaviour. In essence, UWA’s proposal to lift hunting restrictions on leopards is not backed by any scientific reasoning.
Basic ecological science reveals that stress inhibits biological recruitment. Uganda has already witnessed such responses with the Mountain Gorilla in the south-west of the country. The unresearched proposal to sport-hunt leopards in Uganda’s protected areas tantamount to professional negligence and abuse of public trust on the part of UWA. There is no merit in the assertion that lifting of the ban will enhance community support for conservation no Ugandan will afford to pay the proposed $50,000 for each leopard killed. The “sport” will most likely be a preserve of wealthy foreign tourists. Rather than enhance community support for conservation, legalising leopard hunting might trigger adverse community backlash. It is doubtful whether UWA will repatriate and share revenues accruing from the “sport-hunting” with local communities. While “sport hunters” will no doubt enjoy themselves, local communities will continue experiencing vermin attacks and violent deprivations from protected area resources. At its extreme end, the proposed “sport hunting” of leopards could trigger increased resentment and poaching from the adjacent communities who might take it that after all, government has sold yet again, another natural resource to foreigners.
Not so long ago, the Government of Uganda made a contestable decision to de-gazette and allocate Mabira tropical high forest (Central Uganda) to a private company, which intended to degrade it into a low grade sugar cane plantation. Before the “chickens had come home to roost,” here was UWA, having the audacity to suggest an equally ecologically detestable action. UWA’s sport-hunting proposal is not what Ugandans expected from an institution entrusted to protect and conserve the county’s endangered species. It is tantamount to betrayal of public trust, and reminiscent of a laying chicken, which devours its own eggs! My appeal is that UWA should rescind its absurd proposal.
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007
Basic ecological science reveals that stress inhibits biological recruitment. Uganda has already witnessed such responses with the Mountain Gorilla in the south-west of the country. The unresearched proposal to sport-hunt leopards in Uganda’s protected areas tantamount to professional negligence and abuse of public trust on the part of UWA. There is no merit in the assertion that lifting of the ban will enhance community support for conservation no Ugandan will afford to pay the proposed $50,000 for each leopard killed. The “sport” will most likely be a preserve of wealthy foreign tourists. Rather than enhance community support for conservation, legalising leopard hunting might trigger adverse community backlash. It is doubtful whether UWA will repatriate and share revenues accruing from the “sport-hunting” with local communities. While “sport hunters” will no doubt enjoy themselves, local communities will continue experiencing vermin attacks and violent deprivations from protected area resources. At its extreme end, the proposed “sport hunting” of leopards could trigger increased resentment and poaching from the adjacent communities who might take it that after all, government has sold yet again, another natural resource to foreigners.
Not so long ago, the Government of Uganda made a contestable decision to de-gazette and allocate Mabira tropical high forest (Central Uganda) to a private company, which intended to degrade it into a low grade sugar cane plantation. Before the “chickens had come home to roost,” here was UWA, having the audacity to suggest an equally ecologically detestable action. UWA’s sport-hunting proposal is not what Ugandans expected from an institution entrusted to protect and conserve the county’s endangered species. It is tantamount to betrayal of public trust, and reminiscent of a laying chicken, which devours its own eggs! My appeal is that UWA should rescind its absurd proposal.
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007
17 July 2007
The Last King of Scotland: A Fresh Injury to the Wound
Forest Whitaker may have earned a coveted Oscar award for his role in the movie The Last King of Scotland but he also successfully poked into Uganda’s bleeding wounds of the rotten past which, I would rather we conveniently forgot about. Hollywood’s release: The Last King of Scotland early this year, haas no doubt generated unprecedented excitement around the world. The movie mirrors the monstrous regime and lifestyle of Uganda’s worst dictator Iddi Amin, who ruled or rather misruled Uganda from 1971 until 1979 when Tanzania-backed Ugandan rebel exiles ousted him. While I personally feel the movie is not worth the exhilaration (Rise and Fall of Iddi Amin is better for me), the world doesn’t seem to agree with my perception; and the urge to watch it over and over and over again seems unquenchable! Make no mistake; this is true even in the most unexpected of places.
In Afghanistan (may God bless this battered country) where I have been living for over a year, foreigners don’t have many options for leisure and outdoor recreation owing to insecurity-imposed restrictions. After office in the evenings, they head to their heavily fortified guesthouses (sometimes in armoured cars); its vice versa in the mornings: any detours could be costly for life – so you have to avoid them! While you cannot help growing accustomed to such back and forth movements from Sunday to Thursday, many of us have found solace in movies, reading, and board games as off-duty ways to keeping our brains excited. The aspect of brotherhood and socialistic tendencies are very impressive here: quite often, when somebody buys and gets through with a novel, or VCD or DVD, he/she will let it float and circulate to whoever might be interested. That is how The Last King of Scotland crept into this part of the world and engulfed the community here like a wild bush fire. The heinous plot, characters, setting, and actions portrayed in the movie have dominated dinner-table discussions in the Afghan capital, Kabul, for several months, effectively turning president Iddi Amin, Uganda and Ugandans into icons of brutality and savagery in Africa.
I have to confess I was excited at first, by the extent of discussion about Uganda. In fact, I felt flattered that every body around, including those who didn’t know where Uganda is located on the map, seemed so interested about my country’s history. I became an authority on Uganda, filling in gaps to the story and quickly gained some rather unpalatable social capital by way of being more widely known among the foreign community; albeit for the wrong reasons! To some expatriates, I was the “king’s son” (God forbid). However, as the dinner-table discussions unendingly progressed from hours, to days, to weeks and so on, I grew increasingly uncomfortable. I had to critically reflect on why such a movie, which in my opinion is so ordinary, could so ably capture people’s imagination for all that long. In the quest to find clues, I posed several questions to myself: What do people find so interesting about the savagery and brutality of president Iddi Amin? What was the intention of the movie’s directors? Were the dinner-table discussions on Iddi Amin and Uganda a credit or a liability to the reputation of Ugandans? How does The Last King of Scotland benefit Uganda as a country, and Ugandans as a people?
I was still grappling with these questions when I took some trips to Pakistan, Uzbekistan and United Arab Emirates. Whew, I swear I did not have to bother to explain about my nationality. Whenever I would mention that I come from Uganda in response to some question either from Immigration officials, or taxi drivers, or ordinary curious citizens, they would excitedly yell: “oh, Iddi Amin’s country?” They would quickly assure me how they had enjoyed watching The Last King of Scotland – as if I cared to know. Believe me; I would feel humiliated, outraged and flabbergasted. I asked myself why Uganda as a country and Ugandans as a people must always be known for wrong reasons.
I recall with deep regret, the attention I attracted from immigration officials the first time I landed at Pakistan’s Islamabad International Airport in June 2006. Uganda is included in a short list of countries that Pakistan considers a threat, and despite having all my travel papers in order, my baggage was thoroughly checked repeatedly. The immigration officials made me sign a special Federal Investigations Agency surveillance form indicating which hotel I would be staying in – before they wished me a belated “enjoy your stay in Islamabad!” That was all because that I held a Ugandan passport! Of course, I have since then gone through the same drill every time I pass through any Pakistan airport and naturally gotten used to those annoyances though it’s a constant reminder of how poorly regarded Ugandans are at international level. Can I blame Pakistan authorities for that? No! They are not the ones who made me a national of a rogue state perceived by the world community as dubious, monstrous and scandalous. The officials would only be doing their job – just in case I ended up acting like “Ugandan, proper.”
Therefore with due respect to Hollywood, the directors and actors who participated in the movie, my thesis is that The Last King of Scotland has intensified Uganda’s exposure to global ridicule, contempt and odium. It has inflicted a fresh injury to our bleeding wound, made us a global laughing stock and revived feelings of bitterness amongst local communities against which president Iddi Amin committed atrocities. Accordingly, I can emphatically state that The Last King of Scotland is not only malevolent in its plot, but also its outcome in respect of global perception about Uganda and Ugandans. If I had wings, I would fly to Hollywood; look straight into the eyes of the movie directors and say: “hey guys, Uganda and Ugandans deserve an apology!”
Painfully and regrettably, Forest Whitaker received a VIP reception when he recently visited Uganda. He even successfully lured our president, General Museveni into almost declaring him a national hero, while he described the movie as a landmark success. Iam sure Museveni looked at The Last King of Scotland only from the perspective of justifying his armed struggles against Iddi Amin’s regime. Nevertheless, politics aside, The Last King of Scotland is a huge dent to the country’s image, which Museveni has struggled to build since he grabbed power in 1986. I hope he will realise sooner that The Last King of Scotland is nothing more than a Hollywood money-maker, and doesn’t deserve the applause it has received.
I urge government to be more proactive in dissuading moviemakers from documenting such inflammatory themes. Don’t get me wrong: I have never condoned state censorship on the media or entertainment or anything, but come on, we need to be positive. It does not always have to be Amin, Kony, Aids, election violence, and Global Fund scandals. Ugandans are severely hungry for success stories to turn over a new chapter and boost the esteem of Ugandans living within the country and the diaspora.
The people of Kigezi have a Rukiga proverb, which says “ebyomwirisizo tibitaaha omuuka” (what happens in the grazing area stays there and does not reach home). No doubt, Uganda is rich with rotten history, but there is no point resurrecting it every now and then. We ought to safe guard against awakening ghosts and washing our dirty linen in public! We need healing as a country and as a people; and such healing demands that we forge ahead without looking back!
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007
In Afghanistan (may God bless this battered country) where I have been living for over a year, foreigners don’t have many options for leisure and outdoor recreation owing to insecurity-imposed restrictions. After office in the evenings, they head to their heavily fortified guesthouses (sometimes in armoured cars); its vice versa in the mornings: any detours could be costly for life – so you have to avoid them! While you cannot help growing accustomed to such back and forth movements from Sunday to Thursday, many of us have found solace in movies, reading, and board games as off-duty ways to keeping our brains excited. The aspect of brotherhood and socialistic tendencies are very impressive here: quite often, when somebody buys and gets through with a novel, or VCD or DVD, he/she will let it float and circulate to whoever might be interested. That is how The Last King of Scotland crept into this part of the world and engulfed the community here like a wild bush fire. The heinous plot, characters, setting, and actions portrayed in the movie have dominated dinner-table discussions in the Afghan capital, Kabul, for several months, effectively turning president Iddi Amin, Uganda and Ugandans into icons of brutality and savagery in Africa.
I have to confess I was excited at first, by the extent of discussion about Uganda. In fact, I felt flattered that every body around, including those who didn’t know where Uganda is located on the map, seemed so interested about my country’s history. I became an authority on Uganda, filling in gaps to the story and quickly gained some rather unpalatable social capital by way of being more widely known among the foreign community; albeit for the wrong reasons! To some expatriates, I was the “king’s son” (God forbid). However, as the dinner-table discussions unendingly progressed from hours, to days, to weeks and so on, I grew increasingly uncomfortable. I had to critically reflect on why such a movie, which in my opinion is so ordinary, could so ably capture people’s imagination for all that long. In the quest to find clues, I posed several questions to myself: What do people find so interesting about the savagery and brutality of president Iddi Amin? What was the intention of the movie’s directors? Were the dinner-table discussions on Iddi Amin and Uganda a credit or a liability to the reputation of Ugandans? How does The Last King of Scotland benefit Uganda as a country, and Ugandans as a people?
I was still grappling with these questions when I took some trips to Pakistan, Uzbekistan and United Arab Emirates. Whew, I swear I did not have to bother to explain about my nationality. Whenever I would mention that I come from Uganda in response to some question either from Immigration officials, or taxi drivers, or ordinary curious citizens, they would excitedly yell: “oh, Iddi Amin’s country?” They would quickly assure me how they had enjoyed watching The Last King of Scotland – as if I cared to know. Believe me; I would feel humiliated, outraged and flabbergasted. I asked myself why Uganda as a country and Ugandans as a people must always be known for wrong reasons.
I recall with deep regret, the attention I attracted from immigration officials the first time I landed at Pakistan’s Islamabad International Airport in June 2006. Uganda is included in a short list of countries that Pakistan considers a threat, and despite having all my travel papers in order, my baggage was thoroughly checked repeatedly. The immigration officials made me sign a special Federal Investigations Agency surveillance form indicating which hotel I would be staying in – before they wished me a belated “enjoy your stay in Islamabad!” That was all because that I held a Ugandan passport! Of course, I have since then gone through the same drill every time I pass through any Pakistan airport and naturally gotten used to those annoyances though it’s a constant reminder of how poorly regarded Ugandans are at international level. Can I blame Pakistan authorities for that? No! They are not the ones who made me a national of a rogue state perceived by the world community as dubious, monstrous and scandalous. The officials would only be doing their job – just in case I ended up acting like “Ugandan, proper.”
Therefore with due respect to Hollywood, the directors and actors who participated in the movie, my thesis is that The Last King of Scotland has intensified Uganda’s exposure to global ridicule, contempt and odium. It has inflicted a fresh injury to our bleeding wound, made us a global laughing stock and revived feelings of bitterness amongst local communities against which president Iddi Amin committed atrocities. Accordingly, I can emphatically state that The Last King of Scotland is not only malevolent in its plot, but also its outcome in respect of global perception about Uganda and Ugandans. If I had wings, I would fly to Hollywood; look straight into the eyes of the movie directors and say: “hey guys, Uganda and Ugandans deserve an apology!”
Painfully and regrettably, Forest Whitaker received a VIP reception when he recently visited Uganda. He even successfully lured our president, General Museveni into almost declaring him a national hero, while he described the movie as a landmark success. Iam sure Museveni looked at The Last King of Scotland only from the perspective of justifying his armed struggles against Iddi Amin’s regime. Nevertheless, politics aside, The Last King of Scotland is a huge dent to the country’s image, which Museveni has struggled to build since he grabbed power in 1986. I hope he will realise sooner that The Last King of Scotland is nothing more than a Hollywood money-maker, and doesn’t deserve the applause it has received.
I urge government to be more proactive in dissuading moviemakers from documenting such inflammatory themes. Don’t get me wrong: I have never condoned state censorship on the media or entertainment or anything, but come on, we need to be positive. It does not always have to be Amin, Kony, Aids, election violence, and Global Fund scandals. Ugandans are severely hungry for success stories to turn over a new chapter and boost the esteem of Ugandans living within the country and the diaspora.
The people of Kigezi have a Rukiga proverb, which says “ebyomwirisizo tibitaaha omuuka” (what happens in the grazing area stays there and does not reach home). No doubt, Uganda is rich with rotten history, but there is no point resurrecting it every now and then. We ought to safe guard against awakening ghosts and washing our dirty linen in public! We need healing as a country and as a people; and such healing demands that we forge ahead without looking back!
Denis Mutabazi
July 2007