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
No comments:
Post a Comment