Socially, economically, and politically marginalised; the Benet (also known as Ndorobos) are without doubt one of the most miserable communities in Uganda! They comprise a cluster of Sabinys who have lived in and around Mt Elgon forest for more than two centuries, initially as hunters and gatherers but later on as sedentary pastoralists and small-scale farmers without land tenure rights.
In 1938, much of the Mt Elgon forest landscape in which Ndorobos lived was gazetted a forest reserve by the British colonial government implying the area would be managed primarily for protection of its water catchment values and timber exploitation. The colonialists did recognise however, the importance of the forest to the Ndorobo and so decided to leave them behind the demarcated forest boundary; inside the gazetted area.
In fact, the name Benet, which means "people who were left behind" in Kup Sabiny attests to this colonial goodwill. By-and-large, successive post-independence governments maintained the status quo, leaving Ndorobos to live and survive on Mt Elgon forest resources until 1983, when a decision was made by the then UPC Government to degazette and resettle them on 6000ha of reserve.
By that time, the increased Ndorobo population was impacting negatively on the forest reserve resources and their presence inside the forest reserve was legitimising and catalysing illegal encroachment from forest criminals and other non indigenous communities.
Contrary to government intentions, much of the 6000ha land was grabbed by, and benefited voracious power brokers at the expense of the voiceless, the powerless, and the impoverished Ndorobos. Prominent local politicians and businessmen parcelled out big chunks of land for themselves and their relatives. Even forest rangers who were on the land allocation became illegitimate beneficiaries.
To the Ndorobos, this was a double tragedy; a cruel unfolding of the biblical philosophy according to Mark 4:25: "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." They had been excised from their ancestral home with a compensatory promise of alternative land but by an ugly turn of fate, what was meant to be a gesture of goodwill from government was abused by officials of the same government! And because all illegitimate beneficiaries comprised of power brokers; the Ndorobos owing to their powerlessness had nowhere to turn for redress.
To survive, Ndorobos have since lived the life of an outlaw; playing a deadly game of “hide and seek” with heavily-armed Mt. Elgon rangers in an attempt to access the only livelihood means available to them: forest resources. This game has been even more ferocious since 1993, when Mt. Elgon forest reserve was elevated to a National Park status. For instance early this year in February, 4,000 Ndorobos living in Mt. Elgon National Park were violently evicted by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) rangers and the UPDF. People lost their lives while property worth millions of shillings was destroyed during the operation.
Yet amid all this animosity, conflict, and abuse of power; there is still a sense of goodwill from government. UWA for example, has consciously attempted to taper their fall out with Ndorobos through collaborative forest management; an initiative which empowers local communities to legally access their preferred forest resources in accordance with terms mutually agreed upon and laid out in a forest resource use agreement. In recent past, government has de-gazetted additional chunks of Park land to resettle Ndorobos - although a lack of fairness in land distribution is still apparent in much the same way as in 1980s (see “Mt. Elgon squatters petition IGG over land, The New vision, October 6, 2008).
Thus, while there has not been shortage of government goodwill to address the Ndorobo question, their tragedy remains unrelenting because a complementary political goodwill to bring corrupt power brokers to account has been glaringly lacking. And until government wakes to this deficiency, Ndorobos will remain mere pawns on the chess board; baits for local politicians and businessmen who seek personal economic aggrandizement from National Park land.
30 October 2008
10 September 2008
Lack of government regulation fans cults in Uganda
Mr. Robert Kalumba gave an excellent account of the scourge of cults which has gripped Uganda over the last two decades (see “Uganda now hit by an influx of cults”, Sunday Monitor, September 7, 2008). His article exposes the vulnerability of Ugandans to cultists, and the attendant government failure to safeguard its citizens.
The NRM regime soon after coming to power restored religious freedoms which past governments had constricted. Ugandans may recall that in the 1970s, President Amin banned all religious groupings apart from the mainstream three: Catholics, Anglican and Muslim. Even then, Anglicans and Catholics felt and were treated like second class citizens under Amin’s administration. In the early 1980s, Catholics and Muslims were marginalised by Anglicans following the defeat of Catholic-dominated DP by the Anglican-dominated UPC in the 1980 presidential election.
The 1995 Constitution guaranteed freedom to believe in, practice, and promote religion of one’s choice without interference, harassment, or other repercussions. Since the 1990s, religious demagogues preaching “the glory of God” have mushroomed, curving out new congregations from the Anglican, Catholic and Muslim denominations. But this growth draws less from the generosity of the 1995 constitution than it does from the increasing hopelessness of a people firmly gripped by suffering, poverty, ignorance and despair.
The word of God is a fountain of hope for the goodness of life here-after. To the dejected, it is the ultimate consolation; a motivation to walk through to the “promised land”. Uganda is a country where hope of a decent life for most citizens seems more like a dream that never will be. It is a country where HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases have traumatised millions; and hundreds of thousands of hungry women, children and the elderly sleep before dark because they can’t afford even the most primitive indoor lighting.
For such people, it is easy for religious demagogues to hide behind the message of hope, salvation and the glory of life here-after to advance an agenda whose real motive is not to secure their spiritual deliverance from sins, but to extort even the little they own – including their life through psychological blackmail!
On March 17, 2000, government was caught off-guard when an estimated 1000 religious cultists (including more than 100 children) were cremated alive at Kanungu by Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere of the “Movement for Restoration of Ten Commandments of God.” For more than 20 years, he had openly preached about “the coming of the Virgin Mary to carry her people to heaven” at the turn of the new millennium. To prepare for the “journey to eternity”, he requested his followers to sell all their possessions and bring proceeds to the church.
Neither did government anticipate the birth of the Holy Spirit Movement founded on the teachings of ''prophetess'' Alice Lakwena with a mission to “restore Ugandans on the road to faith” The Holy Spirit Movement evolved into fully-fledged rebel movements whose followers launched suicide attacks in the belief that magic oils spread over their bodies would make them immune to government bullets.
Dosteo Bisaka’s cult---“Abaikiriza” (Faith of Unity and Oneness) is certainly a time-bomb that is bound to explode. But there are other unexploded cultist ordinances too which government is aware about. For instance “Prophet” Samuel Kakande of the Synagogue Church claims the ability to heal and devotes weekly meetings to “delivering people from their physical ailments”. Every Sunday, he dishes out this “holy water” with “miraculous powers” to distressed Ugandans seeking deliverance from their woes. The “prophet” allegedly draws his inspiration from another West African “prophet” John Obiri Yeboah.
With government knowledge, many local pastors have taken advantage of Malachi 3:10: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house” to extort property and money from their impoverished flock.
While government has always reiterated its commitment to protecting Ugandans from religious sharks, it has not done much. Yes, it quashed, the 19-year-old “prophetess” Mbasa Gwajwa who in November 1999, was claiming to have died in 1996
before being sent back to earth by God on a mission to preach repentance to
her people prior to the turn of the millennium. It has arrested some religious leaders on charges of sexual harassment, witchcraft, abduction and theft. But lack of comprehensive government regulation leaves Ugandans exposed to cultists.
The NRM regime soon after coming to power restored religious freedoms which past governments had constricted. Ugandans may recall that in the 1970s, President Amin banned all religious groupings apart from the mainstream three: Catholics, Anglican and Muslim. Even then, Anglicans and Catholics felt and were treated like second class citizens under Amin’s administration. In the early 1980s, Catholics and Muslims were marginalised by Anglicans following the defeat of Catholic-dominated DP by the Anglican-dominated UPC in the 1980 presidential election.
The 1995 Constitution guaranteed freedom to believe in, practice, and promote religion of one’s choice without interference, harassment, or other repercussions. Since the 1990s, religious demagogues preaching “the glory of God” have mushroomed, curving out new congregations from the Anglican, Catholic and Muslim denominations. But this growth draws less from the generosity of the 1995 constitution than it does from the increasing hopelessness of a people firmly gripped by suffering, poverty, ignorance and despair.
The word of God is a fountain of hope for the goodness of life here-after. To the dejected, it is the ultimate consolation; a motivation to walk through to the “promised land”. Uganda is a country where hope of a decent life for most citizens seems more like a dream that never will be. It is a country where HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases have traumatised millions; and hundreds of thousands of hungry women, children and the elderly sleep before dark because they can’t afford even the most primitive indoor lighting.
For such people, it is easy for religious demagogues to hide behind the message of hope, salvation and the glory of life here-after to advance an agenda whose real motive is not to secure their spiritual deliverance from sins, but to extort even the little they own – including their life through psychological blackmail!
On March 17, 2000, government was caught off-guard when an estimated 1000 religious cultists (including more than 100 children) were cremated alive at Kanungu by Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere of the “Movement for Restoration of Ten Commandments of God.” For more than 20 years, he had openly preached about “the coming of the Virgin Mary to carry her people to heaven” at the turn of the new millennium. To prepare for the “journey to eternity”, he requested his followers to sell all their possessions and bring proceeds to the church.
Neither did government anticipate the birth of the Holy Spirit Movement founded on the teachings of ''prophetess'' Alice Lakwena with a mission to “restore Ugandans on the road to faith” The Holy Spirit Movement evolved into fully-fledged rebel movements whose followers launched suicide attacks in the belief that magic oils spread over their bodies would make them immune to government bullets.
Dosteo Bisaka’s cult---“Abaikiriza” (Faith of Unity and Oneness) is certainly a time-bomb that is bound to explode. But there are other unexploded cultist ordinances too which government is aware about. For instance “Prophet” Samuel Kakande of the Synagogue Church claims the ability to heal and devotes weekly meetings to “delivering people from their physical ailments”. Every Sunday, he dishes out this “holy water” with “miraculous powers” to distressed Ugandans seeking deliverance from their woes. The “prophet” allegedly draws his inspiration from another West African “prophet” John Obiri Yeboah.
With government knowledge, many local pastors have taken advantage of Malachi 3:10: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house” to extort property and money from their impoverished flock.
While government has always reiterated its commitment to protecting Ugandans from religious sharks, it has not done much. Yes, it quashed, the 19-year-old “prophetess” Mbasa Gwajwa who in November 1999, was claiming to have died in 1996
before being sent back to earth by God on a mission to preach repentance to
her people prior to the turn of the millennium. It has arrested some religious leaders on charges of sexual harassment, witchcraft, abduction and theft. But lack of comprehensive government regulation leaves Ugandans exposed to cultists.
27 August 2008
Fred Mukisa’s notion of Fisheries Governance is Archaic
Fred Mukisa, the Fisheries State Minister has allowed his frustration over chronic under-funding to fisheries sub-sector to impair his objectivity and perception as to how fisheries resources should be managed. Mr. Mukisa is irritated, and rightly so, by a paltry 2bn shilling fisheries budget despite the sub-sector being the second highest income source to the Government. Apparently, he seems to believe that unleashing a tighter central control over fishing licences and other potential money-making ventures will make up for his financial deficits. How absurd!
In his own article “fisheries sector needs vigilantes” (New Vision, August 25, 2008), Fred Mukisa enumerated bizarre measures aimed at re-centralising fisheries management and purging fisheries managers and technical staff whom he accused of “hiding in technicalities to frustrate government.” He threatened to disband local Beach Management Committees because of their alleged collusion in illegal fisheries exploitation and revenue leakages.
Surprisingly, Fred Mukisa is part of the same Government which in May 2004 endorsed the National Fisheries Policy whose strategic objective among others is to deepen decentralisation and community involvement in fisheries management. The policy clearly articulates roles and mandates for different stakeholders (Central Government, Local Governments, private sector, NGOs/CBOs and local communities). By pushing through his bizarre package of fisheries re-centralisation, Fred Mukisa is therefore acting like a chicken which eats her own egg after laying it!
It should be noted that the spirit of decentralised fisheries management as espoused in the 2004 Fisheries Policy was borne out of the sheer failure of the centre to manage fisheries resources as livelihood assets for the rural poor. Decades of central control over fisheries resources which Mukisa is seeking to reintroduce ignominiously failed to arrest fisheries resource degradation. It failed to address spiralling poverty, social inequality and economic marginalisation among the Barias and other local communities directly dependant on fisheries resources. Landing sites at lake fisheries used to be a haven for idlers and petty criminals. The essence of fostering government and local-level partnerships through decentralised fisheries management was therefore to let fishery folks decide how fishery resources would be managed to catalyse local development.
There is not doubt that illegal gears, unregulated fishing, and illicit trade in immature fish are still prominent issues to deal with. However, the solution to overcoming those vices is to strengthen decentralisation through local institutional capacity building. For instance local beach management committees, landing site committees, and other community institutions have not yet flexed their influence over fisheries resource management because they lack skills to do their job.
Government – whether for lack of resources or poor planning – has not provided the required training to make local fisheries institutions effective. Quite often, involvement of NGOs in sustainable fisheries management is not properly coordinated and has consequently remained disjointed and ineffectual. The private sector role remains largely egocentric with little or no provision for corporate social responsibility and fisheries conservation.
Even the fisheries managers and technical staff whom the State Minister is accusing of sabotaging government and failing in their duties are not adequately facilitated with the tools they need to do the job. This notwithstanding, the State Minister is prepared to unleash “a more aggressive (centralised) monitoring, control, and surveillance programme” by invoking the Department of Marine Police to take a lead. One wonders whether this Marine Police department has the capacity to patrol every inch of Uganda’s fishery resource – where Beach Management Committees, Local Governments and other local institutions have allegedly failed to patrol! I wonder why Fred Mukisa can not realise that General Kale Kayihura already has enough problems of “illegal” political rallies, escalating violent crime, etc to deal with!
Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex (UK) once wrote that devolution of power and responsibility is fundamentally a painful process of change; painful because those in power do not want to let go! Fred Mukisa might be writhing with pain and hangover of the former central control. However, there is no doubt in my mind that his proposal to recentralise fisheries management is archaic and should be rescinded.
Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/business/Our_fishing_will_not_get_any_better_with_tighter_controls_70719.shtml
In his own article “fisheries sector needs vigilantes” (New Vision, August 25, 2008), Fred Mukisa enumerated bizarre measures aimed at re-centralising fisheries management and purging fisheries managers and technical staff whom he accused of “hiding in technicalities to frustrate government.” He threatened to disband local Beach Management Committees because of their alleged collusion in illegal fisheries exploitation and revenue leakages.
Surprisingly, Fred Mukisa is part of the same Government which in May 2004 endorsed the National Fisheries Policy whose strategic objective among others is to deepen decentralisation and community involvement in fisheries management. The policy clearly articulates roles and mandates for different stakeholders (Central Government, Local Governments, private sector, NGOs/CBOs and local communities). By pushing through his bizarre package of fisheries re-centralisation, Fred Mukisa is therefore acting like a chicken which eats her own egg after laying it!
It should be noted that the spirit of decentralised fisheries management as espoused in the 2004 Fisheries Policy was borne out of the sheer failure of the centre to manage fisheries resources as livelihood assets for the rural poor. Decades of central control over fisheries resources which Mukisa is seeking to reintroduce ignominiously failed to arrest fisheries resource degradation. It failed to address spiralling poverty, social inequality and economic marginalisation among the Barias and other local communities directly dependant on fisheries resources. Landing sites at lake fisheries used to be a haven for idlers and petty criminals. The essence of fostering government and local-level partnerships through decentralised fisheries management was therefore to let fishery folks decide how fishery resources would be managed to catalyse local development.
There is not doubt that illegal gears, unregulated fishing, and illicit trade in immature fish are still prominent issues to deal with. However, the solution to overcoming those vices is to strengthen decentralisation through local institutional capacity building. For instance local beach management committees, landing site committees, and other community institutions have not yet flexed their influence over fisheries resource management because they lack skills to do their job.
Government – whether for lack of resources or poor planning – has not provided the required training to make local fisheries institutions effective. Quite often, involvement of NGOs in sustainable fisheries management is not properly coordinated and has consequently remained disjointed and ineffectual. The private sector role remains largely egocentric with little or no provision for corporate social responsibility and fisheries conservation.
Even the fisheries managers and technical staff whom the State Minister is accusing of sabotaging government and failing in their duties are not adequately facilitated with the tools they need to do the job. This notwithstanding, the State Minister is prepared to unleash “a more aggressive (centralised) monitoring, control, and surveillance programme” by invoking the Department of Marine Police to take a lead. One wonders whether this Marine Police department has the capacity to patrol every inch of Uganda’s fishery resource – where Beach Management Committees, Local Governments and other local institutions have allegedly failed to patrol! I wonder why Fred Mukisa can not realise that General Kale Kayihura already has enough problems of “illegal” political rallies, escalating violent crime, etc to deal with!
Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex (UK) once wrote that devolution of power and responsibility is fundamentally a painful process of change; painful because those in power do not want to let go! Fred Mukisa might be writhing with pain and hangover of the former central control. However, there is no doubt in my mind that his proposal to recentralise fisheries management is archaic and should be rescinded.
Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/business/Our_fishing_will_not_get_any_better_with_tighter_controls_70719.shtml
5 June 2008
Who Benefits from Cycad Plants at Mpaga Falls?
Achilles Byarunga’s article entitled “Mpanga George: Uganda’s ecological gem is going” (New Vision, Thursday, May 22 2008) is one of those that conforms to what is increasingly known as environmental romanticism. No doubt, Achilles raises sound environmental issues but he unfortunately fails to align them with the economic realities of the day.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which he bases on to rubbish the proposed development of the 18 mega watt hydro electricity facility at Mpanga falls by South Asia Energy Management Systems, does not give biodiversity precedence over development. It stipulates a strategic balance between conservation and development; a win-win scenario in which none (conservation or development) excludes the other. However, such a win-win scenario is more often than not, a contemplative goal that is untenable – especially in an impoverished country such as Uganda where the underlying impetus is fighting poverty!
Before making an argument for conserving the cycad plants for their tourist value, Achilles should have quantified in economic terms, how much benefit the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities have obtained from cycad tourism. He should also have first quantified the economic benefit of 18 Mega Watts to determine whether its “paltry” (to borrow his word) compared with the tourism value of cycads.
The question of “who benefits from the cycad plants?” is pertinent in this argument. Achilles indeed mentions that “the first alert to the destruction of cycad was made by tourists…” and that “…now there is a big alarm allover the world about the survival of (what he termed) the Ugandan dinosaur.” He surprisingly does not mention if there are any concerns from the local population with regard to cycad destruction. On the contrary, he points out that “local community activities are a threat to the cycads.” Must Ugandans maintain “amusement parks” for foreign tourists at the expense of our indigenous community needs? It is not a reality that revenues from those concerned tourists are appropriated by UWA away from Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities, and that therefore that’s why UWA is opposed to the power scheme?
Whether the cycad plants at Mpanga are more than 200-300 years old or not is irreverent to the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities who have not significantly benefited from their existence for all that time. On the other hand, the generation of 18 mega watts of power from that site stands to be a historic change to a whole generation of indigenous communities that have always been living in darkness; or indeed to the rest of the Ugandan population that has been bracing abominable power cuts and load-shedding for many years.
Achilles’ argument about the massive ecological damage arising from roads and other infrastructural investments within the “tourist spinner” landscape should be backed by guidance on alternatives (for roads, clean water, hydro power, etc). It actually reminds me of a similar rhetoric made recently by another senior environmentalist (Mr. Ofuna Adula of Makerere University) that Owen falls dam should be decommissioned because it has outlived its purpose. What then would happen to millions of Ugandans, Kenyans and Rwandans who depend on Owen falls dam for their electricity needs?
My view is that as environmentalists, we are not helping government at all! Rather than criticize government for every development endeavour, I would rather environmentalists thought beyond the typical “non-use” mentality, and set about advising government to tame nature; to use it as an asset for enhancing people’s livelihoods. We need to be part of the solution rather than romanticists; pace setters rather than obscurantists.
The stark truth is that conservation is meaningless if it relegates people’s development opportunities. Cycad plants may have tourist and other ecological values but this will remain meaningless unless it benefits the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities. We have to accept that.
While I rarely agree with NEMA, Iam inclined to concur that lets have an electricity generation dam at Mpaga falls and identity entry points for mitigating the inevitable ecological alterations – such as the recommended on-farm planting of cycad plants. Achilles calls 18 Mega Watts “paltry,” but the Bakiga have a saying that “otuura okuzimu tagaya mushana” (one who has lived in darkness does not complain about dim light). In truth, 18 mega watts will be a valuable addition to the national electricity grid.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which he bases on to rubbish the proposed development of the 18 mega watt hydro electricity facility at Mpanga falls by South Asia Energy Management Systems, does not give biodiversity precedence over development. It stipulates a strategic balance between conservation and development; a win-win scenario in which none (conservation or development) excludes the other. However, such a win-win scenario is more often than not, a contemplative goal that is untenable – especially in an impoverished country such as Uganda where the underlying impetus is fighting poverty!
Before making an argument for conserving the cycad plants for their tourist value, Achilles should have quantified in economic terms, how much benefit the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities have obtained from cycad tourism. He should also have first quantified the economic benefit of 18 Mega Watts to determine whether its “paltry” (to borrow his word) compared with the tourism value of cycads.
The question of “who benefits from the cycad plants?” is pertinent in this argument. Achilles indeed mentions that “the first alert to the destruction of cycad was made by tourists…” and that “…now there is a big alarm allover the world about the survival of (what he termed) the Ugandan dinosaur.” He surprisingly does not mention if there are any concerns from the local population with regard to cycad destruction. On the contrary, he points out that “local community activities are a threat to the cycads.” Must Ugandans maintain “amusement parks” for foreign tourists at the expense of our indigenous community needs? It is not a reality that revenues from those concerned tourists are appropriated by UWA away from Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities, and that therefore that’s why UWA is opposed to the power scheme?
Whether the cycad plants at Mpanga are more than 200-300 years old or not is irreverent to the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities who have not significantly benefited from their existence for all that time. On the other hand, the generation of 18 mega watts of power from that site stands to be a historic change to a whole generation of indigenous communities that have always been living in darkness; or indeed to the rest of the Ugandan population that has been bracing abominable power cuts and load-shedding for many years.
Achilles’ argument about the massive ecological damage arising from roads and other infrastructural investments within the “tourist spinner” landscape should be backed by guidance on alternatives (for roads, clean water, hydro power, etc). It actually reminds me of a similar rhetoric made recently by another senior environmentalist (Mr. Ofuna Adula of Makerere University) that Owen falls dam should be decommissioned because it has outlived its purpose. What then would happen to millions of Ugandans, Kenyans and Rwandans who depend on Owen falls dam for their electricity needs?
My view is that as environmentalists, we are not helping government at all! Rather than criticize government for every development endeavour, I would rather environmentalists thought beyond the typical “non-use” mentality, and set about advising government to tame nature; to use it as an asset for enhancing people’s livelihoods. We need to be part of the solution rather than romanticists; pace setters rather than obscurantists.
The stark truth is that conservation is meaningless if it relegates people’s development opportunities. Cycad plants may have tourist and other ecological values but this will remain meaningless unless it benefits the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities. We have to accept that.
While I rarely agree with NEMA, Iam inclined to concur that lets have an electricity generation dam at Mpaga falls and identity entry points for mitigating the inevitable ecological alterations – such as the recommended on-farm planting of cycad plants. Achilles calls 18 Mega Watts “paltry,” but the Bakiga have a saying that “otuura okuzimu tagaya mushana” (one who has lived in darkness does not complain about dim light). In truth, 18 mega watts will be a valuable addition to the national electricity grid.
Where is the 30 Million-plus Ugandans?
Uganda is nation well-known for “creative” reporting. Creative in a sense that official statistics rather than depicting correct scenarios, often serve to meet egoistic (for individuals), or “revolutionary” motives (for government). That’s why senior army officers have been implicated in ghost soldier scandals, which despite imposing an enormous cost on human life and the national economy, have benefited commanding officers at a colossal scale. Most Ugandans must have heard that government failed to defeat the insurgency in the north because there simply weren’t enough fighting forces on ground. Some commanders in charge had among other things inflated the number of officers and men under their charge to make a financial kill.
The extent of these ghost soldier scandals first came into public domain when it was revealed that out-numbered UPDF soldiers guarding 20,000 capacity camps for IDPs in the North were running away without a fight, upon the advance of LRA rebels. Poor souls, those soldiers would always be court-marshaled and convicted for cowardice!
With regard to education, ghost enrollments have been discovered in Universal Primary Education (UPE) Schools. The reported population of the first generation of UPE products could have been inflated by up to 75%, although government preferred to attribute the difference to drop-outs along the P1 – P7 continuum. For obvious reasons, District Local Governments maintain ghost workers on their pay-roll until some “nosy” characters find out.
Even the HIV/AIDS prevalence statistics seem to have magically dropped, from 30% in the early 1990s to about 6% to date. On the other hand, the national economic growth rate that has averaged more than 6% over much of the 20 years of NRM rule is too good for a country whose 75% of its population in some regions (e.g the north) lives under abject poverty!
Several public procurements have been inflated (such as the junk helicopter saga) while others have involved fictitious deals, otherwise known as “air” purchases. In fact, “creative reporting has been so ably institutionalized that some local artists have composed hit songs, such as the “Kiwani” fame.
But of all the controversies relating to official statistics, none catches my imagination like the national population size which is currently projected at 30 million-plus. Who ever has traveled widely around the country will testify that it’s all bush and abyss around the country side. Except the Kigezi, Rwenzori, and some parts of Mt. Elgon highlands, it’s evident that there are scanty human populations in much of the country side – except in townships. Where is that 30 million-plus Ugandans living?
This quandary is augmented by statistics from religious houses: if you visited the Province of the Church of Uganda at Namirembe, you would be informed that there are about 7.5 million protestant Christians in Uganda. Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala would easily confirm that he has nearly 9 million Catholics in his flock. There are also 2 million Pentecostals, roughly 2-3 million Moslems, and not more than 0.5 million Pagans. That would constitute roughly 21-22 million Ugandans. How then, do we account for the remaining 8-9 million-plus people? They all can not possibly be living in the diaspora!
For a country which depends on census information to allocate resources, it would not be strange for Local Governments to inflate the number of their residents – much in the same way that army commanders inflate the number of officers and men under their charge. Iam actually aware of some Local Government (Rwamucucu Sub County, Kabale district) which attempted to have their 2001 population figures revised upwards by UBOS because the figures were lower than what local leaders had expected.
On the other hand, it is possible that the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) – the body charged with collecting, analyzing and relaying statistics on various parameters, including human population, “creatively” projects figures based on fictitious population growth rates to give us junk population statistics.
I do not know whether UBOS is subject to any quality assurance oversight, but the country would do better with an independent audit of census statistics, and indeed all other information that UBOS has released. Until there is such audit, I will remain reluctant to believe that there are actually 30 million-plus of us, living in Uganda!
The extent of these ghost soldier scandals first came into public domain when it was revealed that out-numbered UPDF soldiers guarding 20,000 capacity camps for IDPs in the North were running away without a fight, upon the advance of LRA rebels. Poor souls, those soldiers would always be court-marshaled and convicted for cowardice!
With regard to education, ghost enrollments have been discovered in Universal Primary Education (UPE) Schools. The reported population of the first generation of UPE products could have been inflated by up to 75%, although government preferred to attribute the difference to drop-outs along the P1 – P7 continuum. For obvious reasons, District Local Governments maintain ghost workers on their pay-roll until some “nosy” characters find out.
Even the HIV/AIDS prevalence statistics seem to have magically dropped, from 30% in the early 1990s to about 6% to date. On the other hand, the national economic growth rate that has averaged more than 6% over much of the 20 years of NRM rule is too good for a country whose 75% of its population in some regions (e.g the north) lives under abject poverty!
Several public procurements have been inflated (such as the junk helicopter saga) while others have involved fictitious deals, otherwise known as “air” purchases. In fact, “creative reporting has been so ably institutionalized that some local artists have composed hit songs, such as the “Kiwani” fame.
But of all the controversies relating to official statistics, none catches my imagination like the national population size which is currently projected at 30 million-plus. Who ever has traveled widely around the country will testify that it’s all bush and abyss around the country side. Except the Kigezi, Rwenzori, and some parts of Mt. Elgon highlands, it’s evident that there are scanty human populations in much of the country side – except in townships. Where is that 30 million-plus Ugandans living?
This quandary is augmented by statistics from religious houses: if you visited the Province of the Church of Uganda at Namirembe, you would be informed that there are about 7.5 million protestant Christians in Uganda. Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala would easily confirm that he has nearly 9 million Catholics in his flock. There are also 2 million Pentecostals, roughly 2-3 million Moslems, and not more than 0.5 million Pagans. That would constitute roughly 21-22 million Ugandans. How then, do we account for the remaining 8-9 million-plus people? They all can not possibly be living in the diaspora!
For a country which depends on census information to allocate resources, it would not be strange for Local Governments to inflate the number of their residents – much in the same way that army commanders inflate the number of officers and men under their charge. Iam actually aware of some Local Government (Rwamucucu Sub County, Kabale district) which attempted to have their 2001 population figures revised upwards by UBOS because the figures were lower than what local leaders had expected.
On the other hand, it is possible that the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) – the body charged with collecting, analyzing and relaying statistics on various parameters, including human population, “creatively” projects figures based on fictitious population growth rates to give us junk population statistics.
I do not know whether UBOS is subject to any quality assurance oversight, but the country would do better with an independent audit of census statistics, and indeed all other information that UBOS has released. Until there is such audit, I will remain reluctant to believe that there are actually 30 million-plus of us, living in Uganda!
20 May 2008
“Bona Bagagawale” is a Miscarriage of Progress
The recent launch of Bona Bagagawale (prosperity for all) programme and the glamorous publicity it has attracted in the local media following the President’ mobilisational tour around the country has raised a storm of false expectation. Utterly false, because it is inconceivable how a paltry target of only 30 “model farmers” per Sub County will transform agriculture; a way of life for nearly 90% of Uganda’s human population.
Ugandans may recall with embarrassment, how Government realized too late, that it could not proceed with the envisaged Bona Bagagawale because it hadn’t thought through how is would be implemented. Indeed, it was a subject of speculation for a while that Bona Bagagawale would dish money to farmers through SACCOs. This however hit a snag after realizing that there was no legislation to regulate the operations of SACCOs.
To massage the embarrassment and with public patience running out, Government has opted to restructure NAADS and use it as a conduit for dispersing Bona Bagagawale funds – albeit through a procedurally, ethically, and technically bizarre process: targeting 30 “model farmers” in every sub county! I want to put it to government that the proposed “model farmer” scheme will achieve nothing beyond catalyzing rural inequality, social discord, and economic marginalization.
There is obviously the question of how the 30 farmers will be selected and how this approach will interface with farmer groups that have been receiving support under the NAADS. Over the last seven years, millions of rural farmers have organized themselves into legal entity groups – dully registered with, and recognized by Local Governments. These farmer institutions have served as a forum for collective action (planning, production, marketing, and others) and have been providing matching funds for agricultural extension and other rural development programmes. Unless the 30 members are selected from same farmers group (which I doubt that it will be the case), rest assured that the approach will trigger farmer individualism instead of collectivism; farmer conflict rather than collaboration; resentment and destructive sabotage in place of mutual support.
In essence, the “model farmer” approach will spell absolute doom for rural farmer institutions which NAADS has progressively empowered over the last seven years! It will be a villainous finale to the cooperative movement which Government has attempted to suffocate beginning in the late 1980s; a regrettable miscarriage of progress that has made with farmer institutional building in Uganda!
It is disturbing that it is NAADS itself, though understandably under undue political pressure from Government, which will undermine and short-circuit its own farmer institutional models by promoting an obnoxious “model farmer” approach. It has been coerced into abdicating its well-thought out principles in favour of a cosmetic, highly risky development paradigm. Iam actually surprised that none of the NAADS managers whom I regard very highly, have resigned given all these policy swings. Is there greater pain than seeing a distressed mother forced to slay and burry her own child alive?
Moreover, Government’s abhorrence of all modes of farmer sensitization will stifle opportunities for strengthening entrepreneurship among the farming community, implying that Bona Bagagawale investments could go down the drain before catalyzing sustainable businesses. Judging from the entadikwa experience, and since its “business as usual”, chances are “model” farmers will go on a “free holiday”- courtesy of the generosity of NRM regime.
The impeding Bona Bagagawale fiasco, on top of other previous high profile embarrassing Government failures (entandikwa, Global Fund, etc) questions the appropriateness of budget support or basket-funding regimes through which development partners allow government full discretion to allocate resources as it feels. It has indeed become abundantly clear that government may not yet be ready to make the right investment decisions and that therefore a return to project mode donor financing would be a better option for Uganda.
With a heavily compromised parliament incapable of checking the excesses of an errant Government; a debt burden per capita that is soaring every year without tangible returns, and a President who has intensified his nationwide mobilization for a doomed Bona Bagagawale programme, Ugandans and their posterity should brace for the worst!
Ugandans may recall with embarrassment, how Government realized too late, that it could not proceed with the envisaged Bona Bagagawale because it hadn’t thought through how is would be implemented. Indeed, it was a subject of speculation for a while that Bona Bagagawale would dish money to farmers through SACCOs. This however hit a snag after realizing that there was no legislation to regulate the operations of SACCOs.
To massage the embarrassment and with public patience running out, Government has opted to restructure NAADS and use it as a conduit for dispersing Bona Bagagawale funds – albeit through a procedurally, ethically, and technically bizarre process: targeting 30 “model farmers” in every sub county! I want to put it to government that the proposed “model farmer” scheme will achieve nothing beyond catalyzing rural inequality, social discord, and economic marginalization.
There is obviously the question of how the 30 farmers will be selected and how this approach will interface with farmer groups that have been receiving support under the NAADS. Over the last seven years, millions of rural farmers have organized themselves into legal entity groups – dully registered with, and recognized by Local Governments. These farmer institutions have served as a forum for collective action (planning, production, marketing, and others) and have been providing matching funds for agricultural extension and other rural development programmes. Unless the 30 members are selected from same farmers group (which I doubt that it will be the case), rest assured that the approach will trigger farmer individualism instead of collectivism; farmer conflict rather than collaboration; resentment and destructive sabotage in place of mutual support.
In essence, the “model farmer” approach will spell absolute doom for rural farmer institutions which NAADS has progressively empowered over the last seven years! It will be a villainous finale to the cooperative movement which Government has attempted to suffocate beginning in the late 1980s; a regrettable miscarriage of progress that has made with farmer institutional building in Uganda!
It is disturbing that it is NAADS itself, though understandably under undue political pressure from Government, which will undermine and short-circuit its own farmer institutional models by promoting an obnoxious “model farmer” approach. It has been coerced into abdicating its well-thought out principles in favour of a cosmetic, highly risky development paradigm. Iam actually surprised that none of the NAADS managers whom I regard very highly, have resigned given all these policy swings. Is there greater pain than seeing a distressed mother forced to slay and burry her own child alive?
Moreover, Government’s abhorrence of all modes of farmer sensitization will stifle opportunities for strengthening entrepreneurship among the farming community, implying that Bona Bagagawale investments could go down the drain before catalyzing sustainable businesses. Judging from the entadikwa experience, and since its “business as usual”, chances are “model” farmers will go on a “free holiday”- courtesy of the generosity of NRM regime.
The impeding Bona Bagagawale fiasco, on top of other previous high profile embarrassing Government failures (entandikwa, Global Fund, etc) questions the appropriateness of budget support or basket-funding regimes through which development partners allow government full discretion to allocate resources as it feels. It has indeed become abundantly clear that government may not yet be ready to make the right investment decisions and that therefore a return to project mode donor financing would be a better option for Uganda.
With a heavily compromised parliament incapable of checking the excesses of an errant Government; a debt burden per capita that is soaring every year without tangible returns, and a President who has intensified his nationwide mobilization for a doomed Bona Bagagawale programme, Ugandans and their posterity should brace for the worst!
7 March 2008
Sustainable peasantry: Does government have a role?
During his katebe days, current East African Cooperation Minister Eriya Kategaya was reported to have castigated Museveni and his regime for glorying peasantry at a time when other developing countries are striving to eliminate it. Kategaya based his assertion on the unwillingness and inability of government to tackle poverty in a manner that would create a meaningful livelihoods change among the peasant community. His outburst is indeed supported by budget statistics which indicate that NRM government has never allocated to the agriculture sector, more than 5% of the annual national budget despite the sector employing 80% of the population.
The inevitable consequence of this neglect has been a steady decline in agricultural output, hunger and poverty owing to inadequate agricultural extension support; lack of access to quality technology and germplasm; declining soil fertility; crop pests and diseases; severe exposure to vagaries of weather; and perhaps most importantly, poor or lack of agricultural processing and marketing infrastructure.
It should be recalled that in the immediate after math of the five-year NRA bush war, government liberalised agricultural markets (among other things) and abolished commodity-marketing institutions under the guise of eliminating monopoly and ensuring better returns to farmers. Sadly, it chose to overlook the imperfect market conditions pertaining at the time and ever since, which would never allow perfect competition to flourish.
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. Neither government, nor any other authority, has adduced evidence to show that farmers’ returns have improved following agricultural market liberalisation. To the contrary, disorder, chaos and frustration have marred commodity marketing over the last several decades.
Moreover, the strangling of agricultural cooperatives by the same government could have been the critical catalyst for burgeoning poverty and peasantry. 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. Without the cushioning effect of cooperatives, rural farmers were inevitably bound to plunge into poverty.
Government might have had a point when it accused cooperatives of being corrupt. However, it grossly blundered by prescribing that they be abolished. I wonder whether cooperatives could have been so incurably defective that the only plausible management decision was to abolish them!
Without doubt, the 2007 UNDP Human Development Report contains very bad news for a government that has been pedalling a rosy portrait of the fastest economy in the developing world. According to the report, Uganda had become poorer by ten points on the global Human Development Index over 2006/2007 alone, while more Ugandans had lost their agricultural livelihoods. Logically, its hopeless for farmers to carry on with the increasingly risky, loss-making, poverty-entrenching agriculture and as a result, they have abandoned farming even though they have no other livelihood options.
Undeniably, this sets the stage for sustainable peasantry – especially in the rural areas. Instead of ensuring increased funding for the agricultural sector to alleviate the plight of peasants, Museveni has reportedly remarked on several occasions that his votes are with peasants. Has he found solace in the peasants’ predicament? As we all know, neither do peasants complain about, nor have the voice to challenge the status quo. Does this give credence to Kategaya’s assertion that Museveni’s government glorifies and sustains peasantry?
The inevitable consequence of this neglect has been a steady decline in agricultural output, hunger and poverty owing to inadequate agricultural extension support; lack of access to quality technology and germplasm; declining soil fertility; crop pests and diseases; severe exposure to vagaries of weather; and perhaps most importantly, poor or lack of agricultural processing and marketing infrastructure.
It should be recalled that in the immediate after math of the five-year NRA bush war, government liberalised agricultural markets (among other things) and abolished commodity-marketing institutions under the guise of eliminating monopoly and ensuring better returns to farmers. Sadly, it chose to overlook the imperfect market conditions pertaining at the time and ever since, which would never allow perfect competition to flourish.
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. Neither government, nor any other authority, has adduced evidence to show that farmers’ returns have improved following agricultural market liberalisation. To the contrary, disorder, chaos and frustration have marred commodity marketing over the last several decades.
Moreover, the strangling of agricultural cooperatives by the same government could have been the critical catalyst for burgeoning poverty and peasantry. 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. Without the cushioning effect of cooperatives, rural farmers were inevitably bound to plunge into poverty.
Government might have had a point when it accused cooperatives of being corrupt. However, it grossly blundered by prescribing that they be abolished. I wonder whether cooperatives could have been so incurably defective that the only plausible management decision was to abolish them!
Without doubt, the 2007 UNDP Human Development Report contains very bad news for a government that has been pedalling a rosy portrait of the fastest economy in the developing world. According to the report, Uganda had become poorer by ten points on the global Human Development Index over 2006/2007 alone, while more Ugandans had lost their agricultural livelihoods. Logically, its hopeless for farmers to carry on with the increasingly risky, loss-making, poverty-entrenching agriculture and as a result, they have abandoned farming even though they have no other livelihood options.
Undeniably, this sets the stage for sustainable peasantry – especially in the rural areas. Instead of ensuring increased funding for the agricultural sector to alleviate the plight of peasants, Museveni has reportedly remarked on several occasions that his votes are with peasants. Has he found solace in the peasants’ predicament? As we all know, neither do peasants complain about, nor have the voice to challenge the status quo. Does this give credence to Kategaya’s assertion that Museveni’s government glorifies and sustains peasantry?