28.01.2015 Views

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 2: Tenure System versus Agricultural Productivity<br />

Count (%)<br />

Maize yield <strong>in</strong> bags per acre<br />

Tenure System 0-5.0 5.1-10.0 10.1-15.0 15.1-20.0 > 20.0<br />

Individual 143 (46.1%) 65 (21%) 39 (12.6%) 28 (9.0%) 2 (0.6%)<br />

Communal 8 (2.6%) 1 (0.3%)<br />

State land 2 (0.6%)<br />

NB: figures <strong>in</strong> parentheses are % <strong>of</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> respondents (households)<br />

4.1.3 Security <strong>of</strong> Tenure.<br />

<strong>The</strong> problem associated with land ownership and tenure security was found to be serious<br />

<strong>in</strong> both districts, with 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the respondents be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> recent land disputes.<br />

An analysis <strong>of</strong> land improvement revealed that some <strong>of</strong> these, particularly agro-forestry<br />

and tree crops, were closely related to land registration (Table 3). About three-quarters <strong>of</strong><br />

households whose lands had been registered practiced agro-forestry while nearly 60<br />

percent had tree crops. Among farmers whose lands had not been registered, only 47<br />

percent practiced agro-forestry and 36 percent had tree crops. Increased tenure security<br />

likely stimulated landowners to <strong>in</strong>vest <strong>in</strong> environmental conservation.<br />

Table 3: Crosstab Analysis for Land Registration and Some Conservation Methods<br />

Count (%)<br />

Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry<br />

Practiced<br />

Land Registered<br />

Yes<br />

No<br />

Total<br />

8 (66.7%) 1 (0.4%) 9 (2.9%)<br />

Yes 1 (8.3%) 175 (75.4%) 31 (47%) 207 (66.8%)<br />

No 3 (25%) 56 (24.1%) 35 (53%) 94 (30.3%)<br />

Total 12 (100%) 232 (100%) 66 (100%) 310 (100.0%)*<br />

Pearson Chi-square 201.73, significance <strong>of</strong> 0.00000%<br />

Land Registered<br />

Tree crops<br />

plant<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Count<br />

8 (66.7%) 1 (0.4%) 9 (2.9%)<br />

Yes 1 (8.3%) 133 (57.3%) 24 (36.4%) 158 (51.0%)<br />

No 3 (25%) 98 (42.2%) 42 (63.6%) 143 (46.1%)<br />

Total 12 (100%) 232 (100%) 66 (100%) 310 (100.0%)*<br />

Pearson Chi-square 190.04, significance <strong>of</strong> 0.00000%<br />

Yes<br />

No<br />

4.1.4 Access to credit<br />

<strong>The</strong> study revealed that only 6.1 percent <strong>of</strong> the respondents had received credit facilities<br />

while the rest gave various reasons for not hav<strong>in</strong>g received or applied for loans. About 33<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the respondents had not applied because they could not meet the lender’s<br />

requirements while 29 percent argued that they were not aware <strong>of</strong> the availability <strong>of</strong> the<br />

credit facilities. Another 15 percent gave other reasons that were not specified <strong>in</strong> the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!