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

1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
Low and declining agricultural productivity contributes to poverty and food insecurity in
Uganda. Forty-four percent of Ugandans lived below the poverty line in 1997 (APSEC 2000).
While poverty rates are reported to be declining nationally, they are still very high in the rural
areas, and statistics show that the poorest 20% of the population have become poorer. (Ibid.)
Food insecurity is reportedly increasing in many rural parts of the country. Low and declining
yields of food crops are cited as a primary cause for this trend (Sserunkuuma 2001, Pender et al,
2001). The struggle to meet the basic household needs of a growing population is putting
increasing pressure on the Ugandan natural resource base resulting in soil depletion,
deforestation, and wetlands degradation. The Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA)
estimates that the cost to the national economy due to environmental degradation (including
biodiversity loss, deforestation, soil erosion, water hyacinth and water contamination) lies
between 4% and 12% of GDP (GOU 2000). The PMA concludes “if one attributes biodiversity
loss, deforestation and soil erosion to activities in the agricultural sector, then the agricultural
sector alone is responsible for 86% to 91% of the environmental degradation, in monetary terms”
(Ibid. p. 62).
Induced innovation theory suggests that environmental degradation can be self correcting as
population growth, increasing resource scarcity, and environmental externalities induce new
agricultural and resource management practices (Boserup 1965) and new forms of collective
regulation of common property resources (Ruttan and Hayami 1984). However, this early work
on induced institutional innovation may be overly optimistic. It tends to overlook the fact that
long run institutional evolution and the corresponding pathways of development are dependent
on the initial stock of social capital, on the actions by the state, and on the distributive
consequences of institutional change (Zeller et.al. 2000).
Vosti and Reardon (1997) conceptualized a critical triangle that links three development
objectives: economic growth, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability, emphasizing
the importance of simultaneous consideration of all three development objectives and the
potential linkages and trade-offs between them. Continued agricultural growth is necessary in
most fragile lands of Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural development that concentrates only on
the high potential areas has resulted in biased development that leaves the majority of the
population wallowing in poverty. Agricultural growth must be achieved, however, within the
context of sustainable use of the natural resource base. In addition, such growth must be
equitably distributed in order to alleviate poverty and reduce food insecurity. An understanding
of the three objectives of growth, poverty alleviation and the sustainable use of natural resources
(the elements of the critical triangle) and the linkages between them is fundamental to the
formulation of appropriate development strategies.
In the words of Babu and Hazell (1998) “Integrating the livelihood needs of people living in
fragile areas with sustainable management of natural resources is a fundamental challenge facing
governments and development agencies… The most important contributing factor towards
degradation of fragile lands in Sub-Saharan Africa is a nexus of poverty, rapid population growth
and inadequate progress in increasing crop yields.”