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

Uganda may well have more than a quarter of a million species of living things, including 1010
species of birds and 330 species of mammals (National Biodiversity Data Bank, unpublished data
cited in Pomeroy et. al. 2002).
Unfortunately, Uganda is losing its biodiversity rapidly – one source estimates that as much as
10% is lost each decade. Rapid population growth, estimated to reach 25 millions by 2005
(UBOS 2000), is a prime reason why Uganda is losing biodiversity so rapidly. While
agricultural production clearly needs to keep pace with population growth, in Uganda this has
been achieved primarily through the expansion of the area devoted to crop production, rather
than through intensification and increasing productivity (IFPRI 2001). The vast majority of
Ugandan farmers are smallholders, growing a mixture of low-yielding varieties on small
fragmented plots of land. A crucial question, therefore, is the extent to which increased
productivity of the land can be achieved while simultaneously reducing the rate of biodiversity
loss (Chemonics 2001). It may be that a much larger population can be supported through
intensification of agriculture in Uganda. With better terms of trade and a shift from agriculture to
alternative forms of employment it might even be possible for Uganda’s system of Protected
Areas to expand beyond the 33,000 km 2 of existing National Parks, Forest Reserves and Wildlife
Reserves (FNCMP 1999). But the pressure on these areas seems certain to intensify in the
shorter term.
Land use changes such as clearance for agriculture and swamp drainage are usually identified as
the primary culprits driving the process of habitat loss, but there are many other factors leading to
biodiversity loss, amongst them – the loss of tree cover to meet growing demands for timber, fuel
wood and charcoal; increasing industrial pollution which has especially affected the ecology of
Lake Victoria; and the introduction of exotic species, most notoriously the Nile Perch.
These facts have led many in the environmental community and the general public to promote
the establishment of “protected areas” where human use—in particular agricultural use—is
restricted. Such aggressive efforts to conserve wild biodiversity, however, can reduce the
livelihood security of rural people, especially the poor in developing countries (Pimbert and
Toledo 1994). It is important to manage biodiversity through a combination of conservation
measures and improved and diversified agricultural systems, which can increase incomes and
household nutrition, reduce livelihood risks, and provide collateral benefits from enhanced
environmental services. Impacts on the poor depend on how biodiversity benefits are achieved.
Alternative conservation options are available besides just “locking away” resources on which
the poor depend for their survival. Agricultural landscapes need to be designed more creatively
in order to take the needs of the poor into account while pursuing biodiversity objectives.
A central challenge of the 21st century will be to achieve biodiversity conservation and
agricultural production goals at the same time—and, in many cases, in the same space.” New
approaches to agricultural production must be developed that complement natural environments,
enhance ecosystem functions, and improve rural livelihoods. (McNeeley and Scherr, 2001)
3.2.2 Summary of Issues and Recommendations:
• Without urgent action to develop agriculture in appropriate directions in Uganda’s
biodiversity-rich areas, wild biodiversity will be further threatened. Additional destruction of
natural habitats, and therefore of wild biodiversity, will lead to the loss of the numerous
current and future benefits these areas provide to rural populations.