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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

shortage, the change <strong>in</strong> sorghum (ris<strong>in</strong>g) and sweet potatoe (decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g) is significant at the 5%<br />

level while the <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> consumption <strong>of</strong> maize is significant at the 1% level. <strong>The</strong> <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong><br />

maize consumption is primarily a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased dependence on purchased foods dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />

times <strong>of</strong> shortage, rather than a major trend towards <strong>in</strong>creased local production. This illustrates<br />

the <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>in</strong>terdependence <strong>of</strong> the communities and the reliance on <strong>in</strong>come generation to meet<br />

short-term subsistence shortfalls.<br />

While the reduction <strong>in</strong> consumption <strong>of</strong> wild foods looks large, it proved not to be significant<br />

because ten out <strong>of</strong> the 18 observations showed zero difference. <strong>The</strong> apparent trend is result<strong>in</strong>g<br />

from fairly large differences <strong>in</strong> less than half <strong>of</strong> the observations.<br />

5.2.4 Trends <strong>in</strong> Wetlands Utilization and the Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> Natural Resource<br />

Use<br />

<strong>The</strong> next area <strong>of</strong> analysis was that <strong>of</strong> wetlands utilization and the economic benefits there<strong>of</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se trends are presented <strong>in</strong> the figures below. In addition to the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs themselves, this area<br />

generated <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g methodological <strong>in</strong>sights as well.<br />

Figures 7 and 8.<br />

Proportion <strong>of</strong> the Community Engaged <strong>in</strong> Various Forms<br />

<strong>of</strong> Wetlands Utilization - 2001 (Based on PRA Data)<br />

Perceived Past Distribution <strong>of</strong> Wetland Utilization - 1981<br />

(Based on PRA Data)<br />

Water<br />

19%<br />

Other<br />

6%<br />

Fuel<br />

13%<br />

Graze<br />

17%<br />

Water<br />

19%<br />

Other<br />

5%<br />

Fuel<br />

12%<br />

Graze<br />

18%<br />

Fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

14%<br />

Hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

5%<br />

Crafts<br />

16%<br />

Irrigation<br />

10%<br />

Fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

15%<br />

Hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

12%<br />

Crafts<br />

15%<br />

Irrigation<br />

4%<br />

Trend patterns regard<strong>in</strong>g change <strong>in</strong> wetlands<br />

utilization are only significant for hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

(significantly negative at 5% level) and<br />

irrigation (significantly positive at 1% level).<br />

Figure 9. Distribution <strong>of</strong> Household Level<br />

Wetlands Benefits <strong>in</strong> 2001 (Based on<br />

Household Survey Data)<br />

It is very <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note, however, the<br />

strik<strong>in</strong>g similarity <strong>in</strong> results between the PRA<br />

data and the household level survey data,<br />

which is based on estimates <strong>of</strong> household<br />

<strong>in</strong>comes earned from various types <strong>of</strong> uses.<br />

While the household level estimate <strong>of</strong> value <strong>of</strong><br />

craft and build<strong>in</strong>g materials is quite a bit less<br />

than those from the PRA estimates <strong>of</strong> current<br />

benefit, and the household estimate <strong>of</strong> fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>in</strong>come is quite a bit higher, the rest <strong>of</strong> the use<br />

Water<br />

19%<br />

Fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

25%<br />

Other<br />

4%<br />

Hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

1%<br />

Fuel<br />

11%<br />

Crafts<br />

10%<br />

Graze<br />

19%<br />

Irrigation<br />

11%

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!