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.

estimates are remarkably consistent. This congruence <strong>of</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs helps to strengthen our<br />

confidence <strong>in</strong> both the approach and the results.<br />

In a similar manner, the value <strong>of</strong> wetlands utilization was estimated <strong>in</strong> the household surveys<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g two different approaches. In the first, the respondent compared the annual benefits from<br />

each <strong>of</strong> the different forms <strong>of</strong> wetlands utilization to the value <strong>of</strong> a bicycle, (someth<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> rural households were familiar with). In the second approach, the value <strong>of</strong> each form<br />

<strong>of</strong> wetlands utilization was calculated separately by work<strong>in</strong>g up from the number <strong>of</strong> times used <strong>in</strong><br />

a year, multiplied by the value per time to get a shill<strong>in</strong>g estimate <strong>of</strong> the total annual value. (For<br />

example, the estimation <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> fuel wood collected from the swamp was calculated from<br />

two questions. First, “How many days per year do you collect firewood from the swamp”<br />

Secondly, “What is the value <strong>of</strong> firewood you collect each day”) <strong>The</strong> figures depict<strong>in</strong>g<br />

estimated average value <strong>of</strong> swamp utilization per household us<strong>in</strong>g each <strong>of</strong> the two methods is<br />

show <strong>in</strong> the figures on the follow<strong>in</strong>g page. <strong>The</strong> results from the two approaches are remarkably<br />

similar. <strong>The</strong> major differences are <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>come from fish<strong>in</strong>g, which tended to be under estimated<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g the bicycle method, and value <strong>of</strong> swamp water for irrigation, which may have been<br />

undercounted when the revenue from all <strong>of</strong> the agricultural production activities was be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

itemized. <strong>The</strong> survey asked farmers to <strong>in</strong>dicate whether the field was ra<strong>in</strong> fed, irrigated or<br />

cultivated <strong>in</strong> the swamp, but <strong>in</strong> many cases this particular question was not answered. Farmers<br />

may have been reluctant to admit the extent to which they are cultivat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the swamps fear<strong>in</strong>g<br />

restrictions from NEMA.<br />

Figure 10.<br />

Average Shill<strong>in</strong>g Value <strong>of</strong> Wetland Benefits <strong>in</strong><br />

2001 (Based on Survey Data us<strong>in</strong>g the Analogy <strong>of</strong><br />

the Comparison to the Value <strong>of</strong> a Bicycle)<br />

144,88<br />

7,59<br />

58,38<br />

63,11<br />

67,15<br />

114,70<br />

Fuel<br />

Graze<br />

Irrigation<br />

Crafts/Build<br />

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

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

Figure 11.<br />

Average Shill<strong>in</strong>g Value <strong>of</strong> Wetland Benefits <strong>in</strong><br />

2001 (Based on Household Survey Data with<br />

Each Product Valued Separately)<br />

241,750<br />

11,538<br />

53,701<br />

130,055<br />

32,712<br />

60,083<br />

Fuel<br />

Graze<br />

Irrigation<br />

Crafts/Build<strong>in</strong>g<br />

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

Fish<strong>in</strong>g

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!