Achieving food security in Uganda...TABLE 1: Food security indicators for Uganda in 2018 and 2050...

Achieving food security in UgandaAugust 2018

Authors: Steve Hedden, Mickey Rafa, Jonathan D. Moyer

Disclaimer:This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the USAID Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Program, implemented by QED Group, LLC, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Current Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Agricultural Production Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Food Secure Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Supply Side Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Increased yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Food loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Fisheries and aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Demand Side Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Poverty reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Smallholder farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Annex 1: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Annex 2: Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The authors would like to thank Jennifer Scheer from the USAID/Uganda Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Contract and Corti Paul Lakuma from the Economic Policy Research Centre for their thoughtful insights into these research methodologies and the application of this research to the Uganda context.

A C H I E V I N G F O O D S E C U R I T Y I N U G A N D A 1

Executive SummaryEstablishing food security is a top priority of USAID Uganda and the Government of Uganda (MAAIF, 2016; Uganda National Planning Authority, 2013). This requires 1) increasing both availability of and access to calories, 2) stabilizing the food supply, and 3) ensuring that access to nutritious food translates into healthy people. Doing this sus-tainably requires that these goals be met without serious harm to Uganda’s natural resources. This report measures the current state of food security in Uganda, projects this to 2050, identifies poten-tial interventions for achieving food security, and evaluates the potential trade-offs and impacts of these interventions on human development.

This research uses the International Futures model to explore the future of food security in Uganda along three different development paths. Along the Current Path scenario Uganda does not reach a food secure future by 2050. In this scenario, domestic food production does not keep pace with consumption, which translates into a sig-nificant increase in food imports, contributing to food instability. Due to rapid population growth and rising incomes, food demand (consumption) is projected to increase to about 3.5 times the cur-rent level by 2050—one of the largest increases in Sub-Saharan Africa—though hunger is projected

1. See Annex 2 regarding scenario assumptions.

to still affect 11 percent of the population (see Figure 1). Partially because of persistent hunger, but also due to disease and low levels of access to safe water and sanitation (WASH), the prev-alence of underweight children is projected to remain above 10 percent by 2030 and 7 percent by 2050. Cropland and urban land expansion are projected to lead to a reduction of 650 thousand hectares of forest land by 2030 (3.2 percent of total land area) and 1.3 million hectares by 2050 (6.5 percent of total land area).

The Agricultural Production scenario assumes agricultural production increases both inten-sively (through increased yields) and extensively (through an expansion of cropland). Yields increase from 2.5 tons per hectare in 2018 to 7.7 in 2050—an ambitious goal, but with historical precedent.1 Because of these assumptions, agri-cultural exports increase, and agricultural imports decrease relative to the Current Path scenario, meaning overall import dependence does not increase. Increased agricultural production also leads to higher economic growth—in this scenario, GDP is 20 percent higher in 2050 than the Current Path, a cumulative increase of 127 billion USD. Yet increased agricultural production does not nec-essarily result in increased food consumption. Hunger remains above 21 percent in 2030 and

Achieving food security in Uganda

2

9 percent in 2050 since so much of the increased production is exported.

In the Food Secure scenario, increased agricultural production is accompanied by a commensurate increase in Ugandans’ access to these calories. In addition to the same yield increases as the Agricultural Production scenario, consumption of calories per capita increases in this scenario from 2100 in 2018 to 3680 by 2050—another ambitious goal but with historical precedent.2 This scenario assumes a similar increase in crop yields as the Agricultural Production scenario, but with limited cropland expansion. This scenario also assumes that access to safely managed WASH facilities is prioritized and increases—investment in infra-structure increases by a cumulative 16 billion USD

2. See Annex 2 regarding scenario assumptions.

by 2050. Because of these assumptions, hunger is eliminated in Uganda by 2050 without a dramatic increase in import dependence or land under cul-tivation. Increased caloric consumption combined with safely managed WASH facilities lead to pos-itive health outcomes as well—the prevalence of underweight children is reduced to 7 percent by 2030 and 2 percent by 2050. Finally, while agri-culture exports do not increase as much in this scenario as in the Agricultural Production sce-nario, overall economic growth is slightly higher (a cumulative increase of 157 billion USD by 2050), due to increased physical and human capital.

FIGURE 1: Modeled increase in food demand for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa relative to 2015 values Uganda vs. other Sub-Saharan African countries

Source: IFs Current Path v7.33

Fig. 1

1

2

3

4

2020

Rela

tive

incr

ease

in to

tal f

ood

dem

and

from

20

15

Increase in total food demand, relative to 2015 valuesUganda vs. other Sub-Saharan African Countries

2030 2040 2050

Kenya RwandaUganda Tanzania

Year

Other SSA Country


TABLE 1: Food security indicators for Uganda in 2018 and 2050 across three scenarios

2018Current Path

2050Agricultural

Production 2050Food Secure

2050

Acc

ess

Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 35.6 10.9 9.6 5

Number of people undernourished (million people)

16.1 12.2 10.7 5.5

Poverty (percent less than $1.90 per day)

37.4 20 10.5 10.3

Poverty headcount (million people) 17 22.5 11.8 11.4

Ava

ilabi

lity Agricultural yields

(tons/hectare)2.5 3.1 7.7 7.7

Crop land (million hectares) 9.4 10.4 10.6 10.4

Stab

ility

Agricultural import dependence (% of demand)

17.5 55.6 2.6 28.2

Percentage of irrigation potentioal equipped for irrigation (%)

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Util

izat

ion

Underweight children 12.3 7 6.6 2.3

Access to improved sanitation facilities (%)

20.6 53.6 56.5 94.3

Access to improved water sources (%) 77.8 85.6 86.9 100

Data used to initialize undernourishment come from (FAO, 2017b). Poverty and underweight children data come from (World Bank, 2018). Crop yield and crop land data come from (FAO, 2017d). Agricultural import dependence data come from (FAO, 2017c). Irrigation data come from (FAO, 2017a). Access to water and sanitation data come from (WHO/UNICEF, 2018). 2018 and 2050 values from IFs v7.33 (Pardee Center, 2018).

Due to rising incomes and a rapidly expanding population, Uganda is facing a food-insecure future. This policy brief provides a framework for policymakers to think systematically about policy choices, trade-offs, and potential futures for the Ugandan people. The required changes to achieve

this food secure future are large and will require significant collaboration between the government, civil society, and the international aid commu-nity. The benefits of food security for human health, development, and economic growth are enormous.

A C H I E V I N G F O O D S E C U R I T Y I N U G A N D A4

Introduction

3. See the Pardee Center’s website (http://pardee.du.edu/) for more information about the center and the IFs wiki (http://pardee.du.edu/wiki/) for more information and documentation on the IFs model.

Uganda faces a food insecure future. Food demand is expected to increase by nearly 3.5

times the current levels by 2050, driven mainly by high fertility rates and increasing incomes. Food production is not expected to keep pace with rising demand, hunger is likely to persist, and a growing portion of food demand is likely to be met through imports. This report explores the current and future state of food security in Uganda to 2050 for three scenarios. The purpose of this report is to help decision-makers develop more informed policies by understanding how food security systems interact with development patterns in Uganda. Interventions made over the short term can have significant dividends in the mid to long term for people and the economy.

Food security is a key outcome target in the Government of Uganda’s Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan (ASSP) (MAAIF, 2016, p. 20) and a component of the growth strategy in Vision 2040 (Uganda National Planning Authority, 2013). This report finds that, while the goal of achieving food security in Uganda is ambitious, it is possible to put Uganda on a more sustainable food security path through agricultural interventions in the short term. Agricultural interventions alone are not enough; achieving food security also requires interventions aimed at ensuring that the benefits of agricultural production are distributed equita-bly. However, if Uganda achieves food security, the rewards are great—the population will be healthier and more productive.

This report uses the International Futures (IFs) model, a long-term, global, integrated assess-ment model housed, maintained, and developed at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.3

The first section of this report provides an over-view of food security indicators, and why they are important. The second section describes the Current Path of food security in Uganda to 2050. The third section describes various interventions for improving food security in Uganda on both the production and the consumption side. The fourth section presents two alternative scenarios, the Agricultural Production scenario and the Food Secure scenario, to illustrate the benefits of these interventions on agriculture and human and eco-nomic development. The final section describes the major findings of the analysis.


Food Security

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as, “a situation that exists

when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutri-tious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences for an active and healthy life. Based on this definition, four food security dimensions can be identified: food availability, economic and physical access to food, food utilization and sta-bility over time,” (FAO, 2017b, p. 107).

TABLE 2: Definitions and justifications taken primarily from (WFP, 2009) using the FAO’s ‘Suite of Food Security Indicators’ framework (FAO, 2018a)

Category Definition Why it is important

Access The ability of households to obtain adequate food supplies, either through agricultural production, household food stocks, through acquisition at the market, or aid

Access modifies availability to address the distribution of available calories in a society; this helps measure the degree of hunger occurring among the poorest households

Availability The physical presence of food through domestic agricultural production, imports, or aid

The availability of calories is the first condition to food security; without sufficient availability, hunger persists

Stability Limited variability in the production, supply, or price of food

Stable domestic food production can act as a buffer against political turmoil or natural disaster that can lead to price shocks in the international or domestic markets, or variability of production

Utilization The ability of households to efficiently use the food and individuals to absorb and metabolize the nutrients

Availability and access can be sufficient for caloric requirements, but individuals may not be able to fully benefit from the calories due to poor utilization, due to illness or poor preparation.

For this analysis, we also explore potential negative environmental consequences in our evaluation of food security in Uganda. Increasing food production can be done in ways that harm the natural systems and resources that the people of Uganda rely upon. This report includes several indicators of environmental sustainability in our as-sessment of interventions and their potential tradeoffs. The table in the next section shows food security related indicators for Uganda, Africa, and the World, in 2015 and 2030. The indicators are organized based on the four dimensions of food security that the FAO uses.


Current Path

4. Unless otherwise indicated, all ‘current’ values in this report refer to 2018. These values are often projections however, since the base year of the IFs model is 2015.

5. Hunger is used interchangeably with ‘undernourishment’ in this report. See the glossary for full definition.

6. This definition does not account for the type of calories or their nutritional content, though levels of malnutrition are partially captured through the prevalence of underweight children indicator.

The following section introduces the Current Path scenario of food security in Uganda, using

the International Futures (IFs) modeling platform. The Current Path scenario represents prevailing development trends, and their interaction across all systems in the IFs model. The Current Path assumes no major disruptions in development, policy shifts, or wildcard events (low probability, high impact events such as a global pandemic). However, the Current Path is a dynamic, non-linear forecast and not simply an extrapolation of histor-ical trends. Along the Current Path scenario, some food security indicators in Uganda improve—the prevalence of hunger and underweight children decreases—but some worsen—import dependence increases and forest land decreases. The largest driving force behind the worsening of these food security indicators is population growth. While the prevalence of hunger significantly decreases, the absolute number of people suffering from hunger only slightly decreases, due to population growth. Likewise, increased food demand with-out commensurate increases in production lead to significantly increased import dependence. And cropland expansion, combined with urban land growth lead to deforestation.4

AccessHunger5 in Uganda has increased from 24 per-cent of the population in 2004 to 39 percent in 2015 (FAO, 2017b, p. 77; World Bank, 2018). Combined with population growth, this translates

to an increase of over 9 million people (from 6.6 million in 2004 to 15.7 million in 2015). The major factor contributing to poor food access is poverty, though drivers vary considerably by district. In 2012, nearly 64 percent of Ugandans lived below the international poverty line of $3.10 a day, and 35 percent lived below the extreme poverty line of $1.90 per day (World Bank, 2018). Poor house-holds have limited access to credit and savings services, constraining their ability to acquire agricultural capital and technology inputs. Low levels of adult education and literacy compound the ability of the labor force to engage in higher value activities.

Hunger is defined by caloric consumption6 and is estimated using the availability and distribution of calories (Wanner, Cafiero, Troubat, & Conforti, 2014). The IFs model projects hunger using the same basic formulation. In the Current Path sce-nario, average calorie consumption increases, leading to an overall decrease in the prevalence of hunger. The prevalence of hunger decreases in the Current Path from 39 percent in 2015 to 22 per-cent by 2030 and 11 percent by 2050. Yet, because population growth is so significant in Uganda, the absolute number of hungry people is projected to only decrease from 16 million in 2018 to 15.4 million in 2030 and 12.2 million in 2050.

Figure 2 (page 9) shows the annual population growth rate across countries (on the vertical axis) and the median age of the population (on the hor-izontal axis). Uganda has both one of the youngest


TABLE 3: Trends in food security indictors in the Current Path scenario for Uganda, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the World

2018 2030

UgandaSub-Saharan

Africa World UgandaSub-Saharan

Africa World

Acc

ess

Prevalence of undernourishment (%)

35.6 20.1 9.8 22.2 14.6 6.6

Number of people undernourished (mil-lions)

16.1 218 744 15.4 215 564


37.4 42.5 10.9 36.5 37.4 8.5

Poverty headcount (million people)

17 462 829 25.4 549.5 722

Ava

ilabi

lity Agricultural yields

(tonnes/hectare)2.5 3.4 6.4 2.6 3.7 7.1

Crop land (million hectares)

9.4 248.3 1611 10.3 262.1 1646

Stab

ility


17.5 9.9 41.7 25.5

Percentage of arable land equipped for irrigation (%)

12.2 17.1 48.9 12.5 17.3 50

Util

izat

ion

Underweight children 12.3 18.3 14 10.2 14.6 10.2


20.6 29.9 69.8 32.6 40.9 84.7

Access to improved water sources (%)

77.8 73.4 92.9 80 78.2 95.2

and the fastest growing populations, largely because the fertility rate (nearly 5.7 children per woman) is among the highest in the world. In the Current Path, the population of Uganda increases from 45.3 million in 2018 to over 112 million in 2050. Population growth, combined with rising incomes, will lead to a rapid increase in food demand and import dependence (explained in the ‘stability’ section below). But population growth is also a hindrance to eliminating hunger.

AvailabilityCrop yields in Uganda are low—2.5 tons/ha— compared to the Sub-Saharan African average of 3.4 and the world average of 6. In the Current Path, Ugandan yields grow at a reasonable rate (0.7 percent per year) but because of the low starting point, they only reach 3.1 tons/hectare by 2050. Crop yields in the IFs model are driven by labor, physical capital, technological advancement, irrigation, and environmental factors (CO2 in the


atmosphere and associated changes in precipita-tion and temperature).7 The portions of both labor and capital dedicated to agriculture decrease in the Current Path as the economy develops and the services and manufacturing sectors grow. The Current Path also assumes that climate change will negatively impact yields in Uganda by 2.5 percent by 2050 because of rising temperatures. Cropland is expected to increase from 9.4 million ha in 2015 to 10.3 million ha in 2030 and 10.4 million ha in 2050 (contributing to the loss of about 1.3 million hectares of forest land), though the area of irri-gated land is not expected to increase. Overall, crop production is expected to increase from 21 million metric tons (mmt) in 2018 to 24 mmt in 2030 and 29 mmt in 2050.

While meat production8 currently only accounts for about 2.5 million tons (10 percent) of agri-cultural production, the share is projected to

7. For more information on the agricultural model in IFs see (http://pardee.du.edu/wiki/Agriculture)

8. ‘Meat production’ in this report refers to animal proteins broadly, which includes milk and eggs.

grow to 17 percent by 2030 and 28 percent by 2050. This increased production is primarily driven by increased demand from a growing population. Increased meat production could require an expansion of both grazing land (for the livestock) and cropland (for their feed requirements) depending on how and where the livestock is raised.

StabilityImport dependence can be measured in terms of both volume (tons) and value (thousand USD). Historically, Uganda has been a net agricultural exporter in terms of value but a net agricultural importer in terms of volume (see Figure 3). This is largely due to the high price per ton of Uganda’s top agriculture export: coffee. Despite relatively high value coffee exports, a substantial portion

FIGURE 2: Median age of population vs. annual population growth (2018), East African Community countries highlighted

Path Bubble size indicates the size of the total population Source: IFs v7.33 Current

-2%

0

2%

4%

20

Ann

ual p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

rate

30 40

Median age of population

East & Southeast Asia

Europe

Latin America & the Caribbean

Middle East & Northern Africa

North America

Oceania

Russia & the Caucasus

South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa

Figure 2: Median age of population vs. annual population growthDemographic indicators from 2018

Kenya

Rwanda

Uganda

Tanzania

Burundi


FIGURE 3: Imports and exports in both volume (tons) and value (thousand dollars)

Source: FAOSTAT

0.0

0.5

1.0

Mill

ion

tonn

es

Year

Demographic indicators from 2018

Figure 3a: Imports and exports in both volume (tons) and value (thousand dollars)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Export Quantity Import Quantity

By Quantity

0

500

1000

Mill

ion

USD

Year

Figure 3b

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Export Value Import Value

By Value


of Uganda’s cereal demand must be met through imports, mostly from Ukraine, Pakistan, and Russia (wheat from Ukraine and Russia and rice from Pakistan). While Uganda may be a net agriculture exporter (value of exports is greater than value of imports), it is a net food importer (volume of cereal imports exceeds volume of cereal exports) (FAO, 2017d).

Driven by a rapidly growing population and rising incomes, food demand is projected to increase dramatically in the Current Path. GDP per capita (PPP) is projected to increase from $1,719 per person in 2018 to $2,340 in 2030 and $4,220 in 2050 in real terms. Food demand is projected to increase from 29 mmt in 2018 to 50 mmt by 2030 (an increase of over 70 percent in just twelve years) and 94 mmt by 2050. Food demand is expected to exceed domestic production by 2030 and beyond, leading to an increase in agricultural import dependence in terms of both value and volume.9 Currently only 18 percent of Uganda’s agricultural needs are met through imports, but due to the expected divergence between demand and production, this is projected to increase to 42 percent by 2030 and 56 percent by 2050. High levels of import dependence can leave countries vulnerable to spikes in global food prices, a con-tributing factor to the events leading to the Arab Spring in Tunisia and other countries in Northern Africa (C. Hendrix & Brinkman, 2013; C. S. Hendrix & Haggard, 2015; Joffé, 2011). For comparison, net import dependence in Tunisia in 2010 was about 31 percent.

One component of low yields in Uganda, and an indicator of food instability, is the low levels of irrigation. Only 12 percent of potentially irriga-ble land10 in Uganda is irrigated, compared to the Sub-Saharan African average of 17 percent

9. We assume a relative constant price per ton of agriculture exports.

10. See glossary for definition of irrigation potential.

11. The prevalence of underweight children, access to improved water sources, and access to improved sanitation facilities are three of the five indicators from the FAO for the utilization dimension of food security (FAO, 2018a).

12. There are many other drivers of childhood malnutrition including maternal health, education, and access to contraception (Cleland, Conde-Agudelo, Peterson, Ross, & Tsui, 2012). Additionally, the prevalence of aflatoxins, a type of fungus, is wide-spread in Uganda, contributing to poor nutrition (Asiki et al., 2014; Kaaya & Kyamuhangire, 2006).

and the global average of 49 percent (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017). Irrigation, along with high-yield crops and fertilizer, was one of the major contributing fac-tors of the ‘Green Revolution’ in Asia (Ehui, Benin, Williams, & Meijer, 2002; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017). Not only can irrigation lead to increased yields, it also pro-tects farmers against variable rainfall, allows for year-round farming, and enables a more diverse crop profile, all components of food stability.

UtilizationThe prevalence of underweight children is a mea-sure of how well calories are being utilized in a population.11 The FAO defines underweight chil-dren as, “weight-for-age less than -2 standard deviations below the WHO Child Growth Standards median, and is thus a manifestation of low height for age (known as stunting) and/or low weight for height (known as wasting),” (FAO, 2017b, p. 108). This can be caused by poor caloric intake (in terms of quantity and/or quality) but can also be attributed to poor use of calories consumed due to disease. Reducing the prevalence of underweight children requires not just reductions in hunger but also reductions in communicable diseases and their drivers, namely, unsafe water and sani-tation facilities. Half the prevalence of childhood malnutrition globally is due to repeated diarrhea as a result of unsafe water, sanitation, or hygiene (Prüss-Üstün, Bos, Gore, Bartram, & World Health Organization, 2008). Not only is diarrhea a major driver of malnourishment, malnourished children have an increased risk of death from infectious diseases, creating a vicious feedback loop (Black et al., 2013, pp. 434, 443).12


The prevalence of underweight children in 2015 (12 percent) is far lower than the prevalence of hunger (39 percent). Yet only 39 percent of Ugandans have access to ‘at least basic’ water services, and only 19 percent have access to at least basic sanitation (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017). Further, most Ugandans with access to ‘at least basic’ water services do not have access to ‘safely managed’ water services—water at home, free from contamination, and available when needed. (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017, p. iii).13 Only 6 percent of Ugandans have access to ‘safely managed’ water, and data do not exist for the portion of Ugandans with access to ‘safely managed’ sanitation.

In the Current Path, the prevalence of underweight children decreases to 10 percent by 2030 and just over 7 percent by 2050. This is largely driven by decreases in hunger but also increased access to improved WASH facilities. In the Current Path, the portion of the population with access to improved water facilities increases from 78 percent in 2018 to nearly 86 percent in 2050. The portion of the population with access to improved sanitation facilities increases from 21 percent in 2018 to nearly 54 percent by 2050.14

SustainabilityUganda is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world—home to a variety of ecosystems and species. Over a third of these species are threatened and over 100 are critically endan-gered (WCS, 2016). There is a ‘biodiversity hotspot,’ a biologically rich but threatened region, along the western border of Uganda called the Eastern Afromontane ecoregion, home to over 10,800 unique species, a third of which are found nowhere else on Earth (CEPF, 2012). The Government of Uganda is a signatory of the

13. See glossary for definitions.

14. For more information on the way underweight children is modeled in IFs see the health model documentation (http://pardee.du.edu/wiki/Health#Child_Undernutrition). For more information on the way access to WASH facilities is modeled in IFs see the infrastructure model documentation (http://pardee.du.edu/wiki/Infrastructure#Water_and_Sanitation).

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and has implemented the CBD targets into a national bio-diversity strategy (CBD, 2010; NEMA, 2016).

Biodiversity is a key component of a well-func-tioning agriculture sector. It contributes directly to crop production (through pollination), meat production, forestry (most Ugandans rely on wood for fuel), tourism (the largest foreign exchange source at over 1 billion USD per year), wetlands, fisheries, and human health (NEMA, 2016). Uganda ranks 145 out of 180 countries on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a comprehensive measure of a country’s environ-mental health and ecosystem vitality (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 2018). Some of the main reasons for Uganda’s low ranking are the low levels of access to safe water and sanita-tion described above, high levels of air pollution (both outdoor and indoor because of household use of solid fuels), and forest loss. Uganda has lost over half a million hectares of forest over the past 15 years, an area larger than Lake Albert (Global Forest Watch, 2018).

In the Current Path scenario, forest land contin-ues to decline. This is driven by an expansion of cropland and grazing land but also an expansion of urban land. In addition, the urban population in Uganda will increase nearly four-fold, from just 7.3 million people in 2018 to 28.5 million by 2050. This leads to an additional 1.7 million required hect-ares for urban sprawl, encroaching on other land types. Likewise, rising food demand and limited increases in agricultural productivity will drive cropland to expand by 1 million hectares between 2018 and 2050 and grazing land for livestock to expand by 340,000 hectares by 2050. The com-bination of these forces leads to a reduction of 1.3 million hectares of forest land in the Current Path by 2050.


Scenarios

15. While this constitutes an increase of over three times the 2018 estimate, this level of growth has historical precedent. See Annex 2 for more information.

16. Data for food loss across the food supply chain are scarce. The model initializes production loss in Uganda in the agriculture sector to be about 10.8 percent of production, transformation loss (occurring between the farm and the table) to be about 0.4 percent of production, and consumption loss to be about 4.3 percent of production.

This section describes the assumptions and results of two different scenarios and com-

pares the results with the Current Path reference scenario described above. The first scenario, the Agricultural Production scenario, is a future with an emphasis on supply side interventions, with little attention to the demand side of food security. The second scenario, the Food Secure scenario, is a future with an emphasis on food security more holistically, on both the supply and the demand side interventions.

Agricultural Production scenarioThe Agricultural Production scenario is a future where Uganda invests heavily in agricultural production both intensively (through increased yields, reduced loss at both the production and transformation stage, and increased fish pro-duction in both fisheries and aquaculture) and extensively (through an expansion of cropland). This scenario emphasizes the role that domestic agriculture plays in reducing hunger and food insecurity, particularly in the availability and stability of calories. The Agricultural Production scenario assumes the following:

• Yield increases from 2.47 in 2018 to 7.7 in 205015;

• Cropland expands from 9.4 million hectares in 2018 to 10.6 in 2050;

• Food loss declines (primarily in the production

phase, post-harvest) from about 16 percent in 2018 to 9 percent by 2050 (compared to 20 percent in 2050 in the Current Path)16;

• Fish production roughly doubles the Current Path projection in 2050 (1.3 mmt in the Current Path and 2.8 mmt in the Agricultural Production scenario).

Food Secure scenarioIn the Food Secure scenario, Uganda goes beyond the investments to improve caloric availability and stability, as modeled in the Agricultural Production scenario. This scenario emphasizes the other critical pillars of food security—access and utili-zation. Calories are more accessible to the poorest households in Uganda, and healthier populations use these calories more effectively. Unlike in Agricultural Production, more Ugandans reap the benefits of an improved agricultural sector, and domestic production is more often consumed than exported. Finally, Uganda achieves these gains in caloric availability without expanding the amount of land under cultivation. The Food Secure sce-nario assumes:

• Yield increases that match the Agricultural Production scenario (an increase from 2.47 in 2018 to 7.7 in 2050);

• No expansion of cropland above the increase in the Current Path;

• No expansion of grazing land;


• Food loss decreases from 16 percent in 2018 to just over 10 percent by 2050;

• Fish production increases to the same degree as in the Agricultural Production scenario;

• Average caloric consumption increases from 2,103 in 2018 to 3,679 by 205017;

• Uganda invests heavily in infrastructure (an additional cumulative 16 billion USD between 2018 and 2050)—enough to achieve universal access to improved water and sanitation facilities.

ResultsIn the Current Path, crop production increases from about 21 mmt in 2018 to 29 mmt in 2050. In both the Agricultural Production and Food Secure scenarios, crop production increases by about 3.7

17. This is an ambitious level of growth, but it has historical precedent. See Annex 2 for more information.

18. Net imports as a percent of demand.

times 2018 levels by 2050—from 21 mmt to 78 mmt in the Agricultural Production scenario and to 77 mmt in the Food Secure scenario. This increase in production leads to reduced agricultural imports and increased agricultural exports. In volume terms, Uganda is still a net agriculture importer in 2050 in all three scenarios, but in the Agricultural Production scenario, the level of import depen-dence18 (less than 3 percent) is lower than the current value (18 percent) and much lower than the Current Path value in 2050 (56 percent).

In the Food Secure scenario, however, the reduc-tion in import dependence is less dramatic, because more of the production is consumed domestically. Agriculture exports increase in this scenario from 1.2 mmt in 2018 to 4.2 in 2050, and agriculture imports increase from 6.2 mmt in 2018 to 41.6 mmt by 2050 (still less than the Current Path of 54 mmt of agriculture imports in 2050).

FIGURE 4: Crop import dependence in Uganda by scenario

Source: IFs v7.33

20%

40%

60%

Net

impo

rts

as p

erce

nt o

f dem

and

Year

2020 2030 2040 2050

Figure 4: Crop import dependence in Uganda by scenario

Current Path Agricultural Production Food Secure


Net import dependence increases from 18 percent in 2018 to 28 percent by 2050, compared to 56 percent in the Current Path.

Increased agriculture exports have direct eco-nomic benefits—agricultural GDP19 in the Agricultural Production scenario increases from 6.4 billion USD in 2018 to 23 billion USD in 2050, compared to just 10.5 billion USD in 2050 in the Current Path. GDP (at market exchange rate) increases from 24.8 billion USD in 2018 to 252 bil-lion USD in 2050, compared to 210 billion USD in the Current Path scenario, an increase of nearly 20 percent over the Current Path value in 2050.

Economic growth translates into increased gov-ernment revenues—total government revenue is also roughly 20 percent higher in the Agricultural Production scenario compared to the Current Path (51 billion USD in the Agricultural Production sce-nario in 2050 compared to 42.7 billion USD in the Current Path scenario, and 3.8 billion USD in 2018). Higher government revenues lead to increased spending across sectors. In the Agricultural Production scenario, spending in all sectors increases relative to the Current Path.20 For exam-ple, education spending increases by a cumulative 4.3 billion USD between 2018 and 2050 relative to the Current Path, an increase of 23 percent above the Current Path value in 2050. Likewise, in the Food Secure scenario, increased govern-ment revenues also lead to increased spending on health, education, military, and infrastructure. Low levels of access to basic WASH facilities now and in the Current Path projection act as a constraint on economic growth in Uganda. The additional investments in WASH facilities in this scenario lead to direct economic growth through physical capital and an indirect benefit through improved health and productivity.

19. Also referred to as, ‘value added.’

20. International Futures projects government spending across seven sectors: military, health, education, R&D, infrastructure, other infrastructure, and other.

21. For reference, the nominal GDP per capita in Uganda, as of 2017, was $604 (World Bank, 2018).

22. In the IFs model, we define infant mortality to mean the death of a child during the first year of life.

23. GDP per capita and educational attainment of the adult population are distal drivers of underweight children in the model as well. For detailed documentation on the health model see (http://pardee.du.edu/wiki/Health#Child_Undernutrition) as well as (Hughes, Kuhn, Peterson, Rothman, & Solórzano, 2011).

Both the Agricultural Production scenario and the Food Secure scenario result in increased economic growth on a per capita basis. GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity, PPP) increases from just over $1,700 to around $4,800 in 2050 in both sce-narios, compared to just $4,200 in 2050 in the Current Path.21 GDP per capita (PPP) is often used as a proxy for development more broadly—in the IFs model, we use GDP per capita (PPP) to drive other developmental indicators like child mortal-ity, life expectancy, school enrollment, hunger, and of course poverty. In the Food Secure sce-nario, the infant mortality rate22 declines from 56 deaths per thousand live births in 2018 to 17 deaths per thousand live births in 2050, com-pared to 23 deaths per thousand live births in the Current Path in 2050 and 21 deaths per thousand live births in the Agricultural Production scenario. In the Agricultural Production scenario, poverty decreases from 37 percent in 2018 to 11 percent in 2050, compared to the Current Path of 20 per-cent in 2050 and the Food Secure scenario of 10.3 percent in 2050. Rising incomes, combined with increased agricultural production lead to a reduction in hunger from 36 percent in 2018 to 10 percent by 2050, compared to 11 percent in the Current Path.

In the Food Secure scenario, since calories per capita increase to over 3,600, hunger is reduced to below 5 percent by 2050. Increased caloric availability, along with increased access to improved WASH facilities, leads to a reduc-tion in the prevalence of underweight children. Average caloric consumption, along with access to improved WASH facilities, are the proximate drivers of underweight children in the IFs model23. In the Food Secure scenario, the prevalence of underweight children decreases from 12 percent in 2018 to less than 2 percent by 2050, compared to


FIGURE 5: Total undernourished people (millions) in Uganda by scenario

Source: IFs v7.33

FIGURE 6: Total years of life lost to communicable diseases in Uganda by scenario

Source: IFs v7.33

5.0

12.5

15.0

Mill

ion

Peop

le

Year

2020 2030 2040 2050


Figure 5: Total malnourished people in Uganda by scenario

7.5

10.0

10.0

17.5

Mill

ion

Year

s

Year

2020 2030 2040 2050


12.5

15.0

Figure 6: Total years of life lost to communicable diseases in Uganda by scenario


TABLE 4: Food security indicators for Uganda in 2018 and 2050 across three scenarios

2018Current Path

2050Agricultural

Production 2050Food Secure

2050

Acc

ess

Prevalence of undernourishment (%)

35.6 10.9 9.6 5

Number of people undernourished (million people)

16.1 12.2 10.7 5.5


37.4 20 10.5 10.3

Poverty headcount (million people)

17 22.5 11.8 11.4

Ava

ilabi

lity

Agricultural yields (tons/hectare)

2.5 3.1 7.7 7.7

Crop land (million hectares)

9.4 10.4 10.6 10.4

Stab

ility


17.5 55.6 2.6 28.2

Percentage of irrigation potentioal equipped for irrigation (%)

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Util

izat

ion

Underweight children 12.3 7 6.6 2.3


20.6 53.6 56.5 94.3

Access to improved water sources (%) 77.8 85.6 86.9 100

Data used to initialize undernourishment come from (FAO, 2017b). Poverty and underweight children data come from (World Bank, 2018). Crop yield and crop land data come from (FAO, 2017d). Agricultural import dependence data come from (FAO, 2017c). Irrigation data come from (FAO, 2017a). Access to water and sanitation data come from (WHO/UNICEF, 2018). 2018 and 2050 values from IFs v7.33 (Pardee Center, 2018).


7 percent in the Current Path scenario. Lower levels of underweight children have far reach-ing health benefits—the under-five mortality rate decreases from 82 deaths per 1000 live births in 2018 to just 28 in 2050 compared to 35 in 2050 in the Current Path. Further, reduced childhood malnutrition leads to a reduced prevalence of stunting. In the Food Secure scenario, stunting decreases from 22 percent in 2018 to 12 percent in 2050, compared to 13 percent in 2050 in the Current Path. In Food Secure, roughly 750,000 communicable disease deaths are averted, due to improved access to safe WASH facilities.

Figure 6 shows the difference in the total years of life lost to communicable diseases for the three scenarios. Years of life lost is a health measure that accounts for both the number of deaths as well as the age at which a person dies—a child’s death is weighted higher than an older person. Because communicable diseases disproportion-ately affect children, and because increased food security reduces the prevalence of communicable diseases, the total amount of years lost is greatly reduced in the Food Secure scenario.

Table 4 (page 17) illustrates some of the assump-tions and consequences of the different scenarios. Poverty and hunger decline in all three scenarios but more so in the Food Secure scenario.


Interventions

There is no simple solution to achieve food secu-rity in Uganda. The following section surveys

potential interventions for increasing food secu-rity. This is not an exhaustive list—the interventions described here are chosen because of their rel-evance to food security as well as our ability to estimate their impacts with the IFs model. We separate the interventions into the supply side (interventions aimed at increasing the availabil-ity of food) and the demand side (interventions aimed at increasing food demand or consump-tion). This distinction is made because of the structure of the IFs model and the way the sce-narios for this report have been constructed. As the scenarios section illustrates, achieving food security requires both supply side and demand side interventions. The sections below describe four supply side interventions and four demand side interventions. The four supply side interven-tions are: increased crop yields, decreased food loss, increased livestock production, and increased fisheries and aquaculture. The four demand side interventions are: poverty alleviation, increased access to quality education, resources for small-holder farmers, and access to safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities.

Supply side interventionsIncreased yieldsUgandan yields are 2.5 tons/hectare, well below both the global and Sub-Saharan African averages (6.4 and 3.4 respectively). Increased use of agri-cultural inputs can improve yields and is part of the initiatives already underway. Uganda uses less fertilizer per hectare of arable land than almost any other country in the world. The world aver-age is 138 kilograms/ha, in Sub-Saharan Africa it is only 15 kg/ha and in Uganda it is only 2.4 kg/

ha (World Bank, 2018). The use of pesticides in Uganda is also very low in terms of kg/ha—0.01 kg/ha, again one of the lowest in the world (FAO, 2017d). Additionally, increased yields can come from better access to services—financial services like those required for poverty reduction, but also business development, veterinary, and information services (weather, market, and early warning sys-tems). Much of the agricultural activity in Uganda occurs at the bottom-end of the value chain. For example, the largest export in value terms is green coffee, mostly exported to Switzerland and Germany where it is roasted and processed (FAO, 2017d).

Increasing crop yields will improve overall crop production and can reduce import dependence, but if the crops are primarily cash crops for exports, they can have a limited impact on hunger if benefits from trade are not equitably distrib-uted (illustrated in the scenario analysis). There are also potential negative consequences of yield improvement interventions. If the yield increases come from increased use of fertilizers like nitrogen and phosphorus, there can be negative conse-quences on fresh water supplies (Bouwman et al., 2017; Lassaletta, Billen, Grizzetti, Anglade, & Garnier, 2014). If the yields require additional use of pesticides, there can be direct negative health implications, if the farmers are not trained in proper handling techniques (Sibani, Jessen, Tekin, Nabankema, & Jørs, 2017).

Increased yields can increase the availability of cal-ories and thus decrease hunger. If this can be done without expanding cropland, then increased yields can also reduce deforestation and biodiversity loss. Yet increased yields do not necessarily lead to a reduction in cropland expansion or biodiver-sity loss (Clough et al., 2011; Ewers, Scharlemann,


Balmford, & Green, 2009; Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2010). In fact, increased productivity may attract more farmers and an acceleration of deforestation (Angelsen, 2010; Ewers et al., 2009). There are however, sustainable ways to improve yields, such as through organic fertilizers, high yield crop culti-vars, better deployment of existing crop varieties, precision agriculture, improved cultural practices (mulching, conservation tillage, applying compost, crop rotation, appropriate spacing, etc.), and agro-nomic information for farmers (Foley et al., 2011; Sánchez, 2010).

Food LossAbout one-third of all food produced glob-ally is lost or wasted (Gustavsson, Cederberg, & Sonesson, 2011). In Uganda, the portion is potentially even higher (some estimate as high as 40 percent) and almost entirely occurs in the ‘post-harvest’ period, after harvest and before consumption (Costa, 2014, 2015). In a successful World Food Programme (WFP) test study done from 2012 – 2014, Ugandan farmers were given training and supplies for post-harvest storage, and loss was dramatically reduced. This initiative has been expanded into the Zero Food Loss Initiative in Uganda and led to significant reductions in food loss, leading to better household nutrition and incomes as well as food security (Costa, 2014, 2015; Viola, 2017).

Livestock Livestock is a major source of livelihood and resilience for many Ugandan farmers. Measures to improve the health of livestock through vet-erinary services and information can decrease hunger and poverty (IPC, 2015). Livestock is also a source of resilience, as they can be sold during times of financial stress (Browne & Glaeser, 2010). An increased portion of both agricultural pro-duction and consumption in Uganda will come from meat (or other animal proteins like milk and eggs), largely due to rising incomes. Livestock require larger plots of land due to both direct

requirements and for feed production. Increasing stocking rates to meet increased demand for animal protein can lead to soil degradation and other significant environmental impacts (Clark & Tilman, 2017). On the other hand, improved live-stock breeds can graze on lands unsuitable for crops and convert inputs into more meat, milk, and eggs in a shorter period than other breeds.

Fisheries and aquacultureUganda is the sixth largest inland water fish pro-ducer in the world with a harvest of 462,000 tons in 2014 (FAO, 2016). Most of this fish (mainly Tilapia over the past decade) comes from Lake Victoria, the third largest lake on Earth, and much is exported (Geheb et al., 2008; Scheer, 2018). Fishing provides a source of income for many Ugandans, primarily men, and can assist in pov-erty and hunger alleviation (Lynch et al., 2017; Youn et al., 2014)social, and environmental goals into a unified ‘plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity.’ We highlight the substantial contribution inland fisheries can make towards preventing increased poverty and, in some cases, alleviating poverty (i.e. addressing Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] 1: No Poverty. It is also an input for other agricultural activities like pro-duction of commercial livestock feeds. But the sustainability of this industry is at risk due to poor governance, increased fishing pressure, and ille-gal practices (Benkenstein, 2011). While it may be difficult to expand capture fish production from inland water, aquaculture (fish farming) has been growing rapidly from 5,000 metric tons in 2004 to over 100,000 in 2014 (MAAIF, 2017) and is likely to expand further in the next decade due in part to increased commercial investment (Dalsgaard, Dickson, Jagwe, & Longley, 2012; FAO, 2017e). Aquaculture is a more efficient food production system than livestock and a more sustainable source of protein (Béné et al., 2015). Fishing and aquaculture are expected to grow by 47 percent in the Current Path, but will still only comprise about 3 percent of total production by 2050 or 1.3 mmt.


Demand side interventionsPoverty reductionPoverty and hunger are reinforcing burdens—the poor struggle for access to food and the hungry are often sick and struggle to improve economic productivity (FAO, 2015, p. 27). According to a four year study, most households in Uganda spend no less than 45 percent of their income on food (Musa Ladu, 2015). While poverty has been decreasing in Uganda, nearly 17 million people still live below the $1.90 poverty line (World Bank, 2018). Interventions aimed at reducing poverty can have a direct impact on reducing hunger (FAO, 2015, 2017b; Qureshi, Dixon, & Wood, 2015). Studies have shown that increased income has a much larger effect on food con-sumption for the poor than the wealthy (Cirera & Masset, 2010; Regmi & Meade, 2013). Only 4.8 percent of GDP is currently spent on government transfers to households in Uganda (this includes both pensions and welfare), well below the SSA average of 8.9 percent.24

Poverty and hunger also disproportionately impact women. Women make up 56 percent of the agricultural labor force in Uganda, yet manage only 33 percent of the plots (Palacios-Lopez, Christiaensen, & Kilic, 2015; Sheahan & Barrett, 2017). Further, studies have shown that increasing women’s access to income and land significantly reduce hunger for both women and children (Giovarelli, Wamalwa, & Hannay, 2013).

In the Current Path, the portion of the Ugandan population suffering from extreme poverty (less than $1.90 per day) decreases from 37 percent in 2018 to 36.5 percent in 2030 and 20 percent in 2050. But because of population growth, the absolute number of people living in extreme pov-erty increases from 17 million in 2018 to over 30 million in 2030 before decreasing to 22.5 million in 2050. Likewise, the portion of the population

24. From IFs v7.33 for year 2018. Projection initialized using data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2018) and the IMF’s World Economic Outlook 2017 (International Monetary Fund, 2017).

25. According to the FAO’s Family Farming Knowledge Platform, the median farm in Uganda is just 1.5 hectares (FAO, 2018b).

living below the $3.10 poverty line is expected to increase from nearly 30 million in 2018 to over 50 million in 2050.

EducationEducation enables the development of technical skills that can unlock greater productivity across all sectors of the economy. Education empowers individuals to utilize technology and higher-value inputs that improve productivity and lead to more innovative problem solving. Poor educational attainment can be a barrier to rural access to information and communication technology (ICT), which often depend on some degree of literacy to leverage the information (World Bank, 2017, p. 57). Education can have a direct effect on hunger through school lunch programs but also has other positive effects. Increased levels of female educa-tion, along with access to modern contraception, can lead to reductions in both child and maternal mortality and the fertility rate (Gakidou, Cowling, Lozano, & Murray, 2010). Reducing the fertility rate in Uganda, one of the highest in the world at 5.7 children per woman, will reduce food demand in the long-term, reducing food insecurity.

Smallholder farmersNearly two-thirds of Ugandan households rely on subsistence farming as their primary source of income (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2016). These subsistence farms (farms less than two acres) deliver 75 – 80 percent of the total agricul-tural output.25 Subsistence farmers are thus the largest block of both consumers and producers. Increasing the productivity of smallholder farm-ers can also improve access to food. Smallholder farmers face financial, physical, and environmen-tal constraints. Reducing financial constraints can be done through better access to financial capital, credit, savings, information, and insur-ance. Reducing physical constraints can be done through better roads to facilitate access


to markets, or more irrigation. Finally, there are a number of hard environmental constraints in Uganda—poor soil quality, low rainfall in the North East region (Karamoja), high temperature, and many farms are geographically remote (Fan, Brzeska, Keyzer, & Halsema, 2013).

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)Ensuring that access to calories translate into healthy people also requires increased access to WASH facilities—unsafe WASH facilities contribute to the prevalence of diarrheal disease and child malnutrition (Forouzanfar et al., 2015; Landrigan et al., 2018). Only 39 percent of Ugandans have access to ‘at least basic’ water facilities and only 6 percent to ‘safely managed’ water facilities. Sanitation access is even worse—only 19 percent have access to ‘at least basic’ sanitation. Though the prevalence of underweight children in Uganda

is not as high as other countries at a similar level of development (Mali and Chad both have a higher prevalence of underweight children and higher average incomes, for example), childhood stunt-ing is high—29 percent of children under five in Uganda are short for their age (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Stunted children tend to perform poorly in school, and since stunting is typically permanent, they tend to contribute to a less pro-ductive work force and lower economic growth (Black et al., 2013, p. 438; Hughes, Kuhn, Peterson, Rothman, & Solórzano, 2011). The total economic cost of child undernutrition in Uganda is estimated to be 899 million USD due to morbidity, repeated school fees, lost productivity from early mortality, and lost productivity from stunting. If Uganda was able to cut the number of stunted children in half by 2025, it would result in annual savings of 88 million USD (UNECA, 2014).


Conclusion

Uganda is facing a food insecure future—hunger has been increasing, and even if the preva-

lence decreases dramatically, population growth will hinder hunger alleviation interventions. Import dependence will likely rise, also a function of pop-ulation driven demand growth; and land expansion for both crops and cities will lead to a reduction in forest and potentially biodiversity. And due to disease and low levels of access to safely managed WASH facilities, the prevalence of underweight children will remain above 7 percent by 2030.

To achieve the goal of sustainable food security, agricultural production will need to increase along with food consumption. Increased access to and utilization of food can come through poverty reduction strategies, increased education, small-holder farmer assistance, and increased access to safely managed WASH facilities. Increased food supply will largely need to come from increased crop yields and reduced losses—more and higher quality agricultural inputs, more agricultural pro-cessing and storage, better access to services, a better enabling environment, and increased agricultural research and development. Fisheries, aquaculture, and livestock also play roles in increasing agricultural production.

Many of these interventions have potential tradeoffs and synergies. Some of the potential tradeoffs can have significant human health impacts. Likewise, there are many yield interventions that have neg-ative consequences—increased yields through fertilizers can have negative consequences on freshwater resources, and pesticide use can be harmful to the health of farmers, if they are not trained in proper handling techniques. But some interventions have synergies: investments in edu-cation, especially female education, can not only reduce hunger and poverty, but also reduce child and maternal mortality and fertility rates, reduc-ing future food demand. Achieving food security in Uganda will require a combination of the inter-ventions listed above with special attention to their potential negative consequences.

If food security is achieved in Uganda, there are many benefits, not just in the agriculture sector but also for the health of Ugandans and the economy. In the Food Secure scenario, GDP is 19 percent higher in 2050, and GDP per capita is 14 percent higher. The prevalence of underweight children is effectively eliminated by 2050, the prevalence of stunting decreases, and the under-five mortality rate is significantly reduced.


Annex 1: Glossary

Access: The ability of households to obtain ade-quate food supplies, either through agricultural production, household food stocks, through acqui-sition at the market, or aid.

Availability: The physical presence of food through domestic agricultural production, imports, or aid.

Basic water and sanitation: “Drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, includ-ing queuing,” and “use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households, (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017, p. 8).

Food stability: Limited variability in the produc-tion, supply, or price of food.

Forest land: “Forest area is the land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predomi-nantly under agricultural or urban land use. Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 metres (m) in situ. Areas under reforesta-tion that have not yet reached but are expected to reach a canopy cover of 10 percent and a tree height of 5 m are included, as are temporarily unstocked areas, resulting from human inter-vention or natural causes, which are expected to regenerate. Includes: areas with bamboo and palms provided that height and canopy cover criteria are met; forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas such as those of specific scientific, historical, cultural

or spiritual interest; windbreaks, shelterbelts and corridors of trees with an area of more than 0.5 ha and width of more than 20 m; plantations pri-marily used for forestry or protective purposes, such as: rubber-wood plantations and cork, oak stands. Excludes: tree stands in agricultural pro-duction systems, for example in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems. The term also excludes trees in urban parks and gardens,” (FAO, 2017d).

Improved water and sanitation: “Improved drink-ing water sources are those which by nature of their design and construction have the potential to deliver safe water,” and “improved sanitation facilities are those designed to hygienically sepa-rate excreta from human contact,” (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017, p. 8). Improved water and sanitation facilities are subdivided into three categories: safely managed, limited, and basic.

Irrigation potential: “Area of land which is poten-tially irrigable. Country/regional studies assess this value according to different methods. For example, some consider only land resources, others consider land resources plus water avail-ability, others include economical aspects in their assessments (such as distance and/or difference in elevation between the suitable land and the available water) or environmental aspects, etc. If available, this information is given in the individ-ual country profiles. The figure includes the area already under agricultural water management,” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017).

Limited water and sanitation: “Drinking water from an improved source for which collection time exceeds 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing,” and “use of improved facilities shared


between two or more households (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017, p. 8).

Safely managed water and sanitation: “Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamina-tion,” and “use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017, p. 8).

Undernourishment or hunger: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines hunger (synonymous with ‘undernourishment’) as, “the condition in which an individual’s habitual food consumption is insufficient to provide the amount of dietary energy required to maintain a normal, active, healthy life,” (FAO, 2017b, p. 95). It is usually reported in terms of the ‘prevalence

of undernourishment’ (PoU), ‘an estimate of the proportion of the population that has been in a condition of undernourishment over the refer-ence period (usually one year),” (FAO, 2017b, p. 95). Essentially, it is a measure of the proportion of the population that does not consume enough calories to meet their basic needs.

Underweight children: The FAO defines under-weight children as, “weight-for-age less than -2 standard deviations below the WHO Child Growth Standards median, and is this a manifestation of low height for age and/or low weight for height,” (FAO, 2017b, p. 108). This can be caused by poor caloric intake (in terms of quantity and/or quality), but can also be attributed to poor use of calories consumed due to disease.

Utilization: The ability of households to efficiently use food, and individuals to absorb and metabo-lize the nutrients.


Annex 2: Scenarios

TABLE 5: Assumptions for each scenario, associated parameters used in the International Futures (IFs) model, and direct effects of interventions on variables

ObjectiveParameter Definition Base 2018 2050

Variable Definition 2018 2050

Agr

icul

tura

l Pro

duct

ion

Increase yields Crop yields multiplier 1 1 2.5 Yield in agriculture (tons/ha)

2.47 7.7

Increase production of aquaculture

Aquaculture multiplier

1 1 2 Fish catch, ocean and freshwater (mmt)

0.581 2.797

Increase cropland Cropland multiplier 1 1 1.5 Cropland (million ha)

9.361 10.62

Reduce transformation loss (crops, meat, and fish)

Loss rate of agricul-ture as it moves from producer to consumer

1 1 0.5 Agricultural loss between farm and table

0.103 0.21

Reduce crop production loss

Loss rate of crop production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (crops)

2.179 3.565

Reduce meat production loss

Loss rate of meat production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (meat)

0.28 0.659

Reduce aquaculture production loss

Loss rate of aquacul-ture production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (fish)

0.145 0.404

(continuded on next page)


ObjectiveParameter Definition Base 2018 2050

Variable Definition 2018 2050

Food

Sec

ure

Increase yields Crop yields multiplier 1 1 2.5 Yield in agriculture (tons/ha)

2.47 7.7

Increase production of aquaculture

Aquaculture multiplier

1 1 2 Fish catch, ocean and freshwater (mmt)

0.581 2.797

Increase cropland Cropland multiplier 1 1 1.5 Cropland (million ha)

9.361 10.62

Reduce transformation loss (crops, meat, and fish)

Loss rate of agricul-ture as it moves from producer to consumer

1 1 0.5 Agricultural loss between farm and table

0.103 0.21

Reduce crop production loss

Loss rate of crop production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (crops)

2.179 3.565

Reduce meat production loss

Loss rate of meat production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (meat)

0.28 0.659

Reduce aquaculture production loss

Loss rate of aquacul-ture production

1 1 0.5 Loss of agricultural production (fish)

0.145 0.404

Increase calorie con-sumption

Per capita calorie demand multiplier

1 1 1.4 Calories per capita available (calories per capita per day)

2103 3678

Protect forest land Forest protection multiplier

1 1 1.06 Forest land 1.93 1.33

Increase access to improved water

Percentage of people with access to unim-proved water source, multiplier

1 1 0 Percent of people with access to unimproved water

22.17 0

Increase access to improved sanitation

Percentage of peo-ple with access to improved sanitation source, multiplier

1 1 3 Percent of people with access to improved sanita-tion

20.6 94.25

Increase government transfers to low in-come households

Government to household welfare transfers (unskilled)

1 1 2 Government to household transfers (billion USD)

1.197 3.452

Yields (tons of crops produced per hectare of cropland) increase from 2.47 in 2018 to 7.7 in 2050. While this is over 3 times the 2018 value, this level of growth is not without historical precedent (see Figure 7 below).

TABLE 5: Assumptions for each scenario, associated parameters used in the International Futures (IFs) model, and direct effects of interventions on variables (continued)


Start Year End Year Start Yield End YieldAverage

Growth Rate

Djibouti 1957 1999 2.20 31.90 7.35

Jordan 1952 1994 3.17 6.09 5.41

Chile 1971 2003 2.09 9.12 4.35

Cambodia 1980 2012 1.07 4.79 5.73

Angola 1978 2010 1.12 5.79 5.46

Botswana 1971 203 0.60 1.56 4.21

Ghana 1971 2003 2.41 3.99 2.61

Rwanda 1979 2011 5.15 9.04 2.01

Each of the countries in this table experienced sustained high yield growth rates for 32 years. Some of the average growth rates exceed the scenario assumption for Uganda of 3.6 percent. It is of course easier to achieve higher growth rates when starting from a lower level. Yields in Botswana, for example, were only 0.6 tons/ha in 1971. However, there are African countries who achieved dramatically increased yields from a higher starting point—Ghana and Rwanda for example.

In the Food Secure scenario, consumption of calories per capita is assumed to increase from 2103 in 2018 to 3679 by 2050, an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. This is ambitious, but again, not without historical prece-dent, see Figure 8 below.

FIGURE 7: Historical growth in crop yields for selected countries

Start year End yearStart calories

per capitaEnd calories

per capitaAverage

growth rate

Ghana 1980 2012 1588 3043 2.05

Djibouti 1979 2011 1365 2506 1.92

Algeria 1963 1995 1525 2783 1.90

Saudi Arabia 1974 2006 1679 3048 1.88

China 1961 1993 1417 2536 1.84

Iran 1961 1993 1749 3115 1.82

Each of the countries in this table experienced sustained growth in caloric availability above 1.8 percent for 32 years.

FIGURE 8: Historical growth in calories per capita for selected countries


Bibliography

Angelsen, A. (2010). Policies for reduced defor-estation and their impact on agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(46), 19639–19644. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912014107

Asiki, G., Seeley, J., Srey, C., Baisley, K., Lightfoot, T., Archileo, K., … Gong, Y. Y. (2014). A pilot study to evaluate aflatoxin exposure in a rural Ugandan population. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19(5), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12283

Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.-I., & Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z

Benkenstein, A. (2011). ‘Troubled Waters’ Sustaining Uganda’s Lake Victoria Nile Perch Fishery. Retrieved from https://www.saiia.org.za/research-reports/256-troubled-wa-ters-sustaining-uganda-s-lake-victoria-nile-perch-fishery/file

Black, R. E., Victora, C. G., Walker, S. P., Bhutta, Z. A., Christian, P., de Onis, M., … Uauy, R. (2013). Maternal and child undernutri-tion and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 382(9890), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X

Bouwman, A. F., Beusen, A. H. W., Lassaletta, L., Apeldoorn, D. F. van, Grinsven, H. J. M. van, Zhang, J., & Van, M. K. I. (2017). Lessons from temporal and spatial patterns in global use of N and P fertilizer on cropland. Scientific Reports, 7, 40366. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40366

Browne, S., & Glaeser, L. (2010). Livelihood mapping and zoning exercise: Uganda. FEWS NET. Retrieved from https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/UG_zonedescriptions_en.pdf

CBD. (2010). DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS TENTH MEETING. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf

CEPF. (2012). Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Parnership Fund. Retrieved from https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/eastern_afromontane_ecosystem_profile_final.pdf

Cirera, X., & Masset, E. (2010). Income distri-bution trends and future food demand. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2821–2834. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0164

Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analy-sis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5


Cleland, J., Conde-Agudelo, A., Peterson, H., Ross, J., & Tsui, A. (2012). Contraception and health. The Lancet, 380(9837), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60609-6

Clough, Y., Barkmann, J., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Wanger, T. C., Anshary, A., … Tscharntke, T. (2011). Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8311–8316. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016799108

Costa, S. J. (2014). Reducing Food Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa (improving Post-Harvest Management and Storage Technologies of Smallholder Farmers.). Retrieved from https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/special_initiatives/WFP265205.pdf

Costa, S. J. (2015). Taking it to scale: Post-Harvest Loss Eradication in Uganda 2014 – 2015. Retrieved from https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp289790.pdf?_ga=2.6833841.286647320.1528125134-1570370745.1520963313

Dalsgaard, J. P. T., Dickson, M., Jagwe, J., & Longley, C. (2012). WorldFish CGIAR Research Program 3.7 – Livestock & Fish, 62.

Ehui, S., Benin, S., Williams, T., & Meijer, S. (2002). Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa to 2020. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya: Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working Paper 49. Retrieved from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/49728/wp49.pdf?sequence=1

Ewers, R. M., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2009). Do increases in agri-cultural yield spare land for nature? Global Change Biology, 15(7), 1716–1726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01849.x

Fan, S., Brzeska, J., Keyzer, M., & Halsema, A. (2013). From Subsistence to Profit: Transforming Smallholder Farms. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ifpri.org/file/34507/download

FAO (Ed.). (2015). Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven prog-ress. Rome: FAO.

FAO (Ed.). (2016). Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome.

FAO. (2017a). AQUASTAT database. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en

FAO (Ed.). (2017b). Building resilience for food and food security. Rome: FAO.

FAO. (2017c). FAO Food Balance Sheets. Retrieved May 9, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/fbs/en/

FAO. (2017d). FAOSTAT. Retrieved May 9, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/faostat/

FAO. (2017e, June). FAO - News Article: Uganda and China’s project results prove South-South Cooperation facilitated by FAO to be an effective tool for agricultural develop-ment. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/partnerships/container/news-article/en/c/897400/

FAO. (2018a). ESS Website ESS : Food security indicators. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.WxsCKO4vzIU

FAO. (2018b). Family Farming Knowledge Platform. Retrieved May 22, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/farm-size/en/


Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J., Johnston, M., … P M Zaks, D. (2011). Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). AQUASTAT database. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en

Gakidou, E., Cowling, K., Lozano, R., & Murray, C. J. (2010). Increased educational attainment and its effect on child mor-tality in 175 countries between 1970 and 2009: a systematic analysis. The Lancet, 376(9745), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61257-3

Geheb, K., Kalloch, S., Medard, M., Nyapendi, A.-T., Lwenya, C., & Kyangwa, M. (2008). Nile perch and the hungry of Lake Victoria: Gender, status and food in an East African fishery. Food Policy, 33(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.06.001

Giovarelli, R., Wamalwa, B., & Hannay, L. (2013, July). Land Tenure, Property Rights, and Gender. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from https://www.land-links.org/issue-brief/land-tenure-property-rights-and-gender/

Global Forest Watch. (2018, May). Interactive Map. Retrieved May 19, 2018, from https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., & Sonesson, U. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention ; study conducted for the International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, [16 - 17 May], Düsseldorf, Germany. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Hendrix, C., & Brinkman, H.-J. (2013). Food Insecurity and Conflict Dynamics: Causal Linkages and Complex Feedbacks. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.bm

Hendrix, C. S., & Haggard, S. (2015). Global food prices, regime type, and urban unrest in the developing world, Global food prices, regime type, and urban unrest in the developing world. Journal of Peace Research, 52(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314561599

Hughes, B. B., Kuhn, R., Peterson, C. M., Rothman, D. S., & Solórzano, J. R. (2011). Improving global health (Vol. 3). Denver : Boulder : New Delhi: Pardee Center for International Futures, University of Denver ; Paradigm Publishers ; Oxford University Press India.

International Monetary Fund. (2017). World Economic Outlook. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781557750853.084

IPC. (2015). Report of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Chronic Analysis for Uganda. Retrieved from http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Uganda_ChronicFI_Situation_Feb2015-2018.pdf

Joffé, G. (2011). The Arab Spring in North Africa: origins and prospects. The Journal of North African Studies, 16(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2011.630881

Kaaya, A. N., & Kyamuhangire, W. (2006). The effect of storage time and agroecological zone on mould incidence and aflatoxin con-tamination of maize from traders in Uganda. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 110(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.04.004


Lassaletta, L., Billen, G., Grizzetti, B., Anglade, J., & Garnier, J. (2014). 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: the relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environmental Research Letters, 9(10), 105011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105011

Lynch, A. J., Cowx, I. G., Fluet-Chouinard, E., Glaser, S. M., Phang, S. C., Beard, T. D., … Youn, S. (2017). Inland fisheries – Invisible but integral to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda for ending poverty by 2030. Global Environmental Change, 47, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.005

MAAIF. (2016). Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan 2015/16-2019/20 “Draft.” Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. Retrieved from http://npa.ug/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ASSP-Final-Draft.pdf

MAAIF. (2017). Analytical Paper for Seventh Annual JASAR: Pest, Vectors and Diseases in Agricultural Sector.

Musa Ladu, I. (2015, May 6). Ugandans spend nearly half of income on food - survey - Daily Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Ugandans-spend-nearly-half-of-income-on-food--survey/688334-2708234-14t3gexz/index.html.

NEMA. (2016). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan II (2015-2025). National Environment Management Authority. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ug/ug-nbsap-v2-en.pdf

Palacios-Lopez, A., Christiaensen, L., & Kilic, T. (2015). How Much of the Labor in African Agriculture Is Provided by Women?, 36.

Pardee Center. (2018). International Futures (IFs) modeling system (Version 7.33). Denver, CO: Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.

Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensifica-tion model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 200905455. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905455107

Prüss-Üstün, A., Bos, R., Gore, F., Bartram, J., & World Health Organization. (2008). Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Qureshi, M., Dixon, J., & Wood, M. (2015). Public policies for improving food and nutrition security at different scales. Food Security, 7, 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0443-z

Regmi, A., & Meade, B. (2013). Demand side drivers of global food security. Global Food Security, 2(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.08.001

Sánchez, P. A. (2010). Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nature Geoscience, 3(5), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo853

Scheer, J. (2018). THE STATUS OF UGANDAN AGRICULTURE: An Overview.

Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Ten strik-ing facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 67, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.010

Sibani, C., Jessen, K. K., Tekin, B., Nabankema, V., & Jørs, E. (2017). Effects of Teaching Health Care Workers on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pesticide Poisonings in Uganda. Environmental Health Insights, 11, 117863021772677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630217726778


Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2016). National Population and Housing Census 2014 - Main report. Retrieved from http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/NPHC/NPHC%202014%20FINAL%20RESULTS%20REPORT.pdf

Uganda National Planning Authority. (2013). Uganda Vision 2040. Retrieved from http://npa.ug/wp-content/themes/npatheme/doc-uments/vision2040.pdf

UNECA. (2014). The Cost of Hunger in Africa: Social and Economic Impact of Child Undernutrition in Egypt, Ethiopia, Swaziland and Uganda. Addis Ababa: African Union Commission, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency, UN Economic Commission for Africa, and UN World Food Programme. Retrieved from https://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/CoHA%20English_web.pdf

Viola, A. (2017). Scaling Up Post-Harvest Losses Interventions in Uganda Through Market Forces, 72.

Wanner, N., Cafiero, C., Troubat, N., & Conforti, P. (2014). Refinements to the FAO meth-odology for estimating the prevalence of undernourishment indicator, (14), 35.

WCS. (2016). Nationally Threatened Species for Uganda. Wildlife Conservation Society. Retrieved from http://www.nationalredlist.org/files/2016/03/National-Redlist-for-Uganda.pdf

WFP. (2009). Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook. Retrieved from https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp203246.pdf?_ga=2.12518452.1640794574.152840 6277-1608226543.1528406277

WHO/UNICEF. (2018). JMP. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from https://washdata.org/data

World Bank (Ed.). (2017). ICT in agriculture: connecting smallholders to knowledge, networks, and institutions / World Bank Group, InfoDev, KWPF (Updated edition). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators. Retrieved June 12, 2017, from http://databank.worldbank.org

World Health Organization, & UNICEF. (2017). Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/jmp-2017/en/

Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. (2018). 2018 Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from https://epi.envirocen-ter.yale.edu/epi-downloads

Youn, S.-J., Taylor, W. W., Lynch, A. J., Cowx, I. G., Douglas Beard, T., Bartley, D., & Wu, F. (2014). Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to their future. Global Food Security, 3(3), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.09.005


Achieving food security in Uganda...TABLE 1: Food security indicators for Uganda in 2018 and 2050...

Documents

Transcript of Achieving food security in Uganda...TABLE 1: Food security indicators for Uganda in 2018 and 2050...