SDR Report (2)

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 20151

Economic Development Policy and Research DepartmentMinistry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REPORTUganda’s Aspiration for Middle-Income Status: Strategies for Sustainable Land Use and Management

2015

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 2

Empowered lives.Resilient nations.

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 i

Uganda’s Aspiration for Middle-Income Status: Strategies for Sustainable Land Use and Management

2015

Economic Development Policy and Research Department Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REPORT


Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015ii

Foreword

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is proud to have partnered with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) in producing the Sustainable Development Report (SDR). The first of many series, this report comes at a major turning point in the government’s drive to pursue a national sustainable development agenda within the framework of Uganda’s Vision 2040.

The theme of this report discusses a pertinent element of sustainable development in Uganda - land. In an agro-based economy, land is one of the most critical components of sustainable development. It is where most of Uganda’s production takes place subsequently providing a source of livelihood for the largest segment of the population. Progress in all dimensions will therefore depend on how the legal, policy and institutional frameworks are positioned to optimise the use of this resource.

In addition to the efficient use of the land resource, government efforts should also focus on enhancing the capabilities of the country’s growing population, one of its greatest resources. These capabilities will help to unleash the potential embodied in the high levels of human capital that characterise the country.

The SDRs therefore provides a window of opportunity to assess, and where required, redirect national development efforts and thinking to focus on the available opportunities such as the land for production, the young and energetic population as well as the fast evolving technologies that can be used to fast track development. To achieve this, we require a change of paradigm that facilitates us to

overcome development challenges before they manifest. This calls for intellectual leadership that can be steered by knowledge products of this kind and the actions that follow from their recommendations.

The SDRs will also provide a platform to expound on Uganda’s development policy debate beyond the lifespan of the new Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) whose reporting mechanism is still being planned by the Government.

Lasting partnerships are required to deliver on sustainable development pathways. In this regard, UNDP is proud to have partnered with MoFPED, other government institutions, academia and development actors in stimulating debate on development challenges through a host of policy dialogues and evidence based knowledge products such as the Human Development Reports, Millennium Development Reports, Poverty Status Reports, and now the SDR.

In this era of the 2030 agenda, UNDP will continue to mobilise cutting-edge expertise from within the UN system, across the region and globe in supporting government to devise practical policy options that lead to systemic change and create large-scale impact.

Almaz GebruCountry Director, UNDP

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 iii

Preface

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) is mandated among other things to formulate policies that enhance national stability and development. In the spirit of fostering home-grown policies and nationally driven development initiatives, MFPED conceived the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) series in 2013 as a prime platform for facilitating and communicating National understanding and debate on frontier development policy issues and evidence.

The SDR series is a multi-disciplinary product that will be published in three-year intervals. It aims to address development issues pertinent to Uganda’s transition and progression along the middle-income status path over the Vision 2040 time horizon. MFPED plays a lead role in Uganda’s economic development policy and is aware of the ever growing need for a holistic view in the treatment of societal, economic and environmental development objectives in its contribution to the management of Uganda’s modernisation and transformation agenda. This awareness evokes deeper policy analysis and debate, and by extension superior policy evidence. It is this call that the SDR series sets out to answer.

Coming at the dawn of the Post-2015 development era, the SDR series is also positioned to serve as an innovative policy tool for national engagement on new and differing expectations associated with economic integration and development cooperation in the Post-Millennium Development Goals (MDG) era. The SDR series will complement other flagship publications including the Poverty Status Report,

the upcoming Private Sector Development Report and the successor national report to the Millennium Development Goals report under consideration.

Themed “Uganda’s Aspiration for Middle-Income Status: Strategies for land Use and Management”, this pioneer edition of the SDR paves way for the kind of evidence and analysis that MFPED expects to gain centre-stage in Uganda’s development discourse over the medium and long-term. By placing economic growth within the wider context of national wealth, this report brings to the fore the imperative of diversifying Uganda’s production base in tandem with its demographic and human capital profile.

This report has benefited from a cross-section of disciplines and expertise from both the public and private sector. I am confident it will serve as a vital resource for national reflection on the important subject of land use as we join forces to propel the country’s transformation into a higher middle income status by 2040.

I thank my technical staff for their proactive technical leadership in the preparation of this report. My appreciation also goes to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Uganda for its financial support in this regard.

Keith MuhakaniziPermanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015iv

Executive Summary

Motivation for the Uganda Sustainable Development Report 2015

This report examines the context of sustainable development for Uganda, with a thematic focus on land use and land management practices. Land is Uganda’s prime and critical asset in development and thus a central issue in the country’s policy and development context. The way it is used and managed will play a key role in the achievement of the country’s vision. With agriculture continuing to be a sector of strategic importance for Uganda’s socio-economic transformation, improving land use and management constitutes a key development priority and a determinant of Uganda’s aspiration to become an upper-middle income country by 2040.

Although the thematic focus is on land, the report takes a broader view and does not consider natural capital in isolation. Sustainable development

requires Uganda to reduce its dependence on land and other forms of natural capital. The country’s productive base must be expanded through investment in physical equipment and machinery, the skills and technical know-how of the growing labour force, and the development of institutions to effectively govern social, economic and political interactions. These new forms of physical, human and intangible capital will often be employed in the industrial and modern service sectors. That way, the movement of labour from agriculture to these higher-value activities will help to reduce the pressure on the country’s finite land resources. Economic diversification will be closely related to changing settlement patterns. Greater rural-to-urban migration and more concentrated human settlements will in turn impact natural ecosystems and economic productivity.

Main findings and conclusions

Uganda’s current development trajectory is unsustainable, explaining the need for structural transformation. Historically, Uganda was relatively sparsely populated and land for agriculture was therefore abundant. As a result, traditional farming practices are characterised by the extensive use and rapid depletion of land and the limited use of other inputs. Following the rapid population growth over recent decades, there is a risk Uganda will continue down an unsustainable path where continued environmental degradation undermines economic progress which will only exacerbate pressure on the country’s natural resource base. Avoiding this scenario will require decisive action to reverse current trends. Uganda must shift from agricultural growth driven by the extension of land under cultivation to use its limited land more efficiently. If the current growth rate of around 1% continues, more than 90% of land would be used for agriculture by 2040. This is inconsistent with the Vision 2040 objective to expand forest cover from 15% to 24% of the country’s land area.

Agricultural productivity growth will be fundamental for the realisation of Vision 2040. Uganda’s crop

productivity growth is on a downward trend and has averaged only around 1% per year over the last decade, compared to around 6% per year in better-performing countries in the region. Reducing the share of the labour force in agriculture to 31% as targeted by Vision 2040 will require a dramatic and sustained turnaround in agricultural productivity, to at least match the best-performing countries in the region. Simulations made in this report suggest that agricultural productivity may be the most important factor determining the extent of Uganda’s structural transformation over the next 25 years. Without a turnaround in agricultural performance, the economy will not be able to support a large non-agricultural workforce and structural change will be self-limiting. Strong agricultural productivity growth on the other hand will enhance rural incomes and increase the demand for non-agricultural products. Although the agricultural sector has low levels of productivity it has the greatest potential and need for productivity growth. Policy makers should not view agriculture as lagging the rest of the economy, but embrace the sector as the engine of the Uganda’s overall development.

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 v

Land degradation is a major threat to agricultural productivity. Agricultural practices do not only impact Uganda’s natural ecosystems. Ecosystem services are crucial for agricultural production and the encroachment of cultivation into natural ecosystems is itself severely undermining the sustainability of agricultural growth. Deforestation and reduced vegetation cover have reduced the number and variety of soil organisms and accelerated the erosion of fertile top soils. Overgrazing of the cattle corridor has also destroyed vegetation, exposing these areas to greater water and wind erosion. Depleted organic matter reduces agricultural productivity by lowering the cation exchange capacity of the soil. This leads to nutrient loss and also reduces the effectiveness of inorganic fertilizers, which is an important factor behind Uganda’s low fertilizer use rate. Prudent ecosystem management to prevent and reverse land degradation can thus serve both environmental and economic objectives.

Strategies for improved land management will be central in achieving the gains in agricultural productivity required for Uganda’s progression to upper-middle income status. Traditional land management practices are in decline as population pressure has reduced the practicality of fallowing. The fragmentation of household plots has also reduced the use of bulky and hard-to-transport inputs such as manure and crop residues. To avoid environmental and ultimately economic catastrophe, Uganda’s agricultural systems must shift from using land extensively to using land intensively through the greater use of modern inputs, higher-value crops, and soil conservation measures among other strategies. Inorganic fertilizers must continue to be promoted, in combination with complementary organic fertility management practices. In the many areas with already depleted levels of organic matter the returns to fertilizer use are low. In these areas, organic soil fertility technologies – including manuring, composting, mulching and planting legumes for grain or fodder – are critical to improve the nitrogen status and buffering capacity of the soil in general, which will in turn increase the effectiveness of chemical fertilizers. Organic and inorganic fertility management are therefore complementary rather than alternative strategies.

Environmental sustainability must be central to the realisation of Uganda’s Vision 2040.Countries that have undergone sustained economic transformation have also preserved and gradually increased the value of their natural resources. This reflects mutual reinforcement between natural capital and economic development. Ecosystem services are critical determinants of productivity; and the knowledge, institutions and resources required to conserve and replenish natural wealth is facilitated by higher income. Ugandan households are often forced to prioritise their immediate needs at the expense of environmental factors critical for long-term development, as illustrated by the poor land management practices among the majority of smallholder farmers. The interdependence between socio-economic development and environmental sustainability can give rise to a virtuous circle, with mutual reinforcement between improved economic, environmental and social conditions. However, investment in poverty reduction and agricultural modernization by itself is not sufficient to address the problem of land degradation. Complementary strategies that simultaneously reduce poverty and ensure sustainable land management are required to ensure the shift towards more intensive land management that helps to build the long-term health of Uganda’s natural capital stocks.

Government must take a long-term perspective and find ways to alleviate short-term tradeoffs for poor households. Efforts to promote or enforce land conservation measures may increase agricultural production in the long run, but reduce incomes in the short run, because such measures require scarce land and labour that may have produced higher income if allocated for other activities. In the longer term, however, land degradation is likely to lead to further impoverishment, which can only be averted through promotion of conservation programmes. There is the need to recognize and find ways to ameliorate such negative tradeoffs where they occur. Poverty reduction strategies being implemented through agricultural modernization can achieve win-win-win outcomes, simultaneously increasing productivity, reducing poverty, and reducing land degradation. Examples of such strategies include promoting investments in soil and water

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015vi

conservation and agroforestry, which highlights the importance of promoting organic soil fertility-management practices in efforts to reduce land degradation and poverty. Other strategies—such as road development, encouragement of non-farm activities, and promotion of rural finance—also appear to have contributed to positive outcomes without significant trade-offs.

Agricultural modernisation, the growth of non-farm opportunities, and better functioning land markets will enable more efficient settlement patterns. Government has limited capacity to influence rural settlement patterns directly. Although the Physical Planning Act (2010) declared the whole country a planning area, the capacity of local planning authorities remains weak. Small upcountry towns are critical for both the agricultural and non-agricultural economies and must be allowed to grow in an efficient way. These municipalities require sufficient resources for physical planning and greater powers to regulate land use. More generally, land fragmentation and dispersed

settlement patterns are symptoms of Uganda’s traditional agricultural systems, inadequate non-farm opportunities, and inefficient land markets under increased population pressures. Policies should address these root causes of inefficiency, rather than fixate on land fragmentation or dispersed settlement patterns in themselves. Government should avoid creating a national settlement plan that would stand little chance of being implemented. It would be more prudent to develop a spatial strategy to provide practical guidance to various Government agencies when developing their individual sector plans. It is natural and efficient for different regions of the country to specialise along their areas of comparative advantage. Government must continue to improve connective infrastructure between different regions, taking into account this pattern of comparative advantage. Agro-ecological zoning can also be strengthened by incentivizing agribusinesses to develop linkages with farmer organizations specialised in a particular crop or commodity.

Policy recommendations

Future government efforts towards reducing poverty must take into account sustainable land utilisation and agricultural transformation. While government has been successful in reducing the number of people living in poverty; and the national poverty rate fell to 19.7% in 2012/13 from 24.5% in 2009/10, the growing population and shortage of agricultural land requires the integration of sustainable land utilization and agricultural transformation in the country’s poverty reduction agenda. Sustainable land utilization requires adoption of integrated ecosystem management. To facilitate agricultural transformation, the government needs to foster farmer organizations and increase its partnerships with private actors. This will promote the integration of smallholder farmers into larger value chains and allow subsistence-oriented producers to participate in a dynamic commercial economy, enhancing rural incomes, productivity and competitiveness.

Build climate change resilience through promoting climate smart agriculture, ecosystem

Based adaptation, and green growth and green development. The impacts of climate change pose a serious challenge to the achievement of Vision 2040. The way land is used and managed needs to respond to the challenges posed by climate change through both adaptation and mitigation. By supporting climate smart agriculture, ecosystem based adaptation and promoting green growth and green development, the country will be able build the climate resilience that is needed to sustain Uganda’s agricultural and socio-economic transformation.

Enhance agro-ecological zoning and support the implementation of ecologically compatible agricultural systems and landuse practices. While Uganda is already divided into 10 agro-ecological zones, agriculture continues to be practiced without taking into account ecologically compatible cropping and animal rearing. To that end, the government should continue to promote the agro-ecological zones as they are essential in incentivizing agro-processors to develop linkages with farmer organizations. Agro-ecological zoning can help to encourage farmer organizations

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 vii

specialize in a single crop or commodity thus promoting large scale commercial farming that is competitive.

Sustainable agriculture requires a more active private sector and strong farmers organisations. Promoting and supporting farmers organizations and in particular farmers cooperatives is crucial and can be easily achieved by building on the emerging cooperative spirit especially through SACCOs and strong farmers associations. The farmer groups should adopt value chain processes based on production, distribution, financing and marketing. This requires extra support from government to fund farmer field schools, provision of agricultural loans and inputs at subsidized interest rates, funding women agricultural entrepreneurship schemes, facilitating agricultural marketing and building community based storage facilities. It is also essential to engage with the private sector to explore and develop market opportunities for agricultural products for small holder farmers. This necessitates undertaking investments that promote development of value chains including construction of national silos, deliberate school feeding programmes that require large volumes of produce, and putting up agro-processing facilities through public private partnerships. Construction of storage facilities at community level to enable the smallholders to bulk their produce before marketing. This will reduce post-harvest losses that are experienced at farm level.

Government needs to fully implement the Uganda Land Use Policy. The effectiveness of smallholder agriculture as an engine of growth and poverty reduction is contingent on equitable distribution of land. When land is distributed relatively evenly, agricultural growth can be powerfully pro-poor. Full implementation of the Uganda National Land Policy could enhance land utilization for development and discourage the practice of holding large tracts of land for speculative purposes while serious developers or landless people are without access to land.

Address the challenge of counterfeits in order to encourage the adoption of high value agricultural inputs. While adoption of high value crops and other agricultural inputs could bring

in high productivity and returns, the issue of counterfeits remains a challenge. The limited use of agricultural inputs and high prevalence of counterfeits imply that addressing these related problems offers tremendous potential for growth in Uganda’s agricultural sector, and thus, the prospects for development and socio-economic transformation. The Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) needs to be equipped to enforce bans on the importation and sale of substandard and counterfeit agro-inputs and manufactured products. Besides, an independent government agricultural standards agency could be created to reduce the burden on UNBS. The created agricultural standards agency would be mandated among others, to provide information on certified seed and technology stockists.

Promote and support payment for ecosystem services schemes as a way of reducing deforestation and forest degradation. Forest cover is declining due to various factors but mostly on account of agricultural expansion due to limited off-farm opportunities and fuel wood consumption especially charcoal. The government could support payment for ecosystem services as an incentive to encourage private forest owners to maintain forests on their land.

Support the growing of energy crops and promote efficient wood fuel efficient production and utilisation technologies. The majority of the population in Uganda uses biomass energy and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future. However, currently there are no significant interventions to ensure a steady supply of wood fuel apart from existing forests and woodlands. Growing of energy crops and improving efficiency in charcoal production and consumption should be promoted.

Fast track the formulation and operationalisation of the rangeland policy to contain rangeland degradation. Currently, overgrazing and overstocking are the major causes of rangeland degradation. Effective extension services should be provided to pastoral communities to address plant invasion, promote adaptive rangeland utilization and ensure sustainable productivity. This requires fast tracking the formulation and

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015viii

operationalization of the rangeland policy which would comprehensively address the challenges afflicting rangelands.

Empower and support government agencies responsible for environmental management to implement and enforce environmental laws and regulations. Uganda has put in place various policies and laws to promote sound environmental management but their implementation is still a challenge. Responsible agencies mandated to manage ecosystems need to be given better political support and resources to implement their mandates and this should be coupled with regular and effective monitoring of their performance in terms of accountability, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, equity and participation. Improving the functionality of institutions requires improving their technical and human capacity through training and hiring of adequate staff and required infrastructure to implement their mandate.

Put in place and implement an overarching human settlements policy and a human settlements development plan. Uganda does not have a human settlement policy that coherently aligns and integrates other disparate policies for a more sustainable urban and rural settlement development approach. Thus the government needs to initiate the formulation, development and implementation of an integrative human settlement policy and comprehensive national human settlement development plan to guide the development of new human settlements in the urban and rural area. Equally important is to develop and adopt the National Urban and Human Settlement Planning Codes and Standards, which standardize planning and include site planning and environmental engineering.

Government should conduct a comprehensive study that will develop a system of regrouping rural settlements across the country. Regrouping human settlement in rural areas on serviced sites equipped with the basic infrastructure and community amenities is essential and can promote rational use of land. However, the government should be conscious that regrouping of the rural population

in centralised villages can be very challenging. Thus an extensive study should be conducted to develop an appropriate system for regrouping human settlement throughout the country and providing amenities and basic infrastructure to these settlements.

Promote the development of human settlements based on economic activities. The Vision 2040 already prioritises the development of a national settlement network of cities and urban centres as poles of growth offering economic opportunities to their citizens, attracting investment, and providing services to support economic initiatives. To this end, the government can promote and support the development of settlements around economic activities by creating Special Economic Zones. In this endeavour, Uganda could emulate emerging countries like China, Malaysia and Singapore that that have attained high levels of urbanization and development through integrated physical planning and investment, and establishment of commercial and industrial functional zones.

Interventions are required to control urban sprawl. It is evident that Uganda’s urban areas are growing rapidly and could become difficult to manage if left to sprawl out of control. The central government and local government authorities need to act quickly to curtail the increasingly uncontrolled spill-over of urban development into the rural hinterlands, where vital resources such as agricultural land, forests, wetlands and rangelands are being degraded. Conversion of land for urban development needs to be managed and controlled accordingly to avert potential problems like food insecurity. As a priority, the government should be able to collaborate with the private sector in housing and urban development. This could be through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in housing, public infrastructure, and services. The private sector is endowed with human and financial resources which are attractive to urbanization and rural settlement development to complement government programs, projects and resources. The collaboration with banks can play a significant role in homeowner housing finance for homeownership or rental.

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 ix

Table of Contents

Foreword ii Preface iiiExecutive summary ivTable of contents ixList of Tables xiList of Figures xiiAcronyms and Abbreviations xiiiMap of Uganda xiv

1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Purpose and Periodicity of the Sustainable Development Report 11.2 Methodology 21.3 Structure of the Report 21.4 Data and Indicators 3

2 MAPPING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDA 42.1 The Global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 42.2 The Status of Characteristic Factors of Sustainable Development in Uganda 62.2.1 Economic growth and structural transformation 62.2.2 Population and Demographics 62.2.3 Human Development 72.2.4 Urbanisation for Sustainable development 92.2.5 Governance and institutional development 102.2.6 Environment and natural resources 11

3 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA 133.1 Introduction 133.2 Sustainable development and wealth accounting 133.3 Uganda’s productive assets 153.4 Why sustainable land use and management? 163.4.1 Land management and the environment 173.4.2 Land management and human settlements 173.5 Policy and institutional context 183.5.1 Land Policy 183.5.2 Land ownership and management 193.5.3 Agricultural policy 223.5.4 Ecosystem management policy framework 223.5.5 Settlement policy 243.6 Demographic and socio-economic context 253.7 Changing patterns of land use 273.7.1 National trends 273.7.2 Land access and use at household level 29

4 LAND AND ECOSySTEM MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA 324.1 Introduction 324.2 Status of Uganda’s land, ecosystems and ecosystem services 324.2.1 Degradation of Uganda’s land 32

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015x

4.2.1.1 Degradation of cropland 324.2.2 Ecosystems and ecosystems services 444.2.3 Status and trends in forest cover 454.2.4 Status and trends in wetlands 464.2.5 Status and trends in water quality and resources 474.2.6 Drivers of ecosystem change and ecosystem degradation 494.3 Consequences of ecosystem change on human wellbeing 544.4 Climate change and sustainable land use and management 56

5 LAND AND AGRICULTURE IN UGANDA’S JOURNEy TO MIDDLE-INCOME STATUS 605.1 Introduction 605.2 Agriculture and Uganda’s growth trajectory up to 2040 605.2.1 The contribution of land, labour and productivity to agricultural growth 605.2.2 The impact of agricultural land constraints 625.2.3 Alternative agricultural productivity scenarios 655.3 Land management strategies for sustainable agricultural productivity growth 675.3.1 Traditional land management practices and crop choice 685.3.2 Livestock production 695.3.3 Changes in input use and land management practices 695.3.4 Lack of trust in the existing agricultural inputs supply system as a deterrent to agricultural

input-use 725.4 Agroforestry 75

6 LAND AND hUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 766.1 Introduction 766.2 Human settlement patterns 766.3 Urban development in Uganda 776.3.1 Population growth and urbanisation 776.4 Urban centres and hierarchy 786.5 Urban settlements and industrial growth 816.5.1 Drivers of urban and industrial growth 716.5.2 Implications of urban and industrial growth 736.5.3 Urbanisation and Land use 746.6 Uganda’s settlement policy 866.7 Determinants of settlement policy - the “supply” and “demand” sides; 906.7.1 ‘Supply’ and ‘Demand’ Sides of an effective Settlement Policy 906.7.2 ‘Supply’ side: Government 916.7.3 ‘Demand’ Side: Community 916.7.4 Mechanisms for Participation and Feedback 926.7.5 Key Determinants of an effective settlement policy 92

7 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICy RECOMMENDATIONS 967.1 Introduction 967.2 Conclusions 967.3 Recommendations 997.3.1 General recommendations 997.3.2 Agricultural production and transformation 1007.3.3 Sound ecosystem management 1047.3.4 Settlements and urbanisation 107References 111

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 xi

List of Tables

Table 2. 1: Sustainable Development Goals ......................................................................................................4

Table 2. 2: Baseline Indicators for Sustainable Development Goals and Targets in Uganda ...................... 5

Table 2. 3: Gender disparity in primary and secondary education in all levels of education as of 2015 .. 9

Table 3. 1: Changes in distribution of land tenure systems in Uganda (2003-2013) .................................... 21

Table 3. 2: Changes in the household landholdings in Uganda (2003-2013) ............................................... 29

Table 3. 3: Changes in the distribution of landholdings in Uganda (2003-2013) .......................................... 31

Table 3. 4: Change in Land endowment (Hectares) between Male and Female-headed Households . 31

Table 4. 1: Mean annual soil losses by water erosion measured on runoff plots or predicted using the USLE in the Lake Victoria catchment of Uganda ......................................................................... 34

Table 4. 2: Changes in soil chemical properties on land cultivated by households - 2003 and 2013....... 36

Table 4. 3: Minimum and Maximum Values (Range) of soil chemical properties on land cultivated by households - 2003-2013 ....................................................................................................................36

Table 4. 4: Broad characteristics of potential range areas in Uganda ......................................................... 38

Table 4. 5: Seasonal Means of grassy species cover (%) in the seven vegetation cover types ................ 40

Table 4. 6: Seasonal Means of grassy height (cm) in the seven vegetation cover types .......................... 41

Table 4. 7: Seasonal changes in the contribution of pasture species to forage quantity and quality ..... 42

Table 4. 8: Effects of grazing pressure on Themeda mid-grass rangelands ................................................. 43

Table 4. 9: Changes in forest cover types in Uganda (Sq. Km) ..................................................................... 45

Table 4. 10: Wetlands coverage by drainage basin ......................................................................................... 46

Table 4. 11 The average sustainable groundwater resource in the major river basins of Uganda ............. 48

Table 5. 1: Land allocation, input use, production and yield for selected crops: (RePEAT 2003 & 2012) . 68

Table 5. 2: Use of agricultural inputs by crop and year (% households) ....................................................... 70

Table 5. 3: Changes in land use and land management practices between 2003 and 2012 (RePEAT Surveys) ..............................................................................................................................................71

Table 6. 1: Uganda’s twenty largest urban settlements ................................................................................. 80

Table 6. 2: Uganda, population and GDP growth comparison, 1969-2014 ................................................. 82

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015xii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Trends in Uganda’s HDI component indices, 1980-2014 ................................................................ 8

Figure 3. 1: Wealth per person by type of capital (2005 US Dollars) ................................................................ 14

Figure 3. 2: Composition of Uganda’s wealth ....................................................................................................15

Figure 3. 3: Uganda, population growth 1960-2050...........................................................................................25

Figure 3. 4: Percentage of parcels under different forms of land use between 2001 and 2012 .................. 28

Figure 3. 5: Trends in land use changes between 2001 and 2012 ................................................................... 28

Figure 4. 1: The Ugandan Cattle Corridor ...........................................................................................................37

Figure 4. 2: Net forest cover between 1998 and 2014 ....................................................................................... 45

Figure 4. 3: Figure 2.10: Wetland areas in Uganda ............................................................................................47

Figure 4. 4: Variations in river Nile flows ................................................................................................................47

Figure 4. 5: Historic net basin supply of Lake Victoria, expressed as billions of cubic metres (= km3) ......... 48

Figure 4. 6: Estimated fish quantities landed at major water bodies in Uganda ........................................... 52

Figure 5. 1: Contribution of labour, land and productivity to crop output growth ........................................ 62

Figure 5. 2: Land constraints and labour in the agricultural sector .................................................................. 63

Figure 5. 3: Land constraints and private consumption growth ....................................................................... 64

Figure 5. 4: Land constraints and agricultural productivity growth ................................................................. 64

Figure 5. 5: Agricultural productivity and GDP per capita (USD) ..................................................................... 66

Figure 5. 6: Productivity and labour in the agricultural sector .......................................................................... 66

Figure 5. 7: Agricultural productivity and food prices (2014/15=100) .............................................................. 67

Figure 6. 1: Nature of settlements in Uganda .....................................................................................................77

Figure 6. 2: Rural and urban population growth trends 1950-2050 .................................................................. 77

Figure 6. 3: Uganda, regional urban population growth 1969-2014 ................................................................ 78

Figure 6. 4: Figure Proposed strategic cities in Uganda .................................................................................... 79

Figure 6. 5: Regional differences in urbanisation ..............................................................................................81

Figure 6. 6: Manufacturing industries by region .................................................................................................82

Figure 6. 7: Uganda, GDP contribution per sector, 1986-2014 .......................................................................... 83

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 xiii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AfDB African Development Bank

GCE Dynamic-recursive Computable General Equilibrium model

GDP Gross Domestic Product

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GKMA Greater Kampala Metropolitan Authority

GoU Government of Uganda

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Corporation

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development

KCCA Kampala Capital City Authority

LVEMP Lake Victoria Environment Management Project

MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

MAMS Maquette for MDG Simulations

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

MoLhUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development

MoWT Ministry of Works and Transport

MWE Ministry of Water and Environment

NARO National Agricultural Research Organization

NDP National Development Plan

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NFA National Forestry Authority

NPA National Planning Authority

RePEAT Research on Poverty, Environment, and Agricultural Technology Project

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SEEA System of Environmental and Economic Accounts

TLU Tropical Livestock Units

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UIA Uganda Investment Authority

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNhS Uganda National Household Surveys

UNLP Uganda National Land Policy

UNPS Uganda National Panel Surveys

UGS Uganda Shillings

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States Dollars

WRMD Water Resources Management Department

Meaning Acronym/Abbreviation

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015xiv

Map of Uganda

Sustainable Development Report for Uganda 2015 xv

PART ISustainable Development:

The New Imperative


1. INTRODUCTION

The year 2015 marks a turning point for the development agenda both in Uganda and on the global stage. It is the end year for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the starting date for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 15 years since the adoption of the MDGs may have witnessed the greatest ever progress in humanity’s quality of life, with available data indicating the most rapid declines in global child mortality and absolute poverty in recorded history. Uganda has also achieved unprecedented progress, attaining the first MDG to half the number of people living below the poverty line more than five years ahead of schedule. Agenda 2030 and its associated goals – the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – reflect a global aspiration for even faster progress over the next 15 years and the need for “a profound structural transformation that will overcome the obstacles to sustained prosperity”.1

With the adoption of the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development2 by the United Nations in 2015, a new paradigm of judging development progress at global and national level has taken centre stage. The recognition of the need for a holistic view in the treatment of societal, economic and environmental development objectives is now a practical reality that both state and non-state actors have to contend with.

This new practical reality demands an enhanced understanding and measurement of both the means and ends of development. In short, it calls for a new paradigm in stakeholder engagement based on new knowledge products with the ability to inform the intricate and dynamic interactions of society, economy and the environment. Conceived in 2013, the Uganda Sustainable Development Report (SDR) series aims to be a prime contributor to this end.

1‘A New Global Partnership: Eradication Poverty and Transform Economies though Sustainable Development’.The Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, May 2013. 2 A plan of action for people, planet and prosperity that also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom (United Nations), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (16.12.2015)

1.1 Purpose and Periodicity of the Sustainable Development Report

Uganda’s SDR is a knowledge product of the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) that aims to inform and influence National policy dialogue based on frontier policy research on National development performance and trajectories. It is the primary tool through which MFPED will facilitate and communicate National understanding and policy debate on frontier policy evidence.

The SDR will also aim to effectively interact with the policy implications of the various multiple regional and international development frameworks that Uganda is a signatory. These include the East African Development Strategy; Agenda 2063 of the African Union; the Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA) for Least Developed Countries; and the UN’s 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development through the Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDR is programmed to be published after every 3 years. This frequency is motivated by the need to align the report with key national data and planning cycles as well as major regional and global processes that feed into Uganda’s policy agenda-setting. The next SDR, for example, will significantly benefit from the findings of the 2014 Population and Housing Census; 2016 Uganda Demographic Health Survey (UDHS); the 2015/16 Uganda National Household Survey.

The SDR series is both Inter-disciplinary and multi-institutional in its expertise requirements. Its preparation accordingly demands strong collaborative relationships across Government, academia, civil society, the private sector and Development Partners. This collaboration will be championed by the Economic Development Policy and Research Department (EDP&RD) of the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED). The 2015 SDR is the pioneer edition of Uganda’s Sustainable Development Report (SDR) series. It is themed “Strategies for Sustainable Land Use and Management”.


1.2 Methodology

Although the thematic focus is on land, the report takes a broader view and does not consider natural capital in isolation. The linkages and flows between natural, physical, human and social capital are central to wealth accounting as described in Section 3.2 under the wealth accounting framework used to define the conceptual approach to sustainable development taken in the report. A standard methodology for measuring national wealth is still work in progress and a comprehensive statistical accounting of Uganda’s assets and genuine savings is beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, the wealth accounting framework is used to guide the analysis throughout, extending the focus beyond land and natural capital in themselves to their role in building Uganda’s broader productive base.

The evidence base to track, analyse and forecast land use changes is currently insufficient

and often inaccessible to decision makers, inhibiting the country’s sustainable development strategies. This report attempts to address this by synthesizing the available evidence and filling current gaps. The report provides an overview of trends in Uganda’s land use and management, but also a deeper analysis on how the use and protection of land affects ecosystems; other forms of natural capital; and the economy’s broader productive base. For instance, the implications of agricultural productivity trends are analysed within an economy-wide framework, and ecosystem services are examined in relation to land-use conversions associated with Uganda’s urbanisation and industrialisation process. These interlinkages are particularly important when bringing out the policy implications and trade-offs between optimal land use for economic development, settlement patterns and ecosystem management, which is done in the final chapter.

1.3 Structure of the Report

The report is structured into two parts. Part 1 of the report which consists of Chapters 1 and 2 provides an overview of where Uganda stands at the dawn of Agenda 2030 by mapping the salient features of Uganda’s sustainable development agenda. Part III which is the thematic section of the report, consists of Chapters 3 to 8. Chapter three describes Uganda’s national development context with a particular focus on the tenets and status of land use and management. The chapter discusses the land management policies including the evolution of land policy and tenure systems, as well as recent trends in access to and use of land at the household level. Factors driving these trends and the resulting impacts on the quality of land and ecosystems are also reviewed. This chapter draws on a wide range of data sources, including community; household and plot-level survey data, and an extensive review of literature. The primary survey data used is the RePEAT (Research on Poverty, Environment, and Agricultural Technology) project of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) and Makerere University; which builds on an earlier research project on Policy Options for Improved Land Management in Uganda, conducted by

the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Makerere University between 1999 and 2001(Pender et al., 2001).

Three RePEAT surveys were conducted in 2003, 2005 and 2012/2013, re-interviewing the same households to identify changes in agricultural technologies and farming systems, including the use to which each land parcel was put in the previous three to four cropping seasons. The RePEAT surveys involved 94 communities (LC1s, the lowest administrative unit) covering about two thirds of Uganda and representing seven of the nine major farming systems of the country. From each of the 94 LC1s, ten households were randomly selected for household surveys to make a total of 940 households. The RePEAT surveys are complemented with nationally representative data from the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) and Uganda National Panel Surveys conducted by UBOS.

Chapter Four highlights key trends in land use and management in Uganda. Chapter Five discusses changes in the status of ecosystems and ecosystem management. The drivers and impacts of ecosystem change and ecosystem degradation are discussed.


Chapter Six provides deeper economic and environmental analysis. The RePEAT surveys are used to explore the relationship between land use and agricultural productivity at the household level. A fuller understanding of the complex relationships between land use, agricultural production and Uganda’s long-term development trajectory is obtained through the analysis of alterative scenarios using an economy-wide, macro-micro model.

The main analytical tool used in this section of the report is an economic model known as MAMS (short for Maquette for MDG Simulations). MAMS is a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model which uses real-world data and economic theory to understand how an economy might react to a new policy, technology or other external factor.

The model was calibrated using a database of the Ugandan economy including ten household types, over 40 economic sectors, three labour categories and five types of natural capital. This detailed database makes the model well-suited to analysing the inter-sectoral and macroeconomic implications of changes in the availability of agricultural land and agricultural productivity growth.

Chapter Seven evaluates Uganda’s settlement policy and settlements patterns and assesses how they can drive Uganda to middle-income status.

Finally Chapter Eight provides conclusions and highlights the priorities to be addressed for Uganda to balance economic development and environmental sustainability.

1.4 Data and Indicators

The report is based on both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The key sources of quantitative data for this study are nationally representative household surveys conducted by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). These include the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) for fiscal years 2002/03, 2005/06, 2009/10 and 2012/13; the Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS) for fiscal years 2005/06, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. These datasets were used to examine the trends in the socio-economic profile of Ugandan households related to land use, agriculture, settlement, environment and poverty since 2002/2003; 1992/3. In addition the study used the data from RePEAT surveys already mentioned above. Data on land use/land cover change was obtained from the National Biomass Study Report of 2003 and 2009 conducted by National Forestry Authority (NFA). Other secondary sources of evidence are used to complement these primary datasets.

The quantitative evidence is complimented by the stakeholder consultations conducted in the Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies; particularly the Ministry of Finance Planning and

Economic Development (MoFPED), Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD), Ministry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC), Ministry of Local Government (MoLG), National Planning Authority (NPA), National environment Management Authority (MEMA) and National Forestry Authority (NFA). Consultations were also conducted with personnel of Natural Resources Management and Production Departments at District level. The districts were selected in such a way that there is representation for the four major regions of Uganda, the 10 agro-ecological zones and rural and urban representation. The districts visited include: Jinja, Manafwa, Mayuge and Soroti (Eastern region); Gulu, Lira, Nebbi, Moroto (Northern region); Masaka, Mubende, Nakasogola and Wakiso (Central region); and, Busheny, Kabale, Kanungu and Kiruhura (Western region). Kampala City was selected to represent the urban areas. The aim of the consultations were to gather further evidence on land use change and land management that could inform the study and generate policy recommendations for enhancing sustainable land use and management.


2 MAPPING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDAA country’s sustainable development can be conceived as a dynamic equilibrium of the key characteristic factors of its society, economy and environment. These factors vary from country to country as well as in their scale and scope. For Uganda, various studies and documents including the National Development Plan identify these key characteristic factors to include population and demographics; urbanisation; economic growth and structural transformation; governance and institutional development; human development; and environment and natural resources.

This chapter accordingly provides a brief overview of the state of play of each of these factors in Uganda as a baseline against which to picture what success for Uganda would look like in regards to its sustainable development agenda. It endeavours to capture Uganda’s current standing against key development outcomes associated with the characteristic factors of Uganda’s development. This discussion is preceded by a background of the recently adopted global 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its 17 goals.

2.1 The Global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is dubbed as an agenda for People, Planet and Prosperity. It is expected to stimulate and advance convergence of action by all development actors around five outcome areas: People; Planet; Prosperity; Peace and Partnerships. In the formulation of the sustainable development goals, considerable effort was made to ensure that the proposed goals, targets and indicators are in alignment with the vision, principles, guiding framework and criteria set out at the global, regional and national level. The new Goals and

targets came into effect on 1 January 2016 and will guide the decisions we take over the next fifteen years.

The 2030 agenda for sustainable development is elaborated in a development framework of 17 global goals known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) together with a corresponding set of 169 targets. The SDGs have been characterised as unique compared to other goals including their predecessors the MDGs for the reasons details in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2. 1: Sustainable Development Goals

Orientation of the SDGs SDG Distinctives

People: To end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions, and to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment

Planet: To protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations

Prosperity: To ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature

Peace: To foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence” because “there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development”

Partnership: To mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalised Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people”

Universal: They apply to all countries, high and low income countries alike

Holistic: They aim to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – in a balanced and integrated manner

Transformative: They seek to address the fundamental causes of poverty and underdevelopment as opposed to just focusing on their symptoms

Ambitious: The aim to “leave no one behind”

Source: Adapted from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org


Whereas the SDGs are universal in nature, their implementation is expected to take into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and to respect national policies and priorities. This is what localisation of the SDGs is about. This is also the point where Uganda’s National Development Plans and Budget Strategies come into play. A quick mapping of the 17 SDGs with their 169 associated targets against Uganda’s current official statistics framework shows that Uganda presently reports against 15% (26 targets) of the SDG targets.

Table 2. 2: Baseline Indicators for Sustainable Development Goals and Targets in Uganda3

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Official No. of Targets

Targets with existing related National indicators

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere 07 02

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 08 03

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 13 04

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all 10 02

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 09 02

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 08 03

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 05 01

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 12 03

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation 08 02

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries 10 03

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 10 00

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 11 00

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 05 00

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development 10 00

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

12 01

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

12 00

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development 19 00

Total 169 26

3Specific targets for which there are related indicators that Uganda has official statistics about are detailed in Annex 1


Implementation of the SDGs is expected to take into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and to respect national policies and priorities. In the case of Uganda, Government is localising the SDGs at the strategic level of its development policies and National Development Plan. Beyond that, Government’s preoccupation is with ensuring effective implementation of the NDP II and its

successors through effective measurement and management of public service delivery. According to the latest United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), NDP II (2015/16 to 2019/20) has incorporated 76 per cent of the SDGs placing Uganda among the first countries with national plans that meaningfully equate to a National Sustainable Development Strategy.

2.2 The Status of Characteristic Factors of Sustainable Development in Uganda

2.2.1 Economic growth and structural transformation

Uganda saw unprecedented economic growth in the 1990s and early 2000s, as depicted by real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth that averaged 7% per year, making the country one of the fastest growing African countries4

. The country has however experienced more economic volatility in the last decade due to both domestic and international shocks, with GDP growth declining to an average of about 5%. Growth has over the years been driven mainly by agriculture, industry and the service sectors. The contribution of key sectors above has been changing over the years implying that the country has been and is still undergoing structural change in the sectoral and occupational composition of the labour force.

Current evidence shows that the population relying on subsistence agriculture has significantly reduced over the last two decades. The 2014 Poverty Status report indicates that households relying on subsistence agriculture have reduced by almost half; from 54 percent in 1992/3 to 26 percent in 2012/13. The shift away from the agricultural sector is highly associated with rural-to-urban migration and increased diversification within rural areas of the country.

Whereas family agriculture still remains the most dominant source of income for a majority of the rural households in rural areas, non-agricultural household enterprises and wage employment have over the few years picked up as a key source of income, and accounting for about 15 and

4 World Bank’s economic overview for Uganda,2015

14 percent of the household incomes respectively. The growth of off-farm economic activities has played a great role in reducing underemployment and supplementing household incomes over the two or so decades, and this has consequently led to a reduction in the poverty levels at the national level. Uganda was able to achieve the MDG target on the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day, way before the 2015 deadline, with poverty levels having declined from 24.5 in 2009/10 to 19.7 in 2012/135. During the same period, the country registered significant reduction in overall inequality from 0.426 to 0.395.

2.2.2 Population and Demographics

Population dynamics are paramount in providing important socio-economic opportunities for sustainable development. The population growth rate not only influences a country’s prospects for economic growth and poverty reduction, but also its environmental sustainability. A fall in fertility levels and slower population growth rate brings about an increased concentration of the population in the working age range, and this could enable an economy to reap from a huge demographic dividend. On one hand, reduced fertility levels usually curtail down dependency ratios, and this creates a number of opportunities for households and countries to increase investments in the productive sectors (Herrmann, 2012).

On the other hand, a rapidly and ever-increasing population usually creates huge demands on an economy and this highly constrains economic growth and may negatively impact the environment.

5UBOS National Household survey for FY 2012/13 and the Millennium Development Goals report 2015.


Uganda’s population has been growing at a rapid pace stemming from persistent high fertility and the associated general decline in mortality over the recent past. The country’s population has in the last decade grown by 10.7 million, from 24.2 million in 2002 to 34.9 million people in 20146, an average annual growth rate of 3.03 per cent. It is projected that if population growth is not checked, Uganda’s population will increase to 47.4 million by 2025. With prevailing levels of agricultural productivity, continuation of the current population pressure could continue to undermine food security by increasing the country’s vulnerability to food shortage; increased land fragmentation and environmental destruction.

Most people in Uganda still depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Currently, 72 percent of the workforce and 87 percent of the working poor are primarily engaged in agricultural activities with agriculture contributing about 24 percent to GDP growth. Continued population increase is likely to negatively affect savings as a result of having more dependent children in the country7, and consequently affect per capita spending on service, especially on health and education sectors. This could greatly compromise the country’s development outcomes through curtailing down production and productivity, and consequently affect employment creation.

That notwithstanding, the country’s population dynamics and emerging economic opportunities can be turned into a valuable demographic dividend. Demographic dividend refers to accelerated economic growth that arises when the birth rate declines rapidly and the ratio of working-age adults significantly increases relative to dependents (Bloom et al., 2003; Mason 2001). This change can accelerate economic growth through increased productivity of the “excess” labour force, if the economy generates enough high-quality jobs, greater household savings, and lower costs for basic social services provided to a young population.

6UBOS Provisional Population Census results 20147International Review of Applied Economics, Volume 19, Issue 3, 2005

2.2.3 human Development

Over the last few decades, human development has been advanced as the ultimate objective of human activity and has been recognised as a critical factor in the advancement of economic growth and development (Ranis, Stewart and Ramirez, 2000). Human development focuses on important aspects of human wellbeing including the rights to education and health, and free participation in economic, social and political activities. Human development manifests itself in a long and healthy life, knowledge (education and skills) and a decent standard of living, including earning high incomes and purchasing power or command over economic resources. Uganda’s standing against these parameters is discussed in the subsequent sections using the Human Development Index approach8.

Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI was created on the premise that whereas development was at the time being measured using economic growth alone, people and their capabilities needed to be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country. The HDI comprises three core dimensions namely; a long and healthy life; being knowledgeable; and having a decent standard of living.9. Life expectancy serves as a proxy measure for the general health of the population, and it depends on the satisfaction of many basic human needs such as adequate nutrition, clean water and sanitation, and access to medical services such as vaccination.

Uganda’s HDI improved from 0.448 in 2005/6 to 0.463 in 2012/13, which is equivalent to a 0.5 percent per annum growth in human development (UNDP, 2015). This clearly shows that Uganda remains ranked low on human development, given the fact that its index falls below the HDI cut-off value of 0.550. In 2014, Uganda’ was ranked 163 out 188 countries with its HDI value at 0.483, which is below

8The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index measuring average achievements in three basic dimensions of human development mentioned above9UNDP HDI ranking. The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, while the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years, and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita


the average of 0.505 for countries in the low human development group and below the average of 0.518 for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa10.

However, the country’s HDI has over the years improved consistently, increasing from 0.285 in 1980 to 0.483 in 2014, which represents an increase of 69.4 percent or an average annual increase of about 1.56 percent. The highest contribution to the HDI comes from the health index (life expectancy at birth) followed by the education index (mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling). The income index made the lowest contribution as shown in Fig 2.1 below

Figure 2.1: Trends in Uganda’s hDI component indices, 1980-2014

6

5

4

3

2

1980

Life Expectancy Education GNI per capitaHDI

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: UNDP, Human Development Report, 2015

Uganda has continued to register improvements in life expectancy at birth mainly attributed to improved health outcomes. Between FY 2005/6 and 2012/13, Uganda’s life expectancy at birth increased by 4.4 years for the entire population, rising from 53.3 to 58.7 years.

Over the last two decades, Uganda also has made improvements in the education index (mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling), mainly attributed the implementation of the universal primary and secondary education. These policies/programmes have over the years led to mass enrolment of both girls and boys especially at the primary school level. However, the quality of education and inadequate skills are currently a major issue of concern for the country. Efforts have been devoted towards promoting quality and skills development in order to ensure that sustainable development is not compromised during implementation of Agenda 2030.

Gender and Development

Internationally, it is now accepted that expanding opportunities for women and girls is not only a human right, but also essential for sustainable development and gender inequality has been recognised as a major impediment to sustainable human development. The gender-responsive legal and policy environment has seen Uganda register some progress in reducing gender inequalities and vulnerabilities across the different social, political and economic capabilities as indicated in the summary Table 2.3 below

10UNDP Briefing note for countries on the 2015 Human Development Report


Table 2. 3: Gender disparity in primary and secondary education in all levels of education as of 2015

Indicators 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2014 2015 target

3.1 Ratio of girls to boys1 in primary education 93.2% 97.1% 99.4% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100% in secondary education 78.8% 82.4% 83.5% 84.2% 85.2% 88.3% 100% in tertiary education 58.0% 64.7% 72.7% 77.6% 78.6% 79.1% 100%

3.2 Share of non-agricultural wage workers who are women2 NA NA 28.1% 33.4% 30.2% NA

3.3 Proportion of seats held by women in Parliament3 17.9% 24.7% 23.9% 30.7% 35.0% 35.0%

Source: Uganda MDG 2015

from 12 to 24 percent13, and the country’s urban population is projected to increase from 6 million in 2013 to over 20 million in 204014. The World Bank estimates show that 69 percent of Uganda’s urban population live in small cities with less than 500,000 people. This rapid urbanization requires a mix of policy options to promote sustainable and inclusive growth in the country. Growth of many cities across the globe has often come with establishment and expansion of productive businesses, as it reduces the distance between suppliers and customers and this has consequently led to increased productivity, job creation and increased tax base.

Higher population density enables governments to deliver essential infrastructure and services in urban areas more easily and at relatively low cost per capita. Evidence has shown that well planned and managed urbanisation is likely to foster creation of sustainable jobs; access to affordable housing; clean water and sanitation; reliable public transport, and consequently propel growth through attraction of more capital inflows, innovation and skilled labour, and growth of a formal private sector15.

Globally, evidence has shown that increasing numbers of the world’s poor will most likely increase the number of city dwellers, and Uganda is not an exception. Like many in other countries, a large

13Provisional results of the 2014 Population and Housing Census report an urbanization rate of 18% because census data from town boards was yet to be included 14World Bank (2015): The Growth Challenge: Can Ugandan Cities get to Work?15According to Word Bank, if the potential of cities is not unlocked, countries could experience a deceleration of growth and the emergence of dysfunctional slum cities, in which people live in appalling conditions

However, significant gender inequalities still persist in the country. According to the GDI (Gender Development index (GDI)11, which measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health (measured by female and male life expectancy at birth); education (measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children and mean years for adults aged 25 years and older); and command over economic resources (measured by female and male estimated GNI per capita, Uganda’s performance remains low when compared to some regional peers. The 2014 female HDI value for Uganda is 0.452 in contrast with 0.510 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.886. This score is low when compared to that of countries like Madagascar and Tanzania whose score is 0.945 and 0.938 respectively12.

2.2.4 Urbanisation for Sustainable development

Urbanisation has become a key sustainable development issue. The recent urbanisation trends and poverty levels in developing countries have compounded and weakened the capacity of these countries to achieve sustainable development. In Uganda, like many other developing countries, there is an increasing transition of people from rural areas to urban areas.

Between 1992/3 and 2012/13, the proportion of Uganda’s population living in urban areas doubled

11A measure for gender gaps in Human Development achievements which takes into account the disparities between women and men in three basic dimensions of human development12UNDP Briefing note for countries on the 2015 Human Development Report


portion of the urban population in Uganda lives in slums. Estimates show that more than 60 percent of the urban population in the country live in slums due to shortage of decent housing facilities (World Bank, 2015), with many of the slum dwellers lacking access to basic services and secure settlements.

2.2.5 Governance and institutional development

Effective governance systems and institutions that are responsive to public needs are likely to deliver essential services and promote inclusive growth in an economy. Good governance and effective institutions encourage people to live free from violence and consequently curtail down fear and crime16. This means that governance helps build peaceful and secure societies.

Peace and security are critical elements for promoting and enhancing stability in an economy and is therefore key for attracting investments for sustainable development. For instance sustainable development cannot be achieved, if citizens and investors have no confidence in the county’s rule of law and the justice system. The rule of law regulates economic activity, defines and affirms rights and obligations, thereby clarifying for investors the laws and institutional environment for doing business. For close to three decades now, Uganda has made progress in consolidating democracy and good governance. Progress was achieved in the areas of democracy, where citizens are involved in electing their political leadership at all levels.

Over the years, there has been improvement in collective decision making, more especially through the decentralised system of governance, rule of law, respect and protection of human rights, and institutional reforms to strengthen the three arms of Government. The general improvement in Uganda’s governance system was indicated in the Mo-Ibrahim Index of African Governance of 2013, where it was ranked 18th out of the 52 African States, an improvement from 20th position in 2011. This improvement has raised Uganda’s image and eligibility for cooperation and support

16UNDP Discussion Paper: Governance for Sustainable Development Integrating Governance in the Post-2015 Development Framework, 2014

from Development Partners such as the World Bank and African Development Bank.

Transparency and Accountability

It is globally recognised that transparency and accountability are critical elements for the efficient functioning of modern economies and for fostering social well-being, which is in line with the core aspirations of sustainable development. Over the last two decades, government recognised that corruption compromises the quality and scope of service delivery and has consequently, taken a number of important steps towards promoting effective use of public resources. Key among these is the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment and the midterm review (2013) for the Public Financial Management (PFM) reform strategy which recognized a weakness in the budget governance in areas of budget credibility and control, enforcement of compliance with regulations and the capacity to design and implement projects or programmes.

Uganda has instituted a number of PFM reforms with accountability measures to efficiently and effectively utilise public resources. Innovations in cash management such as implementation of the Treasury Single Account (TSA); rollout of the Integrated Personnel, Payroll and Pension System (IPPS); enhanced budget transparency; and enforcement of controls through the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) are aimed at ensuring effective accountability mechanisms in the country.

A number of anti-corruption laws including the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009, the Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002, the Public Finance and Accountability Act, 2003, the Leadership Code Act, 2002, Whistle Blowers Act, 2010, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003, Budget Act, 2003, Access to Information Act, 2005, the Audit Act, 2008 have been put in place to ensure that the key principles of transparency and accountability are followed and adhered to for effective service delivery.


2.2.6 Environment and natural resources

Sustainable development cannot be fully achieved without recognising one of its major components, which is environment. Globally, the environment is changing due to both natural and human activities and this is greatly undermining sustainable development. Human activities have greatly contributed to destroying the environment more especially through land degradation, climate change and loss of biodiversity. Environmental destruction negates all efforts to alleviate poverty in developing countries, and adversely affects water resources, human health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and ecosystems. Globally, it is projected that changes in the environment are likely to have even more severe consequences for sustainable development, if not well handled.

Uganda is one of the few countries that are gifted with unique weather and climate that supports resilient ecosystems and biodiversity. This has resulted into its unrivalled advantage amongst world economies in terms of food production, tourism and the services sector. Forests, trees and other biomass grow in all parts of the country providing good soils and watersheds for agricultural production. Large tracts of inter-connected wetlands exist, providing habitat for birds, insects and other benefits to tourists and incomes for local communities.

Environmental and natural resource management will be key to supporting sustainability of the benefits from nature that supports the country’s economic growth. However, due to the ever increasing population and the associated land-use changes such as cutting down forests to create farmland and for firewood and charcoal, has left the country at a risk of depletion and destruction of the environment and natural resources, and this could have serious implications for the Uganda’s climate. Over the last two decades alone, Uganda has had huge loses of forest land. Evidence shows that in 2005, Uganda had a total of 3.6 million hectares of forest land compared to 4.9 million hectares in 1990, representing a 36.0 percent reduction over a period of 15 years17. In 2010, the country had a total of 2.6 million hectares of forest land compared to 4.9 million hectares in 1990, representing a 46.9 reduction over a period of only 20 years.

Between 1990 and 2005, the country experienced a total deforestation rate of 1.8 percent per annum, while that between 2005 and 2010 was 5.4 percent per annum. This is also depicted in the level of household expenditure on firewood and charcoal that has been on the rise. Estimates indicated that the nominal value of household expenditure on firewood and charcoal increased to from Shs. 32.8 billion in 2005/06 to Shs.409.1 billion in 2009/10, while during the same period, the value of charcoal and firewood consumption in the country went up by more than 10 times.

17 UBOS (2014), Statistical Abstract


PART IIStrategies for Land Use and

Management


3 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of land use and management in the context of national development. The chapter discusses Uganda’s land policy, land ownership and management as well as the changing patterns of land use.

The role of population growth, urbanisation and industrialisation in driving changing land use and land cover change are also discussed. The main discussion in the chapter is preceded by a reflection on conceptual framework for measurement of sustainable development.

3.2 Sustainable development and wealth accounting

To consider how Uganda should sustain its development, it is important to first understand how sustainable development can be measured. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is perhaps the most commonly used measure of development. Expanding GDP so that Uganda can graduate from low-income to middle-income status is the overriding objective of the Vision 2040 and the NDP. However, the debates surrounding sustainable development within Uganda (and globally) acknowledge that GDP is not a sufficient indicator of a country’s progress. GDP measures the overall level of income earned by a country in a particular year, but it does not consider how this income is generated or what it is used for. For instance, agricultural income (and therefore GDP) may grow through the adoption of improved technologies, or from encroachment into forests and wetlands. These two sources of growth clearly have different implications for the sustainable improvement of human welfare, yet this is not captured in the measurement of GDP. Likewise, the income earned by agricultural households may be used to buy machinery that increases productivity, or to purchase consumable goods such as alcohol. These two types of expenditure have different effects on welfare and sustainability, but when compiling GDP a shilling consumed counts just as much as a shilling invested.

GDP only measures current income and expenditure. This may not be strongly related to the path income will take over the long term, so GDP does not tell us whether income and growth are sustainable. A better conceptual approach to

understand sustainable development is to focus on the assets that underpin the generation of income – the productive base of the economy. These assets may be natural (such as land and the soil nutrients that influence crop yields); physical or produced (buildings, machinery and infrastructure); human (the health, education and skills of the labour force) or intangible (such as social and legal institutions). The total stock of these assets is the country’s wealth. Since all current and future income generation depends on the stock of wealth, it is perhaps the best single measure of a society’s well-being.18

For development to be sustainable, a country’s total wealth must be increasing in per capita terms. This provides a framework to assess the sustainability of Uganda’s development trajectory and guide policy. Rather than focusing only on annual income, it is important to understand the change in the stock of Uganda’s wealth associated with particular trends or policies. This is sometimes known as ‘adjusted’ or ‘genuine’ savings. For example, the depletion of natural capital (such as a mineral resource) to fuel consumption does not represent sustainable development (genuine savings would be negative even if economic growth was high). Exploitation of this natural capital stock may only be sustainable if the rents extracted are transformed into physical or human capital. This reasoning underlies Government’s commitment to only use Uganda’s oil reserves for investment in physical infrastructure.

18Dasgupta, 2002. Sustainable Development:Past Hopes and Present Realizations Among the World’s Poor.


In practice it is not straightforward to measure the value of a country’s asset base. A comprehensive measure of wealth should include natural assets such as land and forests, and human and social capital, as well as buildings, machinery and infrastructure. Whereas Uganda has a well-established system of national accounts to measure income and savings, the value of physical assets is not routinely estimated at the national level. Natural, human and social capital presents an even larger challenge since these assets rarely have a market price reflective of their true value. Nonetheless, significant progress has been made in developing a standard methodology for ‘wealth accounting’. The World Bank began constructing a global database of comprehensive wealth measures and genuine savings in the 1990s, and in 2011 published broad wealth accounts for over 120 countries (including Uganda) for the years 1995, 2000, and 2005.19In 2012, the UN Statistical Commission approved the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) as an international statistical standard much like the System of National Accounts in use since the 1950s. Much work still remains,20 but this statistical effort

19World Bank (2011), ‘The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium.’20 The SEEA focuses on material natural resources such as minerals, land and timber whereas a standard methodology to estimate the value of ecosystem services is still under development.

has already yielded important insights on natural resources and sustainable development.

Sustained economic development is characterised by exponential growth of physical and intangible capital and a steady increase in the value of natural capital. Figure 3.1 shows the average wealth per person of different country income groups according to World Bank estimates. On average, natural capital accounts for one third of the wealth of low-income countries, but among high-income countries this falls to just 3%. The absolute value of natural capital does not fall during the development process, only its share in overall wealth. On average, high-income countries have six times more natural capital than low-income countries. Economic progress increases the value of the natural capital stocks that are successfully preserved. However, it is the rapid accumulation of physical, human and intangible capital that are the main drivers of development: on average the value of physical capital is 100 times higher in high-income countries than low-income countries, while the ratio is 130 times for intangible capital.

Figure 3. 1: Wealth per person by type of capital (2005 US Dollars)

500,000

50,000

5,000

500Natural capital Produced capital &

urban landIntangible capital

14,043

6,3073,372

2,316

585945

6,166

95,580

2,1653,469

18,498

451,978

Uganda

Low-income countries

Middle-income countries

High-income countries

Source: Calculations based on World Bank (2011). Note: Shows estimated wealth per person in 2005 for Uganda and country income group averages measured in 2005 US Dollars. Intangible capital (which includes human and social capital) is calculated as a residual using income data and assumptions on the aggregate returns to total wealth. The y-axis is displayed on a logarithmic scale.


Sustainable development requires investment in physical equipment, machinery and infrastructure, a healthy and skilled labour force, good governance and effective economic institutions. But countries that have undergone this structural transformation have also preserved and gradually

increased the value of their natural capital. Growth based only on the depletion of natural resources is inevitably unsustainable. This lesson is particularly important for Uganda, since natural capital is estimated to account for more than half of the country’s wealth.

3.3 Uganda’s productive assets

As discussed in the previous section, sustainable development must enhance the productive base of the economy – the physical, human and natural assets used in income-generating activities, or the country’s total wealth. According to the best available estimates, natural capital accounts for the majority of Uganda’s wealth. Land used for crop production, pasture lands, protected areas, forests,

wetlands, and other natural capital accounted for 54% of the country’s total assets in 2005 (Figure 3.2.). This is more than most other African and low-income countries, where natural capital on average accounts for one third or national wealth. Crop land accounted for around three quarters of Uganda’s natural capital, followed by protected areas (16%) and pasture land (9%).

Figure 3. 2: Composition of Uganda’s wealth

Intangiblecapital34%

Naturalcapital54%

Protectedareas16%

Pastureland9%

Cropland74%

Other1%

Netforeignassets

3%

Produced capital & urban land9%

a. Total wealth b. Natural capital

Source: Calculations based on World Bank (2011). Note: Data is for 2005. Intangible capital (which includes human and social capital) is calculated as a residual using income data and assumptions on the aggregate returns to total wealth.

The composition of Uganda’s wealth has undoubtedly changed over the last decade. The confirmation of large oil reserves in the Albertine region means that the country’s stock of natural capital is even higher than previously estimated. Nonetheless, over 70% of the workforce is still engaged in agricultural activities,21 and the land area under cultivation has risen steadily. The dominance of agricultural land within Uganda’s overall productive base is therefore unlikely to have changed.

21 Uganda National Household Survey 2012/13.


Land is Uganda’s single most important asset, and how it is used and managed will have a defining impact on the sustainability of the country’s development over the coming decades. Land degradation may already be a major impediment to sustainable agricultural growth, with important implications for value-chain development and the country’s broader productive base. The changing patterns of land use and land

management practices impact agriculture and other extractive sectors directly but also affect industrial development and urbanisation, indeed the linkages between natural, physical and human capital will define Uganda’s path to sustainable development. These considerations informed the thematic focus of this inaugural Sustainable Development Report for Uganda: ‘strategies for sustainable land use management’.

3.4 Why sustainable land use and management?

Land is not only Uganda’s prime and critical asset in development, but is a fundamental factor of production and thus a central issue in the country’s policy and development context. With a total land area of 199,807 sq.km and one of the fastest growing populations in the world, at 3.03% per annum (UBOS, 2014), land is increasingly becoming a scarce resource in the country. For example, Uganda’s population density has been increasing over the years from 88.6 persons persq.km in 1990 to 174 persons per sq. km. in 2014 (Republic of Uganda, 2014). About 82% of the population is rural22 depending on agriculture that is dominated by small holder subsistence farmers. With agriculture continuing to be a sector of strategic importance for Uganda’s prospects for development and socio-economic transformation, improving land use and management constitutes a key development priority. Sustainable land use management will continue to be a fundamental tool for increased agricultural productivity, sustainable rural and urban development and industrial growth and development.

Land area estimates by type of cover as updated from the Remote Sensing Survey carried out in Uganda in 2010 indicate that agricultural land occupies the largest proportion of land cover area (38% or 91,152 sq.km.), followed by grassland (22%), water (15%), forests (11%) and bushland (10%) (UBOS, 2014). Uganda has accommodated its fast-growing population by increasing the proportion of land used for agriculture. Agricultural land including pasture for livestock as a share of Uganda’s total land area increased from 59.8% in 1990 to 72% in 201323, both one of the largest shares and one of the largest increases recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa. This sharp increase in land use for agriculture is partly explained by the predominance

22UBOS, 2014. Provisional Results of the 2014 National Population and Housing Census. 23UBOS, 2014. Uganda National Household Survey 2012/2013

of subsistence agriculture in Uganda, which is typically associated with the adoption of extensive farming practices, as evidenced by the low levels of mechanization that exist in the agricultural sector, the low use of pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation and, ultimately, the low and stagnating levels of productivity per hectare.

Uganda Vision 2040 indicates that Ugandans desire a green economy and clean environment where the ecosystems are sustainably utilized and managed. It envisions a food secure environment with clean and well planned settlements with access to all social amenities, and improved liveability of the urban systems. One of the development objectives of NDP II is to “increase sustainable production, productivity and value addition in key growth opportunities”. In the plan agriculture remains a prioritised sector considered central to the country’s economic growth, poverty reduction strategy, and industrialisation (agro-processing and light manufacturing). In order to increase agricultural production and productivity in the next five years (2015-2020), the NDP priorities sustainable land management, among others.

Uganda’s National Land Use Policy, 2007 and the Uganda National Land Policy 2010 aim to transform the Ugandan society through optimal use and management of land resources. The policies focus on ensuring efficient, equitable and optimal utilization and management of Uganda’s land resources for poverty reduction, wealth creation and overall socio-economic development. Improving agricultural production, promoting sustainable rural and urban settlements, and insuring against environmental degradation are key in Uganda’s aspiration to become an upper-middle income country by 2040, and require sustainable land use management.


3.4.1 Land management and the environment

natural ecosystems are undergoing conversion, degradation, and decline, and are unable to deliver ecosystem services, and the communities and households whose livelihoods are dependent on ecosystem assets such as wetlands and forests are increasingly at risk. For example, wetland cover reduced by 30% between 1994 and 2008, while the forest cover has been reducing at a rate of 2% per annum in the last 20 years.

One of the challenges of addressing land degradation is the minimal investment in sustainable land management. Thus, tracking, analysing and forecasting land use changes is necessary to guide strategies for sustainable development. Uganda’s Vision 2040 prioritises conserving the country’s flora and fauna and restoring and adding value to the ecosystems - the wetlands, forests, range lands and catchments - by undertaking re-forestation and afforestation on public land, promoting participation of the population in tree planting on both private and public land and enhancing private investment in forestry through promotion of commercial tree planting on private land and adoption of green agriculture practices. The target is to restore forest cover from the current 15 per cent of the total land area to 24 per cent. Restoration of degraded wetlands, hill tops, rangelands and other fragile ecosystems will be achieved through the implementation of catchment based systems, gazetting of vital wetlands for increased protection and use, and monitoring and inspecting restoration of ecosystems (wetlands, forests, catchments).

In Uganda, land use change is one of the main drivers of environmental change and land degradation. Land use change affects the basic resources of land, including the soil, thereby impacting on the sustainability of the natural systems on which productivity depends. Its impact on soil quality often occurs so slowly that land managers hardly contemplate counterbalance measures to sustain productivity. Land degradation is a serious and widespread environmental problem that varies from one part of the country to another, depending on farming practices, population pressure, vulnerability of the soil to denudation and local relief.

Uganda’s critical ecosystems - forests, wetlands, rangelands and water resources - are already facing rising pressure from agricultural expansion (cropping and livestock rearing), human settlements, urban and industrial expansion, and other economic activities. Sound and well-functioning systems are critical for sustaining human life by providing ecosystem services such as food, fibre, wood fuel, flow of clean water, nutrient cycling, pollination, regulating micro-climate, ensuring genetic diversity, waste assimilation, soil retention and formation and recreational services that are very important to communities, the population and the economy of Uganda. However, the functionality of these critical ecosystems is on a decline due to numerous factors notably increasing human population and economic growth, poor waste management and unplanned human settlement. As a result

3.4.2 Land management and human settlements

A settlement is a community in which people live. Settlements can range in size from a small number of dwellings grouped together to the largest of cities with surrounding urbanized areas, and may include villages, towns and cities. A human settlement comprises the physical components of shelter and infrastructure, and services to which the physical elements provide support, that is to say, community services such as education, health, culture, welfare, recreation and nutrition.

Human settlements lie at the centre of global efforts to address the multiple challenges facing sustainable development. The Millennium Development Goal 7 sets important targets relating to human settlement, in line with the principles contained in Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda. Whereas Target 10 aims to halve the proportion of people without safe drinking water by the year 2015, Target 11 commits countries collectively to improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2015.


One of the challenges affecting the planning and development of sustainable human settlements is the land tenure system. It is argued that the existence of fragmented land tenure systems in Uganda also partly explains the evolution of unplanned settlements. For example, whereas it was fairly easy to plan and implement schemes on public land, this has not been the case on private land most notably mailo and freehold land. This is so in spite of the fact that the land regulations attributes to planning authorities the essential powers to control development on all land-related issues in a given planning area with most of the unplanned settlements falling under this category of land (i.e. mailo and freehold). As a result, in the rural areas where most of the population resides, dispersed settlement patterns dominate. However such settlement patterns like these make it difficult and costly for government to provide essential services, utilities and infrastructure. Without such facilities, promoting local economic development and reducing rural poverty is constrained. According to the new Physical Planning Act (2010), “the use of any piece of land anywhere in the country for whatever purposes is under the strict ambit of the law”. In light of the new act, “land use planning and development plan approvals, previously done only in urban areas, will now become a standard practice across the country.”24

The rising population increases the need for additional land for settlement. The scarcity of land has resulted in rural urban migration, and encroachment on forests and wetlands for

24 Press Statement by Mr. Urban Tibamanya, Junior Minister for Urban Development, Monitor, May 25, 2010

settlement. The conversion of land from forest, wetlands and steep slopes for settlements is one of the drivers of land degradation in Uganda. The rural urban migration has increased urban poverty, urban unemployment and the growth of slums where the quality of housing is very poor. Moreover urban growth has led to degradation of forests and wetlands.

Given the high prevalence of rural poverty and the range of socio-economic factors that affect rural areas, Uganda needs a comprehensive rural settlement policy that is multi-sectoral and inclusive. While Uganda’s approach to rural development needs to be agricultural led, effective improvement of rural settlements is a vehicle to sustainable rural poverty reduction, but it requires improvements in productivity across both farm and off-farm employment activities. To be able to achieve this, households also need to be supported with secure rights to land, access to markets and resources and an enabling environment for businesses and individuals. In addition, Uganda needs to pursue a harmonious policy of rural settlements that are organized into active development centres that can easily be equipped with basic infrastructure and services. Organised settlements not only create adequate space for modern and viable farming but are also act as entry points into the development of non-agricultural income generating activities. Off farm job creation and large-scale investment that open up the rural economy are also essential.

3.5 Policy and institutional context

3.5.1 Land Policy

The Uganda National Land Policy (UNLP) 2013 states that the radical title to all land in Uganda shall vest in the citizens of Uganda and the State shall exercise residual sovereignty over all land on behalf of and in trust for the citizens of Uganda. This is in line with Article 237(1) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, which states that all land in Uganda belongs to the citizens of Uganda, and shall vest

in them and owned in accordance with the land tenure system provided for in the Constitution. This makes Uganda one of the few States in Africa, to vest the ultimate ownership of land, as property, in its citizens. In most other African countries land is owned by the government and citizens are only granted use rights.

The vision of the UNLP is a transformed Ugandan society through optimal use and management of land resources for a prosperous and industrialized economy that has a developed services sector; and


its goal is to ensure efficient, equitable and optimal utilization and management of Uganda’s land resources for poverty reduction, wealth creation and overall socio-economic development. Among other things, the UNLP seeks to re-orient the land sector in national development by articulating its centrality vis-à-vis other sectors in economic development. The UNLP also seeks to address the disparities in ownership, access to and control of land by vulnerable groups; displacement, land grabbing and landlessness resulting from high population growth and the increasing demand on land for investment, particularly the communal lands that are neither demarcated nor titled. The policy also provides for incentives to enhance land utilisation for development and discourages the practice of holding large tracts of land for speculative purposes while serious developers or landless people are without access to land. It also

re-focuses attention from an over-emphasis on property rights per se to the essential value of land as a resource in development, recognizing that the protection of property rights over land and its efficient use have to go hand in hand.

Other issues addressed by the UNLP include underutilization of land due to poor planning and land fragmentation, environmental degradation and climate change, poor management of the ecological systems due to their trans-boundary nature and unsustainable exploitation arising out of the conflicting land uses and inadequate enforcement of natural resources management standards and guidelines. It also tackles issues of inefficient and ineffective land administration and management system, which has made the system prone to fraud and forgeries.

3.5.2 Land ownership and management

According to the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act, 1998, all land in Uganda is vested in the citizens and shall be owned under four basic land tenure regimes, namely; customary, mailo, freehold, and leasehold. Ugandans have the liberty to manage their land under these tenure systems, either individually or communally.

The Mailo tenure system was established in 1900 by the British colonial government to reward colonial agents who advanced British interests with large estates of land. Under the 1900 Buganda agreement, 19,600 square miles of land was divided into blocks measured in miles (hence the name Mailo) and given to chiefs and other officials with their titles (West, 1965; Rugadya, 1999). It is a quasi-freehold tenure system found in the Central region and parts of central Western Uganda. Former peasants who were cultivating this land did not receive a share and instead became tenants, obliged to pay rent to title holders, i.e., mailo owner according to Busuulu and Envujjo law of 1927.Thus, much of mailo land is used under akibanja (peasant) tenancy system, which may or may not be documented with kibanja certificates. Tenants do not hold full ownership rights and they face some restrictions on what they can do on the land.

However, reforms under the Land Act Amendment (Uganda, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, 2010) have strengthened tenants’ rights by limiting the rent they must pay to a nominal amount and have made it more difficult for mailo owners to evict the tenants.

Customary tenure is the dominant land tenure system in Uganda under which land use is governed by customs, rules, and regulations of the community, clan or family (Uganda, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development 1998) in accordance with specific norms and practices. Prior to the Buganda agreement of 1900, customary land tenure arrangement was the only land tenure system in Uganda, characterised by communal land ownership where the village chief or king’s agents were in charge of allocating and administering land use among community members. Community, clan or family members were regarded as tenants at sufferance who only had use rights (West, 1965). Under Customary tenure, landholders do not have a formal title to the land they use, although Article 237(4a) of the 1995 Uganda Constitution stipulates that all Ugandan citizens owning land under customary tenure may acquire certificates of ownership in a


manner prescribed by Parliament. Despite the lack of registration, customary tenure is recognized by the state (Article 237(1) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, and is therefore regarded to be secure.

A much smaller proportion of land in Uganda is held under the Freehold and Leasehold tenure compared to the Customary and Mailo tenure systems. Under Freehold, owners of the land have a title deed that allows them to hold the registered land in perpetuity. Landowners are given complete rights to use, sell, lease, transfer, subdivide, mortgage, and bequeath the land as they see fit, so long as it is done in a manner consistent with the laws of Uganda. Freehold land was given by the British government and later by the Uganda Land Commission to a small category of select individuals—kings, notables, and chiefs; academic institutions; large-scale agricultural estate developers; and some special interest groups such as church missionaries of the Protestant and Catholic churches (Bikaako and Ssenkumba 2003). Under the leasehold tenure system, the owner of the land grants the tenant exclusive use of the land for a specific period of time. Land may also be leased from the state to individuals for typical lease periods of 5, 45, or 99 years. The tenant is issued with a leasehold title and full ownership rights such as use rights, transfer rights and the right to bequeath over the tenure of the lease. In return, the tenant usually pays an annual rent or service under specified terms and conditions. Leaseholders are not required to be Ugandan citizens; the other forms of tenure are, however, available only to Ugandan citizens.

Changes in modes of land acquisition and land tenure systems in Uganda

As mentioned earlier, prior to the Buganda agreement of 1900, customary land tenure was the only tenure system and mode of land acquisition by community members via allocations from village chiefs or king’s agents. However, following growth in the population and the resulting increase in land scarcity, people started out-migrating from regions and communities with high population density. Consequently, land transactions (sales and purchases) emerged as a new mode of land acquisition, as intending emigrants sold off their

land before migrating to enable the purchase of land from large land-owners in destination areas. Baland et al. (2007) shows an increase in land transactions as a mode of land acquisition in Uganda. Also, customary tenure has been evolving towards private land ownership where individuals can transfer and decide on land use without seeking consent from clan heads, to the extent that customary land can now be categorised as privately or communally owned (Busingye, 2002). Moreover, Mwesigye, Matsumoto, and Otsuka (2014) analysed the 2012 RePEAT data and found maize and beans yield to be 27% higher on privately owned parcels than those that are communally owned, suggesting that private land ownership enhances agricultural productivity.

Table 3.1 presents changes in the distribution of land tenure systems in Uganda between 2003 and 2012. The results show that the proportion of customary land under private ownership increased from 31% in 2003 to 55% in 2012; and it was paralleled by a decline in communal ownership of customary land from 52% to 25% during the same period. Regional analysis shows a decline in communal ownership of customary land in all regions and an increase private ownership between 2003 and 2012, with exception of the central region. In the central region, whereas communal ownership of customary land decreased from 15% in 2003 to 1% in 2012, private ownership of customary land also reduced from 24% in 2003 to 16% in 2012. However, this is paralleled by an increase in land held under mailo tenure from 59% to 69% during the period25. However, the Land Act, 1998 allowed for the subdivision of land between a registered land owner and a tenant by occupancy through mutual agreement, which explains the observed changes in mailo and privately owned customary land between 2003 and 201226. During the 2012 survey, households were asked about the reasons

25The explanation is that some mailoland belonging to absentee landlords but held by tenants by occupancy was mischaracterised as private customary land in the 2003 RePEAT survey, because the occupants to whom the land was bequeathed by their parents misconceived it to be customary land. It was only after the absentee landlords appeared with claims on the same land that the occupants realized that all along they were tenants by occupancy rather than customary owners.26Section 37 (1) of the Land Act, 1998 states that a registered land owner and a tenant by occupancy may mutually agree that the land in which the tenant by occupancy has an interest be subdivided in such portions as the parties may agree, with each party having exclusive occupancy or ownership of such portions as may be agreed or that the parties become joint proprietors of the land either as joint tenants or as tenants in common, and where they agree to be tenants in common, the shares of each in the land on such terms and conditions as they may agree.


for losing access to land parcels accessed or owned earlier in 2009 (a total of 657 parcels). The most commonly cited reason (50.5%) was because the land returned to/was taken away by the owner.

Evidence from the 2003 and 2012 RePEAT surveys

Population pressure, by increasing the value of land relative to labour, often promotes secure private property rights institutions (Hayami& Ruttan, 1985; Lin, 1989; Feder and Feeny, 1991). This can in turn lead to the adoption of labour-intensive farming systems to enhance land productivity (Boserup, 1965). Since the adoption of these labour-intensive farming systems requires land investments such as terracing, irrigation and tree planting, secure land rights must be established for the successful agricultural intensification. A large body of literature exists on the role of private land rights and land tenure security in stimulating agricultural development and hence improving the wellbeing of landholders in developing countries (Feder & Feeny, 1991; Besley, 1995; Otsuka & Place, 2001; Goldstein & Udry, 2008; Fenske, 2011; Bellemare, 2013). Many studies have

shown that private land ownership and tenure security facilitate transactions in land rental and sales markets by reducing transaction costs, stimulate land investment by securing investment returns, and improve credit access as land can be used as collateral (Deininger & Feder, 198;Brasselle, Gaspart, & Platteau, 2002; Deininger &Ali, 2008; Deininger, Ali& Yamano, 2008; Otsuka & Place, 2013; Holden & Otsuka, 2014).

While the evidence presented above from the 2003 and 2012 RePEAT surveys shows gradual movement towards individual land ownership, it remains to be seen if this has in turn stimulated investment in improved land management and, hence agricultural productivity growth as predicted by the Boserupian theory of agriculture intensification. This is examined in Chapter 4.

suggests customary land tenure systems are evolving towards individual land ownership in response to population pressure and economic dynamics.

Table 3. 1: Changes in distribution of land tenure systems in Uganda (2003-2013)

Proportion of parcels held under different land tenure systems

Customary Tenure Mailo Tenure (%) Leasehold/Public land (%)

Private ownership (%)* Communal ownership (%)

2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 ChangeEntire Sample 31 55 24 52 25 -27 16 16 0 1 0.6 -0.4

Central 24 16 -8 15 1 -14 59 69 10 2 2 0

Eastern 7 46 39 92 53 -39 0 0 0 1 0.4 -0.6

Western 89 97 8 11 1.6 -9.4 0 1.7 1.7 0 0.1 0.1

* Included in this category is land in Western Uganda which is perceived to be held under Freehold tenure, but much as it is privately owned and in perpetuity, the owners do not have title deeds, and thus does not fit the true definition of Freehold land in the Land Act, 1998. Rather than calling it unregistered Freehold, we categorize it as privately held land under customary tenure.


3.5.3 Agricultural policy

Over the years, Uganda agricultural policy environment has been shaped by several national level policy frameworks, including among others the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP),Prosperity for All (PFA)and the First National Development Plan (NDP I) 2010/11-2014/2015. At sectoral level, these frameworks were implemented through the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) and the Rural Development Strategy (RDS). For a while, the PMA and RDS existed in parallel, were duplicative and recommended varied approaches. MAAIF developed the first agricultural sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) in 2005 to implement the PMA and the second DSIP in 2010 for a period 2010/11-2014/15 to implement the agriculture chapter of the NDP I. The DSIP was aimed at ‘enhancing agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner’ and focused on increased rural incomes and livelihoods, and improved household food and nutrition security.

The Uganda National Agricultural Policy 2013 was developed to harmonize the different thoughts and approaches to national agricultural development. The policy states that agricultural development strategies will be developed and pursued according to the agricultural production zones through a commodity-based approach.

Furthermore, the policy states Government shall ensure that key agricultural resources, including soils and water for agricultural production, are sustainably used and managed to support adequate production for the current and for future generations. The overall objective of the policy is to achieve food and nutrition security and improve household incomes through coordinated interventions that focus on enhancing sustainable agricultural productivity and value addition; providing employment opportunities, and promoting domestic and international trade. The vision of the policy is “A Competitive, Profitable and Sustainable Agricultural Sector”, while the mission of the policy is to: “Transform subsistence farming to sustainable commercial agriculture.”

Among other things, the agricultural policy seeks to ensure household and national food and nutrition security for all Ugandans. It seeks to increase incomes of farming households from crops, livestock, fisheries and all other agriculture-related activities; and promote specialization in strategic, profitable and viable enterprises and value addition through agro-zoning. Most importantly the policy seeks to ensure sustainable use and management of agricultural resources. Thus promoting sustainable land use and management is one of the issues that the agricultural policy seeks to address.

3.5.4 Ecosystem management policy framework

Uganda has put in place various policies, plans and strategies to ensure sound ecosystem management and delivery of ecosystem services. The policy framework is geared towards enhancing ecosystems protection and management while at the same time encouraging collaboration and partnership with stakeholders. However, the integration of poverty reduction and wellbeing issues into ecosystems management appears to be very recent is yet to have significant impact. The most important policies that have implications on poverty and ecosystem services are in the forestry, fisheries, rangelands, agriculture, wildlife and water sectors.

Uganda’s National Forest Policy, 2001 aims at conserving Uganda’s rich forest biodiversity to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future

generations. The policy emphasises watershed management and soil conservation all of which contribute to sustainable land management. It promotes community forestry, addresses the concern of forests on private land and government land. The policy also promotes commercial forestry, collaborative forest management, farm forestry, forest biodiversity conservation, urban forestry, and supply of tree seed and planting material, among others, all of which contribute to sustainable land management and sustainable development. The 2010 Forest Sector study posits that the Uganda Forestry Policy is still relevant and sufficiently takes into consideration key policy requirements, and adequately covers emerging issues such as expanding private forestry and carbon forestry initiatives. The policy is also in conformity with the


various national policies, plans and strategies. Uganda has developed a National Forest Plan 2011/12 - 2021/22 (MWE, 2013) aimed at, among others, (i) increasing forest cover to the 1990 levels (24% of Uganda’s land area), (ii) raising incomes for households through forest-based initiatives, and (iii) restoring and improving ecosystem services derived from sustainably managed forests.

The Forestry Policy particularly emphasises the promotion of private investment in forestry activities. The Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS) funded by the EU has invested enormous amount of funds and technical resources to facilitate commercial wood plantation development on private and public forest reserve lands. The SPGS facilitated the establishment of some 2,700 ha of timber plantations, and it is targeted to reach 5,000 ha, in more than 20 districts in the country. It should be recalled that besides timber production, these plantation forests will provide other ecosystem services. This incentive-based scheme has received good attention including planting on private land. Indeed, some 38% of the area planted so far is private land. In the context of poverty-ecosystem linkages, this commercial tree planting scheme promises, as indeed any other plantation forestry activity, to generate interesting results. For instance, more than 2,200 jobs have been created (including about 300 full time) by SPGS clients alone working on the 2,700 ha planted, which has provided opportunity for increased direct income for poor households. Wood production (timber, firewood) has also been boosted; and the establishment of forest plantations has also generated opportunity for environmental services (notably carbon sequestration).

The National Fisheries Policy 2003 provides for decentralization and co-management of the fisheries resources with the local stakeholders including the poor. As a mechanism to involve local ecosystem managers – the fisher communities, beach management units (BMUs) 12 have been established, and legal power has been delegated to these units to plan and manage the fisheries resources. BMU approach seems to be yielding results in fostering sustainable fisheries management for a number of reasons: the BMU committees are democratically elected by all

local stakeholders; representation of the poor and women is guaranteed; they have a clear mandate, a situation that facilitates collaboration with local authorities; and a national network of BMUs has been established, creating avenues for local capacity building and exchange of information. But most importantly, for poverty reduction, BMUs involve the exploited poor fishing crew (locally referred to as barias) in the decision making process, and provides avenues for improving their livelihoods.

The National Environment Management Policy 1995 seeks to promote a development that enhances environmental quality and resource productivity on a long-term basis to meet the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Implementation of the policy involved among others enacting a number legislative instruments, including regulations on Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), Standards for Discharge of Effluent into Water or on land; regulations on waste management; management of hilly and mountainous areas; regulations on wetlands, river banks and lakeshore management; minimum standards for management of soil quality; and management of Ozone Depleting Substances and Products (ODSs), among others. All these legal instruments are initiatives to protect the environment and enhance certain basic services derived from ecosystems. Many of these, however, remain largely un-effective mainly due to institutional capacity weaknesses and lack of political will. For instance, degradation of river banks continues to cause siltation of the rivers especially river Nile which is a trans-boundary environmental resort; and so is the cultivation of steep hills and mountainous areas and wetlands, which have been encroached as a result of dwindling arable land in the wake of unprecedented population growth and acute land degradation.

The Water Policy, 1995 addresses among others, formation of water committees, LGs partnering with user groups in operating, maintaining and managing water systems, LGs (S/Cs) providing water and sanitation services, and protection of natural resources assistance of extension staff. There is a very low level of domestic water supply


in the country, with only 40% and 75% coverage for rural and urban areas respectively.

The Wetlands Policy, 1995 and the Wetlands Sector Strategic Plan (WSSP) recognize the central position of wetlands as providers of essential goods and services (food, incomes, water, and aesthetic beauty) to local populations. In accordance with the RAMSAR convention, the GoU has adopted the wise use approach. By the nature of the wide public goods and services, wetlands have stakeholder interests. In this respect, the National Environment Act and the Land Act 1998 entrusted all wetlands into the hands of the state to ensure their protection and wise use. These efforts notwithstanding, wetlands continue to face immense pressure from expanding populations and dwindling productive land. Indeed, field observations show unsustainable exploitation of wetlands, and almost only those found within protected areas like National parks are adequately protected. But these constitute a small proportion of the total wetlands’ coverage. The other factor that perhaps explains the increasing destruction is the tendency to under-value wetlands. Currently, even the tangible goods and services such as crafts, food, fuel wood, ecotourism and medicinal plants that are derived from or supported by wetlands do not seem to be well reflected in the national income accounts. Subsequently, attention and public investments to conserve and enhance the services derived from wetlands, are still low.

The Uganda Wildlife Management Policy, 1995 and the Wildlife Act 2000 constitute a radical departure from previous policies, as they recognize the user rights of the local communities. Uganda’s wildlife is found in both protected areas and outside protected areas. There are ten National Parks,

twelve Wildlife reserves, 14 controlled Hunting areas and four wildlife sanctuaries. The management of wildlife in both protected areas and unprotected areas is vested in Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). The threats to wildlife management are poaching and impact of settlements and encroachment. However, the tourism sector has continued to grow, with an annual average growth rate of 10% per annum since1995.

Solid waste management in urban areas is appalling, resulting in careless and indiscriminate open waste-space-dumping, which has created unsanitary conditions on streets and alleys in urban centres. It also resulted into pollution of both surface and ground water through the leakages and impairing the permeability of soil as well blockage of drainage systems. This is due to the weak institutional capacity of urban authorities and lack of appropriate incentives to promote cost-effective waste management mechanisms.

Promotion of private sector investment: the policy reforms in most of the natural resource sectors (forestry, fisheries, water, land use, wildlife) reflect a changing paradigm in natural resources management towards greater stakeholder participation. Of particular implication to enhancing ecosystem services are the recent developments in forest plantation development, forest based ecosystem development, fisheries management and water services delivery.

Uganda is at the centre of some of the most important trans-boundary ecosystems, viz: the Nile basin whose interests transcend the ten member countries of Burundi, Rwanda, DRC, Tanzania, Kenya, the Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea; and the Lake Victoria basin.

3.5.5 Settlement policy

Uganda does not have a standalone or an overarching settlement policy to direct human settlement development and settlement related issues are scattered in many policy and planning frameworks. However, over the last 25 years, Uganda has developed and implemented various policies and strategies responding to the many challenges posed by human settlement development resulting from the unprecedented

high population growth and urbanisation including, among others, shelter and housing, land tenure, land use, physical planning, local governance, environment as well as infrastructure. A detailed discussion of Uganda’s settlement policy and its implementation is provided in Chapter 5 (Section 5.6).


3.6 Demographic and socio-economic context

Uganda’s population is predominantly young with the majority of adults being economically active. According to the UNHS 2009/10, the proportion of persons aged less than 15 years constituted about 51 percent of the total population while that of persons aged 65 and above constituted only 3.1 percent. The data further indicates a high age dependency ratio meaning that for every 100 persons in the working age group (15–64 years), there are 117 dependent persons and this is slightly higher than that reported in 2005/06 (116). In comparison to 2005/06, the age dependency ratio in the population resident in rural areas rose from 123 to 126 while that for urban areas declined from 85 to 75. The primary school age population (6-12 years) constituted 23 percent, the working age population (15–60 Years) 49 percent and elderly persons (60 years and above) 8 percent and these have also not changed between the

two surveys. This implies that majority of households have to ensure that they increase their productivity in order to provide for the dependants within their households including those that are not going to school yet. Given that most households rely on subsistence agriculture, household heads tend to expand farm area into forests, wetlands, mountainous areas in order to increase farm size and farm productivity.

Uganda’s poverty levels have been reducing over the years to less than 20%. The reduction in poverty is particularly marked in the Northern region largely driven by restoration of peace and resettlement of the former IDPs. Much as there is observed reduction in poverty in the region; the reduction has been followed by worsening distribution of income. At national level, inequality as measured by the gini coefficient is back to its level in 2002/03. During the period 2002/03-2005/06

The demographic characteristics of a population determine the natural resource demands and these demands affect the quality of land and ecosystems. Uganda has one of the world’s highest population growth rates, at 3.03% per annum (2002-2014). The country’s population is currently estimated at 35 million people having

increased almost fourfold, from 9.5 million in 1969 (UBOS, 2014). The high birth rate, high fertility rate and declining mortality rates have played a major role in driving this demographic trend. The population is projected to hit the 100 million mark by 2050 (UBOS 2014; UN Population Division, 2014) (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 3. 3: Uganda, population growth 1960-2050

1969 1980 1991 2002 2014 2025 2050

Period

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

ns)

120

100

80

60

40

20

ActualProjected

Data sources: UBOS, 2014; UN Population Division, 2014


distribution of income improved whereas the period 2005/06-2009/10 is marked with worsening inequality. Poverty and income levels determine whether community members would engage in sustainable utilisation of resource. The impact on land use change on ecosystem health has been discussed in detail with emphasis on natural factors. It is already recognised that communities in Uganda largely depend on their ecosystems for their livelihoods and general wellbeing. This section discusses the social cultural factors that trigger ecosystem change in rural, urban and industrial landscapes.

Overall, 58 percent of households in Uganda resided in detached dwellings; 76 percent of which were owner-occupied. Close to seven in every ten (68%) households in Kampala used only one room for sleeping. In terms of main construction materials that were used to build the dwellings, 62 percent of all dwellings were roofed with iron sheets, close to six in every ten dwellings had brick walls while 71 percent of all dwellings had earth floors. ‘Tadooba’’ is still the most common source of lighting while wood fuel (charcoal and firewood) is the most common source of fuel for cooking in Uganda. Countrywide, nine percent of households did not use any toilet facility while 74 percent of households had access to improved water sources. The average distance to the main source of drinking water was close to a kilometre (0.7km) and the mean waiting time for water was 27 minutes. As indicated earlier, no access to toilet facilities implies contamination of water sources; this poses health risks for community members. Dependence of fuel wood for cooking also impacts on forest resources.

Twelve percent of children in Uganda are orphans and about 1.1 million households had at least one orphan; and the Northern region, had the highest percentage (20%) of households with four- or more orphans. More than half (51%) of children aged 5-17 years were economically active while 25 percent of children were child labourers and 38 percent of those aged 0-17 years were vulnerable. Overall, 16 percent of the population aged 5 years and above had a disability. Ten percent of the PWDs aged 6–24 years were not limited by their difficulties to attend school while 13 percent

of those aged 14–64 reported that their ability to work was not affected. It is difficult for vulnerable persons to engage in sustainable utilisation of resources as they may require money or time which they may not have. Most vulnerable persons will utilise immature resources mainly because they are accessible rather than mature ones that may require more time and resources to access. An example is within fishing communities, it is normally observed that vulnerable persons including the elderly and sickly fish in breeding grounds.

The period 2005/06-2009/10 was marked, on average, with positive growth in per adult consumption though the growth was not as strong as that observed in 2002/03 - 2005/06 period. While the proportion of people living in poverty significantly declined, there are still many people in poverty and inequality of income remains a challenge. When income levels are low, there is more dependence on biomass for fuel wood, ground and surface water for domestic use, forage resources for medication and biomass for construction materials. This dependence on natural resources implies that many will settle in close proximity to such resources and reduce the costs of accessing them.

About 81.6% of the country’s population is rural and only 18.4% is urban (UBOS 2014). Since the main occupation of the country’s rural population is subsistence agriculture, the biggest proportion of the population is thus highly dependent on land for their livelihood which places high pressure on land and ecosystems. In the urban areas, the main occupation of the population is non-agricultural as people are employed in secondary and tertiary industries. In search of better opportunities, rural migration is on the rise, and most of the migrants are the youth. This has increased urban unemployment and urban poverty. In addition, the increased demand for low cost accommodation in urban areas has led to the development of slums. Most of these low income informal settlements (slums) in urban areas, particularly Kampala, have developed on wetlands. This places a considerable strain on existing wetland ecosystems.

Though the proportion of the population living in urban areas is still small, the rate of urbanisation is


very high estimated at more than at 5% per year over the last decade, which is almost double the rural population growth (2.8%) over the same period (World Bank, 2014). Still, Uganda’s urbanisation is lower compared to other countries in the East African region- Kenya (25%), Tanzania (28%), and Rwanda (28%) - but with the current high urban growth rates in Uganda, the situation could change over the next few decades as urban population could become 50% of the country’s population within two to three decades.

Uganda’s population growth and urbanisation trends have a significant impact on land use and sustainable development as Uganda strives to attain an upper middle income status by 2040.

The availability and productivity of land depends on how it is managed to generate food, income, and environmental benefits such as clean water and reduced climate risk. Population growth and urbanisation are increasing land scarcity as more land is required for the expansion of agriculture, settlements, urbanisation and industrial expansion resulting into land use conversions and encroachment on ecosystems like forests, wetlands and rangelands, and mountainous ecosystems resulting into land degradation. Available information in Uganda shows that the poor are increasingly farming marginal land that is prone to land degradation. Expansion into marginal areas brings increased risks of crop failure and loss of soil, forest, watershed functions, and biodiversity.

3.7 Changing patterns of land use

1.7.1 National trends

To keep pace with the fast-growing population, Uganda has in the past increased the proportion of land under agriculture. Land under agriculture increased by 12.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, and by 4.7% between 2000 and 2005 (UBOS, 2014). By 2013, 72% of Uganda’s total land area was used for crop production or pasture for livestock, compared to 60% in 1990. This translates into an average growth in the area of agricultural land of almost 1% each year over this period. There was a parallel decline in forest area, which significantly reduced during this period from 49,334sq.km in 1990 to 26,197sq.km in 2010. The built-up area increased by more than tenfold between 2005 and 2010 from 366sq.km to 4,967sq.km.

Land use and land cover changes observed at the national level are a reflection of land use decisions at the household level (Perz 2001; Lambin et al. 2003; Browder et al. 2004). Land use and cover changes and environmental quality are also associated (Nepstad et al. 1999; Fearnside 2000), and they in turn reflect the management practices applied on given land use types. Generally, household’s internal demands for survival and subsistence in the context of prevailing socio-economic and political environment determine choice of land use (Walker et al. 2002). However, land use also depends on the formation of new households and is linked to population trends, inheritance and migration.

Figure 2.2 below summarizes the percentage of parcels put to different uses by almost 1,000 households covering seven of the nine major farming systems across the country in 22 cropping seasons, between 2001 and 2012. The major land uses identified among the sampled households are the cultivation of annual and perennial crops. Other uses include grazing/pasture land, different types of trees (timber, fruit and fodder), woodlots (natural and man-made) and fallowing.

During the first six cropping seasons of the period of analysis (2001-2004), about half of the parcels owned or accessed by the sampled households were predominantly allocated to annual crops and about one quarter to perennial crops. Between 2004 and 2008, the proportion of parcels predominantly allocated to both annual and perennial crops declined by a higher magnitude for annuals than perennials, before increasing again in 2009 to levels comparable but not surpassing those of the early 2000s (see Figure 2.2). The increases in proportion of land allocated to annual and perennial crops were paralleled by declines in the use of land for fallow (bush and improved fallow), as well as man-made and natural woodlots; with the latter literally disappearing.

The proportion of parcels primarily used for grazing/pasture land gradually increased from around 3% in 2001 to over 4% between 2003 and 2005


before dropping by more than one percentage point in the second season of 2005, then rising gradually thereafter to 3.8% in 2011. Less than 1% of the parcels owned or accessed by the sampled households were predominantly used to plant trees (timber, fruit, fodder) between 2001 and 2008, but this sharply rose to about 3% in 2009 when a few of the sampled households predominantly allocated at least one of their parcels mainly to timber but also fruit trees.

Figure 3. 4: Percentage of parcels under different forms of land use between 2001 and 2012

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Annual Crops

Cropping Season

Percentage (%) of Parcles under different forms of land use between 2001 and 2012

Perennial Crops

2001

(2)

2002

(1)

2002

(2)

2003

(1)

2003

(2)

2004

(1)

2004

(2)

2005

(1)

2005

(2)

2006

(1)

2006

(2)

2007

(1)

2007

(2)

2008

(1)

2008

(2)

2009

(1)

2009

(2)

2010

(1)

2010

(2)

2011

(1)

2010

(2)

2012

(1)

Figure 3. 5: Trends in land use changes between 2001 and 2012

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2001

(2)

2002

(1)

2002

(2)

2003

(1)

2003

(2)

2004

(1)

2004

(2)

2005

(1)

2005

(2)

2006

(1)

2006

(2)

2007

(1)

2007

(2)

2008

(1)

2008

(2)

2009

(1)

2009

(2)

2010

(1)

2010

(2)

2011

(1)

2010

(2)

2012

(1)

Cropping Season

Percentage

Improved/BushFallowMan-made Woodlot

Natural Woodlot

Abandoned

Grazing/PasturelandFruit/Timber/FodderTrees


The sudden increase in global food prices in 2008 is the main reason for the sudden increase in the proportion of parcels predominantly allocated to both annual and perennial crops in 2009. According to (Bomuhangi et al., 2012), the sudden increase in global food prices in 2008 precipitated increased demand for agricultural land from countries dependent on food imports as they began seeking to secure their food supplies without depending on fluctuating world markets. Along with growing European demands for biofuels and speculative demand from other investors, this increased pressure on agricultural land, especially in Africa.

In the case of Uganda, the rise in global food prices compelled its regional neighbours to increasingly turn to Uganda to meet their food needs; and the

increased regional demand drove up local food prices, particularly for maize and beans, motivating Ugandan farmers to allocate more land to these annual crops. The rising prices for the tradables (maize and beans) triggered an increase in prices for many typically non-traded staples from which Ugandans derive the largest portion of their calories, including banana (perennial crop) and other staples such as cassava, as households that were originally reliant on maize increasingly turned to the alternative foods and in turn motivated farmers to allocate more land to these (Todd Benson et al., 2008).Another short-term event that could explain the sharp rise in the proportion of parcels predominantly allocated to annual crops in 2009 is the increased demand for Uganda’s maize from Kenya in the aftermath of the post-election turmoil in 2008.

3.7.2 Land access and use at household level

Due to the rapidly growing population and the attendant demand it imposes on arable land, land is increasingly becoming a scarce resource in Uganda. Analysis of the 2003 and 2012 RePEAT datasets shows that there was a slight increase in the mean landholding from 2.3 Ha in 2003 to 2.7 Ha in 2012 (Table 2.2), made possible by the increase in number of parcels of land per household from an average of three parcels in 2003 to 5.6 parcels in 2012. This reflects the extension of land under cultivation observed at the national level, often through encroachment onto forested areas. The size of parcels appears to have declined even as

mean landholding grew by 0.4 Ha. This is indicative of increasing land fragmentation, which does not favour agricultural development. The Thompson index, a measure of land fragmentation,27 increased from 0.43 in 2003 to 0.56 in 2012. Land fragmentation reduces the effective time spent on actual agricultural work, when farmers spend much of their time walking from one parcel of land to the next. Also because of land fragmentation, parcels that are further away from home may receive less of bulky and hard-to-transport inputs, such as manure and crop residues, leading to lower soil fertility and crop yields.

27Thompson index is a measure of land fragmentation, ranging from 0 to 1. It is equal to 0 if a household has one parcel and 1 if has infinite parcels.

Table 3. 2: Changes in the household landholdings in Uganda (2003-2013)

Mean household landholding (ha) Mean of Number of parcels Average parcel size (ha) Thompson Index

2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 Change 2003 2012 ChangeEntire Sample 2.3 2.7 0.4 3 5.6 2.6 1.2 0.83 -0.37 0.43 0.56 0.13

Central 2.5 2.9 0.4 1.9 3.7 1.8 1.6 1.2 -0.4 0.23 0.43 0.2

Eastern 2.3 2.4 0.1 3 5 2 1.0 0.7 -0.3 0.44 0.57 0.13

Western 2.3 2.7 0.4 5.1 7.7 2.6 1.1 0.72 -0.38 0.58 0.63 0.05


However, small landholdings per se may not be a big constraint to agricultural growth. Agricultural growth that improves productivity on small farms has proven to be highly effective in slashing poverty and hunger and raising rural living standards, as demonstrated in large parts of Asia during the green revolution (Rosegrant& Hazell, 2000). Other studies also show that a more egalitarian distribution of land not only leads to higher economic growth but also helps ensure that the growth that is achieved is more beneficial to the poor (e.g., Deininger& Squire, 1998; Ravallion&Datt, 2002). Small farms may have advantage over larger ones on grounds of efficiency and equity. Several studies have often reported an “inverse relationship” between farm size and production per unit of land, with a common tendency for less efficient larger farms to yield lower gross and net returns per hectare of land per year than smaller farms.This is due to differences in transaction costs faced by small and large farms for different operations, with the varying transaction costs stemming from asymmetric information in rural markets for labour, credit, and insurance (Binswanger &Rosenzweig, 1986).

Regarding equity and poverty reduction, there is a strong case for preferring small to large farms. Small farms are typically operated by poor people who use much labour from both their own households and their neighbours; and many farm surveys show that the smaller the holding, the more labour per unit area is applied (Cornia, 1985; Heltberg, 1998). If there were no transaction costs in labour markets, this would not happen, but given the costs of supervising hired labour, larger farmers tend to employ fewer workers than would otherwise be optimal. Moreover, small farm households have more favourable expenditure patterns for promoting growth of the local non-farm economy, including rural towns. They spend higher shares of incremental income on rural non-tradables than large farms (Hazell &Roell, 1983; Mellor, 1976), thereby creating additional demand for the many labour-intensive goods and services produced in local villages and towns28.

Using Uganda’s UNHS survey data of 2005/06, the Inclusive Growth Policy Note 2 of the World Bank (undated) provides evidence of a systematic inverse relationship between farm size and crop income per acre; whereby the national level crop 28Notwithstanding the advantages of small farms in developing countries, policy has often favoured large farms, through access to subsidized credit, protection for the output of such farms, and infrastructure provision in areas of large farms, among other measures. Policy makers have often seen large farms as modern, technically advanced, and efficient, a view reinforced by large-scale farmers themselves who are often better organized to lobby for public support.

income of small farms were three times higher than that of large farms29. In addition, it would take only 0.6 acres to be added to the farm holding of a median poor household to increase the likelihood of that household becoming non-poor; which is not so large by Ugandan standards. The better efficiency of the small farms in Uganda suggests that with adequate support, Ugandan farms could become more efficient and commercially viable. In other countries with even bigger land constraints compared to Uganda (such as China, Thailand, and other Asian economies), small farms perform very well given the right incentives. In essence, the pathway to commercial agriculture in Uganda is getting it right on the first acre, then replicating the same practices to incremental acres.

However, the effectiveness of smallholder agriculture as an engine of growth and poverty reduction is contingent on equitable distribution of land. When land is distributed relatively evenly, agricultural growth can be powerfully pro-poor. It not only raises small farm incomes and employment but also contributes to lower food prices and generates strong growth linkages in the non-farm economy, which in turn help the poor. In contrast, agricultural growth has proven much less pro-poor in countries that began with an inequitable distribution of land, for example in Latin America, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Eswaran and Kotwal (1984) shows that an economy with high land inequality will indeed produce less than an economy with a more equal land distribution; while other studies by Lin (1992) on China, and Macours and Swinnen (2002) on Eastern Europe found substantial productivity gains accompanied the eventual shift to smaller scale farming.

Evidence from the 2003 and 2012 RePEAT surveys shows that besides the landholdings of Uganda farmers being small, their distribution is relatively unequal. Although the Gini coefficient30 for landholding appears to have slightly reduced from 0.49 in 2003 to 0.46 in 2012, it remains high and indicative of high inequality in the distribution of land (see Table 2.3).

29This is because family farms incur lower supervision costs and have better incentives for family members to work hard and reinvest in their farms than commercial farms. Family members have higher incentives to provide effort than hired labour. They share in output risk and can be employed without incurring hiring or search costs. Even where owner-operated family farms may hire or exchange labour for seasonal tasks, they avoid the need to supervise permanent wageworkers, implying that they enjoy a productivity advantage compared to large farms with numerous hired labourers30The Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1. A low Gini coefficient indicates a more equal distribution, with 0 corresponding to complete equality, while a higher Gini coefficient indicates a more unequal distribution, with 1 corresponding to complete inequality.


Table 3. 3: Changes in the distribution of landholdings in Uganda (2003-2013)

Landholding (Ha) by PercentileGini-coefficient

10th 25th 50th 75th 100th

2003 2012 2003 2012 2003 2012 2003 2012 2003 2012 2003 2012 Change

Entire Sample .43 1.25 .81 2.1 1.4 4 2.6 7 24.3 46 0.49 .46 0.03

Central .61 1.5 .91 2.5 1.6 4.5 2.5 8.1 24.3 36.5 0.47 .44 0.03Eastern .41 1.4 .81 2.1 1.5 4 2.6 6.7 16.2 45 0.47 .45 0.02Western .33 .99 .58 2 1.2 4 2.2 7 22.9 46 0.54 .50 0.04

Also, the median landholding (50thpercentile) values of 1.4 Ha in 2003 and 4 Ha in 2012 are far removed from the corresponding means of 2.3 Ha and 2.7 Ha, respectively; and while the median values are about three times as high as values at the 10th percentile (0.43 Ha in 2003 and 1.25 Ha in 2012), they are less than a tenth of the values in the 100th percentile (24.3 Ha in 2003 and 46 Ha in 2012). The inequitable distribution of land in Uganda evident in these figures does not favour pro-poor agricultural growth.

Underlying the inequitable distribution of land in Uganda is the gender bias in access to and use of land across the country. Women’s land rights are limited both by the inequitable legal structure and by traditional practice. In many parts of Uganda, women do not own land as land ownership is a preserve of men. This is true despite the fact that women constitute the largest share of the labour force in agriculture, particularly for the production of food crops for family consumption; while at the same time providing much of the labour for cash crop production that are controlled by men. Women in Uganda contribute 80% of the labour for

food production but their access to/ownership of land and related means of production is estimated at only 8% (The World Bank, 2006). Although Uganda’s land laws do not expressly discriminate between men and women regarding the right to own land, they do so indirectly by recognizing customary land ownership which is governed by customary laws that favour men31. Whereas women have the legal right to own and inherit land, in practice, their access to land continues to be limited by cultural norms, particularly in rural areas. Rather than being recognized as landowners in their own right, women typically access land through male relatives—fathers, husbands, or sons. This makes women vulnerable to losing their access to land if their husband leaves, remarries, or dies.

RePEAT data shows that the proportion of female-headed households increased from 11.4% (N=940) in 2003 and to 16.7% (N=917) in 2012. However, female female-headed households not only had smaller landholdings than their male-headed cohorts in both 2003 and 2012, the disparity in the size of landholdings increased by about 1 Ha between 2003 and 2012 (see Table 2.4).

31Although the Constitution mandates that state law prevails when conflict arises between customary and statutory laws with regard to landownership, this stipulation is often unheeded, to the disadvantage of women.

Table 3. 4: Change in Land endowment (hectares) between Male and Female-headed households

Type of HouseholdGender of Household Heads (%) Mean of Total landholding (Ha)

2003 (N=940) 2013 (N=917) 2003 (N=940) 2013 (N=917)

Male-headed households 88.6 83.3 2.25 4.3

Female-headed households 11.4 16.7 1.62 2.8


4 LAND AND ECOSySTEM MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA

4.1 Introduction

Uganda’s economy is largely dependent on its natural resource base, especially agriculture, tourism, forestry fishing among others. Thus the achievement of Vision 2040 goals largely depends on sustainable utilization of the environment and resources. To that end sustainable wise utilization of land resources and sound ecosystems management is critical for increased agricultural

productivity, delivery of ecosystem services, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability which are essential for Uganda’s journey to upper-middle income status. This chapter discusses changes in the status of ecosystems and ecosystem management, drivers and impacts of ecosystem change and ecosystem degradation.

4.2 Status of Uganda’s land, ecosystems and ecosystem services

4.2.1 Degradation of Uganda’s land

Land degradation refers to the loss of productive and ecosystem services provided by land resources. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) defines land degradation as reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain-fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from various processes among which soil erosion by wind and/or water is key (Pagiola 1999).

4.2.1.1 Degradation of cropland

The Government of Uganda recognizes that land degradation is a major impediment to sustainable growth in agriculture, natural resources productivity, and national economic development.32 Land degradation is a major threat to Uganda’s land resource and threatens to significantly undermine the future productivity growth in agriculture and forestry sectors in Uganda. Estimates of the economic loss attributed to land degradation in Uganda in the 1990s range from 4 to 12 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (Slade and Weitz, 1991; NEMA, 2001), 85% of which was attributed to soil erosion, nutrient loss and associated changes in crops grown (Olson and Berry, 2003). It is estimated that the total monetary loss due to environmental degradation increased from USD 170-460 million per year in 1991 to USD 230-600 million per year by 2003(Kazoora, 2002).

32 Uganda Sustainable Investment Framework for Sustainable Land Management 2010-2020.

The key drivers for land degradation nationally are lack of labour and capital to invest in sustainable land management; poverty and land fragmentation leading to over-exploitation of the land; inappropriate farming practices/ systems including, burning of grasslands/ organic residues, continuous cultivation with minimum soil fertility enhancement, (overgrazing, etc.), increasing rural population densities leading to deforestation and encroachment on rangelands and wetlands; lack of non-farm income opportunities; overlapping claims to land; and limited implementation of land management policies.

Soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion constitute the two most important forms of land degradation and major threats to sustainable agriculture in Uganda and elsewhere in the tropics. Soil erosion is common on most farmland in Uganda, and is responsible for the removal of the fertile top soil and organic matter, and the ensuing soil fertility loss on agricultural land. Soil fertility in Uganda, like in other tropical countries, depends largely on soil organic matter (SOM), which is found mainly in the top 0-30 cm of the soil (Foster, 1981). If the topsoil is lost through erosion, soil fertility and productivity can be lost permanently (Stephen, 1970). SOM improves the soil’s physical properties, acts as a substrate for soil biological activities, and maintains the ecosystem services. The loss of SOM affects crop yields because it is a major source of plant nutrients. Essential soil nutrients (e.g. NPK) are contained mainly in SOM and clay particles of the


soil, thus, soil erosion causes loss of these essential plant nutrients, leading to an overall reduction in soil and agricultural productivity and income.

Evidence of land degradation in Uganda is widespread. In the early 1990s, 60 to 90 percent of the total land area in some regions of Uganda was affected by soil erosion (NEAP 1992), and the soil loss rates recorded in different locations were above the tolerable values (Bagoora, 1990). Areas experiencing the most rapid land degradation in Uganda due to soil erosion include the densely populated areas with young and relatively fertile volcanic soils on steep mountain slopes and the highlands of eastern, western and south-western Uganda (Mbale, Bududa, Kabale, Kabalore, Kapchorwa, Bundibugyo and Kasese districts). These account for about 25 percent of Uganda’s land area and 40 percent of the population. Bududa district at the slopes of Mt. Elgon is among the areas with severe erosion, affecting 75 to 80% of the district (NEMA, 2001).Severe soil erosion from water also occurs in the rangelands (Karamoja sub-region, Mbarara and Northern Luwero and Nakasongola) where overstocking and overgrazing obliterated the fragile vegetation cover (IISD/UNEP, 2005).

Studies conducted in Uganda in the 1980s and 90s found the rate of soil fertility loss to be among the highest in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), with an estimated average annual rate of total nutrient depletion of 70 kilograms of nitrogen (N), phosphorus(P), and potassium (K) per hectare in the 1980s (Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990). Wortmannand Kaizzi (1998) estimated even higher rates of soil nutrient depletion for several farming systems in central and eastern Uganda in the mid-1990s.The high rate of soil nutrient depletion in Uganda at that time was attributed to the limited and declining use of fallow, low use of inorganic or organic sources of soil nutrients, and other poor fertility management practices. Deforestation particularly on steep slopes reduced vegetation cover and promoted land degradation. It also reduced the water-catchment potential of the soil and promoted landslides and siltation of water bodies (NEMA

2001). Consequently there is an urgent need in Uganda to break the cycle between poverty and land degradation by employing strategies that empower farmers economically and promote sustainable agricultural intensification using efficient, effective and affordable sustainable land management practices.

Measurement of soil erosion and nutrient loss

In 2005, Isabirye et al. (2010) measured the amount of sediments generated by agricultural land and settlements in the northern Lake Victoria shoreline of Iguluibi in Baitambogwe Sub-county, Mayuge District. They found the overall mean rate of soil erosion for 27 plots under different crops to be 5.1 mt.ha-1yr-1, with cassava generating the highest rate of 27.3 mt.ha-1yr-1, followed by the intercrop of maize/cassava/sorghum at 8.5; groundnuts at 4; maize at 2.6; banana at 2.1; sweet potatoes at 1.1; millet at 0.7; and coffee and sugarcane at 0. Using data gathered in a 2000 survey that covered two thirds of Uganda and seven of the nine major farming systems of the country, Pender et al (2004) used the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) to estimate annual soil loss based on rainfall intensity, soil erodibility, topography (slope, slope length and curvature), land cover and land management practices. The mean annual soil loss was predicted at 5.76mt.ha-1yr-1(ranging from 0.02 to 127 mt.ha-1yr-1), which is comparable to the measured rate of soil erosion in the northern shoreline of Lake Victoria by Isabirye et al. (2010) in 2005.In another study conducted in the late 1990s in the southern shoreline of Lake Victoria in Rakai district, the mean annual soil loss was found to be 20 mt.ha-1yr-1 for coffee; 27.7mt.ha-1yr-1for banana and 86.7 mt.ha-1yr-1for annuals (Majaliwa et al., 2005). Unfortunately, this study did not report the overall mean rate of soil loss for all the 13 plots under different crops, and the study recorded very significant seasonal and annual variation in soil loss. A summary of the estimates of soil erosion rates by various studies conducted in different parts of Uganda in the late 1990s to early 2000s is provided in Table 3.1.


Table 4. 1: Mean annual soil losses by water erosion measured on runoff plots or predicted using the USLE in the Lake Victoria catchment of Uganda

Soil Loss (mt.ha-1yr-1 )

Land Use Approach Source

Measured Predicted (USLE)

Annual crops 2.5 – 9.0 Brunner et al (2004)

Annual crops 17.0 – 86.8 74.4 – 93 Bagoora D. (1997); Lufafa et al. (2003); Majaliwa J.G.M. (2004); Mulebeke R.(2004)

Rangelands 3.2 – 53.2 52 – 91.5 Mulebeke R.(2004); Majaliwa J.G.M. (2004)

Coffee 19.6 – 44.9 38.0 Majaliwa J.G.M. (2004); Mulebeke R.(2004)

Banana 25.1 – 27.9 21.3 – 32 Lufafa et al. (2003); Mulebeke R.(2004); Majaliwa J.G.M. (2004)

Banana-Coffee Intercrop 26.6 Mulebeke R.(2004)

More recent work by Bamutaze et al. (2010) in the Mt. Elgon area in Manafwa district found the runoff; erosion and sedimentation rates to be higher. Mean soil loss rates varied significantly from 7.5 mt.ha-1yr-1 in perennial to 24 mt.ha-1yr-1 in annual land uses. Still in the same area, Semalulu et al. (2012) conducted a study in Bududa district to measure soil and nutrient losses in banana-based cropping systems and found significantly higher soil loss on annuals (38.5 mtha-1yr-1) than on banana (6.6 mtha-1yr-1) and the banana-coffee intercrop (0.87mtha-1yr-1) without conservation structures; although the values were estimated to be much lower (15.5, 3.2 and 0.2 mtha-1yr-1, respectively) on plots with conservations structures.

In a similar study to determine the financial value of nutrients (N, P, and K) lost through soil erosion under different farmers’ cropping systems and soil management practices in the Mt. Elgon watersheds of Tuikat and Kaseko, Kween district, Semalulu et al. (2014) estimated the mean rates of soil loss at 12.3 mtha-1yr-1 and 25.1 mtha-1yr-1 for plots with and without conservation structures, respectively. Nutrient losses were consistently higher on fields without conservation compared to those with conservation; and on plots planted to annual versus perennial crops. The total NPK loss amounted to 48.8 kgha-1yr-1on conserved fields as opposed to 92.4 kgha-1yr-1on plots without conservation. The total NPK loss recorded in this study amounted

to 134.8 kgha-1yr-1on annuals as opposed to 6.4 kgha-1yr-1on perennials. Finally, Nadhomi et al (2013) adapted the RUSLE to modelling erosion risk in a banana-coffee watershed with terrain heterogeneity, along the Nabajuzi stream, Masaka District in the Lake Victoria Basin of Uganda. Erosion risk across different land use types was predicted at 38mtha-1yr-1 for small scale farmland; 35 mtha-

1yr-1 for built up area; 25 mtha-1yr-1 for grassland; 11 mtha-1yr-1for woodland; 2.5 mtha-1yr-1 for shrub land and seasonal wetland; and0 mtha-1yr-1 for permanent wetland.

Evident in the numerous soil loss studies cited above is the wide variation in measured and predicted erosion rates across time and space, which furthers the debate on the authenticity of methodologies used in land degradation measurement studies and the accuracy of the results they generate, thereby limiting their usefulness for policy guidance. However, an alternative method for assessing soil erosion based on Caesium-137 (Cs-137) was recently used in Uganda (Kaizzi et al., 2014). Caesium-137 is a fallout radioactive nuclide from the testing of nuclear weapons before the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into effect during 1963. Prior to the ban, Cs-137 drifted to all corners of the world through the atmosphere and eventually on the soil surface—thanks to rainfall. On reaching the ground, Cs-137 rapidly and firmly got fixed to the soil particles. Because Cs-137 was deposited


at the soil surface, its subsequent redistribution across the landscape is directly related to soil erosion and deposition. Therefore, measuring the concentration of fallout Cs-137 in the soil provides a retrospective indicator of medium term erosion rates associated with sheet and rill erosion, since the mid-1950s when its fallout started to the present.

In September 2008, a team of Soil Scientists from the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) (Kaizzi et al., 2014) applied the Cs-137 technique to assessment of soil erosion and deposition in Manafwa River catchment, to determine the efficacy of past soil erosion control measures on abating soil erosion in the area. The team undertook to determine whether soils in the catchment contain adequate amounts of fallout Cs-137 that could be used to assess soil erosion in this area, and thereafter in other parts of Uganda. The team selected a reference site bordering with Mt. Elgon National Park which is located upstream in the catchment and collected a core soil sample at this location. Other soil samples were collected from cultivated fields along a transect running through the flood plains of River Manafwa starting in Bududa district, through Manafwa district to Maximise Sub-county in Butaleja district. To determine whether soils eroded from up in the river catchment had carried Cs-137 down to the flood plains, another core soil sample (depth: 0-75 cm) was collected from Masulula Village near Doho Rice Scheme in Mazimasa Sub-county. The core samples were sectioned into 2 cm portions from 0–40 cm and 5 cm portions from 40–75 cm with each portion being kept in its own polythene bag.

Under normal circumstances high levels of Cs-137 should be on the soil surface, therefore finding these deep in the soil means that whatever is above the Cs-137 is soil that was eroded from elsewhere and deposited at that particular site where Cs-137 is found below the soil surface. Analysis of the soil samples shows that the peak of Cs-137 (which was in 1963 when the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into effect) was located at 52.5 cm below the soil surface. Ignoring the sediment compaction effect and holding no assumptions on the sedimentation process, the linear sedimentation rate (R) was

estimated at R = 52.5 cm / (2008-1963) = 1.2 cm/year. Using the Proportional Model (PM) and Mass Balance Models (MBM1 and MBM2) to convert the observed Cs-137 concentration to soil erosion and deposition rates produced soil erosion rates in the range of 5-60 mt.ha-1yr-1 and deposition rates of 2-40 mt.ha-1yr-1(see Figure 2.3).

The wide range of erosion and deposition rates arise from the variation in conditions of the field where the soil samples were collected, with some having terraces, vegetation bunds, contour bunds or trenches and other soil and water conservation structures and land management practices; and others do not. Some fields had annual crops while others were planted to perennial crops. In the figure below, negative values measure soil erosion rates, while positive values measure soil deposition rates

Data points 11, 12 and 13 in the figure are for soil samples taken at the bottom of the transect near Doho Rice Scheme in Mazimasa Sub-county, where most of the soil from up in the catchment area was deposited. Data points 4 and 7 are for soil samples taken midway along the transect close to vegetation barriers and at the bottom of terraces, where deposition instead of erosion took place. These results indicate that the values of soil erosion rates obtained using the Cs-137 method are comparable to those from earlier soil erosion measurement studies in the Mt. Elgon area (Bamutaze et al. (2010), Semalulu et al., 2012&2014).

It is evident from the numerous studies cited above that land degradation is a major problem confronting many (but not all) farmers in Uganda, contributing to the problems of low agricultural productivity. Most communities in rural Uganda surveyed between 1999 and 2000 perceived crop productivity to have declined, and food insecurity and land degradation to have increased since the early 1990s (Pender et al. 2001). These perceptions are supported by agricultural statistics, which show that per capita food production in Uganda is declined during this period, putting at stake the food security of the rural and urban poor (NEMA 2001; UBOS 2002).


Changes in soil fertility during the past decade: 2003 and 2013

Table 3.2 shows the mean values of soil nutrients (N,P,K) and pH for soil samples collected from farmland cultivated by RePEAT households in 2003 and 2013.

Table 4. 2: Changes in soil chemical properties on land cultivated by households - 2003 and 201333

Percentage Nitrogen [N](%)

Phosphorus [P]Exchangeable

Potassium [K] cmolc/kg Soil pHExchangeable P cmolc/kg

Available Pmg/kg

2003 2013 Change 2003 2013 2003 2013 Change 2003 2013 Change Entire Sample 0.22 0.17 -0.05 11.8 34.9 0.66 1.0 0.34 6.6 6.2 -0.4

Central 0.23 0.17 -0.06 10.2 36.3 0.58 0.97 0.39 6.6 6.1 -0.5Eastern 0.18 0.16 -0.02 11.2 24.0 0.67 1.1 0.33 6.7 6.4 -0.3Western 0.34 0.19 -0.15 15.9 53.8 0.74 1.1 0.36 6.5 6.1 -0.4

According to Foster (1971), the critical threshold values for proper plant growth in Uganda are 5mg/kg for available P; 0.4 cmolc/kg for exchangeable K; and 0.2% for total soil N. The higher mean values for P and K (and apparent increase in exchangeable K between 2003 and 2013) compared to the critical threshold values suggests favourable soil fertility conditions for plant growth. These results are congruent to the evaluation of the 1960s nation-wide reconnaissance survey, in which Chenery (1960) argued that compared to other places in the tropics, the soils in Uganda are on the whole very fertile. However, this observation may mask degraded soil conditions in some areas, judging from the minimum values for K in 2013 all regions of Uganda as well as the minimum values for P in 2013 in the Eastern region (see Table 4.3). The range for P and K values show that while the soil conditions are very favourable in some areas, they are highly degraded in others and require attention. In fact, based on the values for total soil N in 2003 and 2013, all regions of Uganda experienced Nitrogen loss between 2003 and 2013, such that soils in all regions suffered Nitrogen deficiency in 2013.These results show that the problem of land degradation in Uganda reported in the 1990s and 2000s by earlier studies (Pender et al, 2004; Nkonya et al. 2008; etc.) continued during the past decade (2003-2013).

Table 4. 3: Minimum and Maximum Values (Range) of soil chemical properties on land cultivated by households - 2003-2013

Nitrogen [N] Phosphorus [P] Potassium[K] Soil pH2003 2013 2003 2013 2003 2013 2003 2013

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxEntire Sample .06 1.46 .11 .33 4.91 59.2 2.53 360.39 .06 2.18 .12 3.70 5.29 8.74 4.19 8.19

Central .094 .41 .13 .29 5.03 26.94 7.36 188.83 .06 2.18 .32 2.53 5.29 7.55 4.59 7.59

Eastern .06 0.16 .12 .32 4.91 59.19 2.53 109.92 .25 1.78 .12 2.76 5.76 8.74 4.57 8.19

Western .11 1.46 .11 .33 5.73 50.22 10.23 360.39 .17 1.99 .24 3.70 5.32 7.76 4.19 7.96

Therefore, problems of soil nutrient depletion and soil erosion in Uganda, which as Kazoora (2002) puts it “have been a major problems since before independence, and continue even today” as shown above, highlight the challenges that the country faces as it seeks to achieve and sustain its goal of becoming a middle income country while at the same time reducing the pressure on its ecosystems. The major challenge for the government and its development partners is to identify strategies to effectively address land degradation, low agricultural productivity, and low incomes in a sustainable and equitable way.

33 The P and K values for the 2003 soil samples were reported in different units from those of 2013. For 2003, the values are in molar equivalents (cmolc/kg) as exchangeable P and K; while those for the 2013 samples were reported as available Mehlich-3 nutrient concentrations in mg/kg. Whereas conversion factors exist for converting Mehlich-3 nutrient concentration of K to exchangeable K (Ex.K = m3.K/391), there is no such provision for P, reason why P for 2003 and 2013 is reported in different units, hindering the comparison of the 2003 and 2013 values to determine the change in P. Total soil Nitrogen (N) is reported in percentage (%) by weight, while pH has no units, which enabled the values of these for 2003 and 2013 to be compared.


1.1.1.1 Rangelands and rangeland degradation

‘Rangeland’ is land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, shrubs or woodlands suitable for browsing or grazing by animals34. Rangelands are categorised as fragile ecosystem in Uganda because of marked rainfall variability (500 - 1000 mm per annum) and uncertainties in spatial and temporal distribution of water and grazing resources within and between years. It is common to have long drought seasons which render crop production risky in these areas and only adaptable grasses, shrubs and tree can grow with any certainty. This condition provides grazing for pastoral herds which are the only means of survival for pastoral communities with their livestock herds.

Rangeland ecosystems are mostly found in the semi-arid regions and are characterised by their mixed tree-grass composition (Salzmann, 2000).Uganda’s rangelands cover approximately 107,000sq km or 44% of the country’s total land area (MAAIF, 2012).The rangelands are concentrated in the ‘cattle corridor’ which occupies 51% of Uganda’s total land area and carries 40% of the

34Society for range Management, 1989. A glossary of terms used in range management. (Ed.) M.M. Kothmann. Denver. 36p.

human population.35 The corridor cuts across many districts and production systems from the border with Tanzania in the south through the Lake Kyoga region to Karamoja in the northeast (Figure 4.1). Other areas with climatic and vegetation features characteristic of the rangelands (Table 3.4) where agro-pastoralism is practiced are found in Adjumani, Tororo, Busia, Bugiri, Gulu, Arua, Moyo, Nebbi, and Masaka districts.

The rangelands are also grazing area for wild animals and support the largest wildlife biomass in Uganda. Many protected areas (game parks) are found in rangelands like Queen Elizabeth National Park, Lake Mburo National Park, Murchison Falls National Park and Kidepo Valley National Park that support biodiversity conservation and ecotourism. Rangelands are also endowed with other numerous natural resources upon which the people depend for their livelihoods including natural woodlands, medicinal plants, minerals, honey, bush meat, scenic landscapes and the watersheds that support agro-pastoralists.

35Livestock Development Program, Preparation Report, Working papers 1 to 15. Agrisystems (Eastern Africa) Limited, NairobiKenya. MAAIF working Document dated 11 January 2002.

Figure 4. 1: The Ugandan Cattle Corridor

GULU

KOTIDO

LIRA

MUKONO

KITGUM

APAC

MASINDI

MBARARA

PADERARUA

MOROTO

HOIMA

BUG

IRI

RAKAIKALANGALA

LUWERO

MPIGI

MUBENDE

KAMULI

KUMI

MASAKA

KATAKWI

MAYU

GE

KIBOGAKIBAALE

NEBBI

SOROTI

KASESE

BUSHENYI

NAKAPIRIPIRIT

KYENJOJO

WAKISO

YUMBE

IGANGA

MOYO

ADJU

MANI40

PALLISA

NAKASONGOLA

KABALE

TORORO

KAMWEN

GE

MBALE

SEMBABULE

NTUNGAMO

KAYUNG

A

KABA

ROLE

BUNDI

BUGYO

RUKU

NGIR

I

JINJA

KAPCHORWA

KANUNGU

BUSI

A

SIRONKO

KABE

RAMAID

O

KAMPALA

KISORO

Cattle CorridorDistricts

0 100 200 300 400 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Cattle Corridor

Sourve: ADB mission

CATTLE CORRIDOR


Table 4. 4: Broad characteristics of potential range areas in Uganda

Location and

Administrative Districts

Rainfall Pattern (mm)

Vegetation formation Range area (x000 ha)

Northern region

Gulu, Kitgum, Lira, Apac

1000-1250 mm mono-modal

Dry Combretum-Butyrospermum- Terminalia Grass layer- Hyparrhenia, Setaria, Andropogon, Panicum, Brachiaria, Sporobolus

1,998

North-western region

Arua

1000-1200 mm Mono-modal

Moist Butyrospermum-Comretum-Terminalia

Grass layer- Panicum, Hyparrhenia, Andropogon, Cymbopogon, Brachiaria Setaria, Themeda, Sporobolous

248

North-east region

Kotido, Moroto East Soroti

500-1000mm monomodal

Dry Accacia- Combretum Terminalia

Grass layer-Hyparrhenia, Themeda, Setaria, Sporobolous

2,095

Central region

Luweero, Singo, Mubende,

Masindi

750-1250mm Bimodal Moist Combretum-Terminalia

Grass layer- Hyarrhenia, Andropogon, Panicum, Bracharia, Loudetia, Chloris, Setaria

1,190

South-east region

Tororo, Kumi, Iganga

1000-1250mm Bimodal

Moist Combretum- Butyrospermum

Grass layer-Hyparrhenia, Panicum

605

South-western region Mbarara, Masaka, Kabarole, West Mpigi

750-1250 mm Bimodal

Dry Accacia- combretum

Grass layer-Cymbogon, Themeda, Bracharia, Panicum, Chloris, Loideria

1,402

Total 7,538

Source: State of Environment Report 1996

Though the rangeland ecosystems have been a priority for colonial and post-colonial governments, little success has been realised in terms of sustainable resource use. For decades, rangelands in Uganda were utilised by pastoralists under a common property system of range management36. Mobile ‘pastoralism’ for so long has been the major production system that has maintained sustainable and productive livelihoods in the rangelands. This system is characterised by a seasonal movement of people and livestock between wet and dry seasons in search of water and pastures. However, currently, large areas are undergoing increasing individualisation leading to incidences of resource use conflicts, displacement of pastoralists, and crises in rangeland management.

Uganda’s rangelands are severely degraded land forms (NEMA, 2006; 2008). This degradation is associated with changes in soil chemical and physical properties as reflected in increasing crop failures and low pasture production. Furthermore, 36 Kisamba-Mugerwa ,W. 1995. The Impact of Individualization on Common Grazing Land Resources in Uganda. Ph.D Thesis, Makerere University.

the degradation is attributed to the high dependence on land resources for subsistence which is regarded as a major threat for widespread natural resource degradation. The degradation of rangelands has resulted in decreased quantity and quality of services they provide. Several areas are already severely degraded due to high stocking rates, frequent burning and lack of well adapted and persistent forage plants. More acreage has also been cleared for food crops cultivation reducing land available for grazing and aggravating overgrazing on the fragile ecosystems. The challenges afflicting this ecosystem emanate from biophysical factors and socio-economic demands of the population living in these areas and those adjacent.

Increasing individualisation of communal grazing land rights is leading to a high incidence of range resources use conflicts, displacement of indigenous pastoralists, and problems in range management. The declining natural resources are fuelling conflicts in the rangelands ecosystems.


The conflicts arise because of competing land uses. All these culminate into serious rangeland degradation and interethnic or trans-boundary conflicts. Conflicts disrupt the natural environment, ecosystems and habitats. They also contribute to social disharmony and economic failure among people affected.

Bare and woody encroachment on grassland is often associated with major changes in soil cover, soil erosion, and affects several physical, chemical and biological properties of soil and biodiversity (Andrieu et al., 2007; Seabrooket al., 2007). Because of the present and envisaged detrimental impacts of land use and cover change on ecosystem products and services and their threat on livelihoods, rangeland inhabitants are attempting several management practices to adapt to the imposed consequences. However, in a bid to adapt, land cover changes have been accelerated in some areas while in others unexpected and undesirable feedbacks have been initiated that drive more changes and continue to compromise the grassland ecosystem. Because the soils in most rangeland communities of Uganda have a limited production potential land use and cover changes might have immense impacts on soil properties and impart challenges on rangeland restoration processes since alleviation of suspected causes of degradation does not take the system to its original state. Mugerwa et al . (2008) noted that high level management practices that involved reseeding of degraded rangelands failed because the soils could no longer support plant growth. Land use and land cover change have also compromised the resilience of rangelands to climatic variability and change as some ecosystems are so much altered that a slight perturbation in climate makes them fail to return to their original states. The adaptive capacities of pastoral communities to the effects of climate variability and change are increasingly lowered thus making them more vulnerable to food insecurity and poverty.

Plant invasion which is the appearance and geographical expansion of a plant species in an area where it was not previously found (Vermeij, 1996) is on the rise in the rangelands of Uganda and this may be due to current disturbance of the

habitat (Byenkya et al. 2013). Invasive species can alter species richness within invaded communities and may displace established species within the community, inhibit establishment of new individuals or may have both effects (Yorkoniset al., 2005). Invasion can influence community structure by hindering plant establishment through reducing the colonization success of native species (Yorkonis and Meiners, 2004). This is through reduction of available resources that eventually reduces establishment rates of native species (Yorkonis et al., 2005). For example, Benkya (2004) found that Cymbopogonafronardus, Sporoboluspyramidalis Acacia gerrardii and Acacia hockii were increasing in Western Uganda. These reduce grazeable forage through their impediment to grazing and competition for resources (ibid).

Lantana camara is reported to be the most dominant invasive species in central Uganda (Ziwa et al. 2012). Invasive plants and bush encroachment are reducing the capacity of rangelands to provide ecosystem services in areas where they have replaced native species such as in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Lake Mburo Nation Park and pastoral lands (Mugasi et al. 2000; Oba et al. 2008; Blösch, 2008). The wildlife in the parks and domestic animals in those landscapes do not have adequate forage because of invasive species and this may negatively affect the aesthetic, recreational and economic value of these areas.

Land use and cover change influence on pasture productivity and quality

Pasture productivity is a reflection of pasture biomass, species composition/richness, ground coverage and nutritive value. Pasture biomass is an important characteristic of rangeland vegetation since it supports directly or indirectly, all grazer groups. It is also a measure of dominance in plant communities. Pratt and Gwynne (1977) define biomass or standing crop as the total mass of living organisms present at a given moment in a population or some other ecological unit such as area (m2, ha, etc).

Reports by Langdale-Brown et al. (1964); Harrington and Pratchett, (1973) and Harrington, (1974) indicated dominant forage species in rangeland at the time as being Themeda triandra, Cymbopogon afronardus, Loudentia kagerensis, Brachiaria decumbendecumben, Digitaria


maitlandii, Hyparrhenia filipendula and Panicum maximum. Botanical analysis by Harrington and Pratchett (1973) on former MUKO ranch, in south western Uganda, reported that T. triandra was the most abundant species, with a frequency presence of 80% and 62% in valley and hillside, respectively. T. triandra was reported to be favoured by regular fire regimes (Harrington and Thornton, 1969; Harrington, 1974) and best suited to light grazing under drier conditions (Edward and Bogdan, 1961).

Brachiaria species,especially B. decumbens have been reported to be more prevalent in heavily grazed, fire free farms and areas low in C. afronardus (Harrington and Thornton 1969). Harrington and Pratchett (1973) observed a frequency presence for S. pyramidalis of only 7% in paddocks located at valley bottom and it was among the least prevalent out of the 19 species encountered. Seed dispersal in dung seemed very important with Sporobolus. However, application of fire for a very short time has been found to destroy Sporobolus seed (Vogler et al., 1998). Although leguminous forbs are important in livestock nutrition, only 6.29 % of the forbs in Ankole pastoral system were leguminous with Neonotonia wightii being the most prevalent legume (Byenkya, 2004).

However, some shifts in forage abundance have been reported. Byenkya (2004) reported that the grass species with high frequencies of occurrence on the landscape were Brachiaria spp (34%), S. pyramidalis (20%), Hyparrhenia spp (12%), C. afronardus (10%), L. kagerensis (7%) and P. maximum (6%).The greatest reduction in abundance was observed in T. triandra, while S. pyramidalis became one of the most prevalent

species, especially in the valleys (Byenkya 2004). It was suggested that the increase in Sporobolus species could be due to overstocking on the farms and reduction or elimination of fire on these farms.

Studies conducted by Mfitumukiza (2011) established the spatial and seasonal patterns in pasture (grasses and grass-like) floristic composition based on seven physiognomic vegetation cover types. Monthly data were collected on grass species composition, cover and height for two years and averaged according to seasons of long-term rainfall patterns. A total of 46 species were recorded. Bush grasslands were recorded with the highest number of species (43) and Woodlands with the lowest (32). The highest pasture cover was in grassland vegetation type (61– 80%) and was least in the bushland (10-41%). Five species (Andropogon amethystinus, Brachiaria jubata, Eragrostis macilenta, Eragrostis superba and Setaria kagerensis) were restricted to specific cover types. Of the 28 most common species only four (Brachiaria decumbens, Cynodon dactylon,Loudetia kagerensis and Sporobolus pyramidalis) had high cover values above 20%. The highest mean of grassy species was during Mar-May (28) and the least (22) was during June-August (Table 4.4). Species cover significantly differed across seasons with the highest mean cover (77%) during March-May and the lowest (27%) during September-November. The mean species height ranged between 11.4 and 17.4 cm during the dry and rainy seasons respectively (Table 4.5 and 4.6). The substantial differences in seasonal patterns of pasture composition due to the erratic nature of rainfall in the area call for regular monitoring and provision of information to be used in sustainable rangeland ecosystem management.

Table 4. 5: Seasonal Means of grassy species cover (%) in the seven vegetation cover types

Vegetation type March-May June-August September-November December-FebruaryBush grassland 72 64 62.5 68.5

Bushland 56.5 60.5 43.5 53.5

Bushland thicket 41 38.5 27 27

Grassland 72.2 77 68.5 69.5

Shrub land 50.5 44.5 38.5 53.5

Wooded grassland 69.5 70n 60.5 69

Woodland 40.5 39.5 31 41.5


Table 4. 6: Seasonal Means of grassy height (cm) in the seven vegetation cover types

Vegetation type March-May June-August September-November December-February

Bush grassland 21.3 15.55 11.85 21

Bushland 18.15 18.9 13.75 17.65

Bushland thicket 21.8 15.15 14.8 17.05

Grassland 20.25 20.45 13.95 20.3

Shrub land 20.2 19.1 14.4 19.55

Wooded grassland 23.1 19.8 11.75 19.5

Woodland 16.05 12.6 11.4 16.8

Where grazing is the basis of feeding, spatial-temporal variation in forage quality and quantity are the main constraints to ruminant production in the tropics (Garcia, 1991). Similar observation was made in the rangelands of Uganda (Dradu and Harrington, 1972; Byenkya, 2004; Okello et al., 2005). Dradu and Harrington, (1972) investigated seasonal crude protein (CP) content of pastures in Ankole rangeland using oesophageal fistulated steers. CP content of fistula extrusa collected in different months of the year was significantly different. It followed a bimodal pattern and was in phase with rainfall patterns. Similar findings were reported by Byenkya (2004) and Okello et al., (2005).

Marshall et al (1969) reported in-vitro dry matter digestibility of between 34.7 to 59.3% (mean 45.6 %) for clipped whole plants of various common species in the Ankole rangeland. Brachiaria spp. scored the highest while T. triandra and H. filipendula exhibited lowest digestibilities. C. gayana was below average despite its importance in the dairy systems. Similar findings were reported by Byenkya (2004) using near infrared refractometry and Okello et al (2005) using hand plucked samples in the same environment.

As variations in forage quality and quantity occur between seasons, corresponding variation in palatability of forage was reported between seasons. Harrington and Pratchett (1973) reported that palatability of some forage species on the

Ankole rangeland vary between seasons, being less palatable during dry than rainy season. B. decumbens and Setaria aequalis were found to be the most desirable grasses in Ankole pastoral system (Harrington and Pratchett, 1973; Roschinsky et al., 2011). Other generally acceptable species were C. gayana, C. dactylon, Digitaria melanochilla, Hyparrhenia lintonii, Setaria sphacelata.T. triandra. Brachiaria platynota, B. brizantha, C. afronardus, L. kagerensis and S. pyramidalis were generally reported to be unpalatable. P. maximum and Digitaria scalarum were acceptable in the wet season but not in the dry season (Harrington and Pratchett, 1973).

Recent studies by Idibu 2013 indicated that pasture productivity and quality in the grasslands of south-western Uganda is greatly influenced by season (Table 3.7). A significant decline in the overall pasture ground-cover was observed in the dry season. Among the pasture species, Brachiaria was the most abundant species. H.filipendula, T. triandra, and C. afronarduswere the other pasture species with high prevalence. The heights of the pasture species were above 20 cm, which was sufficient to support effective grazing. However, C. afronardus and H. filipendula were taller during the dry season than in the rainy season and in the dry season, Brachiaria and other pasture species (C. dactylon, G. wighti) did not significantly recover to attain their rainy season heights. Seasonal variations in the patch biomass of the various species of pastures corresponded to their heights.


Table 4. 7: Seasonal changes in the contribution of pasture species to forage quantity and quality

Ground1

Cover (%)Plant

Height (cm)

PatchBiomass (g/

m2)

Dry matter (%)

CrudeProtein(% DM)

NDF(% DM)

IVOMD (% DM)

Dry seasonBrachiaria 37.23 28.10 159.15 85.08 6.00 71.98 61.11Cymbopogon 3.44 54.17 284.94 83.90 4.81 77.76 42.92Hyparrhenia 16.82 44.42 160.75 88.14 3.95 75.35 36.89Sporobolus 7.28 32.33 218.22 91.28 3.92 78.46 29.40Themeda 10.92 32.86 118.17 83.12 3.25 74.88 56.09Other species 2.13 28.00 35.01 85.42 5.87 67.42 39.88Mean - 36.59 163.01 86.09 4.63 73.25 44.27Rainy seasonBrachiaria 42.27 32.78 174.52 30.92 8.71 54.41 64.66Cymbopogon 3.91 32.97 271.61 35.42 5.57 73.56 54.29Hyparrhenia 19.28 30.86 155.56 38.82 6.22 50.86 51.42Sporobolus 9.33 31.41 191.17 41.72 5.61 68.86 53.67Themeda 12.65 32.86 170.68 36.38 5.90 68.50 55.67Other spp 2.56 32.25 26.764 35.42 7.35 63.98 60.45Mean - 31.71 165.35 36.44 6.75 64.42 56.69

1The grazing area was 22.2% and 10% bare during dry and rainy seasons, respectively; DM – Dry matter; NDF – Neutral detergent fibre; IVOMD – In vitro organic matter digestibility.

The dry matter content of all the pasture species was above 83.12% in the dry season and it declined to below 50% during the rainy season. In the rainy season, B. decumben and S. pyramidalis had the lowest and the highest dry matter content, respectively. Overall, the pasture was of low quality in both seasons. The mean CP levels were lower than the 7% required by rumen micro-organisms to meet their growth requirements (Van Soest, 1994). However, the CP levels of Brachiaria and legumes (other species) were sufficient to meet nitrogen needs of rumen micro-organisms in the rainy season. Also, the percentage of NDF content in the forage indicated that the forage had high cell wall content.

Degradation in grasslands

This is mainly as a result of overgrazing and encroachment into grazing areas by cultivators.

Level of grazing affects the structure, quality, composition and productivity of range vegetation. Ungrazed perennial grasslands accumulate dead material, less nutritious grasses and woody plants. Light to moderate grazing maximizes primary (vegetation) and secondary (herbivore) production while minimizing woody plants. But overgrazing reduces ground cover, plant height, forage quality and productivity. Overgrazing changes the growth of dominant herbaceous plants, tall perennial bunch grass species succumb to shorter rhizomatous and stoloniferous perennial grasses that are replaced by annual grasses and forb species (Table 4.6) and woody vegetation becomes abundant with bush encroachment.


Table 4. 8: Effects of grazing pressure on Themeda mid-grass rangelands

Level of Grazing pressure Plant growth form and palatability to cattle Species foliage diversityLight to moderate Mid to tall perennial bunch grasses.

Generally high palatability and cover. Bothriochloa insculptaHyparrhenia rufaPennisetum strameniumThemada triandra

Moderate to heavy Medium height rhizomatous and stoloniferous perennial grasses.Variable palatability and cover

Cynodon dactylonHeteropogon contortusPanicum turgidumPennisetum strameniumRhuchelytum repensSetaria vericelllata

Heavy Annual and short perennial grasses.Generally unpalatable.Cover is seasonally low.

Aristida adscensionisChloris pynethrixHarpachne schimperiSporobolus festivus

Continued heavy Annual and perennial forbs.Palatability and cover are generally low.

Indigofera spp.Ipomonea spp.Solanum spp.Tribulus spp.

It may be possible to revert range vegetation to the desirable state through proper management but returning soil lost through erosion is not economical and may be impossible, Box 1. Erosion removes the fertile upper horizons, reduces soil water infiltration and its ability for moisture storage and continued erosion leads to lost range productivity. Appearance of accelerated soil erosion is a good indicator of rangeland overuse, however, it is not very sensitive since by the time it appears, overuse has been going on for some time.

The type and number of animals utilizing a given area and the distribution of use in time and space influence the impact of grazing on the rangeland. Cattle and sheep primarily utilize herbaceous plants while camels and goats prefer woody species. Cattle are regarded to be the more

destructive to the environment while camels are the least. On the other hand, because of their size and feeding habits, elephants may be able to change entire rangeland ecosystems from being woody to grassy.

The diets of different range livestock species and wildlife are complimentary rather than competitive. It is thus a logical adaptive strategy of pastoralists, especially those in the more arid regions, to raise mixed species herds. This helps to increase herd productivity, spread risks, and reduces environmental impact compared to single species husbandry systems. Given the advantages of species diversity on rangeland utilization, it may be worthwhile to consider game ranching as a way to raise range meat production.

Box 1 The negative effects of soil erosion

Soil scientists have derived that Nature takes 30 years to produce a layer of arable soil 25 mm thick, roughly 11 t/ha. This figure represents the minimum thickness if the land is to be profitable. However, figures elsewhere, show that soil losses sometimes exceed 120 t/ha. Unfortunately, the problem of erosion is also often associated with poverty. Hence, unless there is appropriate research, information and assistance, backed up by positive policies, pastoralists and farmers in Uganda’s affected rangeland areas are unlikely to change from their present routines.


Degradation, bush encroachment and weed infestation

Rangeland degradation can be defined as the aggregate diminution of the productive potential of rangelands (Jama and Zeila, 2005). The grazing capacity of many rangelands has declined perceptibly on all continents and less desirable plant species have rapidly replaced the more palatable and nutritious species (Sabiiti, 2001). In a number of places, particularly around watering points, trek routes or paths, and hill tops, range vegetation is being lost through overgrazing, frequent fires and fuel wood harvesting or cutting trees for construction.

Range land degradation is closely intertwined with poverty, first because it is part of the changes that lead to a drop in crop and livestock productivity on which the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists owe their livelihood for income and food. But it is also aggravated by poverty because when the poor have no alternatives to earn a decent

living they will not invest in settled intensive farming and livestock keeping. Instead they continue to overuse the range resource base without allowing it to recover. They invade adjoining areas and in due course extend the land degradation process.

Declining soil fertility and pasture quality

Gullies, channels and ditches are a frequent site and indicate that vital nutrients are getting lost from soils leading to a higher frequency of plants adapted to dry areas. Pastures have 8% crude protein (CP) during the rainy season but this may drop to 3-4% in the dry season. CP is the major animal nutrition-limiting factor in all production systems and severe shortages of feed in the dry season force some pastoralists to migrate. It is regrettable that while there may be abundant pastures and crop residues during the wet seasons, it is not common practice to conserve these residues or pastures as silage and hay for strategic feeding of animals during periods of extreme shortage. Less than 5% of farmers do so.

4.2.2 Ecosystems and ecosystems services

An ecosystem is a biological environment and all of the organisms that live there, including both living and non-living components functioning together to sustain life (Bolund & Hunhammar 1999). Ecosystem services are the benefits human beings obtain from ecosystems; these include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people and supporting services needed to maintain the other services (Fisher et al. 2009).

1. Provisioning services include all direct products from ecosystems e.g. food, fibre, fuel wood, fresh water, genetic resources, biochemical;

2. Regulating services include water purification, erosion control, storm protection, pollination, disease regulation, detoxification, and climate regulation;

3. Cultural services include all non-material benefits from ecosystems for instance spiritual enrichment or satisfaction, aesthetic values attached to ecosystems, cultural heritage,

sense of place, educational, inspirational, recreational and ecotourism, knowledge systems, social relations; and

4. Supporting services ensure that all the aforementioned three are provided e.g. soil formation, nutrient recycling, growth and primary production

Costanza et al. (2006) posits that ecosystems that are well-functioning can provide ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, pollination, flow of clean water, regulating micro-climate, ensuring genetic diversity, waste assimilation, food, fibre, wood fuel, soil retention and formation and recreational services. The major ecosystems sustaining human life in Uganda are wetlands, forests, rangelands and water resources. The functionality of these ecosystems is threatened by numerous factors notably the expansion of agricultural land, the consumption of biomass for energy needs, poor waste management and unplanned human settlement.


4.2.3 Status and trends in forest cover

Uganda’s forest cover – consisting of tropical high forest (THF), woodlands and forest plantations– has declined drastically from 54% of the country’s land area (approx. 13.2 million hectares) in the 1950s to about 4.9 million hectares in 1990 (approximately 24% of the total area of the country). This reduced

to 4 million hectares by the year 2000, 3.6 million hectares in 2005, and 2.6 million hectares in 2010 (FAO, 2010). In 2013, forest cover was estimated at 14% of the total land area of Uganda. The data showing changes in forest cover is shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4. 9: Changes in forest cover types in Uganda (Sq. Km)

Type of forest coverYear

1990 2000 2005Woodlands 39,740.9 32,601.4 29,527.8

Plantation-hardwoods 186.8 153.3 138.6

Plantation- softwoods 163.8 80.0 121.5

Tropical high forest 2,740.6 2,248.2 2,036.3Tropical high forest normal 6,501.5 5,333.5 4,830.6

Source: National Forestry Authority (NFA)

Despite the value of Uganda’s forests to its economy, forest cover is severely strained due to population growth, deforestation and human encroachment. The problem is particularly acute outside of protected areas, on forested private and public/ communal lands that are not regulated or managed by government. The average annual

rate of deforestation in the last 15 years has been 1.8%. The most observable loss has been in woodlands (29%), followed by tropical moist forest low stocked (26%), broad leaved plantations (21%) and tropical high forest well stocked (17%)(MWE, 2013). Overall forest cover has been reducing as shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4. 2: Net forest cover between 1998 and 2014

1998

25

20

15

10

5

02000

Net forest cover (% of total area)

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: FAO data


4.2.4 Status and trends in wetlands

The Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance defines wetlands as “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water whether natural or artificial, permanent or seasonal with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salty, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar, 1971). Uganda’s National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources (1994) defines wetlands as areas “where plants and animals have become adapted to temporary or permanent flooding.” It includes permanently flooded areas with papyrus or grass swamps, swamp forests or high-altitude mountain bogs, as well as seasonal flood plains and grasslands.

Uganda’s wetlands are spread throughout the country, ranging from those fringing the Equatorial lakes at an altitude of 1,134m above sea level to those in the Afromontane regions of Mt. Elgon and the Rwenzori range which may be as high as4,000m above sea level. There are two broad categories of wetlands in Uganda, namely, those that are associated with lakes (lacustrine), and those associated with rivers (riverine). Uganda’s large wetland resource is explained by a climate of high rainfall and the general topography of the country.

In 1994 wetlands covered about 37,575.4 sq. km (15.6%) of the area of Uganda but by 2008 the area

had reduced to 26,307.7sq km (10.9%) implying that approximately 30% was lost in that period (NFA, 2009; Data from the MWE, Department of Wetlands Management).While there is no up to date data on wetland coverage for the whole country, conservative estimates could be 9-10% considering the rate at which they were lost between 1994 and 2008 and the efforts currently being implemented to conserve wetlands. Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of wetlands in Uganda, and the wetland loss/gain by drainage basin between 1994 and 2008 is shown in Table 4.10.

Lakes Victoria and Kyoga are among the most critical ecosystems in Uganda. The wetland catchment areas around Lake Victoria alone have shrunk by more than half its size during the last 20 years; from 7,168 sq.km in 1994 to 3,310 sq.km in 2008 (NEMA, 2011). The wetland catchment of Lake Kyoga has also reduced in size from 15,008 sq. km in 1994 to 11,028 sq.km in 2008. In their studies Turyahabwe et al. (2013) found that between 1986 and 2011 open water wetland cover type had reduced by 0.5% in Lake Victoria crescent, by 33.9% in Kyoga plains and by 4.5% in south western Uganda. Papyrus in Lake Victoria crescent reduced by 4.9%, 21.5% in Kyoga plains and 10.6% in South-western Uganda. Seasonal bushes and thickets in Lake Victoria crescent reduced by 3.7% and 61.2% in south-western Uganda respectively. Seasonal grasslands reduced by 65.6% in Kyoga plains and 74.3% in south western Uganda.

Table 4. 10: Wetlands coverage by drainage basin

Drainage Basin Area 1994 (Sq. km) Area 2008 (Sq. Km) Loss/Gain (Sq. km)

Albert Nile 1736.3 1255.2 -481.1

Aswa 3028 2168.9 -859.1

Kidepo 168.1 197.2 29.1

Lake Albert 2838.6 2421.7 -416.9

Lake Edward 1671.1 1096.3 -547.8

Lake Kyoga 15008.3 11028.5 -3979.8

Lake Victoria7167.6 3310.2 -3857.4

Victoria Nile 5728.3 4829.4 -957

Source: Uganda water and environment sector performance report, 2011


Figure 4. 3: Figure 2.10: Wetland areas in Uganda

Source: National water resource assessment report 2013

4.2.5 Status and trends in water quality and resources

Water resources constitute one of the most critical forms of natural capital that significantly contributes to socio-economic development, sustaining of livelihoods and producing food for a country (Nsubuga et al. 2014). Water resources are categorised into surface water and ground water, and both are important in ensuring domestic water supply, watering livestock, industrial operations, hydropower generation, agriculture, fisheries, waste discharge, tourism, and environmental conservation. Uganda’s water resources are

relatively abundant with mean annual rainfall of around 1200 mm, the River Nile with a flow exceeding 25 km3 per year, and large combined active storage capacity in Lakes Victoria, Albert, Edward, and Kyoga and other small lakes covering an area of 38,500 km2(MWE, 2013; WRMD 2004 ).

In the monitoring period between 1988 and 1997, it was observed that flows in the Nile River in Uganda increased from the 1960’s and thereafter there has been a steady decline (Figure 4.4) (WRMD 2004).

Figure 4. 4: Variations in river Nile flows

Adopted from WRM sub-sector reform study report 2004


Lake Victoria, which is the second largest fresh water lake in the world with an area of 69,000 sq. km is the most important because it is a reservoir for the Nile River (MWE, 2013). There have been remarkable year-to-year fluctuations in the net Lake Victoria basin supply over the last century

(Figure 3.5).If the consumptive use of water from Lake Victoria or its tributaries were to increase significantly, a decrease in net basin supply could occur, with impacts on the flow of the Nile and water available to downstream users.

Figure 4. 5: historic net basin supply of Lake Victoria, expressed as billions of cubic metres (= km3)

Adopted from the National water resources assessment report 2013

The level of Lake Victoria was stable in the 1960s at around 1,134m, but dramatically rose to 1,136 m in the mid-1960s. Since then level of the lake has been declining except in 1997 when Uganda experienced El Niño rains. The lake level fell in the first decade of the 21st century due to poor rains and excessive releases of water at Owen Falls (MWE, 2013).

Ground water supplies 75% of all safe sources of drinking water in Africa (Mileham et al. 2009). It is the

main source of water supply in the rural, semi-arid and arid areas of Uganda. One of the advantages of groundwater is that it has good quality water that requires limited or no treatment and therefore is an appropriate source for the rural poor (MacDonald & Calow 2009). About 61% of the country’s water is from a ground water source, accessed from springs and boreholes (Nyenje & Batelaan 2009). Sustainable groundwater resources vary from one basin to another (see Table 4.11).

Table 4. 11: The average sustainable groundwater resource in the major river basins of Uganda

Sustainable groundwaterBasin Area (km2) Land area (km2) (mm/year) (MCM/year)Lake Edward 18,946 17,855 20.3 362Lake Victoria 61,886 32,924 24.7 813Lake Albert 18,079 14,882 23.7 353Victoria Nile 27,961 27,807 39.9 1,110Lake Kyoga 57,236 53,899 36.1 1,946Albert Nile 20,727 20,484 24.4 500Aswa 27,637 27,635 17.3 478Kidepo 3,229 3,228 6.3 20Miscellaneous 5,716 5,679 15.0 85

Source: National water resources assessment report 2013


The total groundwater resources in Lake Kyoga are the largest of all the basins while Kidepo has the least. By 2030, the total groundwater demand is projected to be 462.8 MCM/year and varies in the different districts of Uganda

The national water resources assessment report of 2013 states that the current utilisation rate of groundwater which is way below 15% implies that the estimated renewable groundwater resource exceeds the projected demand for domestic water but shortages may arise at local scales, particularly for areas with a high population density. The report further mentions that most of the ground water in Uganda is safe for drinking and any other domestic purposes however there are some parts of Uganda where the water has significant corrosion especially in the east. The report further indicates

that 66% of the wells and 38% of the boreholes are contaminated with bacteria and have relatively high nitrate concentration. High incidence of fluoride occurs in water from the Rift Valley and the volcanic areas of Eastern Uganda.

In their assessment of groundwater in selected basins in Uganda Mölg et al. (2003) found that groundwater resources were declining. This was further confirmed by an assessment done by the Department of water resource management in their studies in Mbarara, Rakai, Soroti, (WRMD, 2011). The decline in ground water is caused by hydro-geological condition, land-use practices in the water shed e.g. deforestation and unsustainable water withdrawals and poor catchment management (MWE, 2013).

4.2.6 Drivers of ecosystem change and ecosystem degradation

Ecosystem changes in Uganda are mainly a result of human activity leading to land cover changes (Kansiime et al. 2007; Russell et al. 2009; Hartter & Southworth, 2009). Ecosystems such as forests and wetlands are safety nets for rural poor people. Despite the impressive reduction in the number of people living below the poverty line, poverty still contributes to the degradation of certain ecosystems – people in poverty are forced to deplete resources to survive, and this degradation of the environment further impoverishes people. In their studies Aggrey et al. (2010) found that deforestation and wetland degradation were positively linked to poverty.

Forests and wetlands are converted to create space for cultivation by rural poor, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and ecological services (Obua et al. 2010).Low agricultural productivity due to poor farming practices and low input utilisation has contributed to wetland and forest ecosystem changes (Nalukenge et al. 2009). The largest proportion of farmers in Uganda use rudimentary practices of farming, use of improved seed and fertilizer is still very low and this eventually culminates in to low yields per unit of land cultivated (Kaizzi et al. 2011). It has “forced” farmers to clear forests and wetlands in search of land with reliable nutrients to support crop growth. This however is not

sustainable considering that forest and wetland soils can only sustain crop production for a few seasons. This therefore implies that farmers have to continue opening and clearing more forests and wetlands if they are to continue growing crops.

Areas where the population density is high face the highest rates of ecosystem change. For instance forests and wetlands around Mt. Elgon and in Kibale district have been converted into agricultural land because of the high population densities. Commercial agriculture in high value crops such as rice, oil palm and flowers have contributed to the conversion of certain forests and wetlands into agricultural lands. This has been driven by the desire to diversify Uganda’s exports and increasing domestic production (Namaalwa et al. 2013).

4.2.6.1 Forest cover

The major proximate causes of deforestation in Uganda are related to the agrarian nature of the population, unsustainable extraction of wood forest products, and clearing of forests for non-agricultural uses.Underlying causes include policy and institutional factors, economic factors, population growth, increasing demand for biomass


energy, technological changes, and changes in culture (MWE, 2011; Banana et al. 2010; Waiswa et al. 2015; Banana et al. 2014).

Agricultural expansion mostly in areas that are densely populated is the major driver of deforestation. This has mainly been as a result of commercialisation of agriculture, poor farming practices, lack of extension services and cultural practices that promote agricultural expansion in forested areas. This is exacerbated by the high population growth that increases demand for forest products and poverty among rural people (Nakakaawa et al. 2010).

Over 90% of the energy in Uganda is derived from biomass, mainly charcoal and firewood. This has had a remarkable impact on forests and rangeland ecosystems (Namaalwa et al. 2009; Khundi et al. 2011).Domestic consumption accounts for 74% followed by industry (18%), and the institutional and commercial sectors at 3% and 5% respectively37. The national annual consumption of biomass energy in the form of charcoal increased from 6million M3 in 1994 to 11 million M3 in 2007. In addition, national consumption of firewood was estimated at 32.8 million M3 annually (NDP, 2010). According to NEMA (2008), about 90% of the charcoal produced from the forests and woodlands is consumed in major urban centres especially Kampala, and firewood is the prime source of energy for cooking in rural areas. Many forest areas (woodland cover) in Kibale and Nakasongola districts have been seriously degraded as a result of charcoal production. 23 districts in the Northern and Eastern regions have already lost their forest cover, along with the constituent ecosystems due to charcoal burning, and conversion of land for agriculture. With the increased population growth and increased urbanisation, the demand will rise even higher which will worsen the trend in ecosystem degradation, unless alternative sources of fuel are sought and modern energy access in urban and rural areas is increased. The unsustainable methods of harvesting trees for firewood and charcoal production have contributed to deforestation. The underlying factors responsible for high charcoal demand are limited access to other alternative

37Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) (2012). Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST)

energy sources, weak regulations and urbanisation (Banana et al. 2015).

Uganda’s growing economy has led to increased demand for timber because of the booming construction industry. The volume of recorded timber harvested and moved by licensed pit sawyers in the financial year 2004/05 was 55,000M3 and 100,000M3 in 2005/06 (NFA, 2006) an indicator that timber demand is on an upward spiral. Consumption patterns are unsustainable considering the current forest resource capacity. The methods used to harvest timber are rudimentary with very poor recovery and this in the long run has contributed to deforestation. Most of the timber from tropical high forests is sawn using pit sawing (FAO, 2005).

In areas dominated by pastoralists bush burning and livestock grazing are contributing to deforestation however not at a significant level. In areas where it has occurred wild fires have been set to enable suitable forage material to re-sprout. Fires inhibit regeneration of fire intolerant species and may lead to degradation if not controlled (Omeja et al. 2011). Fires have been recorded mainly in Karamoja sub-region which is dominated by Agro-pastoral communities.

Urbanisation, human settlements and population growth are contributing to conversion of forests into other land uses (Odada et al. 2009). The percentage of people living in urban areas increased from 12.3 percent in 2002 to 18.6 percent in 2014 (NDP, 2015). Towns and municipalities are extending beyond their original boundaries and this has often led to loss of urban forests. The pressure to degazette forest reserves in urban areas is on the rise for instance Arua Local and Mbarara Municipalities have formally applied for the degazettement of forest reserves in their areas of jurisdiction to allow expansion (NEMA, 2005).

Disputed property rights and tenure of both land and resources are a disincentive to the conservation of forests and wetlands in Uganda (Mwavu&Witkowski 2008). This is for both forests in protected areas and on private land. Forests and wetlands that are disputed are often converted to crop land or settlement as a strategy to secure tenure rights in rural areas.


4.2.6.2 Wetlands

The Uganda water and environment sector performance report of 2011 attributes the decline of wetlands to encroachment for expansion of urban centres, settlement, industrial developments and extension of agricultural land. Turyahabwe et al. (2013) is in agreement that wetlands in Uganda face degradation due to mainly conversion for agricultural, industrial and settlement purposes. On their part, Nabulo et al. (2008) posit that the main driver of wetland degradation is population increase and rapid industrialization (Nabulo et al. 2008). For example, the area of permanent subsistence farming in Lake Victoria crescent increased by 1266.7 sq.km and Kyoga plains by 1270.6 sq.km (ibid). Excavation for sand mining and extraction of clay is another threat to wetland ecosystems (Banadda et al. 2009), which conflicts with fisheries, aesthetic and recreational functions, and may affect the infiltration of water and net ground water storage (Saviour, 2012).

The impact of urbanisation on wetland degradation is especially worrying. The need to acquire land for human settlement and industrial expansion has grown considerably with increased urbanisation. Readily accessible and affordable land in urban centres is becoming increasingly scarce. As a result, wetlands are being appropriated to meet the growing needs of urban expansion. The wetland coverage around Lake

Victoria have shrunk by more than half. Bwaise, one of the densest settlements in Kampala city, is partly located within Lubigi wetland. The Nakivubo wetland is another threatened component of the Lake Victoria catchment system. It has been encroached upon by informal settlements and industrial development. Parts of the wetland in Kinawataka, Banda and Kyambogo have been encroached on by settlements and industries.

In addition, sand and clay mining in wetlands have led to serious degradation. The uncontrolled harvesting of biomass like papyrus has negatively affected wetlands’ regeneration capacity. Dumping of domestic and commercial solid waste has gradually led to blockage and pollution in the wetlands. Industrial expansion has been accompanied by increasing release of toxic industrial effluent into the fragile wetland ecosystem (Nabulo et al. 2008). This not only affects the ecological integrity but the quality of ecosystem services that they can provide. Swamp fires pose a threat to the biodiversity in wetlands because some species are not tolerant to fire. Swamp fires can also trigger succession changes leading to replacement of natural wetlands vegetation (NEMA, 2004). Deforestation of swamp forests for wood and other craft products and agriculture expansion is affecting wetland biodiversity and this in the long run reduces the ecological value of these habitats (McLennan & Plumptre 2012).

4.2.6.3 Rangelands

Uganda’s Draft Rangeland Policy recognises overgrazing and overstocking as the major causes of rangeland degradation. Other causes are uncontrolled fires during the dry season, flooding, drought, invasive species, erosion and harvesting of wood for charcoal, fuelwood and timber. There is increasing threat of agricultural (cropping) expansion into areas that were hitherto considered suitable for livestock rearing and this mainly due to increasing human population. Poor land management practices such as draining of wetlands is also contributing to rangeland degradation (MLHUD, 2006). Species loss due to ecological and human factors is on the rise and this may affect the capacity of Uganda’s rangelands

to continue providing the expected ecosystem services.

Bush encroachment and spread of invasive plant species is affecting rangeland and forest ecosystem in Uganda (Ziwa et al. 2012). Bush encroachment in rangelands has been mainly caused by overgrazing and rearing of large herds of livestock. This is because overgrazing leads to reduced fuel load and consequently makes fire less intense thus less damaging to trees and eventually results to increased woody vegetation in the rangelands Van Langevelde et al 2003). Bush encroachment leads to suppression of green grass biomass production and, thus, the rangeland’s grazing capacity for livestock (Mugasi et al. 2000).


4.2.6.4 Water resources

Fresh water sources are changing due to changes in water levels that could be linked to climate change, eutrophication due to increased use of agro-chemical and effluents from industries. This affects the quality of ecosystem services that can be generated from water ecosystems. Invasive weeds especially in Lake Kyoga and Lake Victoria negatively affect species diversity and quality of water. The National water resource assessment report 2013 mentions that water quality has dramatically reduced in some water resources due to pollutants from fish farms such as uneaten food, faeces, and organic matter which eventually

affects benthic communities. Cage and tank culture fish farming systems are the most likely to cause pollution of water bodies. Lake Victoria which is the largest fresh water lake has changed due to pollution loading, fishing malpractices and invasion by exotic aquatic weed which affect the biodiversity (Muyodi et al 2010).

Most ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and water bodies in Uganda are also changing because of implementation of policies and enforcement of laws and regulations that were formulated for their management are not adequately done.

4.2.6.5 Pressures on ecosystems from the other economic activities

Fishing

The use of certain fishing gears can remove, kill or injure plants and animals on the bottom. Fishing can transform an originally stable, mature and efficient ecosystem into one that is immature and stressed making it unable to provide ecosystem services. It may also affect the food chain and this may have cascading effects for the ecosystem (Jackson et al., 2001). The type of fishing gear used can change the ecosystem within which the targeted fish live. For instance use of beach seining method and poison can render the fisheries incapable of

ensuring smooth flow of ecosystem services

On Uganda’s fisheries landscape are the five large lakes of Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, Edward, George and Kazinga Channel, 160 minor lakes, rivers (Albert Nile), swamps and floodplains (MAAIF, 2012). Over the years, there has been a decline in production levels of fish from Uganda’s water bodies as shown in Figure3.6. This decline has a direct and indirect impact on the suitability of fisheries resources to supply environmental services especially those linked to the food chain.

Figure 4. 6: Estimated fish quantities landed at major water bodies in Uganda

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), 2012


Mining

Artisanal and small-scale mining is the most dominant in Uganda. In spite of its advantages such as increased local royalty collected, employment, livelihood and GDP, studies show that it is a cause of great concern to the environment (Ikingura et al. 1997). In Uganda artisanal and small-scale mining is not well regulated most miners use rudimentary methods and tools such as picks and spades. They also use mercury especially in Busia, Bugiri and Namayingo (UNEP, 2012). This can potentially interfere with the quality of water, air, soil, rivers, wetlands and rivers and into the food chains (Taylor et. al. 2005). There are no studies that have been conducted to determine the amount of mercury that can be linked to gold mining. It is estimated that approximately 150kg of mercury per annum are emitted to the environment by artisan gold miners and 45kg per annum of this mercury may be discharged with tailings in to rivers and streams (UNEP, 2012). In areas where communities are enlightened about mercury, miners have started to use cyanide for instance in Buhweju and Mubende (ibid), which is less environmentally damaging. The pits excavated in areas of gold mining reduce the aesthetic value of the landscapes and can interfere with the natural ecosystem balance. Forests and wetlands are cleared in the process of mining gold and this negatively affects their integrity and capacity to sustain ecosystem service provision.

Studies by Owor et al. (2007) found that contaminants from abandoned Kilembe mines into R. Rukoki could cause stress to aquatic life (above 15 lg/l). They further reported significant contaminant loads efficiently immobilised in the lake sediments of Lake George and surrounding wetlands. Similarly Lwanga et al (2003) found that metal pollution in Lake George due to Kilembe mined presented an ecological concern. Much as there is no more copper mining in Kilembe, the two studies show that ecosystem services of wetland, lake and soil can be negatively affected by mining activities if measures to prevent them are not put in place.

Mining of sand and clay to sustain the growing construction industry affects the quality of

ecosystem services accruing from wetlands (Zake et al. 2011). It affects the physical and chemical properties of wetland soils which subsequently affects ecosystem services provided by wetlands.

Quarrying

Uganda’s construction industry is growing rapidly and this has led to increased demand for building materials such as gravel and aggregates that are got from quarries. Quarries are open cast excavations from which massive and deep deposits of hard or soft rocks are extracted for the production of aggregates (Coppins, 1982). These aggregates are employed in building and construction of roads. It is mostly carried out using rock drills and explosion of dynamite (Lad and Samant, 2014). Quarrying can affect the environment during exploration, blasting, transporting and disposing of wastes. The removal of natural vegetation, top soil and subsoil to get to the rocks for aggregates not only affects the plant and animal diversity but also leads to destruction of aquatic habitats and neighbouring ecosystems due to noise, dust, vibrations and contamination of water. It can potentially cause loss and fragmentation of continuous natural environment. It may cause diversion and blockage of natural drainage system, soil erosion and river siltation (Maponga and Munyanduri, 1998).

The pressure of quarrying on soil and water resources can affect the suitability of ecosystems such as arable land to sustain crop production (Stehouwer et al. 2006). Quarrying activities can modify ecosystems and landscapes, hydro-geological regimes, disrupt succession, alter water table levels and cause loss of genetic resources ((Lad and Samant, 2014).

There are no comprehensive studies that show the extent to which quarrying has affected the environment in Uganda. However a few available one such as Namaganda (2014) show that quarrying negatively affects quality of water in the adjacent areas especially in the wet season. This study reported that silica values, pH and total suspended solids were higher than the values permissible by the National Environmental Management Authority in sites where quarrying activities were being implemented.


Tourism

Tourist activities impact directly and indirectly on ecosystems (Gössling, 2002). The extent to which tourism affects ecosystems depends on the magnitude of development, volume of visitors, concentration of usage both spatially and temporally (Archer et al. 1998). Studies that have investigated the impacts of tourism on ecosystems are few. However the available ones show that development of tourism facilities often result into generation of wastes and may contribute to changes in land cover and land use (Gössling, 2002). Tourism can lead to alteration of land through infrastructural development (ibid).

Poorly managed tourism can lead to destruction of irreplaceable natural ecological resources. For instance construction of resorts around Lake

Victoria especially in Kalangala district has led to conversion of wetlands and forests that were acting as filters of runoff water and this has caused more pollution of the lake. Obua (1997) found that failure to determine the recreation-carrying capacity in Kibale National Park in western Uganda had contributed to degradation of certain parts of the forest especially the soils and vegetation which were open to tourists. Studies done elsewhere (e.g. Farrell & Marion, 2001) show that visitors may impact on the vegetation, soil, water and behaviour of wildlife which potentially can influence the quality of ecosystem services. On the other hand, tourism also has the potential to help conserve ecosystems by increasing the economic importance of natural resources, raising awareness and financing their protection.

4.3 Consequences of ecosystem change on human wellbeing

Landscape and ecosystem degradation - of forests, wetlands, rangelands and mountain forests - is already observed in many parts of Uganda and will likely continue or even accelerate if no suitable countermeasures are taken. Changes in ecosystems can have profound impacts on their processes and resilience which may have significant consequences for services that human derive from them (Chapin III et al. 2003). Ecosystem change can affect the flow of the services which eventually may affect household livelihoods, income, physical security, health and ultimately human wellbeing (Corvalan et al. 2005).

Adverse ecosystem change especially of wetlands, forests, rangelands and water bodies exacerbates the situation of poor people because these ecosystems can no longer act as safety nets. The products that they rely on in times of shocks can no longer be supplied by these ecosystems. It exacerbates their vulnerability to ecological shocks and stress. The productivity of rangelands has declined due to bush encroachment. In their study Mugasi et al. (2000) found that mean calving rate in areas with bush encroachment was 22.6% compared to those without bushes which was 33.6%. Mean annual gross income was US$49 per cow per annum on farms without bush encroachment compared to US$23 on bushy farms.

A large proportion of the country’s rural population depends on forest resources for basic needs. Forestry provides a range of environmental services and biodiversity values such as poles, rattan, bamboo, food, fodder, medicine; greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, watershed regulation, climate regulation, soil and water conservation, and nutrient cycling. The forestry sector contributes about 6% to Uganda’s GDP and creates about 850,000 jobs; about 100,000 in the formal sector and the majority in fuel wood and charcoal production (National Forestry Authority, 2009). The gross economic output attributable to biodiversity use is estimated to be US$ 546.6 million per year while indirect benefits from ecosystem services and functions that support and maintain production are estimated to be a further US$ 200 million per year (NEMA, 2002).Moreover, one of the major challenges to sustainable agriculture in Uganda today is the unprecedented levels of biodiversity loss including loss of indigenous species and varieties (NEMA, 2014). Deforestation and forest degradation has increased soil erosion, run-off and caused siltation of water bodies which has negatively affecting water quality, and resulted into floods especially in highland areas. Other regulating functions such as purification of air, fresh water, reduced flooding or drought, stabilization of


local and regional climate have been lost in areas where forests are cleared. This has a direct negative impact on the quality of human wellbeing.

Wetlands are an important resource for rural livelihoods (Rebelo et al. 2010) through provision of ecosystem services (Falkenmark et al. 2007) such as maintenance of the water table, prevention of erosion, reduction in extremes of flow, provides sediment traps, act as wildlife habitats and centres of biological diversity, retain toxins, and provide plant products and fish (GoU, 1995).They are important for carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling and nutrient cycling (Finlayson et al., 2005). It is estimated that wetlands provide direct employment to more than 300,000 people and provide subsistence employment for over 2.4 million in Uganda (MoFPED, 2004). In addition, Uganda’s wetlands also provide important ecological benefits that reach beyond the region. They are the home of globally endangered species including birds such as the Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) and Fox’s weaver (Ploceus spekeoides), and fish species of the Cichlidae family. Many wetlands are an important stopover for large congregations of migratory water birds. National and international visitors seek out wetlands as tourist attractions and educational opportunities to learn about their unique animals and plants. In terms of evapo-transpiration, wetlands have two major effects on the environment. First, it will reduce the temperatures of the local environment in the daytime, making it cooler. Thus wetland vegetation ameliorates extremes of temperatures. Secondly, it provides a water resource for cloud formations and rainfall. It is now believed that over large landmasses, the water from evapo-transpiration is a significant part of a very tight water cycle in which rainfall can be directly related to evapo-transpiration. More importantly such rain often falls in relatively close proximity to the area of the evapo-transpiration. Wetland ecosystems are also used as low cost waste water disposal and treatment ecosystems (Brix, 1994). However wetland degradation in Uganda has led to impairment of the water-cleansing capacity which has made treatment of Lake Victoria water expensive, restricting access to piped water in urban areas. This has forced many Ugandans to rely on unsafe drinking water, increasing the

spread of waterborne diseases such as the recent outbreak of Typhoid.

Ecosystem change is reducing opportunities for communities to utilise certain resources to earn income and gain a livelihood. For instance when forests and woodlands are degraded the communities are deprived of accessing products and services that where hitherto supplied for instance tangible products like fibres, wood, vegetables, fruits etc. and ecosystem services such as forage for bees, necessary for pollination and apiculture development.

The majority of the communities in Uganda use biomass energy and changes in forest ecosystem have negatively affected access to fuel wood. The cost of getting firewood or charcoal is increasing because the source of wood has been degraded (Bizzari, 2009). This has implications on the quality of life at household level and its productivity. Women have to move longer distances in search of firewood instead of utilizing that time in other productive activities.

Ecosystem change has resulted into a decline in the aesthetic value of certain landscapes and their tourism potential. For instance clearing of forests has made such landscapes unsuitable for tourism and ecotourism development. Tourists are attracted to pristine or undisturbed forest conditions (Obua& Harding, 1996) and therefore change in forest ecosystem may lead to a negative attitude towards such landscapes.

Uganda Vision 2040 recognizes and priorities the conservation and wise use of environment and natural resources ENR for the collective benefit of the present and future generations and adoption of patterns of production, consumption and reproduction that safeguards the environment. Sound ecosystem management practices are necessary and are crucial to Uganda’s quest for socio-economic transformation and sustainable development. To that end ecosystem management should be considered a principle component to Uganda national planning and development programmes.

The Global Water Partnership in East Africa states that Uganda has already lost approximately


15% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) due to the destruction of its natural resources such as wetlands (NEMA, 2011). Wetlands destruction alone costs Uganda nearly 2 billion shillings annually and contamination of water resources which is

partly caused by reduced buffering capacity of open water bodies costs Uganda nearly 38 billion annually. Water users end up paying huge water bills to subsidize the cost of purifying the contaminated water.

4.4 Climate change and sustainable land use and management

Climate implies the long-term average of the individual weather conditions that communities experience every day (Davies, 2011). It is amongst the most important determinants of survival and human livelihoods (Solomon et al, 2017). For the low income rural communities of Uganda, climate is a particularly strong factor because their livelihoods heavily depend on land and especially on rain-fed subsistence agriculture.

Since the last century, global climate has increasingly become variable and changeable, with significant deviations from the observed normal averages which often leads to disruptive consequences to agriculture, ecosystems and ecosystem services, livelihoods and human wellbeing. Like the rest of the world, climate variability and climate change are already being observed in Uganda. Year-to-year variations in annual rainfall are considerable and the onset of seasons can shift by 15 to 30 days (earlier or later). In some locations, the length of the rainy season can also change by 20 to 40 days from year to year. In contrast, temperature varies very little from year to year, in the order of 0.5 °C.

Recent studies (USAID, 2013; CDKN and MWE, 2014) have identified a number of climatological characteristics, including a decreasing trend in total rainfall during the long rains in March-April-May (MAM) associated with a decrease in the number of wet days (Nsubuga et al, 2011). Positive rainfall trends were also observed at most stations located in the northern part of the Lake Victoria basin (Kiiza et al., 2009), especially during the short rains season of September-October-November (SON).Three long epochs of below-normal rainfall occurred between 1940 and 1960, around the 1970s and again around the 1980s and 1990s. Above-normal rainfall periods occurred during the early 1960s and late 1970 and late 1990s. However, it is interesting to note that episodes of exceptionally

high rainfall totals during the 1960s and 1970s were preceded by relatively long low rainfall periods. It is estimated that between 1975 and 2009 warming has been more than 0.8°C for Uganda during both the MAM and SON rainy seasons. Temperatures have increased by up to 1.5°C across much of Uganda, with typical rates of warming around 0.2°C per decade. In addition, the frequency of hot days has increased significantly, while that of cold days has decreased. Between 1900 to 2009 rainfall has been on average about 8 percent lower than rainfall between 1920 and 1969. Although the June–September rainfall appears to have been declining for a longer period, the March–June decline has only occurred recently.

The transition to an even warmer climate is likely to amplify the impact of decreasing rainfall and periodic droughts, and will likely reduce crop harvests and pasture avail ability. The USAID climate vulnerability assessment report (USAID, 2013) and CDKN climate modeling reports (CDKN and MWE, 2014) indicates that that average rainfall has stayed the same but that there have been shifts in rainfall patterns with more rain during the dry season and less rain during the wet season. Extreme weather events have been experienced, in particular, the recurrent El Nino/La Nina driven shifts in the rainfall onset, cessation and thus duration as well as intensity resulting in either droughts or floods.

Projected annual rainfall totals are expected to differ slightly from what is presently experienced, with projected changes within a range of less than plus or minus 10% from present rainfall. However, less rainfall is expected to occur over most of Uganda, with slightly wetter conditions over the west and north-west. Rainfall totals might drop significantly over Lake Victoria region (-20% from present). What is significant on a seasonal time scale is the projected increase in seasonal rainfall for the December-January-February (DJF) season


- up to100% from present - which is indicative of a longer wet season that extends from SON towards DJF. Projected near-surface temperatures are in the order of +2°C in 50 years from present, and in the order of +2.5°C in 80 years from present. Temperatures are expected to rise more during the MAM and June-July-August (JJA) seasons in comparison to the DJF and MAM seasons. A lower temperature increase of about 1°C is expected for Lake Victoria.

The project changes in climate will have significant impacts on Uganda’s economy since it still highly dependent on climate sensitive natural resources and sectors, most especially agriculture, forestry, fishing and tourism. With 20% of its population still living below the poverty line38 and deriving their livelihood largely from agriculture, climate variability and change poses serious concerns for sustainable land management and achievement of the Vision 20140 - attaining an upper middle income status by 2040. The country vulnerability lies on its dependence of rain-fed agriculture dominated by small holder farmers. For example, the decrease in rainfall in most of Uganda, combined with a significantly wetter DJF season, will result in significantly drier conditions for the rest of the year (longer wet season that extend from SON towards DJF). This will combine with significant temperature increases, especially during the MAM and JJA seasons. A significant drop of total rainfall over Lake Victoria (-20% from present), combined with about 1°C temperature increase will impact the lake water level. The increased warming, with high average air tem peratures, will most likely amplify water stress and increase the impact of water shortages on agriculture, which will in turn undermine crop production and animal rearing. Warming tem peratures are likely to adversely affect coffee production, which is an important cash crop for Uganda. Temperature sensitivities vary by coffee varieties, but most coffee plants fare poorly in areas with aver age air temperatures greater than 24°C. Many other crops (maize, beans, matoke, and cassava) will also be negatively affected. Climate change impacts will make some areas less productive leading to migration, land conversions and land use changes. Overall, these changes will require a number of 38Uganda Poverty Status report, 2014

adaptation strategies - including sustainable land management and ecosystem based adaptation interventions.

Land degradation is both a driver and victim of climate change. Highly degraded areas are also more prone to the effects of climate variability and change - especially droughts, floods and landslides - because those areas have lost or reduced resilience. There are increased concerns about the impacts of climate change and their associated effects on land and environmental degradation. This is because a large proportion of the rural population is currently living in ecologically vulnerable zones like the highlands and mountains, rangelands and drained wetlands (Twinomuhangi et al., 2013).The impacts of increased temperature and decreased rainfall have been projected to cause shifts in vegetation zones which is likely to be felt in the various sectors of the economy such as the agriculture and tourism industry. The projected climate change in Uganda is likely to make land less productive and this will make people convert more forests, wetlands, protected areas and highlands to agricultural land and this will worsen land degradation. The expansion of agricultural land into forests leads to the loss biodiversity. Reduced biodiversity in turn leads to (i) reduced agricultural productivity and reduces the resilience of agricultural systems, which then become more vulnerable to adverse climatic events (erosion, pests, diseases, and other threats); (ii) loss of capacity to fix below and above-ground carbon as organic matter and biomass respectively (ii) loss of trees that are a global carbon sink that contributes to controlling climate change; (ii) loss of other ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration. Since forests play an important role in carbon sequestration and reduction of carbon emissions, deforestation and land degradation affects the carbon banks and contributes to global climate change. Therefore as Uganda strives to achieve an upper middle income status, addressing climate change is must through both adaptation and mitigation. Promoting sustainable land management is one way of increasing the resilience of agriculture to the impacts of climate change. Climate smart agriculture should be promoted so as to increase agricultural productivity while ensuring the resilience of agriculture to


current and future impacts of climate change. Climate smart agriculture is also another way of reducing land degradation.

Healthy ecosystems, whether natural or modified, have a critical role to play through adaptation by reducing the risk of impacts from climate extremes and disasters on human society39. Ecosystem degradation undermines the ecosystem protection function against natural hazards and disasters including climate change hazards and disasters. On the other hand, climate change exacerbates ecosystem degradation which in turn triggers more humanitarian and environmental disasters and reduces natures and societies’ security and resilience.

The observed recent changes in Uganda’s climate, especially warmer temperatures and droughts already have significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including changes in species distributions, population sizes, the timing of reproduction and migration events, and an increase in the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. The IPCC Fourth assessment Report indicates that by the end of the twenty first century, climate change may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes to ecosystem services globally and low-lying coasts, dry lands, mountains and river basins are the most vulnerable ecosystems.

A range of impacts on Uganda’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems has been suggested under climate change. Mountain ecosystems appear to be undergoing significant observed changes aspects which are likely to be linked to complex climate-land interactions that may continue under climate change. For example the ice caps on Mt. Ruwenzori have reduced tremendously due to increased temperatures. Changes induced climate change are also likely to result in species range shifts, as well as in changes in tree productivity adding further stress to forest ecosystems. Changes in other ecosystems, such as grasslands are also likely.The rise in temperatures could extend the ecosystems range of pests and pathogens. This is likely to affect many aspects

39Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). 2012. Managing Climate Extremes and Disasters for Ecosystems: Lessons from the IPCC SREX Report.www.cdkn.org/srex

of forests such as tree-growth, survival, yield and quality of wood and non-wood products. The impact of pests may result in the curtailment of plantation programmes, abandonment of a given tree species, or the necessity to harvest large areas dominated by infested trees.

The cattle corridor, a fragile rangeland ecosystem is dependent on rainwater for human consumption and production. The rural poor depend on stream and swamps. With increased temperatures and persistent droughts, these sources will dry up during severe droughts resulting in the diversion of resources to emergency operations. Thus climate change will exacerbate water stress and water scarcity problems particularly in the semi-arid areas, including the cattle corridor. For example, the prolonged and severe drought of 1999/2000 caused severe water shortage leading to loss of animals, low production of milk, food insecurity, increased food prices and thus negatively affecting the economy.

During drought periods, pastoralists drive their animals to different places in search of pasture and water leading to conflicts in these areas. For example, during the drought of 1999, there was a serious conflict between Park authorities and cattle keepers around Lake Mburo and Queen Elizabeth National Parks, sometimes involving armed interventions of security agencies.

The large wetland resource in Uganda is explained by a climate factors (high rainfall) and the general topography of the country, making wetlands to be spread throughout the country. It is already noted that wetland coverage has tremendously reduced over the years due to land conversions for agriculture, settlement, urbanisation and industrialisation. With climate change, increased droughts make many arable land unsuitable for cultivation and wetlands become the alternatives and hence land use conversions. Importantly also, climate change is one of the major causes of drying up of wetlands and result in reduced water tables giving way to change in land use such as cultivation and settlements. Drought events have become more frequent and climate change will increase their frequency and severity. Between 1991 and 2000 Uganda experienced seven droughts in a period of ten years as indicated above.


The benefits of healthy ecosystems should place ecosystem services management at the heart of key policy decisions associated with climate change. Since the impacts of climate change are already being observed in Uganda - droughts, floods, and landslides - it is vital that essential ecosystem services are maintained in order to protect vulnerable societies. The management of ecosystems for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction increases the resilience of ecosystems and secures their services. By

building resilience of natural and human systems, more ecosystems services can be used in a cost effective way to support adaptation and disaster risk reduction, so reducing impacts from climate-related disasters. Therefore, Uganda should consider ecosystem based solutions for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and responses to weather and climatic extremes as an integral element of national and sectoral development planning.


5 LAND AND AGRICULTURE IN UGANDA’S JOURNEy TO MIDDLE-INCOME STATUS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses Uganda’s long-term aspiration of becoming an upper-middle income country. The role agriculture in sustainable land use

and management is examined, and in particular the chapter discusses the role of agriculture in Uganda’s growth trajectory up to 2040.

5.2 Agriculture and Uganda’s growth trajectory up to 2040

From the foregoing discussion, agricultural land still dominates the productive base of Uganda’s economy, but the supply of land is inherently limited. Sustainable development therefore requires Uganda to reduce its dependence on land and other forms of natural capital. The country’s productive base must be expanded through investment in physical equipment and machinery, the skills and technical know-how of the growing labour force, and the development of institutions to effectively govern social, economic and political interactions. These new forms of physical, human and intangible capital will often be employed in the industrial and modern service sectors. That way, the movement of labour from agriculture to these higher-value activities will help to reduce the pressure on the country’s finite land resources.

Changes within the agricultural sector itself will play a critical role in enabling this structural transformation. Analysis by MFPED (2014) suggests that agricultural development may be the most important factor determining the pace of Uganda’s structural change –growth driven by services or manufacturing without corresponding improvements in the agricultural sector ultimately has limited job creation potential.40This is due to the multiple linkages between agricultural production and other sectors of the economy. Agriculture supplies numerous industrial value chains. Given the large number of agricultural households, income generated in the sector contributes a significant share of domestic demand. Agricultural productivity trends also have decisive influences on relative prices and the sectoral distribution of the labour force, with important implications across the economy.

40MFPED (2014), “Uganda’s employment challenge: an evaluation of Government’s strategy”.

The relationships between the availability of land for agriculture, agricultural production technologies and the number of workers engaged in agriculture are complex; and changes in any of these variables will have effects throughout the economy. This section of the report explores the relationship between land used for agriculture and the overall development trajectory of the economy up to 2040. This is achieved by analysing alterative scenarios using an economy-wide, macro-micro model carefully calibrated to the Ugandan economy.

5.2.1 The contribution of land, labour and productivity to agricultural growth

To understand the sustainability of current trends in the agricultural sector it is important to first understand the sources of recent growth. The main factors of production in Uganda’s agricultural system are land and labour. However, any given number of farm workers cultivating any given area of land may produce different levels of output depending on a host of other variables such as soil quality, the experience and skill of the farmers, seasonal weather patterns, the use of modern inputs and access to public infrastructure. Changes in these factors explain agricultural productivity growth.

In Uganda, both the number of agricultural workers and the area of agricultural land are expanding. The agricultural workforce expanded by 3.5% per year on average between 2009/10 and 2012/13.41This has not led to an equivalent increase in agricultural output, partly due to rural underemployment. Even with high rural-to-urban migration, the current population structure means that the number of agricultural workers is likely to continue expanding at a rapid rate. Growth in the area of agricultural land has averaged around 1% per year over the last decade, mainly driven by cropland.41Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10 and 2012/13.


Box 2: The MAMS modelling framework

The main analytical tool used in this section of the report is a dynamic-recursive computable general equilibrium (CGE) model known as MAMS (short for Maquette for MDG Simulations). CGE models are tools that use real-world data and economic theory to understand how an economy might react to a new policy, technology or other external factor. The MAMS model was originally developed by the World Bank and has been used for medium and long-run development strategy analysis in over 40 low and middle-income countries. MAMS has been used in Uganda to inform both NDP I and NDP II. The advantages of MAMS over other CGE models include a detailed treatment of public capital stocks and feedback mechanisms between the education system and the labour market. The model was calibrated using a database of the Ugandan economy including ten household types, over 40 economic sectors, three labour categories and five types of natural capital. This detailed database makes the model well-suited to analysing the inter-sectoral and macroeconomic implications of changes in the availability of agricultural land and agricultural productivity growth.

As part of the calibration process, official growth projections were imposed under a reference scenario. These projections anticipate a recovery in GDP growth from 5.3% in 2014/15 towards the historical average growth rate of 7% by the end of NDP II, which is maintained up to 2040. The productivity of different economic activities is adjusted to achieve this growth rate under the reference scenario, with the relative strength of the adjustment across activities set to ensure a plausible pattern of structural change under baseline conditions. The plausibility of the resulting productivity growth rates was cross-checked against recent trends in Uganda and other countries in the region (see Section 5.2.1).The productivity trends determined during the calibration process are kept constant under the other simulations, except where explicitly stated. Economic growth therefore follows an assumed path in the baseline scenario, but is determined by the model in the other simulations. The simulations cover the entire Vision 2040 period, running from 2009/10 to 2039/40 with alternative scenarios introducing various shocks from 2015/16, as explained in the text.

The growth of land and labour employed in agriculture, rather than productivity improvements, explain the majority of output growth over recent years. Figure 5-1 breaks down the growth of crop production into these three components. The area of land under cultivation is the most important factor driving the volume of crop production in Uganda. Productivity growth has generally been positive but low, averaging under 1% per year and falling in recent years. Lacklustre productivity growth is the main reason agricultural output growth is lower in Uganda than other countries in the region. This reflects a range of factors including declining soil quality, adverse climatic shocks, limited use of modern inputs and poor rural infrastructure.

Uganda must shift from agricultural growth driven by the extension of land under cultivation to use its limited land more efficiently. Over 70% of Uganda’s land area is currently used for agriculture (including grassland for pasture). If the current growth rate of around 1% continues, more than 90% of land would be used for agriculture by 2040. This is inconsistent with the Vision 2040 objective to expand forest cover from 15% to 24% of the country’s land area. The current growth rate of agricultural land is clearly unsustainable.

Uganda’s journey to middle-income status will require significant improvements in agricultural productivity, in part to compensate for slower or stagnate growth in the area of agricultural land.

Matching the performance of other countries in the region would mean increasing agricultural productivity growth by around 5 percentage points (see Figure 4-1).The structural transformation envisaged in Vision 2040 will require that non-agricultural production expands more rapidly than production in the agricultural sector. But this will be driven by an increasing share of the labour force employed in the non-agricultural sector, where the level of productivity is much higher. In most countries productivity growth is higher in agriculture than in other sectors.42This is particularly important for developing countries in need of 42Martin, Will, and DevashishMitra (2001). “Productivity Growth and Convergence in Agriculture versus Manufacturing”. Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 403-422.


structural change, otherwise the relative price of food will rise in tandem with the urban population, increasing living costs for households and labour costs for businesses, and thereby limiting the rate of structural transformation.

Figure 5. 1: Contribution of labour, land and productivity to crop output growth

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

a. Uganda

a. Kenya b. Ethiopia

b. Rwanda

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: calculations based on FAOSTAT database using a 5-year backward moving average..Notes: crop output growth is the area-weighted average for each country. The grey area represents the component of crop output growth that is not explained by the growth of labour and land inputs. This is commonly referred to as total factor productivity (TFP) and captures, among other things, the contribution of technology, production efficiency, climatic shocks, non-land capital inputs, public inputs and the quality of labour and land inputs.

5.2.2 The impact of agricultural land constraints

As discussed in the previous section, the growth of agricultural land will slow over the course of the Vision 2040 period. This will have a direct impact on agricultural production, and indirect consequences across the economy, affecting rural incomes, household demand and food prices. These effects can be analysed within an economy-wide model by comparing two scenarios: one in which land growth continues at the current rate (1% per year), and a more realistic scenario where the growth of agricultural land slows and eventually stops. To facilitate the comparison, agricultural productivity, government policies and other external factors are kept constant across the two scenarios.43

43Under the constant land growth scenario, GDP is assumed follow the NDP II projection up to 2019/20 and grow by 7% a year thereafter. Under the ‘zero land growth’ scenario, GDP growth is determined by the model. The land growth rate is assumed to remain at 1% up to 2015/16 and gradually fall to a negligible level from 2020/21 onwards.


A direct result of lower land growth is that agricultural production will become more labour intensive. If current population trends continue, the number of workers per hectare of agricultural land is projected to increase from 0.7 in 2012/13 to 1.1 by 2040. Under the zero-land growth scenario this trend will be even more pronounced, with the number of workers per hectare rising to 1.2. (Figure 5.2 a). The difference between the two scenarios is relatively small because land constraints reduce the attractiveness of working in agriculture, leading to both higher unemployment and a larger share of the workforce finding employment in other sectors. There is therefore a reduction in the agricultural labour force as well as less land under cultivation – by 2040 there will be more than 1.5 million fewer agricultural workers under the scenario with no land growth.

Although land constraints will induce workers to leave the agricultural sector, this should not be

viewed as a desirable form of structural change. Lower land growth is a negative supply shock that will reduce welfare across the economy. Lower agricultural production will reduce rural incomes directly. a). Perhaps more surprisingly, land constraints in the agricultural sector will have an even larger negative impact on urban households. b). This is an illustration of the important indirect linkages between the agricultural sector and the rest of the economy. Lower rural incomes reduce the demand for non-agricultural goods and thereby constrain growth of the urban economy. In addition, zero land growth is projected to increase food prices in 2040 by 36%. This partially offsets the reduction in agricultural income but eats into the household budgets of net food consumers, further reducing the market for non-agricultural goods. Higher food prices also place upward pressure on the real exchange rate, reducing the competitiveness of firms in the non-agricultural sector.

Figure 5. 2: Land constraints and labour in the agricultural sector

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

05

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2005

/6

2014

/15

2019

/20

2024

/25

2029

/30

2034

/35

2039

/40

2010/11

2015/16

2020/21

2025/26

2030/31

2035/36

a. Workers per hectare of agricultural land b. Share of workforce in agriculture

Sources: Simulation results; UBOS; and FAOSTAT.

Agricultural land constraints are an obstacle in Uganda’s development aspirations, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. On average, GDP growth is 0.18 percentage points lower under the scenario with no growth of agricultural land. This relatively small reduction in growth, when compounded over 25 years, means GDP will be only 4.3% lower in 2040.It is possible that land constraints will encourage the more efficient use of the land that is available, perhaps increasing productivity through the use of fertilizers or mechanization.44 On the other hand, land pressures may shorten fallow periods, undermine soil quality and smaller plot sizes could reduce economies of scale.45

44Boserup, Esther. (1965). “The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure”.45Geertz, C. (1963). “Agricultural involution: the process of ecological change in Indonesia”.


Figure 5. 3: Land constraints and private consumption growth

2014

/15

2014

/15

2019

/20

2019

/20

2024

/25

2024

/25

2029

/30

2029

/30

2034

/35

2034

/35

2039

/40

2039

/40

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

a. Rural house holds b. Ubran house holds

Source: Simulation results. Note: Shows the projected average real growth rate in per capita consumption for rural and urban households.

To explore these possibilities, an additional simulation maintains zero land growth but fixes the GDP growth rate at the same level as under the constant land growth scenario. Economic growth is expected to gradually recover from 5.3% in 2014/15 towards the economy’s estimated potential growth rate of 7% over the course of NDP II, and remain at 7% from 2020. Figure 5.4 shows the agricultural productivity trends required to sustain this growth with and without land constraints.

The recovery in GDP growth projected in NDP II will require higher agricultural productivity. Under both land growth scenarios, agricultural productivity growth is set to increase by almost three percentage points over the next five years

and remain roughly constant from 2020. The plans set out in NDP II to improve rural infrastructure, farmers’ access to modern inputs and land management practices should narrow the productivity gap vis-à-vis neighbouring countries (see Figure 4-1), particularly in the production of food crops. This will help to ensure that food prices do not increase disproportionately in the face of growing urban demand. Relative to their bound in productivity projected over the medium term, the efficiency gains required to offset long-term land constraints are small – at an average of around 0.2 percentage points a year for food crops. These findings suggest land constraints in themselves are likely to be of secondary importance compared to overall productivity trends.

Figure 5. 4: Land constraints and agricultural productivity growth

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%2014/15 2019/20 2024/25 2029/30 2029/35 2039/40

Zero land growth (cashcrops)

1% land growth (cash crops)

Zero land growth (food crops)

1% land growth (food crops)

Source: Simulation results. Note: Shows the projected productivity growth rates (TFP) required to achieve the baseline GDP growth (the NDP II projection up to 2019/20 and 7% per year thereafter).


5.2.3 Alternative agricultural productivity scenarios

The analysis in the previous section showed that land constraints are an obstacle to Uganda’s structural transformation, but can be overcome with sufficient improvements in agricultural productivity. However land pressures may make it more difficult to increase productivity, as fallowing becomes impractical and alternative methods to manage soil fertility are not yet widely used. This section focuses on the consequences of alternative trends in agricultural productivity up to 2040. Three productivity scenarios are examined:

• The baseline scenario corresponds to the zero-land growth scenario in the previous section. Agricultural productivity growth improves from around 1% to around 4% per year by 2020 (as in Figure 5.5).46 Thereafter, modest productivity gains are assumed to offset the impact of land constraints such that GDP expands by 7% per year.

• The stagnation scenario considers what could happen if Uganda fails to achieve the necessary improvements in agricultural productivity. Current trends in the agricultural sector persist with productivity growth remaining at 1% per year up to 2040.

The high-productivity scenario considers agricultural productivity growth that is 2.5 times higher than in the baseline scenario, or around 10% per year. This rate was determined during

46 This is still lower than more successful countries in the region, where agricultural productivity growth has averaged around 6% per year (see Error! Reference source not found.)

the model calibration in order to approach the Vision 2040 objective of reducing the share of the labour force in agriculture to 31%. Agricultural productivity growth under this scenario surpasses the rate achieved by the best-performing neighbouring countries (see Figure 4-1), and probably represents the upper-end of what is feasible for Uganda to achieve.

The simulations suggest that agricultural productivity may be the most important factor determining the extent of Uganda’s structural transformation over the next 25 years. Without a turnaround in agricultural performance, the economy will not be able to support a large non-agricultural workforce and structural change will be self-limiting. Strong agricultural productivity growth on the other hand will enhance rural incomes and increase the demand for non-agricultural products. On the supply-side, more plentiful industrial inputs and lower food prices will increase the competitiveness of Uganda’s tradable sectors.

NDP II sets a goal for Uganda to reach lower-middle-income status by 2020, and Vision 2040 expects the country to attain upper-middle income by 2032. Realising these development aspirations is likely to rest on the rate of agricultural productivity. Achieving these objectives will require productivity gains in line with the high productivity scenario (Figure 5.5.). Under the scenarios with lower agricultural productivity growth, Uganda does not reach upper-middle income status before 2040.


Figure 5. 5: Agricultural productivity and GDP per capita (USD)

2014/15 2019/20 2024/25 2029/30 2034/35 2039/40

Upper-middle income

Lower-middle income

Low income

BaselineStagnationHigh productivity

Source: Simulation results. Notes: The figure abstracts from changes in the real exchange rate, which are likely to reduce the differences between the scenarios (real depreciation driven by lower food prices in the high-productivity would lower GDP measured in USD terms, while real appreciation in the stagnation scenario would have the opposite effect). The nominal exchange rate is assumed to depreciate at an average of 3% per year, reflecting the difference between Ugandan and US inflation rates. The income categories should be considered approximate as the definitions are revised periodically and based on GNI rather than GDP.

If there are no significant improvements in agricultural productivity (the stagnation scenario), there will be no positive structural change in the labour market. On the contrary, unemployment and underemployment wouldrise significantly as other sectors are unable to absorb redundant agricultural workers; the actual number gainfully employed in agriculture therefore matches the baseline scenario. The productivity improvements required to relieve these pressures are large – the three percentage point improvement under the baseline scenario has little impact on the number of farm workers per hectare. These simulations

suggest that the structural transformation targeted in Vision 2040 – particularly a 50% reduction in the agricultural labour force share – will require productivity gains of at least 10% per year. Even with a significant shift in the sectoral composition of the labour under the high-productivity scenario, the number of farm workers per hectare will inevitably increase. This reflects the momentum of Uganda’s demographic structure – an overwhelmingly young population with the large majority still residing in rural areas. A critical component of the country’s structural transformation will therefore be improving earnings in the agricultural sector even as the average land area per worker declines.

Figure 5. 6: Productivity and labour in the agricultural sector

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

05

2005

/6

2010/11

2015/16

2020/21

2025/26

2030/31

2035/36

a. Workers per hectare of agricultural land b. Share of workforce in agriculture

2014

/15

2019

/20

2024

/25

2029

/30

2034

/35

2039

/40

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Sources: Simulation results; UBOS; and FAOSTAT.


Agricultural earnings should rise as a result of productivity gains rather than higher food prices. Competitive food prices are one of the most important channels through which agricultural productivity facilitates structural change. Under the baseline scenario the relative price of food increases by around a third, as food production is not able to keep pace with growing demand. This is accentuated greatly under the stagnation scenario, where food prices rise to the extent of jeopardising macroeconomic stability. In contrast, the relative price of food declines under the high productivity scenario. This is due to higher production, and higher household income growth also means the demand for food grows less rapidly than the demand for non-agricultural goods and services. Lower food prices reduce costs for both households and firms, loosening budget constraints and increasing domestic demand. In addition, lower food prices pass through to a more competitive real exchange rate, facilitating the growth of export-orientated sectors. It is also critical to reduce the gap between market and farm gate prices through improved market integration across the country. This will benefit both net food consumers and producers, enabling more smallholder farmers to invest in improved inputs.47

Figure 5. 7: Agricultural productivity and food prices (2014/15=100)

2014/15 2019/20 2024/25 2029/30 2034/35 2039/40

Baseline

Stagnation

High productivity

CPI

Source: Simulation results. Note: the CPI index is computed based on NDP II projections up to 2019/20 and assumed inflation of 5% per year thereafter.

5.3 Land management strategies for sustainable agricultural productivity growth

The analysis in the previous section revealed Uganda’s crop productivity growth is on a downward trend, averaging only around 1% per year over the last decade, compared to around 6% per year in better-performing countries in the region. Reducing the share of the labour force in agriculture to 31% as targeted by Vision 2040 will require a dramatic and sustained turnaround in agricultural productivity, to at least match the best-performing countries in the region. Otherwise the economy will not be able to support a large non-agricultural workforce; urban growth will increase food prices, increasing costs for both households and firms and limiting structural change.

Strategies for improved land management will be central in achieving the gains in agricultural productivity required for Uganda’s progression to upper-middle income status. In particular, Uganda’s agricultural systems must shift from using land extensively to using land intensively, through the greater use of modern inputs, higher-value crops, and soil conservation measures among other strategies. Traditional practices are unsustainably depleting Uganda’s agricultural land and other ecosystems, and the shift towards more intensive land management strategies must also ensure the long-term health of these natural capital 47Government of Uganda, Uganda Poverty Status report 2014.


stocks. This section discusses the potential land management strategies that can contribute to more rapid and sustainable agricultural development consistent with Uganda’s Vision 2040.

5.3.1 Traditional land management practices and crop choice

Historically, Uganda was relatively sparsely populated and land for agriculture was therefore abundant. As a result, traditional farming practices are characterised by the extensive use and rapid depletion of land and the limited use of other inputs. As a result the land under agriculture has been increasing at a rate of 1% per annum over the last decade. Combined with inefficiencies in the land market, this growth has led to the fragmentation of smaller and smaller plots, contributing to dispersed settlement patterns and reducing economies of scale.

Table 5.1 summarised data on changes in crop production from sampled households/plots. The data shows that the number of plots (N) planted to coffee, maize and beans by households in the RePEAT sample increased from 404, 710 and 752, respectively in the main cropping season of 2003, to 624, 1006 and 1000, respectively in the main cropping season of 2012.

Table 5. 1: Land allocation, input use, production and yield for selected crops: (RePEAT 2003 & 2012)

COFFEE MAIZE## BEANS BANANA(MATOKE)#2003(N=404)

2012(N=624)

2003(N=710)

2012(N=1006)

2003(N=752)

2012(N=1000)

2003(N=1225)

2012(N= 980)

Total land area (acres) 0.75 0.74 .54 0.64 0.6 0.49 1.3 0.83Total quantity harvested (kgs) 147 317 317 421 112 162 842 678

Productivity (Yield) (Kg/Ha) 744 1141 1187 1602 553 925 1174 2008

% Households using Improved Seed 0.4 7.9 42 49 50 15 0.6 4

% Households using Chemical Fertilizer 9.7 18 15 14 19 1 9.5 3

% Households using Manure 6.4 19 10 6 11 16 8.5 20

##A much higher proportion of households in the RePEAT sample of 2012 used improved maize seed and chemical fertilizer compared to the UNPS estimate of 2011/12 (UBOS, 2013). This is largely because of the field experiments on maize production conducted in the RePEAT villages starting in 2009, and repeated in 2010 and 2011. These experiments involved distribution of a free maize start-up package to randomly selected farmers in treatment villages in the first cropping season of 2009, followed by sales of the same inputs that were previously provided for free to the sample farmers, at discounts and on credit, which stimulated the demand for improved seed and fertilizer in RePEAT villages48.

48To investigate the impact of a possible policy intervention on technology adoption by small scale farmers, sequential field experiments on maize production were conducted in Uganda under the RePEAT project in 2009. First, prior to the first cropping season of 2009, a randomized experiment was conducted that involved distribution of a free maize start-up package to each sample farmer in villages (treatment villages) that were randomly selected from the sites where we conducted panel surveys in 2003 and 2005. In addition to the maize package, sample households in the treatment villages received a two-hour training session on the use of the provided inputs, unlike their cohorts in control villages. The free inputs distributed to the farmer in the treatment villages comprised of 2.5 kg of hybrid seed, 12.5 kg of base fertilizer, and 10 kg of top-dressing fertilizer, which are the recommended input levels for growing a quarter acre of maize. The second activity occurred during the intermediate period between the first cropping season and the subsequent season, in which 46 treatment and 23 control villages were revisited in the Eastern and Central regions to sell the same inputs that were previously provided for free to the sample farmers. Sales events were held in each of the treatment and control villages, all the sample households were invited as well as randomly selected neighbours of the sample households in the treatment villages. To obtain information on demand in response to changes in price, a “price contingent order form” was used which asked farmers to fill out how much of each input they would buy at different discount levels. Three discount rates from the market price were offered, namely, 0 %, 10 % and 20 %. An order form for credit purchase was also used, on which participants indicated how much of each input they would buy if credit was available. In the proposed credit scheme, the participants were requested to pay the balance, that is, the total payment with interest minus the initial payment, at the end of the subsequent season. The yield gain from using modern inputs purchased at the sales experiment was simulated and the results show that discounting the input price would have very minor impact on yield, while credit provision would have large impact. The yield would more than double if farmers switched from the local variety to hybrid seed and applied chemical fertilizers at the level purchased by treatment households when credit is made available. The findings of this study suggest that the distribution of modern agricultural inputs has a significantly positive effect on their adoption by farmers who have little experience in their use. The intervention had a spill over effect on the neighbours’’ adoption, too. A large impact of the credit intervention was also observed, which suggests that farmers would drastically increase the use of inputs if credit was offered. The impact of credit was largest among treatment households who obtained the free trial packages in the previous season because of the acquired knowledge on usage and profitability of the modern inputs through the intervention. This shows that a small-scale intervention could have a large impact on farmers’ demand for modern inputs.(see Tomoya Matsumoto, Takashi Yamano , and Dick Sserunkuuma. Technology Adoption in Agriculture: Evidence from Experimental Intervention in Maize Production in Uganda. In An African Green Revolution: Finding Ways to Boost Productivity on Small Farms, eds. Keijiro Otsuka and Donald F. Larson (Chapter 12, pp 261-278), 2013. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.)


However, the number of banana (matoo ke) plots decreased from 1125 in 2003 to 980 in 2012. The average area planted to coffee remained constant at 0.75 acres; while the area under maize increased by 0.1 acres from 0.54 acres in 2003 to 0.64 acres in 2012. However, the area allocated to beans decreased by about 0.1 acres; while the banana area decreased by a bigger magnitude from 1.3 acres in 2003 to 0.83 acres in 2012. The production (kg) and yield (kg/Ha) increased for all crops, with coffee registering a much larger increment in both production and yield, followed by maize and beans. For banana, production reduced because of the drop in area, but yield increased substantially. This is attributed to the substantial increase in the proportion of households using improved technologies (improved seed, chemical fertilizer and manure) on coffee and banana compared to the other crops. For maize, it is only the proportion of households using improved seed that increased from 42% to 49%, but the proportion using fertilizer decreased from 15% to 14% for chemical fertilizer, and from 10% to 6% for organic fertilizer (manure). Beans on the other hand registered a substantial fall in the proportion of households using improved seed from 50% in 2003 to 15% in 2012; and a concurrent fall in chemical fertilizer use from 19% to 1% of the households. Organic fertilizer use on beans, however, increased from 11% to 16% of the households. For banana, the proportion of households using improved varieties increased from 0.6% in 2003 to 4% in 2012, as did the proportion of households using manure from 8.5% to 20%. On the other hand, chemical fertilizer use on banana decreased from 9.5% to 3% of the households in 2003 and 2012, respectively.

5.3.2 Livestock production

The livestock population is estimated at 13 million cattle [5.8 million indigenous and 295,000 exotic/crossbred], 14.6 million goats of which the Small East African goat breed shares the largest proportion (83.3%), 3.9 million sheep, 3.7 million pigs and 15 million chickens (UBOS, 2014). Ruminants (cattle, goats, and sheep) constitute 86% of total livestock and are kept by pastoralists living in the rangelands49. Of the 14.6 million goat population, the Small East African goat breed shares the largest proportion (83.3%) with the 49Livestock Development Program, Preparation Report, Working papers 1 to 15. Agrisystems (Eastern Africa) Limited, NairobiKenya. MAAIF working Document dated 11 January 2002.

Mubende and Kigezi breeds sharing 14.5% and 2.2%, respectively (UIA 2009). Approximately 85% of milk and 95% of beef consumed in the country is from indigenous cattle raised traditionally by pastoralists. Depending on soils agro-pastoralists grow crops like sorghum, millet, short-season maize, cowpeas, and beans. In the wetter areas cassava, sweet potatoes, beans, pigeon peas and bananas are grown for subsistence. Although people in the rangelands are increasingly growing more food for subsistence, an increasing number are becoming market oriented. In addition, because of the catalytic effect of livestock on cropping, the livestock population is growing as more people opt for mixed crop-livestock farming (agro-pastoralism). Market conscious people are also fencing off their individual land holdings and some are crossing indigenous animals to take advantage of potential milk markets.

5.3.3 Changes in input use and land management practices

Countries that have realized some success in agriculture employ the use of fertilizers, improved seeds and irrigation supported with credit and extension services (UBOS, 2013). In the case of Uganda, demonstration plots conducted by the Sasakawa Global 2000 (SG2000) showed that the yields of improved maize varieties fertilized with DAP and urea were 70–120 percent higher than those using traditional farming practices; and the marginal rate of returns per UGS invested in the SG2000 technological package ranged from0.7 to 2.15 (Foster et al. 2002).This suggests that the use of fertilizer in Uganda can be profitable under high-input management practices, where complementary technologies, such as improved seeds are used50.

However, Pender et al. (2004) observed that the use of complete packages of technologies is less feasible than the use of one component of the package for resource-poor farmers in Uganda, given credit constraints. However, the inability of smallholders to use inorganic or organic fertilizer or other fertility management technologies to replenish soil nutrients deters sustainable land management in the country. Less than 10% of smallholder farmers in Uganda used inorganic fertilizer in the 1990s, one of the most likely

50However, Kaizzi (2002) found the application of fertilizer not to be profitable under farmer conditions in low-potential soils in eastern Uganda, although fertilizer use for maize was found to be profitable in some high fertility soils of this region.


technologies to improve soil fertility (Pender et al. 2001); and the few that did applied an average of only one kilogram of soil nutrients per hectare during this period. In 2001, Uganda imported 5,800 metric tons of NPK (which was very low by international standards), 95% of which was used by large-scale farmers and the operators of tea and sugar estates (NARO and FAO 1999); which suggests very limited fertilizer use among smallholders who contribute the most to Uganda’s agricultural GDP. The use of organic practices such as manuring and composting was also found to be relatively limited. For example, in 2000, only 23% of households sampled from two thirds of Uganda used animal manure, 20% used mulching, 18% incorporated crop residues in the soil, and 10% used compost (Pender et al., 2004). Out of the 1,189 plots cultivated by the households in this study (N=451), chemical fertilizers were applied to only 1.7% of the plots; while manure or compost, mulching and crop residues were applied to 17.6%, 13.6% and 25.1% of the plots, respectively.

Several factors were blamed for limiting the use of external inputs in Uganda in the 2000s, including the high cost (which makes them unaffordable and unprofitable); lack of access to credit (which limits farmers’ ability to purchase and use them) and extension (which limits farmers’ knowledge of

how to use them and the potential benefits therein). But the high cost of inputs, particularly fertilizer, was considered the most important reason for their limited use (Nkonya et al., 2002). Community surveys conducted in Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia in the early 2000s indicate that the price of DAP in Uganda (US$ 50/100kgs) was much higher than in Kenya (US$ 38/100kgs) and Ethiopia (US$ 29/100kgs) (Yamano et al., 2004), which reduced the profitability and use of DAP other fertilizers51.

More recent data from the Uganda National Panel Surveys (UNPS; 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12) shows that the proportion of households using organic fertilizers reduced from 18.6% in 2009/10 to 15.8% in 2010/12; while the proportion of households using chemical fertilizer and pesticides decreased from 4.9% to 4.3% and from 15.2% to 13.7%, respectively during the same period (UBOS, 2013). The proportion of households using improved seed also dropped from 19% in 2009/10 to 10% in 2011/12. Crop-level analysis shows a steady decline in use of improved seed across the three survey periods from 41% to 10% for maize and from 4% to 2% for beans. Table 5.2 shows low and declining use of soil fertility replenishing inputs (organic and inorganic fertilizers) and pesticides on maize and beans, paralleled by a slight increase in the use of at least one of these three inputs on banana (matooke) from 21% in 2009/10 to 22% in 2011/12.

51Because of inefficiencies in the Ugandan fertilizer market, the prices at which fertilizer products are delivered to smallholder farmers render their use unprofitable. Studies from eastern Uganda in 2000/01 show that restoring negative nutrient balances would cost US$ 140 per household per year, which many farmers cannot afford. Even if credit was easily accessible and farmers were to borrow and invest this much in fertilizer, the returns, though positive would not be high enough to justify widespread adoption of fertilizer (Kaizzi, et al., 2002). In Mayuge district, which is also in eastern Uganda, output prices would have to increase by 50 % or the cost of fertilizer would have to decrease by 70-80 % to make the adoption of NP and NPK profitable.

Table 5. 2: Use of agricultural inputs by crop and year (% households)

Type of InputBeans Maize Matooke

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Any organic fertilizers 9.7 9.2 8.5 7.2 6.6 5.8 12.8 12.7 13.0

Any inorganic fertilizers 2.2 2.5 3.2 2.3 2.5 3.1 2.4 3.1 4.1

Any pesticides 8.7 7.2 7.9 8.7 7.6 8.4 9.5 8.5 10.0Any one of the three inputs 17.6 15.9 15.2 15.1 14.0 13.8 20.5 20.4 22.3

Source: UNPS 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12


The RePEAT panel survey data (2003 and 2012) shows a slight reduction in cultivated land from an average of 2.1Ha in 2003 to 1.8Ha in 2012 (see Table 5.3). The share of cultivated land under traditional food crops also decreased from 76% in 2003 to 53% in 2012; as did the share of land under fallow

from 12% to 6% and the proportion of households keeping some of their land under fallow from 19% to 13%. However, the proportion of cultivated land allocated to traditional cash crops and other food crops increased slightly from 8.4% to 11% and from 6% to 7.3%, respectively.

Table 5. 3: Changes in land use and land management practices between 2003 and 2012 (RePEAT Surveys)

2003 (N=940) 2012 (N=917)Mean of Cultivated Land (Ha) 2.1 1.8% of Total cultivated land allocated to traditional cash crops (coffee, cotton, tea, tobacco) 8.4 11

% of Total cultivated land allocated to traditional food crops (maize, beans, banana, millet, cassava, sweet potatoes) 76 53

% of Total cultivated land allocated to other food crops (groundnuts, sorghum, rice, etc.) 6 7.3

% of land under fallow 12 6

% households keeping land under fallow 19 13

% households applying chemical fertilizer 13 12

% households applying manure 15 14

Plot and Parcel-level statistics (Percentages)#

Plots on which improved seed was used 20 (N=5912) 7 (N=6322)

Plots on which Chemical Fertilizer was applied 4(N=5912) 4 (N=6322)

Plots on which Manure was applied 6(N=5912) 5 (N=6322)

Parcels planted to annual crops 61 (N= 2347) 58 (N= 2871)

Parcels planted to perennial crops 29 (N= 2347) 27 (2871)

#A parcel is defined as a continuous piece of land operated by the same household with no land operated by other households in between. A plot is defined based on the use to which land is put in a cropping season, such as a specific crop (maize, beans, coffee, pasture), trees (fruit, timber, fodder), fallow, etc. A parcel may have one or several plots.

The proportion of households applying manure decreased slightly from 15% in 2003 to 14% in 2012, which is comparable to the UNPS estimate for 2011/12 (UBOS, 2013). However, the proportion of households using chemical fertilizer in 2003 (13%) and 2012 (12%) is about three times the UNPS estimate of 2011/12 (4.3%), although the proportion of plots on which chemical fertilizers were applied in the RePEAT sample was only 4% in both 2003 and 2012; while manure was applied to only 6% and 5% of the plots in 2003 and 2012, respectively. The proportion of plots on which improved seed was

used also dropped from 20% in 2003 to 7% in 2012, which is consistent with the UNPS findings (UBOS, 2013).

These results attest to the persistence of the problem of limited use of soil fertility replenishing inputs by Ugandan smallholder farmers, despite the increase in pressure on arable land and land scarcity, evidenced by the reduction in the share of cultivated land under fallow and the proportion of households keeping land under fallow (see Table 4.3). Moreover, over half of the land parcels


owned or accessed by the households in the RePEAT sample were planted to annual crops (61% in 2003 and 58% in 2012) compared to just over one quarter of the parcels planted to perennial crops (29% in 2003 and 27% in 2012). Unlike perennial crops which have a relatively good canopy cover, the production of annual crops exposes land to forces of erosion because they do not provide a good soil cover at the beginning of the rainy season, which leads soil nutrient loss. In addition, the increasing commercialization of annual food crops in Uganda is associated with increased export of nutrients from the farm, which leads to nutrient mining if the nutrients are not replaced by the use of soil fertility replenishing inputs. Thus, without addressing the problem of persistent use of unsustainable land management practices by smallholders, it may be difficult for Uganda to achieve its goal of becoming a middle income country by 2040.

For example, fewer than ten percent of smallholder farmers in Uganda used inorganic fertilizer in the 1990s, one of the most likely technologies to improve soil fertility (Pender et al. 2001); and it was estimated that smallholder farmers in Uganda applied an average of only 1 kilogram of soil nutrients per hectare during this period (NARO and FAO 1999). In 2001, Uganda imported 5,800 metric tons of NPK, which was very low by international standards (for example, Kenya and Malawi used about 144,542 and 22,756 metric tons, respectively, in 2001) (IFDC 2001; FAO 2004). Moreover, 95 percent of the total fertilizer use in Uganda during this period was by large-scale farmers and the operators of tea and sugar estates (NARO and FAO 1999). The use of organic practices such as manuring, composting, mulching, and leguminous crops for biological nitrogen fixation was also found to be relatively limited. For example, in 2000, only 23 percent of households used animal manure, 20 percent used mulching, 18 percent reported incorporating crop

residues, and 10 percent used compost (Pender et al., 2004). At such low levels of input use and high rates of soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion, it is very difficult to sustain agricultural production in Uganda.

Besides the limited use of inorganic or organic fertilizers to replenish soil nutrients are several other unsustainable land management practices that characterise smallholder farming in Uganda. Traditionally, soils in Uganda were cultivated until crop yields deteriorated to unacceptable levels and the “tired” pieces of land were then fallowed to restore fertility. This helped to increase soil organic matter, recycle leached nutrients, improve soil physical properties, and restore soil fertility (Jones 1972). However, increasing population pressure has reduced the practicability of fallowing. Due to land scarcity in the densely populated areas of the country, such as the southwest highlands region, fallowing for one year or more virtually disappeared. Only 6 percent of households used fallow strips in the late1990s, and average fallow times decreased from 2.2 years in the late 1980s to 0.7 years in the late 1990s (Pender et al. 2001).

In addition to fallowing, various soil and water conservation measures were widely practiced prior to the1970s, promoted by educational programs and often enforced by local administrators. These practices helped to maintain the fertility of Uganda’s soils, which were considered to be among the most fertile in the tropics (Chenery 1960). However, a combination of several factors led to the neglect or destruction of old investments (for example, terraces) and discouraged new investments in soil conservation, resulting in serious soil erosion (Zake 1992). Cultivating steep slopes and hilltops without adequate protection of the soil from erosion contributed to increased soil erosion, particularly in the densely populated south-western mountain regions (Sserunkuuma et al.2001).

5.3.4 Lack of trust in the existing agricultural inputs supply system as a deterrent to agricultural input-use

In the previous section on changes in input use and land management practices, several factors were listed as the underlying causes of limited use of modern agricultural inputs in Uganda in the 2000s, including the high cost (which makes them unaffordable and unprofitable); lack of access to credit (which limits farmers’ ability to purchase

and use them) and extension (which limits farmers’ knowledge of how to use them and the potential benefits therein). Complementary to these factors is the lack of farmer trust in the current inputs supply system, which is plagued by counterfeits and low quality inputs. Although the extent of the problem of counterfeiting of agricultural inputs


the rate of counterfeiting in Uganda to be highest for herbicides, followed by maize seeds, and then fertilizer; but these counterfeit rate comparisons are based on estimates from key informants rather than any quantitative measures. In a study on counterfeit agricultural inputs and technology adoption in Uganda, Ashour et al. (2015) found limited use of high-quality inputs, with only 9.7%, 33%, and 10.2% of the sampled households (N=2,378) using hybrid maize seed, glyphosate herbicide and inorganic fertilizer, respectively in the first cropping season of 2014. Among the few households that purchased any agricultural inputs, four out of five purchased them in retail shops—which suggests a high risk of purchasing counterfeits. 40% of households purchasing hybrid maize seed believed that all or most of the hybrid maize seed is either counterfeited or adulterated. Sadly, 80% of the respondents had not purchased maize seed in the past as a response to the low quality, suggesting a significant counterfeiting problem. 47% of those purchasing herbicides believed that herbicides are often counterfeited or adulterated, while 20% of inorganic fertilizer users reported feeling that such fertilizers are often counterfeited or adulterated.

Yet another recent study by Bold et al. (2015) found low quality inputs to be rife in the local retail markets in Uganda; and the adoption of modern inputs purchased from these markets was found to be unprofitable. Tests conducted on modern inputs purchased in local markets revealed that, on average, retail fertilizer contained31% less nutrient than authentic fertilizer, or 31.8% instead of 46% N per kilogram. Only about 1% of the tested fertilizer samples had a shortfall of less than 10% in nutrients (i.e., %N ≥ 41.4); and the average hybrid maize seed sample purchased in the local markets contained less than 50% authentic seeds. Linking input quality to yields, Bold et al. (2015) found quality shortfalls to substantially reduce yields. For example for authentic maize hybrid seed, the average yield was found to be 29% higher if authentic fertilizer (46%N) rather than fertilizer with 23%N was used. Using traditional farmer seed, a one percentage point reduction of nitrogen led to a significant yield loss of 49 kilograms per hectare; and the loss due to poor quality was much higher

in Uganda is not well known, the perception is that it is very common (Ashour, et al., 2015) and getting worse (The Guardian—UK, 2014). This is because counterfeiters have become increasingly innovative in their techniques, making it difficult to identify their products without laboratory tests; while farmers and agro-dealers on the other hand have little means of verifying whether a product is genuine, unexpired, priced fairly, or accurately labelled by brand, type, or concentration (Ashour, et al., 2015). Counterfeit inputs directly reduce the productivity and profitability of using modern inputs by farmers, which may partly explain the conflicting findings of high profitability of fertilizer use on demonstration plots in Uganda (Foster et al. 2002), paralleled by findings of fertilizer application being unprofitable under farmer conditions in eastern Uganda (Kaizzi, 2002), as well as other studies showing low returns to inorganic fertilizer application in Uganda (Woelcke 2003; Nkonya et al. 2004 & 2008; Pender et al. 2004).

Together with the evidence of low profitability of agricultural inputs in Uganda, the perception of widespread counterfeiting further depresses input demand and use. This in turn lowers input prices and reduces profits for manufacturers of genuine inputs, causing a form of adverse selection in which counterfeit inputs push high-quality genuine inputs out of the market and expose farmers to greater risk52. Although there are no comprehensive estimates of the extent of counterfeiting of agricultural inputs in Uganda, recent findings suggest that the problem is substantial. A recent study by Svensson et al. (2013) conducted laboratory tests on modern maize seed and fertilizer purchased from retail input dealers and found that 30 percent of one brand of hybrid maize seed was counterfeit and that as much as 67 percent of urea fertilizer samples were adulterated. Another study undertaken by Monitor Deloitte (2014) found

52 If farmers suspect that inputs may be fake or adulterated, this causes them to reduce their demand for the inputs. Farmers who would otherwise use the products may avoid them altogether. Reduced demand arises because the uncertainty about the inputs’ authenticity reduces farmers’ expected returns from adopting them. This in turn reduces input prices and harms the profitability of selling genuine high-quality inputs. As a result, many such genuine inputs may cease to be available in the market, leaving only inputs of suspect quality or low quality. This problem of missing information about a product harming demand is known in economics as “adverse selection.” The counterfeiting problem is a form of the adverse selection problem described by Akerlof (1970) in his paper on the effect of unobserved quality of used cars, “The Market for `Lemons’.”


for hybrid seed purchased on the local retail market (57 kg/ha) and authentic hybrid seed (65 kg/ha). The low quality of inputs in the local market was also found to substantially reduce the economic returns to adoption of modern inputs. On average, using fertilizer and hybrid seed purchased on the local retail market yielded a negative rate of return (r) on average (mean r = –12.2% and median r = –8.6%); and overall, more than 80% of the fertilizer samples bought in local markets were found to be unprofitable. In contrast, if authentic technologies replaced the low-quality inputs sold in local retail stores, the average returns for smallholder maize farmers would be over 50%. Also established by Bold et al. (2015) is the fact that farmers are aware that fertilizer bought from shops near them is of substandard quality, containing 38% less nutrient on average. One in every three farmers believed the content to be less than half of the stated amount, and a mere one percent believed that UREA in the local market contains the same nitrogen amount as authentic fertilizers. Farmers were also found to be aware that using fertilizer increases yields, but that the increase depends on whether fertilizer is authentic, observing that lower quality translates into lower yields.

The recent studies corroborate earlier findings of high rate of return to using authentic fertilizer and hybrid maize seed in Uganda. However, poor quality inputs appear to be the norm in the local retail markets in Uganda, which makes the adoption of modern inputs with average retail quality unprofitable and partly explains why smallholder farmers do not adopt fertilizer and hybrid seed—hampering agricultural productivity. Thus, farmers’ choices can be seen to be rational contrary to the common perception of being unreceptive to modern techniques. The evidence presented above suggests that the local retail input market is partly characterised by a low-quality, low-trust, low-adoption equilibrium. Moreover, the problem is not just low average input quality but also substantial heterogeneity in quality that is not correlated with price. This suggests that the ability of farmers to infer quality is very limited, because

otherwise input prices would be expected to vary with quality. The difficulty in inferring quality, in turn, can help explain why retailers sell low quality inputs and why farmers’ do not use them. Yet, without significant use of high-quality inputs, current production levels are insufficient to support Uganda’s growing population nor its aspirations to achieve middle income status by 2040. On the other hand, the limited use of agricultural inputs and high prevalence of counterfeits imply that addressing these related problems offers tremendous potential for growth in Uganda’s agricultural sector, and thus, the prospects for development and socio-economic transformation.

To help to address the growing problem of counterfeits in Uganda’s agricultural input retail market, USAID through the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative is supporting the development of a program for input quality assurance called e-verification (EV). E-verification involves labelling genuine agricultural inputs with a scratch-off label that provides an authentication code that can be used to confirm that the labelled product is genuine. The consumer enters the code on a mobile phone and receives back an SMS message confirming the authenticity of the product. A pilot version of this approach was undertaken in 2012 for herbicides (weed killers) with the support of Crop Life Uganda and Crop Life Africa and Middle East. The pilot demonstrated that there was significant demand for e-verified herbicide and that farmers were willing to pay a modest price premium for this form of quality assurance. A recent study by Ashour et al (2015) found that most of the sampled smallholder farmers in Uganda (N=2,378) appear to be ambiguity-averse rather than risk-averse, which implies that potential gains from providing information about input quality, as through e-verified products, may be high. It is important, therefore, for government to build on such initiatives as the USAID-funded e-verification for input quality assurance to improve the adoption of high-quality inputs and root out fake agricultural inputs from Uganda’s market.


5.4 Agroforestry

The Uganda forestry policy of 2001 recognises the importance of Agroforestry in ensuring increased tree cover on farmland. It is adopted by farmers for soil conservation, improving soil fertility, livestock feed, fuel wood and production of staking materials (Sanginga et al. 2007).Agroforestry diversifies and sustains production and can increase social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels (Leakey, 1997). Agroforestry is also one of the strategies promoted to provide alternative sources of forest products commonly harvested from protected forests (Kasolo&Temu2008). This reduces pressure on protected areas that potentially can lose their capacity to continue provided ecosystem services due to excessive utilization. Woodlots, boundary planting and shade trees are the most common Agroforestry technologies in Uganda.

A considerable number of research and development organizations have made efforts in promoting and disseminating agroforestry technologies in Uganda but there has been limited adoption (Buyinza & Nabalegwa, 2008). In their studies Sanginga et al. (2007) found that land fragmentation, small land size and lack of planting materials were the most common factors hindering adoption of agroforestry in Uganda. Adoption of agroforestry technologies is also hindered by level of environmental awareness, contact with extension agents, land tenure, education level, social participation, farmer labour force and gender (Buyinza & Nabalegwa, 2008;Sanginga et al. 2007).Individuals who have are less environmentally aware, or not had access to an extension agent are less likely to adopt agroforestry. Women are most unlikely to adopt agroforestry and this is linked to limited land rights for them in most communities in Uganda.


6 LAND AND hUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

6.1 IntroductionVision 2040 indicates that Ugandans aspire to live and work in clean and well-planned communities. Uganda’s economic growth and diversification up to 2040 will be closely related to changing settlement patterns, with greater rural-to-urban migration and more concentrated human settlements affecting both economic productivity and natural ecosystems. This chapter provides an analysis

of Uganda’s human settlement development and the current settlement policy framework and its implementation. Special attention is put on examining whether the policy can promote sustainable land use and management, and whether it is also aligned to Uganda’s journey to the long-term goal of becoming a middle income status country.

6.2 human settlement patterns

Human settlements are generally categorised into rural and urban settlements. The categorisation of human settlements as either rural or urban in Uganda is manly based on population size and density. However, the settlement landscape is more complex than what such a dualistic generalisation offers. Consideration of other factors such as physical form or structure and size shows very diverse settlements in the country. Apart from the two broad categories of settlements - urban and rural - settlements can further be classified as nuclear, linear and dispersed.

Nuclear settlements are developments that are clustered or agglomerated - where there is an agglomeration of structures/buildings often around major roadway intersections or prime activity centres. Linear settlements on the other hand refer to developments where structures are generally aligned along a major roadway. Dispersed settlements are generally scattered and irregular developments of mostly residential homes/farms in the rural areas. Their greatest advantage is the ease of access to a main roadway for different activities.

One major drawback with such settlements is that provision of infrastructure is relatively higher than in nuclear settlements due to the linear spread of developments

Uganda’s urban settlements can be generally classified as nuclear and linear, while the rural settlements are largely dispersed. For nucleated settlements, the unit cost of infrastructure and service provision is generally lower as compared to linear and dispersed settlements. However, the absence of effective land use planning and enforcement in nucleated settlements can easily lead to sprawl and other related problems. Dispersed settlements are the most costly to provide infrastructure and utilities. This partly explains the general lack of basic infrastructure like electricity, piped water, healthcare and education facilities in rural areas. Given that more than 80% of the Uganda’s population is rural, the majority of human settlements are dispersed. Similarly, the low levels of urbanisation imply that less than 10% of human settlements in Uganda can be classified as nuclear or linear (see Figure 6.1).


Figure 6. 1: Nature of settlements in Uganda

87%

1%

Nuclear

Linear

Dispersed

12%

Data source: UBOS 2014

6.3 Urban development in Uganda

6.3.1 Population growth and urbanisation

In Chapter 2, it is already observed that Uganda’s population is predominantly rural ( 81.6%) and only 18.4% is urban. However, urbanisation has recorded steady growth of 5% per year over the last decade (World Bank, 2014). With this trend of urban growth,

more than 50% of the Uganda’s population could be urban within the next 50 years or even less (see Figure 6.2) and this will have a marked impact on land use change, employment, poverty levels as Uganda moves towards an upper middle income status in line with the Vision 2040.

Figure 6. 2: Rural and urban population growth trends 1950-2050

1950

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

1980 1990 2000 2020 2040 2050Period

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

ns)

Urban PopulationRural Population

Data source: UN Population Division, 2014


There are marked disparities in urban population growth trends within Uganda’s four major regions - Central, Eastern, Northern and Western regions. Over the last five decades, the Central region has consistently accounted for the largest part of the country’s urban population. The region, which hosts Kampala, the capital city and largest urban centre, has more than 40% of the country’s urban population. The region is likely to continue having the largest portion of the country, given its economic, social and political primacy.

Until 1991, the other three regions (Eastern, Northern and Western regions) combined, accounted for only 35% of the country’s total urban population. However, this had increased to 53% in 2014 (see Figure 6.3), resulting from natural population growth, rural-to-urban migration, as well as an increase in the number of urban centres - from 75 in 2002 to 197 in 2014 - and the subsequent physical expansion of some urban centres (UBOS, 2014).

Figure 6. 3: Uganda, regional urban population growth 1969-2014

1969 1980 1991 2002 2014

NORTHERN

EASTERN

CENTRAL

WESTERN

Data source: UBOS, 2014

Uganda Vision 2040 indicates that the urbanization process in Uganda has been characterised by uncoordinated planning and developments leading to unrestricted sprawling of the major cities

and towns. The over concentration of development in Kampala has led to primacy putting enormous pressure on the overall functioning of the city itself compared to other urban settlements across the country.

6.4 Urban centres and hierarchy

Uganda has 197 gazetted urban centres53 - One City, 22 Municipalities and 179 Town Councils. The Draft National Urban Policy 2013 provides an urban hierarchy system (2013-2040) to guide urban development in Uganda. The urban hierarchy provides an eight level system as follows:

1. Level 1 - National growth conurbations.

±The definition of urban areas has been changing in Uganda. The 1969, 1980 and 1991 censuses defined urban areas to include gazetted urban areas (City, Municipalities and Town Councils) and ungazetted Trading Centres. However, the 2002 and 2014 defined urban areas to include only gazetted urban areas. In August 2014, there were 197 urban areas in Uganda: one Capital City, 22 Municipalities and 179 Town Councils (excluding Town Boards).

Currently only Kampala city with five municipalities under a city authority. Greater Kampala Metropolitan Areas (GKMA) is this level. National growth conurbations should have a land area of more than 100 km2, population density of 20,000 per km2 and 100% of labour-force engaged in non-agricultural activities

2. Level 2 - Regional growth conurbations or regional cities (none at the moment). Regional growth conurbations should have a land area of 80-99 km2, population density of 15,000 per km2 and 90% of labour-force engaged in non-


agricultural activities. The Vision 2040 indicates that over the Vision period four additional regional cities will be established namely; Gulu (northern region), Mbale (Eastern region) Mbarara (Western region) and Arua (West Nile sub-region). In addition, other strategic cities will be established including; Hoima (oil), Nakasongola (Industrial), Fort Portal (Tourism), Moroto (Mining) and Jinja (Industrial). Consideration for other emerging urban centres with the requisite conditions for city status will be accorded (see figure 5.4)

3. Level 3 - Sub-regional growth area, or Municipality. Currently 22 municipalities with an administrative structure of a municipal council, land area of more than 40-79 sq.km, density of 10,000 per km2 and 80% of labour-

force engaged in non-agricultural activities.

4. Level 4 - District growth area or a Town with administrative structure consists of town council, land area of 20-39 km2, density of 7,500 per km2 and 70% of labour-force engaged in non-agricultural activities

5. Level 5 -Country Growth Area, or a Town Board. Serving as catchment area of several sub-counties.

6. Level 6- Sub-county growth area, Township/growth area. serving as Centre for Agro-processing in each sub-county

7. Level 7 - Parish growth area, a major settlement area. These are nucleated settlements for people involved in commercial agriculture.

8. Level 8 - Village growth areas. Minor Settlement Centre

Figure 6. 4: Figure Proposed strategic cities in Uganda

Source: Uganda Vision 2040


The 197 gazette urban areas have a population of 6.4 million, 25% of which (1.6 million) is in Kampala City. The Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA) comprised of Kampala City, Entebbe Municipality, and Kira and Nansana Town Councils (KCCA Act, 2010) have a combined population of more than two million inhabitants, which is a third of the country’s urban population. The 20 largest urban centres account for 36% of the country’s urban population (see Table 6.1).

In terms of regional distribution, urban centres are mostly concentrated in the Central region. Eight of the 20 largest urban centres are in the Central

region (Kampala, Kira, Mukono, Nansana, Masaka, Njeru Entebbe and Wakiso) with a population of 2.5 million; five urban areas are in Western region (Mbarara, Kasese, Hoima, Fort Portal) with a population of 564,214; four in Eastern region (Mbale, Jinja, Busia and Iganga) with a population of 278,948; and three in the Northern region (Gulu, Lira and Arua) with a population of 313,992(see Figure 5.5).In structure, the twenty largest urban settlements can be classified as nuclear and most of the remaining 177 urban centres can be classified as linear (just a few are nuclear) with relatively smaller populations.

Table 6. 1: Uganda’s twenty largest urban settlements

Region Urban Settlement PopulationRank (UBOS, 2014)

1991 2002 20141 Central Kampala City 774, 241 1,189,142 1,516,210 01

2 Central Kira Town Council - - 313,761 02

3 Western Mbarara Municipality 41,031 69,363 195,013 03

4 Central Mukono Municipality 7,406 46,506 161,996 04

5 Northern Gulu Municipality 38,297 119,430 152,276 05

6 Central Nansana Town Council - - 144,441 06

7 Central Masaka Municipality 49,585 67,768 103,829 07

8 Western Kasese Municipality 18,750 53,907 101,679 08

9 Western Hoima Municipality 4,616 27,934 100,625 09

10 Northern Lira Municipality 27,568 80,879 99,059 10

11 Eastern Mbale Municipality 53,987 71,130 96,189 11

12 Western Masindi Municipality 10,839 28,300 94,622 12

13 Central Njeru Town Council 36,731 51,236 81,052 13

14 Eastern Jinja Municipality 65,169 71,213 72,931 14

15 Central Entebbe Municipality 42,763 55,086 69,958 15

16 Northern Arua Municipality 22,217 43,929 62,657 16

17 Central Wakiso Town Council - 14,603 60,911 17

18 Eastern Busia Municipality 27,967 36,630 55,958 18

19 Western Fort Portal Municipality 32,789 40,993 54,275 19

20 Eastern Iganga Municipality 19,740 39,472 53,870 20


Figure 6. 5: Regional differences in urbanisation

40%

20%

25%

15%

CENTRAL

EASTERN

6.5 Urban settlements and industrial growth

Urbanisation leads to the geographical concentration of economic activity, facilitating economies of scale, the exchange of ideas and technological progress. This has been a prerequisite for the strong and competitive industrial sectors that have helped to create gainful employment and furthered sustainable development in almost all developed and emerging economies. The correlation between population growth, urbanisation and industrial growth is very evident in Uganda. The three components are so intricately related, that managing them in an integrated manner is a corner stone that can drive Uganda towards socio-economic transformation and attainment of higher middle-income status. For example, the country’s real GDP per capita has almost doubled since the 1980s alongside high population growth and urbanisation (see Table 6.2).

Drivers of urban and industrial growth

The first “opportunity” for Uganda to embark on an industrialisation path arose from the need

by Britain (the colonial master) to address the serious economic hardships it encountered after Second World War. However, agricultural processing industries started before Second World War (Obwona et al, 2010).From the 1960’s, the Eastern region was epicentre of manufacturing in the country, with 80% of manufacturing industries concentrated in the region, till the late 1980’s. The focal centres of manufacturing were Jinja (the then Uganda’s major industrial town) and other old principal provincial urban centres of Mbale and Tororo. The region owed its emergence as a manufacturing hub to the construction and commissioning of the Owen Falls Dam in 1954, and the existence of the railway line to Mombasa. Cotton ginning, copper smelting, textiles, brewing, grain conditioning, oil milling, sugar refining, cement production, tea and coffee processing, tobacco curing and cigarette manufacturing, plywood manufacturing as well as steel works were among the key industrial activities based in Jinja (Hoyle, 1963).


Table 6. 2: Uganda, population and GDP growth comparison, 1969-2014

Year Population GDP (USD Billions)Rural Urban Total

1969 8,936,894 589,106 9,526,000 1.17

1980 11,698,480 851,520 12,550,000 1.24

1991 15,062,930 1,637,070 16,700,000 3.32

2002 20,593,057 3,634,240 24,227,297 6.67

2014 28,194,231 6,512,046 34,706,277 26.31

Data sources: UBOS, 2014; World Bank, 2014.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, there was a marked decline and consequent stagnation of the Eastern region’s performance in manufacturing attributed to the political turmoil that descended upon the country. Although the region showed signs of recovery after the National Resistance Movement (NRM) assumed control of government after 1986, it inevitably declined with industry activity shifting

to the Central region. In the 1990’s, the Central region emerged as the new focal point not only for manufacturing but also for urbanisation and the service industry. Currently about 61% of the manufacturing industries reconcentrated in the Central region (see Figure 6.6) of which 42% are in Kampala city and Greater Kampala.

Figure 6. 6: Manufacturing industries by region

61%18%

6%15% Central

Eastern

Western

Northern

Data source: UBOS Business Register, 2007

Influenced by industrialization related factors (policy, infrastructure and utilities, and other benefits arising from agglomeration of industries), urban growth has also closely followed the same pattern. The discovery of commercially viable oil deposits in the Western region (Albertine Graben) could potentially transform industrial and urban

growth patterns in the region and elsewhere in the whole country, with possible emergence of oil and gas linked industries like plastics, pharmaceuticals, chemical and steel industries. Nonetheless, in terms of contribution to GDP, agricultural based industry remains dominant over other industry (See Figure 5.7).


Figure 6. 7: Uganda, GDP contribution per sector, 1986-2014

1986 2000 2014

Agriculture

Manufacturing,Mining & Quarrying,Energy

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f GD

P60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Sources: UBOS, 2014; MFPED, 2014; IMF, 2005

As indicated in Figure 5.6, until 1986, more than 50% of Uganda’s industrial output came from the agricultural processing. After 1990, there was a significant increase in the share of the contribution from the manufacturing, and mining and quarrying sector, as well as the service sector. The year 2000 stands out as a pivotal point in the country’s economic timeline where the share contribution of agriculture and service sectors to GDP was almost the same at 40.7% and 40.6% respectively. The manufacturing and service sectors combined contributed 59.3% to the GDP, which was greater than the contribution of the agriculture sector. By 2014, the contribution of agriculture to GDP had further reduced to 21.9% while that of the manufacturing and service sectors increased to 26.7% and 51.3% respectively.

The current trends in population, human settlement and industrial growth have been influenced by several interrelated social, economic, political and environmental factors. The key influential drivers behind these developments mainly include:

1. Resources (favourable climate, fertile soils, availability and access to land, water, raw materials, minerals etc.);

2. Service infrastructure (healthcare, education, roads, utility networks i.e. water supply, sewerage, power, etc.);

3. Presence of markets, increased capital investments and relatively cheap labour are especially typical drivers of industrial growth;

4. Economic and social policies (monetary, fiscal and financial management, free primary and secondary education for all);

5. Location;

6. Terrain or relief; and

7. Socio-political factors (e.g. migration policy, security, conflict etc…) and others.

The combination of these factors has given some regions comparative advantage over others with the Central and Western regions experiencing high rates of urbanisation and increased industrial activity in the Central and Western regions. Economic advantages like the fertile soils around Mt. Elgon area and abundant rainfall in parts like Kapchorwa, Iganga, Bududa, Sironko and Mbale in the Eastern region have made it an equally important urban settlement and industrial development hub. For the Northern region, trends in population, settlement and industrial growth are at best only steady, especially as a result of the long running government-Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) war. A lot needs to be done to bring the region at par with the rest in many aspects.

The Central region’s strategic location within the


Lake Victoria basin, the presence of agriculturally favourable climatic conditions (where rainfall is reliable to support agriculture throughout the year), relatively productive soils, gentle terrain of valleys and plateaux, fairly well-developed service infrastructure have made an economic, social and political axis of the country leading to high rates of urbanisation and industrialisation .

The Western region has emerged as the second fastest growing in terms of urbanisation and industrialisation The drivers to this growth include the productive soils, relatively favourable climate for agriculture, and the high population growth and the resulting human/urban settlement patterns. In addition, the good road networks permit mobility of labour, marketing of agricultural produce, and growth of the service sector. The existence of new markets in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have also played an equally significant role in stimulating industrial activity in this area.

The settlement patterns, and population and industrial growth in the Eastern region closely follow those in the Western region. The region is strategically located along the main conduit for the movement of Uganda’s imports and exports through Kenya. It also has a fairly good transport network, distribution of social service facilities, good terrain, and is politically stable and secure. These and other factors have acted as drivers of the evident settlement patterns, and population and industrial growth.

In the northern region, Gulu, Lira and Arua towns conspicuously stand out among the 43 gazetted urban settlements in the region. Apart from the three, the other urban settlements in Northern Uganda are generally small (less than 10,000 inhabitants), and the rural areas also have equally low population densities (UBOS, 2014). However, the West Nile sub-region is moderately populated, while the Karamoja sub-region is sparsely populated due to unreliable rainfall, poor service infrastructure and instability.

There’s a huge and gradually widening gap in infrastructure development between the Northern region and the other three regions. The phenomenon is firmly rooted in the long civil

war between the government and the LRA that engulfed many of the districts in Acholi, Lango and Teso sub-regions. Access to clean and safe water, electricity, housing, employment opportunities, education and healthcare facilities is extremely difficult in these areas, when compared to the Eastern, Central and Western regions. Agriculture is the most important sector in the region. Nonetheless, the region has undeniably a lot of potential given its relatively high agricultural productivity and proximity to emerging markets beyond the Uganda border in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan.

Implications of urban and industrial growth

Population and Industrial Growth and Urban Settlement Patterns have a number of economic, environmental and social implications for Uganda; including:

Exponential increase in available labour

Uganda has recorded impressive investment both external and internal, especially in urban areas. These investments are among the key driving forces of industrial growth, which is highly dependent on availability of labour, among other factors to thrive. The population is relatively young (60% of the population is below 18 years, with a life expectancy of 59 years)54, and thus has the potential to meet the labour needs of current and future industrial growth.

Potential market and demand for goods and services

The growing urban population in the country has created a market for locally manufactured goods, as well as services. These mainly include household products for both urban and rural areas. The high urban population growth has especially played a catalytic role in the growth the banking and construction sectors, as well as related components like real estate and housing. A focussed and committed policy to enhance urban livelihoods could provide the means to unlock this potential, to stimulate increased industrial growth and help to sustain its development into the future.

54 As of 2013, the average life expectancy has increased by 11 years from 48 years in 1990-World Bank, 2014


highly vibrant, entrepreneurial and innovative informal economy

The inability of the formal economy to absorb the available labour coupled with other structural challenges have led to the growth and development of a very vibrant informal economy in both urban and rural areas where more than 48% of the total working population is actively engaged. In 2005, there was an estimated 800,000 or more micro enterprises in the country. An analysis carried out by UBOS in 2010 revealed that the Central region had the highest percentage of informal businesses at 36%. This was followed by the Western region (26%), the Eastern region 24% and then the Northern region 14%. In the rural areas, more than 1 million households were actively engaged in informal businesses, in comparison with 160,000 households in the urban areas.

Intensified exploitation of the natural resource base

Uganda’s economy has experienced significant transformation from being cash crop-based to a more diversified economy where tourism, fish, wood, horticulture, floriculture, semi-processed/processed, and manufactured products now contribute a sizeable proportion of the country’s GDP and employment. The high population and urbanisation growth and rural development in the country have been important drivers of economic diversification. Without this diversified approach, the country would not have been able to meet the requisite food supply and employment needs of this growing population. The economy will have to become more diversified if the country’s Vision 2040 is to be achieved.

Unlocking the potential of both unutilised and under-employed land

Over the years there has been commoditisation of land through adhoc market development and the structure of the land market is very complicated (Lwasa, 2011). Urban space has been commoditised mainly driven by the unprecedented urban population growth and rising business which have created demand. Land within and on the peripheries of both new and revitalised, older urban centres, is on high demand in all the four regions. Properties which were originally unutilised

or under-employed are being developed to meet shopping, office, housing, manufacturing and warehousing demands of the real estate industry, with land values in urban centres rising sharply. Land in the rural areas is also being increasingly appropriated for agriculture, especially to meet the food needs of the urban centres. Along with the commoditisation of land markets has been the growth of the informal land market (Nkurunziza, 2007), alongside the formal market, which have catalysed the rise in property values. Over time, the two markets have become entwined in a complex mutually reinforcing relationship, defining urban land markets across the country.

Infrastructure development and expansion

Although Uganda is still has a deficit in physical infrastructural (transport, energy, social and utilities) that undermines productivity, investment and welfare, public expenditure in infrastructure improvement has increased over the last 10 years. The need to improve the business climate so as to attract investment, coupled with the high population growth, increased urbanisation and industrial expansion have been key drivers to infrastructure developments. The expansion of the national road network from 27,000 in 1990 to2014 exemplifies this. The commissioning of the 250 MW (340,000 hp) Bujagali Hydro project in 2012 increased the hydro electricity generation capacity of Uganda from 380 MW to about 630 MW to meet growing demand. Six mini-hydropower plants were earlier this year connected to the national electricity grid. These include Nyagak I (3.5 MW), Kabalega (9 MW), Kanungu (6.6 MW), Bugoye (13 MW), Mubuku I (5 MW), Mubuku III (10 MW) and Mpanga (18 MW) and together they supply an estimated 65 MW to the national grid. These plants and other sources have brought the total installed capacity to just over 800 MW. There are other thermal and solar projects yet to come online, and relevant authorities such as ERA are actively accelerating the development of renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal and biomass. Uganda has the potential to generate over 4000MW of electricity from renewable energy sources alone (Renewable Energy Policy, 2007).Currently maximum peak demand stands at a monthly average of 491MW. The average shoulder


demand is at about 434MW while the off peak demand is around 346MW (ERA, Press Statement, Q4, 2014). Adopting the average demand growth rate of 10% for Vision 2035, the peak demand is forecast to grow to 4,116MW by 2030(Uganda Power Sector Investment Plan, 2011). These projections indicate that the government faces a serious challenge to meet the growing energy demands of the country. However, the apparent failure to effectively manage the high population growth and emerging settlement patterns has had its negative impact on the country as discussed in the next section.

Urbanisation and Land use

Population growth, increased urbanisation and industrial expansion are important drivers of the land use change and the resultant ecosystem change and degradation that have occurred in the last 50 years. The foregoing factors are associated with numerous socio-economic demands including the need for increased food production, need for creating secure livelihoods, and resource exploitation for wealth creation and human welfare, among others which increase the demand for land. The resulting land shortage results in conversion of land from other uses. One of such conversions is the modification of and or encroachment on critical ecosystems more especially forests and wetlands to suit the emerging

land needs. At an annual loss rate of 2.2%, the country has lost almost double its forest cover in the last 20 years (World Bank, 2014). Similarly, the country is losing its wetlands. Rural settlements, urbanisation and industrial expansion (as well as to agriculture) have contribute to the loss of forest and wetland cover.

The need for human settlement expansion and the resulting demands to feed growing rural and urban populations has led reclamation of wetlands in the Eastern region. In Pallisa and Iganga districts it is estimated that more than 60% of seasonal wetlands have been converted for rice cultivation. Kayima et al (2008) note urban and industrial expansion has led to the loss of more than 30% of Nakibubo wetland, major wetlands around Kampala city that is an important element of the city’s natural drainage and filtration system. Peri-urban forest reserves including Namanve (1,000 ha), Wabisi-Wajala (8,744 ha), Butamira (13,000 ha), Walulumbu reserve (2,567 ha) have been converted for industrial, commercial and human settlements in Wakiso, Nakasongola, Jinja and Iganga respectively over the last 20 years (Makumbi, 2001).For Uganda, the unsustainable pathway, scale and mode at which these modifications are occurring will lead to a series of multi-scale/directional impacts, some of which are irreversible.

6.6 Uganda’s settlement policy

Generally Uganda’s settlement policy and planning are skewed towards urban development. For example, while the Uganda Vision 2040 recognises the role of urbanisation in the socio-transformation of the country and driving it to middle income status, the Vision 2040 it is silent on rural settlement development. In addition Uganda’s Second National Development Plan (NDPII) 2015/16-2019/20 indicates that ‘the physical planning and urban development sub-sector’s mandate is to ensure rational and sustainable use, effective management of land and orderly and urban development of rural areas as well as safe, planned and adequate housing for socio-economic development of the country and

management of government land’. Therefore, the underlying assumption is that a larger proportion of the population would be urban in the vision period, which very unrealistic. From the current trends in urbanisation, Uganda’s urban population could reach only 50% by 2070 (see section 6.2.1) which is way outside the Vision 2040 period. Given that about 70% of the country’s population will still be rural by 2040 (see section 5.2.1), Uganda’s journey to an upper-middle income status could be unrealistic if rural settlement development continues to be accorded a rather secondary status in policy and planning. To that end, rural settlement development should be prioritised alongside urban development in line with the Physical Planning Act (2010) and the Draft Urban


Policy (2014) which make the whole country a planning area. Below is an assessment of key policy instruments that have been developed to address issues related to human settlements in Uganda.

National Shelter Strategy, 1992

The overall objective the National Shelter Strategy 1992 was to improve housing conditions and ensure adequate shelter for all Ugandans by the year 2000. The policy involved the adoption of an enabling and facilitating approach by the government to encourage individuals and the private sector to contribute to housing provision in the country. Several pilot housing programmes and projects across the country were implemented under this approach to increase the supply and delivery of affordable housing to the country’s growing population. Implementation of the strategy gained relative success as it: (i) helped to raise the profile of human settlements on the country’s development agenda; (ii) set the foundation for immediate interventions in human settlements from which important lessons are being drawn today to shape tomorrow’s actions in the sector; (iii) played an important role in the identification and mobilisation of a wide range of actors who could be co-opted in promoting better human settlement development. However, the strategy had a number of weakness and flaws in that: (i) it was time-bound and specific (1992-2000), after which there has been a vacuum with no policy tool/instrument to guide actions of different actors involved in the development of human settlements; (ii) some of the legal and regulatory mechanisms set in place have acted as barriers against the improvement of both urban and rural settlements in the country; (iii) the planning standards and building codes put in place are inappropriate for low income groups who constitute more than 60% of the population in urban settlements and 90% of the populations in rural settlements;

National Land Use Policy, 2008

Developed in 2008, the National Land Use Policy is also an integral element of the National Land Policy, 2011. The overall objective of the National Land use Policy is to provide general guidance on optimal and sustainable utilization of land based on the analysis of various physical elements

(soils, topographic features) and agro-ecological considerations, as well as social and demographic factors. The policy recognises that land is a finite resource but the uses for which it is required are many - environmental, agricultural, industrial, cultural and more importantly, human settlements. Thus, the possibility of conflicts resulting from the competing needs of the different land use is high and focuses on optimal land utilisation and management. The policy seeks to address the challenges posed by human settlements and urbanisation through improved planning. It also prioritises the provision for integrated of infrastructure and services to improve planning for human settlements especially in rural areas and proposes strategies to promote coordinated industrial development, as an important determinant of human settlements, within the whole country.

However, the policy has serious weaknesses including (i) the lacks an action plan with specific activities, timelines and budgetary considerations for implementation of the various policy priorities and actions (ii) it is unclear about the roles of other actors development actors - key ministries (MAAIF, MWE, MoWT, MoLG, MEMD etc.), public bodies, private sector and the NGOs) in the implementation of the policy. The policy only recognises side MoLHUD and NAADS in implementation.

National Slum Upgrading Strategy and Action Plan, 2008

The National Slum Upgrading Strategy and Action Plan was introduced in 2008 with the goal to ‘improve the living conditions of slum residents living in the most depressed physical conditions in Uganda’s urban areas on a sustainable basis and to prevent future slum growth’. It provides strategies for progressive action on resolving outstanding issues like tenure regularisation and affordability, supply of affordable housing, provision of urban infrastructure and basic services (water and sanitation, solid waste management, access roads, power etc…), slum-sensitive planning, slum upgrading finance, participatory and inclusive processes among others. The strategy (i)recognises the urgent need for specific and targeted interventions to improve the overall living conditions, livelihoods and welfare of poor and


marginalised urban communities who account for more than 60% of the country’s urban population; (ii) highlights several innovative options to address land tenure and rights, a very complex issue in Uganda which could undoubtedly determine either the success or failure of slum upgrading initiatives; (iii) advocates for the adoption of more appropriate and flexible development standards (road width, plot sizes, plot coverage etc.) to minimise potentially negative impacts of conventional development standards on the livelihoods and welfare of the urban poor.

However, the slum upgrading strategy and action plan is unrealistic and has not been effective in addressing the growth of slums and housing problem because it (i) did not evaluate the ability of the urban poor to meaningfully contribute, participate and be involved in slum upgrading initiatives; (ii) fails to identify linkages with other existing policies which could have a strong impact on the success of some of the recommended strategies, which is constraint to its implementation; (iii) the pilot slum profiling recommended in the strategy should have been carried out in several slum settlements countrywide in different urban centres rather than just Kampala City alone for more balanced and comprehensive action by the different actors; (iv) the timelines for the strategy’s action plan are too open (i.e. immediate, medium or long-term) - it lacks explicit timeframes to enable proper assessment and evaluation of its performance.

Physical Planning Act, 2010

The Physical Planning Act, 2010 was to enacted to replace the out-dated Town and Country Planning Act, 1964. The Act provides the framework for the establishment and operation of the National Physical Planning Board - the overall body mandated to oversee physical planning at various levels and to provide guidance on various physical development and other settlement related issues in the whole country.

Perhaps, one of the landmark decisions entailed in the policy instrument is the declaration of the whole country as a planning area, unlike the previous laws where only the gazetted urban areas were considered for planning action. Thus under

this law, all areas - rural and urban - are planning areas, paving the way for the needed planning action and instruments for the whole of Uganda. In addition this policy instrument highlights the roles of various actors at different levels of government in physical planning, and also lays the procedural framework for various types of physical plans, development guidelines, controls and standards. In addition, recognises and emphasises participatory decision-making approaches where various public bodies and actors are meaningfully involved in the planning processes. Moreover it emphases on a hierarchy of macro, meso and micro level physical plans to guide planning action within the country (National Physical Plan, Regional Physical Plans, Development Plans, District Physical Development Plans, Urban Physical Development Plans and Local Physical Development Plans)

The law has some notable weakness that could hinder its effective implementation to guide sustainable settlements in Uganda. For example, the policy instrument fails to explicitly resolve the issue of primacy in final plan approval. It only recognises the National Physical Planning board as the only public body mandated to grant final approval of plans, without clarifying the role of other bodies such as KCCA and the MoLHUD which, either intentionally or unintentionally wield similar powers of plan approval within their jurisdictional limits.55 It also provides for too many institutions and processes for the management of physical planning at the central and local government levels, a problem further compounded by the large membership on planning committees which are financially unsustainable given the meagre resources of public authorities56. Again, it fails to explicitly define the roles and relational issues between the myriad of existing public bodies and other actors (professional bodies, private sector, CSOs and communities) in the process of rural and urban development

National Land Policy, 2010

In order to address critical issues of land management, administration as well as mitigate the impacts of corruption, structural inefficiency, misuse and abuse of land resources in addition to 55Baseline Study of Physical Planning System (MoLHUD)56 Baseline Study of Physical Planning System (MoLHUD)


resolving emerging conflict, the GoU developed the National Land Policy in 2010. The policy aims to ‘transform Ugandan society and the economy through efficient, equitable and sustainable utilization and management of the country’s land and land-based resources for poverty reduction, wealth creation and overall socio-economic development.’

The Land Policy is very instrumental to guiding land use and management, including settlements as it (i) introduces a customary register to facilitate registration of customary rights to land in the country57(much of the land in Uganda is customary owned); (ii) highlights the need for comprehensive planning of human settlements in the country through land use regulation, adequate physical planning and infrastructure provision; (iii) underscores the relevance of land taxation as a tool for promoting optimal utilisation of land in both rural and urban areas; (iv) provides for overhauling the current land administration and management framework for greater efficiency, cost-effectiveness and accessibility58; (v) clarifies the critical issue of government and public land where all such land is strictly held in trust for the citizens of Uganda by government and other public bodies, and not for the beneficial interest of the same institutions as had been erroneously practiced before the land policy was passed.

However, the policy fails to resolve longstanding issue of the formal and informal urban land markets which, if left to continue evolving along the current pathway could impede effective human settlement planning in the country. In addition, the policy unfortunately reinforces the recognised land tenure systems as approved through the Land Act (1998) which are complex and render proper planning of human settlements in some parts of the country such as the Central region extremely difficult

Draft National Urban Policy, 2014

Uganda is in advanced stages of developing the National Urban. The draft Policy is already in place and is awaiting approval by Cabinet. The 57Kabanda, N., Ag. Assist. Comm., Land Inspectorate Division, Dept. of Land Administration (MoLHUD)58 Kabanda, N., Ag. Assist. Comm., Land Inspectorate Division, Dept. of Land Administration (MoLHUD)

policy is being developed ‘to guide and provide a frame work for organized urban development’ and is expected to help address issues related to critical urban components like transport, housing, governance, social service delivery, economy and environmental resources. The pressure on these various components has intensified greatly as the country struggles to meet the needs of its rapidly growing urban population in the absence of adequate or effective policy, institutional and resource frameworks. The policy intends to ensure ‘balanced, sustainable and organized urban development.’

The proposed policy highlights the need for harmonisation and integration of different sector policies for improved management of urban areas, and proposes a series of explicit definitions of urban areas which will assist to eliminate any potential inconsistencies or uncertainties. It also lays a good framework for tackling pervasive issues like urban poverty, gender inequality and vulnerability. However, the policy, in its current state, is unlikely to address issues of urban poverty, gender, food security and environmental degradation (Brown, 2013). These issues will be critical with increased urbanisation. Furthermore, the policy overlooks the need to promote rural-urban linkages which are influential drivers of critical social, economic and environmental interactions between rural and urban areas. It also fails to highlight and address the critical issue of urban resource management (food, water and energy supply)

Resettlement Policy Framework, 2013

The GoU, with support from the World Bank, approved the development of the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). The framework is a key tool for establishing resettlement and compensation principles and implementation arrangements as well as legal and institutional framework for resettlement, among other others. As provided in the policy framework, Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are prepared before implementing major projects (infrastructure etc.) to minimise displacement of people and interference with their livelihoods as much as possible.

The policy is very import as it; (i) has a strong component of land reform which aims to


strengthen institutional capacity for improved land management; (ii) entails component for streamlining business registration and licensing which will promote and enhance entrepreneurship, a vital component for the country to achieve its development targets; (iii) contains a matching grant program which enables MSMEs59to access financing for critical business development services (BDS). However, the framework is very project specific and might need to be reviewed for future applicability beyond the specific project it was intended.

Other Policy Instruments

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), the Local Government Act (1991-Cap 243), the Roads Act (1949), the Land Act (1998) and the Wildlife Act (1996) are among the other policy instruments, which have indirectly affected human settlement. It remains to be seen how other much anticipated policies such as the National Real Estate Policy and the National Housing Policy

59Micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs)

which are currently still in the development process will influence human settlements in the future.

Some of the above policies and instruments have had positive and encouraging impacts on the development of industry and human settlements in Uganda. However, the distressing realities of slum proliferation in urban centres and the ever deteriorating social service situation in the rural areas clearly show that these policies, cumulatively speaking, are yet to make the desired positive impact on human settlements in the country. This could be attributed to various structural or resource shortcomings, although the lack of an integrative framework for the existing sector policies is a major problem. The government and other actors need to address this issue to generally improve the state of human settlements in the whole country and to ensure progression towards more sustainable settlements in the future.

6.7 Determinants of settlement policy - the “supply” and “demand” sides;

Settlement policy is very much dependent on a range of socio-economic, environmental, and more importantly, political variables in any context. The determinants of settlement policy can be

broadly categorised as either supply-side oriented or demand-side oriented, depending on the key drivers.

6.7.1 Supply’ and ‘Demand’ Sides of an effective Settlement Policy

With its accelerated population growth, Uganda needs a policy to harmonise other existing settlement related policies in addition to providing the framework for the development of healthy, productive and liveable human settlements in both the rural and urban areas. The range of actors who could be involved in shaping settlement policy in Uganda is diverse, comprising of the private sector (financial institutions, engineering firms, real estate managers and developers, social service providers-healthcare and education), public bodies and utilities, local authorities, civil society and government. While public-private-people partnerships (PPPP’s) that bring together these different actors have significantly transformed

policy development and implementation processes, the state’s role as the lead agent remains unquestionable. Therefore, from the ‘supply’ side, the government and its constituent entities such as the MoLHUD is the primary agent with the key role of establishing the required mechanisms and frameworks towards meeting the settlement needs of the country. Uganda’s gradual progression towards a more decentralised mode of governance especially since 1986 has not really diminished the central government’s power especially as ‘supplier’ from a policy development. The above changes have resulted in a more complex governance structure, with the central government remaining as the major driver of policy, given its obvious strengths. However, it needs to be stressed that even under such arrangements,


the supportive role of the other development actors is important since government itself is increasingly becoming constrained resource-wise. Resolving issues regarding coordination,

accountability, information flows, capacities, roles and responsibilities of the different actors within such partnerships is essential for effective human settlement policy.

6.7.2 ‘Supply’ side: Government

In Uganda, the list of actors under this category range from line ministries, semi-autonomous bodies like authorities, commissions, corporations and other public agencies at the national and regional levels to local organs such as the hierarchy of local councils (I, II, III and V) in the rural areas and the parallel structures in the urban areas. Government is the primary actor in policy-making, with the ultimate responsibility of initiating, developing and implementing policy. As earlier stated, Uganda has evolved a very complex governance structure based on the decentralisation strategy embarked on in 1992 (Makara, 2009). Under this strategy, management functions were devolved to popularly elected local councils with powers to set local development priorities, collect revenue and plan accordingly, with the general goal of improving service delivery in urban and rural areas. However, 20 years down the road, some challenges have been realised and actual deliverables have fallen short of the citizens’ expectations.

At the central level, the MoLHUD is mandated to guide government action in ‘policy-making,

planning, regulation, coordination, inspection, monitoring and back-up technical support relating to lands, housing and urban development; promoting and fostering sustainable human settlements; and managing works on government buildings’. The Department of Human Settlements is responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate policies for the housing sector. The department’s mandate is clearly restricted to the housing sector, which points to a serious gap that needs to be addressed. The conceptualisation of human settlements goes beyond just housing, and so it has to be reviewed by government if the Ministry is to make any meaningful impact on the development trajectory of Uganda’s settlements. A thorough review of the Ministry’s constituent organs and their respective mandates is therefore required. This will ensure they are better prepared to comprehend, understand and strategically plan for the spatial, social, economic and environmental dynamics of human settlements in a holistic manner to ensure attainment of the country’s Vision 2040 goals.

6.7.3 ‘Demand’ Side: Community

On the ‘demand’ side are the beneficiaries of settlement policies who include individual citizens and households. These are the primary targets for which settlement policy is developed to fulfil certain needs (shelter, food, livelihoods, employment, social interaction, procreation, recreation etc…). Community needs to be co-opted and fully involved in the process of policy development especially if the intended policy goals are to be met. Community should be viewed in a wide context, from the individual citizens

and households to the private sector and civil society as well. Involvement of the private sector can potentially open access to critical resources (financial, expertise and skills). Civil society, on the other hand, can play a valuable role in providing alienated citizens with a genuine platform to make their voice heard (COE, 2009). The relevance of each group’s contribution to successful and effective policy implementation need not be emphasised.


6.7.4 Mechanisms for Participation and Feedback

The engagement and involvement of different community groups to collect and channel their input into policy development is an important component of modern democratic processes of governance. Participatory processes of this kind can build and galvanise relationships between key actors (government, citizens, private sector and civil society) as they strive towards common goals while ensuring more effective policy

implementation. Depending on the desired intensity of participation, a wide range of mechanisms can be explored by government as the lead agent to encourage involvement of other groups in the policy development process. Adopting such multiple mechanisms for community participation and feedback is important in ensuring a balanced, credible, accountable and transparent policy development process.

6.7.5 Key Determinants of an effective settlement policy

Having assessed Uganda’s settlement policy in the previous sections, it can be realised that the current settlement policy framework cannot drive the country to achieving the Vision 2040 goals, given the impact of the current settlements patterns on land use and management - insecure land tenure, land shortage, land fragmentation, declining soil fertility and agricultural production, ecosystem conversions and degradation, unplanned urbanisation (urban sprawl and growth of slums), dispersed rural settlements that make it difficult to provide essential services and utilities.

For Uganda, the key determinants to achievement of desirable and effective settlement policy that need to be urgently looked at include:

Prevailing social conditions

Effective and sustainable settlement policy is focused on, among others, improving the quality of life in all human settlements. For the case of Uganda, a good understanding and awareness of the correlation between poverty, unemployment and demographic patterns (population growth, structure and density) is required to improve the quality of life in human settlements. Understanding of such social dynamics is critical in enabling authorities to efficiently integrate pertinent issues in the planning, design and development of settlements that not only meet the basic needs of both urban and rural populations, but also offer a higher quality of life by ensuring access to housing, employment, education, health, adequate water supply, energy and other critical services.

Existing social relations related to land ownership and consequent land uses

Land and its accompanying natural resources are essential for the sustenance of human populations, whether urban or rural. Land is the basis for a variety of human activities which include housing provisioning, coupled with agriculture to meet basic food and nutrition needs (food security), industry and trade to enhance human welfare, aid in wealth creation and promote social interaction. In addition, land is a critical asset for securing a range of ancillary infrastructure such as transport systems that permit unencumbered mobility and accessibility to ensure these activities thrive. Prioritisation of these competing demands is extremely difficult; especially where land is not only a finite resource, but critical issues regarding tenure (i.e. land ownership, rights and claims) are highly contested.

Uganda has evolved a very complex and rather problematic tenure regime, which has already started to complicate the prioritisation of land as a productive resource in some urban areas. The challenge is likely to be compounded with time, making it difficult for the country to effectively plan and develop high quality human settlements not only in the urban areas, but even in the rural areas as well in the future. Understanding the evolving dynamics of land ownership in different parts of the country is essential for a more harmonious land policy which will ensure an effective and sustainable human settlement policy.


Nature of existing social infrastructure

For Uganda to achieve its key Vision 2040 goal - attain upper middle-income status by 2040, massive investment is required to improve the welfare of the majority of the country’s population by ensuring improved access to better education, healthcare, clean water supply and affordable energy services, among others. This target cannot be realised without a detailed inventory of the state and condition of current social infrastructure. Not only would the inventory be useful in determining the resource deficiencies inherent in existing infrastructure, but also aid the determination of the future needs that require attention. For a more effective and responsive human settlement policy, a clear picture is required of the country’s social infrastructure to ensure that both the existential and future needs of human settlements are met.

Exiting cultural, historical and religious heritage

Uganda has a rich cultural, historical and religious heritage. Unfortunately, little or almost no effort has gone into documentation, recognition and exploration of the country’s rich tapestry of cultural heritage, or its sites and artefacts of historical and religious importance. For example most of the oldest urban centres that act as the focal points of human settlements in the different regions have their own unique historical identities. They are also rich troves of heritage in the form of buildings, spaces and landscapes. These elements are essential for ensuring cultural identity and continuity in a highly dynamic world. Social stability, pride and cohesion are very much dependent on the same elements.

Historical, cultural and religious heritage has high economic value from a tourism perspective and this should act as added motivation for a more concerted effort to instigate a settlement policy that is sensitive to this aspect of human development. Uganda therefore needs to develop a human settlement policy that promotes the conservation and preservation of important cultural, historical and religious sites/artefacts. The policy should be able to protect the integrity of existing paraphernalia, and their rehabilitation, if required at various levels, in addition to promoting institutions to champion this cause at all levels.

Quality of the physical environment

Unsustainable wasteful human consumption and production are the direct result of unmanaged resource extraction and exploitation. An evaluation of the current state of Uganda’s critical natural resources indicates the dire situation in which they and the implications to the national economy as the country as it strives to meet its Vision 2040 goals. For example, the country annually loses about 2% of its wetlands (NEMA, 2005) and 2.2% of its forest cover (World Bank, 2014) - a situation if not reversed - could compromise the country’s capacity to support the growing population. The scale of these effects on the integrity of the country’s wider ecological system has yet to be quantitatively determined or measured, though there are already indications that it is very serious and could get worse.

As earlier shown, fresh water resources have been greatly compromised as a result of pollution primarily by domestic and industrial activity (COWI, 2011). The growing population has placed enormous demands to meet its energy needs, which is partly the reason for the footprint of human activity on forest resources. Human settlements have also become susceptible to growing disaster risks and threats. Climate change impacts especially droughts, flood, storms and landslides now pose the most obvious threats based on recent experiences. All these problems combined greatly limit the productivity and quality of human life in settlements. As they become more pronounced, they will spark off social tensions resulting in conflicts, inequity and vulnerability. An effective human settlement policy should be mindful of all these and therefore ensure strategies that can lead to a balance between human needs and ecological integrity in a sustainable development approach.

Performance of urban and rural economies

While the performance of the country’s urban economy will be essential for attainment of its middle-income goal for 2040, this does not mean that their rural counterparts are inconsequential. The country’s urban economy contributes close to 40% of annual GDP. Its overall importance in creating opportunities for employment, enabling


access to a variety of goods and service, serving as platforms for innovation and more importantly, as engines of human development. Rural economies, however, remain an important cog in the overall picture, since they are the hub of food production and extraction of other important productive resources. The linkages between Uganda’s urban and rural economies need to be better understood with relation to population growth, migration, service provision and resource flows to ensure that a more informed approach towards harmonious human settlement expansion and development. The synergies that exist between urban and rural economies need to be enhanced by the adoption of a settlement policy that addresses critical issues such as transport and communication, alongside appropriate measures for revitalisation of their core economic ‘engines’.

Available resources for policy development and implementation

Another important element that is integral in determining the nature of settlement policy to be adopted by Uganda are the available resources. For the country to successfully develop and implement an integrative settlement policy, it requires adequate financial and human resources to cater for a range of intensive activities involved. The availability or lack of such resources has the potential to affect the quality of the policy development stage all the way through to implementation in terms of community/stakeholder participation, scope and coverage of policy issues and quality of technical expertise to drive various stages.

Political ideology and institutional structures

The impact of political ideology on the nature of settlement policy to be adopted by Uganda cannot be understated. The devolution of administrative powers to lower level units throughout Uganda in the 1990’s was a strong indication of the ideological inclination of the country’s political leadership. Although there are challenges to the effectiveness of the intended changes, local governments admittedly now have an important role to play in determining the kind of development pathway being taken by the country. Co-opting local governments as important stakeholders is

therefore critical in ensuring the adoption of an effective human settlement policy. The role of local government agencies in the mobilisation of communities, formulation, implementation, supervision, coordination and monitoring of essential human settlement policy strategies is irreplaceable.

Other existing policies

The variety of issues affecting human settlements is extremely wide. With this in mind, the formulation of an effective human policy needs to consider the extent and coverage of policies already in place on different settlement related issues. Some of the issues that have a direct or indirect impact on human settlements include land, housing, water supply, energy, transport and communication and social services (solid waste management, healthcare, education and sanitation). Existing policies on land tenure, land use, urbanisation, natural resources like water, forests, wetlands and the critical infrastructure on which human settlements are dependent have to be reviewed and integrated into the human settlement policy to avoid contradictions or conflicts between lead institutions or duplication of activities.

In conclusion, though Uganda has an impressive array of settlement related policies, instruments and other tools [e.g. National Land use Policy (2007), Resettlement Policy Frameworks CEDP-2013 and ACDP-2014, National Land Policy (2014), National Urban Policy (2014)] as discussed above. At best these policies are disjointed and misaligned and cannot collectively guide the development of sustainable human settlements. For example, the National Land Policy (2014) reinforces the complicated land ownership and tenure systems in different parts of the country, which make it difficult to achieve optimal land utilization, one of the main aims of the National Land Use Policy (2007). The Resettlement Policy Frameworks CEDP-2013 and ACDP-2014 are project specific and therefore only applicable in selective cases, such as planned and unplanned population displacements. They cannot be adopted as effective tools to address the less transient issues of urban and rural human settlements. In addition these policies have not been fully implemented (the National Land use


Policy, the National Land Policy) because the institutional framework were not put in place.

The collective ineffectiveness of the settlement related policies has led to the continued development of human settlements that are unsustainable, more especially dispersed settlement patterns, characterised by excessive and wasteful consumption patterns that leave behind serious ecological damage and land degradation arising from the conversion of vital resources and ecosystems like forests, wetlands, rangelands and fresh water sources. However, these ecosystems and resources are fragile whose misuse at the local level, coupled with global threats like climate change, could be the catalyst for a chain of social, economic and political problems in the next few decades. The current settlement patterns in rural Uganda make it very complicate and expensive to provide services and utilities (education, healthcare, transport, energy and water and sanitation). Such settlement patterns cannot drive the country to its Vision 2040 goal of becoming an upper-middle income country.

Uganda thus needs an overarching human settlement policy that coherently integrates, harmonises and streamlines the currently muddled and disjointed settlement policy, legal and institutional frameworks and can drive Uganda to achieve its 2040 vision of an upper middle-income status. The development of a new settlement policy should be based upon fundamental principles (equity, equality, economic viability, sustainability, integration, inclusive development etc.) that are aligned with local and national priorities and needs, as well as regional and international conventions and obligations like UN Agenda 21, Human Settlements (Chapter Seven). In addition, the new settlement policy should be developed using an integrated approach building on existing frameworks and institutions while striving to build and maintain harmonious working relationships between/among existing lead institutions such as the NPA, NEMA, NFA, UNRA, NWSC, NHCC, REA, local government associations, civil society, local citizen interest groups.


7 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICy RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

This chapter draws together the key findings of the report and provides recommendations to inform policies to guide and support sustainable land use and management practices that can drive Uganda to a middle income status by 2040. The recommendations address national, sectoral

and local development planning processes and planned implementation. They are intended to prepare Uganda for the post-2015 development agenda and to drive the country to attainment of the sustainable development goals, which among others feature the eradication of poverty.

7.2 Conclusions

Environmental sustainability must be central to the realisation of Uganda’s Vision 2040.Countries that have undergone sustained economic transformation have also preserved and gradually increased the value of their natural resources. This reflects mutual reinforcement between natural capital and economic development. Ecosystem services are critical determinants of productivity; and the knowledge, institutions and resources required to conserve and replenish natural wealth is facilitated by higher income. Ugandan households are often forced to prioritise their immediate needs at the expense of environmental factors critical for long-term development, as illustrated by the poor land management practices among the majority of smallholder farmers. As Uganda progresses towards middle-income status, alternative income opportunities based on improved physical infrastructure, greater use of capital equipment and machinery, human skills and knowledge will reduce reliance on natural resource-based activities and relieve environmental pressures. Economic diversification will be closely related to changing settlement patterns. Greater rural-to-urban migration and more concentrated human settlements will in turn impact natural ecosystems and economic productivity. This report focused on these three inter-related elements of land use and management: agricultural productivity, natural ecosystems and human settlement patterns.

The interdependence between socio-economic development and environmental sustainability can give rise to either virtuous or vicious circles. Vision 2040 can only be realised through the mutual reinforcement of improved economic,

environmental and social conditions. However there is a risk that Uganda will travel down an alternative, unsustainable path where continued environmental degradation undermines economic progress which will only exacerbate pressure on the country’s natural resource base. This may be the more likely scenario unless decisive action is taken to reverse current trends.

Driven by unsustainable land management practices in the agricultural sector, growing population pressures and unplanned urban sprawl, Uganda is losing over 2% of its forest cover and wetlands annually, while the deteriorating condition of the rangelands along Uganda’s cattle corridor is a source of serious concern. Soil organic matter has fallen below critical thresholds in many crop-growing areas, accelerating the loss of nutrients, reducing the effectiveness of inorganic fertilizers and lowering yields. Uganda’s crop productivity growth is on a downward trend and has averaged only around 1% per year over the last decade, compared to around 6% per year in better-performing countries in the region. Without a turnaround in agricultural performance, the economy will not be able to support a large non-agricultural workforce; urban growth alongside low agricultural production will increase food prices, increasing costs for both households and firms and limiting structural change. Reducing the share of the labour force in agriculture to 31% as targeted by Vision 2040 will require a dramatic and sustained turnaround in agricultural productivity.

Historically, Uganda was relatively sparsely populated and land for agriculture was therefore


abundant. As a result, traditional farming practices are characterised by the extensive use and rapid depletion of land and the limited use of other inputs. This agricultural system is not sustainable in light of the rapid population growth over recent decades. The area of agricultural land has grown at around 1% a year over the last decade. Combined with inefficiencies in the land market, this growth has led to the fragmentation of smaller and smaller plots, contributing to dispersed settlement patterns and reducing economies of scale. If this trend continues, more than 90% of land will be used for agriculture by 2040, which would essentially eradicate the country’s forest cover and wetlands. To avoid such an environmental and ultimately economic catastrophe, Uganda’s agricultural systems must shift from using land extensively to using land intensively. This means investing in the quality of land through greater use of organic and inorganic fertilizers and other improved land management practices. This will simultaneously increase agricultural productivity, reduce encroachment into vital ecosystems and lead to a more efficient concentration in settlement patterns. These objectives should not be pursued in isolation but require a coherent policy response taking into account their interlinkages.

Land degradation affects agricultural growth, income growth (poverty reduction), and sustainable resource management. Although these three can be compatible long-term goals, in the short term there are often trade-offs. For example, expansion of agricultural production into previously forested or fallow land may increase food production and help to mitigate poverty, but can also contribute to soil erosion, soil fertility depletion, and depletion of water catchment areas and biodiversity, as mentioned earlier. Conversely, efforts to promote or enforce use of land conservation measures may increase agricultural production in the long run, but reduce incomes in the short run, because such measures require scarce land and labour that may have produced higher income if allocated for other activities. In the longer term, however, land degradation is likely to lead to further impoverishment, which can only be averted through promotion of conservation programs. The presence of trade-offs in long-term development goals is not an argument for avoiding strategies with

which trade-offs are associated; rather it suggests the need to recognize and find ways to ameliorate such negative impacts where they occur. For example, incorporating teaching of the principles of sustainable agriculture and land management into educational curricula, extension services, and into the technical assistance programs of the agricultural sector institutions, is one important way of addressing such trade-offs.

Poverty reduction strategies being implemented through agricultural modernization in Uganda can achieve win-win-win outcomes, simultaneously increasing productivity, reducing poverty, and reducing land degradation. Examples of such strategies include promoting investments in soil and water conservation and agroforestry, which highlights the importance of promoting organic soil fertility-management practices in efforts to reduce land degradation and poverty. Other strategies—such as road development, encouragement of non-farm activities, and promotion of rural finance—also appear to have contributed to positive outcomes without significant trade-offs. However, investment in poverty reduction and agricultural modernization by itself is not sufficient to address the problem of land degradation in Uganda which impacts all elements of the critical development goals. What is required are complementary strategies that simultaneously reduce poverty and ensure sustainable land management in Uganda.

There is a strong relationship between agricultural practices and Uganda’s natural ecosystems. Deforestation, reduced vegetation cover and the growing importance of annual crops has reduced the number and variety of soil organisms and accelerated the erosion of fertile topsoils. The most densely populated areas are the most affected by land degradation, including the highlands of eastern, western and south-western Uganda where 40% the country’s population resides. Overgrazing of the cattle corridor that runs from north-eastern to south-western Uganda has also destroyed vegetation, exposing these areas to greater water and wind erosion. Depleted organic matter reduces agricultural productivity by lowering the cation exchange capacity of the soil. This leads to nutrient loss and also reduces the effectiveness


of inorganic fertilizers, which is an important factor behind Uganda’s low fertilizer use rate. The degradation of ecosystems should not be viewed as a trade-off of higher agricultural production; rather the encroachment of cultivation into natural ecosystems is itself severely undermining the sustainability of agricultural growth. Prudent ecosystem management to prevent and reverse encroachment thus serves both environmental and economic objectives.

Inorganic fertilizers must continue to be promoted, in combination with complementary organic fertility management practices. Potential environmental costs of inorganic fertilizers are not prevalent given the low adoption rate among smallholder farmers. Reducing environmental pressures over the long term requires Uganda to move towards a more intensive agricultural system, and continuously cultivated soils will require inorganic inputs to reduce degradation and correct nutrient imbalances. A high-productivity intensive agricultural system will in turn help to ensure healthy levels of soil organic matter. However, in the many areas with already depleted levels of organic matter the returns to fertilizer use are low. In these areas, organic soil fertility technologies – including manuring, composting, mulching and planting legumes for grain or fodder – are critical to improve the nitrogen status and buffering capacity of the soil in general, which will in turn increase the effectiveness of chemical fertilizers. Organic and inorganic fertility management are therefore complementary rather than alternative strategies.

There are a variety of barriers to improved soil fertility management. Traditional techniques are partly in decline due to population pressure, which has reduced the practicality of fallowing. The fragmentation of household plots has also reduced the use of bulky and hard-to-transport inputs such as manure and crop residues. Knowledge and credit constraints may constrain fertilizer use in some cases, but adoption will not rise significantly unless the returns increase. The expected returns to inorganic input use are low for many farmers due to depleted levels of soil organic matter, the counterfeit or adulterated products available in local markets, high trade costs that reduce the farm gate price of agricultural products, and the high levels of risk inherent in agricultural production, which have been exacerbated by unpredictable climatic changes.

The growth potential of small-scale farming must be recognised and prioritised. Smallholder farmers will dominate Uganda’s agricultural sector for the foreseeable future. This in itself should not be a source of concern – on average smaller farms in fact generate more value from each hectare under cultivation. However, the increasing fragmentation of different land parcels cultivated by individual households is a problem, reducing economies of scale and discouraging proper land management. More centralised villages and small urban centres would facilitate the creation and development of markets, including for agricultural inputs; access to social amenities and infrastructure; as well as the exchange of ideas and opportunities for value-addition activities.

Government has limited capacity to influence rural settlement patterns directly. Although the Physical Planning Act (2010) declared the whole country a planning area, the capacity of local planning authorities remains weak. Small upcountry towns are critical for both the agricultural and non-agricultural economies and must be allowed to grow in an efficient way. These municipalities require sufficient resources for physical planning and greater powers to regulate land use. More generally, land fragmentation and dispersed settlement patterns are symptoms of Uganda’s traditional agricultural systems, inadequate non-farm opportunities, and inefficient land markets under increased population pressures. Policies should address these root causes of inefficiency, rather than fixate on land fragmentation or dispersed settlement patterns in themselves.

Government should avoid creating a national settlement plan that would stand little chance of being implemented. It would be more prudent to develop a spatial strategy to provide practical guidance to various Government agencies when developing their individual sector plans. It is natural and efficient for different regions of the country to specialise along their areas of comparative advantage. Government must continue to improve connective infrastructure between different regions, taking into account this pattern of comparative advantage. Agro-ecological zoning can also be strengthened by incentivize agribusinesses to develop linkages with farmer organizations specialised in a particular crop or commodity.


7.3 Recommendations

7.3.1 General recommendations

Poverty Reduction

Reduction in poverty levels would go a long way in sustainable land utilization. The current structure of Uganda’s economy leaves a substantial section of the population in a precarious position. The large number employed in the agricultural sector is vulnerable to climatic shocks, pests, plant and animal diseases and price fluctuations; and those working in the informal sector usually receive low and irregular income. Even with the significant reduction in poverty over the last 20 years, the majority of the population remains vulnerable. Uganda cannot sustain the progress made unless the underlying structural causes of economic vulnerability are addressed, particularly in light of growing demographic pressures. To facilitate agricultural transformation, Government should foster farmer organizations and increase its partnerships with private actors to promote the integration of smallholder farmers into larger value chains. Commercial agriculture is associated with a number of business risks that subsistence farmers avoid. Population growth is contributing to land fragmentation and growing landlessness in rural areas. Improving the integration of agricultural value chains will allow subsistence-orientated producers to participate in a dynamic commercial economy, enhancing rural incomes, productivity and competitiveness. Greater productive capacity and employment opportunities enable the wider population to benefit from Uganda’s socio-economic transformation. Higher value and more stable income-earning opportunities will allow individuals to manage shocks and uncertainty, accumulate wealth and built social stability and cohesion.

Reducing Vulnerability in Urban Environments

Urban areas provide a number of socio-economic opportunities for jobs and income generation, but are also simultaneously becoming increasingly risky places to live, especially for low-income urban residents. Exposure to environmental risk and hazard is a result of physical processes creating these hazards (for example building construction,

urban planning, infrastructure provision or transportation), and human processes that lead to vulnerabilities (for example, lifestyle choices and consumption patterns). These issues have cumulatively created different impacts in different areas of cities, depending on its socio-spatial structure.

Government interventions are needed to support labour demand in urban areas and ensure public services and housing can respond to the growing demand. While growing urban centres offer significant opportunities, migrants often possess few assets and face high risks, exacerbated by high competition for jobs, weak regulation of the urban economy and inadequate social care services. The construction of affordable formal housing on a large scale could greatly expand employment opportunities for the urban youth, particularly if driven by small construction firms using labour-intensive techniques. To unleash this potential, Government must address the constraints affecting the sector, including high transport costs, inadequate skills, inappropriate building regulations, and limited access to land. Government will also need to step up its role in the housing finance market to ensure credit availability for small construction firms and mortgages; and ensure its urban planning processes provide for the necessary infrastructure prior to any settlements.

The intrinsic link between environmental degradation and urban vulnerability calls for a broader understanding of the urban watershed as a whole, which includes the biophysical, socio-economic, land use, and infrastructure systems that feed it, in order to identify urban areas with potential and real risks. Building the necessary process and skills/capacities to use the tools and reduce urban vulnerability in the long run. Integrating these priorities into those of urban environmental management is also an important aspect of urban vulnerability reduction. Any project on urban vulnerability, will have to take due cognizance of larger capacities to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Guidelines and strategies for the implementation of existing knowledge on the matter need to be developed, including encouraging scientific efforts to reduce the loss of human life and urban


property damage. Vulnerability initiatives will also need to be integrated and linked to forecasting, prevention and mitigation of natural disasters. Projects focusing on technical assistance and technology transfer, demonstration projects, and education and training for specific locations or types of risk, will go a long way to address specific needs and situations of local governments in cities of developing countries.

Policy Integration and Stakeholder Engagement

Sustainable land utilization requires integration of different policies implying the need for integrated ecosystem management. This means that the integrated management of human activities would focus on three key elements: (i) the conservation and protection of ecosystem processes, functions, habitats and species and their interactions; human activities in ecosystems must be managed for all aspects of the system, not only species or habitats but also processes and interactions; (ii) sustainable human use; sustainable human use must be possible and integrated with ecosystem protection; (iii) cultural diversity must be integrated into the management of the resource.

Promoting climate compatible development

Climate change potentially poses one of the greatest challenges for Uganda to realize its Vision 2040. The impacts of climate change (droughts, floods and landslides) will undermine agricultural production, exacerbate land and ecosystem degradation, and cause disruptions in human settlements and physical and social infrastructure. Thus to achieve sustainable land use and management Uganda needs to respond to the challenges posed by climate change

through both adaptation and mitigation to build resilience that is crucial to ensuring sustainable development. Uganda has already developed a National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) which aims at guiding all climate change activities and interventions in the country. There is increased need to support climate compatible development, and more especially climate smart agriculture, ecosystem based adaptation, climate resilient urban and rural settlements and above supporting green growth and a green economy.

Localising and implementing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The year 2015 marks the end of the MDGs and launch of the post 2015 SDGs. With the launch of the post 2015 SDGs, Uganda is in a uniquely advantageous position to lead by example by adopting and localizing the SDGs, and implementing projects geared towards achievement of the SDGs, particularly those that fit within the current national development obligations as well as East African Regional Integration and African Agenda 2063 development commitments. Importantly for Uganda to achieve a middle income status there is need to ensure that SDGs that are strong on sustainable land management, environment management, climate change, human settlements and especially prioritizing urbanization. As Uganda transits to a middle income country, it needs to have well planned cities, improved quality of social services and clear settlement patterns coupled with good governance at the centre of development. Aware that the continued natural resource depletion is a threat to our GDP, green growth and green development is the way to go.

7.3.2 Agricultural production and transformation

Agriculture remains central to Uganda’s economic growth and poverty reduction. It is a major source of raw materials for the manufacturing sector, a market for non-agricultural output and a source of surplus for investment. A number of concerns arise from the implementation or non-implementation of the agricultural policy framework in Uganda that detract from the meaningful achievement of the intended sector outcomes. Firstly is the

multiplicity of policy reforms.There have been many different policy frameworks operating in the agricultural sector, sometimes in parallel, resulting in programmatic inconsistencies and poor sector outcomes. Uganda’s problem is not lack of sound agricultural policies; rather it is a problem associated with too many policy initiatives coupled with little coherent and sustained implementation. Some policies and plans have been replaced


before being implemented fully. This has negatively affected the implementation of priority programmes in the sector. Moreover, the policy strategies in the agricultural sector have not been well matched with adequate public and private financing thus slowing implementation further.The programmes that currently receive the largest share of the agriculture budget do not necessarily target small holder farmers who are at the core of agricultural production in Uganda. Moreover implementation of these programmes is bogged down by institutional weaknesses in the agricultural sector.

In addition is institutional weaknesses.The agricultural sector institutional arrangement is critical for efficient and effective delivery of sector goals and objectives; the sector is faced with a challenge of a sub-optimal institutional arrangement and weak capacities that have led to low performance. The sector consists of MAAIF headquarters and seven semi-autonomous agencies that are all managed through separate Acts of Parliament and with separate Votes. These institutions have weak linkages with the Local Governments where the bulk of service delivery for smallholder farmers occurs. The new structure that was proposed for MAAIF and its agencies in a Core Functional Analysis that was undertaken in 2001 has never been implemented. To transform the agricultural sector, the following steps are needed:

i. Uganda is already divided into ten agro-ecological zones. The promotion of agro-ecological zones will help to incentivize agro-processors to develop linkages with farmer organizations. Agro-ecological zoning can help to encourage farmer organizations specialized in a single crop or commodity thus promoting large scale commercial farming that is competitive.

ii. Reprioritizing the allocation of resources within the agricultural sector, focusing on the removal of barriers facing small holder farmers in Uganda is essential. The extra funding could go to funding farmer field schools, provision of agricultural loans and inputs at subsidized interest rates, fund women agricultural entrepreneurship schemes, facilitate agricultural marketing

or build community based storage facilities. iii. The government needs to promote and

support farmers organization and in particular farmers cooperatives. This could build on the emerging cooperative spirit especially through SACCOs and strong farmers associations to build a value chain process based on Production, distribution, financing and marketing. The cooperatives could be strengthened through increased funding to enhance the spirit of self-reliance, value addition, sustainable development and poverty reduction. The Government should elevate the current farmer groups to the level of cooperatives as empowerment frameworks for bulk production, collection, storage and marketing. These cooperatives should be allocated seed funding to enable them engage in bulk purchase and processing. The Government should explore prospects of re-establishing the Uganda Cooperative Bank and or setting up an Agriculture Bank.

iv. Explore and develop market opportunities for agricultural products for small holder farmers. This necessitates making investments that promote development of value chains including construction of national silos, deliberate school feeding programmes that require large volumes of produce, and putting up agro-processing facilities through public private partnerships.

v. Farmer education enables farmers to increase their productivity, save food and produce for the market. MAAIF and partners should facilitate awareness creation on good agricultural practices and guide small holder farmers in acquiring appropriate technology and new skills to increase productivity. One important mechanism through which fellow farmer learning should be encouraged are farmer fares organized at sub-county and parish level

vi. At the farm level, government should promote the development and increased outreach in rural areas of private credit target low interest credit schemes to small


holder farmers, particularly women. These schemes should provide guarantees to female farmers who do not have collateral to give to credit institutions. Smallholder farmers should be encouraged to adopt high value crops or enter high return sectors like the livestock sub-sector so that they can realize higher returns to credit. This will necessitate business training for the small holders to venture into non-traditional economic activities. In addition, there should be improved smallholder farmers’ access to inputs and improved technologies such as hybrid seeds, labour saving equipment and fertilizer to maximize productivity of their land. Because female farmers tend to have less than male farmers to extension service, they should be specifically targeted with seed and technology vouchers provided through NGOs and CBOs with a proven track record for efficient input distribution.

vii. Construction of storage facilities at community level to enable the smallholders to bulk their produce before marketing. This will reduce post-harvest losses that are experienced at farm level.

viii. An annual agricultural productivity of 2.5% is needed to propel Uganda to an upper middle income economy by 2040. However increasing agricultural productivity requires investment in research and investment in education. More productivity means more output per worker. Therefore there is need to invest in market research and strengthen the value chain. This may require revival of cooperatives in order to stabilize prices.

ix. Sustainable agricultural production and value chain improvements require strong involvement of the private sector. Therefore the role of the private sector needs to be recognised and supported especially focusing on market systems, the entire value chain, and not just part of the value chain. For example, there needs to be continued focus on both matching agricultural production to the market.

Addressing inequitable access to land

The effectiveness of smallholder agriculture as an engine of growth and poverty reduction is contingent on equitable distribution of land. When land is distributed relatively evenly, agricultural growth can be powerfully pro-poor. It not only raises small farm incomes and employment but also contributes to lower food prices and generates strong growth linkages in the non-farm economy, which in turn help the poor. The Uganda National Land Policy (UNLP) provides for incentives to enhance land utilization for development and discourages the practice of holding large tracts of land for speculative purposes while serious developers or landless people are without access to land. The Land Act of 1998 provides for the creation of a Land Fund to enable households to acquire or increase their landholdings; to enable bona fide and lawful occupants purchase reversionary interests from the registered owners; and to facilitate tenants on registered or government land to access the land fund to purchase or acquire registrable interests, for social justice and equity considerations. Unfortunately, this policy strategy largely remains on paper and need to be implemented.

The study found out that customary tenure has been evolving towards private land ownership to the extent that customary land can now be categorised as privately or communally owned and that agricultural production is higher on private land as compared to customary land, it can be concluded that rural-to-rural migration, weakens traditional social systems and promotes the shift from communal to individual land ownership which, in turn, boosts land transactions, enhances equity, and increases productivity as land is transferred from less efficient large farms to more efficient small. Thus, in order to promote efficient and equitable land transactions, deliberate policies to support the transformation of land ownership arrangements from communal to private land ownership should be encouraged. Such policies should include measures such as the extension of infrastructure e.g., roads and electricity to the remote communities so as to enhance accessibility


which promotes the commercialization and transformation of agriculture from the extensive-traditional to the intensive-modern farming that, in turn, induces the demand for private land rights. This is based on their finding of a higher incidence of private land ownership in communities that are connected to district capital by the tarmac road than communities connected by season-dirt road.

In addition, policies that ease rural-to-rural migration may facilitate the privatization of land ownership, improve the performance of land markets which will in turn increase production efficiency, boost agriculture performance, and reduce poverty in the rural areas. Nonetheless, they recommend implementing such policies with caution so that they do not cause land disputes and conflicts, which reduce the agricultural productivity significantly.

Addressing the challenge of counterfeits

While there are high rate of return to using authentic fertilizer and hybrid maize seed in Uganda, poor quality inputs appear to be the rise on the local retail markets in Uganda, which makes the adoption of modern inputs with average retail quality unprofitable and partly explains why smallholder farmers do not adopt fertilizer and hybrid seed—hampering agricultural productivity. Yet, without significant use of high-quality inputs, current production levels are insufficient to support Uganda’s growing population nor its aspirations to achieve middle income status by 2040. On the other hand, the limited use of agricultural inputs and high prevalence of counterfeits imply that addressing these related problems offers tremendous potential for growth in Uganda’s agricultural sector, and thus, the prospects for development and socio-economic transformation.

To help to address the growing problem of counterfeits in Uganda’s agricultural input retail market, USAID through the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative is supporting the development of a program for input quality assurance called e-verification (EV). E-verification involves labelling genuine agricultural inputs with a scratch-off label that provides an authentication code that can be used to confirm that the labelled product is genuine. The consumer enters the code on a

mobile phone and receives back an SMS message confirming the authenticity of the product. A pilot version of this approach was undertaken in 2012 for herbicides (weed killers) with the support of Crop Life Uganda and Crop Life Africa and Middle East. The pilot demonstrated that there was significant demand for e-verified herbicide and that farmers were willing to pay a modest price premium for this form of quality assurance.

It is important, therefore, for government to build on such initiatives as the USAID-funded e-verification for input quality assurance to improve the adoption of high-quality inputs and root out fake agricultural inputs from Uganda’s market. The Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) needs to be equipped to enforce bans on the importation and sale of substandard and counterfeit agro-inputs and manufactured products. Many farmers and traders are frustrated with common purchases of fake or substandard inputs, chemicals, seeds and equipment. Improved regulation of product standards is therefore required in order to ensure the continued growth of agricultural mechanization and non-farm trading activities.

Beside there is a dire need to create an independent government agricultural standards agency to reduce burden on UNBS. The created agricultural standards agency would be mandated among others, to provide information on certified seed and technology stockists. Farmers could be encouraged to use voucher system to get seeds from these agents and put pressure on private stockists to meet the standards or lose out.

Other factors underlying limited use of modern agricultural inputs

While the evidence presented above from the 2003 and 2012 RePEAT surveys shows gradual movement towards individual land ownership as predicted by the theory of induced institutional innovation, this does not appear to be inducing commensurate investment in improved land management and, hence agricultural productivity growth as predicted by the Boserupian theory of agriculture intensification. Counterfeits could partly be the underlying cause as explained above, but other constraints such as the high cost (which makes them unaffordable and unprofitable); lack


of access to credit (which limits farmers’ ability to purchase and use them) and extension (which limits farmers’ knowledge of how to use them and the potential benefits therein) need to be addressed. Tomoya et al. (2013) shows that discounting the input price among maize farmers in Uganda would have very minor impact on use of modern inputs and yield, while credit provision would have large impact. The yield would more than double if farmers switched from the local variety to hybrid seed and applied chemical fertilizers at the level purchased by treatment households when credit is made available. The findings of this study suggest that the distribution of modern agricultural inputs has a significantly positive

effect on their adoption by farmers who have little experience in their use. The intervention had a spill over effect on the neighbours’’ adoption, too. A large impact of the credit intervention was also observed, which suggests that farmers would drastically increase the use of inputs if credit was offered. The impact of credit was largest among treatment households who obtained the free trial packages in the previous season because of the acquired knowledge on usage and profitability of the modern inputs through the intervention. This shows that a small-scale intervention in credit provision and distribution of quality inputs could have a large impact on farmers’ demand and use of modern inputs.

7.3.3 Sound ecosystem management

Forest cover is declining due to various factors but mostly agricultural expansion due to limited off-farm opportunities and fuel wood consumption especially charcoal. Payment for ecosystem services needs to be promoted as an incentive to encourage private forest owners to maintain forests on their land. This can be followed by providing other subsidies such as seedlings for enrichment planting and establishment of woodlots on private land. This is because these forests provide other ecological benefits for society and therefore owners ought to be incentivized to maintain them.

Forest loss is currently highest on private land and this is partly because of lack of an effective legal instrument that requires private forest owners to adhere to principles of sustainable forest management. There is need for regulations to operationalize the provisions in the National Forest and Tree Planting Act, 2003 that requires private forest owners to adhere to principles of sustainable forest management.

More so, to reduce agricultural expansion into forests will require increasing agricultural productivity by use of improved seed and fertilizer. This will reduce the intensity and frequency at which farmers clear forests in search of fertile land because they will be able to utilize their land for a longer time before it loses its productivity. This can be attained by providing subsidies on agricultural inputs and supplies and effective extension services at a farm level.

The majority of the population in Uganda uses biomass energy and currently there is no significant intervention to ensure a steady supply of wood apart from existing forests and woodlands. Growing of energy crops and improving efficiency in charcoal production should be promoted by the Ministry of Energy and other relevant departments and agencies such as the Forest Sector Support Department, National Forestry Authority and District Forest Services. To operationalize this will require research on first growing energy crops and energy efficient kilns by responsible bodies such as the National Forest Resource Research Institute and Universities.

In spite of all the interventions, wetlands continue to be converted into other land uses especially in urban areas. Wetlands cover reduced by approximately 30% between 1994 and 2008. This mainly due to agricultural expansion and urban development. There is need to carry out an inventory on wetlands in Uganda to determine the coverage and ecological integrity so as to identify critical ones where restoration efforts should be first implemented.

More so, effective law enforcement and planned urban and industrial development and agricultural expansion are necessary. This will require adequate financial and human resources to implement existing laws. Agencies and responsible bodies involved in the management and use of wetlands such NEMA, Department of wetlands, local governments and MAAIF, ought to have effective


and transparent engagements and coordination in the operationalization of their mandates to exploit existing synergies and avoid jeopardizing each other’s efforts. A platform of engagement will be useful to ensure compliance of existing laws on wetlands. This should be done with more sensitization of the masses and all actors on the values of sustainable management of wetlands.

Overgrazing and overstocking are the major causes of rangeland degradation. They lead to plant invasion which reduces grazeable forage through impediment to grazing and competition for resources. NARO and MAAIF should provide effective extension services to pastoral communities to address plant invasion, promote adaptive rangeland utilization and ensure sustainable productivity. This requires fast tracking the formulation and operationalization of the rangeland policy which would comprehensively address the challenges afflicting rangelands.

The level of water in rivers and some lakes is dropping and this is linked to a decline in rainfall amounts and long droughts. To minimize dropping of water levels will require protecting of catchment forests around the lakes and river basins by responsible agencies such as Ministry of water and environment and local governments where these water bodies are located. This will require an effective framework of engagement between the water resources department and agencies responsible for forests e.g. National Forestry Sector Support Department, District Forest Services and National Forestry Authority.

Ground water in eastern Uganda is corroded and a significant number of boreholes are contaminated with bacteria and have relatively high nitrate concentration. The Ministry of health and other agencies such as municipal and town council authorities need to sensitize communities to improve on their sanitation to minimize contamination of ground water. By-laws need to be enacted to ensure compliance on sanitation principles. Enforcement of policies and laws governing waste disposal should be a priority for all responsible agencies to minimize the contamination of ground water.

Fresh water sources are changing due to eutrophication associated to weak regulations and enforcement of use of agro-chemicals and effluents from industries. The National Environment Management Authority and MAAIF need to coordinate in the enforcement of the regulations on agro-chemicals.

Water management committees for freshwater bodies need to be set up and legally empowered to hold accountable those found not adhering to acceptable standards of releasing effluents. This will require a well-defined framework of engaging local governments and communities who live where these water bodies are found. This can be achieved through developing of freshwater management plans and by-laws to ensure compliance of agreed standards

Reforming the ecosystem management paradigms to promote equitable, productive an sustainable utilization of ecosystem resources is needed to enhance the services to the poor– particularly in the management of wetlands, rangelands, natural forests and water resources. As Brockington et al, 2006 indicate, analysis of community conservation schemes has to consider both the distribution of benefits to people as well as the local people’s impact on nature and biodiversity.

For rangeland ecosystems, sustainable rangeland management practices such as discriminative tree cutting, use of fire as a rangeland management tool, and controlled cultivation in livestock movement areas need to be adopted to curtail the conversion of grasslands to other cover types. Intensification of cropping systems and transformation from low input to high input farming should be practiced to reduce the opening up of new land every season in search for fertile soils. The need to develop a rangeland policy for Uganda based on scientific evidence is also needed. Rangeland management strategies for improving soil quality and pasture production should therefore be strongly focused at increasing the levels of these nutrients.

Regular monitoring of the status of various ecosystems needs to be conducted in order to determine rates of use and interventions to put in place. For instance quotas may be


considered for fisheries and forests. The principle of maximum sustainable yield ought to be enforced in determining quotas of ecosystems that can naturally replenish themselves. Social and cultural considerations should be an integral part in determining the quotas for exploitation of these resources. It is important that when determining approaches and rates of using ecosystems to be aware that they are dynamic, have biophysical, economic and social limits and their patterns and processes are not completely predictable. It is therefore important that the ecological integrity and maintenance of the resilience of social and economic systems are jointly pursued in the use of Uganda’s natural ecosystems.

Collaborative resource management where by users are involved in determining concessions and approaches of using a particular resource ought to be promoted. Involving stakeholders in the management and use of ecosystems that legally are under the mandate of public agencies enhances sense of ownership by the citizens and improves accountability and transparency of various actors.

A review of policies, laws and regulations to enhance security of tenure especially of forests reserves, wetlands, rivers and lakes is required. In spite of the current policy and legal framework of Uganda providing that these ecosystems are held in trust by government, the population rarely considers them as resources where they have a stake in ensuring that they are sustainably managed. This is partly because they are perceived to be owned by the state and therefore the motivation to sustainably use them tends to remain remote within the population. A legal and policy framework that endears active involvement of the population in the management and sharing of benefits will be an incentive for their sustainable management.

There is need for improving the functionality of institutions mandated to manage ecosystems in Uganda through strengthening monitoring and enforcement of rules, regulations, policies and ensuring rule of law. This will require improving their technical and human capacity through training and hiring of adequate staff and required

infrastructure to implement their mandate. This will be further improved if the population is sensitized on the existing polices, laws and regulations governing the management of various ecosystems in the country. Regular monitoring of the performance of responsible agencies and holding them accountable will be critical in ensuring good governance at all levels of managing ecosystems. A centralised system of monitoring the coordination and performance of agencies mandated to manage ecosystems will be critical in addressing some of the governance issues that may be attributed to the current institutional setup of the agencies being housed in different ministries guided by different policies and laws.

Ecosystems, such as mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes need to be protected or in situations where they have been degraded, they should be restored. Government and all other actors will need to source for more funds to support these initiatives considering that the services from these ecosystem are mostly a “common good” which require public investment to sustain their long-term health, resilience and vitality. To achieve this will require integrating the value of ecosystems as natural capital into national accounting and reporting processes.

Agencies and responsible bodies involved in the management of ecosystems need to have effective and transparent engagements and coordination in the operationalization of their mandates to exploit existing synergies and avoid jeopardizing each other’s’ efforts. This will require an inter-ministerial platform of engagement in the use and management of ecosystems. It is therefore important that an ecosystem approach is used in the management Uganda’s ecosystems considering the fact that most ecosystems cross administrative and jurisdictional boundaries and therefore managing them requires interactions among different stakeholders and institutions. An ecosystem approach involves all stakeholders in defining sustainable alternatives for the interactions of people and the environments in which they live (Szaro et al. 1998).

Uganda is party to an array of international commitments that require her to implement


principles of good environmental governance and has domesticated many of them through National policies and laws; however implementation is still a challenge. This not only affects the quality of ecosystem services but also wellbeing of the people. Responsible agencies mandated to manage ecosystems need to be given better political support and resources to implement their

mandates and this should be coupled with regular and effective monitoring of their performance in terms of accountability, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, equity and participation. These are important tenets of good environmental governance that the country ought to cultivate and promote among the masses in order to attain sustainable use and management of ecosystems.

7.3.4 Settlements and urbanisation

Settlement policy

Uganda lacks a human settlement policy that coherently aligns and integrates other disparate policies for a more sustainable urban and rural settlement development approach. The government needs to initiate the formulation, development and implementation of an integrative human settlement policy with emphasis on promoting; improved urban and rural settlement management, sustainable land use planning and management, integrated environmental infrastructure provision (water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management), sustainable energy and transport systems, disaster risk planning and management systems in urban and rural human settlements, sustainable technologies and sound practice in the construction sector, and human resource development and capacity-building (refer to UN A21, Human Settlements, Ch.7)

National human settlement development plan

The development trajectory of Uganda’s human settlements is incoherent, lacking a structural framework/model that can be adequately monitored, assessed and evaluated to ensure the country meets its Vision 2040 objectives. It is necessary to develop a comprehensive national human settlement development plan to guide the development of new human settlements in the urban and rural area. The plan should; (i) entail clearly outlined zones which explicitly indicate how various human settlement components (e.g. urban settlements, rural-urban transitional zones-PUIs, rural settlements and activity areas for agriculture, industry, tourism etc.) will be integrated; (ii) directed towards enhancing the inherent comparative economic advantages and potentials (e.g. industry, oil, mining, agricultural

processing, services, commerce) of the major regions; (iii) identify and specify the role of key regional centres in promoting sustainable human settlement development, e.g. Gulu, Arua and Moroto (Northern region), Mbale and Jinja (Eastern region), Mbarara, Hoima and Fort Portal (Western region) and Nakasongola (Central) that have already been singled out as strategic regional centres in Vision 2040.

An equally important process is to develop and adopt the National Urban and Human Settlement Planning Codes and Standards which standardize planning and include site planning and environmental engineering. The content of the codes and standards should concern urban and rural settlement planning, zoning, infrastructure, and administrative procedures for service provision related to development in an extensive stakeholder process. They require dissemination and consultation among urban designers, architects, planners, developers and general public, along with capacity building of government staff, especially at District Technical Staff. It must be ensured that such standards are aligned to Uganda’s economic and market realities. In particular, the cost of complying must not be so high as to render formal housing unaffordable to the majority of the population, which would simply perpetuate the problem of unplanned and unregulated informal settlements.

Information and knowledge management

Uganda has a serious data, information and knowledge gap to adequately inform policy and decision-making with relation to human settlements. To that end comprehensive studies of human settlement patterns, challenges, opportunities and other pertinent issues are required to better inform and equip decision-makers at various


levels in Uganda to guide consequent policy, legal and institutional frameworks. Studies should be undertaken to generate data and information on (i) human settlement trends, patterns and processes in the different regions; (ii) demographic trends, patterns and processes of different regions; (iii) social, economic, political and environmental challenges facing human settlements in different regions; and, (iv) inherent potentials e.g. for mass resettlement of human populations to enable land consolidation, weaknesses, strengths and opportunities.

Rationalization of national land use

Land ownership and tenure in Uganda are complex issues that have shaped and continue to impact on the development of human settlements in the country’s urban and rural areas that complicate service provision. The regrouping of human settlement in rural areas on serviced sites equipped with the basic infrastructure and community amenities is essential as it will lead to the rational use of land. This regrouping will facilitate the distribution and a more rational use of land, thus improving agricultural productivity and promoting also the creation and development of markets. Aware that the regrouping of the rural population in centralised villages can be verychallenging, there are strong benefits that this constitutes the unique alternative solution to the Uganda land-population equation in a foreseeable future due to the advantages of this mode of human settlement. The significant advantages derived from this mode of settlement are that maximum arable land is allocated to agriculture, and houses and support amenities are built on sites which have been selected and decided by the community. Thus there is easy access to services, reduction of distances and costs of support amenities and basic infrastructure, security, easy access to information and training, opportunities for mechanized agriculture and easy use of agricultural inputs, opportunities of developing secondary and tertiary sector activities and the development of innovative spirit through competitiveness between villages and trading centres. To that end a system should be developed for regrouping of human settlement throughout the country and the provision of amenities and basic infrastructure to these settlements.

Control urban sprawl

Evidence shows that Uganda’s urban areas are rapidly growing and could become difficult to manage if left to sprawl out of control. The problem is especially pronounced in the prime city, Kampala, where developments have spilled over the administrative boundaries of 198m2 to encompass a metropolitan area close to 1000m2. The central and local government authorities need to act quickly to curtail the increasingly uncontrolled spill-over of urban developments into the rural hinterlands, where vital resources such as agricultural land, forests, wetlands and rangelands are being degraded. Conversion of land for urban development needs to be managed and controlled accordingly to avert potential problems like food insecurity

Integrated development planning and management

It is crucial for GoU to promote integrated development planning and management which combines physical development planning and economic development planning (urban and rural), and facilitates coordination of all development sectors. One unified planning system, which is capable to provide a development planning procedure while coordinating all sectors, needs to be introduced. Local Plans need to be elaborated in line with policy, with hierarchically higher plans, and considering the available budget and means of implementation. During the review of the planning system, all planning and collaboration procedures, including participation and monitoring should be standardized. At district and city levels, urban and human settlement planning has to be aligned with economic development planning so that economic development projects are spatially referenced and aligned with land use and environmental concerns, and concerns of social distribution. This principle should be explicitly and but carefully integrated into all regulatory, capacity building and change management materials, for technicians to be able to support the goals by looking for opportunities to enhance economic growth.

Develop settlements around economic activities and create Special Economic Zones


The Vision 2040 already indicated that over the Vision period, Special Economic Zones (SEZs) will be created to ensure coordinated development of the industrial sector and tap the abundance of natural resources. Emerging countries like China, Malaysia and Singapore that have attained high levels of urbanization and development have achieved this through integrated physical planning and investment and establishment of commercial and industrial functional zones. These zones have attracted populations and in the process relieved pressure on the available land for other economic activities such as commercial agriculture and Uganda needs to emulate this. In line with the Vision 20140, NDP II and the draft National Urban Policy, develop national settlement network including Kampala Capital City and five to six regional cities and other sub-regional urban centres as poles of growth offering economic opportunities to their citizens, attracting investment, and providing services to support economic initiatives. Based on the comparative advantage principles, SEZ on agriculture (Gulu, Mbarara, Mubende), mining (Hoima, Moroto, Tororo), industrial (Jinja, Mbale, Nakasongola), tourism (Fort Portal, Kabale) etc. and these would be accompanied with Special Human Settlement zones.

To make cities attractive for migrants and investors, the local development management and service delivery requires improvement and first priority attention. National investment should be channeled into the chosen regional cities, and into the interconnection of urban and urbanizing areas, and urban areas should be prioritized. Prioritization should be reflected in any measure initiated by the government with all institutions and agencies to follow. This shall include a prioritization key that the Ministry of Local Government should follow.

Urbanization and rural settlement development processes transform the economic geography of a country and thus good management of such growth processes is essential. The respect to harmonized decisions is important including all spatial hierarchy levels, meaning at national, regional, sub-regional, district or town, and at neighbourhood level, down to site and plot level. The principle of interlinking scales should be

popularized as a principle of planning. Sustainable urban and rural settlement development should be managed efficiently at city and district level, and local government authorities should provide services to the population in accordance with District Development Plans, and support integrated land use development, transportation and other infrastructure such as storm water drainage, education, public health, environment, water and sanitation. The objective links to all phases of development, starting with planning and ending in implementation and its consequences.

Green settlements and green growth

Uganda is grappling with the challenges of environmental degradation and the impacts of climate change and has chosen to pursue green growth development in its Vision 2040. Thus, green settlements and green growth are contributing discussions to the enhancing sustainable land use and management. Green growth is a new economic paradigm which refers to economic growth with environmental sustainability. With support from UNDP, NPA and MWE have already embarked on developing the Uganda Green Growth Development Strategy. To that end, green settlement/building principles also have to be integrated in the planning codes and standards and in the review of the planning system and tools, to support of innovation in construction, and to piloting initiatives. The green building principles that will be agreed on have to be mainstreamed in all planning and building design applied. It is important to recognize that green growth is also influenced by integrated transport and especially by non-automotive and non-motorized transport. Therefore, settlement and housing developments in Uganda should address the challenges of cost efficiency, affordability, environmental sustainability, population increase, and cultural and climatic suitability.

Water management

Many urban areas and rural settlements are already grappling with challenges caused by floods and landslide. However, water management is relatively new and not yet adequately addressed, but it has currently moved onto centre stage with unfortunate increase in flooding and landslide


disasters. Kampala has already embarked on flood risk management and drainage improvement. Integrated Water Resource Management should form an integral part of settlement policy and planning and extended and adapted to the whole of Uganda. This will help in developing regulatory guidelines for principles to be addressed in site planning, which can be a contribution to the development of the planning codes and standards.

Recognize and enhance the role of the private sector in settlement policy and planning

One priority should be to collaborate with the private sector in Uganda’s growth strategies, through PPP’s in housing, public infrastructure, and possible pure administrative and service. The private sector is endowed with human and financial resources which are attractive to urbanization and rural settlement development to complement government programs, projects

and resources. Based on the PPP Policy municipal infrastructure, affordable housing, and other necessary services such as recycling, solid waste management, and others, could be boosted through private investment. The private sector includes the Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU), Private Real Estate and Housing Developing Agencies, Manufacturer and Contractor Groups, Financial and Banking Institutions, Association of Professional Bodies (Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, Urban Planners, Insurance), Legal/Arbitration Associations, etc. The private sector provides investment financing for the technical implementation of the programs. The urbanization and rural settlement development sector collaborates with the private sector in identifying needs and providing for the demand, as well as exploring suggestions on the policy direction that will enhance the partnerships between the private and public sectors. The collaboration with banks will play a significant role in homeowner housing finance for homeownership or rental.


References

• Aggrey, N., Wambugu, S., Karugia, J., & Wanga, E. (2010). An investigation of the poverty-environmental degradation nexus: a case study of Katonga Basin in Uganda. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2(2), 82-88.

• Anyah, R.O. and Semazzi, F.H.M. (2004) Simulation of the Sensitivity of Lake Victoria Basin Climate to Lake Surface Temperatures. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 79, 55-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-004-0057-4

• Archer, B., Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (1998). 5 The positive and negative impacts of tourism. Global tourism, 63.

• Aryamanya-Mugisha, H., (2011). 20 years of wetlands conservation in Uganda - Have Uganda’s Wetlands become Wastelands Again? Public Talk at Uganda Museum, Kampala, Uganda

• Bagoora, D.F.K., (1990). Soil erosion and mass wasting risk in the highland areas of Uganda. Africa Mountains and highlands, Problems and perspectives; B. Messerhirwa and H. Hurni (Eds.) African Mountain Association, Walsmorth Press .USA. pp., 133-155Baigorria GA, Jones JW, O’Brien JJ (2007) Understanding rainfall spatial variability in southwest USA at different timescales. Int. J. Climatol., 27: 749–760.

• Baland, J.-M., Gaspart, F., Platteau, J.-P., & Place, F. (2007). The Distributive Impact of Land Markets in Uganda. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55(2), 283-311.

• Banadda, E. N., Kansiime, F., Kigobe, M., Kizza, M., & Nhapi, I. (2009). Land use-based non-point source pollution: a threat to water quality in Murchison Bay, Uganda. Water Policy, 11(Supplement 1), 93-104.

• Banana, A., Buyinza, M., Luoga, E., & Ongugo, P. (2010). Emerging local economic and social dynamics shaping East African forest landscapes (Vol. 25, pp. 315-334). IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizations) Secretariat.

• Banana, A.Y., Namaalwa, J.J., Byakagaba, P.,

Waiswa, D, Buyinza, M., Gombya-Ssembajwe, W. 2014. The impacts of decentralisation reforms on sustainable forest management in Central Uganda. In: Katila, P., Galloway, G., de Jong, W., Pacheco, P., Mery, G. (eds.). Forests under pressure-Local responses to global issues. IUFRO World Series Volume 32. Vienna. p. 357-367.Bamutaze, Y., Tenywa, M.M., Majaliwa, M.J.G., Vanacker, V., Bagoora, F., Magunda, M., Obando, J. & Ejiet Wasige, J. (2010). Infiltration characteristics of volcanic sloping soils on Mt. Elgon, Eastern Uganda. Catena 80, 122–130.

• Bassett, T. J., and D. Crummey. 2003. Contested images, contested realities: Environment and society in African savannas. In African savannas: Global narratives and local knowledge of environmental change, ed. T. J. Bassett and D. Crummey. Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

• Beierle, T.C., (1998). Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals, Discussion Paper 99-06, Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036, www.rff.org.

• Bellemare, M. F. (2013). The Productivity Impacts of Formal and Informal Land Rights: Evidence from Madagascar. Land Economics, 89(2), 89:272-290.

• Besley, T. (1995, October). Property Rights and Investment Incentives:Theory and Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy, 103(5), 903-937.

• Bibby, P and Shepherd, J. (2004). Developing a New Classification of Urban and Rural Areas for PolicyPurposes – The Methodology DEFRA.

• Blösch, U. (2008). Thicket clumps: a characteristic feature of the Kagera savanna landscape, East Africa. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19(1), 31-44.

• Bikaako, W., and J. Ssenkumba. 2003. “Gender, Land and Rights: Contemporary Contestations in Law, Policy and Practice in Uganda.” In Women and Land in Africa: Culture, Religion and Realizing Women’s Rights, edited by L. M. Wanyeki, 232–277. London: Zed.


• Binswanger, H. P. and Rosenzweig, M. R. (1986). Behavioural and material determinants of production relations in agriculture. Journal of Development Studies, 22(3), 503–539.

• Bizzari, M. (2009). Safe access to firewood and alternative energy in Uganda: an Appraisal report. WFP, Rome.

• Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas.Ecological economics, 29(2), 293-301.

• Bomuhangi, A., Doss, C. and R. Meinzen-Dick (2012) Who Owns the Land? Perspectives from Rural Ugandans and Implications for Land Acquisitions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01136. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

• Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. London: Earthscan Publication Limited.

• Brasselle, A.-S., Gaspart, F., and Platteau, J.-P. (2002). Land tenure security and investment incentives:puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 67, 373–418.

• Brix, H. (1994). Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: historical development, present status, and future perspectives. Water science and technology, 30(8), 209-224.

• Browder, J. O., Pedlowski, M. A., & Summers, P. M. (2004). Land use patterns in the Brazillian Amazon: Comparative farm level evidence from Rondoˆnia. Human Ecology, 32(2), 197–224.Bumb, B., C. Debrah, and L. Maene. 2006. Input subsidies and agricultural development: Issues and options for developing and transitional countries. Background paper for the Africa Fertilizer Summit, Abuja, Nigeria, June.

• Brown, A.M., (2013). Uganda’s National Urban Policy: The Emerging Response to Poverty, Food Security and Gender in Urban Uganda, Policy Brief No. 6, Africa Initiative, The Centre for International G o v e r n a n c e Innovation (CIGI) Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, www.cigionline.org.

• Busnelli J, Neder LV, Sayago JM (2006).

Temporal dynamics of soil erosion and rainfall erosivity as geoindicators of land degradation in northwestern Argentina. Quaternary Intern., 158: 147–161.

• Busingye, H. (2002). Customary Land Tenure Reform in Uganda: Lessons for South Africa. International Symposium on Communal Tenure Reform. Johannesburg: Programme for Land and agrarian Studies (PLAAS).

• Busulwa, H. et al., (2002). Buffering Capacity Studies in a Rural and an Urban Wetland in Lake Victoria Catchment, Uganda. Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment/Makerere University

• Butler, C., Chambers, R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Duraiappah, A. K., Kumar, P., ... & Niu, W. Y. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being. Ecosystems and human well-being a framework for assessment, 71-84.

• Buyinza, M., &Wambede, N. (2008). Extension for agroforestry technology adoption: mixed intercropping of crotolaria (Crotolariagrahamiana) and maize (Zea mays L.) in Kabale district, Uganda. Environmental Research Journal,2(3), 131-137.

• Byenkya, G. S. (2004). Impact of undesirable plant communities on the carrying capacity and livestock performance in pastoral systems of south-western Uganda (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).

• Climate Development and Knowledge Network (CDKN) and Ministry of Water and Environment, (2014). Regional-scale Climate Change Projections of Annual, Seasonal and Monthly Near-Surface Temperatures and Rainfall in Uganda. A draft report as part of the outputs of the Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change in Uganda

• Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., ... & Díaz, S. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity.Nature, 405(6783), 234-242.

• Chenery, E. M. 1960. An introduction to the soils of the Uganda Protectorate. Memoirs of the Research Division, Department of Agriculture, series 1, no. 1. Kampala, Uganda: Department of Agriculture.


• Coppin, N.J., Bradshaw A.D., 1982. The establishment of vegetation in quarries and open-pit non-metal mines, Mining Journal Books, London, 112 p

• Corvalan, C., Hales, S., & McMichael, A. J. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis. World health organization.

• Cornia, G. A. (1985). Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for 15 developing countries. World Development, 13(4), 513–534.

• Costanza, R., Wilson, M. A., Troy, A., Voinov, A., Liu, S., & D’Agostino, J. (2006). The value of New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital.

• Davies S. (2011). Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel. London: Macmillan Press.

• Dasgupta, 2002. Sustainable Development: Past Hopes and Present Realizations Among the World’s Poor.

• Dazak, P., A. A. Cunningham and A. D. Hyatt (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife: Threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287: 443-449

• Deininger, K. and Ali, D. A. (2008, November). Do Overlapping Land Rights Reduce Agricultural Investment? Evidence from Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4), 869-882.

• Deininger, K., Ali, D. A., and Yamano, T. (2008). Legal Knowledge and Economic Development: The Case of Land Rights in Uganda. Land Economics, 84(4), 593-619.

• Deininger, K. and Feder, G. (1998). Land Institutions and Land M arkets. Policy Research Working Paper 2014.

• Deininger, K.and Squire, L. (1998). New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 57, 59–287.

• DHI/COWI. (2011). National Water Resources Assessment.

• Elias, E., and I. Scoones. 1999. Perspectives on soil fertility change: A case study from southern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development

10 (3): 195–206.

• Eswaran, M., and A. Kotwal 1984. Access to Capital and Agrarian Production Organization. Economic Journal 96: 482–98.

• Falkenmark, M., Finlayson, C. M., & Gordon, L. J. (2007). Agriculture, water and ecosystems: Avoiding thecosts of going too far. In D. Molden (Ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: Comprehensive Assessment ofWater Management in Agriculture

• Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones. 2005. Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22 (1): 33–42.

• Fairhead, J., and M. Leach. 1996. Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in a forest savanna mosaic. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

• FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 2004. FAOSTAT data base at http://www.fao.org/faostat/. Accessed on April 26, 2004.

• Farrell, T. A., & Marion, J. L. (2001). Trail impacts and trail impact management related to visitation at Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Leisure/Loisir,26(1-2), 31-59.

• Fearnside, P. M. (2000). Global warming and tropical land-use change: Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conservation, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation. Climatic change, 46(1/2), 115–158.

• Feder, G. and Feeny, D. (1991). Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy. World Bank Economic Review, 5(1), 135-153.

• Fenske, J. (2011). Land tenure and investment incentives: Evidence from West Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 95, 137–156.

• Finlayson, C.M., R. D’Cruz, N. Davidson, J. Alder, S. Cork, R. de Groot, C. Leveque, G.R. Milton, G. Peterson, D. Pritchard, B.D. Ratner, W.V. Reid, C. Revenga, M. Rivera, F. Schutyser, M. Siebentritt, M. Stuip, R. Tharme, S. Butchart, E. Dieme-Amting, H. Gitay, S. Raaymakers and D. Taylor, Eds., 2005: Ecosystems and HumanWell-


being:Wetlands and Water Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 80 pp

• Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., &Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68(3), 643-653.

• Foster, H. L. 1971. Rapid routine soil and plant analysis without automatic equipment. I. Routine Soil Analysis. East Africa. Agriculture and Forest Journal 37: 160–170.

• Foster, H.L., 1981. The basic factors which determine inherent soil fertility in Uganda. J. Soil Sci. 32:149–160.

• Foster, M., E. Kaayo, and C. Ssembatya. 2002. MAAIF-SG2000 technology transfer program in Uganda. In Food security in a changing Africa. Proceedings of the Workshop on Africa Food Security in a Changing Environment: Sharing Good Practices and Experiences, ed. S. A. Breth. Geneva: Center for Applied Studies in International Negotiations: 51–60.

• Goldstein, M. and Udry, C. (2008, December). The Profits of Power: Land Rights and Agricultural Investment in Ghana. Journal of Political Economy, 116(6), 981-1022.

• Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global environmental change, 12(4), 283-302.

• Government of Rwanda, (2009). Updated Version of the National HumanSettlement Policy in Rwanda, Ministry of Infrastructure.

• Government of Uganda, (1992). National Shelter Strategy, 1992.

• Government of Uganda, (1997). The Local Government Act, 1997.

• Government of Uganda, (1998) The Land Act, 1998.

• Government of Uganda, (1997). The National Land Use Policy, 2007

• Government of Uganda, (2008). National Slum Upgrading Strategy, 2008.

• Governmentof Uganda, (2010). Physical Planning Act, 2010.

• Government of Uganda, (2010). Kampala Capital City Act ,2010.

• GovernmentofUganda, (2010). National

Development Plan 2010/11 - 2014/15. National Planning Authority. Kampala Uganda.

• Government of Uganda, (2010). Second National Development Plan 2015/16 - 2019/20. National Planning Authority. Kampala Uganda.

• Government of Uganda, (2013). Uganda Vision 2040. National Planning Authority. Kampala Uganda.

• Government of Uganda, (2013). The National Land Policy, 2013.

• Government of Uganda, (2014). The Draft National Urban Policy, 2014.

• Graff, M. and Bremner, J., (2014). A Practical Guide to Population and Development Population Reference Bureau, www.prb.org

• Gustav. R., Frances. S. and, Alejandro. R (2000). Economic Growth and Human Development

• Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. (1985). Agriculture Development: An International Perspective. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Hartter, J., & Southworth, J. (2009). Dwindling resources and fragmentation of landscapes around parks: wetlands and forest patches around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Landscape Ecology, 24(5), 643-656.

• Hazell, P.and Roell, A. (1983). Rural growth linkages: Household expenditure patterns in Malaysia and Nigeria (Research Report No. 41). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

• Heltberg, R. (1998). Rural market imperfections and the farm size-productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. World Development, 26(10), 1807–1826.Hogarth WL, Parlange JY, Rose CW (2004). Soil erosion due to rainfall impact with inflow: an analytical solution with spatial and temporal effects. J. Hydrol., 295: 140–148.

• Herrmann, Michael (2012), “Factoring population dynamics into sustainable development”, in OECD, Development Co-operation Report 2012: Lessons in Linking Sustainability and Development,

• OECD Publishing.


• Holden, S. T. and Otsuka, K. (2014). The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa. Food Policy, . Article in Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.005.

• Hoyle, B.S., (1963). The Economic Expansion of Jinja, Uganda. Geographical Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 1963), pp. 377-388 American Geographical Society; http://www.jstor.org/stable/212587

• IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Corporation). 2001. The fertilizer market assessment and a strategy for development. Report submitted to Sasakawa-Global 2000 and USAID, Kampala, Uganda.

• IISD/UNEP. 2005. Connecting Poverty and Ecosystem Services, Focus on Uganda. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya. http:www.unep.org

• Ikingura J. R. Mutakyahwa M. K. D and. Kahatano J. M.J. (1997). Mercury and mining in Africa with special reference to Tanzania. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 97 (3-4), 223-232

• Inclusive Growth Policy Note 2: Agriculture for Inclusive Growth in Uganda, World Bank (undated)Isabirye, M., D. Kimaro and O. Semalulu. 2010.Sediment Production from Settlements and Farmlands within Lake Victoria Shoreline Zone in Uganda and Tanzania. TROPICULTURA, 2010, 28, 2, 89-95

• Irvin, R.A and Stansbury, J., (2003). Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort? Journal Issue 01

• Jackson, J. B., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A., Botsford, L. W., Bourque, B. J., ... & Warner, R. R. (2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. science, 293(5530), 629-637.

• Jennings, S., & Kaiser, M. J. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in marine biology, 34, 201-352.

• Jones, E. 1972. Principles of using ferralitic soils in Uganda. Experimental Agriculture 8: 315–333.

• Kaizzi, C. K. 2002. The potential benefit of green

manures and inorganic fertilizers in cereal production on contrasting soils in eastern Uganda. Ph.D. diss., University of Bonn and German Center for Development Research (ZEF), Germany: 64–69.

• Kaizzi, C.K. H. Ssali, A. Nansamba and P. Vlek. 2002. The potential, and benefit of velvet bean (mucuna pruriens) and inorganic N fertilizers in improving maize production under soils of different fertility. Policy workshop, 17-19, April 2002 Africana Hotel, Kampala Uganda. Mimeo, Center for Development Research (ZEF) University of Bonn, Germany.Kaizzi, K., J. Byalebeka, C. Wortmann, and M. Mamo. 2007. Low input approaches for soil fertility management in semiarid eastern Uganda. Agronomy Journal 99: 847–853.

• Kaizzi, C.K., Byalebeka, J., Semalulu, O., Alou, I., Zimwanguyizza, W., Nansamba, A., Musinguzi, P Ebanyat, P., Hyuha, T., Kasharu , A & Wortman, C.S. (2011). Economics of Fertilizer Use in Uganda. Kawanda Agricultural Research StationKaizzi C.K., Nansamba A., Byalebeka J., Mubiru M. and Semalulu O. 2014. “Supporting Innovative Conservation Agriculture Practices to Combat Land Degradation and Enhance Soil Productivity for Improved Food Security”: Uganda Country Report Presented at theSecond Coordination Meeting of the Regional Project RAF5063, April 7-11, 2014, Institut Nucléaire de Technologie Appliquée (ITNA), Université Cheikh Anta Diop Dakar, Senegal.

•

• Kansiime, F., Saunders, M. J., & Loiselle, S. A. (2007). Functioning and dynamics of wetland vegetation of Lake Victoria: an overview. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 15(6), 443-451.

• Kasolo, W. K., &Temu, A. B. (2008). Tree species selection for buffer zone agroforestry: the case of Budongo Forest in Uganda. International Forestry Review, 10(1), 52-64.

• Kayima, J et al., (2008). A study of the degree of pollution in Nakivubo channel, Kampala, Uganda; Journal of Applied Science & Environmental Management, Vol. 12(2) 93 – 98 JASEM ISSN 1119-8362; www.bioline.org.br/ja


• Kazoora C (2002). Road Map for Resource Mobilisation for the Implementation of National Action Program to Combat Desertification and Land Degradation in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Min. of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, and Min. of Finance, Planning & Econ. Dev.

• Keeley, J., and I. Scoones. 2003. Understanding environmental policy processes: Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan.

• Khundi, F., Jagger, P., Shively, G., & Sserunkuuma, D. (2011). Income, poverty and charcoal production in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics,13(3), 199-205.

• Kilpatrick, A. M., A. A. Chmura, D. W. Gibbons, R. C. Fleischer, P. P. Marra and P. Daszak (2006). Predicting the global spread of H5N1 avian influenza. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 19 368-19 373

• King, C.S et al., (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug.,1998), pp. 317-326 American Society for Public Administration, Wiley Publishers http://www.jstor.org/stable/977561

• Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2007). Payments for environmentalservices in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in CentralAmerica. Ecological economics,61(2), 446-455.

• Kizza, M., Rhode, A., Xu, Y. C., Ntale H. K. and Halldin, S. (2009) Temporal rainfall variability in the Lake Victoria Basin in East Africa during the twentieth century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 98, 119- 135.

• Lad R. J. and Samant J. S. 2014.Environmental and social impacts of stone quarrying-a case study of Kolhapur district. International Journal of current research 6(3) 5664-5669

• Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., & Lepers, E. (2003). Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, 28, 205–241.Lee, D. R., C. B. Barrett, P. Hazell, and D. Southgate. 2001. Assessing tradeoffs and

synergies among agricultural intensification, economic development and environmental goals: Conclusions and implications for policy. In: Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment, eds. D. R. Lee and C. B. Barrett. Wallingford, U.K.: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International.

• Leach, M., and R. Mearns. 1996. Environmental change and policy: Challenging received wisdom in Africa. In The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment, ed. M. Leach and R. Mearns. London: International African Institute and James Currey.

• Leakey, R. (1997). Redefining agroforestry–and opening Pandora’s box.Agroforestry today, 9(5).

• Lin, J.Y. 1992. Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growth in China. American Economic Review 82: 34–51.

• Lin, J. Y. (1989). An Economic Theory of Institutional Change: Induced and Imposed Change. Cato Journal, 9(1), 1-33.

• Lufafa, A. (2006). Land use and climate change effects on terrestrial c stocks in Uganda’s cattle corridor. End of project technical report submitted to start. Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere University

• Lwanga, M. S., Kansiime, F., Denny, P., & Scullion, J. (2003). Heavy metals in Lake George, Uganda, with relation to metal concentrations in tissues of common fish species. Hydrobiologia, 499(1-3), 83-93.

• MacDonald, A. M., & Calow, R. C. (2009). Developing groundwater for secure rural water supplies in Africa. Desalination, 248(1), 546-556.

• Macours, K., and Swinnen J. 2002. Patterns of Agrarian Transition. Economic Development and Cultural Change 50: 365–95.Magunda, M. K., and M. M. Tenywa. 1999. Soil and water conservation. Mimeo. Uganda National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Kampala.

• Magunda, M.K. and M.M. Tenywa. 2001. Soil and Water Conservation. In: Agriculture in Uganda. In: J.K. Mukiibi (ed). Vol. 1, pp.145-168. ISBN 9970-02-243-1.Majaliwa, J.G.M. 1998. Effect of vegetation cover and biomass development on soil loss from maize based cropping systems. M.Sc Thesis Makerere University, unpublished


• Majaliwa, J. G. M. 2003. Soil and plant nutrient losses from major agricultural land use types and associated pollution loading in selected micro-catchments of the Lake Victoria catchment. Ph.D. diss., Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

• Majaliwa, J.G.M, M.K. Magunda, M.M. Tenywa and F. Musitwa. 2005. Soil and nutrient losses from major agricultural land-use practices in the Lake Victoria Basin, Uganda. In Mallya et al. (eds.) Knowledge and Experiences gained from managing the Lake Victoria Ecosystem. LVEMP

• Makumbi, I., (2001). Forest Degazettement in Uganda, Forestry Series 1. Uganda Wildlife Society, Kampala, Uganda, www.uws.or.ug

• Maponga, O., & Munyanduri, N. (2001, August). Sustainability of the dimension stone industry in Zimbabwe—challenges and opportunities. In Natural resources forum (Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 203-213). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

• Matagi, S.V., (2001). Some Issues of Environmental Concern in Kampala, the Capital City of Uganda. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 77: 121–138, 2002; Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands

• Mellor, J. W. (1976). The new economics of growth: A strategy for India and the developing world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

• Merritt, R. W., Benbow, M. E., & Small, P. L. (2005). Unraveling an emerging disease associated with disturbed aquatic environments: the case of Buruli ulcer. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(6), 323-331.Merz R, Blöschl G, Parajka J (2006). Spatio-temporal variability of event runoff coefficients. J. Hydrol., 331: 591–604.

• McCann, J. C. 1999. Green land, brown land, black land: An environmental history of Africa, 1800–1990. Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

• McLennan, M. R., & Plumptre, A. J. (2012). Research Article Protected apes, unprotected forest: composition, structure and diversity of riverine forest fragments and their conservation value in Uganda.

• Mileham, L., Taylor, R.G., Todd, M., Tindimugaya, C. and Thompson, J. (2009) The Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Recharge and Runoff in a Humid, Equatorial Catchment: Sensitivity of Projections to Rainfall Intensity. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 54, 727-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.4.727

• Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2012). Draft rangeland policy (2012). Kampala, Uganda

• Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2013). National Agriculture Policy,

2013. Kampala, Uganda

• Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, (2014): Uganda BudgetPerformance; Local Government Budget and Performance; w w w . b u d g e t .go.ug

• Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, (2014),Uganda’s employment challenge: an evaluation of Government’s strategy.

• Ministry of Lands, Housing and urban development, (2006). The National Land use policy 2006. Kampala, Uganda

• Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, (2010). Land Amendment Act of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.

• Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, (2012). Baseline Study of Physical Planning System Report, 2012.

• Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban development, (2013). The Uganda National Land Policy 2013. Kampala, Uganda

• Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban development, (2013). The Draft Uganda National Urban Policy. Kampala, Uganda

• Ministry of Water and Environment (2004). The Year-Book of Water. Water Resources Monitoring Division, Water Resources Management Department, Entebbe Uganda

• Ministry of Water and Environment (2011).The declining trends of water resources in Uganda.Water Resources Monitoring Division,Water Resources Management Department, Entebbe Uganda.

• Ministry of Water and Environment - MWE., (2013).The National Forest Plan 2011/2012-2021/22. MWE Kampala Uganda.

• The declining trends of water resources in Uganda.Water Resources Monitoring Division,Water Resources Management Department, Entebbe Uganda.

• Mölg, T., Georges, C. and Kaser, G (2003) The Contribution of Increased Incoming Shortwave Radiation to the Retreat of the Rwenzori Glaciers, East Africa, during the 20th Century. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 291-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.877

• Mugasi, S. K., Sabiiti, E. N., & Tayebwa, B. M. (2000). The economic implications of bush encroachment on livestock farming in rangelands of Uganda. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 17(1-3), 64-69.

• Mugerwa, S., & Emmanuel, Z. (2014). Drivers of grassland ecosystems’ deterioration in Uganda. Applied Science Reports, 2(3).

• Muhereza, F., and P. Otim. 2002. Pastoral resource competition in Uganda, case studies


into commercial livestock ranching and pastoral institutions. Utrecht, The Netherlands and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Books and Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa.

• Muradian, R. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Society & NaturalResources, 26(10), 1155-1169.

• Muyodi, F. J., Bugenyi, F. W., & Hecky, R. E. (2010). Experiences and lessons learned from interventions in the Lake Victoria Basin: the Lake Victoria environmental management project. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 15(2), 77-88.

• Mwavu, E. N., & Witkowski, E. T. F. (2008). Land‐use and cover changes (1988–2002) around Budongo forest reserve, NW Uganda: Implications for forest and woodland sustainability. Land Degradation & Development, 19(6), 606-622.

• Nabulo, G., Origa, H. O., Nasinyama, G. W., & Cole, D. (2008). Assessment of Zn, Cu, Pb and Ni contamination in wetland soils and plants in the Lake Victoria basin. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 5(1), 65-74.Nadhomi D.L., Tenywa J.S., Majaliwa J.G.M., (2013). Adaptation of RUSLE to Model Erosion Risk in a Watershed with Terrain Heterogeneity. International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 2013, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 93-107

• Nakakaawa, C. A., Vedeld, P. O., & Aune, J. B. (2011). Spatial and temporal land use and carbon stock changes in Uganda: implications for a future REDD strategy. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 16(1), 25-62.

• Nalukenge, I., Antle, J., & Stoorvogel, J. (2009). Assessing the feasibility of wetlands conservation: Using payments for ecosystem services in Pallisa, Uganda. In Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes (pp. 239-253). Springer New York.

• Namaalwa, J., Hofstad, O., & Sankhayan, P. L. (2009). Achieving sustainable charcoal supply from woodlands to urban consumers in Kampala, Uganda.International Forestry Review, 11(1), 64-78.

• Namaalwa, S., Funk, A., Ajie, G. S., & Kaggwa, R. C. (2013). A characterization of the drivers, pressures, ecosystem functions and services of Namatala wetland, Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 34, 44-57.

• Namaganda, E. 2013. Impact of stone quarries on surface water quality. Bachelors Dissertation for Bsc. Environmental Science. Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

• NARO and FAO (National Agricultural Research

Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization). 1999. Soil Fertility Initiative Concept Paper. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries, and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda: 3–18.

• National Forestry Authority - NFA, (2009). National Biomass Study: Technical Report. NFA, Kampala Uganda.

• NEMA, (2001). National State of the Environment Report for Uganda, 2000/2001. NEMA, KampalaNEMA, 2004. Uganda National Environment Management Authority. State of the Environment Report for Uganda. 2004

• NEMA., (2002).National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2002-2012. NEMA Kampala Uganda.

• NEMA, (2008). State of the Environment Report for Uganda, 2008.

• NEMA, (2008). Pilot Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Report for Uganda: The Lake Kyoga Catchment. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kampala.

• NEMA. (2009). Uganda, Atlas of Our Changing Environment; UNEP-GRID Arendal, Norway; www.nemaug.org

• NEMA, (2010). State of the Environment Report for Uganda, 2010.

• NEMA., (2014). Revised National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2024. NEMA, Kampala Uganda.

• Nepstad, D. C., Adalberto Vero˜A ˆ ssimo, A., Alencar, A., Nobre, C., Lima, E., Lefebvre, P., et al. (1999). Large-scale impoverishment of the Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature, 398, 505–508.

• Nkonya, E. M. 2002. Uganda crop trader characteristics and their marketing constraints. East African Journal of Rural Development, 18 (1): 23–39.

• Nkonya, E., J. Pender, C. Kaizzi, E. Kato, S. Mugarura, H. Ssali and J. Muwonge. 2008. Linkages between Land Management, Land Degradation, and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Uganda. Research Report 159. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

• Nkonya, E., J. Pender, P. Jagger, D. Sserunkuuma, C. Kaizzi, and H. Ssali. 2004. Strategies for sustainable land management and poverty reduction in Uganda. Research Report 133. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

• Nkurunziza, E., (2007). Uganda Informal Mechanisms for Accessing and Securing Urban Land Rights: The Case of Kampala, Uganda. Environment and Urbanization; http://eau.sagepub.com/content/19/2/509


• Nsubuga, F.W.N, Olwoch, J.M and Rautenbach, C.J.deW. (2011) Climatic trends at Namulonge in Uganda: 1947- 2009. Journal of Geography and Geology, 3, 119-131.

• Nsubuga, F.N.W., Namutebi, E.N. and Nsubuga-Ssenfuma, M. (2014) Water Resources of Uganda:An Assessment and Review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 6, 1297-1315.http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2014.61412

• Nyakaana, J.B. et al., (2007). Population, Urban Development & the Environment in Uganda: The Case of Kampala City and its Environs, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

• Nyenje, P. M., & Batelaan, O. (2009). Estimating the effects of climate change on groundwater recharge and baseflow in the upper Ssezibwa catchment, Uganda. Hydrological sciences journal, 54(4), 713-726.

• Oba, G., Byakagaba, P., & Angassa, A. (2008). Participatory monitoring of biodiversity in East African grazing lands. Land Degradation & Development,19(6), 636-648.

• Obua, J., & Harding, D. M. (1996). Visitor characteristics and attitudes towards Kibale National Park, Uganda. Tourism Management, 17(7), 495-505.

• Obua, J. (1997). Environmental impact of ecotourism in Kibale national park, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 213-223.

• Obua, J., Agea, J. G., & Ogwal, J. J. (2010). Status of forests in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 48(4), 853-859.

• Odada, E. O., Ochola, W. O., & Olago, D. O. (2009). Drivers of ecosystem change and their impacts on human well‐being in Lake Victoria basin. African Journal of Ecology, 47(s1), 46-54.

• Olson J, Berry L (2003). Uganda-Extent and impact of Land degradation. www.fao.org/nr/lada/index.php?option=com_docman...doc Omamo, W. 2002. Fertilizer trade and pricing in Uganda. Paper presented at the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) workshop on the assessment of the fertilizer sub-sector in East Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, July 15–17, 2002.

• Omeja, P. A., Lwanga, J. S., Obua, J., & Chapman, C. A. (2011). Fire control as a simple means of promoting tropical forest restoration. Trop Conserv Sci,4(3), 287-299.

• Otsuka, K. and Place, F. (2001). Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study of Agrarian Communities in Asia and Africa. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

• Otsuka, K. and Place, F. (2013, November). Evolutionary Changes in Land Tenure and

Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Sharan Africa. GRIPS Discussion Paper 13-22.

• Owor, M., Hartwig, T., Muwanga, A., Zachmann, D., & Pohl, W. (2007). Impact of tailings from the Kilembe copper mining district on Lake George, Uganda.Environmental geology, 51(6), 1065-1075.

• Pagiola, S. 1999. The global environmental benefits of land degradation control on agricultural land. World Bank Environment Paper 16. Washington, D.C.

• Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Jagger, P., Serunkuuma, D., and Ssali, H. (2004). Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: Evidence from Uganda. Agricultural Economics(31), 181-195.

• Pender, J., S. Ssewanyana, E. Kato, and E. Nkonya. 2004. Linkages between poverty and land management in rural Uganda: Evidence from the Uganda National Household Survey, 1999/2000. Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper 122. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

• Pender, J., P. Jagger, E. Nkonya, and D. Sserunkuuma. 2001. Development pathways and land management in Uganda: Causes and implications. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 85. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

• Perz, S. G. (2001). Household demographic factors as life cycle determinants of land use in the Amazon. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(3), 159–186.

• Ramsar.1971. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Gland Ramsar Convention Secretariat

• Ravallion, M., and Datt, G. (2002). Why has economic growth been more pro-poor in some states of India than others?. Journal of Development Economics, 68, 381–400.

• Rebelo, L. M., McCartney, M. P., & Finlayson, C. M. (2010). Wetlands of Sub-Saharan Africa: distribution andcontribution of agriculture to livelihoods. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 18, 557-572

• Republic of Uganda, (2010). Urban development in Uganda. Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. Kampala, Uganda.

• Republic of Uganda, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, (2012). Biomass Energy Strategy.

• Rosegrant, M., & Hazell, P. (2000). Transforming the rural Asian economy: The unfinished revolution. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

• Rugadya, M. (1999). Land Reform: The


Ugandan Experience. Land use and villagisation workshop Hotel de mille Collines, Kigali.

• Russell, J. M., McCoy, S. J., Verschuren, D., Bessems, I., & Huang, Y. (2009). Human impacts, climate change, and aquatic ecosystem response during the past 2000 yr at Lake Wandakara, Uganda. Quaternary Research,72(3), 315-324.

• Salzmann, U. (2000). Are modern savannas degraded forests?-A Holocene pollen record from the Sudanian vagetation zone of NE Nigeria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 9 (1), 1-15.

• Saviour, M. N. (2012). Environmental impact of soil and sand mining: a review. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 1(3), 125-134.Semalulu, O., V. Kasenge, J. Nakanwagi, W. Wagoire, S., Chemusto and J. Tukahirwa. 2014. Financial losses due to soil erosion in the Mt. Elgon hillsides, Uganda: a need for action. Sky Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management Vol. 3(2), pp. 20 - 28.

• Sanginga, P. C., Kamugisha, R. N., & Martin, A. M. (2007). Conflicts management, social capital and adoption of agroforestry technologies: empirical findings from the highlands of south-western Uganda. Agroforestry systems, 69(1), 67-76.

• Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al., editors. Climate change (2007): The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 1–18.

• Sserunkuuma, D., J. Pender, and E. Nkonya 2001. Land management in Uganda: Characterization of problems and hypothesis about causes and strategies for improvement. International Food Policy Research Institute, Environment and Production Technology Division, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.

• Stehouwer R, Day R, Macneal E., 2006. Nutrient and trace element leaching following mine reclamation with biosolids. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 1118– 1126.

• Stephen, D. 1970. Soil Fertility. In: Jameson, J.D. (ed.) Agriculture in Uganda. Oxford University Press, U.K. p. 72-89.

• Stocking, M. 1996. Soil erosion: Breaking new ground. In The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment, ed. M. Leach and R. Mearns, 140–154. Oxford, U.K.: International African Institute and James Currey.

• Stoorvogel, J. J., and E. M. A. Smaling. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in sub-Saharan Africa 1983–2000. Report No. 28. D. L. O. Winand Starring Center for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

• Szaro, R. C., Sexton, W. T., & Malone, C. R. (1998).The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool formeeting people’s needs and sustaining ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40(1), 1-7.

• Tacoli, C., (1998). Rural-urban Interactions: A Guide to The Literature Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 10, No. 1, April 1998

• Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994. More people—less erosion: Environmental recovery in Kenya. London: Wiley.

• Tukahirwa, J.M.B. (2002). Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics Project (LUCID), Working Paper No. 17 on Policies, People and Land Use Change in Uganda: A Case Study in Ntungamo, Lake Mburo and Sango Bay Sites.

• Tukahirwa, J. (1996). Measurement, prediction and social ecology of soil erosion in Kabale, south-western Uganda. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Environment and Resource Management, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.UBOS, (2002). Uganda national household survey 1999/2000. Report on the crop survey module. Entebbe, Uganda: Uganda Bureau of Statistics: 4–30.

• Twinomuhangi, R., Lafontaine, A., Ogwang, B., et al., (2013).Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Background Paper to the Development of Climate Change Policy and Implementation Strategy for Uganda. Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala Uganda.

• Taylor, H., Appleton, J. D., Lister, R., Smith, B., Chitamweba, D., Mkumbo, O., ... & Beinhoff, C. (2005). Environmental assessment of mercury contamination from the Rwamagasa artisanal gold mining centre, Geita District, Tanzania.Science of the Total Environment, 343(1), 111-133.

• UBOS, (2013). Uganda National Panel Survey: Wave II and III Reports

• UBOS, (2014). 2014 Statistical Abstract

• UBOS, (2014a). Uganda National Household Survey 2012/13 Report. UBOS Kampala Uganda

• UBOS, (2014b). National Population and Housing Census, 2014 - Provisional Results. UBOS Kampala Uganda.

• UNEP, (2012). Analysis of formalization approaches in the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector based on experiences in Ecuador, Mongolia, Peru, Tanzania and Uganda. Uganda Case Study


• United Nations., (1996). The Habitat Agenda: Chapter IV: C. Sustainable Human Settlements Development in an Urbanizing World.

• United Nations Population Division, (2014). Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fact Sheets -Uganda.

• USAID (2013) Uganda Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report African and Latin American resilience to climate change project.

• Van Langevelde, F., Van De Vijver, C. A., Kumar, L., Van De Koppel, J., De Ridder, N., Van Andel, J., ... & Rietkerk, M. (2003). Effects of fire and herbivory on the stability of savanna ecosystems. Ecology, 84(2), 337-350.

• Vermeij, G.J 1996. An agenda for invasion biology Biological conservation78, 3-9.Vosti, S., and Reardon, T., eds. 1997. Sustainability, growth, and poverty alleviation: A policy and agroecological perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.

• Waiswa, D., Stern, M. J., & Prisley, S. P. (2015). Drivers of Deforestation in the Lake Victoria Crescent, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 34(3), 259-275.

• Walker, R., Perz, S., Caldas, M., and Silva, L. G. T. (2002). Land use and land cover change in forest frontiers: The role of household life cycles. International Regional Science Review, 25, 169–199.Wei W, Chen LD, Fu BJ (2009). Effects of rainfall change on water erosion processes in terrestrial ecosystems: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 33(3): 307–318.

• West, H. (1965). The Mailo System in Buganda. Entebbe: The government Printer, Uganda.

• Woelcke, J. 2003. Bio-economics of sustainable land management in Uganda. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

• Wortmann, C. S. and Kaizzi, C. K. (1998). Nutrient balances and expected effects of alternative practices in farming systems of Uganda. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 71(1), 115–129.

• World Bank, (2006)Gender and Economic Growth in Uganda:Unleashing the Power of Women Uganda.

• World Bank (2011). The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium.

• World Bank, (2014). Uganda Data; http://data.worldbank.org/country/uganda

• Wunder, S. (2013).When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 230-237.

• Yamano, T., Sserunkuuma, D., Otsuka, K., Omiat, G., Ainembabazi, J.H., Shimamura, Y., 2004. The 2003 REPEAT Survey in Uganda: Results. FASID Development Database 2004-09-01, Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development, Tokyo, Japan.

• Yorkonis , K.A, Meiners, S.J and Wachholder, B.E 2005. Invasion impacts diversity through altered community dynamics. Journal of Ecology 200593 1053-1061.

• Yorkonis, K.A and Meiners, S.J 2004. Invasion impacts local species turnover in a successional system Ecology letters, 7, 764-769.

• Zake, J. Y. 1992. Issues arising from soil conservation: The Uganda example. In Soil conservation for survival, eds. K. Tato and H. Hurmi. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

• Zake, J. Y., M. K. Magunda, and C. Nkwiine. 1997. Integrated soil management for sustainable agriculture and food security. The Ugandan case. Paper presented at the FAO Workshop on Integrated Soil Management for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Southern and Eastern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, December 8–12, 1997.

• Zake, J., Kitungulu, J. Y. Z., Busurwa, H., & Kyewaze, F. (2011). Sustainable use of wetland soils in the eastern region of Uganda around Lake Victoria Basin. Water Practice and Technology, 6(3).


ANNEX 1:

Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source

1.1. by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.00 a day

1. Proportion of population below the national poverty line per day (MDG Indicator) 19.7% (2012/13) UNHS

2. Multidimensional Poverty Index 0.367 (2013) HDR

1.2. by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

1. Poverty gap ratio (MDG Indicator) 5.2 (2012/13) UNHS2. Proportion of population living below national poverty line, differentiated by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)

22.8%/9.3% (2012/13)

UNHS

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status2.1 by 2030 end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round

1. Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption (MDG Indicator) N/A

2.2 by 2030 end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving by 2025 the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons

1. Percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49) with anaemia 23% (2011) DHS

2. Prevalence of stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age

33% and 5% (2011)

DHS

3. Percentage of infants under 6 months who are exclusively breast fed 63.2% (2011) DHS

4. Percentage of population with shortfalls of: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate, vitamin B12 [and vitamin D]

N/A

5. Proportion of infants 6-23 months of age who receive a minimum acceptable diet N/A

6. Percentage of total daily energy intake from protein in adults N/A

2.b. correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets including by the parallel elimination of all forms of gricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round

1. Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries (MDG Indicator)

N/A

2. Value of LDC exports as a percentage of global exports N/A

Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Data Source

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status

3.1 by 2030 reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births

1. Maternal mortality ratio (MDG Indicator) and rate 360 (2013)

2. Percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel (MDG Indicator) 58.0% (2011) DHS

3. Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits) (MDG Indicator)

94.9% & 47.6% (2011)

DHS

4. Post-natal care coverage (one visit) (MDG Indicator) 93% (2014)* AHSR


Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Data Source


3.2 by 2030 end preventable deaths of new-borns and under-5 children

1. Neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality rates (modified MDG Indicator)

27 (2014)*, 54 (2011) and 90(2011)

AHSR*DHS

2. Percentage of children under 5 with fever who are treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs (MDG Indicator).

86.7% (2014)

3.3 by 2030 end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases

1. HIV incidence, treatment rate, and mortality (modified MDG Indicator) N/A

2. Incidence, prevalence, and death rates associated with all forms of TB (MDG Indicator) 56.1% (2011) DHS

3. Incidence and death rates associated with malaria (MDG Indicator) 3.7% (2011) DHS

4. Percentage of 1 year-old children immunized against measles (MDG Indicator) 75.8% (2011) DHS

5. Condom use at last high-risk sex, 15-24 years-olds (MDG Indicator)

56.1%(2011)

DHS

6. Percentage of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly observed treatment short course(MDG Indicator)

73% & 77% (2014)

7. Percentage of people in malaria-endemic areas sleeping under insecticide-treated bed nets (modified MDG Indicator)

69%(2014)

MIS

3.7 by 2030 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs

1. Contraceptive prevalence rate (MDG Indicator) 30% (2011) DHS2. Met demand for family planning(modified MDG Indicator) 46.7% DHS

3. Adolescent birth rate (MDG Indicator) 135 (2011) DHS

Goal 4 Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Data Source


4.1 by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes

1. Primary completion rates for girls and boys 66.9% and 67.8% (2013/14)

2. Secondary completion rates for girls and boys 34% Girls (2013/14)

3. Number of children out of school N/A

4.4 by 2030, increase by x% the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

1. Tertiary enrolment rates for women and men 87,572/ 113,688

2. Literacy rate of 15-24 years olds, women and men (MDG indicator) 75%/77% DHS

3. Pupil to computer ratio in primary and secondary education N/A


Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girlsSDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source

5.1 end all forms of discrimination against women and girls everywhere

1. Percentage of seats held by women and minorities in national parliament and/or sub-national elected office according to their respective share of the population (modified MDG Indicator)

35% (2015)

5.6 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

1. Met demand for family planning (modified MDG Indicator) 65.7% (2011)

DHS

2. Percentage of young people receiving comprehensive sexuality education N/A

Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for allSDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source6.1. by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

1. Percentage of population using safely managed water services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)

87.3%/ 67.7% (2012/13)UNHS

6.2. by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

1. Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)

Rural: *0.6%Urban: *8%(2012/13)

UNHS

2. Percentage of population with basic hand washing facilities with soap and water at home 4.3%

6.4 by 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity, and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

1. Proportion of total water resources used (MDG Indicator) 0.5% (2004)

NEMA

*Used Flush to Piped Sewer System/Septic Tank Toilet

Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for allSDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source7.1 by 2030 ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services

1. Share of the population using reliable electricity, by urban/rural 40.5% /4.3% (2012/13)

UNHS

Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source8.1 sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances, and in particular at least 7% per annum GDP growth in the least-developed countries

1. GNI per capita (PPP, current US$ Atlas method) 680 (2014) GDP Estimates

2. Growth rate of GDP per person employed (MDG Indicator) 19.7% (2012/13)

UNHS


Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source8.3 promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises including through access to financial services

1. Youth employment rate, by formal and informal sector

Informal: 77.8%Formal: 11.1%(2012/2013)

UNHS

2. Percentage of population using banking services (including mobile banking) 54% FINSCOPE

3. Household income, including in-kind services (PPP, current US$) N/A

8.5 by 2030 achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value

1. Employment to population ratio (EPR) by gender and age group (15–64)

*48%(2012/13)

UNHS

2. Share of informal employment in total employment

94%(2012/13)

UNHS

*14-64 Years

Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

SDG Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status9.2 promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and by 2030 raise significantly industry’s share of employment and GDP in line with national circumstances, and double its share in LDCs

1. Employment in industry (% of total employment) 21%(2012/13)

UNHS

9.5 enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, particularly developing countries, including by 2030 encouraging innovation and increasing the number of R&D workers per one million people by x% and public and private R&D spending

1. Personnel in R&D (per million inhabitants) 84UNCSTDBIS

2. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as share of GDP 0.3% (2014/15)

GDP Estimates

Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countriesTarget Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source10.1 by 2030 progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average

1. Percentage of households with incomes below 50% of median income (“relative poverty”)

N/A

2. Gini Coefficient 0.395 (2012/13) UNHS

10.a implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with WTO agreements

1. Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries (MDG Indicator)

N/A

2. Value of LDC exports as a percentage of global exports N/A


Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countriesTarget Current official national indicator Baseline Status Data Source

10.b encourage ODA and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to states where the need is greatest, in particular LDCs, African countries, SIDS, and LLDCs, in accordance with their national plans and programs

1. Official development assistance and net private grants as percent of GNI N/A

2. Private net flows for sustainable development at market rates as share of high-income country GNI, by sector

N/A

3. Net ODA to LDCs as percentage of high-income countries’ GNI (modified from MDG Indicator)

7.0%

4. Total Official Support for Development N/A5. Country Programmable Aid N/A

Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainableTarget Current official national indicator Baseline Status

11.1 by 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services, and upgrade slums

1. Percentage of population using basic sanitation services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator) N/A

2. Percentage of urban population living in slums or informal settlements (MDG Indicator) 43% (2012/13) UNHS

11.2 by 2030, provide access to safe, affordable,accessible and sustainable transport systems for all,improving road safety, notably by expanding publictransport, with special attention to the needs of those invulnerable situations, women, children, persons withdisabilities and older persons

1. Road traffic deaths per 100,000 population 8 (2013)1 ACTRSR

11.3 by 2030 enhance inclusive and sustainableurbanization and capacities for participatory, integratedand sustainable human settlement planning andmanagement in all countries

1. Number of street intersections per square Kilometer N/A

2. Existence and implementation of a national urban and settlements policy framework NO

11.a support positive economic, social andenvironmental links between urban, peri-urban andrural areas by strengthening national and regionaldevelopment planning

1. Domestic revenues allocated to sustainable development as percent of GNI, by sector N/A

2. Percentage of consumption of food and raw materials within urban areas that are produced and delivered in/from rural areas within the country

N/A


Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Data SourceTarget Current official national indicator Baseline Status12.4 by 2020 achieve environmentally soundmanagement of chemicals and all wastes throughouttheir life cycle in accordance with agreed internationalframeworks and significantly reduce their release to air,water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment

1. Nitrogen use efficiency in food systems N/A

2. Country implements and reports on System of Environmental- Economic Accounting (SEEA) accounts

N/A

3. Consumption of ozone-depleting substances (MDG Indicator)

19.0% (2010)

4. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) N/A

2. Existence and implementation of a national urban and settlements policy framework

N0

Sources:

Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impactsTarget Current official national indicator Baseline Status

13.1 strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

1. Losses from natural disasters, by climate and non-climate-related events (in US$ and lives lost) N/A

2. Presence of urban building codes stipulating either the use of local materials and/or new energy efficient technologies or with incentives for the same.

N/A

13.2 integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning

1. Availability and implementation of a transparent and detailed deep decarbonization strategy, consistent with the 2°C - or below - global carbon budget, and with GHG emission targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050.

N/A

2. Official climate financing from developed countries that is incremental to ODA (in US$) N/A

Sources:

Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status

14.4 by 2020, effectively regulate harvesting, and endoverfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined bytheir biological characteristics

1. Percentage of fish tonnage landed within Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) N/A

2. Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits (MDG Indicator) N/A

3. Percentage of fisheries with a sustainable certification N/A

4. Has Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) established satellite-monitoring program?

N/A


Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Target Current official national indicator Baseline Status14.a increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacities and transfer marine technology taking intoaccount the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular SIDS and LDCs

1. Personnel in R&D (per million inhabitants) 84

UNCSTDBIS

Sources:

Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss


15.1 by 2020 ensure conservation , restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

1. Annual change in forest area and land under cultivation (modified MDG Indicator) N/A

DAES

2. Area of forest under sustainable forest management as a percent of forest area N/A

Sources:

Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels


16.1 significantly reduce all forms of violence andrelated death rates everywhere

1. Prevalence of girls and women 15-49 who have experienced physical or sexual violence [by an intimate partner] in the last 12 months

N/A

2. Violent injuries and deaths per 100,000 population N/A

3. Number of refugees N/A

16.2 end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms ofviolence and torture against childre

1. Ratification and implementation of fundamental ILO labor standards and compliance in law and practice

N/A

2. Presence of legal frameworks that guarantee the right to education for all children for early childhood and basic education, and that guarantee a minimum age of entry to employment not below the years of basic education

YES

3. Compliance with recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review and UN Treaties


Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels


16.3 promote the rule of law at the national andinternational levels, and ensure equal access to justicefor all

1. Percentage of referred cases of sexual and gender-based violence against women and children that are investigated and sentenced.

N/A

2. Frequency of payment of salaries within security forces N/A

3. Percentage of total detainees who have been held in detention for more than 12 months while awaiting sentencing or a final disposition of their case, by sex

26%(2014)

UPS

16.9 by 2030 provide legal identity for all including free birth registrations

1. Percentage of children under age 5 whose birth is registered with a civil authority 29.9% (2011) DHS

16.10 ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements

1. Existence and implementation of a national law and/or constitutional guarantee on the right to information

YES

2. Number of journalists and associated media personnel that are physically attacked, unlawfully detained or killed as a result of pursuing their legitimate activities.

N/A

Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development


17.17 encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships

1. Percent of official development assistance (ODA), net private grants, and official climate finance channelled through priority pooled multilateral financing mechanisms

N/A

17.18 by 2020, enhance capacity building support to developing countries, including for LDCs and SIDS, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts

1. Share of SDG Indicators that are reported annually N/A

17.19 by 2030, build on existing initiatives to developmeasurements of progress on sustainable developmentthat complement GDP, and support statistical capacitybuilding in developing countries

1. Evaluative Wellbeing and Positive Mood Affect N/A



MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPlot 2-12 Apollo Kaggwa Road

P.O. Box 8147, Kampala - Ugandawww.fi nance.go.ug, www.budget.go.ug

SDR Report (2)

Documents

Transcript of SDR Report (2)