Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FARMER ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN UGANDA
AGRI-PROFOCUS SYNTHESIS PAPER October 2009
Prepared by
Nelson F. O. Ofwono Director / Principal Consultant
Africa Services Group Ltd.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS .......................................................................................1
Executive Summary ...........................................................................5
1. Introduction ................................................................................6
2. Status of the Agriculture Sector .....................................................6
3. Policy Framework.........................................................................9
4. Institutional Framework .............................................................. 11
5. Constraints and Challenges ......................................................... 15
6. Existing Interventions by APF Members......................................... 18
7. Emerging Issues and Development Opportunities ........................... 21
Annex 1. Strategic Choices of APF Members........................................24
Annex 2. Further Analysis.................................................................29
Annex3. Persons and Resources Consulted..........................................32
2
ACRONYMS
APF Agri-ProFocus
ASPS Agricultural Sector Programme Support
ASWG Agriculture Sector Working Group
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme
CDO Cotton Development Organisation
COCTU Coordinating Office for the Control of Trypanosomiasis
in Uganda
CSO Civil Society Organisations
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DDA Dairy Development Authority
DPs Development Partners
DSIP Development Strategy and Investment Plan
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FIA Financial Institutions Act
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOU Government of Uganda
INGO International Non Governmental Organisation
LG Local Governments
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MAPS Marketing and Agro-Processing Strategy
MDI Microfinance Deposit-Taking Institutions
MOFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
3
NAGRC & DB National Animal Genetic Resources Centre & Data Bank
NAP National Agriculture Policy
NARO National Agriculture Research Organisation
NCDP National Cooperatives Development Policy
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NIP National Industrial Policy
NRM National Resistance Movement
NTP National Trade Policy
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PFA Prosperity for All
PMA Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture
PO Producer Organisations
RDS Rural Development Strategy
RFSS Rural Financial Services Strategy
SACCO Saving and Credit Cooperative Organisations
SEP Strategic Exports Programme
SME Small and Medium Term Enterprises
TPM Top Policy Management
UCDA Uganda Coffee Development Authority
UNFFE Uganda National Farmers’ Federation
WHO World Health Organisation
4
5
Executive Summary
Agriculture is one of the key sectors of the Ugandan economy. Unfortunately, evidence
suggests that since 1997, the performance of the sector has not been impressive and
growth has been mixed; in some years growth in agriculture has been less than the
population growth. Key sector outcome indicators covering food and nutrition security
and market performance have also shown slow growth. While there were positive
increases in production of cereals, root crops recorded decreases. Growth in cash crops
was low as a result of negative growth in production of coffee; the most important cash
crop. In recent years, fisheries also witnessed a drop in production after significant
growth in early 2000s
The Government of Uganda has implemented various policies geared towards eradicating
poverty among the people of Uganda. The government’s development strategy was led
by the PEAP which was first prepared in 1997. To implement the PEAP, sector specific
policies and strategies were articulated. In the agriculture sector, although there was no
overall sector development policy (this is now rectified with the development of a
national agriculture policy), many other policies (PMA, NAADS, RDS, etc) were in place
to guide the development of the sector. Other policies that are important for farmer
entrepreneurship include those related to private and financial sector development and
to trade and commerce. These policies (RFSS, MDI, FIA, NTP, SEP, etc) are implemented
by the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development and that of Tourism, Trade and
Industry.
To implement sector policies and strategies, there are institutions covering both the
public and private sectors. In the public sector, these institutions include the Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries and agencies, other ministries of the
government such as those responsible for finance, local government, higher education
and academia, etc. Private sector actors in agriculture include private companies,
farmers’ organisations, etc. The NGO participation is also strong as is participation by
development partners.
The implementation of the sector policies and strategies resulted in some achievements
as far as farmer entrepreneurship is concerned. However, many challenges including
poor access and adoption of new technologies, inadequate marketing capacity, limited
access to affordable finance, sub-optimal organisation framework for farmer
entrepreneurs, and inadequate infrastructure still remain. Many cross cutting issues such
as HIV/AIDS, gender and youth, environment and climate change also pose challenges
to the development of the sector.
Members of Agro-Profocus currently have a fair level of present on the development
scene in Uganda. They are involved in many activities in the key thematic areas of
financial services, food production, value chain and market access, knowledge and
research, organisational and institutional development and cross cutting issues. The level
of focus in each theme varies from member to member.
The challenges facing the development of farmer entrepreneurship present opportunities
for the APF members to review and, if found necessary, to reposition themselves to play
even more significant roles in farmer entrepreneurship in Uganda. This could be through
the promotion of partnerships between members. Such partnerships would be
appropriate vehicles for the consolidation of themes of operation, for each APF member,
in line with technical capacity, level of presence on the ground and the resources
available.
6
1. Introduction
Agri-ProFocus (APF), founded in 2005, is a partnership of 26 Dutch donor agencies,
credit institutions, training and knowledge institutions and companies. Their shared
mission is to provide coherent and demand driven support to enhance the capacity of
producer organizations (PO’s) in developing farmer entrepreneurship within the context
of poverty reduction.
One of the main goals of APF is to build solid, transparent and action-oriented support
programmes to promote farmer entrepreneurship. This synthesis paper is part of the
process of developing a country programme for Uganda. Strategically, the country
programme will aim to coordinate and harmonise existing efforts; identify and formulate
new joint activities; and link country programmes with learning and innovation. The
general objective of the country focus programme is to develop “an overall strategic
framework for collaboration between Uganda stakeholders and a support coalition from
the APF network”.
This synthesis paper identifies and analyses trends, cross-cutting issues and bottlenecks
for Uganda with regard to agriculture in general and farmer entrepreneurship in
particular; distinguishes scenarios / options for promoting farmer entrepreneurship
based on what important stakeholders are aiming for, while avoiding making
recommendations or prescribing solutions.
The methodology utilised in the development of this synthesis paper was mainly a desk
review of secondary data and interview with a few selected members of the APF, other
development partners such as DANIDA’s ASPS Programme, and the public sector. A
discussion workshop of a few APF members was help at SNV offices in Uganda.
The documents reviewed include the policies and strategies of the government of
Uganda such as: PEAP, the RDS, PFA, the draft National Development Plan, the draft
National Agriculture Policy, the Development Strategy and Investment Plan of MAAIF,
the National Trade Policy, the Marketing and Agro-Processing Strategy, the Strategic
Exports Programme, etc. Other documents include reports and programme documents of
APF members such as SNV Uganda, Heifer / Send a Cow1, and Oikocredit.
This report is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter presents an introduction, the
genesis of the assignment and the documents reviewed. The second chapter is a brief
summary of developments in the sector. Chapters three and four present the existing
policy and institutional frameworks, respectively, covering agriculture and farmer
entrepreneurship. Chapter five is a synopsis of the challenges affecting the development
of the sector, while chapter six presents a summary of the current themes and areas of
intervention for the APF members. Chapter seven attempts to link the challenges
identified in chapter five with the themes of involvement of APF members.
2. Status of the Agriculture Sector
Although agriculture is considered one of the key sectors of the Ugandan economy,
evidence suggests that since 1997, the performance of the sector has been less than
impressive as evidenced by the following:
Outcomes a. Growth: Over the years 1987-2005, agriculture in Uganda performed well, growing
at 3.8%, faster than population growth at that time; thus it was a major contributor to
the Uganda’s poverty reduction efforts. However, the evidence suggests that in recent
1 Send A Cow is not an APF member as such but a close collaborator, therefore their partner info has been included in annexes.
7
years, the performance of the sector has been less impressive as real growth in
agriculture output declined from 7.9 percent in 2000/01 to 1.3 and 2.6 percent
respectively in 2007/08 and 2008/09 (MOFPED, 2009)2. The latest growth is mainly due
to food crops (2.9%) as a result of a refocusing of NAADS and agricultural recovery in
Northern Uganda. Cash crops grew at a slower pace of 1.7%. However, this rate of
growth is well below the average national GDP growth rate of 6.5 percent attained
during the period and also below the population growth rate of 3.4 percent. It is also
short of the 6 percent target set by African Governments under the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)3.
b. Poverty reduction: Household surveys for the years 1992, 1999 and 2002 indicate
that national poverty fell from about 60% in 1992 to 34% in 1999, rising again to 38%
in 2002 and again dropping to 31% in 2008. Fiscal Year 1992/93 was a particularly bad
year for agricultural production and corresponds to the highest measured poverty rate.
The year 1999/00, which saw a large decline in the poverty rate, was the second in a
row of three very good years of agricultural production. 2002/03 was also a positive but
below average growth year and this corresponds to the small rise in the poverty rate in
that survey year. This suggests that positive agricultural performance is strongly related
poverty reduction.
c. Food Security: From 1992 to 2005, the country’s average caloric intake only
improved from 1,494 to 1,971 calories per person per day, much less than the WHO
recommended figure of 2,300. Moreover, the number of people deemed food insecure
has increased from 12 million in 1992 to 17.7 million in 2007. This is of course partly a
consequence of the high population growth rate. The population that was 6 million in
1968 is now 30 million and every year there are one million more mouths to feed.
d. Market Performance: There is increasing demand from regional and international
markets for both traditional and non-traditional agricultural products. As the only surplus
producer in the region, surrounded by countries facing a structural deficit in staple crops
(maize, beans and possibly bananas and other crops), Uganda is in a unique position to
exploit its comparative advantage in growing these crops. It is also in a good position to
exploit the high transportation cost barriers facing most countries in the region, and to
use its advantage to compete against imports from outside the region. Proximity to
countries that provide a market for its commodities gives Uganda the competitive
advantage over imports from outside the region.
e. Employment: Agriculture is easily the largest employer in Uganda; indeed the
sector increased its share of the working population from 66 percent in 2002/03 to 73
percent in 2005/064 (as against manufacturing at 4.2 percent and services at 23
percent). This is a challenge as, while structural change is taking place in the economy
labour seems to be stuck in agriculture with manufacturing and services absorbing less
and less of the labour force.
Outputs a. Crops: Over the years 1999/2000 to 2005/06, production of the major crops had a
mixed
record. While positive increases were recorded for cereals (maize, millet, rice and
sorghum), beans and simsim, significant and worrying decreases took place for root
2 MFPED, Background to the Budget, 2009/10. 3 CAADP is an initiative of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development under the African Union. It aims at accelerating growth and eliminating poverty and hunger among African countries by enhancing development in agriculture. The main goal is to help African countries reach a higher path of economic growth through agriculture led-development. The main principles being the pursuit of 6% average annual sector growth rate and the allocation of 10% of the public budget to agriculture. 4 Additionally, the fisheries sector directly employs over 300,000 people with up to 1.2 million more depending on fisheries as a source of income and livelihood (PEAP, 2004).
8
crops (cassava, Irish and sweet potatoes) and export crops. Growth in cash crops was
low at only 1.7% in FY2008/09 as compared to 9.0% in 2007/8. This was mainly due to
the negative growth -3% for coffee which contributes over 60% of the total cash crop
output. Tea also experienced negative (-11.3%) in 2008/09 as compared to 9.8% in the
previous year while cotton experienced positive 85.5% growth as compared to -54%
over the same period.
As for yields,5 it seems the record is even more disturbing. Between 1999 and 2006 nine
major crops showed substantial reductions in yield with only five showing increases.
Only simsim had a significant increase (Table 1).
Table 1: Change in productivity of major crops between 1999 and
2006.
Crop Av yield
(kg/ha)
Mean yield (kg/ha) Change
(%)
Simsim 114.06 277.80 144
Cassava 401.47 543.70 35
Sweet
potato 1,664.20 2,070.20 24
Millet 583.08 718.70 23
Groundnut 679.55 635.90 -6
Irish potato 1,457.20 1,002.70 -31
Sorghum 504.34 323.20 -36
Rice 1,385.12 733.60 -47
Cotton 627.70 292.20 -53
Maize 1,399.50 551.40 -61
Beans 988.36 358.30 -64
Coffee 1,215.03 368.70 -70
Matooke 8,593.96 1,872.10 -78
Source: EMU 2007.
b. Livestock: According to the FAO/IC6, over the last decade, meat production has
been increasing but has not kept pace with population growth. The report states that
between 1995 and 2006, total meat production grew at an annual rate of 1.8 percent but
average domestic meat consumption per capita declined from 10.3 kg per year in 2001
to 8.8 kg per year in 2006.
With regard to milk, FAO (2008) reports that, over the period 1995 to 2006, milk
production increased at an annual growth rate of 4.8 percent, resulting in an increase of
average domestic milk consumption from 20.1 kg per capita per year in 2001 to 25.4 kg
per capita per year in 2006. Specifically, over the 10 years to 2006, improved dairy
breeds have increased in number, reaching 10 percent of the total cattle population.
Consequently, imports of milk and milk products have declined from more than USh50
billion by value in 2001 to less than Us 10 billion in 2006.
c. Fisheries: Fisheries is one of Uganda’s key industries indeed fish exports were for a
while the second most important foreign exchange earner after coffee. Uganda has 20
percent of its surface areas as water. This comprises five major lakes (Victoria, Albert,
Kyoga, Edward and George and about 160 minor lakes, rivers and wetlands). These
water bodies, if well managed, have an estimated production potential of over 800,000
tonnes of fish although the current catch is estimated at 430,000 tonnes.
5 PMA Evaluating (2005) 6 FAO Investment Centre (2008) - End of Mission Report, ATAS Program
9
However, while exports increased dramatically after 1991, they have now witnessed a
serious decline, falling from a peak of 39,201 tons in 2005 to 23,000 tons in 20087 as a
consequence of declining catches, falling stocks and over-fishing.
3. Policy Framework
Over the last 20 years, the Government of Uganda implemented various policies geared
towards eradicating poverty among its people. The government’s development strategy
has been led by the PEAP which was first prepared in 1997, providing a model for the
poverty reduction strategy approach. The PEAP was revised in 2000 and again in 2004.
The last version of the PEAP expired in 2008 and is to be replaced by the National
Development Plan (currently under development).
The PEAP 2004 is presented in five ‘Pillars’; (i) economic management, (ii) production,
competitiveness and incomes, (iii) security, conflict resolution and disaster, (iv)
governance, and (v) human development. In this PEAP, agriculture falls under pillar II:
Enhancing production, competitiveness and incomes. The priorities of pillar II include,
among others, modernisation of agriculture, preservation of the natural resource base,
particularly soil and forests, infrastructure, and private sector skills and business
development. This and the first pillar would also cover entrepreneurship. Each sector of
Government is grouped as far as possible under one pillar. The PEAP recognises that
many sectors contribute to the objectives of other pillars and that there are cross cutting
issues that cut across the whole economy including: Gender, employment, population
growth, social protection, income distribution and regional equity.
Until now, there has been no specific National Agriculture Policy. However, this is being
rectified with the development of a National Agriculture Policy (NAP); currently a draft is
under discussion. The main policy instrument for the implementation of agriculture in the
PEAP has been the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA). The PMA has 11
areas of focus including the three areas of research, extension, rural finance and trade
which could be said to cover the needs of farmer entrepreneurship.
Since 2000, investments in agriculture have been guided by the Plan for Modernization
of Agriculture (PMA) whose main objective is poverty reduction through agricultural
commercialisation. The PMA was designed as a multi-sectoral approach to agricultural
development, based on the recognition that some of the investments needed to make a
difference in agriculture lie outside the mandate of Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF).
In 2005, a Rural Development Strategy (RDS) was designed by the Ministry of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) with three main objectives: (i) increasing
farm productivity of selected commodities produced by agricultural households, (ii)
increasing household output of selected agricultural products, and (iii) adding value and
ensuring a stable market for agricultural products (MFOPED, 2005).
The current Government’s vision for the country is Prosperity for All (PFA), the
programme for which derives from the NRM manifesto of 2006. This emphasizes the
importance of continued liberalization and privatisation but also expresses views that are
more interventionist than have been common in recent times.
7 http://allafrica.com/stories/200909160722.html
10
The concurrent existence of the PMA, RDS and PFA frameworks and visions have raised
some concerns with regard to issues of policy consistency and the extent to which this
might affect the performance of the sector. To respond to these concerns, MAAIF is
developing an explicit comprehensive agricultural sector policy document for Uganda as
part of the implementation of this Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP).
The trade sector is governed by the National Trade Policy (NTP) under the premise that
Uganda’s is a private sector led economy. The MTP spells out interventions covering
domestic and international trade and other cross cutting issues. Domestic trade aims to
promote specific policies, Laws and guidelines. Its implementation aims to develop
commercial offices at the district level, develop market information systems and to
ensure clear and functional linkages between investment, production and trade.
Other policies and strategies include the Strategic Exports Programme (SEP) aim at
promoting specific agriculture enterprises such as, the Marketing and Agro-Processing
Strategy (MAPS) which provides strategies for linking agricultural producers and
domestic and foreign consumers, and for processing to add value and ultimately increase
incomes of the small scale agricultural producers. Other relevant policies include the
National Industrial Policy (NIP) whose goal is to build Uganda’s industrial sector into a
modern, competitive and dynamic sector fully integrated into the domestic, regional and
global economies and the National Cooperatives Development Policy (NCDP), currently
under discussion, with the purpose to achieve a strong, vibrant and prosperous co-
operative movement in Uganda.
Table 2: Relevant PEAP pillars and priorities
Pillars (Priorities) Relevant Priorities for
Agriculture and Farmer
Entrepreneurship
I. Economic management
• The maintenance of macroeconomic stability
• Fiscal consolidation
• Boosting private investment
• Financial Deepening
• Microfinance institutions
• Private Investment
• Trade liberalisation
• Export Diversification
II. Enhancing production, competitiveness and
incomes
• The modernisation of agriculture
• Preservation of the natural resource base,
particularly soil and forests
• Infrastructure including roads, electricity and
railways; better maintenance, cost- reduction and
private sector participation will be key to
achieving improvements in the context of fiscal
consolidation.
• Enhancing private sector skills and business
development.
• Agriculture Research and
Extension
• Business development services
for MSEs
• Outreach of financial services
• Market information
• Other agricultural services
From tables 2 and 3 it can be seen that entrepreneurship is generally covered under
both pillar I and II in the PEAP. The specific issues such as boosting private investment
(pillar I) and enhancing private sector skills and business development (pillar II) are
related to entrepreneurship. Under both pillars, there are priorities that are relevant for
the promotion farmer entrepreneurship. Over the years, government has put in place
policies/ laws and strategies for the attainment of the priorities under the two pillars
relevant to this objective.
11
Table 3: Priorities and laws/policies and strategies
Pillar Relevant Priorities for Agriculture and
Farmer Entrepreneurship
Relevant
Act/Policy/Strategy
Financial Deepening FIS, MDI, MOP
Microfinance Institutions MDI, RFSS, MSC
Private investment PSDP, NIP
Trade liberalisation NTP, MAPS, NIP
I
Export Diversification NTP, MAPS, NIP
Agriculture research and extension PMA, NAADS
Business development services for MSEs PSDP
Outreach of financial services MOP, MDI
II
Market information PSDP, NTP, NCDP,
.
From the above analysis, it may be concluded that existing policies cover the broad
areas of agriculture, finance and private sector development and that these policies
provide sufficient latitude to address specific needs for farmer entrepreneurship. Given
that these are the policies of government that guide development programmes in the
stated sectors, annual budgetary resources are aimed at the implementation of these
policies.
4. Institutional Framework
The agriculture sector (and farmer entrepreneurship) institutional framework manifests
both a private and public sector character and over the last decade, the sector agenda
has been managed largely through a multi-sectoral institutional framework.
Government of Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries and Agencies (MAAIF): The existing
sector management structure consists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and
Fisheries (MAAIF) which has two Directorates (Crop and Animal Resources) and two
stand alone departments for Planning, and for Finance and Administration. Additionally,
there is a unit for Policy Analysis, an Agricultural Resource Centre and eight ‘semi-
autonomous’ agencies namely: Cotton Development Organisation (CDO), the
Coordinating Office for the Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda (COCTU), Dairy
Development Authority (DDA), National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), National
Animal Genetic Resources Centre & Data Bank (NAGRC & DB), National Agriculture
Research Organisation (NARO), the Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA)
Secretariat, and Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA).
Each of these institutions operating at national and sub national levels is responsible for
the execution of approved plans and management of resources in their budgets leaving
MAAIF to concentrate on agricultural policy formulation, support supervision (especially
of Local Governments), sector planning, regulation, sector monitoring and guidance.
MAAIF is also responsible for setting standards and ensuring quality assurance.
Coordination mechanisms to bring sector institutions together for collaboration are found
at inter and intra agency levels. PMA institutional arrangements (including the PMA
Steering Committee and sub committees) provide the framework for inter sectoral
collaboration and coordination. Intra-sectoral collaboration and decision making on the
other hand is managed through MAAIF’s Top Policy Management (TPM) committee,
which also includes the Ministry political leadership. The Agriculture Sector Working
Group (ASWG) is an arrangement that brings together MAAIF, public agriculture
institutions, CSOs and development partners for policy guidance and dialogue. The
interests of farmer entrepreneurship are catered for by farmers’ representatives on the
boards of MAAIF agencies (NAADS, PMA, etc), farmer organisations such as Uganda
National Farmers’ Federation (UNFFE) and the Uganda Local Government Association.
12
Local Governments: Since 1992, Decentralisation Policy has sought to strengthen local
governance structures by devolving service delivery, promoting participation and
empowering local people. MAAIF’s responsibility in this regard is to support Local
Governments (LGs) to deliver services relating to regulatory services, quality assurance
services, and agriculture statistics and information.
MAAIF also assists with capacity building in local government. MAAIF does this through
Agriculture Advisory Services and District Production Services. Under Agriculture
Advisory Services, MAAIF aims to (i) increase farmer access to improved technologies,
advisory service delivery, and “proactive participation in value chain development for
profitable agricultural production”; (ii) empower farmers to demand for advisory services
and technologies, and quality assurance services. Under District Production Services the
ministry aims to (i) to strengthen Local Government capacity in the delivery of services
relating to regulatory services, quality assurance services, agriculture statistics and
information; and capacity building for local governments; (ii) to strengthen disease, pest
and vector control and quality assurance services; improve the agriculture statistics and
information system; and build capacity in local government.
Although there is no formally established coordination framework for farmer
entrepreneurship for all (public, private, civil society, NGOs, etc) actors at the local
government level, there is substantial collaboration taking place and many CSOs, private
companies and NGOs are currently involved, through contacts, in the implementation,
capacity building and monitoring and evaluation of farmer entrepreneurship activities.
The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development: The Ministry of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) is responsible for ensuring that sectoral
developments are well co-ordinated and appropriately funded. The principal mechanism
is the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) which is meant to provide a reliable,
rolling 3-year guide to overall, sector and sub-sector budget allocations. MFPED insists
that the substantive new budgeting procedures introduced for 2009/10, including the
requirement for signed Performance Contracts, will lead to more performance monitoring
and better budget discipline.
Funding8 for the agriculture sector from the GOU-financed budget showed a marked
decline through the 1980s from 9.6 percent in 1980/81, as the nature of the economy
changed under structural adjustment. Since 1991/92, agriculture has not received more
than 3 percent of the GOU-financed budget in any year and in some years the share has
been below 2 percent. Regular information on donor-financing of the budget is only
available since 2000/01. Information collected on public expenditure on agricultural
sector since 2001/02 at both the central- and local-government level by GOU and donors
raised the share of the GOU budget allocated to the sector to almost 8 percent in
2001/02 but there has been a continuous decline since to 5.7 percent in 2005/06. The
budget has decreased, in real terms, from approximately UGX 280 billion at the start of
the decade to UGX 210billion in 2005/06. Direct donor funding is also on the decline,
from approximately UGX 125 billion at the start of the decade to only UGX 76 billion in
2007/8. Decentralisation in sector financing is deepening, the share of the sector budget
channelled through local government rising from 7 percent of the total at the start of the
period, to 19 percent by 2005/06.
Other Sector Ministries and Agencies: Other ministries and agencies play critical and
complimentary roles to enable MAAIF deliver on its mandate. The roles of institutions
like the National Parliament and Ministries responsible for these sectors are important.
They include the Parliamentary committee on agriculture, which is responsible for
oversight as well as review and approval of proposed policies and strategies for the
sector. Other ministries and agencies include: Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry
8 Uganda: Agriculture Public Expenditure Review, 2007
13
(MTTI) responsible for trade; Ministry of Public Service responsible for personnel
management and development; Ministry of Water and Environment; Ministry of Gender
Labour and Social Development responsible for gender adult education and labour, the
Ministry of Education responsible for primary, secondary and tertiary education; Ministry
of Lands, and Urban Development responsible for land reforms including land use; and
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development responsible for rural energy and
electrification.
The Ministries named above also have agencies that are critical for agriculture sector
activities like Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), Uganda National Bureau of Standards
(UNBS), Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (UNCST), National Forestry
Authority (NFA) and National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), among
others.
Other agencies of the Government of Uganda that are involved in the promotion of
entrepreneurship include institutions of higher learning and research such as
universities, colleges of higher education (commerce, education and technical) and
cooperative development colleges. These institutions are involved in the generation and
propagation of knowledge
The Private Sector The private sector includes private companies, and farmer organisations, involved in
activities such as production, processing, marketing, knowledge generation, advisory
services, advocacy, provision of inputs, etc.
Private Companies: With the national policy of liberalisation of the economy, many
private companies are currently active in all segments of most value chains including
cotton, coffee, food commodities, etc, which were previously the preserve of state owned
marketing parastatal companies. It is therefore current practice for private companies to
engage in production, processing and marketing of all farm produce. The profile of the
private companies shows a full spectrum of firms from large international/multination
companies to MSEs.
Farmer Organisations: Over the years, Uganda’s agriculture sector was driven by
farmer’s organisations, mainly through the cooperative movement9. Under this
arrangement, many farmers produced and marketed crops such as cotton coffee,
tobacco, etc. They were also engaged in transport, dairy, shops, etc. At their peak, the
co-operatives were organized in a four tier vertical structure of primary societies (at the
village level) that consist of at least 30 persons aged above 12 years. A minimum of two
primary societies form a secondary (at the district level) while two or more secondary
societies form a tertiary (at the national level) which provides specialized services.
Secondary and tertiary societies form the apex at the national level.
This structure of the cooperative movement existed across the whole country. Under this
arrangement, primary cooperative societies sold their produce to the secondary, the
secondary to the tertiary which then sold to the national marketing boards. For example,
cotton was sold to the Lint marketing Board, Coffee to the Coffee Marketing Board, food
commodities to the Produce Marketing Board, and milk to the Dairy Corporation. These
marketing boards were parastatal companies of the government of Uganda.
Under economic liberalisation, at the national level, the marketing boards were
restructured to retain regulatory and standards roles; hence the birth of the Cotton
Development Authority, the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, the Dairy
Development Authority. At the lower levels, most of the cooperative societies (village
9 As the main marketing channels during this period, cooperative societies existed in nearly every village and district where relevant activities took place.
14
and district) were nearly completely wiped out as private sector companies ventured into
the lower segments of the value chains. In spite of this paradigm shift, some sub-sector
cooperative organisations such as the Uganda Cooperative Alliance, the Uganda
Cooperative Transport Union, the Uganda Cooperative Savings and Credit Union, and
some Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies (SACCOS) still exist though in
restructured and modified roles.
After two decades under the marketing structure described above, there is an emerging
opinion that the cooperative movement still has a significant role in a modern liberalised
economy. This is generating increased political support and farmer groups are
increasingly being promoted as credible vehicles for poverty reduction. To this effect, a
new National Cooperative Development Policy (NCDP) whose purpose to achieve a
strong, vibrant and prosperous co-operative movement in Uganda, has been developed
and is currently under discussion. The implementation of national strategies using the
cooperative movement such as seen in the roles of SACCOS in the Prosperity for All and
the Rural Financial Services Strategy (RFSS) is manifestation of political support for the
cooperative movement.
With the near demise of the cooperative movement, other farmer organisations and
associations emerged around sub-sector and or specific issues. Such organisations
include the Uganda National Farmers Federation (UNFFE) which was founded in 1992
with the objective to mobilize the farming community and voices under one independent
umbrella organisation, associations covering many commodities such as dairy, cotton,
honey, timber, etc and specific issues such as production, processing and marketing.
Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) Another area of growth was in Non Governmental Organisations which were set up with
mandates such as the generation and dissemination of knowledge and implementation of
development projects. Accordingly many international and national NGOs are currently
key stakeholders in Uganda’s farmer entrepreneurship development. They collaborate in
research and the implementation of extension and advisory services and are actively
involved in activities such as farmer mobilization and farmer institutions’ capacity
development. Under such programmes NGOs are involved in the supervision of extension
service delivery.
Development Partners Since 2000, the PEAP framework shaped a new relationship between Government and
Development Partners (DPs) at the economy-wide level. There was a shift from project-
focused aid to sector programmes. The MTEF/BFP process provided the framework for
this, with DPs (and also NGOs) participating in the sector working groups through which
sector plans and budgets evolved. The funding modalities also changed with key DPs
providing either general or sector-earmarked budget support, based on dialogue with
GOU about policies and targets, rather than earmarking to specific projects.
The number of Development Partners supporting the agricultural sector has reduced in
recent years. This trend is evident in most sectors as donors refined their roles in
Uganda’s national economy Uganda and also as some Development Partners move to
general sector budget support as their preferred funding modality. Nonetheless there
are still major DPs who, as already indicated, are making a significant contribution in
financing and technical and policy advice (through the ASWG) to the sector, through
sector and general budget support. These DPs include: The World Bank, The African
Development Bank, The International Fund for Agriculture Development, The European
Union and DANIDA and JICA continue to be involved in support to public sector
agriculture. Under this financing arrangement, the government of Uganda determines its
own priorities based on its policies and development plans including those related to
farmer entrepreneurship.
15
5. Constraints and Challenges
Over the years, significant development and achievements have been made in the
agriculture sector to support farmer entrepreneurship. In spite of these achievements,
many challenges remain and they represent possible areas for further interventions by
all stakeholders (government, DPs, NGOs, CBOs, and the private sector) in the coming
planning periods.
Technology Many improved varieties, breeds and prototypes for increased yields, food security and
incomes have been developed since. At the same time, specific constraints have been
addressed including maize streak virus, groundnut rosette virus, cassava mosaic virus;
coffee wilt diseases.
In terms of sustainable land use, the National Agriculture Research Organisation (NARO)
has demonstrated an important set of results relating to natural resource management
adopted by households, including mulching and zero-tillage, as well as slash and burn
practices, have significant and positive impacts on farm productivity. In terms of
extension delivery, the National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) has promoted
private delivery of extension services covering over seventy enterprises.
The challenge with adoption of new technologies is that there is no clearly defined
process for extension to access the new technologies being generated by research and
there are only limited mechanisms for feedback on the technologies released by research
and extension services are not enough and many farmers continue to demand for it.
Farmers do not get the opportunity to consider technology options for appropriateness to
their situation. Additionally, lack of a clearly defined feedback mechanism between
research and extension undermines efficient refinement of technologies.
As regards soil fertility, there remains room for improving soil fertility through better
management practices, but it also indicates that farmers who are not practicing these
methods, and who are also not using fertilizers, are likely depleting soil fertility quite
rapidly.
Marketing The elastic demand for commodities suggests that additional production could be
absorbed domestically while livestock products also have good market prospects.
Despite the recent fall in commodity prices brought on by the current global downturn,
the long-term prognosis is still one of a rising trend for global food prices especially for
key commodities. This should offer clear opportunities for a net food-producing country
like Uganda.
Nevertheless, a number of constraints threaten to undermine this potential:
Commodity volumes: The nature of agricultural production in Uganda is predominantly
subsistence. Farmers are unable to produce the quantities in line with national and
export demand orders. This leads to the loss of trust in export markets as well as share
since competitors step up their supplies. Notable cases where Uganda has failed to meet
export demand are in honey and fish.
Quality assurance standards: Standards are increasingly becoming important in the
international trade for food and agricultural products because they “stipulate what can or
cannot be exchanged and define the procedures that must be followed for exchange to
take place”. The export sector often fails to meet these standards and where attempts
towards compliance have been made, the associated costs have remained high and
prohibitive for the majority of the exporters. Apart from pockets of enhanced Sanitary,
Phyto-sanitary (SPS) and other Standards developed in response to export market
16
requirements (such as for fish) or acute problems (such as certain animal diseases),
Uganda lacks a broader strategy to utilize agro-food standards to protect human, plant
and animal health.
In the local market, standards are also important to ensure compliance with national
health standards but also to promote trade through storage of commodities in
warehouses licensed under the Warehouse Receipts Systems.
Market information and linkages: Market and production information is a resource
required in the making of all business decisions. Although there has been sporadic
attempts to collect market and production information, this information is not readily and
sufficiently available to agents involved in agribusiness and trading. The framework for
collection of data at the lower government level is not well established and data for
planning is mostly lacking. The result is usually poor production and market planning
decisions and losses for ill-informed agents and farmers.
Markets for agricultural products are now on the increase often as specialized niche
markets with specific (such as organic, traceability, etc) characteristics and
requirements. Such markets call for prior planning of production and value addition
infrastructure so as to match farmers’ supply with market demands. Unfortunately, in
Uganda today, these linkages are at best weak and in many cases not existent. Thus,
there is a growing need to link producers with those value chain players involved in
agro-processing and marketing.
Market infrastructure: In Uganda, agricultural production takes place in rural areas
where market infrastructure is inadequate or not available at all. For successful
marketing, the kind of infrastructure required includes good feeder roads,
communication facilities, electricity, pre-cooling and pack houses, cold and dry storage
facilities, refrigerated trucks, air freight facilities, and so forth. Unfortunately some of the
infrastructure is of public good nature and a framework for private sector financing of
such infrastructure is not defined. Even in the case of private good nature, farmer
entrepreneurs indicate that the current high cost of finance is a hindrance to the
acquisition of such infrastructure.
Export development competencies: Key competencies are needed for doing business in
other countries. Exporters should be able negotiate and execute export orders properly
as well as have reasonable knowledge in strategic export planning, management and
marketing. At the moment, there is no established institution in Uganda that is
responsible for training exporters on essential and basic export skills rendering the
export markets unachievable by most farmer entrepreneurs.
Finance The ability of agricultural enterprises and rural households to invest for the long term
and make calculated decisions for risky income flows is partly shaped by accessibility and
cost financial services. In spite of recent growth in the financial sector, a majority of
smallholders, especially in the rural areas, remain without access to the services they
need to compete in the market.
Lack of suitable development financing schemes for more affordable is still a big
challenge for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Although the Bank of Uganda did
institute some credit finance schemes, they remained inaccessible to the majority of the
small and medium exporters not only on technical grounds but also because of high
interest rates. Other sources of finance such as micro-finance are too costly and
conventional commercial banks are reluctant to finance agriculture and agro-based
export business due to perceived high risk and unpredictability.
17
Infrastructure Infrastructure that supports agriculture cover certain categories including water for
production-related infrastructure (irrigation, livestock and aquaculture), disease control
infrastructure, research infrastructure, quality assurance infrastructure including
laboratories, market infrastructure, institutional infrastructure (e.g. offices). The state of
the infrastructure is generally inadequate and requires enhancement.
Farmer Organisation Arising from the general economic liberalization policy, competition for farm products
has increased in the market place with the involvement of large processors,
supermarkets and middlemen. These players exercise controlling powers in determining
market conditions and prices as well as stringent supply requirements and standards in
terms of quality, safety, consistency and traceability.
Unfortunately for the small scale farmer entrepreneurs who operate as individuals, they
have been reduced to weak players in the supply chain, with lower returns to their
farming activities. They do not have power to negotiate good prices as they, as
individuals, are not able to command large volumes of inputs and supply large volumes
of produce to the market.
The cooperative movement, when it existed, as strong in the mitigation of the adverse
market conditions affecting farmers. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case even where
some apex or farmer organisations exist. Many of these farmer organisations are
inhibited by inadequate technical, managerial and financial capacity to mitigate the
adverse conditions. The demand for strong and empowered farmer organisations is
therefore quite strong.
Cross-cutting Issues As well as the specific subject area issues, there are also a range of wider, cross-cutting
concerns that should be addressed: HIV/AIDS, gender, environment, Climate Change,
poverty, and food and nutrition security. These all have a critical impact on the
performance of the agricultural sector. An analysis of the impact and of any
opportunities available follows.
HIV/AIDS: The HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a multiplicity of negative impacts on
agricultural production in Uganda, including: forced selling by farmers of produce and
stock at inopportune times to meet costs; diverted expenditure towards medical bills;
reduced labour availability due to sickness and increased care obligations; reduced
household income due to falling productivity, leading to reduced school attendance,
reduced food security and nutrition, all tending towards the downward spiral; loss of the
most productive workforce (15-40 yrs); and dismantling of the family set up, resulting in
a decline in production and productivity, food insecurity, low incomes, increased health
care costs, greater job insecurity.
Gender and Youth: In Uganda, women constitute an estimated 70 per cent of
smallholder farmers and contribute about 70-75 per cent of agricultural GDP. According
to the Uganda 2002 Population Census, the agricultural sector employed a higher
proportion of women in employment (83 per cent) than men (71 per cent).
Division of labour between men and women in Uganda varies by region and farming
system. However some tasks are almost exclusively undertaken by men, and some by
women. Women usually undertake sowing, harvesting, head loading of produce, crop-
drying, winnowing, seed selection, pig and poultry-rearing and bartering sunflower seeds
for oil. Other tasks, such as weeding, bagging and crop storage, are almost equally
undertaken by both women and men.
18
It is estimated that women do 85% of the planting, 85% of the weeding, 55% of land
preparation and 98% of all food processing. At the same time, a substantial amount of
women’s time is taken up in providing care activities. In rural areas, it is estimated that
women’s workloads considerably exceed those of men. Given the foregoing, the role of
women in farmer organisations is becoming increasingly important and recognised.
Where cooperative societies used to be predominantly run by men, women are
increasingly recognised as dependable managers and owners of such organisations.
The low participation of the youth in agriculture is partly attributed to issues of access
and control over productive resources (land and capital), as well as limited knowledge
and skills in modern farming techniques. With the population growth rate so high,
however, it is unavoidable that the majority of the Ugandan population is made up of
young people and ways must be found to utilise this vast untapped labour force.
The Environment: Agricultural activities can have a major impact on land use, soil,
water, biodiversity and the landscape. Specifically, there are a number of environmental
issues (land degradation, agro-chemical pollution, etc) in agriculture with significant
implications on the performance of the sector. These will need to be addressed to
enhance sustainability of agriculture. Although at the national level, the National
Environment Management Agency is the main regulatory agency on environment
management, line ministries such as MAAIF have responsibility for agriculture related
issues. Important stakeholders in regard to the environment management include NGOs,
research institutions and the private sectors. Many farmers are yet to be educated about
their roles in sustainable natural resources management.
Climate Change: Given the Uganda’s heavy dependence on agriculture, the effects of
climate change could clearly put millions of people at greater risk of poverty and hunger.
Essentially climate change is just one of a number of stress factors (food insecurity,
conflict, malaria, energy deficit etc). Climate change aspects like heavy rainfall, floods,
drought and hailstorms are becoming common and frequent and have considerable
negative effects on agricultural activities and food security.
Vulnerability to climate shocks will influence the performance of the agriculture sector
and therefore there is a need to mainstream sustainable management of the
environment and natural resources in agricultural plans and programmes and to
strengthen capacity on an early warning system.
Currently, in Uganda, there is no strategy to manage climate change and, as a result,
there are no reliable predictions or early warning of the likely impacts of climate change
in Uganda. There is no weather and climate policy, there are low levels of awareness of
weather and climate issues, inadequate determination of adaptation and mitigation
options to control green house gas emissions. Although the Ministry of Water and
Environment indicates that it has prepared the National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA)
to address issues of climate change at national level it says it lacks funds to implement
it.
6. Existing Interventions by APF Members
The Affiliation matrix was summarised to bring out the salient features of the
participation of APF members in the various areas of strategic choices. For this purpose,
the strategic choices have been summarised as indicated in table 1 below. Details of the
strategic choices are given by the menu of products they contain as shown in the
ensuing strategic choice matrices.
The 13 APF members have made a total of 37 strategic choice areas, with two members
(CORDAID and Oxfam Novib) participating in the most number (5 out of 6) of thematic
areas, while two members (Oikocredit and Wageningen) with the highest level of
19
specialisation, show participation in only one of the areas of strategic choice; viz
Financial Services and Knowledge and Research respectively.
Participation in specific strategies choice areas also varies with the highest number of
members (9) choosing Value Chain and Market Access (VCMA) and the lowest number
(4) of members showing participation in Food production and Cross Cutting issues. Other
strategic choice options are chosen by between six and eight members.
Table 4: Matrix of Summary Activity Areas
Organisation CRCT FISS FOPR KWGE ODID VCMA
Total
Areas
1. Agriterra 4
2. Agro-Eco 2
3. CORDAID 5
4. Heifer Nederland 2
5. HIVOS 3
6. ICCO 3
7. KIT 2
8. Oikocredit 1
9. Oxfam Novib 5
10. Send a Cow 4
11. SNV 3
12. Solidaridad 2
13. WUR 1
Total 4 6 4 6 8 9 37
Key:
CCT-Cross Cutting Issues
FISS- Financial Services
FOPR-Food Production
KWGE-Knowledge and Research
ODID-Organisational and Institutional Development
VCMA-Value Chain and Market Access
This analysis might be useful for members wish to review the number of areas of
strategic choices in which to engage. For this purpose, internal SWOT analyses would
help to determine the strengths and weaknesses afflicting members as they attempt to
respond to the opportunities and threats that face them. In rationalising the size of areas
of intervention, development partners could be guided by factors such as: (i) the
intended depth of operation in the sectors they choose including the amount of resources
available to them, (ii) the internal technical expertise they bring to the sectors of choice.
Further analysis is undertaken, in the tables 2 to 7 in annex in annex, to bring out the
specific products that constitute the strategic choices of members. This is also reviewed
here in light of the constraints/opportunities existing relating to the products.
Financial Services (FISS): Members of the APF show engagement in four (loans, micro
credit, guarantees and micro-insurance) products (table 2, annex 2). This table also
shows that there are only 9 product choices made by 6 out of the 13 the members who
show participation in financial services. One member, Oikocredit, shows participation in 3
of the 4 products currently under offer and also demonstrating the highest (only one
strategic choice area) level of focus. Four members (Agriterra, CORDAID, Oxfam Novib
and Send a Cow) show participation in only one product. The most and least popular
products are micro credit and micro-insurance respectively with three and one members
respectively.
20
It is noteworthy that only a six members of APF are engaged in financial services and
that they offer a small number (4) of products under financial services although there
are so many products (grants, savings, accounts, leasing, warehouse receipts, etc) in
financial services. This is in spite of the fact that inadequate access to affordable
financial services especially in rural areas is cited as a significant hindrance development
and therefore poverty reduction by all including government, development partners,
NGOs and CSOs and the rural farmers.
Food Production (FOPR): Food Production was refined into four products as crops (staple
foods, maize, cassava, and pulses), poultry, dairy and livestock. Table 3, annex 2 shows
that there are only 7 product choices made by 4 of the 13 members who indicate
participation in Food Production. One member (Oxfam Novib) shows participation in only
one product while the remaining three members each participate in two products.
It is important to point out that the definition of products in this strategic choice area
was somewhat difficult given that some of the products are also covered under the Value
Chains and Market Access strategic choice. However, in the cases indicated here, the
APF member clearly demonstrated support for the product for the purposes of improving
food (and nutrition) supply. In the case of CORDAID, support for crops was specifically
for staple crops, Heifer Nederland was nutrition, Oxfam Novib was maize and Send a
Cow, Livestock development.
Knowledge and Research (KWGE): Knowledge and Research was refined into five
products of Impact Research, Scientific Research, Social Research, Economic Research
and Knowledge Sharing as indicated in table 4 of annex 2. The table shows 15 product
choices made by 5 out of 13 APF members who indicate participation in the strategic
choice area. The highest level of participation is by four members in social research and
the lowest by two members in scientific research. Agro-Eco and Oxfam Novib in Impact
and Social Research respectively demonstrate the lowest (1) product by a member.
Wageningen covers all the product areas; this being its only area of strategic choice
while KIT and SNV cover four of the five products.
It has been pointed out that technology and its adoption are important issues for farmer
entrepreneurship. It is also directly linked to the provision of advisory services to framer
entrepreneurs. Additionally, there is indication that there is insufficient data to support
planning for production and marketing.
Organisation and Institutional Development (ODID): Organisational and Institutional
Development is defined by five products (table 5, annex 2) of management information
systems, research and advocacy, governance, capacity building and technical assistance
and advisory services. This strategic choice area represents the highest level of
participation with 21 products by nine out of 13 APF members.
The most and least popular products are Capacity Building (7 members) and Technical
Assistance and Advisory Services (one member). The members with the most (5)
products in this strategic choice area is SNV and with the least (1 product) are Agro-Eco,
HIVOS and Solidaridad.
Value Chain and Market Access (VCMA)): Value Chains and Market Access is defined
using five products as indicated in table 6 of annex 2. The products include technical
services that are required in the support of value chain development, the segments of
the value chains and a grouping (crops or livestock) of the value chains themselves. This
strategic choice area represents the highest level of participation with 19 products by 7
members.
21
The most and least popular products are the Crops Value Chains (7 members) and
Livestock Value Chain (3 members). The value chains covered include coffee, cotton,
oilseed, horticulture, apiculture, dairy, etc. The members with the most (5) products in
this strategic choice area are CORDAID, SNV, and Send a Cow. Six members of the APF
do not participate in this strategic choice area.
Cross Cutting Issues: Cross cutting issues represent the category least shown by
members. Only three (out of 13) members indicate participation in a cross cutting issue.
Additionally, only three cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, Gender and Governance) are
covered leaving out such important cross cutting issues as environment, climate change,
human rights, etc. This is the case in spite of the fact that members are current involved
in activities that impact and or are impacted on by the cross cutting issues.
Areas of coverage: With the exception of ICCO and KIT which do not show data relating
to existing area coverage (annex 1b) in the country, all the other APF members indicated
that they have a national presence and outlook. In cases where a national presence has
not yet been achieved, the indication is that this is only a function of the current level of
operation which could change depending on resources and demand. Some of the
members indicated a regional (East Africa) and continental (Africa) presence.
Collaboration/Partnerships: Members such as SNV, HIVOS, CORDAID, Agriterra and
Oikocredit are shown to be in ongoing collaborations with other members. Reasons
leading to such collaborations and the lessons learned from them would be beneficial to
all. Again, with the exception of ICCO and KIT which do not show any data on
partnerships, there are existing partnerships with local organisations. The number of
partners exhibited by members ranges from one or two to over ten. In some cases,
organisations are partners of more than one APF members. Again, lessons on the
justification for and the experiences from such partnerships would be beneficial to all.
7. Emerging Issues and Development Opportunities
This study brings out six key issues as being of concern to Uganda. It also identifies
current areas of interest for the APF members. The purpose of this chapter is to attempt
a linkage between the most important existing challenges for farmer entrepreneurship in
Uganda and the strategic areas of the APF members. While there are many constraints,
only the most important ones are presented here for possible further discussion. The
task is up to the APF members to evaluate how their strategies can be tailored to
respond to the challenges facing Uganda
Technology It has been pointed out that technology and its adoption are important issues for the
sector. It is also directly linked to the provision of advisory services to farmer
entrepreneurs. There is a general acknowledgement that much of the basic technology is
available and that the challenge is really about making it accessible and available to
farmers. The existing agriculture advisory services under NAADs has been widely
criticised for not reaching all those who need it. Yet food nutrition and security is an
important national objective for Uganda. This is even more critical given the dreaded and
yet expected adverse impact of climate change and the increasing unsustainable
exploitation of land rendering it infertile.
The analysis of current activities of APF members shows that six out of thirteen are
currently involved in knowledge and research with only two members (KIT and WUR)
involved in scientific research and three (KIT, SNV and WUR) are involved in Knowledge
Sharing. Additionally, as technology is related to food production, it is noteworthy that
four (CORDAID, Heifer Nederland, Oxfam Novib and Send a Cow) of the thirteen
members are involved in this category and that they might be attracted to delivery of
technology going forward.
22
Marketing There are a number of issues that affect marketing generally and farmer
entrepreneurship in particular. Issues emerging from this study include the need to
enhance market power of farmers through production of larger volumes for the market,
ensuring acceptable standards of produce, provision of necessary market information
and infrastructure, and adequate capacity competences in export practices. These short
comings call for institutional development and capacity building of farmers and farmer
organisations
There are seven out of thirteen APF members that currently provide Value Chain
enhancing services generally. An equally high number (8 out 13) of APF members are
currently involved in institution and organisational development. As many members of
APF are already involved in capacity building including for marketing and yet these
issues continue to abound, it may be necessary to rethink and reposition for the delivery
of capacity development services for enhancing market management capacity.
Finance The ability of agricultural enterprises and rural households to invest for the long term
and make calculated decisions for risky income flows is partly shaped by accessibility and
cost of financial services. In spite of recent growth in the financial sector, a majority of
smallholders, especially in the rural areas, remain without access to the services they
need to compete in the market.
Lack of suitable development financing schemes for more affordable is still a big
challenge for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Although the Bank of Uganda did
institute some credit finance schemes, they remained inaccessible to the majority of the
small and medium exporters not only on technical grounds but also because of high
interest rates. Other sources of finance such as micro-finance are too costly and
conventional commercial banks are reluctant to finance agriculture and agro-based
export business due to perceived high risk and unpredictability.
In spite of the importance of financial services to farmer entrepreneurship, only six
members of APF indicate engagement in these services and that they offer only a small
number (four) of products although there are many (grants, savings, accounts, leasing,
warehouse receipts, etc) of them in financial services. This is in spite of the fact that
inadequate access to affordable financial services especially in rural areas is cited by all
stakeholders as a significant hindrance to development and therefore poverty reduction.
Only one member, Oikocredit, shows participation in three of the four products cited.
Four members (Agriterra, CORDAID, Oxfam Novib and Send a Cow) show participation in
only one product. Given the stated high demand for financial services, it is not clear why
only a few members are involved in the provision of this service.
Farmer Organisation Organised as individuals, farmers do not have the power to demand for and deliver large
volumes of inputs and produce, respectively, to enable them negotiate good prices. Even
in the case of existing farmer organisations, it is recognised that they have weak
capacities in terms of institutional (systems and procedures) and legal framework and
technical and managerial capacity. This has impact on the effectiveness of farmer
activities across the value chain including the quantity and quality of production and the
processing and marketing efforts.
23
The affiliation matrix shows that many (eight out thirteen) APF members are involved in
institutional and organisations development activities. Members are engaged in Capacity
Building (seven members) and Technical Assistance and Advisory Services (one
member). Given that many APF members are already involved in capacity development
for farmer organisations, it may be necessary for members to carefully review the
impact of their involvement.
Cross-cutting Issues Many cross-cutting issues are important in the promotion of farmer entrepreneurship
and need to be addressed appropriately. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a multiplicity of
negative impacts on agricultural production in Uganda. Women who constitute an
estimated 70 per cent of smallholder farmers and contribute about 70-75 per cent of
agricultural GDP are too important to be positioned inappropriately in the sector and so
are the you whose current participation if too low. Given the Uganda’s heavy
dependence on agriculture, the effects of climate change and the impact of
unsustainable land utilisation practices could clearly put millions of people at greater risk
of poverty and hunger.
Cross cutting issues represent the category least cited by APF members. Only three (out
of 13) members indicate participation in a cross cutting issue. Additionally, only three
cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, Gender and Governance) are covered leaving out such
important cross cutting issues as environment, climate change, human rights, etc. It is
therefore clear that there is a need to critically review the handling of cross cutting
issues with a view to strengthening interventions to address them.
24
Annex 1: Strategic Choices of APF Members
Organisation Strategic Choice(s)
Products Target Group Existing Collaborator(s)
CRCT HIV/AIDS
FISS Micro-insurance
ODID RIS
Lobbying Capacity
Oilseed VCMA
Coffee
1. Agriterra
Pineapple
Apex Organisations
Farmers Organisations Cooperatives
SNV MIAN
Fair Trade
KWGE Impact
Certification
Business Support
Market Information
Organic Horticulture
2. Agro-Eco
VCMA
Coffee
Private Companies
Farmer Groups Community Groups
NGOs
FISS Micro credit
Staple Foods FOPR
Poultry
KWGE Socio-Land Rights
Financial Management
Group Development
Monitoring & Evaluation
Governance
Emergency Relief
ODID
Lobbying Capacity
Access to Market
Market Information
Market Linkages
Milk
Honey
Potatoes
Vanilla
Oilseed
3. CORDAID
VCMA
Pepper
NGOs
Private Companies
Religious Organisations
HIVOS
Caritas Organisation
Dairy
Training and Extension
Nutrition
FOPR
Livestock
4. Heifer
Nederland
ODID Group Development
Dairy Farmers Suppliers
Processors
CRCT Gender
Lobbying Capacity
Research Capacity
ODID
Certification
Cotton
Coffee
Fruits
Ground Nuts
Maize
Livestock
Cocoa
5. HIVOS
VCMA
Honey
Women Groups
NGOs
Cooperatives
25
Organisation Strategic Choice(s)
Products Target Group Existing Collaborator(s)
Governance
Security
Health Care
Education
CRCT
HIV/AIDS
Loans FISS
Guarantees
Access to Markets
6. ICCO
VCMA
Business Development
NGOs
CRCT Gender and Women
Scientific Research
Biomedical
Social Research
Health
Gender
Education
Culture
Economic Research
Business Development
7. KIT
KWGE
Training
NGOs Universities
Loans
Micro credit
8. Oikocredit FISS
Guarantees
Financial Institutions
Non-Bank F Institutions Cooperatives
NGOs
FISS Micro credit
FOPR Maize
Cassava
Pulses
Vegetables
FOPR
Nuts/Butter
Socio- Applied
Research
KWGE
Land Rights
Trade Lobbying
Group Development
Lobbying Capacity
Access to Markets
9. Oxfam
Novib
ODID
RIS
BDS Providers NGOs
Lobby Groups INGOs
Prolinova
FISS Micro credit
FOPR Livestock Development
Support Training
RIS
Livestock feeds
development
ODID
Group Strengthening
Business Management
Coffee
Livestock
10. Send A
Cow
VCMA
Marketing
INGOs NGOs
Farmers Cooperative
Societies Government Agencies
RRM-K
26
Organisation Strategic Choice(s)
Products Target Group Existing Collaborator(s)
Impact
Sharing-Publishing
KWGE
Sharing- Knowledge
Brokering
Group Development
Training
Technical Assistance
Stakeholder processes
RIS
BDS Provider
Strengthening
ODID
Advisory Services
Horticulture
Apiculture
Dairy
Oilseed
Access to Markets
Market Intelligence
Certification
11. SNV
VCMA
Financing
Apex Organisations
Farmer Groups Private Sector
BDS Providers Financial
Institutions
Government
Agencies
ASPS DANIDA
Agriterra
Capacity Building ODID
Certification
Coffee
Productivity
12.
Solidaridad
VCMA
Quality Enhancement
NGOs Small Farmers
Scientific Research
Biodiversity
Floriculture
Banana
Nature Conservation
Anti-ticks Vaccines
Forestry
Social Research
Hunger
Land use Systems
Nutrient Accounting
Urban Sanitation
Gender Dynamics
13. WUR KWGE
Capacity for Value
Chains
NGOs Small Farmers
Universities Research Institutes
KEY:
1. CRCT- Cross Cutting Issues
2. FISS- Financial Services
3. FOPR- Food Production
4. KWGE- Knowledge and Research
5. ODID- Organisation and Institutional Development
6. VCMA-Value Chain and Market Access
27
Annex 1b: Partners and Areas
Organisation Partner(s) Coverage Target Group Existing Collaborator(s)
1. Agriterra KIDFA, LUDFA, UCA
UNFFE, UOSPA, ACPCU
National Apex Organisations
Farmers
Organisations
Cooperatives
SNV, MIAN
Fair Trade
2. Agro-Eco Bio Uganda, CPNU
IBERO, LOPF (Shares),
Nile Trees Uganda,
Rwot Ber, and
Tree Shade Farming
All areas possible
(currently in
Central, East, Mid-
north)
Private Companies
Farmer Groups
Community Groups
NGOs
Solidaridad, HIVOS,
ILIEA, CORDAID
3. CORDAID CD Fort Portal, LEMU,
JIDDECO, AMFIU, SSD
Moroto, MADEFO, KADP
UGMP, and East Africa
Botanicals
National (Currently
all regions)
Private Companies
Religious
Organisations
Farmer
Organisations
Farmers
HIVOS, Caritas
Organisation, Belgian
Government
4. Heifer
Nederland
Send a Cow and HPI
Uganda
National (Central,
East)
Dairy Farmers
Suppliers
Processors
Districts
SNV, HIVOS, Comic
Relief, Pelum
5. HIVOS KFGWPA, RRM-K,
NOGAMU, SATNET,
KRC, JESE, Greenhouse,
BBC, and
Organics
National (Kasese) Women Groups
NGOs
Cooperatives
Umbrella
Organisations
6. ICCO No Data No Data NGOs
7. KIT No Data No Data NGOs
Universities
8. Oikocredit CMF, Pearl MF, EMSCO
Dev Foundation, CEDO,
RUCREF, UML, UFT,
UGAFODE, WASEMP,
VBS, Faulu, MEDNET,
ELMASCO, Bugema Uni,
Lugazi SACCO
National (Rural and
urban
Financial
Institutions
Non-Bank F
Institutions
Cooperatives
NGOs
9. Oxfam
Novib
ACORD, CEFORD,
Environmental Alert,
SEATINI, ULA, VEDCO,
Cream West Nile, Pelum
Uganda
National and
Regional
BDS Providers
NGOs
Lobby Groups
INGOs
Prolinova
10. Send A
Cow
SACU, VEDCO, ECLOF,
Technoserve, UCDA,
TASO, ICRAF, ABS
National INGOs
NGOs
Farmers
Cooperative
Societies
Government
Agencies
RRM-K
11. SNV Mukwano, UOSPA,
VODP, UNFFE, UNADA,
Victoria Seeds, Bee
Natural, TUNADO,
National and
Regional
Apex Organisations
Farmer Groups
Private Sector
BDS Providers
ASPS, DANIDA,
Agriterra, Oikocredit,
IFAD, SEAF, IRC
28
Organisation Partner(s) Coverage Target Group Existing Collaborator(s)
ApiTrade Africa, LUDFA,
Kasima Fruits, Kiima
Foods
12.
Solidaridad
Ugacof, ACP, Kawacom,
Kyagalanyi, Kullika,
Gumutindo
National (currently
central, east, west)
NGOs
Small Farmers
Cooperatives
Private Companies
13. WUR NEMA, BWINDI,
Bukalasa
National and Africa NGOs
Small Farmers
Universities
Research Institutes
29
Annex 2: Further Analysis
Annex 2a: Financial Services
Organisation LOAS MCRT GRTE MINS Total Areas
1. Agriterra 1
2. Agro-Eco 0
3. CORDAID 1
4. Heifer Nederland 0
5. HIVOS 0
6. ICCO 2
7. KIT 0
8. Oikocredit 3
9. Oxfam Novib 1
10. Send a Cow 1
11. SNV 0
12. Solidaridad 0
13. WUR 0
Total 2 4 2 1 9
KEY:
LOAS-Loans
MCRT-Micro credit
GRTE- Guarantees
MINS-Micro-insurance
Annex2b: Food Production
Organisation CRPS PLTY DARY LSTK Total Areas
1. Agriterra 0
2. Agro-Eco 0
3. CORDAID 2
4. Heifer Nederland 2
5. HIVOS 0
6. ICCO 0
7. KIT 0
8. Oikocredit 0
9. Oxfam Novib 1
10. Send a Cow 2
11. SNV 0
12. Solidaridad 0
13. WUR 0
14. Total Orgs 2 1 2 2 7
KEY:
CRPS-Crops
PLTY-Poultry
DARY-Dairy
LSTK-Livestock
30
Annex2c: Knowledge and research
Organisation IPCT SNCE SOCI ECON SHRE Total Areas
1. Agriterra 0
2. Agro-Eco 1
3. CORDAID 0
4. Heifer
Nederland 0
5. HIVOS 0
6. ICCO 0
7. KIT 4
8. Oikocredit 0
9. Oxfam Novib 1
10. Send a Cow 0
11. SNV 4
12. Solidaridad 0
13. WUR 5
Total 3 2 4 3 3 15
KEY:
IPCT-Impact Research
SNCE- Scientific Research
SOCI- Social Research
ECON-Economic Research
SHRE-Knowledge Sharing
Annex2d: Organisation and Institutional Development
Organisation MISY READ GOVE CPCY TAAS
Total
Areas
1. Agriterra 2
2. Agro-Eco 1
3. CORDAID 4
4. Heifer Nederland 1
5. HIVOS 1
6. ICCO 0
7. KIT 0
8. Oikocredit 0
9. Oxfam Novib 4
10. Send a Cow 2
11. SNV 5
12. Solidaridad 1
13. WUR 0
Total 4 5 4 7 1 21
KEY:
MISY-Management Information Systems
READ- Research and Advocacy
GOVE-Governance
CPCY- Capacity Building
TAAS-Technical Assistance and Advisory Services
31
Annex2e: Value Chains and Market Access
Organisation TESU MKTG CRVC LVVC Total Areas
1. Agriterra 1
2. Agro-Eco 3
3. CORDAID 4
4. Heifer
Nederland 0
5. HIVOS 1
6. ICCO 0
7. KIT 0
8. Oikocredit 0
9. Oxfam Novib 0
10. Send a Cow 4
11. SNV 4
12. Solidaridad 2
13. WUR 0
Total 5 4 7 3 19
Key:
TESU-Technical Support
MKTG-Marketing services
CRVC-Crop Value Chains
LVVC-Livestock Value Chains
Annex2f: Participation on Cross Cutting Issues
Organisation HIVA GDER GOVE
Total
Areas
1. Agriterra 1
2. Agro-Eco 0
3. CORDAID 0
4. Heifer Nederland 0
5. HIVOS 2
6. ICCO 0
7. KIT 0
8. Oikocredit 0
9. Oxfam Novib 0
10. Send a Cow 0
11. SNV 0
12. Solidaridad 0
13. WUR 1
Total 2 1 1 4
KEY:
HIVA-HIV/AIDS
GDER-GENDER
GOVE-GOVERNANCE
32
Annex 3: Persons and resources consulted
Persons
1. Mr. Alastair Taylor, Agro Eco - Louis Bolk Institute, East Africa
2. Mr. John Othieno, Send a Cow Uganda
3. Mr. Peter Kabanda, Oikocredit Uganda
4. Mr. Jaap Bloom, DANIDA Uganda
5. Mr. James Byekwaso, DANIDA Uganda
6. Mr. Robert Kintu, FIT Uganda Ltd
7. Mr. Robert Nyambaka, SNV Uganda
8. Mr. Roel Snelder, Agro-Profocus
Documents
Note that all documents are available at the Agri-ProFocus online platform at http://apf-
uganda.ning.com/page/cybrary-1
Uganda Government
1. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan
2. Draft National Development Plan
3. Draft National Agriculture Policy
4. MAAIF Draft Development Strategy and Investment Plan (2009/10-2013/14)
5. Prosperity for All
6. Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture
7. MAAIF Policy Statement, 2009/10
8. Background to the Budget 2009/10
9. Rural Development Strategy
10. National Trade Policy
11. Strategic Exports Programme
12. Marketing and Agro-Processing Strategy
13. Cooperative Development Policy
14. National Industrial Policy
Other
15. Agrarian Policy Framework in Uganda, Hartmut Brandt
16. Farmer’s Agriculture Sector Specific Growth Policy Proposals to Government of
Uganda (UNFFE, 2009)
17. Farmers’ Magazine (UNFFE, National Agricultural Show)
18. Overview of the current state of Organic Agriculture in Kenya, Uganda and United
Republic of Tanzania, Agro-Eco
19. SNV Economic Development Strategy (2010-2012)
20. Agro-Eco Annual Report 2008
21. Oikocredit Info 2008
22. “Send a Cow” Profile
23. Exports – A way to a Better Life? Export Promotion of Organic Products from
Africa (Agro-Eco)
24. Agri-ProFocus Affiliation Matrix plus Country Focus Process Documents
