Agriculture Response

1. Introduction

The Rt Hon Speaker and Members of the 8th Parliament, I am highly honoured to present to this august House, the opposition's response to the Policy Statement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, (thereafter to be referred to as MAAIF), and at the same time, to present to this House, but more importantly through this House to the Voter, our alternative policy for the sector, which we believe is better suited to lead this country out of chronic poverty, disease and ignorance, that are the hallmark of the NRM regime during its twenty years of rule. But first, we thank the Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, for presenting what we believe is Govt's best, although, unfortunately, this best will certainly not move Uganda forward, to achieve the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) broad objectives of increasing household incomes, food security, gainful employment and promoting sustainable management of natural resources.

Hon Speaker, five members of opposition, including myself, sit on the Committee of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, in which we have fully participated in scrutinizing the Ministerial Policy Statement before us. Our Committee's able Chairman's report presents a fair view of what transpired during our sittings, but, let it be known, Hon Speaker, that in the committee, we were scrutinizing the finer details of Govt policy, which draws its strength and mandate from the President's manifesto. It was therefore, not the forum for tabling and pushing the opposition's alternative policy, especially where we significantly differ with Govt.

The purpose of this presentation, therefore, is to fulfill our Constitutional mandate and obligation, to table alternative policies, in the management of this country. We hope to show this House and the world at large that the Opposition has a better understanding of the issues of this country, that it is more compassionate about the plight of the 38% Ugandans who have lived in chronic,abject poverty for the past twenty years, basically because of poor, inconsistentand un-researched Govt policies and that the opposition has better alternative policies for this most important sector of our economy, which would enhance the process of poverty eradication.

2. Highlights of the Ministerial Policy Statement


2.1 Mission

The MAAIF's Mission is "to support efforts to commercialize the Agricultural sector, including value addition, with the specific mandate of the Ministry being to support, promote and guide production of crops, livestock and fisheries, through provision of services primarily focused on resource-poor farmers / fisher folk. This Mission is intended to be in line with PEAP and PMA objectives"

Hon Speaker and Members of Parliament, the Opposition finds this statement weak, not assertive, lacks confidence, and does not portray MAAIF as taking ownership and control of the grand role bestowed upon it by creation and history, of being the flag bearer of Uganda's efforts to drive this economy to possible heights.

The Opposition's Mission for MAAIF "is to be the leading sector in the promotion,formulation and implementation of progressive policies that will transform Uganda's economy from subsistence farming to commercialized production and marketing of crops, livestock and fish, through legislation, quality control and demand-driven services"


2.2 Sector Objectives

• increasing incomes and improving quality of life of life of poor farmers


• improve household food security


• provide gainful employment


• promoting sustainable management of natural resources

2.2.1 Priorities for intervention in 2006 / 7

Increased funding for:

• increasing incomes and improving quality of life of life of poor farmers


• improve household food security


• provide gainful employment


• promoting sustainable management of natural resources

The Opposition supports the above objectives, although we would emphasize them differently, and would tie them to a monitorable period and specified targets. The Opposition's agricultural sector policies would increase per capita income from the current US$ 360 to US$ 1,000 and reduce the level of povertyfrom current 38% to less than 20% over a period of ten years. This will be on the basis of establishing a strong and sustainable agricultural and economic growthrate of between 7 - 10 % for next 5 - 10 years.

Hon Speaker, to be able to understand how inconsistent this Govt operates, we must take a flashback to the promises of FY year 2005 / 6:


2.4 Objectives of 2005 / 6/ 7

• increased productivity in agriculture and food security


• integrated support to farmer groups to ensure increased agricultural output


• community information system


• strengthen meteorological services

2.4.1 Priorities for intervention in 2005 / 6

• increasing farm productivity of selected commodities produced by agricultural households


• increasing household outputs of the selected agricultural products


• adding value and ensuring a stable market for agricultural products

Hon Speaker, no where during the 2006 / 7 budget proposal do we read a statement of how far the sector objectives for 2005 / 6, listed above, had been achieved. What MAAIF reported as "achievements of objectives" is a performance report of activities in the Ministry's work plan, not an achievement of the Ministry's objectives. As an example, Hon Speaker, in MAAIF's Ministerial Policy Statement of 2006 / 7, under the Heading "ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE PAST FINANCIAL YEAR", subsection 2.2.2, in the last box at the bottom of page 9, it is reported under the Achievement column that the Ministry "serviced and repaired staff vehicles, paid due salaries, procured, serviced and repaired regulatory services vehicles, serviced / repaired staff vehicles, paid due salaries (repeated, I assume to emphasize this achievement)". Hon Speaker, how can that be reported as an achievement against the objective of increased productivity in agriculture and food security, integrated support to farmer groups to ensure increased agricultural output, community information system, strengthen meteorological services.

Hon Members of Parliament, the taxpayers of Uganda want to know from the Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, whether, after spending their hard-earned Ugshs 148.85 B last year, agricultural productivity and food security increased, community information system is in place and whether meteorological services have been strengthened.The taxpayer of Uganda certainly does not think that procurement, servicing and repairing of staff vehicles is an achievement!

In the opinion of the Opposition, a Govt that cannot distinguish between an objective and an activity to achieve that objective has no business being in Govt!

3.The Budget

• Value for money - Hon Speaker, Under section 2.3 of the Budget Act, a Ministerial Policy Statement (MPS) is required, among other things, to show whether policy objectives are short-term (by the end of the FY), medium-term (within the MTEF) or long-term (beyond MTEF), the purpose of this being to enable monitoring and evaluation of performance against set targets. It was not possible to establish, using MAAIF's MPS for 2006 / 7, the degree of achievements of the 2005 / 6 objectives because they did not have a timeline as required under the Budget Act. We can only assume that the objectives were not achieved basing on the reported sectoral growth rate of 0.4%


Under section 3 of the Budget Act, a MPS is required to show what has been achieved or not achieved during the previous year, by activity, expressed in terms of physical, as well as financial output. The purpose of this is to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money out of each activity. It was not possible, from MAAIF's MPS to establish how much money had been received for each activity the previous year, whether such money was all used and whether there was a balance or deficit. There is a revenue and expenditure omnibus report, but as we all know, omnibus business lacks precision, transparency and is recipe for corruption. It is, therefore, not possible to establish under this report, whether the tax payer received value for money under MAAIF, during the FY 2005 / 6.


• Budget requirement - MAAIF is confident that if, during the FY 2006 / 7, they get a budget allocation of Ugshs 146.85 B, which amounts to 3.5% of the national budget, although this would be a 0.5% drop from last year's budgetary appropriation, the sector will achieve its set objectives. A drop in the budget allocation might lead one to assume that all the previous year's objectives had been achieved and that there was a surplus, but sadly, growth in the agricultural sector was only 0.4% during 2005 / 6, having dropped from 4% last FY. Question is, how will Ugshs 146.85 B achieve what Ugshs 148.85 B failed to achieve?


Hon Speaker, during the budget speech, this House was informed by the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development that the lower than expected growth during 2005 / 6 was due to the energy crisis that wrecked havoc on this country. Now why would the agricultural sector, which uses LESS energy than any other sector, post a growth of only 0.4%, when the aggregate national growth was 5.8%, in spite of electricity? Does this House realize that had it not been for the influence of the poor performance of the agricultural sector, the national growth rate would have been much higher than 5.8%?

In the case of cotton whose production dropped from 258,000 the previous year to 102,000 bales last year, MAAIF reported prolonged drought and poor farm gate prices as the cause of the poor crop performance. This year, MAAIF wants less money, to produce 300,000 bales (information provided by Hon Kibirige Sebunya during Committee work), but the Ministry does not indicate what plans there are, to combat drought, short of a telephone call to God, or how the Ministry will deal with the low farm gate prices' problem. Hon Speaker, isn't it amazing how a modern Govt living in 2006, can expound grand plans without the necessary intervention, except under the NRM regime?

The major failure of the cotton sector to achieve the target 1 M bales of cotton by the year 2006, as projected by CDO in 2001, was not drought, but Govt interference in the pricing of cotton when it did not have its own funds to regulate the market. The Opposition's view is that under a liberalized economy, the sector should be free of political and military interference as happened in Apac, Pallisa, and Porombo in Nebbi District.

It is the Oppostons vew that if last FY's budget allocation amounting to 4% of the national budget achieved a growth of just 0.4% against the national economic growth of 5.8%, and that if crop and animal disease and are still a key problem, because of lack of money, the budget allocation of 3% of the nationalbudget to this sector will do nothing to improve last FY poor performance. The Opposition would allocate no less than 10% of the national budget to MAAIF, in tandem with the Maputo Protocol, of which Uganda is a signatory, especially now, that the twenty-year old war is clearly at the lowest of its activities and budgetary requirement (thanks to the Oppositions efforts!). the Opposition would also demand proof that this protocol has been ratified by Uganda, short of whichthe benefits from the protocol by Uganda should be questioned.

4.Land use

The Agricultural sector employing 80% of Uganda's labour, contributes only 31% of GDP The low yield of the land is a disincentive to production, rendering a big percentage of the population unproductive, hence the high level of poverty, currently at 38% i.e. 9.5 M living in abject poverty.

In the 1960's, Uganda registered very rapid economic growth, the basis of which was a well attended to agricultural sector that consistently enjoyed the highest budgetary allocations (20 - 26%). This situation is no more, and in the past 10 years, budgetary allocation has been below 3% per annum, up to a quarter of which is many times never disbursed. As a result of this neglect, even with high potential, regional and international agro-trade opportunities such as AGOA, and such high sounding policy pronouncements like Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA), Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and Strategic Intervention Programmes (SIP), the agricultural sector, employing 80% of Uganda's population, is virtually in disarray, generating only 31% of GDP.

Looking around the world, Ghana, a country closest to Uganda in size, population, income and political history, employs 60% of its population in agriculture and the sector generates 35% of the country's GDP. For being the world's biggest coffee and cassava producer, one might think that most people in Brazil are engaged in coffee and cassava production, but only 20% of her population are employed in the agricultural sector, and they generate about 37% of the country's GDP. High income country's like the UK and Belgium employ only about 1.5% of their population in agriculture, and the sector, in turn, generates a corresponding 1.5% of the countries' GDP.

Clearly, there is a direct relationship between the number of people employed on the land and the wealth (or poverty) of a nation, and for obvious reasons - populations increase everyday, yet there is only so much of land that was created. Of course, land productivity can be scientifically increased but so does it shrink through desertification, urbanization, droughts, floods, frost, erratic world commodity prices, social/cultural factors and other environmental calamities.

Given this free information, available on the click of a button, where is Uganda's long term plan to get pressure off the predictably diminishing land, whose marginal returns, the world over, are low anyway?

The Opposition recognizes the intricate and supposedly inseparable link between land and the well-being of peasants and rural communities. Accordingly, the Opposition would initiate transformation in the use of land through a national land use policy and legislation that will encourage people to ease pressure off the land, by promoting rationalized settlements, land tilting, environmental improvement as well as long-term renting / leasing of land, long-term, low costcredit to people who wish to lease their land and migrate into other economic activity, as well as those who wish to lease land for long-term, commercialized agriculture, besides improving unit yield through promotion of agricultural research and pro poor people land use policies geared towards commercialization of land use.

The Opposition believes that the challenge facing the agricultural sector and through it 80% of the people of Uganda who depend on it for their livelihood, demands critical re-examination of Govt's commitment to the sector. The opposition proposes an urgent review of funding commitment to the sector, plus that of existing policies, goals and strategies, more so PMA, as the framework for agricultural transformation. In order to rapidly increase agricultural output and productivity, enhance food security and environmental protection, the opposition proposes the following policies:

• Policy and resource framework - The Opposition would undertake a comprehensive review of the current PMA to make it a truly focused sectoral plan rather than a framework, with clear goals and targets, identified priorities and defined strategies and would ensure that the budgetary allocation for the agricultural sector is increased from the current 3% to 15%, in any case not below the Maputo Protocol.


• Agriculture in development- The Opposition recognizes that for the immediate future, Ugandans must embrace agriculture as the country's engine of growth and that agricultural development is critical for rural transformation. The Opposition would, therefore, deliberately identify farming development paths (model farms) for various agro ecologies and social economic situations and set transformation goals and targets for each specific model, the attainment of which will lead to rapid annual growth in agricultural production, commercialization of farming and rapid rural development.


• Enhanced production -The Opposition would institute measures to drastically increase the production and quality of traditional commodities e.g. coffee, cotton, tea, cocoa and bananas through the use of modern technologies, provision of targeted incentives, tax relief, credit support, as well as legislation to promote the use and consumption of targeted agricultural products. A case in point, Hon Speaker, is Brazil, the world's biggest producer of cassava, whose legislation includes the use of at least 20% of local cassava flour as an ingredient in bread production. What support did MAAIF give to House of Kaine for the millet bread initiative?


• Pest and disease control - With 3 M heads of cattle, Botswana earns about US $ 200 M annually from export of beef and diary products. Tanzania, with 12 M heads of cattle earns Tshs 900 M from the same trade while Kenya, boasting of 19 M heads of cattle earns Kshs 700 M, annually. Uganda, on the other hand, with 7 M heads of cattle earns US $ 0 (zero) from the sector, because the animals and their products are diseased and so they have been banned from the international markets, including Rwanda, which used to import Uganda's milk. Clearly, something is the matter with the priorities of the NRM Govt, because they know all this potential but deliberately undermine it.

Fortunately, the Opposition has answers to all of Uganda's problems. We would increase funding, build national capacity and competence for surveillance and control of pestilence, developing more rigorous regulatory machinery, promoting effective enforcement of the laws and creation of certified disease free zones for crop and animal producers, as nuclei for produce of crop, livestock and beef exports.

• Agricultural produceThe Opposition recognizes the urgent need for affordable, long-term credit for the development of agriculture, which cannot be served by the principles of Micro Finance services. The Opposition would ensure availability of long-term credit to farmers and investors in the sector, in preference to investors in hotels, and also avail credit for produce-buying, establish agricultural credit banks in support of sector policies, investment in agro-processing, to strengthen local markets and promote value addition.


• Farm income and Price StabilizationThe Opposition recognizes the risks of bad weather, unpredictable commodity world prices and the extent to which these factors undermine agricultural development and farm incomes. The Opposition would institute measures to protect farm prices through crop insurance, commodity markets, co operative unions, national food and commodity reserves, warehouse receipts systems and other price risk edging mechanism.


• Food securityThe Opposition would:


• Develop a National Food Security strategy, in line with the objectives of the Constitution. The strategy will include encouraging increased production and productivity, and maintaining reserves to increase access to lower, stabilized food prices.


• pursue regional trade policies that would promote local food production and export, enhance the competitiveness of Uganda's agriculture


• Promote formation of national commodity based organizations that would federate into regional umbrellas in the East African region in order to benefit from NEPAD facilities.


• Saving and investment cultureThe Opposition would promote the saving and investment culture among Ugandans, as well as launch a national campaign to transform the mind-set of Ugandans, currently poisoned by the Movements ideology of "Money-cracy" and free money gifts to all, towards hard work, honesty, patience and commitment to long-term development as critical pre-conditions for transformation


• Release of farmland for better agricultural planningThe Opposition recognizes the inevitability of urbanization of rural populations and supports the re-establishment of Town Boards, promotion of long-term planning of rural growth centres, tilting of plots to promote the construction of residential and commercial buildings. The Opposition would introduce legislation to promote modern housing and homestead development, household and community hygiene aesthetics and environmental improvements as a motivation for release of farmland for better agricultural planning, as happened in China.


• Rural infrastructureThe National Census and Housing Report, released by the National Bureau of Statistics and Commissioned by the President of Uganda, on 22 March 2005, stated among other things, that after 20 years of the Movement Govt, 92% of homes in Uganda have no electricity, 85% use tadoba, 75% live on earth-rammed floors, 40 % have no access to safe drinking water and only 50% have radios, the rest depend on word of mouth for information. In addition, according to the World Fact Book, of 27 M people in Uganda, only 200,000 use internets - I would wish to rest my case, at this point,but first, I must present the Oppositions alternative policy - to pursue an aggressive national strategy to develop critical road infrastructure, power supply, water and sanitation and ICT systems throughout the country!

6.Conclusion

In conclusion, Hon Speaker, it cannot be over-emphasized that agriculture is the biggest sector of Uganda's economy, employing about 80% of the country's population, yet it continually receives the least attention from Govt in terms of funding and investment. In retaliation, the sector recorded the least growth in the past FY (0.4%), which, literally translated, means that while 20% of Uganda's population were matching forward at the rate of 5.8% in the past year, 80% just slipped back deeper into poverty from the rate of 4% to 0.4% last FY. These statistics scream "No equity, no equity". This must be corrected, but only the innovative, progressive and compassionate policies of the Opposition can achieve this as, clearly, the NRM 20 year policies have failed to address the real needs of the majority of people of Uganda.

All this is presented for the sake of and in the name of:
One Uganda, One people / Truth and Justice / Peace, Unity and Reconciliation / Justice For All

Hon Speaker, Hon members of Parliament, thank you for your attention.

I beg to move.

Beti Olive Namisango Kamya
MP, Lubaga North
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries