Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Rwakakamba discusses the impact of the dawn of biofuels on food security in Uganda

A. Likely impact of biofuels on food security:
Activists say increased production of biofuels will lead to increased food insecurity. What is UNCCI's stand on the Biofuel production vis-à-vis food security?What do you consider as the positives and negatives of biofuels?Is it viable for a developing country like Uganda, which normally is faced with food shortages to undertake large scale production of biofuels?
The relationship between biofuel production and food security is largely perception based. It is so because biofuels have both food insecurity and food security causative links. Forexample, since crop production is driven by yield and acrage developments, production of biofuels compete with food crops for arable land and this change in land use may have adverse results. It therefore follows that increased production of biofuels generally leads to substitution of gricultural resources like land, water, labour, fertilzer e.t.c from food crops and this vehemently results in food insecurity. Food scarcity also mean high prices food. However, if you look at some biofuel crops like soyabean or sunflower, they are usually planted at the end of growing season or towards the end of the rain season or after harvesting main food crops such as maize and rice. The implication of this is that farmers will have their main food crops first and then have their biofuel or energy crops for extra incomes to improve their food security. Therefore, the link between the foregoing perceptions lies in puting in place a clear and consensus policy and law on renewable energy that would guarantee a useful co-existance of both food crops and biofuels to contain food insecurity and energy insecurity in Uganda. As a Farmers Federation, we consider food as basic and first line of security for our members and the Country and our primary demand in regard to biofuels is that Government hastens the policy and regulation of biofules. Such a policy should be formulated and implemented with involvement of farmers.
What measures has UNCCI put in place to guard against side effects of biofuel industry on food production?
First of all, our members in farming business in particular have not taken on biofuels in huge proportions. Few farmers are engaged in production of biofuel crops like Jatropha, caster beans, soya beans and sunflower. As for cotton farmers and sugarcane outgrowers we are engaging sugar cane millers and cotton ginners to have farmers benefit from royalties that accrue from use of cotton seed for biofuel and bargasse from sugar cane for energy. We are ofcouse oblivious of side effects or negative effects biofuels can have on environment and food security. This is why, we encourage our farmers to grow food security crops like cassave, engage in production of biofuel crops like caster beans and sunflower during off season, and those farming Jatropha to target barren lands for production. Preservation of environment and ecological integrity of Uganda is central to Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry principles, this is why we consider as unsustainable actions that mean degazzatement and destruction of forests for planting palm oil or sugar cane, unabated destruction of riparian wetlands and degradation of key ecosystems in the country. By mobilising our core agency of farmers and other members in district chambers , we are able to meaningfuly stave off side effects biofuels on food production.

Where (which country) can we cite that has been hit by food shortages yet it produces biofuels?
I only know of Myanmar where the Miltary government leader Than Shwe in 2005 ordered a national drive to plant jatropha, a poisonous nut he hoped would be the cornerstone of a state industry that would capitalise on growing world demand for biofuels. To achieve the foregoing, he forced farmers to stop growing rice for jatropha. Even in cities and townships people were forced to grow it in their yards and along roads. Mynamer will now take decades to jump out of food insecurity and poverty. The lesson for Uganda here is that policy by slogan and top heavy mechanistic methods of work can destroy a country. As a farmers Federation we call upon government and other actors to involve farmers and general citizenry in renewable energy policy formulation, implementation and monitoring to avoid the Mynamer escapade.

If UNCCI believes biofuels will affect food productivity, which other renewable energy sources can you suggest as the way forward?
There are a myraid renewable energy sources like biomas where residues from cropstocks and forests form a feedstock for combustion leading to a powerful energy source. Researchers are also pointing to elephant grass, softwood and cassava waste as cellulose based plants that can produce bioethanol. Our farmers in Rakai and Mukono are using agricultural waste to manufacture chacoal briquettes as a sustainable source of household energy. The foregoing are partly where the wayfoward lies. However, with the right and deeply consultative renewable energy policy and law in Uganda, biofuels may not affect food productivity.

B. Rapid population growth versus food security in Uganda:
According to UNCCI, what is food situation in Uganda i.e. how food secure or insecure is the country (any reports you can provide)
Over the last 10 years, agriculture productivity has been dwindling from 7% to now 1.3% growth! As such agriculture sector contribution to GDP is 21% as of 2009. This is happening at a time when the country is experiencing unprecedented pupulation with fertility rate at 7%. This means that every year there are over a million more mouth to feed. Therefore, once you have a situation where food production fails to match or exceed pupulation growth you have chronic food insecurity as a result. According to FAO the number of households considered food insecure has increased to 124,000 in the Acholi region, up from 86,000, and to 32,000 in Teso, up from 12,000. In Karamoja, the numbers of people who are food insecure are approximately 615,000! If you factor in malnourishment, the numbers double. To this extent therefore, Uganda is still food insecure.


What do you consider as the leading causes of food shortages?
Uganda has immense potential to achieve a food secure status. This will be possible if as a country as a people we foccuss on increased financing for the sector, invest in restoration of our invironmental and ecological integrity (for example Uganda loses , put in place a strategy to contain adjuncts of climate change, resolve the issue of land policy to gurantee ownership and user rights of land by farmers, remove barriers to markets by investing in market infratracture, open up community access roads to link producers to markets, clean up input markets and guarantee rights and access to seed, shift to a more predictable farming systems as opposed to chance based agro systems that feed on rains to survive. We have to invest in value adition, these are neccessary investiments to have surplus
What is UNCCI's view on the rapidly increasing population in Uganda vis-à-vis food security? i.e. how will the population increase affect food security?
Uganda has one of the highest fertility rates and one of the fastest growing populations in Africa. The current population growth rate is 3.2%, compared to the world’s average of 1.2%. At UNCCI, we think that the size of the population perse’ should not cause discomfort. What should concern us is the quality of the population. For instance having a skilled and inspired population in farming would have an indelible positive impact on the agriculture sector and transformation in real terms of our country. However,the rapid growth of low quality population in such a short time can have serious implications for Uganda’s aspiration to evolve as a middle income economy over the next 25 years. The current population growth and fertility rates that are not in consonance with requisite resources have serious implications for food security, energy security, water security, housing security etc. Therefore a rational policy and interventions that addresses the balance between population growth and proportional sustainable resources and technologies is important. And such a syndication should inform this raging debate.
How is the rapidly increasing population and urbanisation likely to impact on food security?
Principles of classical economics project to us a thining that increase in population and urbanisation translate into massive demand for food stuffs and products and as such the new found demand would induce supply. The interplay of demand and supply would also mean increased production and spread of wealth amongst the population. Such a population would be cushioned from food insecurity. This ideal situation would occur if we have requisite policies, inspiration, strong / organised farmer groups, infratructure and skills in place. Our government and other actors must focuss on this to ensure food security.
Reports on population growth and how the rapidly increasing population and urbanization likely to impact on food security? comment on the increasing urbanisation where the food producing population (youth) continues to migrate to urban centres.
The issue of young people shunning agriculture for boda boda and the service sector is increasingly becoming contentious. I think a young person is more attracted to riding a motocycle and making some daily income than holding the hoe that will mke him or her take six month to generate a miserable and unreliable income. Therefore Youth will get attracted to agriculture once government puts in place a package of incentives that makes farming profitable and less muscle power based. As a UNCCI we promote young farmers through involving them in leadership at the highest level, training them in time tasted on farm practices and policy advocacy postions that integrate youth interests. UNCCI, is now running a young achievers awards where excellence is rewarded. This is true for young people in agriculture.
Which way forward? Suggest possible ways how the country can ensure enough food supply, besides controlling population growth.
First, the fundamental role of agriculture is to ensure food security for consumers and secure livelihoods for farmers. Therefore, Uganda government must invest in enabling agriculture infrastructure. For example, Without roads and basic infrastructure; farmers cannot receive basic inputs or get their products to market, Without secure land tenure and modern equipment for farm production and processing, yields will continue to be low and post-harvest losses high and without a firm national commitment to agricultural development and a stable and conducive policy environment in which it can take place, investment will not come. National budget commitment to agriculture must shoot above 15%.
Secondly, to contain food and energy insecurity, factor productivity (land, labour, and capital) will have to be raised substantially. To this end, Uganda should with urgency direct money to eight core ares; Technology Development/Research; Advisory Services and Technology Delivery; Disease, Pest and Vector Control; Sustainable Management of Land and Water Resources; Water for Agricultural Production; Development and Promotion of Labour Saving Technologies including Appropriate Mechanisation; Improved Access to High Quality Inputs and Stocking Materials; and Accelerated Production of Selected Strategic food security crops like cassava.
Thirdly productivity growth without significant improvements in marketing is an opportunity lost. Farmers in Uganda need to be assisted to participate in higher value-added market chains than they can at present.
Finally and most significant, Farmer organisations need be assisted to achieve capacity and independance necessary to make it politically risky for those who are swindling farmers money and those leaders who are not supporting and promoting farmer friendly policies in parliament and other branches of government.

Rwakakamba Morrison
Secretary General
Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry

COMPASSION OF UGANDANS WILL LIFT BUDUDA FROM THE MUD

In Budada, nature turned against man. It hit in the quiet twilight of the night. The magnitude of destruction is devastating, chilling and unbelievable. Pictures of bodies being exhumed from mud, parents digging the mud for sons and daughters, tales of a woman phoning from rubble underneath, frightened children survivors with no parents or relatives to comfort them and the demeanor of despair on faces of survivors, and community reveal the extent to which this calamity has hit our nation. The very foundations of our nation – gifted by nature- have been tested. Budada for the past two weeks has presented us a horrific theater of shattered lives. It serves no purpose to apportion blame of who did what or who didn’t do what. What matters at the moment is a comprehensive disaster response that will help wounded heal, the displaced relocated and the psychologically tortured rehabilitated. Efforts at upping the capability of anticipation for disasters of this nature is urgent- though not a momentous issue.

I salute the government for the so far aggressive effort to save lives and resettle survivors. I also know that government cannot do it alone. As a people, we need to mobilize every element of national capability. Besides government, the private sector and the entire business community can and will do a lot to help – We have launched a campaign at the Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry to affect this. The Civil society and religious groups have even a swifter mandate to aid the extraordinary efforts of lifting Bududa. We also need to mobilize Uganda Diaspora to participate in the efforts. It is also critical for East African community member states to give a hand. We know that many hands lighten the load. We have to act in unity to contain devastating forces of nature. And by the way, this could be the beginning of a long spell of nature’s revolt against man. It is at this point that we should also turn our eyes to victims of Kabale landslides. In aftermath of disaster, we are reminded that life can be unimaginably cruel. That pain and loss is so often meted without justice and mercy. But it is also in moments like this when we are brought face to face with our own fragility, that we rediscover our own humanity. Looking at Budada victims and survivors, we truly look at our selves in those circumstances. The foregoing plays to our innate sense of compassion – a basis and fulcrum of our will to help.

Those with inadequate faith will quickly say that God hates Bududa. People will grapple with the problem of what scholars call theodicy. That if God is good and intervenes in the world , then why does he make innocent suffer? Why does he unleash thousands of metric tones of mud on people in the middle of the night? Why, as the biblical Job might have said, would God crush an impoverished people with the tempest and multiply their wounds with out cause? Why? Why? I personally think that God is mysterious and can’t explain everything. This is why a Prime minister of Uganda and a vice President of a neighboring Kenya while in air on a compassion mission and effort to rescue Bududa got life scare when their helicopters developed technical problems. It was a coincidence that raised eyebrows! Therefore, we should not question the will of God. Rather we should do what is humanly possible and lend a hand to people in need. This is why the Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry has opened up a center for collection of material and financial resources necessary to contain the suffering of Mudslide and landslide victims in Uganda. This is a call for action, come to the Chamber plot 1 A Kira road, telephone, +25673503035, info@chamberuaganda.com, www.chamberuganda.com and save humanity. Bududa and Kabale matter.

Morrison Rwakakamba
C.E.O – Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

UGANDA MUST IMPROVE ITS DOING BUSINESS RANKINGS TO LEVERAGE BENEFITS FROM ECONOMIC INTEGRATION

Uganda is a strategic central trade hub for the East African Community (EAC). For example, the country has managed to present itself as a link necessary to leverage trading benefits in the resurgent lucrative markets in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and the Southern Sudan. The Customs Union protocol came into force in 2005 and by 2007 the total intra –EAC trade had increased by 22% from USD 1342.6 million to USD 1,973.2 million. The Common Market protocol will be operational from 1st July 2010 with yet more fortunes for trade. The foregoing protocols mean that trading gets freer with myriad barriers mitigated. Specifically the Common Market means that a single economic space with in which business and labour moves and operate so as to stimulate greater productive efficiency, increased employment and intra and extra regional trade is created. It also means that Uganda will have to compete with the rest of East Africa in labour markets, commodity markets, finance markets, and above all- the market opportunity presented by 140 million people in the 5 EAC countries. What is obvious is that a well organized and technologically astute country will realize gains and possibly swallow economies of others. Is Uganda ready to take advantage of opportunities presented by the Integration? Is Uganda’s business environment competitive?

According to a 2010 World Bank doing Business Report, Uganda is ranked 129th out of 183 economies in the World! Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1 – 183, with first place being the best. A high ranking on the ease of doing business index means the regulatory environment is conducive to the operation of business. This index averages the country's percentile rankings, made up of a variety of indicators, giving equal weight. Globally, Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore ranks 1st with Mauritius leading the pack in sub-Saharan Africa. The case of Uganda as 129th is intriguing and curious! Today I will look at why Uganda got the tail in rakings.

Look, it takes six administrative procedures to acquire a construction permit! First one is required to submit project relevant documents( like building plans and site maps), obtaining all necessary clearances (e.g. certificates, permits, licences), completing all required notifications, receiving all necessary inspections and obtaining utility connections (e.g. electricity, water and sewerage) – on the ease of dealing with construction permits, Uganda ranks 84th! This in acceptable, Uganda should move first to conduct a detailed mapping exercise to pinpoint blockages and barriers in construction permit administration procedures. Why should Kampala city council have only 3 building inspectors for the entire 5 Divisions and only one senior architect? Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry inquiry shows the few available inspectors lack transportation equipment to carry out inspection in the field. They only rely on drawings and information provided by architects to decide which projects are accepted or rejected! The foregoing explains the rampant collapsing buildings in the city!

To improve our doing business rankings as a country, the cost and time to connect to utilities must be reduced. In Kampala, it for example takes 54 days and 2,000,000 Uganda Shillings to connect to electricity! It takes 14 days and 255,000 to connect to water. I really think that Electricity Regulatory Authority should outsource electrical inspections and certification in order to increase its efficiency. Registering property in Uganda is also a nightmare. Uganda ranks 149th out of 183 countries. Look, for example, to register property transfer, an entrepreneur in Uganda first has to arrange for a government official to inspect the property and assess its value. Then the entrepreneur has to complete an assessment form to pay the stamp duty at a bank and then another assessment to pay property registration fees. This is an exceedingly cumbersome and costly unnecessary process which encourages informal transactions and underreporting of property values. The government must adopt a new age approach that charges fixed fees based on the property size with an affordable maximum ceiling independent of the property value.

Finally, accessing affordable credit for business in Uganda remains a major hindrance to doing business. Uganda is ranked 113 out 183 ranked countries. Collateral registry needs to be revamped in order to facilitate lenders in moving movable collateral to secure loans. Uganda needs to ratify and codify the Chattels Securities bill in order to expand collateral possibilities other than land is the process of securing loans. Interest rates should also be checked by the Central bank, especially for business and agricultural loans. According to 2010 global competitive index, lending rates in Uganda range between 18% -23%, while in Kenya they can be as low as 8% - 10%. In Uganda, taxes on financial services further aggravate the problem. They include 1% stamp duty on all processed loans, a 15% withholding tax payable to bank funds sourced externally and 0.5% stamp duty on the values of valuation reports. The foregoing presents a million dollar question. How are Uganda’s businesses going to compete with other countries in the region that are offering better incentives? The government and the private sector must continue honest dialogues and engagements in order to come up with enduring solutions.

Morrison Rwakakamba
Chief Executive Officer
Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry
rwakakamba@chamberuganda.com

What I told African Water Ministers and The Prince of Orange during the 8 to 13th Nov 2009 2nd Africa Water Week in Midrand

I was nominated by the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) and invited by the African Development Bank to present a paper entitled; Fundamental Financing Areas Necessary to achieve Food and Energy security in Africa: Farmers Perspective, at the 2nd Africa water week at Midrand, Johannesburg, South Africa from 8th to 13th December 2009. This continental meeting was convened by Africa Ministers Conference on Water (AMCOW) and the Government of the Republic of South Africa in Partnership with various United Nations Agencies. The key themes discussed were specific; Financing for water and Sanitation Infrastructure, Managing Africa’s transboundary waters, Climate change and water adaptation and Closing the Sanitation Gap. This Water meeting brought together 700 dignitaries from all over the world, 40 Ministers from different African Countries, The Prince of Orange, Willem Alexander Ferdinand and Hon. Emmanuel Trevor, who represented President Jacob Zuma of the Republic of South Africa. Trevor pulled three memorable lines while tackling water and energy security issues on the continent in his premier address to the meeting, i.e.; that energy has alternatives while water has none; he continued; Water is Life and Sanitation is dignity and concluded that with out water, there is no Agriculture. The foregoing lines, I believe, are principle benchmarks that ongoing global debates and national plans on energy, water and food security should be anchored. As for me, my speech was meant to flag farmers issues on the Agenda, and echo areas that must be financed if farmers have to continue feeding the bulging population on the Continent (Africa’s population growth is at 2.4 percent per annum, meaning that every day, there are more mouths to feed on the continent every year), Ministers and delegates were attentive;

I told them that, agriculture, which produces multiple services from food, feed, fuel and fibre, is essentially dependant on water as one of its key strategic resources. Yet water availability and access, like never before is under severe stress due to climate change and other man made environmental degradation tendencies on the continent. I reminded the audience that 95% of the food in Sub-Saharan Africa is grown under rain fed agriculture (call it nature based) and on average, 7% of Sub-Sahara Africans are employed by agriculture. It was important to point out a new recognition viewed through initiatives on the continent that aim at financing agriculture sector like the Maputo Declaration and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) where many African Countries committed to the principle of agriculture-led growth as a main strategy though in practice is still a feigned standpoint in many African countries.

I argued in my speech that the fundamental role of agriculture is to ensure food security for consumers and secure livelihoods for producers. Therefore, African Governments and concessional capital agencies like the African Development Bank must invest in enabling agriculture infrastructure. For example, Without roads and basic infrastructure; farmers cannot receive basic inputs or get their products to market, Without secure land tenure and modern equipment for farm production and processing, yields will continue to be low and post-harvest losses high and without a firm national, regional and international commitment to agricultural development and a stable and conducive policy environment in which it can take place, investment will not come. Therefore, the following areas must be financed;

Area 1: Enhancing Production and Productivity.

To contain food and energy insecurity, factor productivity (land, labour, and capital) will have to be raised substantially. To this end, Financing should be directed towards eight core areas; Technology Development/Research; Advisory Services and Technology Delivery; Disease, Pest and Vector Control; Sustainable Management of Land and Water Resources; Water for Agricultural Production ( financing should be scaled up from current $11 billion to $100 billion); Development and Promotion of Labour Saving Technologies including Appropriate Mechanization; Improved Access to High Quality Inputs and Stocking Materials; and Accelerated Production of Selected Strategic Enterprises (including food security crops).

Area 2: Improving Access to and Sustainability of Markets: Productivity growth without significant improvements in marketing is an opportunity lost. Farmers on the continent need to be assisted to participate in higher value-added market chains than they can at present. Therefore Africa must finance major public works like - roads, railways, and telecommunications. To harness Markets, new investments must be directed towards to three core areas, Increased Value-addition in Agriculture, with the emphasizing Strategic Commodities, involving the promotion of Public Private Partnerships (out grower models, the warehouse receipt system, contract farming), and assistance with improving post harvest handling, storage, rural market infrastructure; Increased capacity of farmers’ organizations to build up skills in management, entrepreneurship, and group dynamics so they can engage in higher-level value-chain activities including collective marketing.

Area 3. Farmer Institution Development: Farmer institutions are important forums for mobilizing farmers around a common objective, delivery of services as well as policies that support agricultural development. They form key entry points for service delivery to individual households or communities. Farmer organizations play a leading role in technology promotion, market organization and value addition. Yet Majority farmer institutions in Africa are still characterized by low capacity to effectively perform their roles and to demand for delivery of agricultural advisory/extension services. This therefore means that African financing efforts should focus on strengthening the capacity of these institutions to fully participate in the commodity value chain development and combating climate change and ensuring accountability of public resources in Agriculture. Integrated Support to Farmer Groups, is an effective way of realizing improvements in agricultural production and productivity. Since these activities take place through groups, it also means that advisory services, monitoring and accountability would be more effective.

Area 4: Fund to Reward Farmers for Ecosystem Services and Carbon offsets: Farmers interact with the environment daily and are a center of gravity in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Not only do farmers produce food, feed and fiber, but also a whole range of ecosystem services, including services related to water availability and water quality, directly and indirectly benefiting society and the environment. In order to achieve long-term positive effects, incentives must encourage and enable farmers to continue providing ecosystem services through the adoption of environmentally friendly practices. Stewardship programs offer the necessary positive incentives to encourage farmers to adopt these practices. Farmers should therefore be able to benefit from these programs through which their existing and future activities to enhance water quality and ensure its efficient use are recognized and rewarded. The role of farmers’ organizations in stewardship programs is crucial. Specifically, farmers should be offered financial incentives to invest in renewable energy, farm practices that sequestrate carbon and activities that protect and restore water catchments systems.
Finally, to support the efforts of farmers to improve agriculture and agriculture related water use, public policy makers worldwide need to re-engage with African farmers and other stakeholders to build an integrated approach to agricultural and rural development And farmers' efforts must be harnessed to realize food security in Africa. As governments reaffirmed various commitments, Farmers once more re committed their inherent DNA to feed the World.

Rwakakamba Morrison
Resident Consultant and Manager Policy Research and Advocacy
Uganda National Farmers Federation
rwakakamba@yahoo.co.uk, www.farmersenclave.blogspot.com

UNFAIR TREATMENT OF FARMERS IN THE SUGAR SECTOR MUST STOP

According to Uganda Sugar Cane Technologists Association (USCTA) annual report of 2006, the sugar sector contributes 217 billion shillings to Uganda’s Growth Domestic Product (GDP) thus saving the country of over US Dollars 132 million ($132m) of foreign exchange outflow. This figure is expected to rise up to 350 billion Uganda shillings by 2011. The Sugar sector also contributes over 54 billion shillings in revenue to Government through the VAT and Exercise duty tax regime. The sector employs 20,000 persons directly and 50,000 persons indirectly in the outgrowers farms. The foregoing underlines the importance and centrality of sugar cane sector in Uganda. Despite the impressive figures stated above, outgrowers (farmers) are at the tail in the value and benefit sharing trajectory with a share of only 25%. The main players in the sugar cane economy who are the Millers (Kakira, Kinyara and SCOUL) take 46% before other net gains through undertaking co-generation programmes for energy production (secondary derivative of cane) from baggase are computed.

To understand the dilema of cane out growers (farmers) we need to look at the chain of stakeholders and examine revenue share in the sugar value chain. The key actors in the sugar sector are farmers, millers, governmnet and consumers. The farmer among all the listed stake holders in the value chain takes the longest time (600 days) handling and producing sugar but earns only 25% gross earnings. The Miller who takes the shortest time (only 36 hours) and uses half the resources the farmer uses in producing a tone of sugar earns the biggest proportion of 46% of the over all consumer sugar value! The central government charges value added tax (VAT) of 18% on the Ex factory price of sugar per tonne, and Exercise duty of 50shs per Kg of sugar while local governments in sugar growing districts collect 1500shs per tone of sugar.

As of August 2009, the price of sugar per tonne Ex factory was 1,136,017shs. Out of the foregoing figure, a farmer was paid only 25% of the sugar value as price per tone of uncrushed sugarcane was and is still only 35783shs. The renderment or the percentage of sugar recovered from sugar cane is only 9% in Uganda. The situation is made worse because the miller pays the farmer in two parts; Interim payment which is 90% of the previous final year price at 32,600ushs per tone and the final balance is paid after final averages of the price and renderment of sugar are got which actually means that by retaining farmers revenue, the Miller is earning interest on farmers revenue! Price of sugar to the consumer is 1,600,000shs per tonne.

Sugar cane growers are disturbed by the diabolic and outdated formula used by millers to determine sugarcane price. The formula goes as follows; Pc=Ps X R X35%, Where Pc = Price of Sugar per tone, Ps = Average annual price of sugar per tone (factory gate price) and R = Renderment or Average annual Sugar recovery from sugarcane (Usually between minimum of 9% to maximum of 10.5%). First of all, this formula was made with out involvment of growers or their bodies the Uganda National Association of Sugar Cane Growers(UNASGO) and the Uganda National Farmers Federation. Secondly, the formula does not provide for renumeration of the cane grower as a result of other sugar cane derivatives such as molasses, power generation from baggasse, for which the Miller earns and saves sizable expenses, the formula ignores breakeven analysis as a basis for making price decision and does not reward quality production from more serious farmers because of the use of averages of the renderment and prices in the year. This colonial and contemptuous exploitation of farmers must stop.

Yet compared to Kenya and Tanzania, the situation of sugar cane farmers in Uganda is gloomy. A Ugandan farmer is paid far less. While a farmer in Kinyara in Uganda is paid 32,600Ugshs per tone of sugarcane supplied to the factory, the farmer at Kilombero in Tanzania recieves 49,000 Ugshs per tone and the Kenyan farmer gets an equivalent of 63,000 Uganda shillings! Yet again in the region it is only Uganda that does not have a sugar Act and a Sugar policy to guide sugar sector activities. This situation has denied cane growers an oportunity to achieve their full potential and subsequent prosperity. Sugar is a strategic crop like coffee, cotton, tea and diary for the country yet unlike the mentioned strategic crops, Sugar has no regulatory frameworks to oversee its sectoral operations.

Government and Millers must treat Sugarcane outgrowers fairly through ensuring uniform cane prices by all millers, subsidising infrastructure and farmworks in outgrowers plantations, putting in place a fevourable formula for determining cane price, subsidy for aquisition of small mills for value addition, reaserch and extension services for sugarcane and a importantaly, a Sugar Cane Policy.

Rwakakamba Morrison

Resident Consultant and Manager, Policy Research and Advocacy

Uganda National Farmers Federation

rwakakamba@yahoo.co.uk

Rampant fake agricultural inputs distort agricultural incentives to farmers in Uganda.

On July 25th 2009, I was together with NARO’s Mrs. Kagwa Margaret hosted by Mr. Eric Luyuyo on Jinja’s Bamboo FM for a talkshow that focussed on Agriculture. The timing was important. First, a National Agricultural trade show where farmers are expected to showcase their achivements was taking place in eastern Uganda i.e at the Source of the Nile. Second, Famine was and is still ravaging that part of the country. A myraid callers were agitated by the lesser than life situation they were faced with. However, amidst such a dire situation, listeners still could afford to sacrifice airtime to touch base with a public conversation on radio that touch thier lives. I was excited and humbled by their spirit of citizenship and their indelible hopes that famine and disease can be overcome in their part of the country. Caller after caller exhibited grief over unchecked spread of fake agricultural inputs. Many hinted at quiting farming after having borrowed money from Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) to procure better seeds, fertilizer, agri chemicals and so on hoping for better yeilds! That didnot come to pass and many are into hiding because they cannot pay their loans. This reminds me of yet another classic story of a one young farmer investor, Andrew Kikira from Rukungiri who in 2008 opened up 100 acres of land in Bwambara subcounty to tap into the lucrative rice farming and trade. He procured Agro-supernil herbicide from General and Allied Ltd, container village in Kampala. He was aware that muscle power for weeding would be time wasting and expensive. The Agro-supernil was expected to kill all the weed. This never happened. His projection was to harvest 500 bags of unhurled rice. He harvested only 80 bags! He suspended farming!! What lessons do we then learn from such breathtaking testimonies?
First, we should note that underhand profiteering tendencies of some input dealers can in the long run preside over the death and burial of the agriculture sector in Uganda. Fake chemicals have a big destructive impact on farming. If it is a pesticide, the pests will not die even when a farmer applies it regularly. If it is a herbicide, the grass will just continue growing even after the harmless chemical has been applied. Consequently, the farmer will notice a decrease in yields and adverse effects on the environment and human life. The fake chemicals accelerate soil deterioration resulting in substantial crop losses and in the larger picture, it affects economic growth.
Secondly, we are reminded of chronic failure of government and its responsible agencies to regulate and enforce starndards regime in the agriculture sector. Why should we for example have adulterated chemicals like Glyphosate, Dithane M45 or Mancozeb 80WP, Dursban 4E, Ridomil Gold MZ 68WP, Ag. Basle and Furadan and so on on the market? Why should we have adulterated fertilizer like NPK, DAP and Urea on the market? Why should farmers buy expensive seeds on the market whose germination rate is 20%. Why? What happened to agriculture inspectors in the Ministry of Animal Industry and Fisheries? What happened to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards?
Thirdly, our farmers are left at the hands of unscruplous agriculture input dealers who have managed to abuse the fevourable zero rate agriculture input tax regime in the country to exploit and cheat farmers. In 2007 the price of 50 kg NPK fertilzer bag was 45,000Ushs compared to now 140,000 in 2009. Hand hoe price shifted from 2500Ushs to now 4500Ushs in 2009! Oxplough from 125000Ushs in 2007 to 250,000 Ushs in 2009. A one day old chick has also doubled the price, from 500Ushs in 2008 to now 1000 in 2009! This madness must be arrested. Farmers need protection from these distorted markets otherwise the good action by government of removing taxes on agro-iputs will continue to only benefit private input importers and dealers at expense of farmers to whome the incentive was meant to serve in the first place.
Finally, in this foregoing chaos, even guenine agro-input dealers are going to suffer if they dont come out to work with farmers to expose those involved in distortion of inputs markets. As a Farmers Federation, we are going to open up complait desks in all our branches across the country such that dealers who sale fake inputs to our farmers are exposed and reprimanded. We are in discussions with pro farmers groups like Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and AT- Uganda to persue a public interest litigation against fradulent agro input companies and auxilliary dealers that are increasingly becoming painful to the farmers flaternity.

Rwakakamba Morrison
Resident Consultant and Manager Policy Research and Advocacy
Uganda National Farmers Federationrwakakamba@yahoo.co.uk

How to arrest Famine in Uganda

On Monday 15th June 2009, Uganda National Farmers Federation (UNFFE) in Patnership with Uganda National Council for Science and Technology(UNCST) held a special multstakholder conversation on biotechnology. In attendance were Farmers, Enviromentalists and Scientists. This dialogue presented a classic interface between farmers and other actors along the agriculture value chain. Enviromentalists were furious at advances of Genenetic Modified Organisms (GMO) in Uganda. Scientists were passionate about the future of agriculture in Uganda with biotechnology as a catapult for sustainable agriculture development and food chains. Mr. Arthur Makara of Science Foundation for Development (SCIFODE) argued that humans have used the biological processes of microorganisms since six thousand years ago to make useful food products, such as bread and cheese and to preserve dairy products.Farmers were abit confused on which way to go! Folks, the debate on wether Uganda should go organic or GMO is largely unsettled! In April 2008, the government of Uganda ockeyed a policy on biotechnology and biosafety, however the bill necessary to operationalise it is stalled! Nobody seems to talk about the bill anymore! The country has thus fallen short on its committments to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's Cartagena Protocol to protect biodiversity from any potential harm posed by genetically modified (GM) organisms.This delay of the law, means that the Government of Uganda is still soul searching and trapped in between the advances of terminator seed companies like MOSANTO that have for long advanced GMO agenda and the green arguments of conservative Enviromentalists like Evergreen, organicists like NOGAMU and other civic groups whose stand on GMO’s has been an emphatic no! Organisations like Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) have been largely moderate arguing that once the biosafety law is in place both Organic and GMOs can operate in Uganda. I belong to the latter school of thought. Those in favour of GMOs have argued that Biotechnology will be used to address problems in all areas of agricultural production and processing. This includes plant breeding, to raise and stabilize yield, to improve resistance against pests, disease and abiotic stresses such as drought and cold; and to enhance the nutritional content of food, develop low cost disease free planting materials for crops such as banana, potato and coffee, and creating new tools for the diagnosis and treatment of plant and animal diseases and for the measurement and conservation of bio-resources. To the scientist Biotech helps also to speed up breeding programs for plants, animals and marine resources such as fish. Animal. Biotech is important in animal disease diagnostics and development of animal vaccines against several diseases. When I met 300 farmers for a converstaion in Rukungiri on 26th june 2009 and whose major problem is dwindling land resources for agriculture, I told them that the asnswer lies in spin farming with biotechnology as a catapult. I told farmers to take on enterprises like mushroom farming, poultry, Zero grazing cows and so on. Such enterprises dont need land. Another key challenge raised by farmers in Rukungiri, was unprecedented diseases for crops like coffee, cassava and bananas. The counsel from scientists was adoptation of immunised planting materials and use of seed that are water efficient and resistant to drought. This therefore means that any strategy or action for arresting famine and hunger that is spreading like wild fire in the country must underscore robust investiment in biotechnology and persue scientific agriculuture with in the context of agriculture zoning that allocates areas for GMOs and organic agriculture. The foregoing actions must also be butressed by initiatives that harness water for irrigation and wind for energy to support agroproccessing in rural areas. We neednt mention rural infrastructure installation. After that we can start telling farmers to do farming with a bussiness imperative, link them to bussiness enhancing credit and markets. This is how Uganda will shift from nature based or chance based agriculture systems to more predictable, practicle and susstainable agriculture. Instead of lecturing farmers all the time, I think we need to listen to them in order to practically respond to their needs. Despite the mountain challenges farmers have experienced over the years, they have always been resilient and will soon overcome.

Rwakakamba Morrison
Resident consultant and Manager, Policy Research and Advocacy
Uganda National Farmers Federation
rwakakamba@yahoo.co.uk