In his address while commissioning the new Tororo Cement vertical rolling mill plant on 25th September 2023, President Yoweri Museveni repeated his plea to Ugandans to diversify production at the household level. He noted “I told you that since many families have fragmented land, don’t just do agriculture aimlessly without “ekibaro”. If you have got four acres, I advise you on the four-acre plan; on one acre plant coffee, second plant fruits like mangoes, oranges and pineapples, third acre put pasture for zero grazing cows and the fourth acre you put food like cassava. And if you are near a swamp do fish farming, meanwhile in the backyard you put poultry for eggs and also for those who are not Muslims or traditional Banyankore you put pigs,” he said.
The President continued, “That is what we advised you, but Ugandans don’t listen. Many of them are determined to remain in poverty. The Bakedi have cultivated but they have done so without “ekibaro” because I see half an acre of maize yet to get money from that crop you need like 100 acres. I’m going to come back and really; we shall have to discuss this issue.”
The central question, therefore, why have Ugandans, especially millions of poor small holder farmers dotted across the country (like in Akadot, Mukongoroshire) failed to take up the President’s plea?
Let me attempt to address this question in phases; commercialization of smallholder agriculture – meaning a shift from subsistence to more market-oriented farming – can lead to productivity growth, income growth, employment growth, and poverty reduction. Previous studies confirmed that commercialized farms have higher household incomes than continued practice of subsistence-oriented farming, also after controlling for other relevant factors (von Braun, 1995). A few studies also showed that commercialization contributes to poverty reduction among African smallholders. Agricultural commercialization also improves food supply in urban areas, with broader growth and welfare effects.
Byerlee et al., (2006) argued that development of market-oriented food systems could be the best option for sustainable agricultural productivity and food security. Market production involves increased use of purchased inputs which in turn produce marketable surpluses (Martey et al., 2012). Market-oriented production can impact food security through direct and indirect effects. Direct effects include gains from enhanced economic access to food as a result of raised income which can be used to purchase food, while indirect effects are gains derived from investing income from the cash crop into production of staple crops. Market production plays a significant role in reducing regional food insecurity. Local food shortages caused by imbalances in food distribution due to ecological differences in some rural areas can be addressed through market production. It further allows (productivity enhancing) specialization in production and access to a variety of food, hence reducing the burden for households to produce all that they have to consume (Timmer, 1997).
This is, however, only practical when a well-functioning agricultural marketing system exists. The functioning of markets is critical for market-oriented households to sell their produce and raise sufficient income for non-food consumption, as well as to acquire the food they do not produce themselves.
Ntakyo (2018), in her PhD thesis highlights that in situations of missing markets and market imperfections that characterize most rural areas in rural Uganda, market-oriented production, if not properly supported, can be a threat to food security, especially for the resource poor households. Poor infrastructure -especially poor roads in rural areas, pushes up transport costs and makes it difficult for farmers to access markets. This affects both sellers and buyers. Sellers will not get competitive prices due to limited competition of traders, and buyers will pay high prices which might affect the quantities purchased. In most rural areas, local farmers tend to produce similar crops, and for similar reasons of poor infrastructure, food outflows exceed inflows. Therefore, during the lean season there is less food in the local markets, and this puts market-oriented households at risk of food insecurity. Moreover, poor households who cannot produce sufficient quantities of high-quality foodstuffs may not compete on the market. The implication is that they cannot raise enough income for food and non-food consumption. Food price volatility equally impacts on food security of market-oriented households.
Most farmers sell their produce at low prices soon after harvest and buy food at higher prices during the lean period (Stephens & Barrett, 2011). This is partly attributed to inadequate support services and weak institutions. Lack of agricultural insurance and limited access to financial institutions in the rural areas make farmers vulnerable to seasonal price variability. Limited access to and high cost of credit compel farmers to sell their produce at low prices as they cannot borrow to smooth consumption and deal with shocks. This negatively affects returns from market production thus affecting livelihoods and household food security.
Besides, commercialization of agriculture sometimes diverts resources away from home production of food and exposes resource poor households to a greater risk of food insecurity. Reallocation and untimely allocation of critical inputs to staple food production may result into technical inefficiency and expose households to food insecurity. Some economists have argued that market production partly contributed to why the green revolution in Asia did not address the problem of food and nutrition security. Reallocation of crop land from subsistence to production of grain for income replaced pulses that provided food to the peasants for wheat, significantly exposing poor households to a greater risk of food and nutrition insecurity (Frison et al.,
Lastly on poverty, existing empirical evidence of agricultural commercialisation among peasants and poverty effects of commercialization only looked at income poverty. While income (or expenditure and savings) data are widely used to analyze poverty, the data cannot fully capture the multidimensional and complex nature of poverty in Uganda, including deprivations in education, health, nutrition, property ownership and other dimensions of living standard. The simple argument that additional income earned from agricultural commercialization will automatically be spent on satisfying basic needs or accumulating of more wealth may only be hypothetical. Different types of income may be controlled by different persons within the farm household and used for different purposes away from poverty reduction areas, eg drinking local brew (Ajon/Malwa), marrying more women (Apailon), betting on who will win European football matches or buying soda, bottled beer, doughnuts (Otum beru), airtime or cooking oil (buto).
In light of the above argumentation, it might be important to undertake more studies to explore why millions of Ugandans do not listen to the President, as he laments.
Dr Samuel B. Ariong (PhD) is a recent post doctorate fellow, obtained a PhD in poverty reduction, and he is a lecturer in Australia and a Model Farmer in Kidetok, Serere, rural Eastern Uganda.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
