Category: Views and Stories

By Regina Kayoyo

On February 10^th 2020 H.E Abiy Ahmed Ali, Ethiopian Prime Minister and AU Leader of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), presented the second Biennial Review Report 2019 to the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government detailing Africa’s agricultural implementation status of the June 2014 Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agriculture Growth and Transformation for shared prosperity and improved livelihoods.

This report follows the first BR report that was adopted by African Heads of State and Governments in January 2018. The Inaugural Biennial Review Report showed that 20 out of 47 countries that reported were on-track towards achieving the goals and targets in the Malabo Declaration by 2025. This Second Biennial Review Report builds on the efforts of the first round and tracks the performance of countries on each of the 47 indicators (four more than in the inaugural report) that shows the performance of the continent towards a fully transformed agricultural sector.

The Malabo Declaration provides the direction for Africa’s agriculture transformation for the period 2015 – 2025, within the Framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). In the Malabo Declaration, AU Member States committed to report on a biennial basis, the progress in achieving the 7 commitments of the Declaration which were translated into seven thematic areas of performance: Re-committing to the principles and values of the CAADP process; Enhancing investment finance in agriculture; Ending Hunger in Africa by 2025; Reducing poverty at least by half, by 2025, through inclusive agricultural growth and transformation; Boosting intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services; Enhancing resilience of livelihoods and production systems to climate variability and other related risks; and Strengthening mutual accountability to actions and results.

Consistent with the inaugural report, a total of forty-nine (49) AU Member States, compared with 47 Member States in the inaugural report, have reported on progress during this second cycle of the biennial review process and out of these, 36 Member States registered positive progress compared with their scores in 2017. This reflects efforts by the Member States to address the shortfalls revealed in the inaugural report. However, only 4 Member States obtained or surpassed the minimum score of 6.66 required to be on-track for this round compared with a minimum score of 3.94 for the previous reporting period.  While this number is significantly less than the 20 Member States that were on-track in 2017 during the inaugural biennial review cycle, it is cardinal to note that 36 countries have made significant improvement in their score from the 1st BR to the 2nd BR.

In the Eastern Africa region which included 12 countries namely: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Only 8 countries namely Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda, submitted their national BR reports. Strikingly, only one of these countries (Rwanda) is on-track in meeting the 2019 Malabo commitments. It is therefore not surprising that the region as a whole with an average score of 4.00 is not on-track.

According to the report, the region needs to pay critical attention to all commitment areas if it is to meet the Malabo Declaration targets by 2025. Specifically, the region needs to pay particular attention to the re-commitment to CAADP process, enhancing investment finance in agriculture, ending hunger by 2025, halving poverty through agriculture by 2025, and enhancing mutual accountability for actions and results as none of the performance categories related to these commitment areas are on-track. Additionally, countries in the region need to increase resources to improve data systems to adequately report on all CAADP/Malabo indicators. Notwithstanding, it is worth mentioning that the region has done well in improving policies and institutional conditions to boost intra-African trade and promoting initiatives of building resilience of production systems to climate change.

The results of the 2nd Biennial Review report indicate that the continent as a whole is not-on-track to meet the goals and targets of the Malabo declaration by 2025, but positive progress is being made. Several Member States were unable to report on some indicators because they did not have the data in their national agricultural systems. For example, only nineteen (19) and twenty-two (22) Member States were able to report on reduction of post-harvest losses, and the proportion of women that empowered in agriculture, respectively, yet these issues are key components in the Malabo Declaration.

This report strongly urged AU Member States to design, fund and implement carefully selected priority programs and projects to fast-track the achievement of the Seven Malabo commitments. In this regard, Member States should intensify efforts to develop and implement Malabo-compliant high-quality NAIPs.

By Jude Ssebuliba

On 13^th June 2019, parliament passed a 40.5 Trillion National Budget for FY2019/20 signifying a 20% increment from last year’s budget which stood at 32 trillion.

As some ministries, such as agriculture, education, health and transport, had an increase in funds allocated to them, the ministry of lands suffered a significant decreased from 202 billion in FY2018/19 to 193 billion.

This leaves one wondering if the government is aware that all development takes place on land and that without its prudent management and administration being facilitated with an appropriate budget, other sectors may not flourish as well.

To illustrate my case; without land ownership, where will people practice the agriculture that the government allocate 3 trillion for? How will people appreciate the roads constructed on the land taken from them without free, prior and fair compensation? Where will people live as they access the education that received a relatively high allocation? And so on and so forth.

Anyone working in the lands sector and every citizen keen to what is happening around them agrees that, for now, the Ugandan government has established a legal framework as well as structures from the national to local levels, i.e. district land boards, MZOs, LC courts, to address land issues. These are assisted by informal land administrators such as religious leaders, opinion leaders and family members. However, despite the land administrators’ willingness to serve their own people, their operations have always been hampered by the lack of resources needed to meet regularly to review cases reported, open boundaries, and the fact that their operations are sometimes compromised by those with more money which leads to them making wrong judgements.

In Eastern and Northern Uganda it is common, for example, to find ALCs that have never been inducted or who have never interacted with the land laws they are purportedly implementing, DLBs that probably last met a year ago, MZOs that are well constructed but cannot conduct business etc. In a situation characterized by numerous land rights violations due to a weak system, one would expect that the logical solution would be to, at least, increase the ministry’s budget, but, unfortunately our leaders would rather protect what is on the land rather than the land itself hence the state of the FY2019/20 budget.

In Buganda and other parts of the country there is double ownership of land i.e land lords and Bibanja holders. This has caused a lot of controversy and confusion leading to the illegal dispossession of Bibanja holders in most cases. The president was once quoted saying the solution to this is a land fund that would be used to pay of landlords so that Bibanja holders recognized by the law can have tenure security but if the entire sector must run on 193Bn, where shall the amount spared for the land fund be taken from? One reason why governments exist is to protect the rights of the weak, but in this instance, the weak are left to the whims of those that are strong.

As the affected parties are left unprotected, the land issue continues to worsen. Many are left in internally displaced people’s camps, and the populations of those camps are steadily growing due to this issue, especially in the cases of the Apaa, Mubende and Kalangala counties. If this continues they may have no choice but to turn to violence against the landlords, who are perceived as aggressors.

There is an urgent need to finance land administration institutions, allocate enough money for awareness creation among the communities, and for the land fund to be adequately capitalized in order for it to serve the purpose of its creation, otherwise, continuing to lessen the funding of the lands sector causes one to wonder; is the malfunctioning of the lands ministry intentional?

By Lucky Brian Wamboka

In exploring the understanding of land tenure and land management in Uganda there is need to underpin access to, ownership of, and use of land and other natural resources as vital for addressing food insecurity and poverty. Land tenure security guarantees increased agricultural production and productivity as people have access to own and use land. Any form of tenure insecurity is a source of conflict within families and between groups and communities.

Tenure insecurity exists in all the four types of tenure systems in Uganda but land owned under customary tenure is the most vulnerable. Between 70 and 80 percent of land owned in Uganda is held under customary tenure as it is privately owned by either individuals, families or clans (Human Rights Focus, 2013). Specifically, Northern Uganda has over 95 percent of its land under customary tenure and the region has the highest levels of poverty, food insecurity mainly brought about by land disputes recorded at 42 percent.

The many conflicts under this customary tenure arise mainly from border disputes when others overstep boundaries, often deliberately. Those conflicts are particularly common during the rainy season, when people are farming and land is under particular pressure. The competition for water resources is accelerated by increasing internal land-grabbing by elites where community rights over these areas to management and user rights have been limited.

The state on the other hand plays a significant role in facilitating large scale land transfers to foreign investors through promising access to land and other natural resources like water, wetlands, forest reserves, which perpetuates land grabbing. Such conflicts do not only render the land inaccessible for production, they consume productive time in litigation. Until individuals, families and communities in the customary sector are recognized as lawful owners of their lands, they run the continuing and worsening risk of losing those lands to others.

Traditionally, land wrangles under customary tenure are counteracted by vesting formal ownership with the clan and the elders would decide who should be allocated land and for what purposes. Land is considered to be ‘held in trust’ for the next generation and so the conceptual discussion of who can be said to own what leads to very different outcomes. One consequence of this is that the ‘entities’ owning land are becoming smaller: where once land was owned by the tribe as a whole, has gradually changed to village and clan units, then to families and now increasingly to household level units. Household land is now commonly divided amongst sons who are increasingly assuming absolute ownership as individuals.

Uganda’s policy framework on the other hand recognizes customary land tenure equally as other tenure systems. The 1998 Land Act recognizes that occupancy of customary land and conveys legal rights without documentary evidence. The National Land Policy 2013 supports the registration of land rights under customary tenure and contains a number of important reform proposals to cause gender equality with regard to land rights and inheritance of land. The policy includes also measures geared at rationalizing and streamlining the land dispute resolution structures and recognizes the role of customary institutions in making rules governing land, resolving disputes and protecting land rights (Zevenbergen and al., 2012). This calls for efficiency and at the same time the reinforcement of customary institutions is not without creating ambiguities. The National Land Policy also provides for the need for legal recognition of the dual operation of both customary and statutory systems in land rights administration, land dispute resolution and land management by empowering customary authorities to undertake these functions.

Despite the existence of laws alongside traditional mechanisms to address customary land issues, Customary land interests can only be respected in national laws if they are treated as equivalent in legal force to land interests obtained through non-customary regimes;  certified or registered without first being converted into non-customary forms of landholding; respected to equal degree as property whether owned by families, spouses, groups, or whole communities, not just individuals; understood in the law as expressible in different bundles of rights, including, for example, the seasonal rights of pastoralists; supported by the creation of local-level dispute resolution bodies, whose decisions carry force and whose rulings rely on just customary practices and be given the same protection as statutorily derived private properties when required for public purposes, as indicated by the extent to which the law requires the same levels of compensation to be paid and the same conditions to both forms of property to apply.

The need to bridge the current gaps in policy and practice are necessary. Whereas there is commendable progress in policy development on land governance in Uganda, it is important that the government through the Ministry of Lands Urban Housing and Development puts in place a Customary Land Registry. Having a Customary Land Registry will make customary tenure information accessible enabling data based decision making and improving security of tenure for occupants, as it will be used as evidence of ownership to prevent land grabbing and land conflicts.

It will promote equitable use and management of natural resources by people within the communities since it will define roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The creation of a Customary Land Registry will improve transparency accountability and service delivery by duty bearers as per the National Land Policy. Justice will also be upheld for vulnerable groups as the Registry will be much clearer what they are entitled to.

By Jude Ssebuliba

Land ownership and conditions governing land occupation determine how much and when a farmer can invest in agricultural activities. Long term investments, such as irrigation infrastructure, valley dams/tanks and permanent cash crops like coffee, cotton, tea, vanilla to mention a few, require a guarantee of ownership to remove the fear of sudden eviction from land where infrastructure could be installed. Additionally, strong land tenure terms on top of promoting a strong sense of ownership of a piece of land among farmers, would motivate them to take good care of the land through sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers may even use the land as security for getting bank loans, leading them to develop and invest more in the land in order to improve their incomes as well as to pay back the borrowed money.

Today, most of our farmers, majority of whom are small-scale and on whom our economy depends so heavily on, either work on land that is not really theirs or that they cannot legally prove their ownership of. In most parts of the central region, farmers are operating on Bibanja at the mercy of a landlord somewhere in Kampala or Wakiso district. In other parts of the country, under customary land tenure systems, farmers own the land they claim by virtue of their customary entitlements but lack the documents they need to prove their ownership leaving them vulnerable to land grabbers, who may use legal mechanisms to evict them.

As a result of this, we have witnessed countless reports of families being evicted from the land which they have lived on for generations as rightful occupants. Most of these families are evicted by rich people, often with the help of security forces wielding documents from courts of law, or by government agencies such as NEMA, UWA, and UNLA. Due to lack of proper documentation it is often hard to tell who is entitled to the land, as the rich people and institutions often claim the farmers attempt to grab their land by occupying it for a long time while the farmers claim that they are being evicted from the land that they rightfully own.

To the agricultural sector, these interactions between land owners, squatters and masquerades has led to short term agricultural investment, as small scale farmers who believe they could lose their land anytime tend to plant seasonal crops that mature very quickly and do not invest in heavy machinery that would be hard to keep in case of an eviction. Their situation is easily summed up in a quote from 2017 from one resident of Apaa county who said “we spend more time safeguarding land than we spend tilling it.”

The situation in Mubende, Kalangala, Nakasongla, Wakiso is not different at all. Due to fear that they may lose it anytime, land owners are often selling off their land while they still can, and choose to start easily relocatable businesses such as shops and commercial motorcycles transportation, unfortunately these often do not last long eventually plunging them further into poverty.

As Uganda prepares to become a middle income country, it is now more necessary than ever for everyone to check their land tenure situation as the demand for land by industrialists increases. This phase is likely going to see increasing demand for land from the large and medium scale farmers and industrialists which will inevitably result into more evictions of the vulnerable.

Historically commercial farming and other large scale land based development has largely been anchored on ruthlessness and crime. “Behind every large fortune there is a crime.” One French novelist, Balzac once said. People crossed oceans and grabbed large chunks of land from the natives of their host continents, committed massacres, and used slave labour to enrich themselves. Today commercial farmers use heavy machines like tractors and combine harvesters on large pieces of land. It is the new trend. Smallholder farmers using hand hoes must therefore be on the lookout. Lest they be put on the losing side.

By Sheila Adogola

On 28th May, a great man and icon to the nation, Prof. Apollo Nsibambi, was lost. During a requiem mass on 3rd June at Namirembe Cathedral, his heiress, Rohda Nakimuli Kasujja, was made known.

Applause came from women’s empowerment activists on the decision, who called it a heroic act and a great channel through which women’s empowerment could be advocated, specifically, through which amendments to the Succession Act in order to ensure inheritance is not limited to men could be made.

The declaration also brought about criticism from the Buganda community who did not acknowledge the act, because in Buganda culture, the lineage and blood ties are passed on through patrilineal lines in order to preserve their culture from generation to generation thus a woman cannot carry them on because she gets married and attains another name.

Inheritance in Uganda is governed by the 1906 Succession Act and Administrator General’s Act, which proclaim that a customary heir should be a person recognized by the rites and customs of a tribe or community of a deceased person as being a customary heir of the deceased.

Ugandan law protecting women’s rights to inheritance is not often effective due to the influential nature of the cultural laws and if we attach inheritance to only property and not consider other aspects, chances are that entire lineages and bloodlines could be lost in the process.

Is there a possibility that culture and law can harmonize and work hand in hand in order to end such discriminatory practices?

Can provisions be made to name an heir that will carry on the lineage and blood ties while the heiress, as already identified, is allowed to oversee the property left by the late?

By Gloria Acayo

Uganda as a country is endowed with several natural resources on and underneath land including minerals, oil and gas, lakes, rivers, forest, mountains among others. Land in Uganda is not only a natural resource but has also become a commodity with the potential to enhance development. Uganda as a country is on the verge of realizing its 2040 vision agenda. Many development plans have been put in place under the National Development Plan II however, this has increased pressure on land as it is at the centre of development. Given the patens of land usage in Uganda, we must worry about why and how land giveaways are happening in the country especially in regard to natural resources.

The 1995 constitution of the republic of Uganda article 237 vested land in the citizens of Uganda to hold in accordance with the four different land tenure systems (Freehold, Leasehold, Customary tenure and Mailo tenure). The constitution further grants the right to the government to compulsorily acquire land for public interest. What is public interest or use is well outlined in the constitution to include, public health, defence, public safety, public order and public morality. The constitution further vested the right to the government of Uganda to hold in trust for the people of Uganda all natural resources including natural lakes, rivers, wetlands, game reserves, natural parks and any land to be reserved for ecological and touristic purpose for the common good of the citizens of Uganda. This is a responsibility that the government has been exercising before and since the coming of the constitution.

The question however has been as to how best the government can manage the natural resources in trust and balance it with the interest of the citizens of Uganda. The people of Uganda have seen the government allocate some of the previously known reserved areas and wetlands to investors for development. For example most wetlands in Wakiso districts area have currently been affected due to increased industrial development and road construction in the area. In 2006 the Government of Uganda in collaboration with the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) owned by the Mehta Group of companies announced plans to clear one-third of the Mabira Central Forest Reserve (around 70 square kilometres (27 sq mi), for sugarcane plantations.

On the same note in the last past years, Bugoma forest has been under threat after the government gave part of it to an investor for sugar cane plantation. Currently in this month of June 2019, the mighty Murchison Falls National park, formerly known as Kabalega falls has been a trending story in Uganda after a South African based investor expressed interest in building a power generating dam on the falls. These are just a few examples among many destruction to the environment taking place. Most of these giveaways have been met with resistance from the community, and the citizens of Uganda as a whole. The main strategy used during such encounters has been social media campaigns and demonstrations from environmentalist.

The on-going destruction of natural resources in the name of investments to the debate on whether or not “its either nature or development”. Under this debate, discussion would, naturally, stray to the issue of why some ‘protected’ areas are being destroyed for development while communities in other areas are under attack for occupying reserves.
A case in point is drawn from the Apaa land issue where government is alleging on the one hand that the community are settled on government (UWA) land and the wrangle between the Benet community in Kween district and UWA among others.

The government of Uganda has not made an open statement as to why the giveaways are taking place, however, there has been rumour by the public that such areas occupied by the natural resources are considered government land hence will not attract compensation to anybody. This therefore calls for analysing the difference between government and public land or resources. Several times we have heard the government say that we cannot continue talking about inadequate electricity yet we have the powerful water falls to generate the power and that we cannot continue to talk about unemployment when we are failing to promote industrialisation. To the Uganda government’s credit, they feel as though they have balanced the economic costs with the long term environmental costs and benefits to society and realized these are the best choices for the country. But what evidence supports their decisions, especially when they are intentionally failing to appreciate the benefits we get and shall be gotten by our generation from the natural resources before they are destroyed?

Some individuals in the government keep asking environmentalists and CSOs who are advocating for land rights of the citizens whether or not they have seen any developed country with as much free land as Uganda. According to them, as long as free land still exists, then Uganda may not develop. This therefore shows that the government of Uganda is under pressure to realise its development plans and vision of Transforming Ugandan Society from a Peasant to a Modern and Prosperous Country within 30 years. However, under the NDPII the development objective of the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) sub-sector is to promote and ensure the rational and sustainable utilization, development and effective management of environment and natural resources for socio-economic development of the country”. The sub-sector encompasses productive, sound and wise use of resources from forests and trees, wetlands, the environment as well as preventing climate change.

It is also important to note that the government committed under the NDPII to increase wetland ecosystem coverage from 10.9 percent in FY2013/14 to 12 percent in FY2019/20; Increase the percentage of forest cover from 14 percent in FY2012/13 to 18 percent in FY2019/2020; Enhance environmental compliance from 70 percent in 2013/14 to 90 percent in 2019/2020 one may therefore wonder, how these objectives can be met without strong practical effort by the government to protect the natural resources?
The question left unanswered is why the continuous allocation of such beautiful creations to an investor who is aiming at making profit, yet a person using it to support his family is not allowed to benefit from such resources.

Important for us to note is the fact that the environment or natural resources have not only been a beautiful creation but a habitat for wildlife, source of livelihood (food and water) for some communities and animals, positive climate change agent among others. We should note that natural resource covers have not only made Uganda the pearl of Africa but have contributed towards mitigation of climate change impacts and boosted the tourism sector; the country is reaping big profits in the form of government revenue through taxes, GDP figures, Foreign Exchange, job creation; with very little prioritization from the government.

Environmentalists and the general public in Uganda stand against such allocations in fear for the loss of hundreds of endangered species, increased soil erosion, the damage of livelihoods of thousands of local people who directly depend on forests, wetlands and the negative impacts on water balance and climate. Wetlands alone regulate water flows, store carbon, release oxygen into the atmosphere and host a diverse range of plant and animal species. How then can they be considered free land?

Apart from the land covers being given away to investors, there has been deliberate action by some few individuals in communities and rich ‘mafias’ to destroy the natural resources through logging, charcoal burning sand mining in lakes and construction in wetlands. As citizens of Uganda, the point of interest is how and why such destruction has continued amidst government agencies like, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), National Forest Authority (NFA), Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), tourism bodies Uganda National Meteorological Authority (UNMA) Local Governments among others.

Knowing that future generations shall also depend on these natural resources should be enough for us to protect such natural resources from being given away to investors or from the destruction of a few greedy individuals. What do you think?? What are you going to do to save natural resources?

For God and my country I stand

By Freda Orochi

The decision made by President Museveni and his cabinet on the Apaa land crisis should be an issue of concern by the citizens of this country as it has left the people of Apaa in a very vulnerable position. The president, while meeting with the cabinet ministers in May 2019, said that those who had settled in the East Madi Game Reserve and were found to have acquired National Identification Cards between 2013 and 2014 as residents of Apaa, be supported with Sh10 million, 20 bags of cement and 20 iron sheets per family in order to enable them to acquire land elsewhere.

Whereas there is need to commend the Government for looking for solutions to the Apaa conflict, there are concerns that the proposed solution will leave the residents of Apaa in a very vulnerable state.

The Apaa issue is a complex ongoing land dispute involving a web of different parties and interests. The debate as to whether Apaa land falls administratively within Amuru or Adjumani District has become part of a wider land conflict. The government claims that the disputed land, measuring about 827 square kilometers, is a protected East Madi Wildlife Reserve located in Adjumani and was gazetted by Parliament in 2002. The residents claim that they were displaced as a result of the LRA war and were living in internally displaced camps. But after the end of the war they were shocked upon returning to Apaa to find it claimed by UWA as part of the East Madi Game Reserve. Since 2011 the residents of Apaa have faced a series of forcible evictions which have been carried out at different times by UWA rangers, police and UPDF soldiers.

The longstanding violence has repeatedly involved burning of huts, forcible displacement, and destruction of property, torture, beatings, and deaths. Given the fact that a lot of human rights violations have been committed in Apaa, the Government needs to bring the perpetrators of these violations to justice and compensate the residents of Apaa who have lost property or have been victims of violence during this conflict. The media is awash with stories of violence, destruction of grave sites meted against residents of Apaa by unknown persons who often commit these atrocities in the course of the night. Despite the public outcry and concern about these acts of violence not much is being done to ensure the safety of the residents of Apaa.

 The efforts by the leaders in Apaa to ask Government to degazatte the land for the benefit of the community like it is in Lake Mburo National Park fell on deaf ears. Much as the question of ownership is not answered, it should be noted that the two communities were living together in peace and unity.

Several meetings between the leaders of the two parties failed to resolve this issue which led the President to intervene. Much as the President intervened to solve the problem, his directive will cause more problems than it should have solved. This directly may not be providing the justice that some of us were expecting to see in the whole scandal of the Apaa land.

The question left unanswered is “who owns Apaa land?”  Is 10million or 2million adequate enough to afford a family a decent resettlement? Is the criteria being used by the government legal in as far as compensation of victims are concerned?” what does national ID have to do with ownership? Why should citizens of Uganda be treated as though they are strangers?

While the above questions are still lingering in our mind, it can be argued that the decision made by the President in this issue goes against the provisions of the constitution of Uganda. The resolution to compensate the residents on the basis of  having or not having a national identity card goes against the principle of Article 26 of the constitution which protects Ugandans from deprivation of property unless with prompt, fair and adequate payment prior to taking away of such. The compensation rates being proposed by government are not only unfair but also inadequate. The period of 1 year that the government has given to the locals to vacate said land does not give residents enough time to relocate elsewhere. This decision is likely to render the residents of Apaa homeless in their own country.

There is need for government to come up with a long lasting solution to this dispute. The decision to order the residents of Apaa to vacate their land and be given compensation basing on them having IDs does not solve the dispute. The compensation rate proposed cannot cater for the suffering that the people of Apaa have gone through and will go through if they leave their land.

Before the land is given to an investor to set up a wildlife sport hunting ground, why doesn’t the government explore innovative methods of managing this with the local residents instead of displacing them? Investment should not be done at the expense of people’s livelihoods, safety and property.

Going forward, there is need for Government to opt for dialogue and use the abundant laws on land administration that the country has to manage this matter in a transparent manner.

The Government through the Uganda Wild life Authority can explore the option of encouraging the affected communities to establish Wildlife Conservation Associations to enter into collaborative management agreements over the mutual use of protected areas and involved resources.

By Jude SSebuliba

It gives me great pleasure to share with you the 1st issue of land matters magazine. On behalf of Food Rights Alliance, I hope his magazine finds you well and secure. This issue covers a reflection of what is happening in the lands sector gathered during the two months i.e. April to June, 2019 FRA has been implementing a DGF funded project entitled “Promoting inclusive and equitable land governance in Uganda that fosters optimum land use and upholds people’s land rights” in the districts of Nakasongola, Mubende, Soroti and Kalangala, the stories further refer to what is happening in the land sector at a National level.

Land is the backbone of any economic and social development, for all development takes place on land. The eradication of hunger and poverty, and the sustainable use of the environment, depend on how people, communities and others gain access to land and land based resources. The livelihood of many, particularly the rural poor, are based on secure and equitable access to and control over land and its resources. They are the source of food and shelter; the basis for social, cultural and religious practices; and a central factor in economic growth. Land is of crucial importance to the economies and societies of all regions, contributing a major share of GDP and employment in most countries, and constituting the main livelihood basis for a large proportion of the population.

Sound land governance is fundamental in achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction. To many countries, agriculture is the backbone of the majority of economies accounting for 25%-35% of GDP and providing the main source of livelihood for over 70% of the population in many countries. Thus, there’s a need to recognise the centrality of land in the lives of all people and manage it in a manner that can foster its continued provision to all sectors of society and not in a manner that jeopardises the future usage of land.

Studies by a wide range of sources such as; the World Bank, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), OECD, Civil society organisations, and the academic institutions show that strengthening land and property rights goes hand in hand with the realization of development objectives related to poverty alleviation, food security, environmental sustainability and advancing women’s empowerment worldwide.

On the other hand, insecure rights to land and natural resources have far-reaching ramifications. A lack of land rights creates insecurity for poor rural and urban landholders that dampens investment, destroys livelihoods, ferments conflict, creates unequal economic systems, locks assets in an unusable and untradeable form; discourages conservation, hampers sustainable domestic resource mobilization for increasing the availability of public services, and undermines principles of effective and democratic governance.

Clear and secure land tenure can improve livelihoods and sustainable management of natural resources, and promote sustainable development and responsible investment that eradicates poverty and food insecurity. Land tenure security guarantees the existence of land rights, ensures protection of rights through legal remedies when those rights are challenged or abused, provides landowners with the confidence that they will not be arbitrarily deprived of their rights over particular lands and resources, and creates land markets that unlock its potential as an asset and encourages efficient allocation and transactions.

Despite these transformative benefits, the Ugandan government like many developing countries has for years shied away from emphasizing land rights in their development strategies and in many ways showed that land and property rights are not at the forefront of development strategies.

Efforts to achieve sustainable development for all must consider secure and equitable rights to land and natural resources as a priority. Land should be refocused in the broader policy framework instead of taking it in isolation of agriculture and other development sectors as it is the major determinant with a high multiplier effect over the attainment of development in other sectors.