Sustaining the Future of Uganda: A Historical Analysis of Agriculture Extension Models

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

1

Sustaining the Future of Uganda: A Historical Analysis of Agriculture Extension Models & a Proposal for Modern Development Blake Van Der Kamp Department of Agriculture and Life Science Education, Iowa State University AGEDS 461: Technology Transfer & the Role of Agricultural & Extension Education Dr. Fally Masambuka-Kanchewa December 15th, 2023

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

2

Currently, Uganda sits in a pivotal moment in the country’s development with declining policy reform and the GDP that has grown only 1.0% per year from 2011 to 2022 (World Bank, 2023). Further, gold is currently the nation’s highest export, followed by coffee, cocoa beans, sugar, and fish (Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2021). Thus, agricultural production presents a more sustainable source of GDP for the country while also assisting to combat food insecurity with 42.2% of Ugandans living on $2.15 a day or less (USAID, 2023). On the contrary, the history of agriculture and agricultural extension has long been ever-changing.

Therefore, there is growing pressure to not only find an agriculture extension model suitable for the current state of Uganda, but it must also be adaptable to the country's future development.

Uganda’s Agricultural Extension History The historic roots of what is now known as Uganda date back to 1894, when the kingdom Buganda was declared British property (Embassy of the Republic of Uganda, 2023). This international oversight ceased on October 9th, 1962, when Uganda earned its independence.

Further, this intervention from outside nations hindered Uganda’s autonomy and ability to invest in agricultural extension that met the country's needs. Over the past one-hundred and fifty years, the nation has held nearly a dozen agricultural extension models, according to researchers and as shown in Figure 1 (Oumo & Cho, 2014 & Turyasingura & Chavula, 2021). Moreover, for this research, Uganda’s agricultural extension models focus on three distinct eras: the post-independence, crossroads, and modern eras.

Figure 1. Ugandan agriculture extension service, typology, dominant models and their target groups (Turyasingura & Chavula, 2021, p. 36)

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

3

Post-Independence & International Intervention The 1960s were characterized by numerous developing nations, alongside Uganda, establishing the structure of their new nation. For this reason, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) played a large part in supporting early agricultural extension. International intervention from USAID focused heavily on the empowerment of farmers. However, political discourse in Uganda in the 70s and 80s disrupted the program's effectiveness (Embassy of the Republic of Uganda, 2023). Throughout this period, farmers received only a linear form of agricultural extension that may be described as a top-down model, meaning that farmers had little to no input (Mukembo & Edwards, 2015, p. 57). Moreover, this put Uganda in a difficult position at the turn of the century as agriculture accounted for an estimated 50% of its GDP, 85% of employment, 99% of export earnings, and 40% of the government’s revenue in the year 1990 despite having an ineffective extension model (Matthews et al., 2007, p. 5).

Crossroads & Corruption As the nation entered the 21st century, the Ugandan agricultural extension models at this time were at a “crossroads” coined by Semana (Oumo & Cho, 2014, p. 253). This period was noted for its indecisiveness towards agricultural extension and conflicting perspectives following the post-independence era. However, after several years, the nation shifted from its previously attempted top-down structure to a demand-driven model. The National Agricultural Advisory Services initially assisted this approach, but the organization created distrust through its management and resource practices (Mukembo & Edwards, 2015, p. 57). Additionally, this model was found “too complicated for farmers, especially the poor and illiterate” (ACODE, 2018, p. 5). In 2014, the President of Uganda reviewed the agricultural extension model’s design

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

4

and established additional projects to navigate improvement. Despite these changes, Uganda still struggled to balance innovation, education, and investment.

The Current Agricultural Extension Model of Uganda As one glances into modern-day Uganda, their agricultural extension model has become much more centralized though the adoption of the National Agricultural Extension Policy in October of 2016 (ACODE, 2018, p. ix). The practices identified within this policy align with the several models including the national public extension, farmer field school, and nongovernmental organization extension models (Sennuga et al., 2021). Further, the selection of this diverse agricultural extension model was influenced by the crossroads and corruption era previously noted. Additionally, indecisiveness and the constant change within agricultural education-related approaches left many organizations operating in silos and duplicating work (Semana, 1998). Therefore, the integration of this model sought to increase communication, serve all populations across the agricultural extension chain, and cultivate a shared effort towards progress.

Challenges & Weaknesses of the Model Following the evaluation of Uganda’s agricultural extension policy, several weaknesses exist in the current structure, including communications, transparency, and accountability.

Moreover, when it came to making improvements and taking suggestions, it was found that farmers had issues related to articulating their views, despite seeking to solve communicationrelated issues. To combat this, farmers had taken other avenues to express their perspective, including radio talk shows, telephone calls, village meetings, farmer field schools, and budget conferences” (ACODE, 2018, p. 30). Thus, the performance of the agricultural system was limited by its feedback linkages, which may be attributed to the large scale of the model itself

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

5

(Oumo & Cho, 2014, p. 259-260). To sustain a large-scale agricultural extension model, it requires continued investment in infrastructure, something Uganda has struggled with over the past half-century (Penn State, 2021; Oumo & Cho, 2014). Moreover, this lack of feasibility regarding communication and governmental structure have also created a lack of transparency amongst agricultural extension. The policy review noted that national decisions were diffused through a trickle-down method, relying heavily on the effectiveness of extension agents and districts. Additionally, it was found that over half of the districts did not have current information related to funds from the central government (ACODE, 2018, p. 38). Furthermore, due to a lack of communication and transparency, much evidence exists that accountability is needed to support this trickle-down approach.

Strengths & Opportunities of the Model

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

6

Figure 2. Summary of Ugandan Agriculture Extension Services, typology, dominant models and their target groups

In light of the previously noted challenges, Uganda's agricultural extension has faced significant growth since implementing recent policies (Namyenya et al., 2021). Through its implementation, agricultural extension has become more centralized, education has shown promise, and increased support crossed the country has grown exposure to extension. Another major strength of the model is that the current plan published on the Ugandan government’s website outlines their 65-page outline for implementation, continuation, and evaluation of progress, a component lacking from previous models (ACODE, 2018). This structure has also yielded effective results for producers engaged in programming, with one study finding that milk production increased by 20% for those who received training through extension (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2020). Thus, an additional strength of introducing this model has been through utilizing a farmer field school approach in which producers may be educated on more efficient and effective practices (Emerick & Dar, 2021). The last strength to be noted related to Uganda's extensive history with extension is that it has produced many ways for individuals to access information, as seen in Figure 2.

Despite these mentioned strengths, the model also presents opportunities for growth as the nation continues to find stability. With have a wide range of efforts in Figure 2, this simultaneously means that there are that many projects going on all demanding the attention of both the Ugandan citizens and government. Therefore, this diversity while beneficial at times has

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

7

historically led to an inability to coordinate a unified agricultural extension effort (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2023). Additionally, this lack of centralization and large-scale of this program has reduced ways in which producers may be heard with their concerns related to agricultural extension (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2023). This break in communication has rendered the diffusion of innovation in moderns models to be much more of a trickle-down approach than reciprocal (Kelly, 2014). Finally, to integrate the necessary changes, a large economic and political investment is needed from the national level. Thus, the primary opportunity of growth for this current agricultural extension model includes coordinating of efforts of programs for increased communication and transparency which requires financial support and governmental motivation for legal change.

Proposed Agricultural Extension Model After a review of the current and previous agricultural extension models, it is evident that the nation of Uganda needs a structure that is relevant, effective, and efficient while taking into consideration the nation’s pressures, resources, and limited time (Oumo & Cho, 2014, p. 267). A more suitable solution for the country may lie within the alignment of an Agricultural Knowledge and Information/ Innovation System (AKIS). This model originally came about as a product of global challenges related to the diffusion and adoption of innovation (Asefa et al., 2012, p. 2). These referenced challenges included push back from producers and society regarding agricultural technologies. This differs from the current challenges faced by Uganda as they struggle with leaving producers out of the conversations and decision making. Moreover, as a solution to increase adoption and transparency, the

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

8

AKIS model was created by social scientists (Röling, 1992). Further, this model for Uganda seeks to strengthen communication in a reciprocal manner between entities, thereby presenting an ability to help resolve the long-withstanding gaps within the nation. This exchange occurs through having farmers directly involved in the exchange of information and providing them a means to voice their concerns while still staying informed on research developments as displayed in Figure 3. More specifically, in Uganda this would take shape through producers having a local extension agent in which the had access to and who would in turn be required transfer information back and forth.

While similar to the current model, this approach places an even larger emphasis on strengthening communication and diffusion through a shared, centralized effort. Coordinating this effort requires all four of the outside elements in Figure 3 including national policy, research communication, institutional commitment, and social resources. In Uganda, this would take shape by maintaining the nation’s Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries and requiring them to be integral within the law-making process. The government would also be obligated to economically invest in agricultural extension agents to decrease disproportionate ratios between agents and producers (ACODE, 2018, p. 30). Therefore, this proposed agricultural extension model incorporates all players in the reciprocal diffusion and supply of agricultural knowledge.

Model Shortfalls & Solutions Critics of the AKIS model may cite financing and reliability of political oversight as shortfalls of this extension model. On the contrary, Uganda's current agricultural extension model demonstrates an effective way to finance this structure; it requires planning and follow-through.

With agricultural extension becoming increasingly studied, there also exist well defined funding

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

9

models such as those outlined by Oumo & Cho. (2014). This is essential to sustaining a central agricultural extension program as Uganda has decreased investment in project and become tighter with fiscal spending (World Bank, 2023). It is important to note that Uganda has shown promise in their economic situation with 5.3% increase in GDP, compared to 4.7% in 2022 one year earlier; this has been attributed to their agro-industrialization efforts (World Bank, 2023).

Researchers have also stated that a lack of consideration for a political system's influence stifles an ability to successfully evaluate agricultural extension. While this concern is not unjustified, it is much lower in Uganda as the nation have shown a new-found ability to invest in extension and put much more governmental efforts into extension (ACODE, 2018). However, this ongoing effort will require continued social and political stability within Uganda, which has been more promising in the 2010’s. The final shortfall to be addressed is an inability to access the specific populations of Uganda. Following the most recent evaluation of their modern model and policy, it was found that farmers value technology, especially radio broadcasting. By relying on reputable technologies and other means as a primary method for reciprocal communication, facilitation, and diffusion of ideas, agriculture extension will be much more effective for underserved audiences. Universities can also aid in this approach (Agwu et al., 2023, p. 125). In conclusion, introducing an Agricultural Knowledge and Information/ Innovation System as an agricultural extension model shows promise in alleviating Uganda's communication, transparency, and accountability issues despite potential shortfalls assuming Uganda’s social and political stability and economic investment continue.

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

10

References Agwu, A. E., Suvedi, M., Chanza, C., Davis, K., Oywaya-Nkurumwa, A., Mangheni, M. N., & Sasidhar, P. V. K. (2023). Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services in Nigeria, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya.

Assefa, A., Waters-Bayer, A., Fincham, R., & Mudhara, M. (2012). Comparison of frameworks for studying grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation Systems and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. In Innovation Africa (p. 61-82). Routledge.

Enhancing Coordination among AKIS/RD ACTORS. (n.d.). https://www.fao.org/3/y9087e/y9087e04.htm Fogle, N. (n.d.). Agriculture and Infrastructure: What’s the Connection? https://extension.psu.edu/agriculture-and-infrastructure-whats-the-connection Kelly, M. (2014, November 25). Farmers groups within extension networks in Northern Uganda: inclusive or exclusive?ResearchGate.

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

11

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273576346_Farmers_groups_within_extension_n etworks_in_Northern_Uganda_inclusive_or_exclusive Kuteesa, A., Kisaame E., Barungi J., Ggoobi R., (2018) Public Expenditure Governance in Uganda’s Agricultural Extension System. ACODE Policy Research Paper Series, No. 84, 2018, Kampala Kyle Emerick, Manzoor H. Dar; Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for Increasing Technology Adoption. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2021; 103 (4): 680–693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00917 Matthews, A., Claquin, P., & Opolot, J. (2007). Distortions to agricultural incentives in Uganda (No. 1856-2016-152616).

Mukembo, S. C., & Edwards, M. C. (2015). Agricultural extension in Sub-Saharan Africa during and after its colonial era: The case of Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Kenya. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 22(3), 50-68.

Namyenya, A., Zeller, M., Rwamigisa, P. B., & Birner, R. (2021, June 13). Analysing the performance of agricultural extension managers: a case study from Uganda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 28(3), 363–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224x.2021.1932539 Okello, D. M., Akite, I., Atube, F., Kalule, S. W., & Ongeng, D. (2023). Examining the relationship between farmers’ characteristics and access to agricultural extension:

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

12

Empirical evidence from northern Uganda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 29(4), 439-461.

Olayemi, S. S. (2021, February 27). Evolution of Agricultural Extension Models in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Review. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=3794328#:~:text=The%20paper%20critically%20examined %20seven,Commodity%20Extension%20and%20Research%20Model.

Oumo, F. I., & Cho, G. R. (2014). Present and future of agricultural extension system in Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development, 21(1), 245-272.

Röling, N. The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: A changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration. Knowledge and Policy 5, 42–64 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692791 Semana, r. A. (1998). Agricultural extension Services at crossroads: present dilemma and possible solutions for future in uganda. Department of Agricultural extension/education-Makerere University, Uganda The Observatory of Economic Complexity. (n.d.). Uganda (UGA) exports, imports, and trade partners: The observatory of economic complexity. (UGA) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners | The Observatory of Economic Complexity. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/uga Turyasingura, B., & Chavula, P. (2022). Climate-Smart Agricultural Extension Service Innovation Approaches in Uganda. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture.

Sustaining the Future of Uganda

13

USAID. (n.d.). Uganda IDEA. International Data & Economic Analysis. https://idea.usaid.gov/cd/uganda/hunger-and-food-security World Bank. (2023, September 27). Uganda Overview. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda/overview