Programme doesn’t help the poor!

Apr 06, 2010

EDITOR—The ‘Bonna Baggagawale’ programme is aimed at eradicating mass poverty through commercial agriculture. The President announced recently that there are 350 parishes in Lango and the Government was going to provide 700 oxen, 350 ploughs and 350 heifers to the region before spread to other

EDITOR—The ‘Bonna Baggagawale’ programme is aimed at eradicating mass poverty through commercial agriculture. The President announced recently that there are 350 parishes in Lango and the Government was going to provide 700 oxen, 350 ploughs and 350 heifers to the region before spread to other areas.

He said the lango leaders should help identify groups that will receive the animals and ploughs. Who in particular will take the lead in identifying the beneficiary group? Will it be the MP, NRM district chairperson, LC3 chairperson or the sub-county NAADS coordinator?

What criteria will be used for the group selection and how do we avoid a scenario where the NRM cadres constitute themselves into a farmer group within a given parish and politically benefit from this initiative without producing any tangible results as has happened with the NAADS programmes?

Farmers initially formed groups instantly to access agricultural technologies without having a group vision, objectives, bylaws, business plan and training conducted by the extension workers. Mr. President, I am raising this issue because in 2008 you were fooled to visit a poultry farmer group in Lira in Adekokwok sub-county in Akia parish.

This was at Okello Awio’s home under the NAADS Programme where you donated to the group sh1m for their hard work and yet this same group when I visited them later in 2009, I discovered that all along they were making losses in their project! It has disintegrated since then! The group you visited, had 160 members who contribute sh1,000 monthly to buy feeds to feed 100 chickens given to them by NAADS.

When you divide the number of birds with the members, each of them had half a chicken! The total contribution from the members after six months to feed the chickens comes to sh960,000 minus other cost like housing, vaccination, labour, etc the before birds farmers sell the eggs to make money.

The programme caused a lot of burden, exploited the farmers and increased poverty in their households instead of eradicating it. This should be an eye-opener. When groups are selected, it should not be for political expediency or vote-hunting.

The group must be an example with impact of the programme and for long-term learning of the community within their respective parishes. Coming to the lead farmers whom the president visited in Lira and Amolatar districts, who are supposed to be the beneficiary examples of ‘prosperity for all programmes, leaves a lot to be desired.

This is because by rural standards, they are very rich. T. K. Ogwal of Adyaka parish, Amac sub-county is a professional agriculturalist and a business-oriented person who worked with DANIDA under the ASPS programme.

He got Government contracts to construct and repair community roads/bridges and currently is the chief logistics officer of NAADS Lira District. He has invested in commercial agriculture and benefited from NAADS as a lead farmer in his parish.

James Olobo of Amolatar is a well known businessman in Lira who owns Town View Hotel and a number of other businesses plus many buildings and is also a lead farmer in his parish. The two examples mirror the category of Ugandans benefiting and reaping countrywide from the ‘prosperity for all programme!

They are not the rural poor. If the programme is to be effective, the design of the policy framework should target the rural poor through increasing their ability to raise incomes and improving their quality of life. it should also address the issue of agricultural extension.

The Government should adopt and mainstream the farmer field school approach that tackles all aspects of agronomic practices, business planning/skills and project analysis for the farmers in terms of training and demonstration of modern technologies.

Adopt the village savings and loan associations approach instead of SACCOS that will ensure mobilisation of funds, borrowing and self-sustainability of the farmer groups without high interest rates.

Engage in massive education and sensitisation programmes aimed at transforming the attitudes of the rural poor geared towards individual empowerment and independence as opposed to dependency especially in northern Uganda where we are moving from emergency relief to long-term recovery and development after the LRA conflict. Finally, it is politicising the programme for political gain that has led to its poor performance.
Patrick Aroma
aromaguzi@gmail.com

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});