Occasional Paper No. 10
POVERTY RELEVANT
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR
UGANDA
By
Godfrey Bahiigwa
Economic Policy Research Centre
Makerere, Kampala
Telly Eugene Muramira
National Environ. Mgt. Authority
Kampala, Uganda
March 2001
POVERTY RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR
UGANDA
1.1.
Background and Rationale
The contribution of the environment to human well-being in Uganda, like in
many other developing countries, is now explicitly recognized. This is partly
due to research and documentation by Ugandan scholars to the effect that
environmental and natural resource inputs significantly contribute to human
well-being (NEMA, 1998). On the converse, the deterioration of the quality
and quantity of environmental resources worsens the condition of poor
people. The relationship between poverty and environment in Uganda is best
understood in the context of people’s livelihoods, especially the poor who
constitute 35 percent of the population (Appleton, 2001). Over 85% of
Uganda’s population live in rural areas and are employed in natural resourcebased activities, especially agriculture (GoU, 2000). The activities of the rural
poor have significant implications for the environment. The poor generally live
off the land on which they grow crops for subsistence and sale, graze their
livestock, and obtain wood for cooking, lighting and construction of houses.
Since they depend on the land for most of their needs, they tend to use the
land intensively, leading to degradation. As the land deteriorates, the poor
become poorer (MFPED, 1999). This leads to the well known vicious circle of
poverty.
Over time, much of the land under utilization has been degraded either due to
overuse or soil erosion (NEMA, 1998). Increasing rural populations have
exerted pressure on protected areas – game parks, game reserves, forest
reserves and wetlands. The protected areas are intended to preserve the
environment, for both the present and future generations. However, the
present generations must survive, yet the land on which they currently live is
under stress. Additionally, the rural poor depend on natural resources such as
forests for fuel wood and charcoal burning to supply ever increasing urban
1
populations. Furthermore, there is increasing search for land that provides
natural water for agricultural production and such areas are wetlands. The
dilemma facing government and policy makers is how to strike a balance
between survival of the people and stricter environmental regulation.
In spite of the above, Uganda still lacks a systematic framework for tracking
the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation (Driver and
Moyini, 2001). Overall, therefore, there is little understanding of the true cost
to the economy of environmental degradation and the depletion of the stock of
natural resources (Slade and Weitz, 1991). This lack of information makes it
difficult for policy makers to fully appreciate environmental concerns and give
them the weight they otherwise deserve. In fact environmental considerations
are not adequately addressed in government’s overall planning framework,
the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) (Driver and Moyini, 2001). This
brief report includes proposed indicators to help monitor the impact of poverty
on the environment and the effects of environmental degradation on the wellbeing of poor people.
1.2.
Description of the Study
This report was commissioned by the UK-Department for International
Development through the School of Public Policy of the University of
Birmingham. The broad aim of the report is to provide generic and country
indicators that relate environmental change to the conditions of poor people in
Uganda. The report addressed the following terms of reference:
(i)
review of relevant documents on poverty and environment issues
pertinent to Uganda including background documents to Poverty
Reduction
Strategy
Papers
(PRSPs),
Participatory
Poverty
Assessment Reports and the State of the Environment Reports;
(ii)
identification of the most pertinent environmental issues arising from
poverty assessments and, where possible, discussion of the relative
significance of environmental issues for the poor in relation to other
issues;
2
(iii)
engaging in discussions with relevant DFID in-country staff regarding
potential data sources;
(iv)
reviewing lists of generic indicators with reference to the most pertinent
environmental issues of relevance to the poor in Uganda (particularly
identifying environmental improvements that will make the most
difference in the short to medium term);
(v)
suggesting alternative and additional poverty-environment indicators;
(vi)
assessing potential data sources in terms of reliability, frequency at
which the data is generated and its relevance (these may include
national household surveys, PPAs, etc.);
(vii)
preparing values for each indicator (noting data sources, year of data,
methodology used, type of indicators (%, index, how calculated) etc.),
where possible;
(viii)
recommending revised generic indicators and methodologies based on
the above exercise.
1.3.
Country Profile
Uganda is a landlocked country of a total of about 236,000 km2. The country
borders with Sudan in the North, the Democratic Republic of Congo in the
West, Rwanda in the South-West, Tanzania in the South and Kenya in the
East. The country’s total area of 236,000 km2 comprises of 194,000 km2 of
dry land; 33,926 km2 of open water and 7,674 km2 of permanent swamp
(Langdale-Brown et al., 1964). The country lies on the African plateau at
altitudes ranging on average, between 900-1,500 m above sea level. In the
south of the country, the characteristic scenery consists of flat-topped mesalike hills and broad intervening valleys frequently containing swamps; towards
the north, the landscape is more subdued consisting of gently rolling open
plains
interrupted
by
occasional
hills,
mountains
and
inselbergs.
Southwestwards, broken hill country characteristically encircling lowland
embankments forms the transition to the deeply incised plateau that reaches
its greatest heights of over 2,000 m above sea level in Kabale district. Table 1
gives a summary of more aspects on Uganda, beyond natural resources
3
Some 18 million hectares of arable land is available for cultivation, less than
one third of which is currently under cultivation. The country is well endowed
with abundant water resources both in the form of surface and ground water.
Surface water resources consist of numerous rivers, swamps and lakes.
There are eight river systems exceeding 100km in length and six major lakes
covering 34,814 km2. The whole of the country lies within the Upper Nile
catchment area but nationally, this is sub-divided into ten smaller catchments
(Atlas of Uganda, 1967). Regional differences exist in terms of ethnicity,
culture, topography (from mountains to semi-arid low land conditions),
livelihood systems (fishing, various crop systems and livestock keeping),
infrastructure, service delivery and governance.
Poverty eradication is a fundamental objective of Uganda’s development
strategy for the next two decades, and the Government has resolved to
reduce the proportion of the population living in absolute poverty to 10 percent
and in relative poverty to 30 percent by the year 2017. The Poverty
Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) forms the framework for poverty eradication in
Uganda. It adopts a multi-sectoral approach, recognising the multidimensional nature of poverty and the inter-linkages between influencing
factors. The priorities for poverty eradication set by the PEAP are primary
health care, rural feeder roads, education, water, and the modernisation of
agriculture, especially through research and extension.
4
Table 1: Uganda at a Glance
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Uganda
SubSaharan
Africa
Lowincome
Population, mid-year (millions)
GNP per capita (Atlas method, US$)
GNP (Atlas method, US$ billions)
21.5
320
6.8
642
500
321
2,417
410
988
Average annual growth, 1993-99
Population (%)
Labour force(%)
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.6
1.9
2.3
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1993-2000)
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line
Urban population (% of total population)
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
Access to improved water source (% of population)
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
Gross primary enrolment (% of school-age population)
Male
Female
35
13
42
97
26
41
38
122
129
114
..
34
50
92
32
43
39
78
85
71
..
31
60
77
43
64
39
96
102
86
1999
KEY EONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
GDP (US$ billions)
Gross domestic investment/GDP
Export of goods and service/GDP
Gross domestic savings/GDP
Gross national savings/GDP
1979
..
..
..
..
..
1989
5.3
11.1
8.0
1.0
1.9
1998
6.8
15.0
10.3
5.6
13.4
1999
6.4
16.4
11.3
4.9
10.5
Current account balance/GDP
Interest payments/GDP
Total debt/GDP
Total debt service/exports
Present value of debt/GDP
Present value of debt/export
..
..
..
..
..
..
-6.9
..
36.2
..
..
..
-10.4
0.6
53.6
25.5
35.0
350.6
-11.6
0.6
54.3
23.1
27.3
225.3
(average annual growth)
GDP
GNP per capita
Exports of goods and services
1979-89
1989-99
1998
1999
1999-03
3.4
0.9
1.2
7.1
4.1
14.8
5.6
2.8
-14.9
7.4
4.3
33.0
6.3
3.3
6.4
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1979
1989
1998
1999
(% of GDP)
Agriculture
Industry
Manufacturing
Services
..
..
..
..
56.8
10.7
5.9
32.5
44.6
17.6
8.9
37.8
44.4
17.8
8.7
37.8
Private consumption
General government consumption
Imports of goods and services
..
..
..
92.0
7.0
18.1
84.8
9.6
19.7
85.2
9.9
22.9
1979-89
1989-99
1998
1999
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
Industry
Manufacturing
Services
2.7
6.4
3.6
3.2
3.7
12.1
13.5
8.1
1.9
11.5
14.4
6.6
6.9
9.1
11.3
7.1
Private consumption
General government consumption
Gross domestic investment
Imports of goods and services
Gross national product
3.3
0.6
13.1
7.3
3.5
6.3
8.2
8.2
9.0
7.3
8.6
8.0
3.7
3.1
5.8
0.8
17.4
9.0
2.8
7.3
5
1.4
Conceptual Background and Definition of Indicators
The Government of Uganda in 1997 adopted a focused definition of poverty
emphasizing basic needs and provision of services. Government defined
poverty as lack of access to basic necessities of life including food, shelter,
clothing and other needs like education and health. Government further
calibrated measurements of poverty based on consumption expenditure as a
proxy for income in line with data generated from annual household surveys
conducted by the then Statistics Department since 1992.
In the Ugandan context, poverty is measured against an absolute poverty line
which reflects the monetary cost of meeting certain basic requirements of life.
The approach focuses on defining food-related needs and only indirectly
estimates non-food requirements. The measurement of food related needs
was based on the WHO recommended calorific requirement of 3000 calories
for adult men (18-30 years of age) engaged in moderate work and eating a
typical diet of poor Ugandans and was found to be Ushs 11,500 per month
(USD 0.33 a day). The USD 0.33 a day (which is less than the generally
quoted US $1 per day) is therefore the food poverty line (also called the hard
core poor). The cost of non-food requirements was also estimated for those
not in hard core poverty and was found to be equal to Ushs 16,400 per month
or USD 0.47 per day (called the absolute poverty line).
A number of factors besides the absolute measures of poverty were found to
be responsible for the condition of the poor. They included productivity of
land, access to education, access to credit, access to agricultural inputs,
access to land, access to important natural resources including forest
products, access to safe water and access to sanitation facilities among
others. The Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project (UPPAP, 2000)
report quoted land, water and forests as the principal natural resources
discussed by local people. Lack of access to land in particular, was a
frequently mentioned constraint to improving productivity and securing
livelihoods. Natural resource degradation particularly with regard to the soils
6
ability to produce food, was actually quoted as the most central constraint to
increasing production and securing livelihoods.
The above information indicates that environmental and natural resource
factors are increasingly appreciated as significant determinants of the wellbeing of poor people. No framework however, exists to track the relationship
between environmental conditions and access to important natural resources
and poverty. The poverty-relevant environmental indicators proposed below
are expected to provide the much needed information in developing a
monitoring mechanism.
7
1.5
List of Proposed Poverty and Environment Indicators
Generic Indicator(s)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Proportion of the poor with
secure use rights to land for
farming
Percentage of poor farmers
with access to x hectares to
grow food for household
consumption
Proportion of the poor living
in ecologically fragile areas
Proportion of the poor living
in ecologically fragile areas
whose main source of
livelihood is agriculture
(either subsistence
agriculture or farm
labouring?)
Access to non-farm sources
of livelihoods for the poor
living in ecologically fragile
areas
Percentage of poor farmers
with access to sustainable
irrigation facilities
Hours spent per day
collecting water by women
and children living in rural
areas (noting seasonal
Country Indicator(s)
?
?
?
?
?
?
Percentage of the poor
living on marginal land
such as fragile highland
areas
Percentage of the poor
living on marginal land
such wetlands
Percentage of the poor
living on agriculturally
unproductive land
Percentage of the poor
with access to safe
drinking water
Percentage of the poor
with adequate water for
livestock
Amount of time spent by
Rationale for country
indicator(s)
? Uganda has a Land Act
(1998), but has no Land
Use policy. So the poor
who have no means of
acquiring productive land
tend to move to marginal
land such as wetlands
and fragile hillsides.
? Highly densely populated
areas also tend to have
these characteristics,
although not necessarily
the poor alone.
?
Water provision by the
major water public utility
– the National Water and
Sewerage Corporation is only limited to major
urban centers leaving
rural communities
8
Data Source
?
?
?
?
?
?
Uganda Bureau of
Statistics
Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal
Industry and
Fisheries
Ministry of Water,
Lands and
Environment
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Water,
Lands and
Environment
(MWLE)
Rural Water and
Sanitation Project
Value (Level) of
Indicator
National level figures
are non-existent
?
?
Percentage of rural
population with
access to safe water
– 41% (1998), 50%
(2000)
Percentage of rural
population with
?
variations)
Access to sanitation
facilities by women
?
the poor collecting water
Distance traveled by the
poor to collect water
depending on localized
water sources including
protected and
unprotected springs,
ponds, dams and open
rivers. This leaves many
communities in rural
areas to depend on
rather unsafe, longdistance and seasonal
sources of water.
?
The sewerage service is
likewise limited to a few
urban centres. Even
there, the service is very
old and inefficient. Many
people, therefore,
depend on household
based sewerage
management units
including pit latrines and
septic tanks. (42% of the
rural population, and
about 26% of the urban
population, lack
adequate sanitation.
These figures and the
gravity of the situation in
urban areas where many
latrines are overused,
poorly maintained and
9
?
?
?
?
(MWLE)
Uganda Bureau of
Statistics
Ministry of Finance,
Planning and
Economic
Development
Economic Policy
Research Centre
“Partnerships for
the Participatory
Poverty
Assessment
Process”. Policy
Briefing Paper No.
2. Water, Sanitation
and Health:
Learning From the
Poor (MFPED)
access to sanitation
– 45% (1998), 65%
(target 2005)
?
?
Distance to water
source for rural
households – 1km
Distance for water
for livestock – 1km
?
?
?
?
Area of forests co-managed
by user groups with
representatives of the poor
Hours spent per day/week
collecting fuel wood by
women and children in rural
areas
Percentage of common
property land available to
women for collecting fuel
wood and non-timber
products
?
Percentage of poor
fisherfolk with access to
adequate fish catches
?
?
?
Percentage of the poor
using firewood and
charcoal as major source
of energy
Time spent collecting
firewood by the poor
Percentage of poor
women with access to
common property land for
collecting fuel wood and
other non-timber products
?
Amount of fish catch per
day per fisherman
?
due to population
density, the risk of
infectious diseases is
exponentially high).
Up to 90 percent of
Uganda’s population
depend on firewood as a
source of cooking and
heating energy. The
growing short supply of
firewood in many areas
in the country is,
therefore, a critical factor
to livelihoods and the
general well-being of
poor people. In drier
parts of the country,
many poor households
depend on tree cutting to
burn charcoal, sell and
earn a living. This leads
to further environmental
degradation, and more
poverty.
The fisheries sector is
increasingly becoming an
important contributor to
foreign exchange
earnings and
employment. Fisheries
resources are however,
rapidly running out in the
10
?
?
?
?
Ministry of Finance,
Planning and
Economic
Development
Uganda Bureau of
Statistics
Ministry of Energy
and Minerals
?
“Capacity Building
for Integrating
Environmental
Considerations in
Development
Planning and
Decision-Making
with Reference to
National fish catch
declined by 22 percent
between 1993 and 1994
and catches have not
recovered to date.
97% of the
population
?
Proportion of the health
burden of the poor related
to environmental factors
- disease incidence related to
environmental factors
disaggregated by age
(vulnerability of children under
5, for example)
?
?
?
Percentage of people living
in substandard housing
(rural and urban figures)
?
?
?
?
Percentage of the
population living in areas
?
Incidence of malaria
among the poor
Incidence of cholera
among the poor
Incidence of typhoid fever
among the poor
?
Percentage of poor
people living in temporary
shacks without adequate
ventilation
Percentage of poor
people sharing the same
place of abode with
livestock
?
Percentage of poor
people living in flood
?
face of fishing pressure,
implying a loss of
important sources of
livelihood for poor fisherfolk who have no
opportunity to move to
other more gainful
employment.
Although not backed by
solid figures, the link
between environmental
sanitation and the
incidence of diseases in
Uganda is strong. Yet illhealth is the main cause
of poverty, denying poor
people the opportunity to
eke out a living in
addition to imposing on
them the direct cost of
health care.
Many housing units in
Uganda are owner
constructed and of very
poor standard.
the Fishing Industry
in Uganda" (EPRC,
1999).
?
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Disaster
Preparedness and
11
prone to flooding
?
Number of poor people
killed by environmentallyrelated disasters
?
Number of poor people
made homeless by
environmentally-related
disasters
?
?
prone areas
Number of the poor
displaced by land slides
Number of the poor
displaced by earthquakes
Refugees
Notes: The last column of the table provides general data that relate to country specific indicators. However, the data are general
and not specific to the poor, although where the data are provided for rural areas, they are close estimates since most rural people
are poor. For many of the indicators, data are not available. Much more effort, beyond this review, is needed to identify and
measure these indicators.
12
1.6
Conclusion and Recommendation for Further Work
Not much work has been put into developing indicators that relate poverty and
the environment in Uganda. However, the demand for these indicators is very
high. Poverty-environment indicators are needed to monitor the impact of the
economic, social and cultural activities of the poor on the environment. They
are also needed to monitor the impact of environmental conditions on the
activities of the poor.
The recognised need for poverty environment indicators has led to the
formation of a working group composed of the Poverty Monitoring and
Analysis Unit (PMAU) in the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development; Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS); National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA) and the Economic Policy Research Centre
(EPRC) to jointly develop these indicators. The purpose of this exercise is to
incorporate these indicators in the framework for monitoring the impact of
economic policies on poverty and the environment.
This report is an important contribution to the ongoing debate on identifying
and measuring monitorable indicators. Whereas a good number of indicators
have been identified, they are yet to be measured and tested at national,
district and sub-county levels where monitoring exercises will be taking place.
Implementation of poverty reduction programs is taking place at local
government level (sub-counties and districts), Therefore, for the indicators to
be relevant, they should be easy to measure and monitor at these levels of
local government.
As suggested earlier, much more work is needed to identify and measure
poverty-environment indicators. This can be done through research
conducted in collaboration with the PMAU and UBoS. The latter is responsible
for collecting and compiling national household data, and is the best entry for
getting data to measure these indicators.
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appleton, Simon (2001). Poverty in Uganda, 1999/2000: Preliminary
estimates from
the Uganda National household Survey. University of Nottingham.
Economic Policy Research Center (2001). Indicators of Success and
Sustainability of
Farming Systems in Uganda. Preliminary Report on Indicators.
GoU - Government of Uganda (2000). Plan for Modernization of Agriculture:
Eradicating Poverty in Uganda. Government Strategy and Operational
Framework.
Langdale-Brown et al. (1964). The Vegetation of Uganda and Its Bearing on
Landuse.
Entebbe, Government of Uganda.
MFPED - Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2000).
Uganda
Participatory Poverty Assessment Report. Learning from the Poor. A
Summary of Key Findings and Policy Messages.
MFPED - Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (1998).
Poverty
Trends in Uganda, 1992-1996.
MFPED - Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (1999).
Uganda
Poverty Status Report, 1999. The Challenges of Implementing the
Poverty Eradication Action Plan.
MFPED - Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2001).
Uganda
14
Poverty Status Report 2001. Preliminary Draft Consultation Document.
MFPED - Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2001).
Fighting
Poverty in Uganda. The Poverty Action Fund. How Debt Relief and
Donor Funds Have Been Used to Improve the Lives of the Poor.
Driver, Paul and Yakobo Moyini (2001). The Management of Uganda’s
Environment
and Natural Resources for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable
Development”. Draft Document.
NEMA - National Environment Management Authority (1998). State of the
Environment Report for Uganda, 1998.
NEMA - National Environment Management Authority (2000). State of the
Environment Report for Uganda, 2000.
Slade, Grant and Keith Weitz (1991). Uganda Environmental Issues and
Options. Center for Resource and Environmental Policy Research. Duke
University.
15