DEVELOPMENT PATHWAYS AND LAND MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA: CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS

This paper investigates the patterns and determinants of change in livelihood strategies ("development pathways”"), land management practices, resource and human welfare conditions in Uganda since 1990, based upon a community-level survey conducted in 107 villages. The pattern of agricultural development since 1990 involved increasing specialization and commercialization of economic activities, consistent with local comparative advantages and market liberalization. Six dominant development pathways emerged, all but one of which involved increasing specialization in already dominant activities: expansion of cereal production, expansion of banana and coffee production, non-farm development, expansion of horticultural production, expansion of cotton, and stable coffee production. Of these, expansion of banana and coffee production was most strongly associated with adoption of resource-conserving practices and improvements in resource conditions and welfare. Other strategies are needed for areas not suited for this pathway. Other factors also influenced land management and resource and welfare outcomes. Road development was associated with improvements in many welfare and some natural resource conditions, except forest and wetland availability. Irrigation was found to reduce pressure to expand cultivated area at the expense of forest and wetlands, and is associated with improvement in some welfare and resource indicators. Government and non-governmental organization programs were found to contribute to improvements in several resource and welfare indicators, though there were some mixed results. Such programs may cause declines in one area by focusing on improvements in another area. Thus, trade-offs appear to be inherent in many efforts to improve agriculture or protect resources. Population growth had an insignificant impact on most indicators of change, though there is some evidence of population-induced agricultural intensification. The findings support neither the pessimism of some neo-Malthusian observers or the optimism of some neo-Boserupian observers regarding the impacts of population growth.