EPRC Fact Sheet No.
15, August 2014
Water for Agricultural Production:
Planning and Investment Dilemmas
in Uganda
Miriam Katunze
Why the need to address water for agricultural
production (WfAP)?
Uganda has experienced incidences of drought almost
every decade since 1910.1 Patterns of rainfall are
erratic for example from 1981 to 2006, showing sharp
drops in 1986, 1993 and 2005 (Figure 1).
These incidences have resulted into wide spread crop
failures, with the North and Eastern regions of Uganda,
having households suffering highest crop losses (Figure
2).
Figure 2 : Average Rainfall, in millimeters 1981-2006
Source: Mwaura & Okoboi, 2014
Figure 1: Share of selected crop losses at household
level due to drought in 2005, %
Source: Author’s calculations based on UNHS 2005/6
FACT SHEET NO. 15 AUGUST. 2014
The global campaign against climate change also
shows evidence that climatic variability will continue
to affect water resources and agricultural production
thus affecting livelihoods of many people in Uganda.2
What are the investment challenges?
Figure 3: Policy Framework for Budgeting for WfAP3
1) Weak Policy framework: Planning and budgeting
for WfAP involves three public institutions
including Ministry of Finance Planning and
Economic Development (MoFPED), Ministry of
Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)
and Ministry of Water and Environment (MoWE).
These have different mandates for planning,
budgeting and implementation of WfAP activities.
See figure 3
• WfAP budget targets are set by two separate
documents. The Agricultural Sector Development
Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP4) under the
MAAIF and the Strategic Investment Plan (SSIP,5)
under the MoWE. These are operationalised
through the Medium Term Expenditure (MTEF)
managed by MoFPED6 .Despite the shift to national
planning, government ministries still plan and
budget as independent entities. Uncoordinated
budgeting impacts on investments for WfAP
hence spreading resources thinly.
2) Underfunding: the MTEF allocations are far below
the set targets as seen in figure 4 and 5. This limits
the implementation of planned activities for WfAP
by MAAIF and MoWE.
1
 EPRC Fact Sheet No. 15, August 2014

Figure 4: DSIP budget target vs MTEF allocation for Figure 6 : Akwera Dam in Adwari Sub County, Otuke
WfAP, in billions of UGX District

Source: CARE and EPRC, 2014

Source: GoU, 2010 Growing donor interest in investing in water for

agricultural production
Figure 5: SSIP budget target vs MTEF allocation to
WfP, in billions of UGX Figure 7: Comparisons of government and
development partner’s contributions of WfAP, in
billions of Ugx

Source: MoFPED 2006/07-2012/13

Source : GOU, 2009

3) Weak institutional synergies: The overlapping
ministerial mandates also limit coordination and
promote poor implementation of WfAP activities.
For example in Otuke district, off-farm activities
resulted in dams being placed in areas that cannot
be easily accessed by farmers for on-farm use, see
figure 6 and 7.
• Overtime, donor funding for WfAP has exceeded
that from government. See figure 7.
• Funding remains limited to a few crops and
livestock within limited geographical coverage.7
Endnotes
1 Government of Uganda (2011) Climate Change: Uganda National Programme of Action
(NAPA), GoU, Kampala, Uganda
2 Waithaka, M., Nelson, G. C., Thomas, T. S., & Kyotalimye, M. (2013) East African Agriculture
and Climate Change, International Food Policy and Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington,
USA
3 Water for Agricultural Production (WfAP) commonly used in MAAIF refers to water for live-
stock and crops while Water for Production WfP) (term used in MoWE) cuts across all sectors
such as crops, livestock, aquaculture, energy, and rural industries.
Way forward
• MoFPED should synchronize MTEF allocations to
match budget targets as stipulated in the DSIP and
SSIP.
• The mandates of MAAIF and MoWE for planning
and investment in water for agricultural production
(WfAP) programs should be harmonized to ensure
effective service delivery to farmers.
• Support from donors should aim at long term
activities that out live project activities and have a
wider impact.
4 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, 2010 Agriculture for Food and Income
Security. Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP): 2010/11-
2014/15.
5 Ministry of Water and Environment, 2009 Strategic Sector Investment Plan for the Water and
Sanitation Sector in Uganda.
6 The MTEF is a government budgetary instrument used to allocate public financial resources
in priority areas.
7 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), 2006/07- 2012/13, Ap-
proved Budget Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (Recurrent and Development) _______
EPRC & CARE, (2014) Budget Analysis & Assessment of Smart Investments in Water for Small
holder Agriculture in Uganda and East Africa, (draft report)

This Fact Sheet is a result of research undertaken at the Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) in collaboration with CARE Uganda

The Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) is an autonomous not- The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do
for-profit organization established in 1993 with a mission to foster not necessarily represent the views of the Economic Policy Research
sustainable growth and development in Uganda through advancement Centre (EPRC) or its management.
of research –based knowledge and policy analysis.
Copyright © 2013
Learn more at: Economic Policy Research Centre
www. eprc.or.ug
TWITTER: @EPRC_official
www.facebook.com/EPRCUganda
eprcuganda.blogspot.com