Content uploaded by Nelson Turyahabwe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nelson Turyahabwe
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Contribution of wetland resources to household
food security in Uganda
Nelson Turyahabwe
1*
, Willy Kakuru
2
, Mnason Tweheyo
2
and David Mwesigye Tumusiime
3,4
Abstract
Background: In Uganda, nearly 1.4 million people are currently food insecure, with the prevalence of food energy
deficiency at the country level standing at 37%. Local farmers are vulnerable to starvation in times of environmental
stress, drought and floods because of dependence on rain-fed agriculture. Accordingly, the farmer’s means of
increasing food production has always been an expansion of area under cultivation from virgin and fragile areas,
especially wetlands. Consequently, Uganda has lost about 11,268 km
2
of wetland, representing a loss of 30% of the
country’s wetlands from 1994 to 2009. While the environmental importance of wetland ecosystems is widely
recognized, their contribution to household food security is still hardly explored. In this paper an assessment of the
contribution of wetland resources to household food security and factors influencing use of wetland resources in
Uganda are reported.
Methods: A number of livelihood tools in food security assessment including focus group discussions, key
informant interviews, direct observations and a household questionnaire survey, were used to collect the data. A
total of 247 respondents from areas adjacent to wetlands were involved in the household questionnaire survey
conducted in three agro-ecological zones that are frequently characterized as food insecure.
Results: The findings indicate that about 83% of the households experienced food insecurity. The main indicators
of food insecurity were low harvest (30.9%) and when people buy locally grown food items (18%). Most households
felt food secure when they had perennial crops (43.2%) in their gardens, or adequate money to buy food (23.9%).
The prevalence of food insecurity was significantly lower among households with older and better educated
household heads, but also among households located in Lake Victoria Crescent and South western farmlands agro-
ecological zones, but significantly higher among households that were female headed, larger and participate in
collection of wetland resources. Over 80% of the respondents reported that wetland resources provide products
and services that contribute enormously to their household food security. Besides, they also indirectly contribute to
food security by providing services that foster food production such as weather modifications and nutrient
retention. Households with older heads and those that reside in the Lake Victoria Crescent agro-ecological zone
when compared to counterparts in the Lake Kyoga agro-ecological zone are more likely to have a higher
dependence on wetlands for food security.
Conclusions: With increasing population around the wetlands, coupled with land shortage and weather variations,
households with limited options will continue to generally rely on wetlands for food security and income for
sustaining their livelihoods unless alternative livelihood options are provided. There is thus a need to design
appropriate food production technologies that ensure sustainable use of wetland resources for food security.
Keywords: Food security, Food insecurity, Wetland management, Wetland resources, Uganda
* Correspondence: turyahabwe@forest.mak.ac.ug
1
Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, College of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala,
Uganda
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2013 Turyahabwe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
Introduction
Food is the basic human need for survival, health and prod-
uctivity. It is the foundation for human and economic de-
velopment[1].Inabroadsense,foodsecurityexistswhen
“all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their
dietary needs and food preferences to live an active and
healthy life”[2]. On the other hand, food insecurity occurs
when food systems are stressed such that food is not avail-
able, accessible or utilized properly.
Most households especially in developing nations are
food insecure partly due to the rapid increase in human
population, weather and climatic variability, and environ-
mental degradation. For instance in 2009, it was estimated
that 102 billion people were undernourished worldwide,
which is about 37% higher than 20 years ago [3]. Sub-
SaharanAfricaandSouthAsiaaretheregionsmostaf-
fected by food insecurity, being home to 60% of the world’s
food insecure people. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, the
food situation is further aggravated by low per capita food
availability, high fluctuations in food supply and lack of in-
novative ideas as well as responsive policies for sustainable
use and management of natural resources. In sub-Saharan
Africa, the predominance of rain-fed agriculture often re-
sults in food systems that are highly sensitive to rainfall
variability [4,5]. The region thus remains susceptible to fre-
quent food crises and famines. Sub-Saharan Africa is the
only region of the world where hunger is projected to
worsen over the next two decades unless drastic measures
are taken to improve governance of its natural resources
and achieve the economic development required to reverse
the current trend [6].
Over, the past decades, there has been an increasing
influx of people into wetland areas as a coping strategy,
especially in areas where uplands are predominantly char-
acterized by low agricultural potential, dominated by poor
soils and low unpredictable rainfall [7-11]. This is further
due to the presence of water in wetlands during the dry
season, combined with their natural fertility and irrigation
potential [12-14]. Wetlands are also used to secure food
not only directly through dry season subsistence cultiva-
tion but also indirectly through income generation from
cash crops, the production of clay for pottery, reed and
palm mats, baskets and beehives, and the sale of collected
items, thus acting as safety nets for most adjacent commu-
nities [15-18]. In the drier regions, wetlands are the only
sites where people can get water, varieties of food and
other basic supplies [19-21].
The National Development Plan (NDP) indicated that
the food security situation in Uganda has been unsatisfac-
tory [22]. Nearly 1.4 million people are currently food inse-
cure despite the country’s abundant resources [23], with the
prevalence of food energy deficiency at the country level
standing at 37% [1]. According to a report by the World
Food Programme (WFP) [24], about 6.1 million (21%)
people in Uganda are undernourished. The report further
identifies that at the household level, about 6.3% of the
households in Uganda are food insecure and that food inse-
curity is most common among the natural resources de-
pendant households. About 86% of Uganda’spopulation
live in rural areas and are predominantly rural farmers and
agricultural practice is predominantly rain-fed, character-
ized by low levels of crop productivity. The people are
generally cash-poor, with over 40% living below the poverty
line, on less than a dollar a day. Most of these people
are perennially food insecure and are thus vulnerable to
starvation in times of environmental stress, drought and
floods [25].
Accordingly, the farmer’s means of increasing agricul-
tural output has always been an expansion of area under
cultivation. Additional land is often brought under agricul-
ture either through reduction in fallow periods or cultiva-
tion of virgin areas, especially forests and wetlands [25,26].
As noted by Nyakana [27], and Mwakubo and Obare [21],
an increasing number of marginalized people are moving
into fragile wetland areas, in search of new means of liveli-
hood, including crop farming, fishing and livestock graz-
ing. Crops commonly grown on the wetland periphery
include: Dioscorea spp (yams), beans, Zea mays (maize),
Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. (sweet potatoes), Manihot
esculenta Crantz (cassava), Brassica oleracea var. capitata
(cabbages), Saccharum officinale (sugar cane) and low land
rice [28]. Consequently, Uganda has lost about 11,268 km
2
of wetland, down from 37,575 km
2
(15.6%) in 1994 to
about 26,308 km
2
(10.9%) in 2009. This represents a loss
of 30% of the country’s wetlands [28]. To date, this loss is
expected to be even higher.
Despite their contribution to rural livelihoods, wetland
resources have been overlooked in national economic de-
velopment planning. Thus, the current development path-
ways will continue to underestimate the significance of
these resources, and in so doing, miss opportunities for re-
ducing food insecurity and sustainable management of
wetland systems. While the environmental importance of
wetland ecosystems is widely recognized, the potential
contribution of wetland resources to household food se-
curity is still hardly explored. Understanding the degree to
which wetlands contribute to people’sfoodsecuritymay
be vital in steering decisions that minimize negative im-
pacts or enhance the benefits that wetlands have for com-
munities. As such, this study endeavored to provide this
information. Such information is fundamental in develop-
ing interventions for sustainable wetland management in
order to achieve the National Food Security targets and
the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 of halving
the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015,
and MDG 7 on environmental sustainability. The objec-
tives of this study were thus threefold, namely to: i) map
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 2 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
the experiences and perceptions of the local people on the
food security situation; ii) assess the contribution of wet-
lands to food security; and iii) determine factors that influ-
ence dependence on wetlands for food production in
Uganda.
Methods
Study area
Out of the ten Ugandan agro-ecological zones, three were
randomly selected (Lake Victoria Crescent, Kyoga plains
and South western farmlands) (Figure 1). A National
Wetland Inventory of 1999 [29] identifies four key factors
by which to categories wetlands. These include agro-
ecological factors of the wetland system and the level of
food security, population density and farming systems of
the local communities in proximity to the wetland system.
Based on these characteristics, wetlands in each of the
three zones were categorized into strata. Random selection
was used to sample Munyere and Mabamba Bay wetlands
in Wakiso district to represent the Lake Victoria Crescent
agro-ecological zone. This zone is characterized by med-
ium level of food security, and a high population density
of 484 persons per km
2
. Lake Opeta in Pallisa district and
Limoto wetland in Kibuku district represented Kyoga
Figure 1 Map of Uganda showing the study sites.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 3 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
plains agro-ecological zone characterized by small-scale
subsistence, mainly annual crops with some pastoralism
and with a high level of food insecurity and a moderate
population of 252 persons per km
2
. While Lake Nakivale
in Isingiro district and Rucece in Mbarara district repre-
sented the south-western farmlands agro-ecological zone
with moderate level of food security and a moderate popu-
lation density of about 247 persons per km
2
. The three
zones represent three regions in Uganda which are often
regarded as food insecure [24].
Data collection
We employed data collection methods and tools for
assessing food security following Lisa et al. [1] and Young
et al. [30], by taking a qualitative measure to capture peo-
ple’s own perceptions of the extent to which they suffer
from food shortage [31] and their understanding of the
causes of food insecurity; andinformationonwhatre-
sources local people directly and indirectly obtain from
wetlands for food security. Semi-structured interviews were
administered to two hundred and forty seven (247) house-
holdsrandomlyselectedfrom5kmofthewetlandedges
(i.e., 82 from south-western farmlands agro-ecological zone,
81 from Lake Victoria Crescent and 84 from Kyoga plains).
We targeted household heads as our interviewees, but in a
few instances where the heads were absent, selected the
most senior and knowledgeable of the adults present. We
carried out the interviews in the common local language.
Before conducting each individual interview, it was made
clear that the purpose of the study was purely scientific and
academic. It was emphasized that the study had no legal
implications whatsoever, and the respondents were also as-
sured of confidentiality and anonymity.
The questionnaire was pre-tested in one village that was
not part of the selected sample. Pre-testing allowed the in-
terviewers to gain familiarity with the questionnaire and
provided an opportunity to apply and review the method.
The focus was on assessing how respondents understood
our questions and identifying any problems encountered in
providing answers. Changes were proposed, reviewed and
incorporated into our final questionnaire. The question-
naire focused on respondents’understanding of food secur-
ity/insecurity issues, main wetland products harvested for
consumption or sale and other activities undertaken that
directly or indirectly contribute to household food security.
Further, one focus group discussion (FGD) was con-
ducted in each sample parish to generate information on
key wetland resources used by surrounding communities.
Particular attention was given to women due to their key
role in household food security [28]. Key informant inter-
views were held with staff from National Environmental
Management Authority (NEMA), Wetlands Management
Department, Wetland and Production units of the Respect-
ive District and sub-county Local Governments, Natural
Resources Committees at the Districts, production and en-
vironmental Committees, National Agricultural Advisory
Services (NAADS), and representatives of different wetland
user groups to ascertain: the kind of wetland resources
directly harvested for food security, the status of food
security/insecurity in the areas and means of deriving liveli-
hoods. Also, direct field observations were made on activ-
ities undertaken in the sample wetlands.
Data analysis
Questionnaire responses were edited, coded and analyzed
using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows. Spatial differences
were captured through the construction of three dummy
variables based on location of the sample household in one
of the three agro-ecological zones. In all cases, a dummy
variable was coded 1 for a household located in that agro-
ecological zone and 0 otherwise. Frequencies were gener-
ated to capture local experiences and perceptions of the
food security situation. A binary variable depicting whether
or not a household had experienced food insecurity in the
last five years was regressed against household socioeco-
nomic factors to determine factors that influence suscepti-
bility to food insecurity [32]. The contribution of wetlands
to food security was ascertained by examining the frequen-
cies of the wetland products harvested for food security.
Binary variables depicting whether or not a household i)
had experienced food insecurity, and ii) depended on wet-
land resources for food security, were regressed against
household socioeconomic factors to determine the latter’s
influence over these two outcomes. Marginal effects of each
of these variables were examined using Stata Margeff pro-
gram [33]. All categorical variables were specified as dum-
mies using the dummies option and the agro-ecological
zones were specified as dummies with Kyoga plains as the
base. Following Wooldridge’s [34] suggestion, for location
dummies, we report exact percentage differences in the
predicted dependent variable when a household is resident
in either zone compared to Kyoga plains. The percentage
difference is computed as 100[e
(β∧)
−1], where
β^
,istheco-
efficient on the respective dummy variable; χ
2
tests were
used to examine the existence of associations between the
contribution of wetlands to food security and age, landhold-
ing, occupation, household size, gender and education level
of the respondent. All statistical tests were performed at 5%
significance level.
Results
Household characteristics
The majority of respondents (65%) were males, with an
average age of 40 years. Most respondents (90%) had formal
education. The main occupation of respondents was farm-
ing. The other sources of income included tailoring, petty
trade, brick making, fishing and working as drivers, tourist
guides, mechanics, builders and causal laborers.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 4 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
The average household size was eight persons with some
households having up to 21 members. On average, most re-
spondents had stayed in the area for at least 24 years, and
within a distance of 5 km to the wetland edge. Most re-
spondents earned less than UGX 100,000 (approx. USD 40)
per month with average monthly income of UGX 97,000
(approx. USD 39) indicating that they were generally poor.
Most of the respondents owned less than five acres of land
with average land owned at 3.8 acres, indicating a low per
capita land holding.
Local experiences and perception of food security
situation
Over 80% of the households reported experiences of food
insecurity during the past five years and attribute it to dif-
ferent causes. The most frequently mentioned cause was
climate change. Included in this category is the explicit
mention of climate change (50%), mentions of the related
causes: prolonged drought (42%) as in the quote below,
floods (2%), and reduction in quantity of water in wetland
(1%). Other relatively pervasive causes included limited ac-
cess to land, labor and the sale of food crops to raise cash
income (Figure 2).
In my opinion, the single most important cause of food
insecurity in our villages are prolonged droughts which
do not only scorch our crops in the fields, but also
limit our abilities to plant new crops. Droughts affect
crop and livestock farmers alike (Participant in a focus
group discussion in Isingiro District).
A number of factors are perceived as indicators of food
insecurity, but main ones are situations of low household
food harvest and when people buy locally grown food
items (Figure 3).
However, prevalence of food insecurity is significantly
lower among households with older and better educated
household heads. However, the marginal effect of age is
low (Table 1). Keeping other things equal, the likelihood
of being food insecure reduces by only 0.3% for an add-
itional year in age of household head. Education has a
greater effect, and the likelihood of household experien-
cing food insecurity reduces by about 12% for every extra
year its head spent in school. In terms of location, keeping
other things equal, the difference in likelihood of experien-
cing food insecurity reduces by nearly 17% (100[e
(0.155)
-1])
if a household is resident in south western farmlands as
compared to Kyoga plains, and about 14% (100[e
(0.130)
-1])
if resident in Lake Victoria Crescent.
On the other hand, keeping other variables equal, the
likelihood of experiencing food insecurity increases by 13%
if a household is female headed, by 1.3% for each extra
member to a household, and 23% if a household partici-
pates in collection of wetland products for food security.
Contribution of wetlands to household food security
Wetlands were reported to contribute to household
food security through provision of wetland products
and services.
Wetland products
Over 75% of the respondents acknowledged that wetlands
directly contribute to their household food security. They
do so in a number of ways, but the most pervasive are
three; direct consumption of wetland products, wetlands
providing space for growing crops, and the sale of wetland
products to raise cash income that is then used to purchase
food (Figure 4). As one farmer noted in a focus group dis-
cussion in the Kyoga plains “wetlands are the lifeline of
many a local farmer who feed on and sometimes sell wet-
land products”.
Direct consumption of wetland products
Wetlands are reported to be a source of a variety of re-
sources that are directly consumed among 86% of the
sample households (Figure 4). Water was identified by up
to 60% of the sample households as the most important
product directly obtained for domestic and livestock use.
Figure 2 Frequency of mention of the different causes of food insecurity among households adjacent to wetlands in Uganda.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 5 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
Other important products included fish and bush meat
(mainly Sitatunga and wild rat). The main indige-
nous fruits harvested from wetlands were Afromomum
spp (A. angustfolium,andA.mildbraedi) and Physalis
micrantha (Entutu), while main vegetables included
Amaranthus spp (dodo) and Solanum nigrum (Eswiga).
There was a significant association between collection of
wetland products for direct home use and the income level
of the respondents (χ
2
=6.858,df=3,P= 0.001). Generally,
respondents earning less than UGX 100,000 (approx. USD
40) per month were more likely to collect products for dir-
ect home use. Other noticeable variations included vari-
ation in harvesting of fish with gender, age and household
size. Fish collection is closely associated with males (χ
2
=
5.755, df = 1, P= 0.016), younger individuals (<45 years)
(χ
2
= 5.307, df = 2, P= 0.042), and members of larger
households (> 7 members) (χ
2
= 24.984, df = 2, P= 0.000).
The latter were also more associated with collection of
fruits and vegetables (14.1%) (χ
2
=6.901,df=2,P= 0.032),
papyrus materials (χ
2
= 10.405, df = 2, P= 0.006), and
Figure 3 Perceived indicators of food insecurity among households adjacent to Wetlands in Uganda.
Table 1 Household characteristics that influence susceptibility to food insecurity among households adjacent to
wetlands in Uganda
Dependent variable* Units Coef. Std. Err. z P >z
Household characteristics
Age Years −0.003 0.002 −1.80 0.071
Household female headed 0/1 0.129 0.045 2.85 0.004
Education level Years −0.117 0.028 −4.14 0.000
Household size Number 0.013 0.006 2.09 0.037
Length of stay in the area Years 0.001 0.001 0.66 0.508
Distance to wetland km 0.061 0.043 1.40 0.160
Location in south-western farmlands 0/1 −0.155 0.083 −1.87 0.062
Location in Lake Victoria Crescent 0/1 −0.130 0.078 −1.66 0.097
Primary occupation is farming 0/1 −0.029 0.068 −0.43 0.669
Primary occupation is formal employment 0/1 0.038 0.105 0.36 0.719
Household collects wetland products 0/1 0.229 0.117 1.97 0.049
Number of observations 236
Log likelihood −83.1
LR χ
2
(11) 42.04
Prob >χ
2
0.000
Pseudo R2 0.202
*Dependent variable is a binary variable depicting whether or not a household had experienced food insecurity (1 = Household had experienced food insecurity
in the last five years; 0 = Otherwise).
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 6 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
medicinal herbs (χ
2
= 11.760, df = 2, P= 0.003). The herbs
particularly played an important role in maintaining the
health of local people.
Growing of crops in wetlands
Wetlands also contributed to food security through provid-
ing space for growing crops, and the sale of wetland prod-
ucts to raise cash income that is then used to purchase
food(Figure4).Themaincropsgrownbyrespondentsin
wetlands were vegetables, sugarcane, coco yams and paddy
rice. Paddy rice was the main crop grown in Kyoga plains,
and vegetables in south-western farmlands and Lake
Victoria Crescent. Vegetable production was common to
all wetlands. The main vegetables grown were Amaranthus
dubius (Dodo), Amaranthus lividus (A. blitum)Ebugga,
Solanum aethiopicum (Nakati), Brassica olerace (cabbages),
tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum),Solanum melongena L.
(egg plants), pumpkins (Cucurbita maxima Lam.), water-
melons Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum and Entura
(Solanum aethiopicum gilo.). The other crops grown were
maize, sweet potatoes, fruits, ground nuts and cotton.
There are observable significant differences in the extent of
use of wetlands for growing crops across the agro-
ecological zones (χ
2
= 33.34, df = 2, P= 0.000). The prac-
tice is widespread in Kyoga plains where households report
to derive about half of the household food from the wet-
lands particularly through cultivation of paddy rice, and an
average household derives more than half of its cash in-
comefromthesaleofcropsgrowninthewetlands.
Sale of wetland products for cash
Wetlands also indirectly contributed to food security
through provision of resources sold for cash that was used
to buy food. About 60% of the respondents harvested and
sold wetland resources for cash to purchase food. Of
these, about 38.4% spent one quarter of the income gen-
erated from sale of wetland products to buy food, 28.5%
one quarter to half, 20.1% spent a half to three quarters
and 12.9% three quarters. Main food items bought with
such cash were mainly food security crops such as millet,
maize flour and cassava.
There was a wide variation across agro-ecological zones
in participation in these sales. Highest records are in the
south-western farmlands whereupto86%ofthehouse-
holds participate as compared to 46% and 38% in Kyoga
plains and Lake Victoria Crescent, respectively. The main
items sold were fish, fruit and vegetables, papyrus, medi-
cinal herbs and craft materials, and these jointly generated
a monthly income of UGX 99,208 (approx. USD 36) to an
average household. However, the income accruing to an
average household differed significantly between the agro-
ecological zones (F = 3.89, df = 2, P=0.022).Households
in Kyoga plains obtained a significantly higher amount of
cash from such sales (Figure 5). Fish was generally ranked
as the most frequently sold resource, followed by poles
which were either sold for cash or processed into different
items such as hoe handles, and mortars and pestles for local
processing of food.
There was an association between dependence on sales
of wetland products for purchasing household food and
income level (χ
2
= 21.742, df =3, P= 0.000), proximity
to the wetland (χ
2
= 7.291, df =1, P= 0.000) and size of
land owned (χ
2
= 9.508, df =1, P= 0.000). The practice
was most frequent among households with monthly in-
come less than UGX 200,000 (approx. USD 80.), living
within a distance of less than <1 km of the wetland edge,
and owning less than one acre of land.
Wetland services
Wetlands provided services to local people that enhanced
their livelihoods in meeting their food security require-
ments. The most pervasive of these services include wea-
ther modification, cleaning water before local use, acting
Figure 4 Ways through which wetlands contribute directly to household food security in areas adjacent to wetlands in Uganda.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 7 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
as breeding grounds for fish, and provision of water trans-
port and tourism (Figure 6).
Factors that influence dependence on wetlands for food
production
There is a wide variation in dependence on wetlands for
food security (Table 2). Keeping other things equal, senior-
ity in age of the household head increases dependence on
wetlands for food security, although only marginally. For
every additional year the likelihood increases by 0.3%. On
the other hand, residence in the Lake Victoria Crescent in-
creases this likelihood by about 6% (100[e
(0.056)
-1]) com-
pared to residence in Kyoga plains. On the other hand,
keeping other things equal, a female headed household is
15% less likely to depend on wetlands for food security.
Discussion
People’s experiences of food insecurity
The poor socio-economic status of the households, par-
ticularly the low incomes, suggests susceptibility to food
insecurity. As noted by Kydd et al. [35] and DFID [36],
food insecurity is closely related to poverty and an inabil-
ity to purchase food, especially in the agriculture-based
rural areas. Uganda is frequently considered food secure,
especially when compared to the other eastern African
countries, but this study reveals high incidences of food in-
security. While there is increasing recognition that situa-
tions of food insecurity are brought about by a complex
and dynamic set of causes [37], food insecurity in Uganda
is increasingly reported to coincide with harsh weather con-
ditions especially during the prolonged droughts and per-
iods of heavy rain. Changes in the patterns of extreme
weather events such as floods and droughts affect food pro-
duction as well as stability of and access to food supplies.
This is a general trend in crop production, where huge
losses due to crop failures, arising from droughts and
flooding, are being experienced more frequently than ever
before in Africa, causing famines and economic hardships
[38]. Local people’s linkage of food insecurity to climate
change is supported by, among others, Vlassenroot et al.
[38], who assert that food insecurity is a direct consequence
of food shortages caused by climatic variables or demo-
graphic pressures. Perhaps this could be the reason why
local people use wetlands as safety nets during the drought
since wetlands are able to store more water and moisture
during the dry periods. Taking a single meal a day seems to
be a commonly agreed indicator of food insecurity, but also
adapted as a coping strategy across sub-Saharan Africa [39].
Prevalence of food insecurity is significantly lower among
households with older and better educated household heads
because ability to access assets needed to secure livelihoods
increase with seniority and, as noted by Muchapodwa [40],
education makes it easier for households to comprehend
negative externalities and be able to generate cash for buy-
ing food. Households located in Lake Victoria Crescent and
south-western farmlands are less susceptible to food inse-
curity because both zones have better access to perennial
crops, particularly bananas. The south-western farmlands
are the main areas for banana production in Uganda and
have a vibrant livestock-based economy that can comple-
ment crop production for both cash and subsistence
Figure 5 Monthly cash income from sale of wetlands products
in three agro-ecological zones of Uganda.
Figure 6 Wetland services indirectly contributing to household food security in Uganda.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 8 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
incomes. On the other hand, the Lake Victoria Crescent is
adjacent to Kampala, Uganda’s capital city and the indus-
trial town of Jinja, and the local people thus have better ac-
cess to alternative sources of cash income that can then be
used to purchase food.
On the other hand, the prevalence of food insecurity is
higher among female headed households, possibly because
they frequently have less access to adult labor [41], and
may lack the means to seek employment away from their
families [42]. Generally, female headed households are
more vulnerable to food insecurity because of their tighter
time schedules and income constraints [43-45].
Larger households were more food insecure because
these typically have a greater dependence and consu-
mer burden [46]. This then becomes a problem in areas
where production is already low, typical of most rural
areas in Uganda.
Increased susceptibility to food insecurity for a house-
hold that utilizes wetlands for food security is a relation-
ship that can be interpreted in two ways: i) households
collected wetland resources were susceptible to food inse-
curity because of their dependence on wetlands; or ii)
households collected wetland resources because they were
food insecure. The latter seems to be more likely as food
insecure households turn to collecting wetland resources
as safety net or gap-filler. This is typical in sub-Saharan
countries where households with limited livelihood op-
tions utilize common pool resources, including wetlands
[11,47] and forest resources [41,48] as a means of meeting
household food and income.
Contribution of wetlands to household food security
Avastmajorityofpeopleweredirectlydependentonwet-
land resources for food security similar to previous studies
and reports in Uganda, particularly among resource poor
and larger households [28,49,50], for whom wetlands are
then a major source of cash and subsistence income that
supplements other sources.
The practice of growing crops in wetlands may be the
preponderance of rural households with limited access to
other productive assets (such as land) or sources of in-
come. This is evident among the households studied with
average land size of 3.8 acres and household size of eight
persons. Studies conducted elsewhere in Uganda indicated
that in situations of inadequate land, people resort to nat-
ural resources including wetlands as alternative sources of
land for crop and livestock farming [28,51,52]. Studies car-
ried out elsewhere in Africa also report rural dependence
on wetlands for food production [20]. This is mainly be-
cause wetlands have some relatively higher levels of water/
moisture, particularly in the dry season, compared to the
surrounding catchment areas. In some cases, wetlands
have some relatively high levels of fertility due to the silt
accumulated by run-off from surrounding catchments.
Given the current unpredictable rainfall, it is inevitable
that local communities will largely rely on wetlands for
Table 2 Factors influencing dependence on wetlands for food security among households adjacent to wetlands
in Uganda
Dependent variable* Units Coef. Std. Err. z P >z
Household characteristics
Age Years 0.003 0.001 2.12 0.034
Household female headed 0/1 −0.150 0.080 −1.86 0.062
Education level Years −0.008 0.020 −0.40 0.693
Household size Number −0.001 0.003 −0.17 0.868
Length of stay in the area Years −0.001 0.001 −0.66 0.512
Distance to wetland km 0.003 0.030 0.09 0.931
Location in South western farmlands 0/1 −0.041 0.039 −1.05 0.295
Location in Lake Victoria Crescent 0/1 0.056 0.031 1.83 0.067
Primary occupation is farming 0/1 −0.033 0.038 −0.85 0.394
Primary occupation is formal employment 0/1 −0.208 0.188 −1.11 0.268
Household suffers food insecurity 0/1 0.087 0.062 1.39 0.165
Number of observations 236
Log likelihood −41.79
LR χ
2
(11) 22.67
Prob >χ
2
0.019
Pseudo R2 0.213
*Dependent variable is a binary variable depicting whether or not a household depends on wetlands for food security (1 = Household is dependent;
0 = Otherwise).
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 9 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
food security, especially during prolonged dry periods, a
situation also noted by Grimble et al. [53], which justifies
the need for research in more technological and social in-
novations to improve sustainable use of wetlands for im-
proved food security.
Wetlands take a more pronounced role in Kyoga plains
where rice is grown as a main source of both food and
cash. Similar levels of reliance on rice growing were
reported by Karanja et al. [49]. In Rwanda’swetlandsof
Cyabayaga, rice was also reported as the largest contribu-
tor to household income providing on average $1,045
(approx. UGX 2,612,500) per household per season [14].
Wetlands in the two districts are also one of the most pro-
ductive and resourceful areas, which provide food from
aquatic ecosystems such as fish for the local people.
The local people recognize wetlands to provide a
variety of services, which reinforces local valuation of
wetlands and, by extension, willingness to participate in
wetland conservation.
Factors influencing dependence on wetlands for food
production
Wetland utilization for food security is higher among
households with older heads possibly because these have
better access to social networks through which to access
common pool resources including wetlands. On the other
hand, residence in the Lake Victoria Crescent is associated
with higher dependence on wetlands because the zone has
many urban poor households that at best have very limited
access to land and thus end up encroaching on wetlands
which are still regarded as common pool resources. Lower
utilization of wetlands among households headed by fe-
males is possibly because of lower access to social networks
crucial for access to such common pool resources.
Conclusions and recommendation
Over 80% of all households had experienced food insecur-
ity, characterized by low harvest and households having a
single meal in a day, and the main causes being unpredict-
able weather and inadequate arable land. The prevalence of
food insecurity is higher in large sized, female headed and
uneducated households. Land shortage, household size
coupled with limited off-farm opportunities to generate
cash for purchase of food drive local people into utilization
of wetland resources as an alternative source of house-
hold food.
Wetlands are the basis of food security, directly provid-
ing resources for consumption, indirectly supporting crop
and livestock production, materials that are sold for pur-
chasing food in emergency situations and services that
support food production. The most interesting feature of
wetlands is that they provide conditions that enable a
wider range of crops than dry lands, and therefore provide
ready food supplies to wetland adjacent communities
during unfavorable conditions that are otherwise unavail-
able for the traditional crops grown in the uplands. Be-
yond subsistence agriculture, wetlands are increasingly
offering products for additional income through cultiva-
tion of locally marketable crops such as rice, sugar cane
and vegetables. These products are sold and income is
used to buy household food supplements.
With increasing population around the wetlands, coupled
with land shortage and weather variations, the poor people,
especially in rural areas, will continue to generally rely on
wetland ecosystem services directly for subsistence and in-
come generating activities for sustaining their livelihoods
unless alternative livelihood options are provided. With
rain-fed agriculture being the primary food production op-
tion for people living adjacent to wetlands in Uganda, there
are risks of many people being vulnerable, and who could
see their food security seriously limited. Thus, there is a
need to design food production technologies and alterna-
tive income generating activities that ensure sustainable use
of wetland resources for food security.
Abbreviations
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
MDG: Millennium Development Goal; NDP: National Development Plan;
NEMA: National Management Authority; WFP: World Food Programme.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’contribution
NT designed the study, collected data and coordinated the write up. WK
participated in collection and analysis of data and write up. MT participated
in literature search and write up. DMT participated in data analysis and write
up. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Authors’information
NT is an Associate Professor in the Department of Extension and Innovation
Studies, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Makerere
University.
WK is a part time lecturer in the School of Forestry, Environmental and
Geographical Sciences, Makerere University and a Consultant on Natural
Resources Management.
MT is an Ecologist and a Professor in the Department of Forestry, Biodiversity
and Tourism, School of Forestry, Environmental and Geographical Sciences,
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University.
DMT is a Research Fellow at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and
lectures at the Department of Environmental Management, School of
Forestry, Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Makerere University
(Uganda).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the International Development Research
Centre (IDRC) for funding this study in partnership with Makerere University
and Wetlands Management Department, Ministry of Water and Environment
and National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO). We would like to
thank Fred Yikii, Teddy Tindamanyire and Vincent Barugahare for
participation in data collection and preparation of the draft report. We would
also like to thank Lucy Iyango, Gilbert Ituka, Euzobia Arinaitwe and Asiimwe
Joseph for participation in data collection. We would like to thank
communities around wetlands in Wakiso, Pallisa, Kibuku, Isingiro and Mbarara
Districts for their cooperation during data collection.
Author details
1
Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, College of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala,
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 10 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
Uganda.
2
Department of Forestry, Biodiversity and Tourism, College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062,
Kampala, Uganda.
3
Department of Environmental Management, School of
Forestry, Environment and Geographical Sciences, Makerere University, P.O.
Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
4
Department of International Environment and
Development Studies (Noragric), Norwegian University of Life Sciences
(UMB), P.O. Box 1432, Aas, Norway.
Received: 10 September 2012 Accepted: 19 February 2013
Published: 25 March 2013
References
1. Lisa LC, Alderman H, Aduayom D: Food Insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa: New
Estimates from Household Expenditure Surveys. Research Report, 146. Volume
Research Report. Washington, DC: 146, International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI); 2006.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: The State of Food
Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO; 2001.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: The State of Food
Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO; 2009.
4. Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao K, Shapiro B, Twomlow S: Coping better with
current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of Sub-
Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future climate
change? Agric Ecosystem Environ 2008, 126:24–35.
5. Jones PG, Thornton PK: Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood
transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environ Sc. Policy
2009, 12:427–437.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Food Security and
Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Building a Case for More
Public Support. Rome: FAO; 2006.
7. Ellis-Jones J, Mudhara M: Factors affecting the adoption of soil and water
conservation technologies in semi-arid Zimbabwe. In Soil and Water
Conservation for Small Farmers in Semi Arid Zimbabwe, Transfers between
Research and Extension. Proceedings of Technical Workshop, 3–7 April 1995,
Masvingo Zimbabwe. Edited by Twomlow S, Ellis-Jones J, Hagmann J, Loos
H. Masvingo: Silsoe Research Institute Report OD/95/16; 1995.
8. Mutambikwa A, Muzenda S, Chivinge O, Ellis-Jones J, Riches C, Twomlow S:
Participatory Evaluation of Vlei Utilization and Weed Problems in Communal,
Resettlement and Small Scale Commercial Farming Systems of Masvingo and
Gutu districts; Report IDG/00/8. Silsoe Bedford: Silsoe Research Institute; 2000.
9. Dixon AB: The hydrological impacts and sustainability of wetland drainage
cultivation in Illubabor, Ethiopia. Land Degr Develop 2002, 13:17–31.
10. Dixon AB, Wood AP: Wetland cultivation and hydrological management
in eastern Africa: matching community and hydrological needs through
sustainable wetland use. Nat Resources Forum 2003, 27:117–129.
11. Halima KH, Munishi KTP: Contribution of wetlands to household income
and food security in the Nyumba Ya Mungu wetland system, northern
Tanzania. Tanzania J Forestry Nat Conserv 2009, 79(2):99–108.
12. Adams WM: Indigenous use of wetlands and sustainable development in
West Africa. Geogr J 1993, 159:209–218.
13. Abbot P, Afework H: Report on the PRA Training Workshop for Sustainable
Wetland Management. EWRP, Metu. Working Paper; 1997.
14. Nabahungu NL, Visser SM: Contribution of wetland agriculture to farmers’
livelihood in Rwanda. Ecol Econ 2011, 7:4–12.
15. Maclean I, Tinch R, Hassall M, Boar R: Social and Economic Use of Wetland
Resources: A Case Study from Lake Bunyonyi, Uganda. Working Paper ECM
03–09. Norwich, United Kingdom: University of East Anglia, Centre for Social
and Economic Research on the Global Environment; 2003.
16. Schuyt KD: Economic consequences of wetland degradation for local
populations in Africa. Ecol Econ 2005, 53:177–190.
17. Turpie J, Barnes J, Arntzen J, Nherera B, Lange GM, Buzwani B: Economic
Value of the Okavango Delta, Botswana and Implications for Management.
Okavango Delta Management Plan; 2006.
18. Shackleton CM, Shackleton S: Household wealth status and natural resource
use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Ecol Econ 2006, 57:306–317.
19. Masiyandima M, McCartney MP, Van Koppen B: Wetland Contributions to
Livelihoods in Zambia FAO Netherlands Partnership Program: Sustainable
Development and Management of Wetlands Rome: FAO; 2004:50.
20. McCartney MP, Van Koppen B: Wetland Contributions to Livelihoods in United
Republic of Tanzania. FAO Netherlands Partnership Program: Sustainable
Development and Management of Wetlands. Rome: FAO; 2004:42.
21. Mwakubo SM, Obare GA: Vulnerability, livelihood assets and institutional
dynamics in the management of wetlands in Lake Victoria watershed
basin. Wetl Ecol Manag 2009, 17:613–626.
22. The Republic of Uganda: National Development Plan for Uganda. 2010/11-
2014/15. Kampala; 2010.
23. Famine Early Warning Systems Network: Uganda Food Security Outlook.
Kampala: FEWS-Net; 2010.
24. United Nations World Food Programme: Comprehensive Food Security and
Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) in Uganda. UNWFP; 2009.
25. International Food Policy Research Centre: IFPRI Strategy Towards Food and
Nutrition Security. Washington, DC: International Food Institute; 2003.
26. International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rural Poverty Report.
London: Oxford University Press; 2001.
27. Nyakana JB: Sustainable wetland resource utilization of Sango Bay through
eco-tourism development. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 2008, 2:326–335.
28. Wetlands Management Department: Ministry of Water and Environment,
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, International Livestock Research Institute, World
Resources Institute: Mapping a Better Future: How Spatial Analysis can Benefit
Wetlands and Reduce Poverty in Uganda. Washington DC and Kampala:
World Resources Institute; 2009.
29. Ministry of Water: Lands and Environment: National Wetlands Programme -
End of Phase III report. Kampala: Wetlands Inspection Division; 1999.
30. Young H, Jaspars S, Brown R, Frize J, Khogali H: Food-Security Assessments in
Emergencies: A Livelihoods Approach. London: Humanitarian Practice
Network Paper No.36, Overseas Development Institute; 2001.
31. Kennedy E: Qualitative measures of food insecurity and hunger. In
Measurement and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Under Nutrition. Rome:
FAO; 2003:165–180.
32. Agresti A: Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey:
Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; 2002.
33. Bartus T: Estimation of marginal effects using Margeff. Stata J 2005,
5:309–329.
34. Wooldridge JM: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. UK:
South-Western; 2009.
35. Kydd J, Dorward A, Morrison J, Cadisch G: Agricultural Development and
Pro-Poor Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: Potential and Policy. ADU
Working Paper 02/04. Imperial College: Wye; 2002.
36. Department for International Development: Agriculture, Growth and Poverty
Reduction. London: DFID; 2004.
37. Devereux S: Famine in the Twentieth Century. IDS Working Paper No. 105.
Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2000.
38. Mwendera E: Situation Analysis for Water and Wetlands Sector in Eastern and
Southern Africa: Draft Report, International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). Nairobi: Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO); 2010.
39. Vlassenroot K, Salomé Ntububa S, Raeymaekers T: Food Security Responses to
the Protracted Crisis Context of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2006.
40. Muchapodwa E: The Economics of Community-Based Wildlife Conservation in
Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis, Department of Economics. Harare: Göteborg
University, Sweden and University of Zimbabwe; 2003.
41. Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, Kobugabe BG: Counting on the
Environment: Forest Incomes and the Rural Poor, Environment Economics
Series Paper 98. Washington DC: World Bank; 2004.
42. Shackleton C, Shackleton S: The importance of non-timber forest products
in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from
South Africa. South African J Sci 2004, 100:658–664.
43. Caldwell R, Seroussi M, Hagens C, Huddle J, Mbizule C, Uny K: Malawi
Baseline Survey: Report Findings Prepared for C-SAFE Tueson. Ariz, USA: Tango
International; 2003.
44. Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations: Women and Food
Security. Rome: FAO; 1996.
45. Gladwin C, Thomson A: Food or Cash Crops? Which is the Key to Food Security:
Prepared for the University of Florida’s Gender and Soil Fertility in Africa. 2004.
46. Godoy R, O’neill K, Groff S, Kostishack P, Cubas A, Demmer J, McSweeney K,
Overman J, Wilkie D, Brokaw N: Household determinants of deforestation
by Amerindians in Honduras. World Dev 1997, 25:977–987.
47. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment): Ecosystems and Human
Well-Being: Wetlands and Water, Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: World
Resources Institute; 2005.
48. Tumusiime DM, Vedeld P, Gombya-Ssembajjwe W: Breaking the law?
Illegal livelihoods from a protected area in Uganda. Forest Policy Econ
2011, 13:273–283.
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 11 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5
49. Karanja F, Emerton L, Mafumbo J, Kakuru W: Assessment of the Economic
Value of Pallisa District Wetlands. Kampala, Uganda: Biodiversity Economics
Programme for Eastern Africa, IUCN-The World Conservation Union and
Uganda National Wetlands Programme; 2001.
50. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA): State of the
Environmental Report for Uganda, 2008. Kampala: NEMA; 2008.
51. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA): Environmental
Sensitivity Atlas for the Albert Graben. Secondth edition. Kampala: NEMA; 2010.
52. Rwanda Environmental Management Authority: Rwanda State of
Environment and Outlook: Our Environment for Economic Development.
Kigali: REMA; 2009.
53. Grimble R, Cardoso C, Omar-Chowdhury S: Poor People and the Environment:
Issues and Linkages. 16th edition. Greenwich: Natural Resources Institute; 2002.
doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-5
Cite this article as: Turyahabwe et al.:Contribution of wetland resources
to household food security in Uganda. Agriculture & Food Security 2013
2:5.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Turyahabwe et al. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:5 Page 12 of 12
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/2/1/5