RESEARCH SERIES No. 119

UGANDA’S TEA SUB-SECTOR: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF TRENDS, CHALLENGES AND COORDINATION FAILURES

MUNYAMBONERA F. EZRA CORTI PAUL LAKUMA MADINA GULOBA

SEPTEMBER 2014

RESEARCH SERIES No. 119

UGANDA’S TEA SUB-SECTOR: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF TRENDS, CHALLENGES AND COORDINATION FAILURES

MUNYAMBONERA F. EZRA CORTI PAUL LAKUMA MADINA GULOBA

SEPTEMBER 2014 Copyright © Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC)

The Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) is an autonomous not-for-profit organization established in 1993 with a mission to foster sustainable growth and development in Uganda through advancement of research – based knowledge and policy analysis. Since its inception, the EPRC has made significant contributions to national and regional policy formulation and implementation in the Republic of Uganda and throughout East Africa. The Centre has also contributed to national and international development processes through intellectual policy discourse and capacity strengthening for policy analysis, design and management. The EPRC envisions itself as a Centre of excellence that is capable of maintaining a competitive edge in providing national leadership in intellectual economic policy discourse, through timely research-based contribution to policy processes.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) or its management.

Any enquiries can be addressed in writing to the Executive Director on the following address:

Economic Policy Research Centre Plot 51, Pool Road, Makerere University Campus P.O. Box 7841, Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256-414-541023/4 Fax: +256-414-541022 Email: [email protected] Web: www.eprc.or.ug Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

ABSTRACT

This study critically reviews Uganda’s tea sub-sector performance in relation to the institu- tional framework. The tea sector has performed far below its potential largely owing to poor coordination of activities in the sector. Uganda has about 200,000 hectares suitable for tea production, but only 14 percent (28,000 hectares) is utilised both by small holder and estate owners. Exports have stagnated at around 50,000 metric tonnes in the last 5 years. On the other hand, Kenya has succeeded in transforming its tea sub-sector is largely due to effective coordination of policies and institutions. We argue that the challenges faced by Uganda’s tea sector are as a result of coordination failures in policy, institutions and programmes across the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies. Lessons learnt from Kenya points to the need of Uganda having a comprehensive tea policy and effective institutional framework to coordinate the various interventions and programmes in the sub-sector.

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC i Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT I 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PERFORMANCE OF THE TEA INDUSTRY: A COMPARISON BETWEEN UGANDA AND KENYA 2 2.1 Tea production, acreage and productivity 2 2.2 Organisation and distribution of tea stakeholders 5 2.3 Tea research and extension services 8 2.4 Tea export performance 8 2.5 Pricing 9 2.6 Processing 11 3. INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS WITHIN UGANDA’S TEA SECTOR 12 4. WHAT COORDINATION FAILURES EXIST IN THE TEA SECTOR? 13 5. CHALLENGES 14 6. CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 15 REFERENCES 16 APPENDIX I: THE KEY TO UN-LOCK THE UGANDAN TEA SECTOR 19 END NOTES 21 EPRC RESEARCH SERIES 22

ii ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

1. INTRODUCTION Despite tea’s significant potential both Tea is traditionally Uganda’s third largest as a source of income and employment, agricultural export commodity by value. As the institution governing the sector are such, the Agricultural Sector Development uncoordinated as they are delivered by Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) 2010/11 several autonomous agencies in distinct includes tea in its strategic export plan owing Ministries, Departments and Agencies to its ability to earn export revenues. The (MDAs) 1 and Programmes.2 In this regard, DSIP plans to address production related MAAIF (2013) defines coordination failure as challenges in the tea sector by reviving tea the existence of multiple policy frameworks research and enhancing tea processing and interventions spread out in various capacity by building new tea factories in institutions, but none of the intervention Bushenyi and Kabale. Evidence shows that or institutions systematically addresses on average, 93 percent of tea products issues of the tea sector exclusively. Put are exported while 7 percent is consumed simply, coordination failure is the inability domestically (MAAIF, 2012). More recent to coordinate the various institutions statistics from MoFPED (2013) indicate and interventions in a sector to pursue a that Uganda earned US$ 72 Million from common goal. exporting 63,456 tonnes of tea, cultivated on 35,194 Ha, in 2012/13. This represented We argue that the slow growth and limited 2.8 percent of Uganda’s total exports, 1.26 improvements in the performance of percent of global tea exports and 0.36 the tea sector are largely attributed to percent of Uganda’s Gross Domestic Product uncoordinated institutions that govern (GDP). the sector leading to uncertainty in future outcomes for the old and new stakeholders. Tea growing is envisaged as a tool to fight Thus, there is limited linkage of performance poverty through its ability as a source of of tea policy in Uganda. More specifically, we employment to households, especially in compare trends in production, productivity, rural areas. In 2009/2010, the tea sector acreage, export, pricing and processing employed more than 60,000 persons and between Kenya and Uganda. In addition, we was an indirect source of livelihood to analyse the institutional reforms governing close to 500,000 Ugandans (BoU, 2011). tea in Uganda from the 1950’s to-date and Moreover, the limited initial investment also review coordination failures in the required combined with the relatively low sector (1997 – to-date). We also discuss the risk of crop failure, the auxiliary services challenges facing the tea sector. created around the factories, the steady all year income, and the market linkage in retail While Uganda and Kenya-a major tea grower trade, transportation and consumption have and exporter- have comparable agro climatic all made tea growing an attractive activity conditions suitable for tea production, the to smallholder farmers (Oxfam, 2002). performance in Uganda’s tea industry is However, tea’s lengthy gestation period comparatively weak given the opportunities (3 years) and land ownership have slowed available.3 Findings reveal that the flaws in down smallholder’s reinvestment on tea. the coordination of interventions, and the

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 1 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

mal- functioning institutional frameworks 2.1 Tea production, acreage and that govern tea largely explain the slow productivity growth and performance of the tea sector a) Production in Uganda. In addition, due to limited awareness of opportunities associated with Ugandan tea is commonly grown on the tea growing, the sector has continued to slopes of Mount Rwenzori and along the attract almost no new investments by small crescent of Lake Victoria areas of Bushenyi, holders and estates. Simply put, the role of Hoima, Kabarole, Kanungu, Kibaale, Kisoro, government in coordinating tea activities is Mbarara, Mukono, Mityana, Rukungiri and largely missing. Thus, we recommend for a Wakiso. These areas are consistent with stand-alone tea policy and an institutional tea growing requirements of a temperate framework, comparable to the Tea Board climate with an average precipitation of of Kenya, to harmonize public and private between 1000mm and 1500mm for not less intervention, to coordinate collection of than 150 days per annum. In the above areas, regular and reliable tea statistics, to regulate temperatures average from 200C-250C, an competition and standards, to license inputs altitude of over 1500m above sea level and to ensure consumer protection in the with rich well drained fertile soils and soil tea sector in Uganda. alkalinity levels of not more than PH6.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Tea production in Uganda has fluctuated Section 2 provides a comparative analysis of over time. From Figure 1, in 1962-when differing trends in the tea sector for Uganda Uganda gained independence, 6,319 and Kenya. Section 3 discusses the various Metric Tonnes (MT) of tea were produced institutional reforms in the tea sector and with slight improvements recorded over section 4 reviews the policy framework the next 8 years. But from 1972 to late and coordination failure. Section 5 details 1980s, Uganda recorded severe decline in the challenges facing the tea sector while production-approximately 80 percent drop section 6 provides the conclusion and policy over that period. The poor performance recommendations. in tea production was attributed to the political instability of 1970’s and 1980’s that 2. PERFORMANCE OF led to destruction of infrastructure and to THE TEA INDUSTRY: A disinvestment due to the abandoning of tea estates by Asians, who were the majority COMPARISON BETWEEN stakeholders. There is a notable steady UGANDA AND KENYA recovery in production from 1987, with 2007 recording the highest level of production This section provides a comparative amounting to approximately 49,000MT. The discussion of production, productivity, recovery in production is attributed to the acreage, farmers’ organizations, export change in regime, when President Museveni trends, pricing and processing of tea in took over power in 1986, which led to the Uganda and Kenya. implementation of several recovery reforms as will be discussed later in section 3.

2 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

From 1962-1967, Kenya’s tea production b) Acreage levels were in tandem with Uganda’s. However, Uganda’s production has Kenya’s strategy to increase the cultivated increasingly reduced in subsequent years. land under tea (Figure 2) largely explains Between 1967 and 1972, Kenya’s production the significant increase in tea output (Figure increased two-folds and has continued 1). Kenya has consistently increased its to grow at a five-year average rate of 30 acreage at an average five year growth rate percent. In particular (figure 1), in 1962 of 30 percent (figure 2). By 2012, Kenya Kenya produced 16,428 MT of tea which registered 187, 855 Ha of land under active increased to 400,000 MT by 2012. The tea growing. With increase in the area 2012 production made Kenya the world’s under tea growing over the years, Kenya’s largest net producer of tea (Tea Board of production also increased by 8-folds in the Kenya (TBK), 2014). Kenya’s outstanding same period (refer to Figure 1). In contrast, production performance is partly attributed the Uganda’s acreage under tea production to relative political stability and strong has largely remained unchanged since 1977. institutions such as Kenya Tea Development Figure 2 shows that Uganda’s acreage under Authority (KTDA) and Tea Board of Kenya tea stagnated at 20,896 Ha from 1977 to (TBK). In addition, the mass adaptation of 2007. The poor performance by Uganda is high yielding clonal type of tea, expansion mainly attributable to attrition of farmers in acreage, improved husbandry and good and expulsion of Asian Estate owners (NPA, conducive policies have played a key role in 2007). However, in 2007 there was an encouraging continued investment by small 11 percent increase in Uganda’s land use holders and estate to boost production from that of 1977. NPA (2007) correlates (Mwaura and Muku, 2007). this increase in land use to the Emergency

Figure 1: Comparisons of Trends in Tea Output between Kenya and Uganda, 1962-2012 (‘000 metric tons)

Source: International Tea Committee, 2012

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 3 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Rehabilitation Programme (ETRP) project sector in Uganda and Kenya. Figure 3 shows implemented between 1987 and 1989 that that while in 1962 there were no significant mainly targeted tea growing. differences in productivity between the two countries (Uganda produced 0.74 tonnes/ While Uganda has 200,000Ha of land Ha and Kenya produced 0.83 tonnes/Ha). earmarked as optimum for tea production in By 1967, the differences in productivity the districts of Bushenyi, Hoima, Kaborole, were obvious (Uganda produced 0.5 Kanungu, Kibaale, Kisoro, Mbarara, Mityana, tonnes/Ha and Kenya produced 1.6 Nebbi, Rukungiri and Wakiso, only 10 tonnes/ Ha). Also, productivity is higher on percent of the land is being fully utilised smallholder farms than the estates in Kenya. (MAAIF, 2005). Whereas Mitchell (2006) Amde (2009) argues that this disparity, cites poor infrastructure in the rural areas in productivity, between estates and as a possible barrier, we wonder if it’s a smallholder farmers in Kenya is attributed question of coordination failure that exists to the ability of smallholder farmers to that is contributing to the underutilisation work in groups. Farmers groups contributes of land for tea growing. Nonetheless, to farm productivity and incomes through smallholder farmers assert that they do not assimilation of new research, technology own the land they cultivate. Large quantities and best farming practices (Adong, 2014). of land belong to absentee land lords, hence smallholder farmers are not able to expand Meanwhile, tea productivity in Uganda had tea production nor undertake long term dropped to 0.13 tonnes/Ha by 1972. There investments as required in tea growing. is a view that political instability led to attrition of farmer in Uganda. As a result of c) Productivity instability, the poor trend in productivity in Uganda persisted throughout the 1972-1987 Substantial differences are noted with regard period. However, with some level of political to the level of productivity between the tea stability in 1987 and the implementation of

Figure 2: Comparisons of the Trends in Tea Acreage between Kenya and Uganda (‘000 hectares) 1962-2012

Source: International Tea Committee, 2012

4 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures the ETRP and Smallholder Tea Rehabilitation 2.2 Organisation and distribution of tea Project (STRP) from 1994-2001 in Uganda stakeholders productivity improved to an average of a) Organisation of tea farmers 1.6 tonnes/Ha as compared to an average 2.2 tonnes/Ha in Kenya for the 1987-2012 Figure 4 shows a portrait of the tea value period (Figure 3). chain and distribution of the tea industry in Uganda. Large scale estate owners in Nevertheless, MAAIF (2012) argues that Uganda such as Madhvani Group, TAMTECO, other than political instability in the 1970s Rwenzori Commodities, Mehta Group and 1980s, uncoordinated policies spread out and others own about 16,000Ha of total in multiple agencies are largely responsible land. The large estates explain 72 percent for the extensive use of non-clonal tea share of tea production. From Figure 4, tea seedling materials, poor agronomical brokers are the intermediaries in the tea practices, limited use of fertilizer and gappy market at export level. Tea brokers have an fields among other problems. However, poor obligation to taste, value and bid for tea for rainfall and inadequate sun shine may also their clients. Made (processed) tea is mainly explain the comparatively low productivity sold in tonnes at auctions. Thereafter, the of Uganda’s tea sector. tonnage is broken into small packets after value addition; sorting, grading and packing.

Figure 3: Comparisons of the Trends in Tea productivity between Kenya and Uganda (Tonnes/hectares) 1962-2012

Source: International Tea Committee, 2012

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 5 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Figure 4: Uganda’s Tea Commodity Value Chain

Source: MAAIF (2012)

On the other hand, large scale estate b) Distribution of farmers owners such as Unilever Brothers are not as dominant in Kenya as they are in Uganda. In Uganda and Kenya, smallholders are For instance, Kenyan estates own 35 percent defined as those cultivating 8 acres or less of of total land under tea and produce only 38 land. Uganda’s Smallholders are estimated to percent of the total production (Kagira et al., be around 50,000 occupying approximately 2012). Therefore, smallholders account for 12,000Ha and producing around 28 percent 62 percent of total tea production and own of total tea production (Kiwanuka and 65 percent of total land under tea. The Tea Ahmed, 2012). In contrast, by 2013 the Board of Kenya (TBK) coordinates the tea Kenyan tea industry was dominated by cluster and organizes small holder farmers 570,000 smallholders who held leases to 65 around KTDA. In particular, the Kenyan tea percent of the 287, 102 Ha of land. The small cluster is composed of the Tea Board of holders output as a proportion of the 2013 Kenya (a regulatory body), the Tea Research total tea production was 62 percent (TBK, Foundation of Kenya, 65 smallholder-owned 2014). factories and 39 estate-owned factories, tea blenders and packers such as Kenya Tea Historically, Uganda’s small holders were Packers (KETEPA), and the Mombasa Tea organized in four groups with each group Auction (an auction bourse) (Figure 5). owning one factory in Igara, Kayonza, Mpanga and Buhungu. In 2002, the farmers

6 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Figure 5: Kenya’s Tea Commodity Value Chain

Source: Kagira et. al. (2012) groups had grown to 26 associations. Table 1: Number of Households in Uganda The groups were organized around the planting tea in 2008/2009 by district and existing 26 factories in and around western region Uganda. Today, the factories are now 28 in No. of number. Table 1 presents the distribution Households % of total of the number of households involved District in tea growing by district and region. Luwero 65 0.63 Bushenyi district has the highest number Mityana 150 1.45 of households growing about 56 percent of Namutumba 132 1.28 Bushenyi 5,788 55.98 total tea production in Uganda followed by Hoima 381 3.68 kyenjojo. Both districts are located in the Kabarole 437 4.23 Western part of the country. We note no Kanungu 1,478 14.29 representation from the Northern region in Kyenjojo 1,909 18.46 tea growing (Table 1). Total 10,340 100.00 Region Central 215 2.08 Eastern 132 1.28 Western 9,993 96.64 Total 10,340 100.00 Source: UCA 2008/2009

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 7 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

2.3 Tea research and extension services does it in Kenya. However, the suspension of the agricultural extension system in In most tea producing countries, tea research 2002 weakened the Ugandan tea extension is at the centre of tea development. In 1951, system. Unfortunately, programmes such as the Tea Research Institute of East Africa the National Agricultural Advisory Services (TRIEA) was formed to provide tea research (NAADS) have neither filled the gap left by to Kenya. But from 1957 to 1959, TRIEA’s extension officer attrition nor solved the mandate was extended to include Uganda problems of information gaps in the tea and Tanzania. TRIEA’s mandate was to sector (MAAIF, 2013). Furthermore, the conduct research and propagate clonal tea increase in the number of local governments in the East Africa region. TRIEA was financed without increasing the number of NAADS by a cess charged on tea production in staff or training them on tea husbandry Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The collapse exacerbates the problem further (MAAIF, of the Eastern African Community (EAC) in 2013). 1975 is widely associated with the collapse of TRIEA. Since the collapse of TRIEA, tea 2.4 Tea export performance research in Uganda has been dormant After Kenya (Kenya is the world’s leading for three decades, due to limitations in exporter of tea) and Malawi, Uganda is tea experts, finance and infrastructure. the third largest exporter of tea in Africa. Meanwhile, Kenya’s tea research has Uganda and Kenya’s exports, both in value thrived. In particular, Kenya founded the Tea and volume, continue to maintain an Research Foundation of Kenya (TRFK) in 1980 upward trend. Figure 6 shows that in 1962 as a successor to TRIEA. TRFK’s mandate is Kenyan tea exports were 14,807MT while to actively handle improvement of planting Ugandan exports were 5,531MT. During material, management, harvest, quality, the political insurgency in Uganda, the and pests and disease control in Kenya’s tea differences in tea exports, between the two sector. As a means of sustaining TRFK, tea countries, widened further. As such, 1982, farmers in Kenya pay a tax (cess) to fund tea exports in Uganda declined to 1198 MT, the industry’s research and development. while that of Kenya increased to 80,371 MT. As such, TRFK’s 2002 annual budget, in the Despite Uganda’s tea industry recovering amount of Ksh.52million (approximately in the 1990’s, the disparity between Kenya US$619,049), was entirely funded by a cess and Uganda in exports value and volume imposed and collected by the TBK. are significant. The disparities are more apparent in the 2000s with margins growing On a related front, tea farmers in Uganda are even wider. For example, in 2012, Uganda not well organized to collect a cess to fund exported 55,650MT of tea, which accounts activities for tea research. As a result, the for only 1.26 percent of global tea export. two existing Ugandan research stations in Meanwhile, Kenya exported 429,000MT and Rwebitaba in Kabarole and Salama in Mukono earned US$1.23billion (Figure 6). Kenya’s district rely only on transfers, Ush24million earnings were 22 percent of total Kenyan (approximately US$8,948) per annum, exports, 25 percent of global tea export from MAAIF. Nonetheless, the Uganda Tea earnings and 3.2 percent of Kenya’s GDP. Association (UTA) is exploring modalities of However, BoU (2008) point out that Kenya’s funding tea research in the same way the TBK

8 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Figure 6. Tea Exports volume in Uganda and Kenya, 1962 - 2012

Source: International Tea Committee (2012)

Figure 7. Tea Exports value in Uganda and Kenya, 1980 - 2011

Source: International Tea Committee (2012) incredible export volumes are explained 2.5 Pricing significantly by tea blends from foreign Unlike coffee, there is no futures market4 teas. This suggest that Uganda, Tanzania for tea, so tea is sold through auction and and Malawi’s tea are being re- exported as private deals. In the auction, tea prices are “Kenya’s tea”. determined by supply and demand, quality and geographical location-highland tea fetch Figure 7 shows that Kenya’s tea export more prices (MAAIF, 2012). Consequently, earnings have varied but have always been there is no single price for tea. Every auction above USD 200million with a peak of USD determines its own price through a reserve 1.23billion in 2010. Meanwhile Uganda’s price and a bidding process which varies with earning have consistently been below the quality and quantity. Since 1990, the average US$ 100million mark.

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 9 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Figure 8: Prices in Mombasa Tea Auctions and World Banks 3 Auctions Average, 1980- 2013

Source: International Tea Committee, Tea Broker’s Association of London and the World Bank

price of Ugandan tea has remained relatively emergence of Vietnam as a major exporter stable-US$ 1. 50 to USD 2.00 per Kg (Figure could deflate prices if future demand for 8). However, there were transitory upward petroleum declines. Furthermore, Uganda variations in 1997, 1998, 2006 and 2007, produces medium (sub-prime) quality tea mainly explained by reduction in supply of popularly referred to as price reducers, as tea due to drought. Prices did, however, opposed to premium brand of tea produced return to their historical trends in 2008. In by Kenya. Price reducers are primarily 2011, Kenyan tea was priced at between US$ used to blend premium tea. Consequently, 2.92 and US$ 3.72 per Kilograms, an average Uganda receives a lesser price than Kenya. of 91 percent difference when compared to Therefore, Uganda can learn from Kenya the Ugandan price. whose tea is of high quality and, therefore, attract internationally competitive prices. The price differences are mainly a signal of It is also possible that the price differences quality, impact of liberalization on the Kenyan between Uganda and Kenya are because tea sector, efficient organization of the tea speculators and middlemen at the Mombasa sector by Kenya Tea Development Agency LTD auction arbitrate gains from price arbitrage (KTDA), and a significant degree of absence on Ugandan tea, and as a consequence of domestic policy distortion. Generally, the Uganda ends up with a below the premium relatively stable prices for both countries’ market rate than that offered in other teas are attributed to strong global demand auctions and sales points (BOU, 2008). for tea5 especially in petroleum producing countries in the Middle East, Russia and At the Mombasa Tea Auction (where over Pakistan. Nonetheless, as Mitchel (2006) 90% of Ugandan and Kenyan tea are sold notes the co-movement of petroleum prices to exporters) teas are classified and priced with tea prices and production, coupled with based on quality such as strength, aroma,

10 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Table 2: Tea Prices by grade, Mombasa Auction report Number 19/2014

Grade BP1 PF1 PD D1 Best 2.60-2.62 1.95-1.97 2.04-2.08 2.14-2.16 Good 2.10-2.14 1.91-1.92 1.94-1.98 2.04-2.09 Good Medium 1.64-1.68 1.67-1.89 1.87-1.92 2.00-2.12 Medium 1.40-1.42 1.44-1.56 1.78-1.90 1.98-2.08 Lower Medium 1.28-1.30 1.44-1.56 1.90-1.94 1.94-2.04 Plainer 1.20-1.24 1.06-1.34 1.70-1.80 1.82-1.88

Source: Africa Tea Brokers ((All prices in US$ per kg) Cut, Tear and Curl (CTC) tea quotes) liquor and appearance. Table 2 presents the Until recently, the Kenyan tea industry has tea prices by grade in 2014. Most of Kenyan been exploring opportunities to diversify teas are classified from ‘’Medium’’ to ‘’Best’’, from processing black and whole form tea, while most Ugandan teas are classified to processing green tea and tea extracts. as “Plainer” and only five or six Ugandan This is as a result of the increasing demand estates are grouped under “Lower medium” for green tea and tea extracts in the western teas. Accordingly, Kenya teas attract a world (TBK, 2011). Kenya has more factories higher price relative to the Ugandan one – than Uganda, 65 smallholder owned and 38 to illustrate this, there is a price differential large estates owned. Furthermore, Kenyan of nearly 30% for BP1 between good and factories are not directly managed by its lower medium grade. Kenya has achieved shareholders as is the case of Uganda. Most quality tea through not only planting of the factories are managed by KTDA (a vegetative propagated highland land6 tea , small holder owned management agency) but also the enforcement of internationally which guarantees consistency in quality and accepted standards such as photo – sanitary output. requirements along the tea value chain. Unlike Kenya, Ugandan tea processing 2.6 Processing facilities are either unevenly distributed, or Uganda produces mainly black tea are concentrated in one area with many of processed by smallholder-managed Cut the potential tea growing areas having no Tear and Curl (CTC) factories. According processing facilities. For example, while the to NPA (2007) CTC factories are preferred tea growing areas of Kabale and Kisoro cover because they guarantee maximum cuppage 800 acres of tea with 25 percent of the area per unit weight of tea. By 1968, Uganda had undergoing regular plucking, there are no four CTC factories established through the factories near the tea planting zones (MAAIF, Government of Uganda aided small holder 2005). Another example of incapacity is by scheme projects. After the liberalization Igara factory, which was designed to handle of the sector in the late 1980’s and early 30 tonnes of green leaf per day, but, by 1990’s, Uganda built and rehabilitated a 2001, the factory was receiving as much as total of 28 factories to handle the expanded 100 tonnes for processing (MAAIF, 2012). tea capacity. Likewise, Kenya processes black Subsequently, the management of Igara tea using Small holder owned CTC factories. factory had to commission another factory

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 11 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

at Buhweju to handle the extended capacity. mandate to promote tea enterprise among But as productivity of the area continues 11,000 indigenous Ugandan smallholder to expand, it is evident that the processing farmers cultivating 9,000Ha of land. One facility will be overwhelmed in the near of the major achievements of UTGC is future. In 2005, MAAIF proposed that that it was responsible for constructing Uganda should adopt Kenya’s processing the first small holder owned tea factories model, where for every 500 Ha of tea, with in Mabale (Kyenjojo), Mpaga (Kabarole), 1.5 tonnes/Ha productivity, there should Igara (Bushenyi) and Kayonza (Kanungu). exist a single line CTC factory with a capacity Unfortunately, UTGC was declared insolvent to wither and process 750 tonnes of black and was dissolved in 2005. tea or 3,500 tonnes of green leaf and with an average out-turn of 23.5 percent. Also, Between 1971 and 1973, the Idd Amin Uganda should explore avenues of growing government conducted a radical reform and processing green tea which is healthier of the sector by expelling the Asians some and therefore better priced. Thus, Uganda of whom were tea estate owners. Thus, should look beyond business as usual, or management of the estates was handed over even beyond the “Kenyan model”. to indigenous small holders who were not highly skilled in the running of the tea estates. 3. INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS The result of this shift in the institutional framework was disastrous for the tea sector WITHIN UGANDA’S TEA with tea production dropping drastically to SECTOR 1,700 tonnes in 1975 from 13972 tonnes in 1967 (NPA, 2007). In 1986, Museveni took Uganda has carried out several institutional over as the President of Uganda; as a result, reforms in attempt to enhance efficiency in between 1987 and 1989, Government and delivery of tea products and services, and the World Bank implemented a liberalization to reduce governance challenges towards a and privatization program. The Emergency common goal. As such, raising small holder Tea Rehabilitation Programmme (ETRP)7was farmers’ incomes and poverty reduction a product of those reforms. The purpose especially in the rural areas is a priority. One of ETRP was to restore tea production to of the most salient reforms the Agriculture its status prior to economic collapse of the Enterprise Limited (AEL) established 1970’s. In this program, land such as tea by an Act of Parliament of 1955, and estates that had been seized in the 1970’s operationalized and managed by Uganda was returned to its former Asian owners. Development Corporation (UDC). AEL Subsequently, tea production increased accelerated the growth of tea production in from 1,500 tonnes in 1975 to 5,600 tonnes Uganda by cultivating 3000 Ha of tea. The in 1986 (MAAIF, 2005). company was dissolved in 2006 for ignoring the plight of smallholders and state failure to In 1988, the government attempted to organise the tea sector (NPA, 2007). In 1966, control tea prices, by doubling producers’ the government attempted to Africanize prices to Ush.20 (US$ 0.12) per kilogram, as the tea sector by establishing the Uganda an incentive to boost production. However, Tea Growers Corporation (UTGC) with the production remained below expectation.

12 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

For example, the 1989 output of 4,620 for different stakeholders. Within the tonnes was below 1986 which was 5600 National Development Plan (NDP) 2010, tonnes (NPA, 2007). From 1994 to 2001, the tea sector development through public GOU with support from the European Union private partnerships is earmarked as one (EU) implemented the Smallholder Tea of the strategies in pursuant of this goal. Rehabilitation Project (STRP) as an avenue for However, Uganda does not have a stand- rescuing the small holders. The project was alone (comprehensive) tea policy to very successful in achieving its objectives. As operationalise this goal. By definition, there a result, in 2005, smallholders explained 43 is poor coordination of the various policies percent of a total tea production- 33,000tons scattered in various MDAs. Attempts to bring (MAAIF, 2010). tea policies into one holistic framework in 2005, “the draft tea policy 2005”, which Currently, tea activities are being coordinated would have eased the coordination of through National Agriculture Advisory intervention in the sector were unsuccessful Services (NAADS) programme which (Mitchel, 2006). To-date, the draft tea policy started in 2001. NAADs was enacted by an has not been presented and or debated in Act of Parliament to provide agricultural Parliament. related advisory and extension services to address gaps in information, knowledge and In 2001, most of the policies shaping technology. NAADS tried to promote tea as the agricultural sector and the tea an alternative to coffee, especially in areas sector in particular were contained in a where coffee had been affected by the coffee policy framework known as the Plan for wilt. NAADS succeeded in propagating and Modernization of Agriculture (PMA).8 distributing 23million clonal seedlings to The PMA was built on the premise small holders in Kabale, Bushenyi, Kabarole, that for agriculture to reduce poverty Hoima, Kyenjojo and Kibale. Such activities among rural households, a multi-sectoral are highly correlated with expansion of tea approach was inevitable which explains its production to 50,000 tons in 2010. However, seven key pillars whose implementation NAADS propagation of clonal seedlings was mandates was spread across 13 ministries neither wide nor persistent and has struggled and agencies. The seven key pillars are: to provide effective extension services. research and technology development, National Agricultural Advisory Services 4. WHAT COORDINATION (NAADs), rural finance, agro-processing and marketing, agricultural education, physical FAILURES EXIST IN THE infrastructure, and sustainable natural TEA SECTOR? resource utilization and management (MAAIF, 2013). However, of the seven PMA MAAIF (2013) has defined coordination key pillars, only NAADS was implemented in failure as existence of multiple initiatives and the tea sector (Mitchel, 2006). For instance agencies which results in poor coordination in 2002, the GoU requested the National of MAAIF, MDAs, local governments Agriculture Research organisation (NARO) to and donor support towards a common prepare a plan to implement tea research. goal often creating policy uncertainty The research budget for the first five years

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 13 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

was estimated at Ush.955million (US$ and restore certainty in delivery of tea 531,000). Funding to implement the plan goods and services by providing regulatory did not materialise. oversight and operationalizing a stand-alone (comprehensive) tea policy to encourage Prior to 2010, the PMA secretariat reported investment by the private sector in the tea to MOFPED and not MAAIF and yet it is sector. the Permanent Secretary, MAAIF who was supposed to authorize expenditure of PMA To address some of these challenges, the secretariat and oversee the PMA budget Agricultural Sector Development Strategy management. This overlapping structure and Investment Plan (DSIP), 2010/11- created conflict of interest and power 2014/15 was established with the aim of struggles between MAAIF and MoFPED. As achieving a competitive, profitable and a result, sectors such as tea, which does sustainable agricultural sector. Tea is one not have its own policy framework to guide of ten key enterprises identified in the its functionality suffered as there were no Development Strategy and Investment Plan central guiding framework to help streamline (DSIP) 2010 - 2015 as a strategic export delivery of infrastructure and services, such commodity and as a tool to fight poverty in as feeder roads, that could have benefited the rural areas. However, the tea sector has the tea sector. Lessons from PMA suggests not been well coordinated to achieve one of that a multi-sectoral approach in organizing the DSIP’s objective of populating 200,000 the tea sector presents several governance Ha of land with tea bushes. Currently, challenges which require a robust cross- Uganda’s tea sector has absorbed only 10 sectoral coordination and accountability. percent of the identified land area. Although It is evident that coordination failure arose no comprehensive review of the DSIP 2007 as a result of responsibility for various was done, in 2012, MAAIF’s internal review interventions falling under different MDAs of the DSIP and Comprehensive Public across government, both at the central Expenditure Review in 2007 reveals that and local governments. For example, tea DSIP did not effectively spell out the strategy requires sustainable and affordable energy on how the 200,000 Ha, identified for tea (petroleum and hydro – electric power) and planting in zone 7 and zone 9, would be fertilizer. And, the policy strategy on energy occupied. As such, the DSIP 2007 was weakly and fertilizer for agricultural use is regulated coordinated and it did not align spending to by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals. increasing land ownership in the tea zones. However, the policy is broad and it does not specifically mention tea. In countries such 5. CHALLENGES as Kenya, a policy concerning energy and fertilizer use in the tea sector is placed under Ugandan tea farmers like their Kenyan the direct control of an autonomous and counterparts are represented by a trade specialised tea regulatory body with political union, the Uganda Tea Association. oversight from the ministry responsible for However, unlike Kenya, Uganda’s tea development of energy and fertilizer. While sector has no regulatory framework to the tea sector can be coordinated from regulate competition, inputs, provide MAAIF, there is a need to enhance efficiency regular statistics, coordinate and harmonize

14 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures interventions into the sector. Lack of implications on food security and household coordination of NAADS and MAAIF activities incomes as a result of the long time lag – 3 has increased uncertainty among tea sector years- between tea gestation period and stakeholders. production (Oxfam, 2002). In addition, infrastructural constraints turn Ugandan According to Mitchell (2006), the failure smallholder farmers into price takers. Tis is to coordinate tea research has manifested mainly because much of the smallholder tea into other problems such as low adoption output is marketed through the large tea of high yielding clonal tea, low quality of estates and factory owners. tea as opposed to quantity, information gaps on existence of better variety of tea The use of Ugandan tea on Kenyan blends, or the adverse effect of poor tea husbandry at the Mombasa Tea Auction, denies Uganda on the environment, and farmers do not the branding opportunity. Moreover, know how to mitigate the effect of climate industry players are of the view that it change on their crops. Moreover, the cost will be difficult for Uganda to regain its of inputs such as fertilizers, seedlings, farm brand, because Ugandan tea is now widely implements and labour may drive many believed to be Kenyan tea. Also, it has been farmers out of business. For example, it’s increasingly difficult for local Ugandan comparatively costly to produce a kilogram exporter to meet their order quantification of tea in Uganda, it costs US$1.20 to produce as most Ugandan tea producer prefer the a Kilogram of Ugandan tea. Mombasa auction (BoU, 2008).

In addition, tea is a labour intensive activity The procedure of withering, crushing, requiring many workers to pluck tea by hand fermenting, drying and sorting of tea requires during the harvest season; but, the effects 14-16 hours of uninterrupted power supply. of rural urban migration, low pay to farm In this case, a minute of power outage may labourers, poor working conditions, and poor result into inconsistent quality and lower social amenities in the rural areas have been prices (MAAIF, 2012). Standby generators driving many labourers from the tea farms. have proven to be an expensive substitute; Many of the large estates have reverted to as a result, the tea factories use wood fuel using mechanized methods which pluck tea as a substitute in event of power outage, indiscriminately, as opposed to the ‘’two this practice has led to degradation of leaves and a bud’’ method preferred by tea environment and low rainfall in tea growing connoisseurs. This has led to variations in areas (MAAIF, 2012). tea quality hence fetching lower prices at auction houses. 6. CONCLUSION AND POLICY Many farmers are sceptical of joining the RECOMMENDATIONS sector because tea is a mono crop. Once tea is planted, a farmer may not practice In this study we critically review the trends mixed agriculture. This implies that growing in production, productivity, acreage, tea tea does not only need a stable land tenure farmer organization, tea research, tea system, but it may have major short - run export performance, pricing and processing benchmarked on best practice from Kenya.

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 15 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

We also review the institutional reforms in in zone 7 and zone 9. This is partly attributed Uganda from the 1950’s to date and critically to weak intra- and inter-sectoral linkages review the coordination failure in Uganda between tea sub-sector stakeholders - such (1997 – to date) and examine the challenges as in addressing land ownership and input facing the Ugandan tea sector to extract supply constraints. It should be noted that a gaps and suggest reforms (the reforms are comprehensive tea policy and a regulatory summarized on appendix 1). framework in Kenya promoted the use of land resources as a basis for tea ventures We observe that the Kenya’s government, (Amde et al., 2009). This guaranteed land through the Kenya Tea Development Agency ownership for the smallholders as well as (KTDA), has coordinated and organized the estates. its 570,000 smallholders into a dominant players. For example, smallholders hold Drawing from the success of Kenya’s policy leases to 65 percent of the 287,102 Ha of framework, some of the lessons Uganda land under tea and contributed 62 percent could pick to transform its tea sector are of total tea production in 2012. This has passing a comprehensive (a stand – alone) tea been achieved because the KTDA provides policy which clearly defines and coordinates improved technologies and planting the roles of the different agencies in the materials, an effective extension service and tea sector. The stakeholders includes a provision of farm inputs such as fertilizers, wide range of competing small- holder and herbicides and pruning knives for the multinational producers, suppliers, value smallholders. adding firms and regulatory agencies. The government should also explore avenues It is evident that smallholders have the of organising a regulatory framework akin biggest potential of unlocking the growth in to the Tea Board of Kenya (TBK) which will Uganda’s tea sector because they reside or regulate tea growing, research, processing, own almost all of the 200,000 Ha identified and trade and promote Uganda’s tea in local for tea in the DSIP, they have cheap and and global markets. In addition, a regulatory abundant family labour, they have a common framework would guide the government on interest hence they are easy to organize and all policy matters related to the tea industry they live in the same geographical location. through the MAAIF. Yet, the level of Uganda’s smallholder’s organization is not conducive to foster the REFERENCES assimilation of new research, technology and best farming practices the tea sub- Adong, A., (2014). Impact of households’ sector. membership of farmer groups on the adoption of agricultural technologies Admittedly, there are institutional constraints in Uganda: Evidence from the Uganda manifested in weak enforcement of Census of Agriculture 2008/09”. government policies and plans across MDAs Journal of Agricultural Economic in Uganda. This is illustrated by inability Research Policy and Practice in to promote the utilization of the 200,000 Southern Africa. hectares of land identified for tea planting Amde M., Chan P., Mihretu M.and Tamiru

16 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

K. (2009) Microeconomics of FT/IFC Sustainable Finance Competitiveness, Country: Kenya, Awards Achievement in Cluster: Tea Inclusive Business http://www. Bank of Uganda (BoU) (2008). Report on ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ the Domestic Resource Cost ratios f097d4004ff4df23a8c0ff23ff966f85/ for Selected Export Commodities FT-Award-Shortlist_KTDA. 2006/07. Bank of Uganda, Kampala, pdf?MOD=AJPERES Uganda. Kagira, E. K., Kimani S. W., and Kagwathi Bank of Uganda (BoU) (2011). Report on S. G. (2011). Sustainable Methods the Domestic Resource Cost ratios of Addressing Challenges Facing for Selected Export Commodities Small Holder Tea Sector in Kenya: A 2009/10. Bank of Uganda, Kampala, Supply Chain Management Approach. Uganda. Journal of Management and Bategeka L., Kiiza J. and Kasirye I. Sustainability; Vol. 2, No. 2; 2012 (2013). Institutional Constraints to Kiwanuka B., Ahmed M. (2012). Analysis of Agricultural Development in Uganda: incentives and disincentives for tea EPRC Research Series No. 101 in Uganda. Technical notes series, Bedford A., Blowfield M., Burnett D. and MAFAP, FAO, Rome. Greenhalgh P. (2002). Value Chains: MAAIF (2005). The National Tea Lessons from the Kenya tea and Development Policy Draft Indonesia cocoa sectors from The MAAIF (2010). Statistical Abstract. Natural Resource Institute, Wyvern MAAIF (2011). Statistical Abstract. Byerlee. D and Echeverría R. G. (2002), MAAIF (2012). Operationalization of Agricultural Research Policy in an Era the non- ATAAS component of the of Privatization development strategy and investment Daviron B., and Gibbon P., (2002). Global plan: Draft analytical report on the Commodity Chains and African tea value chain. Export Agriculture. Journal of MAAIF (2013). National Agricultural Policy Agrarian Change, Volume 2, Issue 2, MacKinnon J. and Reinnika R. (2000). pages 137–161: DOI: 10.1111/1471- Lessons from Uganda on Strategies 0366.00028 to Fight Poverty: World Bank FAOSTAT, (2013), Food and Agriculture Development Research Group Organization (FAO). Available at: Mitchell D. (2006). Tea in Uganda: Draft http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat- Report on Uganda DTIS Ministry of gateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/E Finance, Planning and Economic FAO (2013)a. Monitoring African Food and Development (2013). Background to Agricultural Policies, Kenya: MAFAP the budget 2012/13 Policy Brief Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic International Committee of Tea (ITC), Development (2014). Background to (2012): International Tea Statistics the budget 2013/14 MTTI (2006). Diagnostic trade integration International Finance Corporation study: Volume 2, Kampala, Uganda. (2013) Shortlist for the 2013 Mwaura F. and Muku O. (2007). Tea

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 17 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

Farming Enterprise Contribution to Uganda: A Special Study. Report Smallholders’ Well Being in Kenya: prepared for USAID Uganda Country AAAE Conference Proceedings (2007) Office 307-313 Tea Board of Kenya website (2011): http:// National Agricultural Research www.teaboard.or.ke/statistics/ Organization (NARO), Tea Research exports.html and Development in Uganda, Tea Board of Kenya website (2014): http:// Implementation Plan, draft, July 2002 www.teaboard.or.ke/statistics/ National Planning Authority (NPA) (2007). exports.html Feasibility Study for expanding Tea Tumushabe G., Muhumuza T., Natamba Production and establishing a Tea E., Bird N., Welham B., and Jones Factory in Kabale District L., (2013). Uganda National Climate Oxfam International (2002). The Tea Change Finance Analysis: Overseas Market – a background study. Development Institute, London Oxfam International. London. United and the Advocates Coalition for Kingdom. Available at. http://www. Development and Environment, hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/oxfam_tea_ Kampala market.pdf. Accessed August 2012 UGATEA (2011). The tea Industry in Uganda. Rudaheranwa N., (2003). Uganda’s Uganda Tea Development Limited Challenges in Complying with WTO (UTDAL). Agreement. EPRC Research Series WTO (2006). Trade Policy Review- EAC- Ssewanyana, S. and Kasirye, I. (2006). Kenya Understanding Food Insecurity in

18 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures Remarks farming small holder tea promote is a need to There tea small holder to promote investment needs significant Government 200,000 output in the potential of tea the expansion realize to development growing tea for by MAAIF as suitable identified already hectares system estate a tea in Uganda, system and farming of land tenure the nature Given is system a smallholder However, in the short run. to pursue be difficult would in the short term feasible and production and intensify abroad tea Ugandan market is a need to There acreage such as area Especially in new for smallholder. for improvement room is still There Zombo tea production of cost in advantage has a comparative Uganda that This shows and quality quantity to improve this advantage And should utilize Kenya. compared of land suitable 200,000 hectares the available exploits if Uganda that This shows of about 400,000 area of with total the levels to grow may revenue export tea, for hectares. However, Kenya. of of that at the level is not strategy and pricing marketing Uganda Diversification quality. price and low the low between correlation is strong there returns. export improve would tea green to black tea from tea and clonal planting application, fertilizer by productivity improve can Uganda irrigation. and Kenya in both consumption domestic low is very there that This indicates prices in the medium would boost consumption in domestic An increase Uganda. term and Kenya in both consumption domestic low is very there that This indicates prices in the medium would boost consumption in domestic An increase Uganda. term. Uganda 50,000 12,000 16,000 45,000 28% 1.20 0.093 2 2.2- 3 92% 8% Kenya 312,000 260,000 140,000 377, 912 62% 1.33 1.23 3.72 4 95% 5% Policy/Country No. of Small holders by Ha of land owned smallholders estates by Ha owned exports(tons) total Average by production total of Quotient smallholders of tea a KG of producing Cost in USD earnings in USD export Peak (Billions) Prices in USD/KG Peak ton/Ha Productivity Average production of total Percentage exported Consumption Domestic APPENDIX I: THE KEY TO UN-LOCK THE UGANDAN TEA SECTOR TEA UGANDAN THE UN-LOCK TO KEY THE I: APPENDIX

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 19 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures Remarks 500 Ha of every For facilities. the number of processing increase needs to Uganda factory a single line CTC exist should there productivity, with 1.5 tonnes/Ha tea, of or 3,500 tonnes of black tea 750 tonnes wither and process to with a capacity of 23.5 percent out-turn and with an average leaf green No changes method. production leaf green preferred This is the most and tea research support tea a cess to charge needs to Uganda Kenya, Like also support in the short term. could services. The government extension and tea research support tea a cess to charge needs to Uganda Kenya, Like also support in the short term. could services. The government extension coordinate and to monitor weak and poorly funded is association tea Uganda driven industry strengthen to is a need There the activities of sub-sector. by and supported sector by the private resourced adequately are that associations the state. regulation and guide the coordination policy to tea a comprehensive lacks Uganda existing value chain. The tea and activities along the programs of the sub-sector and estate farmers the small holder around fragmented tea are in regulation with no linkage. holders other than the in other markets tea Uganda’s and market brand is a need to There to continue to standards sanitary photo to adhere needs to Uganda world. Arab markets. access international Uganda 25 CTC Weak Weak Weak None Weak Kenya 65 CTC Strong and Strong to linked research Strong Strong Strong Policy/Country Factories Number of Tea Method Processing System Research Tea serviceExtension Association Tea Policy Tea Comprehensive and pricing Marketing

20 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

END NOTES

1 In particular,Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). 2 Such as the Uganda National Agricultural Policy (NAP) 2011, Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)1997-2008, Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture 2000-2010 and now the National Development Plan (NDP) 2010-2015. 3 As we shall see in the next section that compares tea trends in both countries and opportunities available. 4 A futures market is where coffee planted today is sold in the forward market before it matures, processed and exported. 5 Tea is the most consumed beverage after water with three billion cups of tea consumed daily. 6 Vegetative Propagated and Highland tea attracts is of high quality and thus attracts higher prices 7 Economic Recovery Program (ERP) was initially instituted to accelerate economic growth. In that framework, most of the seized foreign/Asian tea estates were returned to their former owners to promote growth in the tea sector. However, the focus of ERP shifted from economic growth to macro-economic stability and structural adjustment. It is under such a background, that programs such as Emergency Tea Rehabilitation Programme (ETRP) 1987/89 and the Smallholder Tea Rehabilitation Project (STRP) were implemented 1994/2001. 8 PMA was part of another broad planning framework formulated in 1997, the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) 1997-2008 whose main aim was to reduce poverty by promoting employment especially in the agricultural sector, economic growth and export diversification.

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 21 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

EPRC RESEARCH SERIES

Listing of Research Series published since 2010 to date. Full text format of these and earlier papers can be downloaded from the EPRC website at www.eprc.or.ug

Series Author(s) Title Date No. 118 Sarah N. Ssewanyana and Uganda’s progress towards poverty June 2014 Ibrahim Kasirye reduction during the last decade 2002/3- 2012/13: Is the gap between leading and lagging areas widening or narrowing? 117 Mayanja Lwanga Musa Macroeconomic Effects of Budget Deficits June 2014 and Mawejje Joseph in Uganda: A VAR-VECM Approach 116 Adong Annet, Muhumuza Smallholder Food Crop Commercialization June 2014 Tony and Mbowa Swaibu in Uganda: Panel Survey Evidence 115 Barungi Mildred, Implementing Universal Secondary May 2014 Wokadala James and Education Policy In Uganda: How Has The Kasirye Ibrahim Public-Private Partnership Performed? 114 Mwaura Francis, Okoboi Determinants of Household’s Choice of April 2014 Geofrey and Ahaibwe Cooking Energy in Uganda Gemma 113 Mawejje Joseph Tax Evasion, Informality And The Business December 2013 Environment In Uganda 112 Shinyekwa Isaac & Trade Creation And Diversion Effects Of December 2013 Othieno Lawrence The East African Community Regional Trade Agreement: A Gravity Model Analysis. 111 Mawejje Joseph & Accelerating Growth And Maintaining December 2013 Bategeka Lawrence Intergenerational Equity Using Oil Resources In Uganda. 110 Bategeka Lawrence et ; Overcoming The Limits Of Institutional September 2013 UN Wider Reforms In Uganda 109 Munyambonera Ezra Access And Use Of Credit In Uganda: June 2013 Nampewo Dorothy , Unlocking The Dilemma Of Financing Small Adong Annet & Mayanja Holder Farmers. Lwanga Musa 108 Ahaibwe Gemma & HIV/AIDS Prevention Interventions In June 2013 Kasirye Ibrahim Uganda: A Policy Simulation. 107 Barungi Mildred & Kasirye Improving Girl’s Access To Secondary June 2013 Ibrahim Schooling A Policy Simulation For Uganda 106 Ahaibwe Gemma, Mbowa Youth Engagement In Agriculture In June 2013 Swaibu & Mayanja Uganda: Challenges And Prospects. Lwanga Musa 105 Shinyekwa Isaac & Macroeconomic And Sectoral Effects May 2013 Mawejje Joseph Of The EAC Regional Integration On Uganda: A Recursive Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. 104 Shinyekwa Isaac Economic And Social Upgrading In The May 2013 Mobile Telecommunications Industry: The Case Of MTN.

22 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

103 Mwaura Francis Economic And Social Upgrading In Tourism May 2013 Global Production Networks: Findings From Uganda. 102 Kasirye Ibrahim Constraints To Agricultural Technology May 2013 Adoption In Uganda: Evidence From The 2005/06-2009/10 Uganda National Panel Survey. 101 Bategeka Lawrence, Institutional Constraints To Agriculture May 2013 Kiiza Julius & Development In Uganda. Kasirye Ibrahim 100 Shinyekwa Isaac & Comparing The Performance Of Uganda’s April 2013 Othieno Lawrence Intra-East African Community Trade And Other Trading Blocs: A Gravity Model Analysis. 99 Okoboi Geoffrey Kuteesa The Impact Of The National Agricultural March 2013 Annette &Barungi Advisory Services Program On Household Mildred Production And Welfare In Uganda. 98 Adong Annet, Mwaura What Factors Determine Membership To January 2013 Francis &Okoboi Geoffrey Farmer Groups In Uganda? Evidence From The Uganda Census Of Agriculture 2008/9. 97 Tukahebwa B. Geoffrey The Political Context Of Financing December 2012 Infrastructure Development In Local Government: Lessons From Local Council Oversight Functions In Uganda. 96 Ssewanyana Sarah Causes Of Health Inequalities In Uganda: October 2012 & Evidence From The Demographic And Kasirye Ibrahim Health Surveys. 95 Kasirye Ibrahim HIV/AIDS Sero-Prevalence And October 2012 Socioeconomic Status: Evidence From Uganda. 94 Ssewanyana Sarah and Poverty And Inequality Dynamics In September 2012 Kasirye Ibrahim Uganda: Insights From The Uganda National Panel Surveys 2005/6 And 2009/10. 93 Othieno Lawrence & Opportunities And Challenges In Uganda’s July 2012 Dorothy Nampewo Trade In Services. 92 Kuteesa Annette East African Regional Integration: June 2012 Challenges In Meeting The Convergence Criteria For Monetary Union: A Survey. 91 Mwaura Francis and Reviewing Uganda’s Tourism Sector For June 2012 Ssekitoleko Solomon Economic And Social Upgrading. 90 Shinyekwa Isaac A Scoping Study Of The Mobile June 2012 Telecommunications Industry In Uganda. 89 Mawejje Joseph Uganda’s Electricity Sector Reforms And June 2012 Munyambonera Ezra Institutional Restructuring. Bategeka Lawrence 88 Okoboi Geoffrey and Constraints To Fertiliser Use In Uganda: June 2012 Barungi Mildred Insights From Uganda Census Of Agriculture 2008/09. 87 Othieno Lawrence Prospects And Challenges In The November 2011 Shinyekwa Isaac Formation Of The COMESA-EAC And SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area.

ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC 23 Uganda’s Tea Sub-sector: A comparative Review of Trends, Challenges and Coordination Failures

86 Ssewanyana Sarah, Cost Benefit Analysis Of The Uganda Post June 2011 Okoboi Goeffrey & Primary Education And Training Expansion Kasirye Ibrahim And Improvement (PPETEI) Project. 85 Barungi Mildred Cost-Effectiveness Of Water Interventions: June 2011 & Kasirye Ibrahim The Case For Public Stand-Posts And Bore-Holes In Reducing Diarrhoea Among Urban Households In Uganda. 84 Kasirye Ibrahim & Cost Effectiveness Of Malaria Control June 2011 Ahaibwe Gemma Programmes In Uganda: The Case Study Of Long Lasting Insecticide Treated Nets (LLINs) And Indoor Residual Spraying. 83 Buyinza Faisal Performance And Survival Of Ugandan September 2011 Manufacturing Firms In The Context Of The East African Community. 82 Wokadala James, Nyende Public Spending In The Water Sub-Sector November 2011 Magidu, Guloba Madina In Uganda: Evidence From Program & Barungi Mildred Budget Analysis. Bategeka Lawrence & Oil Wealth And Potential Dutch Disease June 2011 81 Matovu John Mary Effects In Uganda. 80 Shinyekwa Isaac Uganda’s Revealed Comparative September &Othieno Lawrence Advantage: The Evidence With The EAC 2011 And China. 79 Othieno Lawrence & Trade, Revenues And Welfare Effects Of April 2011 Shinyekwa Isaac The EAC Customs Union On Uganda: An Application Of Wits-Smart Simulation Model. 78 Kiiza Julius, Bategeka Righting Resources-Curse Wrongs In July 2011 Lawrence & Ssewanyana Uganda: The Case Of Oil Discovery And Sarah The Management Of Popular Expectations. 77 Guloba Madina, Does Teaching Methods And Availability August 2011 Wokadala James & Of Teaching Resources Influence Pupil’s Bategeka Lawrence Performance?: Evidence From Four Districts In Uganda. 76 Okoboi Geoffrey, Economic And Institutional Efficiency Of June 2011 Muwanika Fred, Mugisha The National Agricultural Advisory Services’ Xavier & Nyende Majidu Programme: The Case Of Iganga District. 75 Okumu Luke &Okuk J. C. Non-Tariff Barriers In EAC Customs Union: December 2010 Nyankori Implications For Trade Between Uganda And Other EAC Countries. 74 Kasirye Ibrahim & Impacts And Determinants Of Panel April 2010 Ssewanyana Sarah Survey Attrition: The Case Of Northern Uganda Survey 2004-2008. 73 Twimukye Evarist, Sectoral And Welfare Effects Of The Global July 2010 Matovu John Mary Economic Crisis On Uganda: A Recursive Sebastian Levine & Dynamic CGE Analysis. Birungi Patrick 72 Okidi John Inflation Differentials Among Ugandan June 2010 &Nsubuga Vincent Households: 1997 – 2007. 71 Hisali Eria Fiscal Policy Consistency And Its June 2010 Implications For Macroeconomic Aggregates: The Case Of Uganda. 70 Ssewanyana Sarah & Food Security In Uganda: A Dilemma To July 2010 Kasirye Ibrahim Achieving The Millennium Development Goal.

24 ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE - EPRC

Economic Policy Research Centre Plot 51, Pool Road, Makerere University Campus P.O. Box 7841, Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256-414-541023/4, Fax: +256-414-541022 Email: [email protected], Web: www.eprc.or.ug