Can Ugandan farmers unite and form a strong body and can they influence the government to come up with farmer friendly policies? Can farmers make an impact on government decisions about such issues as the environment, biotechnology or budgetary allocations to agriculture?

Are they capable of lobbying for resources to improve production and productivity? Are they in position to create strong marketing systems for their produce within and outside the country? Are they empowered to determine their own prices for their produce?

Can the Ugandan farmers lobby for more funding for research to get better seeds or fight crop and animal diseases? Does the government and the public recognise the importance of farmers to the national economy?

Are the farmers themselves aware of the volume of their contribution to the national economy? It is such questions that must have been behind the formation of the Uganda National Farmers Association (UNFA) in 1992 by those who felt that they had something to do to push farmers to the elevated status they deserved in formulating government policies.

They wanted the farmers to unite in order to have a bigger say in national development issues, particularly those that affect farming and production. Development partners such as Danida were excited by the idea and provided the required initial funding to get UNFA to its feet.

It had district branches all over the country, which became autonomous after decentralisation in 1997/8 but remained under an umbrella organisation, the Uganda National Farmers Federation (UNFFE). But did all the farmers understand the motive for the formation of such an association?

In the beginning, they were quick to pay membership fees and the initial meetings across the country were well attended. They had all sorts of expectations, which included quick loans and donations. Soon, they grumbled that UNFA was only providing them with training seminars teaching such skills as book keeping which many had no knowledge of.

They were also disappointed that often after the meetings, no "transport refund" was provided. But wasn't the association meant to be member owned and weren't they expected to raise the money to sustain their association instead of drawing any from it?

Most of the elected leaders did not have the necessary administrative skills and the majority of district farmers associations experienced leadership wrangles in which lack of financial accountability was a prominent feature.

Danida has however continued to fund the associations although the funding is strictly delegated to specific projects now.

Masaka District Farmers' Association coordinator, Haruna Mutaawe said, "With the exception of Mbarara, which has a commercial building from which it collects rent, Masindi, and Soroti, both of which have maize milling machines, failed to come up with sustainable sources of income to facilitate district association board members and coordinators' activities."

Without money for field activities, it became hard for the associations to hold board meetings and conduct district farmers' assemblies. Their role among grass root farmers therefore was eroded and the members stopped paying membership fees.

"We have not been able to hold a district farmers' assembly since 2005 due to financial constraints," Mutaawe said. Some other farmers regarded the association with scepticism, relating it with the co-operative union arrangement that had earlier failed due to negative political influences.

"Since the association embraced both the small and large scale farmers, several of the later quickly disassociated themselves, feeling they hardly had any ideas to share or discuss with the small scale farmers," he added.

There are however a number of poverty fighting NGOs, religious organisations and government programmes that have infiltrated the countryside providing free services and handouts to the peasants.

Some give out quality breeds and seeds to farmers in the form of exotic goats, cows, pigs, chickens disease free cassava cuttings and maize. Such organisations include Send a Cow, Lutheran World Federation, Maddo, Heifer Project International (HPI), SCC VI Agro forestry, government programmes such as Naads, Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA), National Livestock Productivity Improvement Project and Prosperity for All.

Apart from providing inputs, the organisations have well facilitated field staff resulting in a strong grass root representation while the cash-strapped District Farmers Associations remain stuck at the district level and hardly operate at grass root level.

In the villages, the organisations have led to the formation of groups, associations and forums, usually related to the various farming enterprises such as banana production groups, pineapple farmers groups, coffee production groups, apiary farmers, poultry farmers groups and many others.

Since the organisations operate among the same peasant farmers, it often happens that some farmers belong to a number of them as members or even as office bearers.

Of them all, National Union of Coffee Agribusiness Farm Enterprise (Nucafe) has so far gained significant influence and support among the local farmers and on July, 2008, it held a national coffee farmers assembly at Namboole, something that UNFFE, which is supposed to be bigger, has never been able to do.

That day, Nucafe chairman Gerald Ssendaula boldly told Prime Minister Apollo Nsibambi that the government must provide more funding to Coffee Research Centre to propagate disease-free coffee seedlings, among several other demands he made. But all farmers cannot share Nucafe's apparent success since it only caters for the interests of a single crop!

Another hard fact is that the great majority of the other organisations are donor based programmes or projects that have a time frame. Yet farmers' associations were meant to be owned by the farmers and operate without a time limit. What will happen when the programmes and projects stop receiving funding? Will they leave the farmers more united or divided?

Will the farmers be in a position to sustain the so-called groups and forums? Will they have outgrown the donor dependency syndrome? Will farmers more responsible for their own destiny and will they have a stronger voice, capable of influencing government decisions affecting them?