Alrep 2010- 2015 Completion Report

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

EUROPEAN UNION

Northern Uganda Agriculture livelihoods Recovery Programme

Programme Completion Report

9 July 2010 - 8 MARCH 2015

This report is produced by the Permanent Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister, who is the Imprest Administrator and Supervisor of ALREP, and submitted to the National Authorising Officer and the European Union.

The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the NAO or the EU. ALREP is implemented by the Office of the Prime Minister with technical assistance from

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

ALREP Key data Financing Agreement code: Signature date FA: Expiry implementation period: Commitment (D+3) date: Inception period (PE1): PE2 period: PE3 period: PE4 period: Closure period: Funding agency: Contracting Authority: Programme Supervisor: Imprest Administrator: Imprest Accountant EU contribution: Total funding

UG/FED/2008/020-287 9 March 2009 9 March 2015 9 March 2013 9 July 2010 – 31 December 2010 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2011 1 January 2012 – 30 June 2013 1 July 2013 – 28 February 2015 1 December 201 – 8 March 2015 European Union 10th European Development Fund Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Office of the Prime Minister Office of the Prime Minister Cardno Emerging Markets (Uk) Ltd €20,000,000 €21,286,213

Expenditure by Result in %

Communication and visibility M&E

Management

17.6%

0.01%

0.4% Audits

0.2%

Production and Productivity

24.2%

DLG capacity

10.2%

Agricultural finance

3.4% Input and output markets

7.2 %

Productive infrastructure

36.7%

Programme Completion Report

C

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables

iii

List of Figures

v

Abbreviations / Acronyms

vi

Highlights of ALREP

viii

1

INTRODUCTION

1

2

LESSON LEARNED FROM PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

3

2.1

Programme Design and Management .................................................................................................... 3

3 Background to the Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme 9 3.1

Background to Northern Uganda ............................................................................................................ 9

3.2

ALREP .................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3

Stakeholders and Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................. 11

3.4

Programme Governance ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.5

Implementation Modalities and Processes ........................................................................................... 14

3.6

Programme Management ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.7

Monitoring Framework and Tools......................................................................................................... 18

3.8

Reporting............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.9

Visibility ................................................................................................................................................. 20

4

VALIDITY OF PROGRAMME DESIGN

21

5

PROGRAMME EFFECTIVENESS

25

5.1

Result 1: Increased agricultural production and productivity .............................................................. 25

5.2

Result 2: Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt ........................................................ 34

5.3

Result 3: More efficient and transparent input and output markets and processing capacities ......... 42

5.4

Result 4: Availability of agricultural finance to producers, traders and processors increased ............. 50

5.5

Result 5: Local Governments Strengthened ......................................................................................... 54

5.1

Cross cutting Issues ............................................................................................................................... 58

6

PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY

6.1

Implementation against timelines ........................................................................................................ 59

6.2

Financial Performance .......................................................................................................................... 60

7

PROGRAMME OUTCOMES AND IMPACT

7.1

Evidence of Outcomes and Impacts ...................................................................................................... 67

8

PROGRAMME SUSTAINABILITY

8.1

Ownership ............................................................................................................................................. 73

Programme Completion Report

59

67 73

Page | i Programme Completion Report i

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

8.2

Ins tu onal sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 74

8.3

Technical sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 74

9

FINAL REFLECTIONS

77

ANNEX 1: Logical framework

78

ANNEX 2: Baseline and endline indicator values

82

ANNEX 3: List of implemen ng partners

91

ANNEX 4: Sta list of ALREP

93

Annex 5: Summary table of contracts

94

ANNEX 6: Asset register ANNEX 7: EU CRIS posi

ii

100 n as of 15 February 2015

Programme Completion Report

104

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

List of Tables Table 1: Objectives structure of ALREP......................................................................................................... 10 Table 2: PRDP 1 strategic objectives as compared to ALREP objectives ...................................................... 11 Table 3: commitment schedule of contracts and agreements ..................................................................... 15 Table 4: ROM scoring on 5 evaluation criteria.............................................................................................. 22 Table 5: List of NGO implementing partners involved in implementation of FFS Activities ......................... 25 Table 6: FFS outputs result 1......................................................................................................................... 26 Table 7: FFS details of Quality Declared Seed production (acres) ................................................................ 26 Table 8: Quantity of oxen and ox ploughs distributed ................................................................................. 26 Table 9: Goat improvement units locations and host farmers details ......................................................... 26 Table 10: Income generating activities supported ....................................................................................... 27 Table 11: Quantity of white sorghum bulked and sold under Forward contract with EAML ....................... 27 Table 12: Grant contracts awarded to CESVI ................................................................................................ 28 Table 13: CESVI Outputs Lango East component .......................................................................................... 28 Table 14: Animal health equipment handed over to LGs ............................................................................. 28 Table 15: Production and income generated from IGPs............................................................................... 32 Table 16: % of farmers receiving services by from FFS networks ................................................................. 33 Table 17: Grant contracts awarded under CfP 1 .......................................................................................... 35 Table 18: Summary of ACTED outputs .......................................................................................................... 35 Table 19: Summary of AVSI outputs ............................................................................................................. 36 Table 20: Summary of CESVI outputs ........................................................................................................... 37 Table 21: Summary of ASB outputs .............................................................................................................. 38 Table 22: Summary of infrastructure built through works contracts ........................................................... 39 Table 23: Scores (%) for sufficiency and relevance of productive infrastructure (HH survey and FGDs) ..... 39 Table 24: Scores (%) from HH survey for accessibility of selected infrastructures before and after ALREP 40 Table 25: Rating of terms/work rates ........................................................................................................... 41 Table 26: Service contracts awarded under Result 3.................................................................................... 43 Table 27: Summary of AgriNet outputs ........................................................................................................ 43 Table 28: Forward sorghum contracts for white sorghum cultivation brokered by AgriNet in 2014 .......... 44 Table 29: Summary of UNADA outputs ........................................................................................................ 45 Table 30: Coverage of radio stations contracted by ALREP for radio shows ................................................ 46 Table 31: Summary of Kolline & Hemed outputs ......................................................................................... 46 Table 32: Summary of PSFU outputs ............................................................................................................ 46 Table 33: Example of distribution of net income in the value chain ............................................................ 49 Table 34: Service contracts awarded under Result 4.................................................................................... 50 Table 35: Summary of FAO outputs under Result 4..................................................................................... 51 Table 36: Summary of CARE outputs ............................................................................................................ 51 Table 37: Infrastructure under Result 5 ........................................................................................................ 54 Table 38: Supply contracts for district functionality ..................................................................................... 55 Table 39: Trainings under DCBWPs – Result 5 .............................................................................................. 55 Table 40: Coordination meetings.................................................................................................................. 56 Table 41: % of respondents affirming that service delivery improved and district capacity was built ........ 57 Table 42: Commitment status under FA UG/FED/2008/020-287 in € at 31 September 2014 ..................... 60 Table 43: A comparison of overheads for similar commitments in ALREP and KALIP .................................. 64 Table 44: Comparison costs (€) of outputs between KALIP and ALREP ........................................................ 65 Table 45: Cost/benefit assessment ............................................................................................................... 65 Table 46: Proportion of households with inadequate food provisioning (ALREP HH survey) ...................... 67 Table 47: Average MIHFP (ALREP HH survey) ............................................................................................... 67 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report Page | iiiiii

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 48: % of HH consuming meals per day in the last 7 days in Lango, Teso and Acholi .......................... 68 Table 49: % of HHs mentioning ownership of assets and quality of dwelling in Acholi and Teso ................ 69 Table 50: % of HHs mentioning wealth indicators in their HHs .................................................................... 69 Table 51: HH savings parameters ................................................................................................................. 70 Table 52: Key parameters in relation to the debt position of HHs ............................................................... 70 Table 53: Rating of overall impact on individual members .......................................................................... 71 Table 54: Endline values of indicators for Result 1 ....................................................................................... 82 Table 55: Endline values of indicators - Result 2 .......................................................................................... 84 Table 56: Endline values of indicators- Result 3 ........................................................................................... 84 Table 57: Endline values of indicators – Result 4.......................................................................................... 86 Table 58: Endline values of indicators – Result 4.......................................................................................... 88

iv

Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Page | iv

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

List of Figures Figure 1: Districts and operational sub counties of ALREP ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Management and reporting structure of the PMU ....................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Monitoring and reporting system of ALREP................................................................................... 19 Figure 4: % of stakeholders (n=87) grading ALREP on relevance and design criteria ................................... 22 Figure 5: Metric tons of carbon emmitted and US$ cost of offsetting by ALREP ......................................... 29 Figure 6: Agronomic practices used by beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in Acholi and Teso ... 30 Figure 7: Comparison of yield of selected crops with the potential yield in Acholi ..................................... 31 Figure 8: Comparison of yield of selected crops with the potential yield in Teso ........................................ 32 Figure 9: Assets acquired with vouchers (endline HH survey)...................................................................... 40 Figure 10: Use of LIW payments in UGX and % (ALREP LIW survey) ............................................................ 41 Figure 11: Use of LIW payments in million UGX and % (ACTED endline survey) .......................................... 41 Figure 12: Participation in future Labour Intensive Works ........................................................................... 41 Figure 13: Registration status of input businesses ....................................................................................... 48 Figure 14: Percentage of HHs indicating sources of market information .................................................... 49 Figure 15: Cumulative savings by FAO supported VSLAs .............................................................................. 51 Figure 16: Proportion of HHs at base line and endline with bank accounts for beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries of ALREP .................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 17: Quality of DPD services received by communities ...................................................................... 57 Figure 18: Staff establishment of the PMU by TAT and OPM staff per quarter ........................................... 59 Figure 19: Cumulative % of the total value of programmatic contracts committed during programme implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 20: Distribution of costs over types of commitments ....................................................................... 61 Figure 21: Fund absorption of grants and PE in € millions ........................................................................... 61 Figure 22: Distribution of funding sources in % by categories ..................................................................... 62 Figure 23: Budget versus spending by funding sources (million €) .............................................................. 63 Figure 24: Budget and expenditure by result in million €............................................................................. 63 Figure 25: Distribution of all programme costs by cost centre..................................................................... 64 Figure 26: Distribution of own resources by source ..................................................................................... 66 Figure 27: % respondents indicating the impact of LIWs on their livelihoods and food security ................ 68 Figure 28: % of HHs in 5 levels of savings ..................................................................................................... 69 Figure 29: % of participants of the ALREP regional closure workshop rating ALREP's impact ..................... 70 Figure 30: % of participants of the ALREP regional closure workshop rating ALREP's sustainability ........... 73 Figure 31: % of participants of the ALREP regional closure workshop rating ALREP's reporting and information sharing ...................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 32: % of participants of the ALREP regional closure workshop rating ALREP on coordination, cooperation and communication ................................................................................................................. 73

Programme Completion Report

Page | v Programme Completion Report v

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Abbreviations / Acronyms ACTED ASB AVSI BUILD CAO CAR CEM CESVI CFP CTA CoW DCBWP DFPO DLG EDF FAO FLSMS FFI FFS IGP KALIP LoA LIW MAAIF MoFPED MoSNU MoSTA NAO NPC OPM PC PD PE PS PMU PRDP PSC PSFU RDC SC SCA SMM TAA ToR VfW

Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Arbeiter Samariter Bund Deutschland e.V. Association of Volunteers in International Service Building Infrastructures and Livelihoods for Development Chief Administrative Officer Community Access Road Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian Development Cooperation) Call for Proposals Chief Technical Advisor Clerk of Works District Capacity Building Work Plan District Focal Point Officers District Local Government European Development Fund Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations Farmer Level Seed Multiplication System Formal Financial Institution Farmer Field School Income Generating Project Karamoja Livelihoods Programme Letter of Agreement Labour Intensive Works Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Minister of State for Northern Uganda Minister of State for Teso Affairs National Authorizing Officer National Programme Coordinator Office of the Prime Minister Programme Coordinator Production Department Programme Estimate Permanent Secretary Programme Management Unit (ALREP-KALIP) Peace Development and Recovery Plan Programme Steering Committee Private Sector Foundation Uganda Resident District Commissioner Sub County Standard Contribution Agreement Senior Management Meeting Technical Advisor ALREP Terms of Reference Voucher for Work

Programme Completion Report vi Programme Completion Report

Page | vi

Programme Completion Report

Figure 1: Districts and operational sub counties of ALREP

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Page | 7

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Programme Completion Report

vii

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Highlights of ALREP Result 1: Agricultural production and productivity increased  480 new FFS established  480 old FFS re-mobilized  149 FFS facilitators trained  960 oxen distributed to FFS  960 ox ploughs distributed to FFS  74,700 kg seed for multiplication distributed in Acholi sub region  3,049 female goats, 224 boer bucks, 700 sheep, 122 oxen, 20 local heifers, 22,000 Kurouiler chicken and 197 beehives to FFS for Income Generating Projects (IGP) distributed  960 VSLA kits to FFS distributed  45 market information centers established  Worked with 5,700 progressive farmers and 18 producer associations in Lango  Collected UGX 514,217,850 as beneficiary contributions in Lango sub region and procured: o 183 Friesian dairy heifers o 794 ox ploughs o 794 pairs of oxen o 201 ox-weeders o 201 ox-planters o 201 ox-harrows o 146 ox-carts o 1,845 kg foundation seeds  18 machines for value addition supplied in Lango sub region Result 2: Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt  77 boreholes drilled  1 dam and 8 ponds de-silted  rehabilitated / built 20 Shallow wells & protected springs  100 rain water jars constructed  12 treadle pumps installed  1,000 farmers received sweet potato planting material  2 fish fry centers constructed  117 cattle crushes and 4 cattle dips constructed  1 livestock market fenced  4 slaughter slabs constructed  12 Market sanitary facilities constructed  13 Markets with 20 stalls including functionality constructed  13 Markets with 40 stalls including functionality constructed  10 Markets with 80 stalls including functionality constructed  466 km of community access roads opened / rehabilitated  36 ox-carts and 264 human push carts distributed  120 EVI granaries constructed  8 seed stores and 8 produce stores constructed  380 woodlots and 74 tree nurseries established  19,790 participants in LIW activities  UGX 123,591,500 paid as vouchers to LIW participants  UGX 2,410,196,799 paid cash to LIW participants Programme Completion Report viii Programme Completion Report

Page | viii

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Result 3: Input and output markets and processing capacities made more efficient and transparent  226 Information Board Managers set up, trained and operational  60 Information Board Managers licensed as TSS agents  50 buyer of farm produce identified in the AgriNet network  150 input dealers trained  88 Agro dealers have acquired a safe chemical handling certificate from MAAIF  88 shops of agro dealers improved  308 radio broadcasts on a weekly basis through 3 radio stations aired  444 agro processors trained on Business development  200 agro processors trained on AaB and maintenance of equipment  73 matching grants awarded and processing equipment procured  73 grantees trained in value chain and loan management Result 4: Availability of agricultural finance to producers, traders and processors increased         

130 VSL facilitators trained 960 FFS oriented on VSL methodology 960 VSLA kits distributed 45 FFS networks linked to higher level micro finance institutions 1 Financial Literacy and Bank Linkage training guide produced 18,150 members of VSLAs educated in financial literacy 200 VSLAs trained in linkage banking model 3 Commercial Banks identified for linkage banking with VSLAs staff of 3 banks trained on agriculture client handling

Result 5: Capacity of Local Government at district and sub-county built             

1 agric showground fenced 5 district production office blocks constructed 14 sub county production office blocks constructed 25 sets of solar power units installed 1 animal and plant diagnostic laboratory built 5 weather stations set up 2 community / agric centres rehabilitated 36 sets of agric and livestock equipment distributed 262 computer sets distributed 1 border warehouse constructed 100 motorbikes distributed to districts / sub counties 1 Motor vehicle distributed to OPM 1172 PMC members trained and supplied with 1172 bicycles

Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

ix

Page | ix

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

1 INTRODUCTION In March 2009, the Government of Uganda and the European Union signed Financing Agreement FED/2008/020-287, which signified the start of the €20 million (UGX 67 billion) Northern Uganda Agriculture Livelihoods Recovery Programme. After a negotiation period of 15 months, ALREP’s implementation started on 9 July 2010 with an inception period of 6 months. At closure of the implementation period on 30 November 2014, ALREP and its implementing partners had successfully implemented thousands of activities, absorbing close to 90% of the programme funds.

The activities of ALREP have been reported by the Programme Management Unit extensively in 15 quarterly progress reports and 3 annual reports. In addition, the four implementing partners of ALREP wrote over 100 quarterly, interim and final reports.

According to article 4.1.2 of the Financing Agreement and paragraph 4.1.6 of the Practical Guide to Programme Estimates the Imprest Administrator (IA) and Imprest Accounting Officer (IAO) of ALREP are required to submit a comprehensive final report to the National Authorising Officer and the European Union. The steering committee directed the IA and IAO to use diverse reporting tools that together give a comprehensive picture of the activities carried out and the results obtained, in a manner accessible to the variety of stakeholders of the programme. Therefore the final report consists of: 

A final narrative report that presents a detailed account of the activities and results against the indicators of the logical framework, an analysis of the funds used per programme result, management and operations of the programmes, and the lessons learned from programme implementation. It also makes proposals for future interventions in Northern Uganda;



A story book that presents the activities and results through the eyes of the stakeholders and in particular the final beneficiaries;



A documentary that narrates the story of ALREP in audio-visual form;



A website, with a searchable database of all activities carried out by ALREP by theme and location, interactive activity maps, and with all the documentation that was produced in the course of ALREP execution.

This document constitutes the final narrative report of ALREP. It draws heavily on the endline and evaluation reports carried out by the ALREP implementing partners and the PMU. For further reference, these reports are available online at www.opm.nulep.org.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 1 Programme Completion Report 1

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

2 LESSON LEARNED FROM PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION During the course of a four year programme, there are inevitably many lessons learned and recommendations to be made, which should be documented for future learning, to inform and shape the follow up programmes, and indeed other GoU and EU funded programmes, so that the successes can be replicated, and less successful interventions or approaches can be improved or avoided.

Lessons learning has been a continuous process in ALREP, and has been formalized in the ROMs and MTR, the reports from implementing partners and the regional closure workshop held at the end of the programme in Gulu in November 2014.

The major lessons learned and recommendations are presented here, along with those of the grantees from their final reports and those of the ALREP PMU. It is important to note that not only failures or shortcomings are included but successes as well.

2.1 Programme Design and Management 2.1.1 Keep it simple The success of ALREP was based on the integrated delivery of the five result areas whereby each result was related to the rest. The design was based on the experiences and lessons learned in NUREP and previous EU programmes, which found that a complex programme with different unrelated results is difficult to plan, implement and monitor. Moreover, it requires various expertise in the PMU which increases on operational costs. It also leads to multitude of commitments which put heavy administrative burden to NAO and EU. Recommendations:

1. The design of future programmes should have a few closely related and mutually reinforcing Results with a single sector.

2.1.2 Lead time in contracting During the inception period, the PMU spent time and effort in defining the interventions, based on a comprehensive review of policies, participatory planning meetings, the development of DCBWP, and selection of focus sub counties/town councils. ALREP PMU deliberately took time for these consultations, and the result was that major tendering only started in 2011, and contracting in 2012. The first ROM mission in September 2011 concluded that ALREP was off track, and ran the risk of not completing its activities.

This proved not to be correct. With spending time on planning and designing, the inception report that was released in February 2011 had a fully worked out activity and procurement plan, which from then onwards facilitated quick implementation and very little backtracking on plans.

Recommendation:

2. The main lesson is that careful planning, although time consuming, forms the basis for successful implementation.

3. A full procurement plan at the beginning of the implementation period should be in place and fully endorsed by all stakeholders.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 3 Programme Completion Report 3

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

2.1.3 Build new programme around previous PMU expertise and assets ALREP started in July 2010 immediately after the closure of the implementation period of NUREP. This ensured back to back roll out of the programme and avoided delays in establishment of a new PMU. It took advantage of the existing facilities, resources, existing PMU rules and procedures, expertise and connections, in particular in the DLGs. All this helped in quickly and cheaply starting up a new PMU. The use of existing PMU staff and other resources was made possible because Northern Uganda was considered a fragile area to which the EU could apply flexible procedures. It is therefore unlikely that a similar opportunity of rolling over staff and resources from one programme to another will occur.

However, it should be realized and put on record that the success of ALREP was in part due to this fact.

The chances of rolling over staff and resources and thereby preserving institutional memory, however, can be enhanced by designing follow up programmes early and have them started as quickly as possible after the previous programme expires.

After the Paris and Accra conferences, PMUs have fallen into disrespect. They are thought to be expensive, not embedded in GoU systems and procedures, and do not foster ownership of the programme by the recipient country. This may be true in general, but in practical terms is difficult to see how ALREP would have been implemented without a PMU. Not being a technical line ministry, OPM did not have the expertise to execute the technical side of the programme, leave alone the management of the EDF rules. On the other hand, attempts can be made to make PMUs more effective and cheaper, and better integrated into the host ministry. ALREP has given some indications on how that can be done: establish a clear managerial link between the head of the PMU and the ministry; roll-over as much as possible expertise and resources from one PMU into another; and reduce TAT1 to part-time inputs; built the capacity of governments to manage EDF procedures; adapt the EDF procedures to the government procedures2, just to mention a few.

Recommendation:

4. Build on existing PMU for a quick start 5. PMU should be based in a government ministry 6. Retain expertise of old PMU and recruit additional staff with expertise required for specialized components of the new programme

2.1.4 Mainstream PMU in line Ministry One key lesson carried over from previous programmes was that the PMU should be as much as possible mainstreamed in an existing Ministry. This may not necessarily mean adoption of GoU rules and procedures, which is under EDF rules not allowed, but should include clear connections between PMU management Ministerial management information and reporting systems. The structure of ALREP was in that sense an improvement over previous programmes in that a clear reporting line was established between the PMU and the PS OPM. This helped to build trust, foster political support, and make optimal use of OPM expertise.

Recommendation:

7. Mainstream PMU as much as possible in the technical supervision ministry or agency.

2.1.5 Design new programmes based on successful interventions The ALREP design was based on five interrelated technical activities addressing critical food security and livelihood issues. All the proposed interventions were built on positive and negative lessons learned from

1 2

4

The ALREP TAT worked for 60% in ALREP and 40% in KALIP It is often thought that EDF procedures are special and complex, but in actual fact they are not very different from prevailing procedures in recipient countries.

Programme Completion Report Programme Completion Report

Page | 4

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

previous programmes, emerging best practices. Many of the proposed interventions had already been tested in Northern Uganda, or had a track record of success in other programmes. The FFS of FAO is a case in point.

Basing a new programme at in least in part on known interventions in the region, also helps to get proposals quickly adopted and owned by local leadership and beneficiaries, and allows for minor or major adjustments over previous programmes based on experience on the ground. During the ALREP regional closure workshop, stakeholders indicated that they were comfortable with the ALREP components, and largely wanted more similar interventions. Combined with suggestions about how things could be done better a new programme could be quickly designed and rolled out based on successful interventions. New components can be added on a smaller scale to be tested during the new programme and rolled out in the next programme on a larger scale. In that way, EDF programme do renew and adapt, but the core of the interventions is built around successful activities of the previous programme.

Recommendation:

8. Future new programmes should build on and maximize the funding on the best practices of ALREP to upscale or replicate the successful interventions and only implement new interventions on a small pilot scale.

2.1.6 Adopt a participatory design process for new programmes ALREP’s start was delayed because of misunderstandings between the GoU and EU about the implementation modalities. These misunderstandings were brought about by the long time lag of two years between the design study and the start of the programme. By the time the programme started, the GoU line ministry had no recollection of the design process, and wanted to confirm that the programme was still in line with the latest insights and planning documents in GoU. Two issues are important to note: the longer the time lag between design and implementation, the more likely that the design is not relevant, and that the line ministry has lost interest in the programme design.

The second issue is that external design missions, tend to operate in isolation. Whereas they may consult with technical ministries, the design work is carried out by external experts, who create little ownership for their product within the line ministries.

Recommendations:

9. Establish an interagency design team that guides the entire process of programme development from initial ideas to full design. This would still allow for design missions, but only on issues that the drafting team has vetted and accepted as relevant 10. The design team should be constituted from a mix of independent experts drawn from EU and other relevant GoU ministries and agencies. This mix of experts will ensure that the interventions respond to government priorities and donor interests. The resulting programme will ensure ownership and institutional memory of the design process.

2.1.7 Use experienced technical assistance and management support The PMU was supported by a team of 3 Technical Assistance staff, who together provided expert technical advice for ALREP in EDF procedures, technical implementation and management. Given the complexity of EDF procedures, it would have been unfeasible to implement, contract or commit funds in time and within the strict procedures without the TAT team.

Because of the magnitude of ALREP, full time TAT was imperative. For smaller or less complex programmes, the FA could include a part time backstopping service by a TAT, with high inputs in the beginning, slowly reducing as the capacity of the implementing staff is being built.

For a programme such as ALREP with many implementation modalities and contractors, EDF expertise is not only relevant for the PMU but also for the implementing partners.

Recommendations: Programme Completion Report

Page | 5 Programme Completion Report 5

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

11. Future new programmes should have access from the beginning to highly qualified technical advice to provide guidance and support in EDF procedures, capacity building of IPs and financial management 12. Build EDF capacity of implementing partners in management of EDF funds through early trainings and back stopping. This helps in reducing time wastage and avoiding ineligible expenditures 13. Ensure adequate support is given to all grantees for regular M&E and project management. The PMU must dedicate more time to supporting IPs and LGs to build understanding of EC reporting procedures and to seek agreement on indicators that align well with the overall logical framework

2.1.8 Invest in building relationships with Districts The success of a programme implemented in the district heavily depends on the cooperation of the local government officials. Their involvement at all levels of the programme is crucial in guiding on technical designs, quality control and political acceptance of the programme.

Recommendations:

14. Implement interventions in partnership with relevant local government technical staff and local leadership 15. Appoint district staff as focal point officers and supervisors.

16. Use district design for infrastructure 17. Facilitate district monitoring 18. Involve district leadership in project launches and commissioning 19. Hold regular coordination meetings

2.1.9 Cutting edge interventions The FFS approach of ALREP was for Acholi and Teso probably the best farmer training system at hand.

However, the FFS assessment pointed out that the delivery of training was not as innovative as one would expect from the manuals. This is in part because the quality of the field facilitators, and in part of lack of creativity and ambition to take agricultural extension into new directions.

Recommendations:

20. Quality of facilitors for FFS is a matter of concern and should be improved. It was too low compared to sub county extension staff

2.1.10Need for strong monitoring, reporting and communication system At the start of the programme, the PMU developed a comprehensive M&E system, reporting tools and data collection templates. The data collection tools included GIS, activity and beneficiary lists, baseline and endline surveys, digital maps, photographs and submission of quarterly reports by PMU and IPs. The system has helped in keeping track of a complex programme and greatly helped in the writing of this report, but led to some extent to a data overload by the implementing partners and the PMU. In some cases, PMU staff and IP staff did not understand the purpose of certain data tools, such as the activity list and beneficiary list, and did not have the capacity, even after several trainings, to properly fill them.

ALREP planned from the start to collect geo referenced activity data, so as to be able to plot activities on thematic maps. However, the PMU was late in bringing on board a GIS expert to assess the quality of the submitted data. As a result, many data had to be abandoned, and the map design took far time than expected.

From the start, ALREP designed a website that functioned as a repository of all documents and report produced by the PMU and IPs. More than a 100 documents are uploaded and are heavily downloaded.

The website has proven to be in particular successful as an archive.

6

Programme Completion Report Programme Completion Report

Page | 6

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Recommendations:

21. Consult a GIS expert early in the design of the M&E system to ensure the relevance and usability of geo-referenced data.

22. Maintain a well-designed website as document repository.

2.1.11Construction of infrastructure The execution of infrastructure projects met a number of challenges; tendering process, and issues with quality and timeliness of contract delivery. The huge operational area also led to an overstretched programme engineer who had difficulties to certify work in time. The establishment of PMCs and CoWs greatly supported the work of the programme engineer, but also have their limitations.

Recommendations:

23. Hire sufficient engineering expertise in programmes with a large construction component 24. Establish PMCs, and train them in contractor supervision

2.1.12Grants as an implementation modality For the LIW components, the PMU decided to use NGOs, who were contracted through open calls for proposals. In some quarters it was said that this was an expensive option, as the overhead of the NGOs would be borne by the programme on top of its own PMU costs. While there are indeed additional costs involved in contracting third party implementers, the alternatives are not easy to see: there are few organizations in the rural areas that can mobilise, put to work and pay out UGX 2.6 bn within two years to more than 19,000 community members. The PMU itself would not have been able in 4 years to build up the infrastructure and human resource to do this, and if it had done so, it would have come with a substantial overhead as well. It should also be realized that NGOs make an own contribution of 10% of the grant, which to some extent offsets their management costs.

On the other hand, the experience of ALREP is that grantees tend to develop poor proposals and poor budgets, which in the case of ALREP, the PMU requested the NGOs to adjust before the grant was signed.

The PMU went into a negotiation process with selected but not yet contracted NGOs to adjust programme outputs and budgets within certain benchmarks3. This helped to increase the value for money of the grants, although most grantees at some point in their grant execution requested for an adjustment of their outputs.

Recommendations:

25. Demand for a feasibility study as part of the submission of a proposal 26. Scrutinize proposals from IPs on budgetary realism and value for money 27. Negotiate with the IP based on clear benchmarks to maximise value for money from the grant

2.1.13Contract implementation During the implementation period, the PMU conducted regular monitoring of all the IPs. However, the small number of staff in the PMU put restriction on the frequency of the monitoring visits. As a remedy, the PMU carried out verification missions just before the closure of the grant to establish that the reported deliverables were indeed of the stipulated quality and quantity. The verification exercise was an innovation that helped to rectify a number of anomalies in deliverables.

Recommendations:

28. Conduct output verification of grant contracts 29. Involve Districts to monitor grants

3

For example, the overheads could not exceed 40% of the total grant amount

Programme Completion Report

Page | 7 Programme Completion Report 7

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3 Background to the Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme 3.1 Background to Northern Uganda 3.1.1

War, peace and recovery in Northern Uganda

Northern Uganda is considered to be the potential bread basket of Uganda and Southern Sudan. It accounts for 53% of the arable land in Uganda with land holdings at 3.6 ha/household, three times larger than the Ugandan average. The region generally receives reliable rainfall and has generally fertile soils that are relatively easy to work and suitable for mechanised small scale or large scale agriculture. A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) study in 2009 estimated the value of crop production in Northern Uganda alone at 20-30% of agricultural GDP4, or 6-9% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), without considering livestock, fisheries and value-added opportunities.

Between 1998 – 2007, agriculture in Northern Uganda largely collapsed due to the armed conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebels and the Government of Uganda (GoU). Up to 1.8 million people were displaced as a result (IDMC 2010). In August 2006, the LRA and the GoU signed a cessation of hostilities agreement, after which humanitarian agencies and development partners slowly changed their portfolios from humanitarian aid to post-conflict recovery and rehabilitation.

The rehabilitation and recovery process was coordinated and managed by the Government. In 2007, the Ugandan Government developed the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda, which took effect in 2009. The goal of the PRDP is to consolidate peace and security and lay a foundation for the development of all the areas that suffered from the war.

For the majority of people in Northern Uganda, agriculture is the main source of livelihoods. However, starting up agricultural activities after the war was a challenge. Returnees lacked the necessary skills, productive assets and start-up capital to re-establish their previously productive farms. Moreover, existing links to input and output markets were weak, as the agri-business sector had largely withdrawn from and were slow to re-enter the insecure areas. The capacity of District Local Governments (DLGs), in particular at the sub county level and below, was limited. Planning, service delivery, and monitoring by DLGs were poor.

These constraints were not equally severe across the region and across agricultural households. While the Northern Acholi production system was severely disrupted by the war, Lango experienced a shorter and less severe incursion of the LRA, with a smaller portion of the population in IDP camps, and production and agro-business maintained some momentum. The recovery process in Lango also started earlier than in Acholi and parts of Teso. The situation is Teso is complicated by the exposure to two different conflicts and more extreme climatic conditions, characterised by flooding and drought, which caused extensive damage to infrastructure and crop production in 2007 and 2009.

From 2009 onwards the recovery and development process gained momentum. The PRDP triggered a broad response in the development community and a number of development partners and international NGOs rolled out a variety of programmes. The European Union was in 2007 one of the first partners to enter with a rehabilitation programme (NUREP). After NUREP’s expiry in 2010, it was followed up with the Northern Uganda Agriculture Livelihoods Recovery Programme. With a clear focus on agricultural incomes and agribusiness, ALREP’s objectives indicated that a new era of growth and development for Northern Uganda had started.

4

Agric GDP (2003) = 3,883 bn UGX (source: UBOS)

Programme Completion Report

Page | 9 Programme Completion Report 9

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3.1.2

The policy environment

The Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda was launched by HE the President in September 2007. Full scale implementation of PRDP 1 started in July 2009. Based on its success but also on the continued need for special assistance to Northern Uganda, PRDP 2 came into force in June 2012 and is expected to run till July 2015. PRDP 2 will be evaluated in 2015, and the results will inform the design of PRDP3.

The implementation of the PRDP is managed and coordinated by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM).

All development actors, government and non-government, are expected to align their interventions in the North with the PRDP framework. Bi-annual meetings at regional and national level take place to monitor the PRDPs progress and impact. In addition, PRDP TWG meetings, involving the various stakeholders, are held each month to present and discuss topical policy issues concerning Northern Uganda.

Government of Uganda has finalized the consultations on the drafting of the second National Development Plan (NDPII) for 2015-2020.

During the reporting period, GoU proposed policy changes to the extension service delivery in the agricultural sector. These changes focused on the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and included the elimination of NAADS sub county staff. This affected service delivery in the production sector because in some districts, all production staff had been integrated in the NAADS structure. As a result currently some district production departments do not have staff on ground. In the meantime, the GoU has deployed UPDF veterans to distribute inputs, but this is yet to take full shape. Therefore, GoU led extension service to farmers is rather weak and NGOs have jumped in the void with alternative extension methods, such as Farmer Field Schools.

3.2 ALREP 3.2.1

ALREP Objectives, results and overall strategy

ALREP was established by Financing Agreement FED/2008/020-287, signed by by the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and the European Union on 8 March 2009. The FA laid out the objectives as per table 1 below.

Table 1: Objectives structure of ALREP Objective level Objective The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the Overall Goal prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and to increased economic growth of the region and Uganda.

The war affected population of Northern Uganda engages in productive and profitable Purpose agricultural and agri-business activities that ensure food security and increase household income.

Result 1: Agricultural production and productivity increased Result 2: Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt Result 3: Input and output markets and processing capacities made more efficient and transparent Result 4: Availability of agricultural finance to producers, traders and processors Results increased Result 5: Capacity of relevant departments in Local Government at district and subcounty built for more effective planning, service delivery, supervision and monitoring

ALREP was designed and implemented as a special programme of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Although it was launched before PRDP one, it fitted neatly into its objectives structure as shown in table 2. It responded to three of the four strategic objectives of the PRDP as per table 2 below.

Programme Completion Report 10 Programme Completion Report

Page | 10

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 2: PRDP 1 strategic objectives as compared to ALREP objectives PRDP Strategic Objectives and Results relevant to ALREP SO 1: Consolidation of State Authority 1.4 Local Government Capacity Strengthened SO 2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities 2.3 Community rehabilitation and development activities (social services and livelihoods) initiated SO3: Revitalization of the Economy 3.1 Productive Sectors Reactivated 3.2 Critical Infrastructure Rehabilitated 3.3 Mechanisms for Sound Land Management reinforced

Related ALREP Objective Result 5 Result 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Result 1, 2, 3, 4

The programme generally aimed at supporting production at farm level, reflected in result 1, and strengthening the nearest service provision to farmers, reflected in result 2-5.

The original idea was to ensure as much as possible that for the five results the same sub counties and population was targeted. In practice this appeared to be difficult. For example the location of a productive infrastructure, such as a road, or a sub county production office, as identified by the district was not necessarily near to a farmer field school. In such a case, the LIW gangs working on the road could not also be members of a farmer field school.

However, some activities were aligned and complementary. For example, the agriculture radio shows dwelled heavily on the expertise of implementing partners, who used the shows to share their programmes with a wider public.

Rural productive infrastructure

Agricultural finance

Agricultural production and productivity

Input and output markets

Local Government Services

During the design phase, the programme also planned to coordinate its activities closely with NUSAF 2, to avoid duplication and inefficiencies. Although the coordination proved to be difficult because of the different time frames and implementation modalities, duplication did not take place because of the coordinating role of the DLG. One implementing partner, ACTED, had a grant contract with ALREP as well as with RALNUC in the same operational area. This was originally considered to be a risk because of duplication, but it turned out to be an asset: a number of infrastructures were co-financed by both programmes, allowing for economies of scale.

Box 1: Lessons from objectives and strategy 1. Bringing different IPs working on different results to coordinate their activities is very difficult, due to staggering contracting and different geographical requirements 2. Coordination between other programmes can probably best be done through regular sector meetings coordinated and chaired by the DLG

3.3 Stakeholders and Beneficiaries The programme was working in partnership with fifteen selected districts in Acholi, Lango and Teso.

ALREP’s interventions focused on the sub county level, of which 100 were targeted on the basis of a comprehensive vulnerability assessment carried out during the inception period. Figure 1 on page XX shows the operational area by district and subcounty.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 11 Programme Completion Report 11

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3.4 Programme Governance 3.4.1

Contracting Authority and Supervising Authority

ALREP was executed under the Cotonou Agreement by means of decentralised management. The general principle of decentralised management is that contracts are concluded by the recipient country’s Contracting Authority (CA), and that payments are made by the European Union5. Payments made by the recipient country must be done through the imprest component of the Programme Estimates (PE)6 approved by the EU. In their procurement and execution, all contracts and PEs must respect the procedures and templates of the EU. In this framework, the Contracting Authority of ALREP was the National Authorising Officer, based in the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The Supervising Authority was the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) by virtue of the fact that OPM has the mandate for post-conflict rehabilitation. In that context OPM is responsible for the implementation of the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda, which is the strategic GoU documents to which ALREP responded.

3.4.2

Policy Guidance and Strategic overview

The FA foresaw the establishment of a Programme Steering Committee, with the purpose of:

30. Provide the overall guidance to the implementation of ALREP; 31. Review and accept respective work plans, budgets, programme estimates, progress and evaluation reports and issue recommendations accordingly; 32. Arbitrate, where necessary and make recommendations on any alternation to- or reorientation of the programme within the limits of the FA. The PSC combined the steering committee functions of ALREP and KALIP. Members were drawn from the following institutions:

33. Office of the Prime Minister (PS)

Chair

34. Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development (NAO)

Member

35. Ministry of Local Government

Member

36. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries

Member

37. National Agricultural Advisor Services Secretariat

Member

38. Representative of the Local Governments

Member

39. Representative of the Uganda National NGO Forum

Member

40. European Union Delegation

Member

41. National Programme Coordinator

Member

42. Chief Technical Advisor

Member

The PSC met 12 times, approximately once every 4 months. In August 2013, the 11th PSC was held in Gulu, and was preceded by a field visit. Steering Committee members also attended other ALREP functions, such as the Regional Closure Workshop.

The PSC fulfilled its mandate in critically following the implementation of ALREP, scrutinising workplans and reports, and as such ensuring that the programme remained on track.

5 Specific Commitments are signed by the Contracting Authority, and endorsed by the EU; PE Commitments are signed by the Imprest Administrator and Imprest Accounting Officer under a Programme Estimate.

6 A Programme Estimate is a workplan and budget for a specific period of time, usually 1 – 1.5 year.

Programme Completion Report 12 Programme Completion Report

Page | 12

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3.4.3

District Involvement

During the ALREP inception period, the PMU agreed with the 15 respective District Local Governments (DLG) on coordination and monitoring procedures. This was done in order to keep the DLGs involved and informed about ALREP activities, and for the ALREP PMU to make maximum use of the local knowledge and staff of the DLGs. It was also meant to get feedback and guidance from the DLGs and guarantee the DLG ownership of interventions undertaken by ALREP. Based on agreed procedures, ALREP provided funds to the offices of CAO, Chairperson LC V and RDC, enabling these offices to organise quarterly monitoring of ALREP activities. Monitoring activities were followed by district quarterly reporting meetings (DQRM). These meetings were chaired by the District Chairperson and attended by the political and technical wings of the districts, ALREP PMU and relevant IPs. The main aim of these meetings was to share findings of the monitoring exercise and evaluate the progress of interventions. Based on these findings and where necessary, implementation plans and procedures were adjusted and harmonized.

In order to bring issues, findings and lessons learned from each district on to a wider level, ALREP facilitated 4 bi-annual Inter District Coordination Meetings (IDCM). IDCMs were either called for all 15 ALREP participating district or for districts from a single sub region. IDCMs were attended by District Chairpersons, Resident District Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officers. Points of discussion were the ALREP progress as reported by each district and necessary changes to planned activities or implementation procedures.

ALREP requested each district to appoint an ALREP District Focal Point Officer (DFPO). DFPOs were selected from the district Production Department or in some cases from the CAOs office. Their main task was the coordination of ALREP activities within their districts. These included monitoring of ALREP activities, mobilizing of communities and training of social welfare committees such as Water User Committees and Project Monitoring Committees. In addition, DFPOs were contact points for IPs and maintained flow of information between programme actors and district institutions. Their roles were manifested in Terms of References, jointly agreed by the DLGs and ALREP. ALREP provided each DFPO with a motor bikes, laptop, internet access, fuel and DSA. This greatly helped and motivated them to fulfil their roles.

To guarantee proper supervision and monitoring of all works contracts and to enhance ownership of the infrastructures by the districts and sub counties, each district appointed an ALREP Clerk of Works (CoW).

CoWs supervised and monitored work contracts and provided feedback to the ALREP Programme Engineer. CoW were not authorised to issue interim or final certificates. ALREP facilitated the CoWs through provision of motor bikes, laptops, internet access, fuel and a daily subsistence allowance.

ALRP developed for the DFPOs and CoWs monitoring forms, which were introduced during the first DFPO training in April 2012. However, the forms were not used in the field or for reporting to ALREP, probably because they were too detailed and cumbersome to fill. On the other hand, DFPOs and CoWs did submit their own monitoring reports as part of their accountability.

The districts were less essential in the agri-business and agri-finance component of ALREP. The IPs of these components, in particular UNADA, PSFU and CARE International, identified their beneficiaries on the basis of their own knowledge and contacts. Probably, the districts would have little added value in this process.

The DFPOs and CoWs fulfilled their roles and made a significant contribution to the success of the programme. Their ToR and guidelines agreed between DLGs and ALREP at the start of the programme proved to guarantee an effective and efficient implementation of their duties. On the other hand, the district reporting meetings did not take place as regularly as planned. Main reason was the shortage of ALREP staff, which were not able to plan and attend 15 meetings per quarter.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 13 Programme Completion Report 13

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

It has also to be noted that districts did not carry out all planned independent monitoring activities. The main reason for this was the delay by the districts in accounting for previous funds. Monitoring advances to districts had to be accounted for before the transfer of new funds. Delay of accountability by DLGs led to the cancellation of a number of monitoring rounds.

Box 2: Lessons from district coordination 1. Close collaboration with Districts was key to programme success. Districts are best placed to identify and coordinate infrastructure programmes 2. Focal persons within the district set up such as DFPOs and CoWs proved essential for coordination and information sharing between all stakeholders 3. The use of District Development Plans (DDP) and involvement of district structures from the planning stage should be standard procedure for district based interventions

3.5 Implementation Modalities and Processes ALREP started its operations on 9 July 2010, when PE1 came into force. Its fourth and last PE expired on 28 February 2015. The implementation period ended on 8 March 2015.

During the 56 implementation months, all implementation modalities available to EDF programmes were employed as follows: 

4 programme estimates



1 specific7 service contract



1 standard contribution agreement8



6 specific grant agreements



1 specific supply contract



11 imprest9 service contracts



11 imprest supply contract



52 imprest works contracts (including contracts for finishing buildings after cancellation of original contracts)

All contracts and agreements were procured according to the EDF rules and procedures. Table 2 gives an overview of the distribution of the modalities during the implementation period.

The procurement of the IPs under the variety of modalities proved to be the most strenuous and time consuming activity of the PMU. The EDF rules are complex and approval procedures for those procurements that require endorsement by the EU, are lengthy. Any error in either the procurement dossier or evaluation report, or any divergent view about the interpretation of a rule, would delay a procurement process with anything between a few weeks to a few months.

Common challenges in dossiers were maintaining consistency in dates, specifications and specific tender requirements, especially in aspects that were subject to change, such as dates. More challenging was the interpretation of rules. A typical example is the mandate of the evaluation committee to take decisions, for instance in relation to the requirement of documents in the tender dossier. In some cases the EDF rules change during the procurement process, requiring the repeat of the entire process. A case in point was the procurement of small grants for input dealers and processors under result 3. The cancellation of small grants as an implementation modality during the procurement process, rendered the procurement illegal, and led to downscaling of a major component of Result 3.

7 Specific contract were between the substantive Contracting Authority (NAO) and the contractor, whereby the contractor was paid directly by the EU; all specific contracts required endorsement by the EU 8 The standard contribution agreement was between the EU and FAO 9 Imprest contracts were between the Imprest Administrator and the contractor, whereby the contractor was paid from the running PE

Programme Completion Report 14 Programme Completion Report

Page | 14

2010

OctDec

JanMar

AprJun

2011 JulSept

OctDec

JanMar

AprJun

2012 JulSept

OctDec *

JanMar

AprJun

2013 JulSept

OctDec

JanMar

AprJun

2014 JulSept

Programme Completion Report

Page | 15

**

OctDec

* Red line: D+3 date (8 March 2013), the date after which no new specific commitments could be made; the date was brought forward by 1 year through addendum no. 1 of the FA ** Green line: start of the closure period (1 December 2014) *** End of implementation period (8 March 2015)

Evaluation

ROM and MTR

Audits

Closure period

SSW contracts

Grants

FAFA

PE4

PE3

PE2

*Start-up PE

Service contract

JulSept

Table 3: commitment schedule of contracts and agreements

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

JanMar

2015

** *

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Programme Completion Report

15

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

ALREP was lucky that Northern Uganda had for the entire duration of the programme the ‘fragile status’ of the EU. Fragile status gives substantial powers to the EU Head of Delegation to waive competitive procurement procedures. In several cases ALREP had to make use of this status to rescue a stalled procurement process. All procurements were eventually successfully completed, not in the least because of the hard work and creative work of the EU Operations Officer for ALREP. ALREP was signed on 9 March 2009, but its implementation only started 16 months later, by 9 July 2010.

This immediately caused an insurmountable problem with the commitment deadline (D+3 date10). For a programme such as ALREP with many relatively small procurements, completing all of them in 3 years is already a challenging task. Finalising all procurement in 1.5 years is practically impossible. This issue was flagged in the inception report, and the EU Delegation and ALREP worked together from the start of the implementation period to bring the D+3 forward by one year. This was eventually agreed through addendum 1 to the FA, and it gave the programme just enough time to complete all the procurements in 2 years and 7 months.

Box 3: Lessons from procurement 1. The D+3 period should be automatically moved to start when actual implementation starts in cases where delays after signing are experienced.

2. The Lot sizes for works contracts should be increased so that there are fewer tenders as well as fewer contracts to manage.

3.6 Programme Management 3.6.1

Technical management team

ALREP was managed by the Office of the Prime Minister under the Department of Pacification and Development. For day-to-day management OPM established a Programme Management Unit (PMU)11 with a liaison office in Kampala and a programme office in Gulu. The staffs in the Liaison office were formally for 60% engaged in ALREP management. The remaining 40% was spent on KALIP management.

Line management

PS OPM Imprest Administrator

Technical and Financial Advice National Programme Coordinator Substitute Imprest Administrator

Programme Coordinator ALREP Staff Kampala Liaison Office (6)

Staff ALREP Programme Office Gulu (12)

Chief Technical Advisor Imprest Accounting Officer

Technical Advisor ALREP

Finance and Administration Technical Advisor Substitute Imprest Accounting Officer

Figure 2: Management and reporting structure of the PMU

The PMU stood under the overall technical supervision of the Permanent Secretary OPM. The National Programme Coordinator was in charge of overall PMU management. At field level this responsibility was 10 The D+3 is the date three years after the FA comes into force. All procurements have to be completed before that date, except procurements from the imprest component of the PEs, audits and evaluations. The D+3 date of ALREP was originally 8 March 2012.

11The PMU liaison office management two programmes, ALREP and KALIP.

Page | 16 16 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

delegated to the Programme Coordinator ALREP, based in Gulu. The PS OPM and the NPC held the function of Imprest Administrators.

The PMU was supported by a Technical Assistance Team (TAT), with a Chief Technical Advisor and a Finance and Administration Technical Advisor based in Kampala, and a Technical Advisor in Gulu. The CTA and FATA held the function of Imprest Accounting Officer.

PMU established a senior management group consisting of the NPC, PCA, and the TAT, with key functions to take strategic management decisions, discuss implementation progress and solve implementation challenges. Senior management met in principle once every month, although meetings were skipped when there were no issues to discuss. The decisions of senior management were communicated to all staff through regular staff meetings in the respective offices.

3.6.2

Financial management

Internal systems and procedures During the inception period, the PMU developed a Financial and Administration Manual. The financial and administrative procedures in the manual were strictly followed during programme implementation.

The PMU developed a rigorous procurement and financial management system. Procedures for procurement and spending were based on financial thresholds. The basic principles were determined by the EU practical guides, but the Finance and Administration Manual set stricter thresholds levels for procurement and spending.

Basic accounting at office level was done in Excel. On a monthly basis, the financial data were reconciled and entered in the accounting package Peachtree, which was used for detailed budget monitoring, bank reconciliation and consolidating the financial data of the two project offices.

The PMU submitted 15 Expenditure Reports to the NAO and EU.

Financial reviews and audits In September 2010, the EU commissioned a systems audit to verify whether the PMU administrative and financial systems and procedures were robust enough to manage the financial resources of ALREP and KALIP. The audit team concluded that indeed the systems were of sufficiently high quality that the programmes could operate a single project account, instead of the usual PE accounts. The advantage of running a single project account is that at the closure of a PE, fund balances are not returned to the EU, but are automatically transferred to the successive PE. ALREP underwent 6 audits. The final programme audit was carried out in January 2015 by an international team of auditors from Ernst and Young. None of audits detected any ineligible expenditure.

All Implementing Partners were contractually required to maintain proper financial systems and procedures, and be independently audited by a qualified audit firm. The PMU verified all the financial reports of the IPs, and ensured that they were in order before submission to the NAO and EU. Box 4: Lessons from management administration

1. A realistic commitment and procurement schedule drafted at the beginning of the programme is a prerequisite for high fund absorption 2. A complex programme such as KALIP with a variety of specific contracts needs a minimum of 2.5 years to procure all services. The D+3 date of 3 years is too short if a normal start-up time of 6-9 months is taken into consideration; KALIP completed the procurement in 2.5 years because the PMU was functional within 3 months after the start of the 1st PE 3. Training of staff and partners during contract start-up in programme management, planning, accountability and M&E and reporting, helps to enhance efficiency and fund absorption.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 17 Programme Completion Report 17

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3.7 Monitoring Framework and Tools In 2011, ALREP contracted a short-term M&E expert to assist the PMU in the design of a monitoring system and monitoring tools.

The PMU established a Monitoring and Evaluation system, built around the following key data collection tools:

1. Baseline survey on the logframe indicators (and additional parameters) for the programme outcomes and results, prior to the roll-out of each result. The surveys were done by Implementing Partners for Result 1, 2 and 4 in part, who reported on the achievements against the baselines by the end of their contracts. For Results 3, 4 and 5, baselines were established by the PMU through a separate baseline survey.

2. Endline surveys on the logframe indicators for programme outcomes and results. All partners were required to carry out endline surveys using the same methodology as the baseline survey.

In addition the PMU commissioned an independent endline survey.

3. Quarterly activity data in a standardized database suitable for output level monitoring. All activities in the activity database were in principle geo-referenced. The data formed the basis for the online activity database, and the online interactive activity maps.

4. Beneficiary data in a standardized beneficiary list. The list has contact data for all beneficiaries, which allows monitors to independently verify reported activities and outputs at beneficiary level.

5. Community barazas and other non-quantitative data collection methods to give a face to the data.

6. Monitoring visits to implementing partners by the PMU to establish contract adherence, procedural adherence, general progress and quality.

7. Joint monitoring with stakeholders, in particular district officials to establish general progress and quality through field observations.

8. Verification studies for all grant and service contracts. These studies helped to ensure that the reported outputs have indeed been realised and established evidence of results and outcomes of the interventions. The verification studies were carried out by PMU staff, assisted in some cases by data enumerators. The PMU commissioned an independent assessment of the FFS component, in view of the scale and importance of FFS in ALREP. 9. Topical studies on PMU results. These were done to get a broader picture of outcomes across the results of the IPs within an ALREP Result. The PMU carried out topical surveys on LIWs and DLG capacity building.

10. Stakeholder satisfaction survey. This survey was carried out during the regional closure workshop of ALREP in October 2014. The survey measured the views of 87 participants of the workshop on the common evaluation criteria (design, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability), and additional issues such as coordination and communication between stakeholders and programme components.

The various tools generated a huge amount of monitoring data, which were analyzed quarterly on programme progress, and summarized in quarterly reports. The endline survey, verification studies, topical studies and the stakeholder satisfaction survey informed this final report. All reports of the studies and surveys are available on online.

Not all data that were collected were of sufficient quality to be helpful. In particular the georeferenced activity list required an great amount of effort to generate the database and maps as was envisaged during the start of the programme.

Page | 18 18 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

PMU Evaluation survey

IP Evaluation survey

Base-line surveys

Specific surveys and studies

Field observations OPM, NAO, EU

Field observations PMU and DLG

Beneficiary list

Activity list

Data collection

Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Figure 3: Monitoring and reporting system of ALREP

Closure

Implementation

Start-up

PMC semi-annual meetings

TWG monthly meetings

Barazas

District quarterly meetings

Data analysis

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Page | 19

IP Final report

Project sheets

IP Interim report

IP Quarterly report

PMU Final report

PMU Annual report (PMU)

PMU Quarterly report

Data reporting

PRDP Final report

PRDP PMC reports

OPM/PRDP/ KIDP Quarterly report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

19

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

3.8 Reporting The PMU provided weekly briefs to OPM. The briefs were generated from the field office on Friday, and consolidated on Monday for input in the weekly OPM management meeting. The briefs and presence at the OPM management meeting was a major tool to strengthen the links between OPM and the PMU. At the start of their contract IPs were required to submit a baseline survey and inception report to confirm the design of their action and propose any early changes in case of changing circumstances. All IPs submitted these reports as required. The PMU organised a special training for IPs in the monitoring and reporting system both at the start and the end of programme implementation.

All IPs were also required to submit quarterly reports and updated activity lists and beneficiary lists, within 5 days after the end of the quarter. The reports were studied at the programme office, and the IP would receive a feedback email to make correction and submit a final version. Apart from the FAO, all partners did submit all their required reports. The reports are all available online.

At the end of their contracts the IPs were required to submit an endline survey report and in some cases an independent evaluation. The endline survey data were compared with the baseline, and inferences were made on results outcome and impact of the IPs action. The endline and evaluation reports were used in the compilation of the Programme Completion Report.

The PMU produced 15 quarterly progress reports and 3 annual reports. These reports were based on the quarterly reports of the IPs and the monitoring information generated by all the monitoring tools presented in the previous paragraph.

The PMU maintained a website (www.opm.nulep.org), which contained background information and a library of all tenders, contracts, studies, progress reports and background information of ALREP. It also contains links to a searchable database of ALREP activities and activity maps. The website will remain operational until 2020.

The PMU produced a video documentary and a ‘story book’, to publicise the achievements of the programme to a wider public.

All final documentation was completed before the end of the implementation period of ALREP.

3.9 Visibility ALREP complied with the visibility rules of the GoU and the EU. The PMU and IPs labelled all their activities on the basis of a shared design and text.

All ALREP presentations, documentation and other products contained the official logos of the GoU and EU and a disclaimer.

Box 5: Lessons from M&E and reporting

1.

2.

3.

4.

Design the M&E system from the start Insist on reporting timeliness and quality of IPs, and provide timely feedback Train IPs in the monitoring and reporting system Seek inputs from GIS experts early in the programme to ensure that the georeferences are useable in the final reporting tools

Page | 20 20 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

4 VALIDITY OF PROGRAMME DESIGN In preparation of ALREP the European Commission Delegation to Uganda contracted in 2007 the consulting firm HTSPE to identify possible ‘interventions that will contribute to the recovery of agricultural livelihoods of returned Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)’. The company consulted widely with the GoU, DLG, the agri business sector, and the development partner, and made the following recommendations for the technical design of the programme: “Core of the intervention is the provision of productive assets and capital to returnees. Where appropriate this will be done through a voucher/cash for work system. Labour intensive infrastructure works will be paid in vouchers or cash to be exchanged for agricultural inputs.

Advisory services, support to stockists, and support to traders, processors and financial institutions will provide a comprehensive package in which production, trade and value addition are interlinked and mutually supported for maximum and sustainable impact. In addition, Local Government (LG) departments will be supported to play planning, supervision and monitoring roles as per their mandate. “

The basic design as proposed by the consultants was carried over in the FA, and was reconfirmed during the inception period of ALREP during broad consultations held at national level, in the districts, and with private sector operators. It appeared that ALREP was fully aligned with the main policy document for Northern Uganda rehabilitation, the PRDP. The inception report maintained the objectives structure of the FA, but further defined the activities and implementation modalities.

The detailed technical design for the DLG Capacity Building component was done during the inception period through and extensive vulnerability and gap analysis in close collaboration with the DLGs. This determined the 100 operational sub counties and the activities to be carried out during the next 4 years.

The final activity list for DLG Capacity Building was laid down in an MoU between OPM and each DLG, and was strictly adhered to during implementation. During implementation, the programme realised some balances on activities. These were used to upscale the activities, after approval by the Programme Steering Committee.

The activity lists for the FFS component and the LIW components were agreed between the implementing partners and the respective DLGs before the signing of the grant contracts, and were also laid down in MoUs between the IPs and the DLGs. In some cases the DLGs proposed changes to the agreed activity lists, for instance in the designs and the locations of the activities. This had a profound effect on the costs of some activities. For example, in some instances districts requested to move from upgrading a community access roads, to opening up a new road in other location. The change in designs and locations was one of the factors that triggered requests for change in outputs by the IPs during implementation of their grants.

Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd provided Short Term Technical Assistance for the design of the AgriBusiness and Micro Finance Components of ALREP at the beginning of 2011. The final report12 suggested three key interventions for the Agribusiness Component and three for the Microfinance Component.

Eventually, the proposal for matching grants and Business Development Services for input dealers and agro processors were maintained. The proposals for the agri finance component were adjusted to capitalise on the very successful on-going VSLA programme in Uganda.

The EU commissioned an independent Mid Term Review (MTR) in October 2012. Their findings on the design of ALREP were positive. Minor changes were suggested in some activities13, which did not affect the objectives structure. For example, the MTR suggested carrying out an O&M training for district staff,

12 Design of the Agri-Business and Micro Finance Components of ALREP, March 2011, Cardno EMK (UK): http://opm.nulep.org/ 13 The MTR report is available at: http://opm.nulep.org/

Programme Completion Report

Page | 21 Programme Completion Report 21

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

which was done in May 2014. The MTR also suggested that ALREP should carry out a comparative study about the extensions systems in Northern Uganda. This was not done, because the PMU considered that outside the objectives and capabilities of ALREP. During the life-cycle of the programme, ALREP underwent two EU-ROM (Results Orientated Monitoring) evaluations in September 2011 and May 201314. EU ROM evaluations score programme performance on a scale from A-D (see table 4). The scoring indicates that both mission were of the opinion that the programme a = very good; b = good; c= problems; d = deficiencies was relevant. At start up in 2011, scoring for the operational side was low, obviously because the programme had not fully rolled out. The second ROM mission concluded that the programme was well underway to score well on all evaluation criteria.

Table 4: ROM scoring on 5 evaluation criteria Sep 2011 June 2013 Relevance B B Efficiency C B Effectiveness C B Impact C B Sustainability B B

During the regional closing workshop in October 2014, districts and IPs were asked to what extent the technical design was appropriate and the interventions were relevant. The 87 respondents considered the programme either relevant (45%) or very relevant (55%). 90% of the respondents considered the design good or excellent15.

Figure 4: % of stakeholders (n=87) grading ALREP on relevance and design criteria Not relevant at all 0%

Not Relevance relevant

Quality of design Poor 3%

0% Relevant 45%

Fair 7%

Excellen t 38% Very relevant 55%

Good 52%

In conclusion, the original technical design of 2007 required no adjustments to changing policies or circumstances, something that was considered a risk in the design study. The original design was followed through with no major adjustments, and was at the end of the programme still considered good and relevant at the district level.

The quality of the original technical design was a major asset in programme implementation. Changes in the objectives structure of an EDF funded programme are difficult to get approved. Even more difficult, and time and funds consuming is a major change during implementation. None of this happened, and it contributed greatly to the timely delivery of all outputs.

On the operational design side, the consulting company suggested embedding the Programme Management Unit in OPM, headed by a Programme Coordinator appointed by OPM, and assisted by a Technical Assistance Team, contracted through a third party service contract. During the start-up phase of the programme, OPM demanded further clarifications about the structure and responsibilities of the PMU versus OPM. After one year of consultations the operational responsibilities were laid down in an MoU between the EU, NAO and OPM in February 2010. As a result, the programme start-up was delayed by 16

14 See document section in: http://opm.nulep.org/ 15 For details see: http://opm.nulep.org/

Page | 22 22 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

months, meaning that, due to the fixed D+3 date16 of 36 months, all the funds had to be commitments in 20 months.

The inception report already flagged this as practically impossible, given the fact that on average any major procurement will take 6-9 months to complete. During implementation, the D+3 date was moved ahead by one year, allowing for a commitment period of 20 months.

Box 6: Lessons from design and strategy 1. Bringing different IPs working on different result to coordinate their activities is very difficult, due to staggering contracting and different geographical requirements 2. Close collaboration with Districts was key to programme success. Districts are best placed to identify and coordinate infrastructure programmes.

16

For an EDF FA, all the funds have to be committed within 36 months after the FA comes into force (D+3 date). Any uncommitted balances after the D+3 date have to be returned to the EDF.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 23 Programme Completion Report 23

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

5 PROGRAMME EFFECTIVENESS 5.1 Result 1: Increased agricultural production and productivity 5.1.1

Summary of Activities and Outputs

Farmer Field Schools in Acholi and Teso The Financing Agreement and the MoU signed with European Union foresaw the award of a Standard Contribution Agreement (SCA) to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for the implementation of the agricultural productivity programme under Result 1. Negotiations between the FAO and OPM started in July 2010, and the SCA “Increased household agricultural production and productivity in the Acholi and Teso sub regions of Uganda” was signed in March 2011, for a period of 43 months. The cost of the SCA was €3,487,505.

FAO implemented the FFS activities through 12 NGO partners (Table 1) and contracted the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Gulu University’s Faculty of Agriculture and Environment and Temele Development Organisation (TEMEDO) to implement the construction of goat improvement units and training on goat management units and Community Based Facilitators (CBFs). To strengthen the links between FAO, the NGOs and the DLGs, FAO signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with seven District Local Governments that would benefit from this project.

Table 5: List of NGO implementing partners involved in implementation of FFS Activities Districts Implementing Partners Pader ZOA Refugee Care-Uganda Programme (ZOA) Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief (CPAR Uganda) Agago Goal Uganda AVSI Foundation, Uganda (AVSI) Lamwo Food for the Hungry Uganda (FHU) Lutheran World Federation (LWF), Uganda Kitgum Cooperazione Internazionale-Uganda (COOPI), Uganda Gulu Gulu District Farmers Associations (GDFA) Temele Development Organization (TEMEDO),Uganda Amuria Fida International Abeiter Samariter Bund (ASB), Uganda Katakwi Church of Uganda, Teso Dioceses Planning and Development Office (CoU - TEDDO) Total

# FFS 84 84 84 92 91 80 68 48 97 76 80 76 960

FAO implemented FFS activities through 5 Results: (1) Agricultural Knowledge and skills of 480 new FFSs enhanced; (2) Crop production levels of 28,800 households increased by 30%; (3) Livestock Production improved among 480 FFS groups; (4) Entrepreneurial skills and practices of 480 new FFS enhanced; and (5) Rural market information systems established for 45 sub counties.

Each of the 485 new FFS were supported to set up study plots to enable farmers study, compare and eventually evaluate crop performances and farming practices. 49 FFS networks were formed, reorganized and trained in their roles and responsibilities and mentored throughout to develop action plans.

FAO in partnership with Ngetta Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (NgeZARDI) of the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) trained 146 facilitators in quality seed multiplication on prioritized crop seeds. The acreage planted in 2012 and 2013 is shows in table 6.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 25 Programme Completion Report 25

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 6: FFS outputs result 1 Farmer Field Schools (old) Members old FFS Farmer Field Schools (new) Members new FFS Trained facilitators FFS field facilitators FFS field coordinators FFS networks Seed distribution (tons) Cassava cuttings distribution (bags) Acres planted with QDS

480 13,650 480 14,402 149 159 22 45 74.7 2,451 2,851

Table 7: FFS details of Quality Declared Seed production (acres) Groundnuts (2012) 1,466 Groundnut seeds (Teso only 504 2013) Cassava 306 Beans 266 Soybeans 74 Simsim 129 Maize 57 Green grams 24 Rice 12 Sunflower 13 Total acreage 2,851

Following poor weather conditions in Teso sub region in 2012, FAO repeated groundnut seed multiplication by 176 FFS groups on 480 acres in Table 8: Quantity of oxen and ox ploughs distributed 2013. Reports of total seed production are Districts # of new # of oxen and sketchy; FAO reported that 22,714 Kg of FFS ploughs groundnut seeds were harvested. For cassava Gulu 20 40 Kitgum 76 152 multiplication, 12,280 bags were harvested from Pader 64 128 306 acres. These were planted by 131 FFS Agago 40 80 groups on 1,500 acres the following season.

Lamwo Amuria Katakwi Total

112 104 64 480

224 208 128 960

Under the second result area, FAO distributed 960 ox ploughs and 960 oxen as per table 8. FAO also supported the vaccination of 40,616 heads of cattle in Acholi sub region through the provision of 73,000 doses of vaccines against Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP).

Under the third result area, 8 goat improvement units were established in which 198 boar goats were distributed (Table 9). At each site, 1-2 acres of pastures were established Table 9: Goat improvement units locations and host farmers details District Sub county Name of host farmer Gulu Paicho Mr. Okello Martin Kitgum Omiya Anyima Mr. Komakech Quinto Pader Lapul Ms Labol Sophia Agago Paimol Mr. Odera Richard Lamwo Lokung Mr. Olaka Okaka Amuria Acowa Acowa sub county Katakwi Omodoi Mr. Okiror Emmanuel Katakwi Palam Mr. Okwir Charles Total

No of goats provided 38 14 20 20 16 27 32 31 198

Under result area 4, FAO supported each of the 485 new FFS groups to identify and select a viable project for income generation for support and trained the groups to develop business plans (Table 10).

Under the fifth result area, 45 market information centres were established in 45 sub-counties to provide market opportunities and linkages with the FFS networks. FFS networks in Acholi and Teso had 25 groups on average, of which 80% were active in network activities while the other 20% were not active. The average membership of the FFS networks was 450 persons.

Page | 26 26 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 10: Income generating activities supported Item distributed # FFS # items Beehives 12 197 Banana suckers 1 50 Kg bean seeds 3 1,050 Bags of cassava cuttings 7 560 Kg cowpea seeds 1 300 Kg groundnut seeds 6 2,520 Goats 229 3,206 Kg green gram seeds 15 13,500 Machines 10 10 Heifers 13 26 Sheep 51 714 Oxen 51 102 Piglets 36 504 Cocks 5 50 Machine 1 1 Kg rice seeds 6 1,600 Kg sorghum seeds 25 7,400 (Epuripur) Kg soybean seeds 13 4,550 Total number of FFS 485

In terms of services offered by the networks, extension service linkages and marketing/market information were reported as offered by six of the eight networks surveyed. However, the estimated number of farmer groups that received these services was rather small (35% of farmer groups for extension service linkages and 56% for marketing). Advocacy services, reportedly offered by two of the eight networks surveyed, were provided to all farmer groups in those networks.

Four of eight FFS networks were engaged in production and marketing of simsim and this generated gross revenues of UGX 70 million.

Production and marketing of groundnuts, soy beans, rice and sorghum (especially white sorghum for brewing) were the other major enterprises that generated revenues.

The FFS networks were trained to collect, analyze and disseminate market information, and establish linkages on behalf of their members with agro processors. An example of a successful linkage was the supply of white sorghum (Epuripur) to the East Africa Malting Limited (EAML), organized

by AgriNet under the FAO SCA. AgriNet mobilized farmer groups and FFS networks to produce white sorghum for this market under a forward production contract. in which farmers received UGX 33,347,120 from sale of 47,425kg of white sorghum (Table 11).

Table 11: Quantity of white sorghum bulked and sold under Forward contract with EAML Commodity District Collection point Kg Bulked Amount paid to farmers (UGX) Acowa 13,345 9,608,400 Angerepoko 4,500 3,240,000 Sorghum Amuria Ajeleki 4,575 3,294,000 Aberilela 3,456 2,488,320 Sub Total 24,159 18,630,720 Lalogi 10,253 6,664,450 Soya bean Gulu Odek 8,000 4,800,000 Lakwana 5,003 3,251,950 Sub Total 23,266 14,716,400 Grand Total 47,425 33,347,120

Commercial agriculture in Lango In Lango sub region, the FFS approach was considered an inappropriate modality, due to the more advanced agricultural development as compared to Acholi and Teso. Lango was therefore not included in the SCA with FAO. Instead, the PMU awarded CESVI Onlus two grant contracts based on their response to a Call for Proposals (CfP) launched in October 2012 (Table 12). The main focus of both contracts was to promote the commercialization of crop production and animal husbandry as well as market linkages among progressive farmers. The activities were implemented in the following six districts: Lira, Alebtong, Otuke, Apac, Kole and Oyam Programme Completion Report

Page | 27 Programme Completion Report 27

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 12: Grant contracts awarded to CESVI Contract code Area Contract period FED/2012/299-928 Lango West 28 Nov 12 – 27 Nov 2014 FED/2013/313-771 Lango East 07 Mar 2013 – 06 Nov 2014

EU contribution € 490,000.00 € 494,827.45

Activities to promote commercial agriculture were implemented under four CESVI Results: (1) increase the labour productivity and access to productive land of targeted beneficiaries through assisted provision of adequate secondary implements; 2) improve the Table 13: CESVI Outputs Lango East component Lango East Lango West Total capacity of targeted Outputs Progressive Farmers 2,700 3,000 5,700 progressive farmers in Producer Associations 9 9 18 commercial agriculture Ox ploughs (cost-share) 494 300 794 planning, value addition and Oxen pairs (cost-share) 494 300 794 marketing; 3) improve Weeders (cost-share) 60 141 201 agricultural technologies of Planters (cost-share) 60 141 201 60 141 201 progressive farmers; 4) Harrows (cost-share) Ox-carts (cost-share) 46 100 146 improve the quality of the O&M equipment training 646 624 1,270 livestock sector. Activities to (persons) achieve the fourth result PHH equipment (stores) 7 8 15 were only implemented in Value addition machinery 9 9 18 Apac, Kole and Oyam district.

Foundation seeds (kg, cost1,257 588 1,845 share)

CESVI mobilized 5,700 Improved agronomy demos 92 100 192 progressive farmers into Training in FLSMS (persons) 86 210 296 producer groups which were Banana nurseries 0 75 75 linked to 18 producer Friesian heifers 0 183 183 0 54 54 associations, trained the CAHW training Animal husbandry training 0 206 206 progressive farmers in Artificial Insemination Units 0 3 3 improved agricultural VSLA kits (100/0 cost-share) 27 27 practices, and distributed Total beneficiary 168,200,850 346,017,000 514,217,850 primary and secondary contribution (UGX) implements and value addition equipment on cost-share basis. The outputs are indicated in table 13. In Lango the distribution of animals and equipment was done on a cost sharing basis. This varied from a 50/50 to 80/20 share depending on the type of equipment and the capacity of farmers.

Supply of veterinary equipment Table 14: Animal health equipment handed over to LGs District Item Tsetse traps Refrigerator Deep Freezer Pader 500 3 0 Agago 200 1 0 Lira 158 0 0 Kole 125 0 0 Oyam 200 0 0 Amuria 0 0 1 Katakwi 0 0 1 Amuru 0 2 0 Lamwo 0 1 0 Kole 0 1 0 Katakwi 0 2 0 Total 1,183 10 2

Page | 28 28 Programme Completion Report

RDC Gulu handing over animal health equipment to representatives from various district LGs

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

As part of the DCBWP, ALREP delivered an assortment of veterinary equipment to the ALREP districts and sub counties. Most items were procured through a supply tender. Some items were separately procured and distributed to the districts. The veterinary equipment consisted of animal health drugs and tools, laboratory equipment and agricultural tools (table 14). All the supplies were delivered in November 2014.

Environmental considerations ALREP contracted experts from the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Management in Makerere University to develop training modules and guidelines for integrating environmental issues into Northern Uganda’s Recovery Programmes, and carry out training for 74 relevant district technical staff in the “integration environmental issues in development programmes at district level.”The resultant training package, of which 590 were distributed to the districts, consists of a Trainers Manual, a User Guide and Training Slides in hardcopy. The accompanying CD contains all the training materials and references.

Offsetting the ALREP Carbon Footprint

Metric Tons Carbon

$2,000

US$ carbon credits and brokerage fees

ALREP minimized the greenhouse gas 145.0 150 $1,500 emissions from the $1,575 111.4 106.7 programme operations, by training staff in 100 $1,000 energy conservation measures in the office $1,091 and on the road. For offsetting the carbon 50 $500 $564 footprint, the Ugandan Carbon Bureau calculated annually the ALREP carbon 0 $0 2011 2012 2013 emissions on the basis of monthly consumption data of fuel and electricity. The Mt Carbon US$ carbon emissions were offset by the Figure 5: Metric tons of carbon emmitted and US$ cost of purchase of carbon credits from Plan Vivo, which were used to plant trees in Bushenyi. offsetting by ALREP 200

Figure 5 above shows the metric tons of carbon emissions produced by ALREP and KALIP for 2011 – 20131718, and the annual cost of carbon credits purchased by both programmes.

Building capacity of partners in programme implementation ALREP carried out 2 trainings for partners and district staff in programme implementation, programme monitoring and programme closure. The trainings were attended by 2-3 staff from every Implementing Partner, and the DFPOs and CoW of the districts. For the trainings ALREP/KALIP developed a simplified guide for grant management19 and a monitoring and evaluation manual20.

17 The graphs and payments are the combined values for ALREP and KALIP; UBC was not able to separate the two.

18 It was not possible to offset the carbon footprint for 2014, as the calculations and payments would fall outside the implementation period of ALREP 19 See document section in: http://opm.nulep.org/ 20 See document section in: http://opm.nulep.org/

Programme Completion Report

Page | 29 Programme Completion Report 29

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

5.1.2

Result 1 Evidence of Results

The basis for assessing the results and outcomes of Result 1 are the indicators in the logframe. ALREP carried out a baseline survey and an endline survey21, and required the implementing partners to do the same. All the reports are available online.

The summary of baseline and endline data for result 1 is contained in Annex 2. The following summarizes the findings for each of the indicators in the logframe.

Result 1 Indicator 1 Indicator At least 70% of the members of 960 FFS in Acholi and Teso applying improved agronomic and livestock management practices in their fields by July 2014

Evidence of achievement Range of skills practiced and % of households practicing them

Agronomic skills and practices are used by households in their fields in order to enhance productivity (the amount of output obtained per unit input). According to the PMU and FAO endline surveys, the main agronomic practices the beneficiary households used in Acholi and Teso were proper plant spacing, row planting and crop rotation.

In both sub zero/minimum tillage 9% 6% regions, the number of trash lines 12% FFS beneficiary thinning 36% 51% households far exceeded row-planting 65% 72% non-beneficiary HHs in relay cropping 1% 26% using these productivity prunning 1% 41% enhancing practices proper plant spacing 60% 71% (Figure 6). hedge-row 1% mulching

7% 3%

In terms of the use of improved inputs and 45% technologies, the use of cover-cropping 5% improved seeds was the 28% bunding/grass-strips 16% main improved 29% technology that the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% beneficiary farmers in Endline: Non-beneficiary Endline: Beneficiary Baseline Acholi and Teso reported Figure 6: Agronomic practices used by beneficiary and non-beneficiary at the endline. In Teso, households in Acholi and Teso also the application of integrated pest management was mentioned by 34% of the respondents. Although in all cases there was no improvement over the baseline, FFS beneficiaries surpassed non-beneficiaries dramatically in the application of improved technologies.

20%

manure application (compost or‌ 1% 10% crop rotation

An earlier FFS beneficiary satisfaction study22 found that 90% of respondents trained in FFS approach were ‘partially’ applying the new agronomic practices. The gains in agronomic practices were marginal and the overall result was not transformative. Farmers explained this by noting that many of the suggested technologies were either tedious or expensive.

The findings suggest that the target for indicator 1 is partially met.

21 The survey was carried out the M&E department of the FAO. The report was not yet formally submitted during the compilation of this report 22 An assessment of the outcomes of FFS and APFS components of ALREP and KALIP in Northern Uganda and Karamoja, by Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd, August 2014: http://opm.nulep.org/documents/alrep-partner-documents/item/727-farmer-field-school-andagro-pastoral-field-school-assessment-report

Page | 30 30 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Result 1 Indicator 2 Indicator At least 70 % of the FFS members applying improved agricultural practices, disaggregated per district, and gender headed HHs, increase their crop yields by 30% by July 2014

Evidence of achievement Crop yields (of major crops) – disaggregated by district/gender of HH head

According to the endline survey, the yield levels of the different crops produced by the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households at the endline, compared with the baseline levels of the same variables in Acholi shows that the weighted average harvest per household of beans, maize and rice were higher at endline than at baseline for beneficiaries while the weighted average harvest quantities of finger millet, groundnuts, simsim and sorghum were more or less the same as at baseline for beneficiaries. In Teso sub region, weighted average harvest amounts per household of most crops grown in Teso were much higher for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households at endline than at the baseline.

When the weighted average yields of different crops grown by beneficiary and non-beneficiary households at the endline are compared, the picture is non-conclusive since beneficiary households realized higher yields than non-beneficiaries for some crops and conversely, non-beneficiary households realized higher harvest amounts than beneficiaries for others.

With hindsight it is questionable whether an indicator that measures % yield increase is well chosen.

Firstly, yield fluctuations between the seasons are high in smallholder agriculture due to many factors outside the control of the farmer, such as weather and pest and diseases. A positive impact of agronomy training may easily be undone by a dry spell. Secondly, % yield increases are not a good measure for the performance of a farmer or the quality of the agronomy training when the baseline is very low, as is the case in Northern Uganda. A better measure of success would be how close farm yields are to research station yields or on-farm trials. This point was made in the FFS study report as well.

The yield levels of selected crops grown in Acholi and Teso were compared with the yield potentials generated from on-farm trials of improved crop varieties commonly grown in the country and Acholi and Lango under similar conditions. In Acholi, improvement in crop yields was observed for most crop varieties grown at endline compared to the baseline (Figure 7). The only exceptions were groundnuts and sunflower where the yield levels at baseline were higher than at endline. Overall, yield levels attained at endline are still far below the yield potentials of the commonly grown crop varieties in Acholi.

K131, K132, Kunde, CP OPVs: Seremi 1 Nabe 4 White Longe 4 and and 2, Pese 5 1 beans

cowpeas

maize

millet

Sekedo

sorghum

Suparica 1, Red Beauty, Nerica 4, Serenut 2, 10 3-R,4 rice

groundnuts sunflower

1.23 0.17 0.43

1.21 Sunfola

0.13 0.16

0.73 0.36 0.10

0.67 0.94

1.11 0.28 0.33

0.97 0.20 0.20

1.32 0.21 0.53

0.4 0.0

0.14

0.8

1.01

1.6 1.2

baseline yield (Kg/acre) 1.67

yield potential (Kg/acre)

1.05 0.46 0.29

2.0

0.91 0.18 0.21

yield '000 (kg/acre)

Figure 7: Comparison of yield of selected crops with the potential yield in Acholi

Namsoy BPA 2000 4M, Maksoy 2N soybean

cotton

In Teso, the yield levels attained at endline were far higher than the levels attained at baseline. The average crop yields in Teso at endline were 21 percent of the yield potentials compared to about five percent of yield potentials at endline (Figure 8) .

Programme Completion Report

Page | 31 Programme Completion Report 31

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Kg/acre

baseline yield (Kg/acre)

1.23 0.06

0.84

1.21 0.73

0.17

0.55

0.17

1.05

1.11 0.09

0.97

0.19

0.17

1.01 0.10

0.4

1.32

1.2 0.8

endline yield (Kg/acre)

1.67

1.6

0.91

yield '000 (kg/acre)

2.0

0.0 K131, K132, Nabe 4

Kunde, CP White

beans

cowpeas

OPVs: Longe Seremi 1 and 4 and 5 2, Pese 1 maize

millet

Sekedo

Suparica 1, Red Beauty, Nerica 4, 10 Serenut 2, 3R,4

sorghum

rice

groundnuts

Sunfola

Namsoy 4M, Maksoy 2N

BPA 2000

sunflower

soybean

cotton

Figure 8: Comparison of yield of selected crops with the potential yield in Teso

In conclusion, it is not clear whether this indicator is met. In future programmes a hard yield figure based on research station data or on-farm trials may be a better measure for success.

Result 1 Indicator 3 Indicator At least 50% of IGPs initiated by FFS are generating economic returns by July 2014

Evidence of achievement Financial health of FFS IGPs

According to the FAO endline survey, goat breeding, simsim, groundnuts and cassava production were the leading IGPs established by the groups. In general, crop enterprises were the dominant types of enterprises the groups established with non-crop enterprises such as bee-keeping, woodlots and tree nurseries only making a small component of the enterprises. Establishing woodlots, tree nurseries and goat breeding units required higher amounts of capital than other enterprises.

In terms of start-up capital, grants from NGO partners which worked with FFS groups were reported as the main source of capital for establishing the IGP enterprises and accounted for up to two-thirds of the groups surveyed. Other sources of capital, in order of importance, were contributions by group members (24%), loans from VSLA (10%) and individual member savings (5%).

According to the endline survey, the highest amounts of gross revenue of IGPs were generated by the tree nurseries. However, all the enterprises generated gross incomes higher than their estimated cost of production, implying that they were all profitable (Table 15), and therefore the indicator was met.

Table 15: Production and income generated from IGPs Enterprise category Crop enterprise

Item produced kg

Average quantity produced 1,039

Average income (UGX) 963,408

Average cost of production (UGX) 432,771

Goat breeding unit

goats

Ox-ploughing

-

9

245,000

77,875

-

16,000

-

Shear nut

kg

560

1,200,000

485,000

Tree nursery

seedlings

4,000

3,400,000

735,000

Wood lot

-

-

-

160,000

Result 1 Indicator 4 Indicator FFS networks operate according to the satisfaction of their members and increase their volume and turnover by 10% by 2012 and by 20%

by July 2014

Page | 32 32 Programme Completion Report

Evidence of achievement Member satisfaction with FFS Network services; FFS operational and business processes

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

During the endline survey farmers were asked in FGD what the benefits were they received from FFS networks. The table below shows that between 20-30% of the farmers acknowledged receiving benefits.

Table 16: % of farmers receiving services by from FFS networks Service Lower cost of inputs because of bulk purchasing by network Identification of markets for produce Better prices for produce because of lower transaction costs and higher bargaining power and advisory services Access to technical Financing from FFS Network to carry out FFS group activities Access to market information disseminated by the Network

% of FFS members 18 17 12 26 21 24

The FFS networks were largely formal organizations guided by constitutions, registered with the Community Development Officers at the District Local Government and most operated bank accounts. All the networks were run by their executive committees that were elected by FFS group leaders by voting through show of hands. Therefore the networks had indeed satisfactory operational and business processes. However the information is not conclusive on the satisfaction of the members with the network.

Result 1 Indicator 5 Indicator 5

Evidence of achievement

Targeted communities in Lango increase their income from commercial crop and livestock production by 100% by July 2014

Income obtained from commercial crop sales

The evidence of success on this indicator is mixed. In Lango East, the endline survey23 found an increase of average household income by 11%. Beneficiaries from all sub counties except Ogor (Otuke district) reported that income from crop production has increased from between 30% to 300%, ranging from increases of UGX 200,000 to UGX 700,000 per season. Beneficiaries from Ogor stated there has been little increase income from commercial agriculture but they also reported a lack of store for their produce and the lack of bulk marketing. The endline survey shows that 70% of the respondents’ only source of income is agriculture. This means that for a large faction of the respondents an increase in income must have been through agriculture.

The endline survey for Lango West24 measures the average household income from commercial crop and livestock production for the past twelve months to be UGX 616,397. This represents an increase of 490% over the baseline level. The final evaluation of CESVI points out that, all of the sub county beneficiary focus groups reported increases from 55% to 80% in production as a result of improved agronomic practises.

Increase was found in income both from livestock as well as crop production. Pre-intervention, the average income from livestock production was UGX 21,475 per person. Post-intervention average income earned from the sale of livestock was found to be UGX 266,120, representing a ten-fold increase. The endline survey also found a substantial increase in the income derived from sale of crops only. Overall, 71%) of endline respondents reported earning more than UGX 300,000 in the past year as compared to only 19% of the baseline respondents.

Whereas therefore in Lango East the indicator may not have been met, in Lango West it was substantially surpassed. The reason for the difference is not obvious as both actions were largely similar and executed by the same IP. The final evaluation of the grantee’s action points out that even for Lango East an increase in income levels as a result of this intervention was noted, and incomes are expected to continue to rise as a result of future commercial crop enterprises.

23 CESVI Endline survey for Lango East: see document section of http://opm.nulep.org/ 24 CESVI Endline survey for Lang West: see document section of http://opm.nulep.org/

Programme Completion Report

Page | 33 Programme Completion Report 33

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

As the final evaluation for Lango West points out however, that, with its focus on commercial farming, this intervention may have increased inequality amongst the farming community.

Result 1 Indicator 6 Indicator 75% of targeted communities in Lango dedicate at least 50% of their farm activities to market oriented production by July 2014

Evidence of achievement Activity calendar with crop specifics; Proportion of farm output marketed

In Lango East, the endline survey shows a substantial shift towards commercial agriculture. On the one hand, 58% of the respondents in the endline survey mentioned that they primarily produce to earn cash income. This represents a 4-fold increase on the baseline finding, when only 15% reported to produce for cash income. The results from the endline household survey show that post-intervention 83% of the respondents spend at least 50% of their farming time on production of crops for sale, compared to only 68% of the respondents one year ago.

In Lango West, there was a general shift towards spending more time on market-orientated farming activities. The endline survey found that 85% of the target communities dedicate at least 50% of their farm activities to market-orientated production, almost double the baseline finding of 28%. Likewise, before the intervention 35% of respondents did not spent any days engaged in production for sale. This number dropped to 2% during the endline survey.

As the final evaluation points out, however, the potential for organising farmers and collective marketing has not yet been reached, in large part due to the mistrust of sub county store management. It is therefore necessary to continue focusing on facilitating collecting marketing through infrastructure development and support to producers’ networks.

Result 1 Indicator 7 Indicator 7 Carbon neutral status awarded every year

Evidence of achievement Compliance certificates of Carbon neutrality issued

For 2011 – 2013, ALREP purchased carbon credits and received compliance certificates from the Uganda Carbon Bureau. For 2014, it was procedurally not possible to purchase carbon credits, because the emission calculations by the Uganda Carbon Bureau shall not be completed before the expiry of Programme Estimate 4. The indicator was met.

5.2 Result 2: Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt 5.2.1

Implementation Modalities

Result 2 was aimed at rehabilitating productive infrastructure identified in the District Capacity Building Work Plans (DCBWP). Activities were partly executed through grant contracts with NGOs and partly through works contracts within the PEs. The PMU allocated €4,500,000 for grants and €2,000,000 for works contracts. The grant contracts were aimed at rehabilitation of productive infrastructure using Labour Intensive Works (LIW) methods. They were concluded as specific commitments with durations from 20 to 28 month.

The PMU launched on 11 June 2011 a Call for Proposals (CfP) with four geographical lots, namely Acholi East, Acholi West, Lango and Teso was launched. ACTED, AVSI, CESVI and ASB were awarded grants amounting up to 90% of the proposed activities. The focus of the grants was to build productive infrastructure using LIW methods for at least 50% of the grant value. Community access road rehabilitation and the establishment of community and institutional woodlots made up the bulk of LiWs. To maximise synergies between the FAO FFS programme and the grant contracts, the grants focused on the same areas and where possible, targeted the same farmer groups in the sub regions were FAO FFS were operating.

Page | 34 34 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 17: Grant contracts awarded under CfP 1 Agency Area Contract duration ACTED Acholi West 28 Apr 12-27 Aug 14 AVSI Acholi East 01 Mar 12-31 May 14 CESVI Lango 08 May 12 - 07 Aug 14 ASB Teso 20 Feb 12 - 19 Oct 13 Total

EU contribution € 1,296,558.00 € 1,168,891.71 € 1,142,480.49 € 579,192.50 €4,187,122.70

Final value €1,440,771.29 €1,353,510.55 €1,345,677.84 €645,915.58 €4,785,875.26

ALREP conducted a capacity needs assessment, which enabled the districts to identify gaps relating to various productive agricultural infrastructures in the sub counties. Productive infrastructures contained in the District Development Plans but deemed unsuitable for labour intensive works were consolidated into the District capacity building work plans (DCBWP). These plans were reviewed and the proposed projects assessed jointly by ALREP, the relevant district and sub counties offices, community leaders and OPM. Upon agreement by all stakeholders on the infrastructure to be constructed by local contractors using works contracts, ALREP launched 425open competitive works tenders in PE2, PE3 and PE4 respectively and 4 selective works tenders which resulted in 37 works contracts. A full list of all works contracts is contained in Annex 5.

5.2.2

Result 2 Summary of Activities and Outputs

Building productive Infrastructure to support Agriculture and Livelihoods in Acholi West ACTED implemented grant contract FED/2012/284-489, “Building productive Infrastructure to support Agriculture and Livelihoods in Acholi sub region” in Amuru, Gulu, and Nwoya. The grant contract had an initial implementation period of 24 months. ACTED was granted a 4-month nocost extension and the grant contract expired on 28 August 2014.

ACTED requested and was granted a change in outputs, whereby the kms roads and the number of markets were reduced and the number woodlots increased. The changes were in part caused by the districts allocating more complex road works to the organisation than foreseen, and demanding better quality markets than originally planned, both at a considerable higher cost. This had an impact on the final number of beneficiaries, which reduced from the planned 15,000 to 10,379.

Table 18: Summary of ACTED outputs Outputs Km of roads opened / rehabilitated Springs protected Acres of woodlots established Markets constructed VSLA kits distributed Participants in LIW activities Input fairs Paid as Vouchers to participants of VfW Paid in cash to participants of CfW Total pay out in CfW/VfW

Target 300 15 165 30 347 15,000

Revised 123 13 306 4 347 15,000 UGX 123,591,500 UGX 699,818,300 UGX 823,409,800

Achieved 144 13 306 4 341 10,379 29

The objective of the action was to rebuild productive infrastructure in support of farming, and enhance farmers’ access to funds and production enhancing inputs and technologies. To achieve this, activities were implemented under two result areas, namely (1) the construction/rehabilitation of community level productive infrastructures and (2) increase the production capacity and income of farmers. ACTED divided the community infrastructure works between the districts based on the size of the district and the

25

2 tenders were repeated due to procedural issues

Programme Completion Report

Page | 35 Programme Completion Report 35

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

population available to participate in the action. The construction and / or rehabilitation of productive infrastructures was done through LiW. This approach contributed to increasing the agriculture production capacity and served as a source of income for the community. Beneficiaries of LIW activities were encouraged to join VSLAs. Activities implemented by ACTED were conducted in partnership with Gulu District Farmers Association (GDFA). This in turn helped in enhancing the capacity of a local organisation.

In order to maximize outputs and save costs, ACTED took in consideration planned activities from its RALNUC project when finalizing the selection of the road works. In February 2014,ALREP, RANLUC2 and ACTED signed a Cost-Sharing Agreement, for 6 community access roads in Amuru and Nwoya district, totalling 29 kilometres.

Payment of LIW participants was done Cash for Work (CfW) method and the Voucher for Works (VfW) method. Participants in CfW activities received payments in cash. The payments were made in their respective villages at the agreed times. Beneficiaries under the VfW approach, on the other hand, received vouchers with a cash value equivalent to a cash payment for a comparable task. VfW payments were planned to coincide with project cycles before or during the harvest seasons so as to ensure that farmers are able to acquire productive agricultural assets in time for agricultural seasons.

ACTED organized input fairs, where local suppliers of mainly agricultural inputs, were selected. Through the fairs, VFW beneficiaries were able to access quality productive inputs and acquire other tools necessary for improved agricultural production.

Building Infrastructure and Livelihoods for Developmentin Acholi East AVSI and its partner CARITAS Gulu implemented activities under grant contract “Building Infrastructure and Livelihoods for Development” (BUILD). The project which had covered activities in the districts of Kitgum, Lamwo, Agago and Pader ended on 31 May 2014.

AVSI had overall responsibility for the action and also directly implemented activities in Kitgum and Lamwo districts. CARITAS Gulu executed activities in Pader and Agago districts. The main aim of the action was to establish and renovate productive infrastructures to support farming communities across the four districts, using LiW methods. To achieve this, the project carried out stakeholders’ dialogues and consultative meetings at village, parish, sub county and district level.

Table 19: Summary of AVSI outputs Outputs Km of roads opened / rehabilitated Dams desilted / constructed Cattle crushes constructed Grain/seed stores constructed Markets built EVI Granaries Water sources rehabilitated Treadle pumps installed Ropeway transport system established Human-traction Carts Animal traction carts Participants in LIW activities Trade fairs conducted Paid in cash to participants of LIW

Target 80 8 23 8 8 120 4 12 1 360 0

Revised 89 8 23 8 8 120 4 12 0 264 36

24

24

Achieved 89 8 23 8 8 120 4 12 0 264 36 3,080 24 UGX 756,076,006

Persons trained in VSLA methodology Persons trained in business skills

717 695

Page | 36 36 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

The negative response of NEMA to an AVSI request for the construction of a ropeway transport system in Agago prompted the project to make adjustments to its outputs. In consultation with the districts, the ropeway was replaced with the rehabilitation of 7 km of roads linking Agoro sub county to the South Sudan border, and the construction of 1 cattle crush in Agoro sub county.

Projects that were completed and handed over included a mix of newly constructed as well as rehabilitated infrastructure. Most community access roads were newly opened. Six dams were newly constructed while 2 were de-silted. All protected wells and spring projects were renovations. Cattle crushes, market stalls, produce stores and EVI granaries were all newly built.

The project facilitated the formation of VLSAs through Business Skills Trainings and trainings in VSLA operations. The VSLAs offered farming households access to financial credit.

Access to agricultural inputs and equipment was made easy through organized trade fares.

Developing Productive Infrastructure and Assets in Lango Sub Region to Improve Agricultural Production and Profitability CESVI implemented grant contract FED/2012/284-491 “Developing Productive Infrastructure and Assets in Lango Sub Region to Improve Agricultural Production and Profitability”. CESVI was granted a 3-month no cost extension, resulting in an implementation period of 27 months, which ended on 07 August 2014.

The project implementation was conducted in close collaboration with the local authorities’ right from the selection of the location of the infrastructure, their works supervision, their technical verification and final handover to local communities and authorities. The final evaluation revealed that the stakeholder engagement was high and consistent, the partnership approach was effective and genuine, and human resources, procurement and contract management demonstrated efficient and effective grant management.

Table 20: Summary of CESVI outputs Outputs Km of roads opened / rehabilitated Cattle crushes constructed Woodlots established Tree nurseries established Sanitation facilities constructed Boreholes drilled Water points rehabilitated Participants in LIW activities Paid in cash to participants of CfW PMC s established and trained

Target 207 17 74 74 12 15 24

Revised 207 17 74 74 12 15 24

100

100

Achieved 165 17 74 74 12 15 24 3,190 UGX 680,462,593 90

CESVI injected UGX 680,462,593 into the local economy through payment of 3,190 community members for their participation in LIW. The cash transfers had a positive impact on the rural communities in Lango sub region. Community members were able to meet personal and developmental needs such as investment in productive assets and medical health care. In addition, considerable sums of these payments were deposited with VSLAs. The VSLA members borrowed from the VSLA funds for immediate needs and productive investments.

CESVI, as did all other Implementing Partners, established Project Management Committees (PMC). PMC members received basic training in construction monitoring and were responsible for overseeing the day to day implementation of the infrastructure construction/rehabilitation activities. On average, a PMC consisted of 4 members (2 male / 2 female) selected from the community with the involvement of village leaders and Local Council I chairpersons. PMCs also continue to play a vital role in the sustainability of completed infrastructure after the completion of the action. They may be involved in the running of the Programme Completion Report

Page | 37 Programme Completion Report 37

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

infrastructure or are partly responsible for the maintenance. The Water Management Committees (WMC) as an example, are responsible for managing access to and maintenance of water sources such as boreholes.

Building productive infrastructure to support agriculture and livelihoods in Teso ASB’s Implementation of the grant agreement, “Building productive infrastructure to support agriculture and livelihoods in Acholi, Lango and Teso sub regions” in Katakwi and Amuria districts in Teso sub region was concluded on 19 October 2013 after a 20 month period. Interventions focused on four core areas:

1. Increasing access to water for animals and for human consumption by de-silting valley dams and water tanks and building Rain Water Jars (RWJ) at Household level; 2. Increasing access to markets through repair and construction of community access roads; 3. Increasing the assets base of project participants through an intensive labour intensive CfW programme and the distribution of tools and agricultural inputs; 4. Building capacity of communities and Government Local Authorities to maintain established infrastructure and to multiply learned techniques.

Table 21: Summary of ASB outputs Outputs Km of roads opened / rehabilitated Dams desilted Boreholes drilled Rain Water Jars constructed Farmers received Sweet potato planting material VSLA formed and supported VSLA kits distributed Participants in LIW activities Paid in cash to participants of CfW

Target 68 4 0 100 1,000

Revised 68 1 3 68 1,000

Achieved 68 1 3 100 1,000

80 80 3,132

80 80

80 80 1,958 UGX 393, 917,200

The construction or rehabilitation of productive infrastructure, such as community access roads, Rain Water Jars (RWJ) and water sources, were implemented mainly through LIW methods, using the Cash for Work (CfW) approach.ASB also introduced High Value Seeds and Orange Flesh Sweet Potatoes for multiplication in a bid to improve agriculture and nutrition. In addition, the capacities of local social committees such as Water User Committees were built through technical assistance in form of trainings and cash support to operations.

In their final report, ASB mentioned that it failed to complete the Odike - Agonga road in Amuria due to excessive flooding. ALREP, together with the DLG took up the responsibility to complete the remaining section on that road during a dry spell, and the 13.5 km stretch was completed in November 2014 at a cost to PE4 of UGX 69,496,000 million.

Works Contracts After agreement on the productive infrastructures to be constructed through works contracts, the districts, sub counties and ALREP conducted visits to site to assess the suitability of the location, the expected usage, and proposed layout of the infrastructure. The selection of location and size of a market for example, was based on its importance as market centre using criteria such as number of vendors, population served by the market, linkage to urban centres, strategic location of the market within the sub county, key institutions close to the market e.g. schools and health centres and availability of land for market expansion.

Page | 38 38 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Due to the cancellation of two tenders in 2011, the construction was delayed by a full year. In addition, due to slow progress on PE3 projects, most contracts were carried over into PE 4, under which the second large tender was awarded. This led to a piling up of construction activities throughout the whole implementation period of PE 4. Eventually, and because of strict contract management, all contractors completed their works before the end of the implementation period of PE4.

Table 22: Summary of infrastructure built through works contracts Classification Intervention Water for Production Borehole Water for Production Shallow wells & protected springs Production inputs Fish fry centre Animal Health Cattle crushes Livestock Marketing Livestock market Livestock Marketing Slaughter slabs Market infrastructure Market - 20 stalls including functionality Market infrastructure Market - 40 stalls including functionality Market infrastructure Market - 80 stalls including functionality Market infrastructure Agriculture showground fencing Aquaculture infrastructure Fish fry centre Road infrastructure Community access roads (km) Crop Storage Produce stores

Quantity 35 3 2 77 1 4 1 13 10 1 2 15 8

Contract supervision was done at three levels. Day to day monitoring was carried out by Project Management Committees. These consisted of 9 community members who were trained in the basics of construction, sufficiently to note any diversions by the contractor from the plans or quality construction.

Secondly, District Clerks of Works (CoW) supervised on-going contracts with assistance from District Focal Point Officers (DFPO) on the more technical aspects of construction. Thirdly, ALREP the programme engineer would carry out inspections related to interim, provisional and final certification of the works.

One out of the 37 contracts was cancelled due to non-performance of the contractor, who abandoned the site after completing approximately 60% of the works. The remaining work was tendered and a new contract for finishing the works signed. All 37 contracts were completed successfully and provisionally accepted by the relevant districts. After a 6 months retention period, or in some cases the handing in of a retention guarantee, all productive infrastructure works were accepted by ALREP and the beneficiary districts.

5.2.3

Result 2 Evidence of Results

The summary of baseline and endline data for Result 2 is contained in Annex 2. The following summarizes the findings for each of the indicators in the logframe.

Result 2 Indicator 1 Indicator At least 95 % of people within the community are satisfied with the type and quality of productive infrastructure delivered by the project and are using these on daily basis

Evidence of achievement Sufficiency and relevance of infrastructure % community members accessing infrastructure

The scores for sufficiency and relevance were captured in the endline household survey and the endline FGDs (Annex 2).

Table 23: Scores (%) for sufficiency and relevance of productive infrastructure (HH survey and FGDs) Question HH survey FGD baseline endline baseline endline Sufficient (sufficient or excess capacity) 36 44 38 36 Relevant (useful or extremely useful) 93 93* 82 94 * extremely useful increased from 80 in the baseline to 85 in the endline

The table shows minor improvements in the scores for sufficiency and relevance over the baseline.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 39 Programme Completion Report 39

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

In terms of accessibility, the findings of the ALREP endline survey indicate that for most productive infrastructures communities’ experienced increased accessibility. In the case of community access roads accessibility almost doubled, and for stores it more than doubled26.

Table 24: Scores (%) from HH survey for accessibility of selected infrastructures before and after ALREP Infrastructure baseline Endline Community access road 53 92 Cattle crush 43 48 Valley tank/dam 23 Community market stalls 50 50 Spring/well 10 27 Community store 20 52

The data are not precise enough to measure the indicator in detail. Although the numbers show a trend towards increased accessibility, it cannot be conclusively stated that the indicator was met.

Result 2 Indicator 2 Indicator Targeted and benefiting individuals reinvested at least 50% of CfW and VfW income in productive activities

Evidence of achievement % LiW payments reinvested

ALREP and partner surveys indicate that of the overall LiW payments in cash and vouchers around 40% is invested in animals and agriculture. That is slightly below the target value of 50%. For vouchers alone the % increases to 59%.

ALREP’s own topical study on LIWs27 shows that beneficiaries spent the largest amount (average UGX 33,217, 24%) of their LIW income on investment in animals. Investing in animals offers beneficiaries a savings plan that can be turned into cash, and has a good interest as animals multiply. Investments in agriculture production were with 14% relatively low. Combined with agriculture investments the total productive spending of LIW earnings would reach 38%, which is comparable to the findings of other surveys.

Figure 9: Assets acquired with vouchers (endline HH survey) Overall

22%

21%

Teso Lango

19%

15%

72% 10%

Acholi

34% 29%

0%

20%

24% 33%

40%

Household assets/consumables Seeds/vegetative planting materials Tools/implements

6% 6% 6% 6% 8%

8%

Livestock

8% 7% 5%

10% 5% 6% 7% 7% 10% 5%

60%

80%

100%

School fees/scholastic materials

ACTED conducted a survey to establish the commodities purchased, using vouchers at input trade fairs.

The findings show that beneficiaries of the VfW scheme used the vouchers almost entirely to procure relevant agricultural supplies. The findings also revealed that there was increased knowledge and understanding of the use of vouchers among the beneficiaries.

26 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ALREP Endline Survey Report 27 An assessment of the impact of labour intensive works in Northern Uganda under ALREP, November 2014: see document section http://opm.nulep.org/

Page | 40 40 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Food, 7320.5, 5%

Livestock, 33217.9, 24%

Saving, 17641, 13%

Household, 1.0, 1%

Produce, 37.1, 40%

Inputs, 41.6, 44%

Agricultural production, 19384.6, 14%

Personal expenses, 28048.7, 20%

Schoolfees, 32852.6, 24%

Livestock, 14.3, 15%

Figure 10: Use of LIW payments in UGX and % (ALREP LIW survey)

Figure 11: Use of LIW payments in million UGX and % (ACTED endline survey)

Overall it can be concluded that indeed a substantial amount of the LIW payments is invested in agriculture. The VfW payment, although not the preferred method amongst communities, increases productive spending to almost 100%. The indicator is practically met.

Result 2 Indicator 3 Indicator At least 90% of productive infrastructures built or rehabilitated are used and maintained by GoU and communities, by 2014.

Evidence of achievement % of infrastructure with an active PMC

The ALREP LIW survey found that across Acholi, Lango and Teso 56% of the productive infrastructures had an active PMC. This is considerably below the target of 90%. The differences are quite pronounced between the regions, with Lango scoring 100% active PMCs and Acholi and Teso 44% and 56% respectively. The explanation is the insistence and effort of IPs to get PMs off the ground, motivated and trained. This was apparently done much better by CESVI in Lango than by the other partners in Acholi and Teso.

Figure 12: Participation in future Labour Intensive Works Overall

39%

Teso

61%

20%

Lango

38%

Acholi 10%

20%

Yes

62%

44% 0%

No

80% 56% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

An interesting finding of the HH survey was that close to 2/3 of the HH mentioned that they would participate in another LIW project if the opportunity arose. This means that for future LIWs programmes it should not be a problem to mobilise sufficient participants. This finding is in particular interesting because in the same survey the majority of participants of LIWs considered the rates paid out low.

Table 25: Rating of terms/work rates Rating of terms Very unfair / exploitative Low Fair/acceptable Very good

Programme Completion Report

% of HHs Acholi 11 56 32 1

Lango 11 43 42 3

Teso 15 25 40 20

Overall 12 48 37 4

Page | 41 Programme Completion Report 41

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Result 2 Indicator 4 Indicator At least 90% of ALREP Grantees and Contractors comply with EU rules and procedures.

Coordination between projects and donors improved by 2014

Evidence of achievement Acceptance of IP’s final reports and payments by PMU and EU Not measured

ALREP invested substantially in building the capacities of IPs in M&E and EDF rules and procedures. This has clearly paid off, as all the IPs final reports that have been submitted have been accepted by the supervisor, and that all the final payments have been made by the EU with minimal questions. This has greatly facilitated the smooth closure of the grants, which in turn will facilitate the quick closure of the ALREPFA. In all the final reports of the IPs the excellent working relationship and support of the PMU is mentioned.

This indicator has been met.

5.3 Result 3: More efficient and transparent input and output markets and processing capacities 5.3.1

Implementation Modalities

The detailed design for Result 3 was carried out by a STTA team in February and March 2011. The design also took into account crucial findings from other agri-business support programmes, i.e. that cash or asset transfers to agro-business need to be approached very carefully in order not to distort markets and avoid spending funds on unfeasible businesses. The findings of the Short Term Technical Assistance for the Design of the Agri-Business and Micro Finance Components of ALREP from March 201128, suggested three intervention areas.

The first Agribusiness intervention proposed was capacity building in technical and business management skills for registered individuals and groups of business operators in the input and output supply chains. The second Agribusiness intervention was to support the establishment or improvement of vital and basic rural retail, agro-processing, storage and open market physical facilities for individual, group and corporate agribusinesses. This intervention would be conducted in conjunction with Component 2 improving productive infrastructure and Component 4 Financial Services - grants facilities and financial linkages. The third Agribusiness intervention suggested was improving market, linkages, promotion and information. This was to involve interactive seminars to link market players, trade fairs, publicity through mass media, billboard, brochures and mobile phone platforms targeting individuals and groups.

Based on the STTA report from April 2011, ALREP focused on three strategic interventions for Result 3.

One area involved supporting emerging rural agro dealers, input suppliers, produce dealers and other interested agribusiness actors in establishing one stop agro-shops. A second intervention area involved supporting selected agro processors in upgrading their business skills, plants and machinery, with the aim of strengthening the capacity for adding value at lower levels in the value chain. The third intervention consisted support to market information through regular radio programmes and Market Information Centres. The interventions were implemented through service contracts. These activities, where possible, complement FAO activities, which focused on FFSs developing Village Savings and Loan (VSL) associations as a sustainable source of funds and savings mechanism.

28Short Term Technical Assistance for the Design of the Agri-Business and Micro Finance Components of ALREP, March 2011, Cardno Emerging Markets (UK): see document section of http://opm.nulep.org/

Page | 42 42 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 26: Service contracts awarded under Result 3 Agency Contract duration AgriNet 10 Jul 2012 – 09 Sep 2013 UNADA 16 Aug 2013 – 16 Jan 2014 Kolline&Hemed 27 Jul 2012 – 27 Jul 2013 28 Feb 2014 – 31 Aug 2014 PSFU 10 Dec 2012 – 10 Dec 2014

5.3.2

Contract value UGX 613,938,981.00 UGX 564,672,200.00 UGX 822,610,875.00 €340,000.00

Result 3 Summary of Activities and Outputs

Provision of market information to farmers, producers and processors in Northern Uganda AgriNet was contracted for the “Provision of market information to farmers, producers and processors in Northern Uganda”. AgriNet implemented activities under its service contract with the following purpose, and results: 

Purpose: Reliable market information is made available by and to farmers in Acholi, Lango and Teso, using innovative, viable and sustainable methodologies.



Result 1: At least 250 Market Information Centres (MICs) established at strategic and economically viable places in the operational sub counties of ALREP, and staffed by well-trained information managers.



Result 2: For at least 18 months, fortnightly market price information bulletins are produced and distributed in the region through the MICs and through SMS texts.



Result 3: At least 300 Entrepreneurs are trained in providing market intelligence and brokerage as a business, entrepreneurial skills, financial management, and warehouse/grain storage management.

Table 27: Summary of AgriNet outputs Outputs Identify and map out locations of MICs Selected IBM are operational Market information dissemination via mobile phone/information boards by IBM Market information and business trainings Viable complementary businesses for MICs Mentoring and coaching visits (per month) IBMs trained in market information interpretation and dissemination Sending SMSs with market info to IBMs x/week IBMs licensed as TSS agents Support IBMs on exchange visits Identifying buyers in the AgriNet network

Target 250 250 250

Revised 250 230 230

Achieved 300 226 226

8 3 2 250

8 3 2 230

8 4 3 226

2 125 60 100

2 125 75 100

3 60 75 50

Practically all the contract targets were met. Over 300 private market information centres were set-up to collect and distribute market information into the wider AgriNet sms platform, and to broker in market deals. 226 Information Board Managers were selected from small local entrepreneurs, mostly shopkeepers, based in small trading centres close to the farming community. They were trained in market information activities, but also in general business management, to build their business acumen. With this push from ALREP, AgriNet’s network has penetrated Northern Uganda, thereby helping to link the farming community to regional and national markets.

Under this contract, market information has been pushed out through the mobile sms, information boards and radio. Farmers and traders have been empowered with the information to identify, analyze and take on market opportunities, calculate their production costs, and negotiate forward contracting

Programme Completion Report

Page | 43 Programme Completion Report 43

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

deals. In this respect, a success story is the cultivation of white sorghum for Uganda Breweries Limited (UBL), which earned 13,000 farmers over UGX 1.3 bn during the 2014 cropping season.

Table 28: Forward sorghum contracts for white sorghum cultivation brokered by AgriNet in 2014 SubNo. of farmers No. of Kg of seed sold Acreage Expected Projected farmers’ th region engaged IBMs as at 30 July planted yield (kg)* income (UGX) Acholi 3,000 60 5,000 1,250 625,000 437,500,000 Lango 8,000 124 9,000 2,250 1,125,000 787,500,000 Teso 2,000 20 1200 300 150,000 105,000,000 TOTALS 1,900,000 1,330,000,000

Increase the Presence and Build Capacity of Private Agro Input Dealers at Sub County level in Northern Uganda The Uganda National Agro Input Dealers Association (UNADA)’s service contract FED/2011/276-802/01/SVC to “Increase the Presence and Build Capacity of Private Agro Input Dealers at Sub County level in Northern Uganda” ended on 16 January 2014 after an extension of 5 months. The purpose of UNADAs service contract was “Professional well stocked- and run input dealers’ shops provide timely and quality services to small holders’ farmers in the operational area of ALREP.” In order to achieve this purpose UNADA was to achieve the following results:

1. Business skills of 300 agro input dealers (150 new and 150 existing) improved, to trade in agricultural inputs such as seeds and agro chemicals 2. 100 agro dealers have acquired a safe chemical handling certificate 3. ALREP PMU provided with locations and detailed proposals to upgrade 150 agro dealers’ shops to attractively display and safely store and trade in agro chemicals and produce 4. Product leaflets and other information designed and/or printed for use by agro dealers and farmers 5. Agro dealers supported to set up demonstrations and farmer field days to promote and explain the use of their products 6. Agro-input dealers are linked to seed companies and other whole sale agro input suppliers 7. 45 agro- dealers selected and their capacity built to offer output marketing services.

UNADA executed the contract largely according to plan, reaching out to 300 agro-input dealers as targeted. UNADA also assessed 300 shopkeepers for their suitability for a shop improvement grant. They recommended 110, and submitted a detailed assessment database to the PMU. Most of the other outputs were all slightly below target. The low number of demonstration plots was due to poor weather conditions, and the lower number of shopkeepers that qualified for a shop improvement grant were due to the strict selection criteria that the PMU used.

The input dealers are spread across the region covering rural locations where access to improved inputs is poor.

An essential training that UNADA organised was the Safe use and Handling of Agro Chemicals. The training certificate is a requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture to operate a agro input dealership.

ALREP financed the reprint of the MAAIF training manual for this training, as well as a business service training manual.

Shop improvements were not part of the UNADA contract, but were to be carried out by the PMU. ALREP PMU contracted a consultant engineer, who conducted a final assessment of the 110 pre-selected shops for possible assistance. The assessments involved confirming whether identified beneficiaries were still

Page | 44 44 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

operational as input dealers and were still interested in a shop improvement grant. Out of the 110 preselected shops, 88 were eventually selected for a grant.

Table 29: Summary of UNADA outputs Outputs Input dealers trained in: Business Plan development Extension skills/seed merchandising Business Management Safe use and handling of agri-chemicals Agro dealers acquired a safe chemical handling certificate from MAAIF Agro dealers assessed for shop improvement Agro dealers shops improved through grants Demonstration gardens established Linked agro dealers to No. of agro companies Organize farmer field days Agro dealers participate in trade shows

Target

Achieved

150 150 150 150 100 300 150 300 19 30 50

205 174 175 134 88 300 88 188 8 16 22

For the shop improvement programme, ALREP signed grant contracts with the 88 agro-shop owners, who in turn contracted a local pre-selected contractor to carry out he works. 13 contractors, whose rates were in conformity with the budgeted rates, where contracted to carry out the work. Improvement in the various shops included work on floor and ceiling, painting and fitting of counters and shelves. In addition all shops were supplied with weighing scales and pallets. All 88 grant contracts were successful executed at a cost of UGX 558,904,499 from ALREP PE 4 at an average of 6,351,187 per grant.

Upon completion of the shop improvement programme, ALREP facilitated inspectors of the Agro Chemical Technical Committee to assess if the shops qualified for a license. All shops passed the inspection and were issued with a one year operating license from the Agro Chemical Board.

Agriculture Radio Broadcasts In line with the proposals from the Agri-business consultancy, ALREP awarded the media firm Kolline & Hemed two service contracts to broadcast agricultural radio programs. The main objectives of the contracts were:

1. increase knowledge, change attitudes and promote “best� practices in farming, agro business and agri-finance among the listeners.

2. provide information about agricultural supplies and demand, markets, agricultural related financial products, financial literacy and other relevant issues for the farming community in Acholi, Lango and Teso.

3. provide an interactive platform for ALREP and its implementing partners to inform and discuss with the wider public the ALREP programme design, progress and closure.

Kolline & Hemed Uganda undertook a comprehensive media baseline survey to determine how best radio can be used as an information tool in the agricultural sector. The specific objectives of the survey included establishing the household profile of the respondent, the media consumption and communication in the household. Others include the favourite radio programmes, level of access to agricultural information, and how market information is used by the farmers.

Based on a radio campaign strategy, Kolline & Hemed designed weekly interactive radio programs tailormade for the three sub regions in which ALREP operated. The service contractor aired 224 shows related to agriculture production, marketing, post-harvest handling and livestock management. In the course of the second contract, Kolline & Hemed broadcasted an additional 84 radio shows.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 45 Programme Completion Report 45

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 30: Coverage of radio stations contracted by ALREP for radio shows Sub region

District Focus

Acholi Lango Teso

Gulu, Amuru, Nwoya, Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader & Agago Lira, Apac, Oyam, Otuke, Alebtong & Kole Katakwi & Amuria

Radio stations st nd 1 contract 2 contract Mega FM Mega FM Unity FM Unity FM Etop FM Delta FM

Kolline & Hemed established and worked with 150 listener groups during the 1st contract, and continued with 45 groups during 2nd contract, each with an average of 10 members. The listener groups acted as a control in ensuring that the radio Table 31: Summary of Kolline & Hemed outputs shows were relevant to farmers’ Outputs # needs. To that end, Kolline& Hemed Weekly radio shows 308 sought the views of farmer listener Baseline media survey undertaken 1 groups and collected statistics on their Radio campaign strategy produced 1 st Radio stations contracted 1 contract 3 listening characteristics and nd Radio stations contracted 2 contract 3 preferences. The radio shows were Free-lance journalists trained on agriculture reporting 24 adjusted according to this feedback.

Listener groups established

150

The radio programs also contributed significantly to mobilization efforts of other implementing partners and contractors. Kolline & Hemed hosted grantees targeting communities with activities such as LiW, FFS trainings and VSLAs. Synergies were also visible by the radio shows airing market prices provided by AgriNet.

Capacity building of agro processors and produce traders to enhance processing capacity, quality and business performance in Northern Uganda Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) implemented service contract FED/2012/291-422 “Capacity building of agro processors and produce traders to enhance processing capacity, quality and business performance in Northern Uganda”. The service contract had an implementation period of 24 month and expired on 09 December 2014.

The overall objective of this component was to ensure that input and output markets and processing capacities are made more efficient. The purpose of the contract was “The agro-processors and produce traders of Northern Uganda engage in productive and profitable business investments and operations that ensure quality outputs, efficiency, increased profits and business growth.”

PSFU was to provide at least 100 small agro processors and traders at sub county level with technical as well as business management and service delivery skills to enhance their business performance and services to farmers. The concept foresaw that trained entrepreneurs would be assessed for their suitability to enrol in a matching grant scheme to improve their infrastructure and machinery on a cost share basis.

Table 32: Summary of PSFU outputs Outputs Call for Proposals (CfP) Grant applications screened Training needs assessment BS training conducted Training in AaB and use of equipment Training in value chain, loan management Matching grants awarded

Target 3 Determined by CfP Determined by CfP Determined by CfP Determined by CfP 73 100

Achieved 1 922 1 444 200 73 73

In May 2013, PSFU launched a Call for Proposals (CfP) and received more than 900 applications for a matching grant. The huge response overwhelmed the contractor somewhat. Based on the matching grant Page | 46 46 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

manual, the applications underwent a desk screening, which reduced the candidates for a grant to 426.

These were all verified and appraised in the field. This reduced the candidate list to 194, almost twice the target number in the contract. However, it appeared that on average the requested amounts were about 50% lower than the targeted amount of â‚Ź10,000 per grant, and in principal the cost estimates for the 194 qualifying candidates was within budget.

In March 2014, it appeared that due to a change in EU rules, the selection procedure for the grants was not in line with EDF procedures. Eventually a solution was found in June 2014. The approval for the grants was given in September 2014, but by then the remaining implementation time was not sufficient to execute all 194 grants. Therefore, ALREP awarded matching grants to 73 agro-processors and agro traders to procure equipment to improve their processing capacities, whereby the own contribution of the grantee was set at 20%. All the 73 grants were executed and the total funds disbursed to grantees were UGX 1,056,552,000, or an average of UGX 14,473,315 per grantee.

PSFU screened all grant proposals and verified 444 as viable businesses and also potential grantees. PSFU included all these entrepreneurs in their training programme and trained them in business skills. Training topics included basic bookkeeping, managing personal finances, quality control and standards, product costing, effective marketing for SMEs, value addition and supply chain management, packaging and storage of agriculture produce. A reduced number of 200 grant applicants were later trained on Agriculture as a Business (AaB) as well as relevant use, maintenance and repair of machinery and equipment. The approved 73 grantees got training in value chain, loan management and food fortification enabling them to run their businesses proper and profitable.

Information Board Managers and Agro Input shops in agro business directory of Uganda The PMU made a contract with the Agasha group to have IBMs and agro input shops listed in the 2013/14 agro business directory. This year’s directory had a special section dedicated to Northern Uganda, which was in part sponsored by ALREP. The purpose of this activity was to promote the supported business, and to promote the agro business directory as a tool for networking and agro-business promotion. The Directory was uploaded on the ALREP website of which more than 4300 copies were downloaded.

In 2014, ALREP sponsored the Agri-Expert Guide for agribusiness, also published by Agasha Group.

Agro business conference and trade fair In collaboration with AgriNet and Kolline & Hemed, the PMU organized a two-day agro business conference for the Acholi region on 21 and 22 June 2013. Over 250 participants from the agro business sector and farmers attended two days of lectures and discussions about the prospects of commercial farming in Acholi, agro financing, and agro insurance. The conference was supported by an exhibition by input suppliers, produce buyers, banks and ALREP IPs. The conference was considered by the district leadership and outstanding success. Plans to repeat the conference in Lango and Teso were not executed due to shortage of time and funds.

5.3.3

Result 3 Evidence of Results

Result 3 Indicator 1 Indicator At least 50% of supported agri-shops are operational and report profits by July 2014

Programme Completion Report

Evidence of achievement Shops are stocked and have an operating license

Page | 47 Programme Completion Report 47

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

The ALREP verification study conducted in December 2013 found that 40% of the sampled shops were stocked and operational. Although this might seem a low number, the verification was done before the shop improvement grant, and not in the agricultural season.

The proportion of businesses registered with the registrar of companies and with other associations such as UNADA was slightly higher at endline than at baseline. This shows that the business owners are making attempts to formalize their businesses. Conversely, unregistered businesses reduced by 20%, from 29 % to only 9%.

Endline

Baseline

Figure 13: Registration status of input businesses Overall Teso Lango Acholi

43% 25%

29%

29%

25% 50%

25%

42%

Overall Teso 0% Lango Acholi

42%

0%

20%

Registered with company register

50% 25%

33% 51%

25% 40%

50%

Registered with other association e.g.

UNADA, MSC

9%

50% 83%

8% 58%

40%

60%

Unregistered

8% 0%

80%

100%

An informal assessment by the consultant engineer of ALREP carried out in November 2014 seems to suggest that practically all shops that received a grant and license are indeed operational. This means that by the end of 2014, the indicator was met.

Result 3 Indicator 2 Indicator At least 30% increase of agricultural produce marketed by supported produce buyers by July 2014.

Evidence of achievement Produce buyers report increase in marketed produce

The ALREP endline survey findings point out that the major source of agricultural inputs at endline was the trading centres/towns as opposed to distant markets during the baseline. Although a significant number of farmers still access inputs from distant markets, this was largely limited to Teso. The shift in input access from distant markets to trading centres suggests increased penetration of input suppliers to the rural areas in the program districts. This increased penetration is further illustrated by the increased access of inputs from local input stockists. The reduction in average distance travelled to access inputs from 20 km to about 14 km is also a clear indication of improved input access.

Result 3 Indicator 3 Indicator At least 70% of supported processing business are operational and report profits by July 2014

Evidence of achievement The business are stocked and have an operating license

Due to the late execution of the agri business grant, no data are as yet available for this indicator.

However, the ALREP endline survey concludes that the biggest change observed with the agro processors in the region between the baseline and endline is the diversity of equipment they have access to, for running their businesses. A higher proportion of processors have access to recommended handling equipment such as weighing scales, moisture metres, drying tarpaulins, packing machines and back-up generators. The proportion of processors owning mills (grain mills, oil mills and rice mills) has also increased compared with the baseline. These capacity improvements provide a solid foundation for increasing revenues, profits and further business growth.

Page | 48 48 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

For Information Board Managers/Brokers some evidence of increased turnover and profits can be extracted from business data with respect to a deal that AgriNet brokered with East African Breweries – Sorghum Market (Table 33).

Table 33: Example of distribution of net income in the value chain The rural agents and No of Income per Player in value chain Income brokers, often IBMs, made individuals individual substantial income from Farmer 1,050,000,000 3,000 350,000 selling seed at a commission Rural agent network 54,000,000 60 900,000 of UGX 200 per kg, and will Buyer Agent 27,000,000 10 2,700,000 be earning another income AgriNet 54,000,000 1 54,000,000 from buying back the grain.

Transport and handling 450,000,000 many The overall economic Overhead 15,000,000 stimulus for instance in Total 1,635,000,000 terms of transport and Yields for 2014 season are set at 500 kg/acre, but should rise to 1,000 kg per acre in the next handling of the goods is also few years substantial.

Result 3 Indicator 4 Indicator At least 50% of agricultural producers and buyers in targeted areas report improved access to market information by July 2014

Evidence of achievement # of respondents reporting more and diversified channels for accessing market information

In surveys conducted by Kolline & Hemed at the end of their contracts, over 95% of the respondents confirmed having listened to ALREP radio programs. Over 80% of the listeners expressed satisfaction with the radio messages. They acknowledged that the shows were answering to their farming information needs.

Figure 14: Percentage of HHs indicating sources of market information

Beneficiary

Non-beneficiary

Baseline

Word-of-Mouth

Radio

Where to sell?

What to produce?

What quality to target/maintain?

What price to sell at?

How much (quantity) to sell?

Phone (SMS)

Bulletin board

48%

38%

41% 22%

1%

18% 0% 50%

38%

26%

Where to sell?

What to produce?

What quality to target/maintain?

What price to sell at?

How much (quantity) to sell?

2%

35%

2%

23% 1% 57%

54%

57% 42%

37%

54%

42%

36% 69%

63% 54%

56%

43%

67% 43%

40%

9% 7%

4% 62%

55%

20%

8%

4%

68%

0%

5%

4%

58%

Where to sell?

What to produce?

What quality to target/maintain?

What price to sell at?

How much (quantity) to sell?

8%

46%

60%

80%

9%

5%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Also the ALREP HH survey concludes that in general, the level of access to market information was higher at the endline time than at baseline. The proportion of beneficiary households who accessed market information from the different sources such as word-of-mouth, radio, phone sms and bulletin board was higher than the non-beneficiary households. The most commonly source of market information was word-of-mouth and this was followed by market information disseminated over the radio.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 49 Programme Completion Report 49

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

5.4 Result 4: Availability of agricultural finance to producers, traders and processors increased 5.4.1

Implementation Modalities

In February and March 2011, an STTA team from Cardno EM (UK) carried out a detailed design study for Result 4. It proposed three interventions in the agri-finance sector29. 

Build the capacities of some weak financial institutions (SACCOs) and thus enable them to increase their membership, savings portfolios and agricultural loans exposure



Partner with stronger institutions through a matching grant arrangement to help them extend loans to persons in agri-businesses who would otherwise not qualify for such loans



Design new and refine existing agriculture lending products suitable for small & micro borrowers

The proposed interventions had to complement the microfinance activities planned by FAO in their FFS operations, which included the incorporation of VSLA training and support in the FFS curriculum. In previous programmes, FAO had seen the increasing need for funds by FFS members, and the low capitalization of the groups. It therefore introduced the Village Savings and Loans concept as part of the FFS methodology, to stimulate the groups to mobilise funds from within their own community.

The VSLA concept was developed 10 years ago by CARE International and expanded very quickly up to more than 16,000 VSLAs by 2011. Over the years CARE International learned that mature VSLAs are in principle bankable if given additional financial literacy training, and if banks were willing to adapt their services and products better to rural farmers.

After considering the various ideas and recommendations from the STTA study and other sources, the PMU decided to focus on assisting formal financial institutions to expand their businesses to the informal smallholder agricultural sector through three main interventions: (1) a financial literacy program for mature VSLAs, (2) support VSLAs established under FFS networks by FAO and other FSAL actors to financial institutions and (3) advocacy for a better presence of financial institutions in rural areas and improved formal financial services to the farming and agribusiness actors.

The agreed interventions were implemented through a service contract and through Result 6 of the Standard Contribution Agreement with FAO. Table 34: Service contracts awarded under Result 4 Agency Contract duration Care International in Uganda 13 August 2012 - 12 November 2013 FAO 1 March 2011 – 31 August 2014

5.4.2

Contract value UGX 542,022,154 € 500,000

Summary of Activities and Outputs

VSLA support to farmer Field Schools In earlier FFS interventions, the FAO had introduced the VSLAs in the FFS curriculum. The FAO had learned that the perpetual cash constraints of rural communities hold them back from making essential investment, such as inputs and animals, in agriculture. Secondly, FAO had seen that VSLAs form a much stronger glue between FFS members than the agronomy trainings. Many FFSs remain active as VSLAs, after the agronomy trainings have stopped.

The VSLA activities within the SCA were planned, budgeted and expensed under SCA Result 6, and ALREP FA Result 4. Table XX below shows the outputs of the FAO VSLA interventions.

29Short-term Technical Assistance for the Design of the Agri-Business and Micro Finance Components of ALREP, March 2011, Cardno Emerging Markets (UK

Page | 50 50 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 35: Summary of FAO outputs under Result 4 Outputs Train facilitators on VSL methodology Orient FFS on the VSL methodology Procure and distribute VSL kits Train and mentor FFS in financial management skills Explore linkages of at least 40 % the FFS networks to higher level micro finance institutions

Target 120 960 960 960 45

Revised 120 960 960 960 45

Achieved 130 960 960 960 45

As of February 2014, the cumulative savings, including interest earned, of 868 FFS stood at UGX 2.0 bn, which amounts to UGX 77,000 per household30.

However, the purpose of VSLAs is not to keep the cash but loan it out to members. The same groups had by June 2013 lent out an amount of UGX 710,403,400 to members. Knowing the difficulties for small scale farmers to obtain loans from MFIs or FFIs, an amount in excess of UGX 700 million loaned to FFS members must have had a significant impact on their ability to invest in agricultural inputs and equipment.

Figure 15: Cumulative savings by FAO supported VSLAs

Financial Literacy and Linkage Banking CARE Uganda was contracted to provide financial education and linkage banking to Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA) and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). CARE was tasked to (1) increase financial literacy of small and medium scale actors (individuals and groups) in the agricultural sector in Northern Uganda, (2) increase small and medium scale actors (individuals and groups) that save with and acquire loans from formal financial institutions for agricultural and agri-business purposes and (3) make formal financial institutions procedures and products more geared towards the needs of small and medium scale actors in the agricultural sector.

Table 36: Summary of CARE outputs Outputs Produce Financial Literacy and Bank Linkage training guide ToT in Financial Literacy (FL) Train 600 VSLAs/other groups members in FL Develop & print posters Develop & print flip charts Baseline on linkage banking Select FFIs as potential partners Train VSLA in linkage banking model Group Savings developed Banks Conduct training for FFI staff on agricultural client handling Information exchange meetings on agriculture finance

Target 1 20 12,000 40,000 1,000 1 2 200 2 3 1

Revised 1 20 12,000 40,000 1,000 1 2 200 2 3 1

Achieved 1 41 18,150 40,000 1,000 1 3 220 3 3 1

30

This assumes an average membership per FFS of 30

Programme Completion Report

Page | 51 Programme Completion Report 51

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

CARE based its activities on working with already established VSLAs or newly created VSLAs from FFSs trained by FAO and other actors. A VSLA usually comprises of about 20 to 30 self-selected members who come together with a primary aim of pooling their resources to collectively increase savings and have easy access to loans for their development as well as meeting emergency financial needs. It builds on existing village saving schemes, but brings rigor in these systems by introducing strict saving rules, a cash box with three keys, and a transparent system for receiving and lending group money. The model is a step to promote financial literacy, introduce a savings culture, and increase access to finance for rural communities and small business.

CARE implemented the project successfully, in many cases surpassing set targets. To achieve its target, CARE used a variety of training methods, including the formal classroom approach, on the job training, exchange visits, radio messages, and posters, to reach the beneficiaries. The project had reached 18,150 beneficiaries consisting of 73% female and 27% male in 726 groups. This means CARE surpassed the set target of 600 groups by 21%. In addition, the knowledge imparted through the trainings is likely to be spread quickly and widely in the communities.

CARE was also expected to make at least 200 mature VSLAs bankable, and make at least two banks in Northern Uganda ‘VSLAable’. This was done by enhancing the understanding of VSLAs of the banking system and procedures; and by exposing bank employees to the VSLA system and the VSLA members. The latter should and did result in adapted procedures for VSLA banking, special VSLA bank account, and studies into banking products geared towards VSLA needs. Three banks, Barclays Bank, Bank of Africa and Post Bank, participated in the programme, and their staff underwent training and exposure visits to VSLAs. CARE linked 220 VSLAs linked to banks surpassing the set target of 200 by 10%. The groups were linked to various branches of. The VSLAs opened bank accounts and started to receive formal banking services.

5.4.3

Result 4: Evidence of Results

The functioning of VSLAs was widely researched during the ALREP baseline and endline survey, the CARE programme evaluation and the FFS/APFS assessment. The general conclusion is that VSLAs have been hugely successful. The FFS/APFS assessment report concludes that “The uptake of VSLA [in FFS and APFS] was very high with 93% reporting full application/utilisation *….+ The reported benefits were derived mainly from access to loans for small businesses, cultivation, school fees and basic needs, as well as the effect of regular saving and accrued interest income. Although not intended to be, the VSLA has clearly provided the ‘backbone’ for *Farmer Field Schools+. It satisfies a strong interest in being able to generate income, strengthens group cohesion and provides a strong reason for members to continue as a group beyond engagement with FAO and its IPs. It is the one component that could be 31 described as transformative.”

Result 4 Indicator 1 Indicator HHs and businesses in targeted communities accessing formal banking services for the first time since 2012 increased by 10% in July 2014

Evidence of achievement % HH with bank accounts

This indicator was fully met. Fifty three % of households in Acholi had access to a bank account at endline as opposed to 16% at baseline, the highest leap observed among the three sub regions. Overall, the proportion of households with bank accounts increased from 14% at baseline to 30% at endline among

31

An Assessment of the Outcomes of FFS and APFS Components of ALREP and KALIP in Northern Uganda and Karamoja (page iii): http://opm.nulep.org/documents/

Page | 52 52 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

beneficiary households while the proportion of households with bank accounts remained more or less the same among non-beneficiary households between baseline and endline (Figure 16)32.

Eighty four % of beneficiary households had a member belonging to a VSLA at the endline as opposed to 49% of households with a VSLA member at baseline. This represents 35% increment in VSLA membership among beneficiary households. No improvement was recorded in VSLA membership among nonbeneficiary households by the endline.

Figure 16: Proportion of HHs at base line and endline with bank accounts for beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries of ALREP 60%

Acholi Lango Teso Overall

40% 53%

20% 0%

16%

11%

16%

Baseline

14%

10%

26%

30%

Endline - Beneficiary

18%

13%

6%

12%

Endline - Non-beneficiary

The proportion of VSLA members with loans was just slightly higher among beneficiary households at endline than at baseline. The highest increment in members with running loans was recorded in Lango sub region – from 21% at baseline to 62% at endline. Not having a running loan does not however mean that a member had never acquired a VSLA loan during the VSLA cycle.

Result 4 Indicator 2 Indicator 40% and 80% of VSLA members access loans internally by 2012 and July 2014 respectively

This indicator was practically met. Fifty seven % of beneficiary VSLA members with loans responded that their running loans were not the “first loans” they had ever acquired from the VSLA at endline compared to 77% who responded the same way at baseline. This implies that the proportion of beneficiary VSLA members who had acquired loans several times during the VSLA cycle had increased.

Result 4 Indicator 3 Indicator At least 80% of producers, traders and processors who have accessed loans from VSLAs/FFIs service the loans as per schedule by July 2014

The number and value of outstanding loans and the average loan size per borrower were also higher at endline than at baseline. Each VSLA had 20 outstanding loans at endline compared to 15 outstanding loans at baseline. The average value of outstanding loans was UGX 900,000 higher at endline than at baseline, with the largest increment in loan portfolio observed in Teso sub region. All these variables point towards healthy VSLAs which are serving the micro-finance needs of their customers as anticipated at the start of the programme.

32

ALREP PMU endline survey

Programme Completion Report

Page | 53 Programme Completion Report 53

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

5.5 Result 5: Local Governments Strengthened 5.5.1

Implementation Modalities

Result 5 aimed at strengthening capacity of the production departments of local governments. All activities were part of the District Capacity Building Work Plans (DCBWP) that were agreed with the 15 districts during the inception period. The activities focused on infrastructure development and functionality, technical training of district staff and facilitation for district and community monitoring and supervision.

Implementation was carried out through works, services and supply contracts, in most cases concluded through open competitive bidding. The PMU executed two tenders for works contracts comprising of in total 42 lots33. Due to the cancellation and re-launch of the first tender, the first works contracts were only signed in April 2013, 3 months before the expiry of PE3. All these contracts were eventually transferred to PE4. In November 2013, the second batch of 15 work contracts was signed. All works but one were provisionally accepted by the end of PE4.

ALREP launched 11 supply tenders, some open local and some restricted, for the supply of solar equipment, furniture, and IT equipment. All tenders were successful and the goods were supplied before the end of PE4.

The construction of 5 Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) was done through a cash transfer to the Department of Meteorology (DoM) in the Ministry of Water and Environment, who carried out the works using the force account method. The cooperation was formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of the Prime Minister and the Department of Meteorology.

The PMU financed monitoring and coordination activities of the districts through cash transfers. These activities included payments to Project Monitoring Committees (PMC),monitoring allowances for technical staff and political leaders, and facilitation of district review meetings, quarterly monitoring meetings and inter district coordination meetings.

5.5.2

Result 5: Summary of Activities and Outputs

Construction / Rehabilitation of District and Sub county Offices ALREP undertook 30 construction projects in relation to district capacity building. Table 37 lists the types of projects carried out under Result 5.

Table 37: Infrastructure under Result 5 Intervention District production office block Sub county production office blocks Agricultural / community centers Animal and plant diagnostic laboratory Fencing of production office block Weather stations Border Warehouse Total infrastructure projects

Total Units 6 14 2 1 1 5 1 30

The district PD office block in Amuru district was not completed before the end of PE4, due to the contractor abandoning the site. The contract was terminated, with the building at roofing level.

Functionality of all office blocks was achieved through the installation of solar power systems, and the provision of office furniture and IT equipment.

The construction of the Border Warehouse in Elegu at the South Sudan border was specifically requested and constructed for the Amuru DLG to facilitate border trade. The warehouse has a capacity of 1,300 m3, and is rented out by the DLG to a private sector operator.

The 5 automatic weather stations were constructed at the district headquarters of Agago, Kitgum, Amuru, Otuke and Apac. Although originally not foreseen in the DCBWPs, ALREP was decided to co-finance the

33

The two tenders mixed works contracts for Result 2 and Result 5

Page | 54 54 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

construction by the Department of Meteorology (DoM), because they had state-of-the-art weather station equipment, but lacked the funds to do the installation. The DoM will retain, operate and maintain the AWS for not less than 10 years.

In cooperation with district and sub county offices ALREP formed and trained 197 Project Management Committees (PMC)34 with 1,172 members for monitoring ALREP construction activities on a daily basis.

For the monitoring of District PD offices no PMCs were formed, as the works could be monitored daily by the resident district engineer/CoWs. PMCs were selected by the communities from within the project area after the district and ALREP sensitised the communities about the projects. PMC members were trained on basic construction techniques to enable them detect poor performances in terms of workmanship, and quality of materials.

The PMCs were facilitated with meals and airtime allowances of UGX 7,000 per day and 01 bicycle each as means of transportation.

District Functionality Table 38 summarises the various functionality projects for Production Total Units Departments carried out by ALREP. 25 Office functionality improvements assorted applied to offices built by ALREP and 262 to already existing offices. For 100 example, of the 25 solar power units, 1 17 were installed on newly 110 constructed offices while 8 were assorted installed on existing sub county 1,650 offices in Kitgum. The solar systems were needed to power the IT equipment and internet connections and laboratory facilities, also provided

by ALREP.

Table 38: Supply contracts for district functionality Classification Intervention Office power Solar power installations Office equipment Assorted furniture Office equipment IT equipment Motorcycles Transport Motor Vehicles for OPM Weighing scales for trade officers Equipment Agricultural equipment & tools TseTse fly traps

To improve service delivery to farmers, ALREP provided 100 Motorbikes, for subcounty and production offices.

PD Training Table 39: Trainings under DCBWPs – Result 5 Trainings Training of grantees and districts in programme management PMC trainings Community sensitization, PMC formation and training Baseline survey and M&E training for IPs and districts O&M training of DLG staff IT computer trainings for DLG staff Training on local revenue enhancement

No. of trainings 1 20 48 1 3 6 1

Table 39 given an overview of the trainings carried out by ALREP. Trainings were for district staff or for Programme Management Committees. Trainings for district staff were carried by the PMU and local consultants, whereas trainings for PMCs were conducted by the staff of the district engineering, production and community service department. The trainings in computer use included the political district Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) leaders as well as technical staff.

All trainings were based on approved training manuals.

34

These include PMCs for Result 2 and Result 5

Monitoring and coordination

Programme Report activities were directly organized and financed by the PMU. Page 55 Monitoring Completion and coordination The |key Programme Completion Report 55

stakeholders involved in regular monitoring and coordination were technical staff and political leaders at sub county and district level.

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Pro(UG/FED/2008/020-287) All trainingsgramme were based on approved training manuals.

Monitoring and coordination Monitoring and coordination activities were directly organized and financed by the PMU. The key stakeholders involved in regular monitoring and coordination were technical staff and political leaders at sub county and district level.

Table 40: Coordination meetings Type of meetings ALREP introductory meetings to the 15 districts during inception phase ALREP feedback meeting on ALREP implementation & introduction of ALREP IP District quarterly review meeting ALREP Inter District Coordination Meetings Districts work plans’ development meeting (DFPOs from Acholi and Lango) & Teso ALREP DCBWP review meetings Document review with DFPOs and induction of Clerks of Works District CoWs meetings on monitoring of construction works Planning meeting (DFPOs, CoWs & DFOs) on PMCs trainings & districts' accountabilities Clarification meetings with prospective contractors Planning meeting for IP output verification (DFPOs & CoWs) Facilitation of PRDP coordination meetings (Barazas)

No of meetings 15 15 15 6 2 15 1 1 1 10 1 2

The coordination and monitoring activities started during the inception period and continued throughout the lifespan of ALREP. Among the first of these activities were joint project field appraisals. These were carried out to establish the relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of proposed projects.

Whereas, district and sub county technical staff and political leaders were routinely facilitated to monitor ALREP activities, these monitoring missions did not take place on a quarterly basis. The main reason for this was the delay by the districts in accounting for funds previously provided, as ALREP would not disburse new funds to the districts before accountability of previous disbursements.

The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) and the National Authorising Office (NAO) in the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) were also facilitated for monitoring ALREP activities.

5.5.3

Result 5 Evidence of Results

Result 5 Indicator 1 Indicator % of production department reports required by district production coordinator, CAO and MAAIF submitted as per standards and on time by July 2014

The ALREP endline survey report notes that district leaders in the program area were largely satisfied with the quality and timeliness of DPD reports at endline. This is an improvement over the baseline, when none of the district leaders were fully satisfied with the reports of their staff. The slight improvement on this aspect over the lifespan of ALREP can be attributed to some extent to the increased availability of IT equipment (computers, internet facilities) and the impact of the trainings provided by ALREP to district staff.

The ALREP study35 on LG capacity building impacts found that 92% of respondents agree that service delivery had improved. The district staff attributed this largely to the capacity building support from 35Assessing ALREP’s contribution towards district local government capacity building in Northern Uganda, ALREP PMU

Page | 56

56

Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

ALREP. Production staff agreed that they are able to reach communities, compile reports using computers and office space to meet with clients.

Table 41: % of respondents affirming that service delivery improved and district capacity was built Assessment criteria Overall (%) Acholi (%) Lango (%) Teso (%) Improved service delivery (Yes) 92 93 97 80 Objectives achieved (Yes) 87 82 97 87

When asked whether the intended objectives have been met, 87% of the respondents agreed in affirmative. More respondents in Lango sub region (97%) believed that the intended objectives have been met while in Acholi the figure is 82%.

Result 5 Indicator 2 Indicator Increased adherence to MAAIF standards on disease surveillance and response, and input and produce quality controls by district and sub county production offices by July 2014

Surveys and observations indicate that district disease surveillance and input quality control systems are as yet not up to standard. The main reasons are budgetary and human resource limitations. During the baseline, the majority of the DPDs were thinly staffed, had very limited financial resources at their disposal, and lacked equipment and facilities for disease surveillance and diagnosis. Staff and budgetary issues were not addressed by ALREP, which explains why this indicator has not been met.

Result 5 Indicator 3 Indicator 50% of beneficiaries satisfied with the quality of services from Sub county & District Production Departments

by July 2014

This indicator was met. The ALREP endline survey36found that the % of beneficiary HHs that acknowledge receiving DPD services was substantially increased at the endline as compared to the baseline. For example, 54% of beneficiary HHs received a DPD service of some sort (disease control, extension-research farmer, weather forecast, market information, pest control or veterinary service) at endline compared to only 43% at the baseline. The improvement in DPD services reported by HHs was corroborated by the communities through community FGDs, where an increased number of communities rated the quality of services they received from the DPDs as good (57%) at endline compared to the baseline (41%).

Figure 17: Quality of DPD services received by communities Poor Baseline

Overall

25%

Good

52%

Lango

31%

27%

8%

Teso 0%

51%

35%

55%

44% 9%

Acholi

33%

54% 22%

Lango

41% 14%

14%

Overall

Excellent

34%

Teso Acholi

Endline

Fair

6%

0%

56% 41%

48% 68%

24%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The quality of services received from the DPD was compared by the communities on a qualitative scale of “poor” to “excellent”. The findings indicate that a higher proportion of communities rated the services they received as good in quality at the endline (55%) than at baseline (41%), suggesting improvement in

36ALREP endline survey report, FAO

Programme Completion Report

Page | 57 Programme Completion Report 57

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

service delivery by DPDs. The communities that rated the services received “good” in quality were highest in Acholi at 68%, followed by Teso at 56% and then Lango at 48%, at endline.

5.1 Cross cutting Issues ALREP had the following principles which were applied across all its interventions:-

1. Integrated planning and budgeting- Close liaison with officials: Government and indeed DLGs have a mandate to provide quality services to all the people under their respective authorities.

Though ALREP is a GoU programme, its budget is not coming from the consolidated funds. Just like other development partners of government, ALREP had to ensure that all the activities of its IPs are captured in the district plans in fulfilment of this provision. ALREP got involved in the district budgeting and activity review meetings. It shared its FY budgets for the respective districts and distributed its progress report to all the key district leaders. This cooperation helped in a majority of cases to improve the relationship between ALREP and the districts.

2. Encourage community participation: This was expressed in many ways during ALREP implementation. Communities were represented by the representatives they selected to organise them during LIW sessions and provide leadership in the maintenance of completed projects. The elected people were either members of the Project Management Committees (PMCs) which monitored all ALREP construction sites, the Water User Committees WUC) and the road gangs. These were selected by the local communities where the projects were located and trained in basic construction skills as well as operation and maintenance of the facilities. This enabled many of them to understand the importance of the project to them and this resulted in the tight monitoring of implementation by the communities.

3. Consequence: The participation of the local community in the planning and monitoring of ALREP interventions helped build the sense of ownership of the final output.

4. HIV/AIDs and disability awareness towards workers/users: One of the factors concerning HIV/AIDS awareness is that there should be no discrimination of someone who has the disease.

The criteria for selection for participation did not exclude any person living with HIV/AIDS. ALREP upheld the law relating to construction of user friendly infrastructure and a clear example of this was the inclusion of sloped ramps in all ALREP constructions to allow easy access to buildings and grab bars in the VIP latrines by people with disabilities.

5. Consequence: All ALREP buildings have easy access for people suffering from a disability and there was no internal discrimination.

6. Gender sensitivity towards workers and community: ALREP was an equal opportunities employer in line with GoU policies and the PMU team worked as one regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other personal differences. We expected our IPs to act in a similar way, both in their selection procedures of beneficiaries and in their reporting. Indeed all reporting was where relevant disaggregated by gender.

7. Consequence – The majority of the direct beneficiaries of LIWs were women. Therefore, the majority of the cash was going into the hands of women who have been shown to concentrate their spending on home and family support. The majority of FFS members were also women.

8. Environment Protection (“EU Green Development”): The PMU registered with the Uganda Carbon Bureau (UCB) at the start of ALREP to obtain advice on how to reduce carbon emissions and to offset carbon emmisions through buying carbon credits to support tree planting Southern Uganda. As a consequence of these two steps ALREP received “Carbon Neutral” status for three of its years of operation (2011 to 2013). For the case of the NGO partners and FAO PMU demanded including environmental and cross cutting measures.

9. Consequence –With ALREP funding over 350 acres of woodlots were planted.

Page | 58 58 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

6 PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY 6.1 Implementation against timelines 6.1.1

PMU start up and operations

A measure of efficiency is the speed at which the PMU was made operational. This can be inferred from the staff establishment over time.

18 16 14 12 10 STAFF 8 6 4 2 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 PMU

CEM

COMBINED

Figure 18: Staff establishment of the PMU by TAT and OPM staff per quarter

Figure 18 shows that by the 3rd quarter in programme implementation the PMU was largely staffed, and remained practically fully staffed from the 4th quarter up to the end of the PE4 operational period. In Q11 the assistant engineer left and was not replaced.

The TAT was fully established during the 1st quarter. This was possible because all the ALREP TAT staff37 was already working in OPM. For two quarters they doubled as TAs for a previous programme and as TAs for ALREP38.

At the closure of the PE4 operational period, some essential staff necessary for closing ALREP were incorporated in the TAT service contract. This kept the team operational, and has made it possible to complete reporting and audits before the end of the implementation period of the FA.

6.1.2

Commitment schedule

Figure 19 shows how quickly the PMU started to roll out its commitments. It is important to note that within the 1st quarter of the implementation period, the TAT contract was signed and operational. This was possible because TAT contracting was done under the flexible procedures, to catch up with the time lost in negotiating the implementation modalities. In Q3 already 30% of the funds were contracted, primarily because of the TAT service contract and the SCA, for which the negotiations started already during the 1st month of implementation.

Q4-6 saw little movement in contracting. In this period tenders for the grants and works contracts were launched and evaluated. The contracts were signed in Q7 and Q8. By Q8, almost 70% of the funds were contracted, and from then onwards, continuous contracting of smaller imprest contracts took place until 100% commitment was reached in the last quarter of the PE4 implementation period.

37

The two TAT staff in the Kampala liaison office were spending 60% of their time on ALREP and 40% on KALIP. The TAT establishment is therefore slightly overestimated in this figure.

38 The TAT for ALREP was paid from another programme up to 1 January 2011. This reduced the TAT staff costs substantially

Programme Completion Report

Page | 59 Programme Completion Report 59

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Figure 19: Cumulative % of the total value of programmatic contracts committed during programme implementation

6.2 Financial Performance 6.2.1

FA commitments

By the end of the reporting period, 17 commitments were made under ALREP. One additional commitment will be made for the final audit of ALREP and KALIP, for an estimated amount of â‚Ź80,000. By the time of writing this report, 7 had been closed in CRIS. Of all the CRIS commitments, 4 were imprest commitments (PEs) with OPM and 13 were grants, service and supply contracts. Of the latter, 7 were programmatic grant/SCA contracts, 1 was a programmatic supply contract, 1 was a programmatic service contract, 1 was a TA service contract, and 3 were audit service contracts.

Table 42: Commitment status under FA UG/FED/2008/020-287 in â‚Ź at 31 September 2014 Commitment Title Contracted Paid Balance 2010/244-927 Start-up PE 156,217.32 156,217.32 0.00 2010/247-838 TA services 1,452,700.00 1,307,430.00 145,270.00 2010/257-037 PE2 591,245.58 591,245.58 0.00 2011/259-910 SCA FAO 4,046,108.00 4,003,231.00 42,877.00 2011/260-619 Systems audit E&Y 21,590.06 21,590.06 0.00 2011/268-544 Fin audit PE1 12,490.00 12,490.00 0.00 2011/276-802 PE3 2,751,363.46 2,751,363.46 0.00 2012/284-489 ACTED 1,300,000.00 1,051,952,11 248,047.89 2012/284-490 AVSI 1,168,921.07 1,051,579.50 117,341.57 2012/284-491 CESVI 1,220,000.00 1,083,815.70 136,184.30 2012/284-492 ASB 590,000.00 579,192.50 10,807.50 2012/291-422 PSFU 340,000.00 275,849.94 64,150.06 2012/299-928 CESVI 490,000.00 424,799.81 65,200.19 2013/309-712 PE4 4,741,585.15 4,291,012.64 450,572.51 2013/309-793 Supply of m-cycles 222,285.00 222,285.00 0.00 2013/313-771 CESVI 494,827.45 335,076.30 159,751.15 2013/325-750 Audit PE3 6,250.00 6,250.00 0.00 Total on FA 19,605,583.09 18,165,391.81 1,440,202.17

Status Closed Ongoing Closed Ongoing Closed Closed Closed Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Pending Closed Ongoing Closed

The FA commitments contributed to the FA budget lines as per figure 20 below. The figure shows that BL 1 was financed from the SCA, one grant with CESVI, and in a small measure by imprest service contracts for environmental training and carbon offsetting through PEs. BL 2 was financed from 4 grants with INGOs, and works contracts through PEs. BL 3 was financed from the service contracts with PSFU and the small grant contracts with processors and input dealers from PE4. BL 4 was partly financed from the SCA and partly from an imprest service contract with CARE International. DLG support was to large extent paid Page | 60 60 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

from the PEs, and some major supply contracts. Management was financed from PEs , the SCA (for the endline survey) and the third party service contract for TAT. The amount of €80,000 under the M&E BL is an estimation of the cost of the final evaluation.

Million Euros

4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Producti Producti Input Agricult DLG Manage on and ve and ural producti infrastru output capacity ment finance vity cture markets

M&E*

Commu nication and visibility

Audits

SCA

3.52

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

GRANTS

0.98

4.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SUPPLIES

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SERVICES

0.00

0.00

0.34

0.00

0.00

1.45

0.08

0.00

0.04

PEs

0.14

2.19

1.12

0.18

1.66

2.05

0.00

0.10

0.00

Figure 20: Distribution of costs over types of commitments

6.2.2

Fund absorption

Table 42 shows the status of all contracts. By 20 February 2015, of the €20 million EU contribution, €19,605,583.09 (98.039%) was committed, of which €18,165,391.81 (92.7%) was paid out to contractors and OPM. Out of the total committed amount, we forecast that the total balance on contracts to be paid out is €18,707,000. This brings the forecasted EU fund absorption to 92.1%. Figure 21 shows the fund absorption for the grants and PE4. The graph shows that the grants practically absorb all the funds. Fund absorption in PE4 will fall short of €672,000 because of the low absorption of agro-processors grants. This is the major reason why fund absorption in ALREP falls below the targeted 95%.

5.00 Million Euros

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Budget

4.05

0.66

1.35

ACTED

CESVI 1

CESVI 2

CESVI 3

PE 4

4.05

0.65

1.35

1.44

1.44

0.58

0.55

4.29

1.44

1.35

0.58

0.55

3.66

Actual Expenditure Figure 21: Fund absorption of grants and PE in € millions

39

As per the EU CRIS card of 20 February 2015

Programme Completion Report

Page | 61 Programme Completion Report 61

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Fund absorption is modestly increased by foreign exchange losses. Overall the fund absorption should still be considered high.

Figure 22 also shows the contributions of the grantees to the programme. Combined with the GoU contribution in taxes, other funding sources in addition to EU funding amount to €1,286,213. That brings the total expenditure by the programme to €19,710,362 out of a total combined budget of €21,286,213. If other funding sources are included, fund absorption increases to 92.6% of expenditure.

The exceptionally high absorption is attributed to the following factors:

1. The development of a clear financing plan for all commitments during the inception period aided in fast tracking the procurement and contracting process.

2. Timely procurement and contracting processes. Most of the tenders had been concluded by September 2012, providing adequate time for implementation, monitoring and supervision.

3. In instances where contractors were terminated, there was sufficient time to retender and engage new contractors. Whereas they were a few challenges in tendering at the start, the support and assistance from all stakeholders, the use of flexible procedures and granting of various derogations ensured the process was executed smoothly and effectively.

4. Excellent support from the desk officer in the EU Delegation, in pushing the extension of the D+3 date, derogations, and procurement and payments that required endorsement by the EUD as fast as possible through the system.

5. Strict contract management helped to ensure that practically all contractors remained on track, and led to high fund absorption under the grantees.

6. The possibility of advance pre-financing for most of the contractors provided significant funding to most of the contractors and implementing partners to kick start implementation. In addition, availability of funds and timely payments for certified works, motivated contractors to expedite and complete works.

7. The supportive and technical assistance provided to implementing partners and contractors equipped them with the relevant skills and knowledge to implement EDF contracts. As a result, most grantees immediately embarked on implementing their activities and delved less into Partners, GoU, implementation and management challenges.

0.74, 4% 0.55, 3%

EU, 18.42, 93%

The contribution from implementing partners was in respect of counterpart funding while the GoU contribution was in respect to VAT payments for goods, services and works, above the €5,000 threshold set by the EUD. In the final analysis, the EU contribution to the programme was 93%, while GoU and implementing partners contributed 3% and 4% respectively towards total expenditure (Figure 22).

Figure 23 shows how the own contributions by grantees and the GoU impacted on the Figure 22: Distribution of funding sources in % by programmatic budget lines. In particular BL 1 and 2 categories benefitted substantially from the contribution of the grantees, whereas BL 5 benefitted in particular from the VAT contribution by GoU. The grantees’ contributions amounted to €739,626. This is a considerable contribution to the programme, and pays in part for the management costs that the grantees charge to the grant. Overall, therefore, because of the own contribution of grantees, grant contracts may turn out to be a cost-effective implementation modality.

Page | 62 62 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Million Euroas

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Production and productivity

Productive infrastructu re

Input and output markets

Agricultural finance

DLG capacity

Manageme nt

EU contribution

4.64

6.26

1.42

0.68

1.83

3.47

Other funding

0.14

0.96

0.00

0.00

0.18

0.00

Figure 23: Budget versus spending by funding sources (million €)

6.2.3

Expenditure versus budget

The spending against the BLs in the FA is shown in the graph below. It shows that EU contribution spending is very close to the FA budget. The overspending on the BL 1 and 2 is due to the IPs own contribution. The DLG budget is overrun because of the GoU contribution in VAT payments.

8.00 7.00 Million Euros

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Production Productive and infrastruct productivit ure y

Input and output markets

Agricultur al finance

DLG capacity

Managem ent

M&E*

Communic ation and visibility

Audits

FA Budget

4.69

6.51

2.21

0.73

2.00

3.55

0.09

0.10

0.08

Total spending

4.78

7.23

1.42

0.68

2.01

3.47

0.00

0.10

0.04

Figure 24: Budget and expenditure by result in million €

The balance of €90,000 on the M&E BL is likely to be spent on the final programme evaluation.

6.2.4

Distribution of expenditure by category

6.2.4.1 Goal Oriented versus Programme Management Costs Implementation comprised of both direct costs which related to programmatic activities and overhead costs which are associated with support services, administration and management. At FA level, the operational costs are defined by PMU costs, evaluations, audits and visibility on the one hand, and all costs related to the programmatic budget lines (BL 1-5) on the other hand. Using this division, the costs for management and operation constitutes 19.6% of the overall EU contribution.

It is possible to make a further breakdown of the operational costs hidden in the grants and SCA. The standard budget structure for grants and SCAs has BLs 1-5 for operational costs, and BL 6 for other costs.

For the purpose of a more detailed analysis, expenditures on BL 1-5 were included in the operational costs as defined in the previous paragraph. The result is shown in the figure 25 below.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 63 Programme Completion Report 63

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Administrative Costs 3.4%

Taxes 0.2%

Human Resources 24.0% Travel 2.8% Equipment and Supplies 2.0%

Programmatic Activities 59.1%

Planning, Local Office Monitoring, 4.8% Evaluation, Audits & Visibility 3.7%

Figure 25: Distribution of all programme costs by cost centre

A total of 59% (€11.3 million) was spent directly on beneficiaries40, whereas 41% was spent on operations.

The main cost category in operations is staff, which makes up 24% of the total costs of the programme; second come office costs with 5%. If the TA component is removed from the staff costs, the remaining staff costs would amount to 18% of total expenditure41.

Whereas generally efficient programme management aims at maximizing transfers to beneficiaries, there are no international benchmarks on what would be a good or not so good number. This depends for example on the type of programme (capital intensive such as road or bridge construction will have a much low overhead than farmer training), the size and accessibility of operational area, and the requirements for more or less specialised human resources (field facilitators are cheaper than specialized international engineers), and start-up costs (ALREP’s start-up costs were relatively low because the programme inherited transport, computers and infrastructure from its predecessors).

The best that can be done is to make a comparison between ALREP and other programmes of a similar nature. For example, the Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Project42 (ALREP 143) implemented by the Food and Agricultural Organization between July 2007 and April 2010 in Northern Uganda spent 51% on programmatic costs versus 49% on programme management costs. ALREP compares well to this example.

One could also look at ALREP’s sister programme KALIP (Table 43). This comparison makes sense, because both programmes were implemented in the same period and have largely comparable objectives and activities.

Table 43: A comparison of overheads for similar commitments in ALREP and KALIP Modality Overhead ALREP Overhead KALIP SCA FAO 38.65% 39.19% Grants 42.54% 37.41% PEs 29.50% 38.22%

The table shows that ALREP had a slightly lower overhead overall than KALIP. This can be explained by the greater distance from Kampala, more difficult terrain in Karamoja, and higher costs of supplies in Karamoja as compared to Northern Uganda. In both cases, however, the overheads are comparable. This

40

Profits made in works, services and supply contracts are in this analysis considered to be a programmatic expenditure MAAIF recurrent budget for the period 2000-2007 shows employee costs of 26% 42 Final evaluation of the Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Project (ALREP), November 2010 43 th Not to be confused with the sister programme of KALIP in the 10 EDF: ALREP 41

Page | 64 64 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

means that the more difficult conditions under which KALIP operated had no large impact on the operational costs.

The other basis of comparison between KALIP and ALREP would be the unit cost for similar activities. The table below shows the minimum, maximum and average unit cost in Euros for similar and comparable activities and outputs implemented under both programmes.

Table 44: Comparison costs (€) of outputs between KALIP and ALREP 44 ACTIVITY/OUTPUT KALIP Min Max 45 APFS/FFS cost per beneficiary 203 Training a facilitator on APFS methodology 538 Training of WUC 83 115 Cost of training in VSLA methodology 49 58 Borehole 6,157 Rain Water Jar 1,040 1 Km of community access 3,274 4,007 Grain/Seed Store 11,578 Desilt Water Pond 1,185 Production office 34,770

ALREP Max 143 392 125 113 142 4,871 8,219 351 4,238 4,535 10,743 1,714 34,580

Cheaper

Min

ALREP ALREP KALIP KALIP ALREP ALREP KALIP ALREP KALIP ALREP

The striking difference is the costs per APFS member, which is 70% higher in Karamoja than in Northern Uganda. This is probably due to economies of scale, the number of FFS was twice as high in ALREP than in KALIP, and because of the generally higher cost of operating in Karamoja. For the rest, the costs for similar activities in KALIP and ALREP do not differ very much. This could indicate that in both programme a fair market price was paid.

6.2.5

Value for money

The value for money analysis focuses on the question if the deliverables were procured at a fair market prices, and the total cost of the programme are commensurate with the value of the results, outcomes and impact.

The FFS assessment report, makes an attempt to quantify the investment in a FFS member and compares it with the members’ perceived financial gain from enrolling in the FFS programme. If the total cost of the SCA is divided by the number of FFS members, the investment cost per FFS member is €143. When non related FFS activities are excluded the cost per members amounts to approximately UGX 300,000. Table 45 shows the cost/benefit assessment based on the cost of establishing new FFS groups and benefits reported by FFS members in FGDs. Table 45: Cost/benefit assessment Particulars Cost per member/cut-off (UGX) Percentage above cut/off

Teso 300,000 33%

Acholi 300,000 50%

33% of the respondents in Teso and 50% in Acholi believed that their immediate benefits from the FFS was more than UGX 300,000. This means that close to half of the members have recouped the investment before the end of the programme. This is not necessarily a poor result given the short actual implementation period of about two seasons. It is also not inconsistent with theories of adoption and diffusion (early adopters do not usually exceed 30%). Ideally, the number above the cut off will expand over time as knowledge and technologies are diffused and food security and incomes are enhanced, and as livestock numbers increase, seed is further multiplied and distributed and other IGPs bring in more money to members.

44 45

Source: Grant final expenditure verification reports Based on the total value of the SCAs. This also includes other activities, such as the PMU baseline and endline surveys, and for KALIP the training and equipping of CAHWs

Programme Completion Report

Page | 65 Programme Completion Report 65

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery ProNorthern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) gramme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

We also looked at the average costs of office construction against a benchmark for this type of buildings Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) communicated to us by an independent contractor, who estimates the square meter cost of a simple office building of €costs 200 –of240.

Theconstruction average square meter cost of a sub orof production We also lookedinatthe therange average office against a benchmark for county this type buildings 46 office building constructed ALREP was €182 , whereby most expensive office was cost €215ofper communicated to us by anbyindependent contractor, whothe estimates the square meter a square simple meter and the cheapest was € 147 per square meter.

This means that the cost of ALREP office office building in the range of € 200 – 240. The average square meter cost of a sub county or production 46 construction square meter was considerably thanthe themost benchmark. office buildingper constructed

by ALREP was €182 ,lower whereby expensive office was €215 per square meter and the cheapest was € 147 per square meter. This means that the cost of ALREP office 6.2.6 Own Resources construction per square meter was considerably lower than the benchmark.

The PMU generated €30,515.90in own resources. Figure 26 below shows the sources.

6.2.6

Own Resources

Recalled

Sale of

6,332 Recalled guarantees, 6,332

17,941 Sale of tenders, 17,941

The PMU generated €30,515.90in own resources. Figure 26 below shows the sources. guarantees, tenders,

Insurance compensatio n, 6,242 Insurance Figure 26: Distributioncompensatio of own resources by source n, 6,242

Sales of tenders constituted the biggest income for ALREP. The own resources were not used and will Figure 26: Distribution of own resources by source revert to the EDF. Sales resources of tendersweconstituted income for ALREP. TheOPM ownestate, resources were not used Own scheduled the to bebiggest used for maintenance of the for re-contracting in and caseswill of revert to the EDF. terminated contracts. However, the funds in the PE proved to be sufficient to finance these activities. At the end, only €15,000 of own used to cover additional staff costs during the closure Own resources we scheduled to resources be used forwere maintenance of the OPM estate, for re-contracting in cases of period. terminated contracts. However, the funds in the PE proved to be sufficient to finance these activities. At the end, only €15,000 of own resources were used to cover additional staff costs during the closure period.

46

Calculated at a € rate of 3,250

Page | 66 46

Programme Completion Report

Calculated at a € rate of 3,250

66 Programme Completion Report Page | 66

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

7 PROGRAMME OUTCOMES AND IMPACT 7.1 Evidence of Outcomes and Impacts Purpose: The war affected population of Northern Uganda engage in productive and profitable agricultural and agri business activities to ensure food security and increase household income Overall Goal: The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and to increased economic growth of the region and Uganda

Purpose Indicator 1 Indicator At least 85% of households in target communities in Acholi, and 66% in Teso are food secure by July 2014

Household food security was measured with the ALREP endline survey, and the IP surveys. The parameters used in the surveys were HHs recollection of the number of months with inadequate HH food provisioning, and the number of meals a day during the last 7 days.

Table 46: Proportion of households with inadequate food provisioning (ALREP HH survey) 47 MIHFP Acholi Teso Category Baseline Endline: Endline: NonBaseline Endline: Beneficiary beneficiary Beneficiary 0 7% 5% 5% 9% 7% 1 to 3 54% 46% 42% 74% 87% 4 to 6 34% 31% 33% 16% 5% >=7 5% 18% 20% 1% 1%

Endline: Nonbeneficiary 8% 88% 4% 0%

The months that were mentioned as having inadequate food for consumption were largely three (May, June and July). Even then, the households (both beneficiary and non-beneficiary) that mentioned little food to consume in these months was slightly lower at endline than at baseline, suggesting an improvement in food access, one of the main pillars of food security.

Overall, the average number of months with inadequate household food provisioning reduced among households from 2.4 at baseline to 1.7 at endline, in Acholi. In Teso, the MIHFP remained more or less the same at endline compared to the baseline (Table 47).

Table 47: Average MIHFP (ALREP HH survey) Parameter

Sum of MIHFP Number of HHs Average MIHFP [Sum(MIHFP)/# of HHs]

Baseline Acholi 1,088 400 2.4

Teso 1,234 400 3.3

Endline: Beneficiary Acholi Teso 1054 736 623 218 1.7 3.4

Endline: Nonbeneficiary Acholi Teso 934 664 551 181 1.7 3.7

The final evaluation of the AVSI grant found that 27% of the HH in Acholi East experienced no months of food scarcity in the last year, despite a poor harvest, and 78% of all households had two or more meals per day in the week before the survey was taken.

Three of the IPs included in their baseline and endline surveys a question about the number of meals per day during the last 7 days. It is important to note that the timing of the baseline and the endline surveys has an impact on the findings, in that throughout the year there are more food secure periods just at harvesting time, and more food insecure periods just before harvesting time. For the Acholi survey the 47

Month with Inadequate Household Food Provisioning

Programme Completion Report

Page | 67 Programme Completion Report 67

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

baseline was done during a scarce period and the endline during the harvesting, and needs to be considered in that context.

Table 48: % of HH consuming meals per day in the last 7 days in Lango, Teso and Acholi 48 49 50 Teso Lango Acholi Number of meals BL Survey EL Survey BL Survey EL Survey BL Survey EL Survey One 55 32 28 8 32 21 Two 45 60 64 78 64 65 Three 7 15 4.3 15

Table 48 above shows a market increase in the number of meals per day for all three regions.

The various surveys seem to indicate that there is a general trend towards less months with food insecurity and more meals per day for the last 7 days. Although the data do not conclusively state that 85% of the HHs are food secure throughout the year, it is safe to conclude that food security in the operational areas of ALREP has improved.

To what extent can the improvement in food security be attributed to ALREP? The PMU tried to answer that question during the LIW topical survey, by asking participants of LIW projects how these had contributed to their livelihoods and food security (Figure 27).

The figure shows that no beneficiary failed to realise improvement in their livelihoods and food security situation as a result of participating in ALREP LIWs. No Dramatic contribution, Half of the respondents realised some contribution, 0% 6% improvement, the other 50% is taken up by LIW beneficiaries that indicate a big or dramatic contribution. This assessment implies that at least in the short-term ALREP’s LIWs component had some noticeable impact on livelihoods and food security.

Big contribution, 44%

Some contribution, 50%

Figure 27: % respondents indicating the impact of LIWs on their livelihoods and food security

Purpose Indicator 2 Indicator Average indexed household income of target communities, disaggregated by gender and district, increased by 100% by July 2014

Parameters Assets owned by HHs Quality of housing Amount of savings and credits

The ALREP HH baseline and endline surveys measured a number household wealth indicators. With respect to HH-assets, the surveys looked at housing quality and basic HH items (Table 49).

The change in ownership of bicycles, radios and mobile phones was negligible at the endline when compared with the baseline. A 3% increment in ownership of motor cycles was reported among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike at endline. Likewise, little change was observed in housing conditions save for a small increment in the number of beneficiary households that have upgraded to mud-wattle-iron sheet housing. There was very little change in the material used to construct the roofs.

This increase in the construction of brick walls is of significant value to the community, as it allows house construction to be more durable and resistant to the elements.

48Endline survey report for the ALREP project implemented in the districts of Amuria and Katakwi 49Final evaluation of building infrastructures and livelihoods for development (BUILD), May 2014 – The Permanent Centre for Education 50ACTED endline report, August 2014, ACTED:

Page | 68 68 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Table 49: % of HHs mentioning ownership of assets and quality of dwelling in Acholi and Teso HH assets Acholi Teso EL EL NonEL EL NonBL BL Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Ownership of assets Bicycle 66 72 65 75 72 62 Radio 62 62 58 63 57 52 Motorcycle 2 5 5 2 5 5 Phone 42 43 36 36 38 36 Quality of dwelling Bricks-grass thatch 43 45 49 71 39 52 Bricks-iron sheet 8 3 3 5 9 6 Mud-wattle-grass 51 46 43 25 47 41 thatch Mud-wattle-iron 1 6 5 2 5 1 sheet

For Acholi West, Acted collected similar data in their baseline and endline surveys about assets and wealth ranking51 (Table 50).

Table 50: % of HHs mentioning wealth indicators in their HHs Type of Asset House Roof Iron sheets Thatched Tiles House wall Mud Bricks Own Car transport Motorcycle Bicycle None Household High wealth Medium rank Low

Baseline Survey 5 95 0 96 4 0 5 39 56 13 25 62

Endline Survey 6 94 0 53 46 1 11 41 47 3 52 45

Although not spectacular, there are some improvements in critical assets, for example in brick housing and ownership of a motorcycle.

In terms of wealth ranking, the increase in the medium bracket of substantial, and the drop in high ranking is rather puzzling. wealth rank.

The number of households with cash savings at the endline compared to the baseline is shown in figure 28. Across the board, beneficiary HHs seem to save more and have increased their savings between the baseline and the endline survey. Beneficiaries with some savings were 17% more than non-beneficiaries with savings in Teso. In Acholi, 26% of beneficiary households did not have savings at endline compared to 39% of nonbeneficiaries and 40% of households at baseline.

Teso

Endline: Non-beneficiary Endline: Beneficiary

19%

9%

Baseline

Acholi

Endline: Beneficiary 2% Baseline 0%

5% 6%

57%

19%

20%

11000 to 50000 51000 to 100000

40%

None

26%

36% 10%

>100000

39%

19%

17%

18% 14%

56%

15%

23%

1000 to 10000

8%

7%

20%

12%

Endline: Non-beneficiary 3%

73%

3% 5%

14%

6%

40%

18%

60%

80%

100%

% of households

Figure 28: % of HHs in 5 levels of savings

The average savings amount was highest among beneficiary households in Acholi at endline at about UGX 430,000. This was more than double the savings amount recorded at baseline in Acholi. In Teso, the increase in beneficiary savings amount was 30% higher, but this amounts to only about UGX 30,000. The beneficiaries in both Acholi and Lango had higher cash savings than non-beneficiaries at endline. In fact, 51 ACTED endline report, August 2014, ACTED

Programme Completion Report

Page | 69 Programme Completion Report 69

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

beneficiary savings were close to or more than double the non-beneficiary savings in Acholi and Teso (Table 51).

Table 51: HH savings parameters Parameters % of HHs with savings Average savings/HH (UGX) Maximum savings/HH (UGX) Minimum savings/HH (UGX)

60% 189,024

Acholi EL Beneficiary 71% 430,377

EL non beneficiary 61% 196,955

10,000,000

8,000,000

15,000,000

200

1,000

2,000

BL

BL 42% 90,67 5 2,500 ,000 500

Teso EL Beneficiary 43% 117,216

EL non beneficiary 27% 69,776

2,000,000

700,000

2,500

5,000

The proportion of beneficiary households with debt was higher than that at baseline. The average debt amount owed by beneficiary households increased by about UGX 20,000 in Acholi and UGX 40,000 in Teso (Error! Reference source not found.). On the other hand, non-beneficiary households with debt and the average debt amount owed by them remained more or less the same at endline compared to the baseline. The higher debt amount by beneficiaries can be attributed to their membership of a VSLA. Table 52: Key parameters in relation to the debt position of HHs Acholi EL EL non BL Parameters Beneficiary beneficiary Households with debt (%) 27% 37% 19% Average debt amount (UGX) 41,838 58,100 63,541 Maximum debt (UGX) 600,000 500,000 Minimum debt (UGX) 1,000 5,000

BL 37% 75,089

Teso EL Beneficiary 48% 117,117 1,700,000 7,000

EL non beneficiary 34% 80,410 600,000 5,000

While the information collected by ALREP does not answer this indicator precisely, generally beneficiaries seem to have improved their cash position, but not their asset base as yet. Since the HH survey separates beneficiaries from non-beneficiaries, it is fair to conclude that differences between the two categories are attributable to ALREP interventions.

Impact Indicators Indicators % change in poverty rate in Acholi, Lango and Teso

% increase of agricultural GDP The PMU did not have reliable data to measure the achievement of the two impact indicators. However, the analysis above indicates that the agricultural sector and in particular at community level have benefitted from the programme.

During the regional closure workshop in Gulu the participants were asked how they rated the impact of ALREP. 95% of district leaders and IPs rated it good or excellent.

Poor Fair 1% 4% Excellent 45% Good 50%

The largerst number of beneficiaries are with 28,052 from the FFS component. During the FFS assessment the beneficiaries were asked: “How would you rate the changes that the FS has had on your livelihoods and wellbeing?” In determining if there had been ‘some change’ (a rating of 1) or a

Figure 29: % of participants of the ALREP regional ‘big change (a rating of 2), FFS members were asked to use a cut off figure of UGX 300,000 per member closure workshop rating ALREP's impact Page | 70 70 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

over the 18 months (cash and imputed from production). The results were then adjusted to account for variations within the FFSs, assuming based on feedback that in each group of 30 members, 5 really fell within a lower rating and 5 within a higher rating.

Table 53: Rating of overall impact on individual members Ratings (0 to 3) Result 0 Insignificant change 190/1,950 (9.74%) 1 Some change 895/1,950 (45.9%) 2 Big change 730/1,950 (37.44%) 3 Transformative change 135/1,950 (6.92%)

Average 1.4

There were slight variations between sub-regions: Teso rated 1.3, Acholi rated 1.5. These are reasonably strong results for an 18-month intervention. Farmers reported significant changes in: knowledge and attitudes (human capital), cooperation and belonging (social capital); savings and access to loans (financial capital); and assets including livestock (physical capital). They reported that food security had increased somewhat with relatively bigger gains in cash income.

The results underscore that change is a process, not a short-term output. Transformative change in particular takes a considerable time to realise. This is consistent with theories of adoption and diffusion.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 71 Programme Completion Report 71

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

8 PROGRAMME SUSTAINABILITY This section looks at project sustainability with the view of assessing the likelihood that the benefits received from ALREP can be maintained and continued after ALREP has closed down. We hereby look at how the received infrastructure and services are likely to become a permanent part of community resources and so they are not left to vandalism and neglect, among other abuses.

8.1 Ownership 8.1.1

Programme objectives and approach

ALREP was a special programme within OPM, which appointed a PMU to directly handle the affairs of ALREP. The TAT was contracted to provide technical assistance to the PMU. Having government employees manning the programme resulted in high level of trust and cooperation from government.

Poor 1%

Poor Fair 0% 6% Excellent 34%

Excellent 38%

Good 56%

Fair 13%

Good 52%

Figure 30: % of participants of the ALREP regional Figure 31: % of participants of the ALREP regional closure workshop rating ALREP's sustainability closure workshop rating ALREP's reporting and information sharing

At the implementation level, the district local governments played a key role in the planning and Fair 4% monitoring processes. Northern Uganda was represented by one of its district administrators in the ALREP Project Steering Committee and this Excellent ensured that they fully participated in the decision 44% making process. Districts were provided with the Good 51% means to help them monitor and coordinate ALREP activities in their districts. The existence of the programme office in the region (Gulu) made ALREP extremely approachable during its period of operation. Local government officials and other Figure 32: % of participants of the ALREP regional stakeholders from across Northern Uganda easily closure workshop rating ALREP on coordination, visited the office and discussed issues at hand. The close links with the districts within Northern cooperation and communication Uganda were also strengthened due to the very inclusive manner in which the District Capacity Building Work Plan (DCBWP) was developed, the appointment of District Focal Point Officers (DFPOs) and Clerks of Works (CoWs) within the organisation of ALREP and the way in which ALREP pointed all IPs back to their host districts for planning, implementation and approval of their actions. This appreciation came out clearly from the district officials at the ALREP regional closure workshop held in November 2014, whereby a large majority of participants rated ALREP high on reporting, information sharing, cooperation and coordination, and communication.

Poor 1%

Programme Completion Report

Page | 73 Programme Completion Report 73

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

8.1.2

Programme Outputs

Ownership of the various infrastructure assets developed within ALREP has been mainly placed within the hands of the host districts or the recipient communities. ALREP signed MoU’s with each district in this regard and the IPs also signed MoUs with the districts. ALREP invested further in this by providing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) training for relevant district staff facilitated by a specialist team of O&M experts. Although such training does not guarantee effective maintenance of the ALREP infrastructure projects, it does mean that all concerned know what is necessary and can seek to mobilise the resources, i.e. materials, finances or people, to carry out the work.

8.2 Institutional sustainability ALREP approach of working with the available institutions should be the building blocks to ensure that all the supporting bodies are available to support project continuity. The DCBWP process was a response to the needs of the district and the communities that receive services from the government. All the outputs left behind by ALREP are therefore community facilities hence all institutions that are custodians of those facilities have a direct role to play in sustaining benefits from the assets. ALREP facilitated the establishment and training of user and management committees based in the communities to troubleshoot the maintenance needs and bring it to the attention of the leaders. The MTR mentioned that this is the basis of sustainability and states that “The use of PMCs in infrastructure monitoring also increases their commitment to the maintenance of the structure. Water User Committees are being established by NGOs. On the contrary the same MTR noted that “A number of INGOs still implement FFS directly. Sustainability would be enhanced if INGOs operated and implemented through local NGOs”.

Within Northern Uganda, the DCBWPs under Result 5 were only approved if what they contained was included within the District Development Plans. They were not isolated actions generated in response to a financial opportunity, but something carefully thought through by each district to support long term development. Such inclusion should mean that O&M is only included and perhaps it is in the plan, but when limited financial resources become apparent it is often these O&M lines that remain “unfunded”.

The ALREP PMU was available to support all the partners it worked with to ensure the success of ALREP including the NGOs, Local Government, Uganda Police Force, private contractors (for works, services and supplies) and even the FAO who might be considered to have sufficient existing capacity to deal with all the issues that ALREP implementation might entail.

For the IPs ALREP arranged two trainings on 10th EDF implementation and then on the closure of 10th EDF actions, for district contact was frequent, but the DFPOs were given a special training 10th EDF requirements such that they could guide their district counterparts and finally private contractors were supported to meet the requirements of the EDF and the ALREP Engineer was always available to advise once contracts had been awarded. To understand such procedures may help future business opportunities within the commercial sector, but also help to ensure that some of the issues faced by ALREP under the 10th EDF might not be faced as partners implement the 11th EDF.

8.3 Technical sustainability ALREP considered technical sustainability in the following ways:a)

ALREP carried out appraisal studies for each works project to confirm appropriateness of technology, social demand and preferred location before any action was started. b) Aim for highest quality possible within the budget and where possible exceeding the minimum specifications provided. A good example was the use of burnt bricks within the various structures that ALREP constructed which needed to pass a simple drop test – the PMCs were trained to able to carry out this test. c) ALREP and its IPs put a lot of emphasis on training the user representatives – the PMCs, water user committees - and district officials in the core principles of effective operation and maintenance.

Financial sustainability Page | 74 74 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

As mentioned previously, the actions of ALREP were implemented within District Development Plans (DDPs) and all IPs, and the ALREP PMU itself, signed MoUs with districts stating what they would construct or supply, but it was also clearly stated that it would be the beneficiaries who would take on the responsibility for operation and maintenance – mainly DLG. However, with the limited resources of DLG and the evidence from past provision of supplies, vehicles and infrastructure, this paper commitment might not be followed through on the ground.

Programme Completion Report

Page | 75 Programme Completion Report 75

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

9 FINAL REFLECTIONS ALREP has been a huge undertaking, with thousands of activities carried out over an area one-third the size of the UK. A lot can go wrong in such a programme, and some things did indeed not work out exactly as was planned. For example, one building was not completed and over €600,000 was not spent as planned on support to agro-processors.

That notwithstanding, the achievements of ALREP are substantial. The direct beneficiaries in terms of FFS members and LIW participants alone are 47,000 HHs. In addition, over 700 VSLA groups, outside the VSLAs supported under FFS and LIW, have been trained in financial literacy of which over 200 have been made bankable. Add to this the number of input dealers and agro processors, district officials and PMC members, and the number of direct beneficiary HHs reaches approximately 65,000.

It is fair to assume that some adoption of the imparted knowledge and skills will spread outside this core group of beneficiaries. To put a number to this is difficult, but if we assume that for every 5 direct benefiting HHs one additional HH picks up some of the knowledge and skills, we are looking at close to 80,000 HHs that have been directly or indirectly impacted by the programme. With and average family size of 6.5 persons, that corresponds to over 500,000 benefitting individuals. In other words, the € 20 million investment of ALREP comes down to €40 per benefitting individual.

The investments of ALREP in the region have undoubtly boosted the local business community. More than 40 local contractors and 100s of suppliers have financially benefitted from the programme, and some of them may also have learned something about tendering and contract management.

The impact of ALREP has not been lost on the district leadership. During the regional closure workshop, all the scores in the questionnaire for all 87 respondents were averaged to measure the overall assessment of ALREP performance across all stakeholders. 88% of the respondents rated ALREP’s performance as good or excellent.

If ALREP has been a success, it begs the question why that is so. This report tries to come up with some answers.

A programme of this nature requires full government support and this has been forthcoming because the PMU was well embedded in OPM, and had a very strong and positive relationship with the DLGs. Secondly, the programme built on proven interventions and best practices. The core of the programme was rooted in known technologies and implementation modalities, around which some new ideas were brought in. This did not make ALREP an extremely innovative programme, but it did reduce the risk of major failures.

Thirdly, the core of the implementation team worked together on previous programmes, and were therefore able to quickly built a functional PMU and get the programme going. Here the same principle applies as above: not all the people were the same, the PMU management structure was adapted to new realities, and procedures were further sharpened and improved. But the basis for all this was laid in previous programmes and experiences.

Lastly, the people of Northern Uganda want to move forward. They enthusiastically embraced the programme, and this made the work of the PMU easy all the way from the district leadership to the communities.

We hope that some of these lessons can be incorporated in future EU-funded intervention in Northern Uganda.

Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

77

Page | 77

78

Programme Completion Report

Page | 78

Result 1: Increased agricultural production and productivity

Results

Objectively Verifiable Indicators



 

  





MOV

UBOS NHS Local Government District Production Department reports IP surveys

UBOS NHS ALREP survey IP reports

UBOS UNHS and census MoFPED and UBOS data

Programme Completion Report

1. At least 70% of the members of 960 FFS in Acholi and Teso applying improved agronomic and livestock management practices in their fields by July 2014 2. At least 70 % of the FFS members applying improved agricultural practices, disaggregated per district, and gender headed HHs, increase their crop yields by 30% by July 2014

Average indexed household income of target communities, disaggregated by gender and district, increased by 100% by July 2014

At least 85% of households in target communities in Acholi, and 66% in Teso are food secure by July 2014

1. % change in poverty rate in Acholi, Lango and Teso 2. % increase of agricultural GDP

The war affected population of Northern 1.

Uganda engage in productive and profitable agricultural and agri-business activities to ensure food security and 2. increase household income

Project Purpose

The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and to increased economic growth of the region and Uganda

Overall Objective

Intervention Logic

ANNEX 1: Logical framework

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)















Climatic conditions will favour agricultural production, and programme interventions are not hampered by extreme weather conditions and natural disasters The revived NAADS programme will be effectively and efficiently executed, including increase and retooling of agricultural staff at sub-counties levels

Demand for agricultural produce from Northern Uganda expands National roads, power and communication networks in Northern Uganda are upgraded, expanded to rural areas and maintained Security situation with regard to inter-and intra tribal armed conflicts, cattle raiding and banditry decrease in the region and in areas bordering Karamoja in particular

The macro-economic environment remains conducive to agricultural recovery, the development of commercial agriculture and the expansion of markets for agriculture inputs and products The agricultural sector remains the corner stone of Uganda’s development policies

Assumptions

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Programme Completion Report

Intervention Logic ALREP surveys

3. 75% of targeted communities in Lango dedicate at least 50% of their farm activities to market oriented production by July 2014 4. Targeted communities in Lango increase their income from commercial crop and livestock production by 100% by July 2014 5. At least 50% of IGPs initiated by FSS are generating economic returns by July 2014 6. FFS networks operate according to the satisfaction of their members and increase their volume and turnover by 10% by 2012 and by 20% by July 2014 7. Carbon neutral status awarded every year 

MOV

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)



Page | 79

The FAO procurement system will not hamper effective contracting of implementing partners

Assumptions

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Programme Completion Report

79

80

Programme Completion Report

1. At least 50% of supported agri-shops are operational and report profits by July 2014 2. At least 30% increase of agricultural produce marketed by supported produce buyers by July 2014.

3. At least 70% of supported processing business are operational and report profits by July 2014 4. At least 50% of agricultural producers and buyers in targeted areas report improved access to market information by July 2014

Result 3; More efficient and transparent input and output market and processing capacities

IP surveys ALREP survey reports

 



IP survey reports ALREP survey reports District records

MOV  

Programme Completion Report

1. At least 90% of productive infrastructures built or rehabilitated are used regularly and as intended by July 2014 2. At least 90% of households having benefited from CfW and VfW have increased their stock of HH productive assets (e.g. oxen, donkey, plough, farm tools, bicycle) by July 2014 3. At least 50% of productive infrastructures built or rehabilitated is maintained by July 2014 4. At least 75% of people within the community are satisfied with the type and quality of productive infrastructure delivered by the programme by July 2014.

Result 2: Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt

Page | 80

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Intervention Logic

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)



















Private operators are interested in investing in agribusiness in Northern Uganda Market supply and demand remain favourable

Qualified contractors are available to be involved in the project The population is willing to participate in CfW and VfW projects Implementing partners agree on and execute a harmonised system for CfW and VfW within the region Districts have time, willingness and capacity to provide technical supervision and backstopping for infrastructure programmes GoU takes over and maintains the built infrastructures Participants in CfW and VfW operations spend a significant portion of their income on productive investments.

Implementing partners recruit professional technical, administrative and financial staff, and have limited staff turnover during programme implementation

Assumptions

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

1. HHs and businesses in targeted communities accessing formal banking services for the first time since 2012 increased by 10% in July 2014.

2. 40% and 80% of VSLA members access loans internally by 2012 and July 2014 respectively 3. At least 80% of producers, traders and processors who have accessed loans from VSLAs/FFIs service the loans as per schedule by July 2014

1. % of production department reports required by district production coordinator, CAO and MAAIF submitted as per standards and on time by July 2014 2. Increased adherence to MAAIF standards on disease surveillance and response, and input and produce quality controls by district and sub county production offices by July 2014 3. 50% of beneficiaries satisfied with the quality of services from Sub county & District Production Departments by July 2014

As per attached activity plan and detailed budget

Result 4; Increased availability of agricultural finance to producers, traders and processors

Result 5; Capacity of relevant departments in Local Government at district and subcounty built for effective planning, service delivery, supervision and monitoring

Activities and budget

Programme Completion Report

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Intervention Logic

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Agricultural performance assessment and monitoring reports ALREP surveys LG reports and records



 



IP survey and monitoring reports ALREP survey



MOV



 

Page | 81

The local governments in the intervention area have sufficient human resources to play their role in programme implementation

A GoU rural finance policy put in place Finance institutions are interested to expand portfolio in agricultural production

Assumptions

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Programme Completion Report

81

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

ANNEX 2: Baseline and endline indicator values52 Table 54: Endline values of indicators for Result 1 Outputs Objectively Assessment Variables Verifiable Parameters Indicators

Output 1: Increased agricultura l productio n and productivit y and promotion of alternative means of livelihoods

52

At least 70% of the members of 960 FFS in Acholi and Teso applying improved agronomic and livestock managemen t practices in their fields

by July 2014 At least 70 % of the FFS members applying improved agricultural practices, disaggregate d per district, and gender headed HHs, increase their crop yields by 30% by July 2014

Range of skills practiced and % of households practicing them

At least 50% of IGPs initiated by FFS are generating economic returns by July 2014

Financial health of FFS IGPs

Crop yields (of major crops) – disaggregate d by district/gend er of HH head

Crop yields (of major crops) – disaggregate d by district/gend er of HH head

Baselin e level

Endline Beneficiary

Endline – Nonbeneficiary

Acholi

Tes o 79% 66% 63% 60% 49%

Tes o

Achol i

Tes o

Crop rotation Row-planting Thinning Proper spacing Use of improved seed/varieties Cover-cropping Prunning Bunding/Grass-strips Mulching Integrated pest management Agroforestry Current yields of the following crops as a percent of their yield potential when grown under onfarm trials from improved seed varieties Current yields of the major crops grown in the program area

Categories of IGPs established

by FFS groups

Achol i

49% 45% 34% 32% 31% 31%

beans maize millet sorghum rice groundnu ts sunflower soybean cotton

19% 16% 21% 25% 40% 44%

23% 40% 21% 30% 57% 28%

11% 15% 10% 15% 33% 16%

19% 25% 16% 24% 42% 20%

13% 13% 5% 13% 36% 26%

49% 11% 14%

13% 13% 35%

5% 68%

8% 19% 25%

3% 0%

beans cowpeas maize millet sorghum rice groundnu sunflower ts soybean cotton Beekeeping Crop enterprise Goat rearing Oxploughing Shear nut Tree Nursery Wood lot

100 10 105 101 148 335 257 179 65 84

157 155 360 148 251 746 229 96 111 430 1.7%

146 127 251 105 202 646 240 30 132 311

69.5% 20.3% 3.4% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

ALREP PMU endline survey: www.opm.nulep.org

Page | 82 82 Programme Completion Report

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) Year of establishme nt Size of IGPs established

Gross income generated from IGPs established

FFS networks operate according to the satisfaction of their members and increase their volume and turnover by 10% by 2012 and by 20% by July 2014

Member satisfaction with FFSN services; FFS operational and business processes

Number of networks engaged in marketing produce (n=8)

Gross revenue generated from marketing of produce (n=8)

2012 2013 2014 Beekeeping (number hives) Crop enterprise s (acre) Goat rearing (number goats) Oxploughing (number oxen) Shear nut (acres) Tree nursery (acre) Wood lot (number trees) Crop enterprise Goat breeding unit Oxploughing Shear nut Tree nursery Wood lot simsim groundnu ts soy beans rice sorghum maize beans simsim groundnu ts soy beans rice sorghum maize beans

32.8% 60.3% 6.9% 18

3

20

4

2 1

3500

963,408 245,000

16,000 1,200,000 3,400,000 4 1 2 2 2 3 1 70,788,600 29,070,050 12,000,000 7,115,000 7,000,000 4,113,000 2,100,000

Programme Completion Report

83

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Table 55: Endline values of indicators - Result 2 Objectively Assessment Outputs Verifiable Parameters Indicators Public perceptions/ satisfaction with services received – household interviews

Output : Productive infrastructure in support of farming rebuilt

75% of people within the community are satisfied with the type and quality of the infrastructure delivered by the programme

Public perceptions/ satisfaction with services received FGDs

Variables Sufficiency of existing infrastructure, (%) Relevance of existing infrastructure, (%)

% of communities accessing productive infrastructure

Sufficiency of existing infrastructure FGDs (%) Relevance of existing infrastructure, FGDs (%)

At least 90% of productive infrastructures built or rehabilitated are used regularly and as intended by July 2014

Quality, functionality and actual use of infrastructure

Functionality of existing infrastructure, FGDs (%) Functionality of existing infrastructure, household interviews (%)

Table 56: Endline values of indicators- Result 3 Objectivel y Assessment Outputs Variables Verifiable Parameters Indicators Result: 3: % of agriMore At least (input) shops efficient % of input traders 50% of that are and selling different supported operational transpare categories of agri-shops and their nt input inputs are profitability; and operation output al and markets report Constraints and profits by faced in processin % of input traders July 2014 establishing g input shops; capacities

Page | 84 84 Programme Completion Report

Baseline level

Endline Beneficiary

24 40 31 6 7

14 42 32 12 7

13

5

80

88

53

92

43 10 23

48 -

50

50

10 20 26 36 35 3 18

27 52 21 43 33 3 6

11

4

71

90

38.1

6

33.3

63

28.6

31

18

6

65

54

17

39

Very inadequate Inadequate Sufficient Excess capacity Redundant Useful, but not priority need Extremely useful Community access road Cattle crush Cattle dip Valley tank/dam Community market stalls Spring/well Community store Very inadequate Inadequate Sufficient Excess capacity Redundant Useful, but not priority need Extremely useful Unusable/broken down Working, but needs repairs Excellent working condition Unusable/broken down Working, but needs repairs Excellent working condition

Baseline level Improved seed Agrochemicals Small farm tools Fertilizer Ox-ploughs and parts Spray pumps Livestock drugs Limited market for inputs Input quality challenges

Endline Beneficiar y 48 22 9 8 2 6 1 68 57

Endline – Nonbeneficia ry 46 25 10 5 4

Output s

4 57 43

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280)

Access to input shops by HHs

At least 30% increase of agricultur al produce marketed by supported produce buyers by July 2014

Volume and diversity of agric. Produce marketed by produce buyers;

Programme Completion Report

Competition Poor access roads Registration challenges Taxation challenges Overall average distance to market (Km) Bazaar/fair Local market/trader Average distance Local input to different stockist markets (Km) Distant market Major town/trading centre Bazaar/fair Local market/trader Local input % of HHs accessing stockist inputs from Distant different sources market/major town Major trading centre/town Non-existent Rating of Scarce/limited availability of availability inputs in Seasonal markets/sources availability by households (%) Always available Very poor Rating of quality of Fair inputs accessed by Good households (%) Excellent Cheap Fair Rating of prices of High but inputs accessed by affordable HHs (%) Very high/unaffordable Maize Weighted average Simsim quantity of Sorghum produce purchased Groundnuts per month by Sunflower produce buyers(Kg) Beans Millet Sunflower Cotton Weighted average Maize quantity of major Soy beans produce sold per Rice HH to produce Beans buyers (Kg) Sorghum Groundnuts Simsim

54 54 36 29 20 7 5 5 14

53 30 53 63 15 17

13 4 3

4 5 7 16

13 24

46 1 34 6

26 1 25

1 21

17 15 21

30 25 30 1 16 23 61 4 29 65 2 2 15 67 16 2,026 1,687 1,348 982 640 522 432 61 50 46 35 21 17 14 13 5

35 4 9

38 3 11

19

16

69 1 21 75 3 4 22 60

70 1 20 76 2 4 20 60

14 17 5,443 12,950 6,990 612 1,232 1,926 464 67 20 115 44 85 22 23 39 33

95 20 115 46 46 25 25 25 34

Page | 85 Programme Completion Report 85

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) % of agriprocessing businesses that are operational;

At least 70% of supported processin g business are operation al and report profits by July 2014

Profitability of agroprocessing businesses;

Capacity/volum es processed;

Annual profit margins of agroprocessors (UGX)

Volume of produce procured for processing/process or (Kg) 

Constraints to expansion of processed volumes

   

At least 50% of agricultur al producers and buyers in targeted areas report improved access to market informati on by July 2014

Access to market info available by producers;

Access market available buyers;

to info by

Joint stock companie s

Acho li

Sole proprieto rs

Acho li Lang o Teso

% of households using market information to make production/market ing decisions % produce buyers accessing market information through different sources

-

4,144,080

-

30,929,16 7 9,931,620 2,000 9,500 15,429 2,000 4,000 10,000 240,000 38,570 240,000 4,746  Poor quality of raw materials  Limited availability of mechanics to repair equipment  Unreliable supply of electricity  Fluctuation of prices and quantities of raw materials 37 63 29 53 1 7 2 1

Cassava Maize Millet Simsim Sunflower Unhulled rice

Long distances travelled to access spare parts and fuel Seasonal demand for agroprocessing services Seasonal demand for some processed products Low volumes of produce brought for processing Unreliable electricity

% of households accessing market information through different sources

232,624,1 33

Word of mouth Radio Phone SMS Bulletin board How much (quantity) to sell?

What price to sell at?

What quality to target/maintain?

What to produce?

Where to sell?

Word-of-mouth Radio Phone SMS Bulletin board Other sources

50 77 42 80 79 74 44 30 0 4

57 50 6

83

1 96

88

99

85

96

88 90 77 63 70 27 -

100 99

Table 57: Endline values of indicators – Result 4 Outputs

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Assessment Parameters

Variables

Output 3: Increased availability

HHs and businesses in targeted

Accessibility to formal banking

% of HHs with bank accounts Distance to nearest branch (Km) Types of Personal account

Page | 86 86 Programme Completion Report

Baseline level

Endline Beneficiar y

14 28 92

32 23 33

Endline – Nonbeneficiar y 14 20 83

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) of agricultura l finance to producers, traders and processors

communitie s accessing formal banking services for the first time since 2012 increased by 10% in July 2014.

40% and 80% of VSLA members access loans internally by 2012 and July 2014 respectively

facilities (distance, procedures) ; Number of farmers and SMEs using formal banking facilities;

Number of VSLA members accessing loans – based on household interviews

Programme Completion Report

accounts used by household account holders % of households that receive these different services from banks

Group account

8

67

17

Cheque books Loans ATM

5 16 33

7 39 38 42

18 33 45

Financial literacy

21

Long distance to nearest bank Complicated paperwork/terms Constraints Transaction faced by costs/levies households Insufficient income in bank Unsuitable banking account products opening (% Lack of of HHs) information/awarenes s on banking Averse to banking/Prefers to save/invest elsewhere Distance to bank branch (Km) % using formal banking services Cheque % of books SMEs SMEs Loans accessing Over different drafts bank Financial services literacy Lack of financial knowledge Low incomes and assets Illiteracy/language Ranking of Branch timings difficulties Cumbersome banking experience procedures d with banking by Documents required for account opening SMEs Unsuitable banking products/schemes Transaction costs Attitude of bank officials % of households with VSLA members % of household members with VSLA loans % of household members accessing loan first-time Mean VSLA interest Median rate (%) Mode

19 14 10

36 29 19 9

26 19 10

94

58

70

5

5

4

1

1

2

1 15 100 100 57 29 43 1.9 2.1 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.8 2.0 2.9 1.4 51 24 18 11 10 10

26 57 100 71 79 36 0 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.4 3.5 2.6 2.8 3.1 1.9 84 58

45 51

27

17

8 10 10

6 3 10

Page | 87 Programme Completion Report 87

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Mean VSLA loan amount per borrower (UGX)

81,670

Median Mode Minimum

50,000 50,000 2,000 2,000,00 0

Maximum Number of VSLA members accessing loans – based on VSLA surveys

At least 80% of producers, traders and processors who have accessed loans from VSLAs/MFIs service the loans as per schedule by July 2014

VSLA loan performanc e (repayment & default rates); MFI loan performanc e (repayment & default rates of agric loans?);

Number of loans outstanding per VSLA Number of members per VSLA Value of loans outstanding/VSLA (UGX) Average outstanding size/borrower (UGX)

loan

% of VSLA produce MFI traders with SACCO current loans Average VSLA loan MFI amounts accessed by produce SACCO traders (UGX) % of VSLA produce MFI traders facing SACCO repayment difficulties % of VSLA produce MFI traders likely to default on SACCO loan VSLA loan default rate (from VSLA surveys), %

15 32 1,302,30 8 93,933 17 17

89,753 50,000 50,000 5,000 2,000,000

99,143 60,000 50,000 5,000 1,000,000

20 32 2,355,054 130,900 40 33 10

9 275,000 7,250,00 0

1,207,143 3,300,000

375,000

1,700,000

0 50

25 60

50

100

0 50

25 30

0

0

4

0-20

Table 58: Endline values of indicators – Result 4 Outputs

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Assessment Parameters

Variables

Output 3: Increased availability of agricultura l finance to producers, traders and processors

HHs and businesses in targeted communitie s accessing formal banking services for the first time since 2012

Accessibility to formal banking facilities (distance, procedures) ; Number of farmers and SMEs using formal

% of HHs with bank accounts Distance to nearest branch (Km) Types of Personal account accounts used by household Group account account holders % of Cheque books households Loans that receive ATM

88Page |Programme Completion Report 88

Baseline level

Endline Beneficiar y

14 28 92

32 23 33

Endline – Nonbeneficiar y 14 20 83

8

67

17

5 16 33

7 39 38

18 33 45

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) increased by 10% in July 2014.

40% and 80% of VSLA members access loans internally by 2012 and July 2014 respectively

banking facilities;

Number of VSLA members accessing loans – based on household interviews

these different services from banks

42 Financial literacy

Long distance to nearest bank Complicated paperwork/terms Constraints Transaction faced by costs/levies households Insufficient income in bank Unsuitable banking account products opening (% Lack of of HHs) information/awarenes s on banking Averse to banking/Prefers to save/invest elsewhere Distance to bank branch (Km) % using formal banking services Cheque % of books SMEs SMEs Loans accessing Over different drafts bank Financial services literacy Lack of financial knowledge Low incomes and assets Illiteracy/language Ranking of Branch timings difficulties Cumbersome banking experience procedures d with banking by Documents required for account opening SMEs Unsuitable banking products/schemes Transaction costs Attitude of bank officials % of households with VSLA members % of household members with VSLA loans % of household members accessing loan first-time Mean VSLA interest Median rate (%) Mode Mean VSLA loan amount per borrower (UGX)

Median Mode Minimum Maximum

Programme Completion Report

21

19 14 10

36 29 19 9

26 19 10

94

58

70

5

5

4

1

1

2

1 15 100 100 57 29 43 1.9 2.1 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.8 2.0 2.9 1.4 51 24 18 11 10 10 81,670 50,000 50,000 2,000 2,000,00 0

26 57 100 71 79 36 0 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.4 3.5 2.6 2.8 3.1 1.9 84 58

45 51

27

17

8 10 10 89,753

6 3 10

50,000 50,000 5,000 2,000,000

99,143 60,000 50,000 5,000 1,000,000

Programme Completion Report 89 Page | 89

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Number of VSLA members accessing loans – based on VSLA surveys

At least 80% of producers, traders and processors who have accessed loans from VSLAs/MFIs service the loans as per schedule by July 2014

90

VSLA loan performanc e (repayment & default rates); MFI loan performanc e (repayment & default rates of agric loans?);

Programme Completion Report

Number of loans outstanding per VSLA Number of members per VSLA Value of loans outstanding/VSLA (UGX) Average outstanding size/borrower (UGX)

loan

% of VSLA produce MFI traders with SACCO current loans Average VSLA loan MFI amounts accessed by produce SACCO traders (UGX) % of VSLA produce MFI traders facing SACCO repayment difficulties % of VSLA produce MFI traders likely to default on SACCO loan VSLA loan default rate (from VSLA surveys), %

15 32 1,302,30 8 93,933 17 17

20 32 2,355,054 130,900 40 33 10

9 275,000 7,250,00 0

1,207,143 3,300,000

375,000

1,700,000

0 50

25 60

50

100

0 50

25 30

0

0

4

0-20

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280)

ANNEX 3: List of implementing partners Implementing Partner

Nature of Contract

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Standard Contributio n Agreement

Project & Contract codes OSRO/UGA/ 102/EC & FED/2011/2 59-910

Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development (ACTED ) Association of Volunteers in International Service (AVSI) Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian Development Cooperation) CESVI Onlus

Grant contract

Contract Value

Start & End dates

Project title

Project area (districts) Gulu, Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader, Agago, Katakwi & Amuria Gulu, Amuru & Nwoya

€3,987,505

28/3/11 27/8/14

Improving Food Security and Agricultural Livelihoods of the War Affected Communities in Acholi and Teso

FED/2012/2 84-489

€1444448.46

28/4/12 28/08/14

Grant contract

FED/2012/2 84-490

€1,353,532.88

01/03/12 31/05/14

Grants contract

FED/2012/2 84-491

€1,436,934.98

08/05/12 07/08/14

Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian Development Cooperation) CESVI Onlus Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian Development Cooperation) CESVI Onlus ArbeiterSamariter-Bund Deutschland e.V (ASB)

Grants contract

FED/2012/2 99-928

€575,880.12

28/11/12 27/11/14

Building Productive Infrastructure to Support Agriculture and Livelihoods in Acholi Sub Region, Northern Uganda Building Infrastructures and Livelihoods for Development (B.U.I.L.D) Developing Productive Infrastructures and Assets in Lango Sub Region to Improve Agricultural Productivity and Profitability Improved livelihoods in Lango Sub Region West through promotion of commercial agriculture

Grants contract

FED/2013/3 13-771

€549,821.70

07/03/13 06/11/14

Improved livelihoods in Lango Sub Region East through promotion of commercial agriculture

Otuke, Alebtong & Lira

Grant contract

FED/2012/2 84-492

€657969

20/02/12 19/10/13

Katakwi & Amuria

Kolline and Hemed Uganda Limited

Service contract

UG/FED/201 1/276802/04/SVC

UGX 673,000,000

27/07/12 27/07/13

Kolline and Hemed Uganda Limited

Service contract

UG/FED/201 3/309712/01/SVC

UGX 155,000,000

01/01/14 30/09/14

AgriNet Uganda Ltd

Service contract

FED-2011276-802-01SVC

UGX 625,944,000

09/10/13 10/09/13

Increasing agriculture and livelihoods capacity of Communities through the construction of productive infrastructure in Teso Sub-Region Provision of Agricultural Radio Programmes in Northern Uganda Provision of Agricultural Radio Programmes in Northern Uganda Provision of market information to farmers, producers and processors in Northern

Programme Completion Report

Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader & Agago Lira, Apac, Kole & Oyam

Apac, Kole & Oyam

All the 15 ALREP operation al districts All the 15 ALREP operation al districts All the 15 ALREP operation al districts

Page | 91 Programme Completion Report 91

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Uganda

Uganda National AgroInput Dealers’ Association (UNADA) Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU)

Service contract

UG/FED/201 1/276802/02/SVC

UGX 586,956,000

15/08/13 16/01/14

Service contract

FED/2012/2 91/422

300,000 â‚Ź

10/12/12 09/12/14

CARE International in Uganda

Service contract

UG/FED/201 1/276802/03/SVC

UGX 680,000,000

13/08/12 12/11/13

92

Programme Completion Report

Increasing the presence and capacity of Private Agro dealers at Sub county level in Northern Uganda Capacity building of agro processors and produce traders to enhance quality and business performance in Northern Uganda Establishing and Implementing a Financial Literacy and Linkage Programme in Northern Uganda

All the 15 ALREP operation al districts All the 15 ALREP operation al districts

All the 15 ALREP operation al districts

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280)

ANNEX 4: Sta Full Name

Sex

st of ALREP Employment Period with ALREP

Title

Start date

End Date

Years worked

Programme office Gulu Beatrice Arach

F

Programme Coordinator

PCA

09-Jul-10

08-Mar-15

Nsanze Igna us Kanya Ojok Francis

M

AFO

01-Nov-10

30-Nov-14

M

Administrator & Finance Officer Programme Officer

POA

01-Mar-11

02-Apr-12

Asiimwe Jude

M

Programme Officer

POA

01/06/2012

30-Nov-14

Oyoo Frederick

M

Programme Engineer

PEA

04-Jul-11

18-Sep-12

Samuel Owen Ocaya

M

Programme Engineer

PEA

01/02/2013

31-Jan-15

Gumisiriza Alex

M

APOA

01-Nov-10

30-Nov-14

Muhumuza Daniel Kawuki Kajuba Tumushabe Innocent Anek Dora

M

APOA

01-Mar-11

25-Sep-12

AA/S

01-Mar-13 09-Jul-10

23-Sep-13 30-Oct-10

Margaret Nakintu Bbosa

F

AA/S

01-Nov-10

05-Oct-11

AA/S

01-Apr-12 01/08/2013

08-Apr-13 30-Nov-14

D/M

09-Jul-10

30-Sep-14

D/M

09-Jul-10

30-Sep-14

4.75 4.08 1.17 2.50 1.25 2.00

Odong Robert Bosco

M

Mudidi Francis

M

Assistant Programme Officer Assistant Programme Officer Assistant Programme Engineer Assistant Administrator / Secretary Assistant Administrator / Secretary Assistant Administrator / Secretary Assistant Administrator / Secretary Driver / Mechanics (Head Driver) Driver / Mechanics

Ogwal Benard

M

Driver / Mechanics

D/M

01-May-11

30-May-12

Nyeko Francis Lakop

M

Driver / Mechanics

D/M

01-May-11

08-Mar-15

Christopher Otena

M

Driver / Mechanics

D/M

01-Aug-12

30-Nov-14

Ramadhan Moses

M

Driver / Mechanics

D/M

01-Oct-14

30-Nov-14

NPC

01-Aug-10

30-Sep-14

4.17

FCO

01-Jun-11

30-Sep-14

3.33

FCO

01-Nov-10

08-Feb-11

0.33

Ag. FCO

09-Jul-10

31-Oct-10

0.33

CTA

9-Jul-10

8-March-15

4.75

FATA

9-Jul-10

8-March-15

4.75

TAA

9-Jul-10

8-March-15

4.75

Bangi Migadde Diane Binen Doreen

M F

F F

Liaison office Kampala Emmanuel Iyamulemye Niyibigira M Christopher Birungi

M

Patrick Rwera

M

Rebecca Bandi Barry

F

Na onal Programme Coordinator Finance and Contracts Officer Finance and Contracts officer Ac ng Finance and Contracts officer

APEA

AA/S

4.08 1.58 0.58 0.33 1.00 1.08 1.33 4.25 4.25 1.08 3.92 2.33 0.17

Technical Assistance Team (TAT) Reint Bakema (60%)

M

Ronald Kasozi (60%)

M

Chief Technical Advisor Finance en Admin Technical Advisor

Adolf Gerstl (100%)

M

Technical Advisor ALREP

Programme Comple on Report

Page | 93 Programme Completion Report 93

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Annex 5: Summary table of contracts Contractor Name Honda Uganda Limited Prime Impex Victoria Motors Victoria Motors Millennium Infosys U Ltd Footsteps furniture Co ltd Quality Chemicals Limited Road Master Cycles (U) Limited Davis & Shirtliff International Limited Davis & Shirtliff International Limited

Contracts Number UG/FED/2010/25 7-037/2/SUPPLY UG/FED/2010/25 7-037/3/SUPPLY FED/2011/131032/1/SUPPLY FED/2011/131032/1/SUPPLY UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/02/SUPPLY

Essmouc

Supply of motor cycle for District Production office

Imprest

15-Aug2011

14-Nov2011

63,268,400

Supply of Office furniture

Imprest

12-Dec2011 5-Sep2011 5-Sep2011 14-Apr2013

11-Mar2012 4-Dec2011 4-Dec2011 15-May2013

Imprest

17-Jun2013

30-Jun2013

142,371,000

Imprest

16-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

248,859,950

Imprest

30-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

148,415,620

Supply of two brand new Pajero Vehicles Supply of one brand new Pajero Vehicles Supply of 105 laptops, 45 printers

Imprest Imprest Imprest

286,935,478 153,219,852 129,655,169

UG/FED/2013/30 9712/SUPPLY/001

Supply of solar power units to 25 sub counties in northern Uganda

Imprest

7-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

341,755,350

UG/FED/2013/30 9712/SUPPLY/002

Supply and Installation of motorized water pump

Imprest

30-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

40,961,750

Imprest

27-Jul2012

30-Nov2013

128,965,650

Imprest

20-Aug2012

20-Feb2013

267,549,555

11-Apr2013

11-Sep2013

11-Apr2013

11-Sep2013

11-Apr2013

11-Sep2013

11-Apr2013

30-Sep2013

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

11-Apr-

12-Nov-

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 001 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 002 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 003 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 004

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 005

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 006 EUROPEAID/133-

Drilling of six boreholes in selected sub counties of Alebtong, Kole, Oyam, and Amuru Construction of markets and production offices in sub counties in Kole, Gulu and Nwoya Districts Construction of 9 cattle crushes in locations in Amuru, Nwoya, Kitgum, Lira and Agago Construction of 11 cattle crushes in selected locations in Lamwo Construction of 9 cattle crushes in locations in Alebtong and Katakwi construction of 11 cattle crushes in locations in Alebtong and Otuke Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Unyama, Unyama sub county in Gulu Construction of 4 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines each in Lugore, in Gulu and Palabek, in Lamwo Construction of 8 market

Page | 94 94 Programme Completion Report

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Commitment Amount in Euros

84,856,116

Supply of Veterinary equipment to 100 sub counties and 15 district Supply of 830 Bicycles for Project management Committee

FED/2012/276802/002/WKS

CHARBOD (U) Ltd

Commitmen t Amount in UGX

UG/FED/2013/30 9712/SUPPLY/001 UG/FED/2013/30 9712/SUPPLY/002

Multicon Associates PLC

JAMCO Limited

End Date

Supply of brand new office furniture

FED/2012/276802/001/WKS

AKA Constrution (U) Ltd Alumel General Enterprises Uganda Ltd Stanhope Construction & General Mechandise

Start Date

UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/05/SUPPLY

Sumadhura Technologies Ltd

SAI International (U) Ltd

Type of Commit ment

Contract Title

180,758,400

261,309,000

219,045,679

261,209,000

209,990,152

312,209,593

199,050,390

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) Engineering Solutions Ltd DOVE Engineering Ltd

578/M/WKS/UG/ 007

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 008

JAP Foundation Ltd EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 009 DAVIMARK Construction Company Ltd

AMUGU United Company Ltd

LUKAYA Investments Co Ltd

AKUCA Engineering Works Ltd

STEP CHARD Engineering Ltd

Etang Multipurpose Co Ltd Tompy Technical Services Co Ltd Kamos Investment Ltd

SITETECH (U) Ltd

Planet Construction

Progressive Builders & Civil Engineering JOGO

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 011

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 012

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 013

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 014

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 015

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 016

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 017 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 018

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 019

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 020

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 021 EUROPEAID/133-

Programme Completion Report

sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Labongo Ogali, in Amuru Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Omiya Anyima, in Kitgum Construction of 4 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Lira Palwo, Lira Palwo sub county in Agago District and Construction of 4 market sheds and water harvesting facilities in Anekeden, Agweng sub county, Lira District Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Mucwini, Mucwini sub county, in Kitgum District Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Pajule, Pajule sub county, in Pader District Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Anekapiri, Alito sub county, in Kole District Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Bario, Abok sub county, in Oyam District Construction of 8 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Toroma, Toroma sub county, in Katakwi District Construction of 1 produce store and latrines each in Laguti, Laguti sub county, and in Puranga, Puranga sub county, Pader District Construction of 1 produce store each in Koch Goma, Koch Goma sub county, in Nwoya, and in Pabbo, Pabbo sub county, Amuru Construction of 1 produce store each in Ogur, Ogur sub county, and in Barr, Barr sub county, Lira Construction of 1 sub-county production office and latrines in Ngariam, and Construction of 1 sub-county production office in Kapujan, in Katakwi Construction of 1 sub-county production office and latrines in Asamuk, and Construction of 1 sub-county production office in Wera, in Amuria Construction of 1 sub-county production office in Laguti, Pader, and Construction of 1 sub-county production office and latrines Agweng, in Lira Construction of 1 sub-county

Imprest

2013

2013

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

11-Apr2013

30-Oct2013

Imprest

220,777,238

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

Imprest

245,063,020

11-Apr2013

15-Dec2013

Imprest

205,636,785

2-Apr2013

30-Oct2013

Imprest

197,724,493

11-Apr2013

24-Nov2013

Imprest

193,480,515

11-Apr2013

11-Sep2013

Imprest

213,265,542

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

Imprest

127,902,809

11-Apr2013

30-Nov2013

Imprest

Imprest

57,989,417

11-Apr2013

30-Sep2013

11-Apr2013

28-Feb2014

Imprest

142,683,057

231,821,848

11-Apr2013

11-Oct2013

Imprest

213,092,877

11-Apr2013

15-Nov2013

Imprest

Imprest

197,810,985

213,048,617

11-Apr-

11-Oct-

258,899,224

Page | 95 Programme Completion Report 95

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Company (U) Ltd Amononeno Investment (U) Ltd

Impact Projects Ltd

Lohima Investments Ltd Okem Investment Ltd AFRACO Company Ltd

Rhino Engineering Works Ltd NAPCO Investment Ltd

578/M/WKS/UG/ 022

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 023

EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 024 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 025 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 026 EUROPEAID/133578/M/WKS/UG/ 027

UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/03/WKS EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 001

METAPLEX Investment Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 002

OTUKE Private Sector Ent. Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 003

Etang Multipurpose Co. Ltd

CAB (U) Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 004

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 005

production office and latrines each in Ogor, in Otuke, and Awei, in Alebtong Construction of 1 sub-county production office and latrines each in Abia, and Akura, in Alebtong Construction of 1 sub-county production office and latrines in Unyama, in Gulu, and one district production office in Amuru T/C, in Amuru Construction of 1 district production office each in Kole T/C Kole, and Oyam T/C, Oyam Construction of 1 district production office each in Lamwo T/C Lamwo, and Agago T/C, Agago Construction of a warehouse in Bibia, Atiak sub county, in Amuru Construction of 1 Cattle Crush Fencing 1 show ground, Fencing 1 livestock market and Construction of 1 shallow well in Lira, Alebtong and Apac.

Construction of 4 market sheds, water-harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Koro, Gulu. Construction of 4 market sheds, water harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Alero sub county, Nwoya.

Construction of 8 market sheds, water-harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 -stance VIP latrine, Gulu Construction of 4 Market sheds, water-harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Agago. Construction of 4 Market sheds, water harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Wol sub county, Agago Construction of 4 market sheds, water harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Atanga sub county, Pader.

Completion of Agricultural / Community centers in each Puranga sub county and Lapul sub county, Pader.

Construction of 4 Market sheds, water-harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine in Usuk sub county, Katakwi district. Construction of 4 Market sheds, waterharvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance

Page | 96 96 Programme Completion Report

Imprest

2013

2013

11-Apr2013

30-Oct2013

11-Apr2013

28-Feb2014

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest

177,834,873

11-Apr2013

30-Jan2014

11-Apr2013

28-Feb2014

11-Apr2013

11-Jan2014

16-May2013

15-Oct2013

Imprest

220,511,342

216,405,565

272,594,540

107,657,300

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

243,430,312

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

222,088,439

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

224,193,816

Imprest

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

255,308,776

1-Nov2013

Imprest

223,417,765

1-May2014

210,024,090

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280)

Leeward Investment Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 006

Rhino Engineering Works Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 007

RAM Projects

Ebowa Investment Ltd

Alumehl General Enterprises (U) Ltd

Guzi Investment Ltd

LALE Group Ltd

Guarantee Eng Works Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 008

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 009

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 010

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 011

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 012

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 013

Programme Completion Report

VIP latrine in Abarilela sub county, Amuria.

Construction of 4 Market sheds, water harvesting facilities, lockable storage facilities, 5 - stance VIP latrine each in Morungatuny and Kuju sub counties, Amuria.

Construction of Slaughter slab, 2 - stance VIP latrine and fencing, in each of the sub counties of Iceme, Aleka and Acaba in Oyam. Construction of slaughter slab, 2 - stance VIP latrine and fencing in Aduku sub county, Apac.

Construction of community cattle crush in Akokoro sub county, Apac.

Construction of Produce store and 2 - stance VIP larine, each in Lapono and Adilang sub counties in Agago.

Construction of meteorological station at district HQ, Agago. Fencing of valley dam in Akwang sub county, Kitgum district.

Construction of 2 shallow wells in Apala sub county, Alebtong.

Siting, drilling & installation of 13 boreholes; 3 in Apala, 1 in Amugu, 1 in Abako sub counties- Alebtong district, 1 in Chegere sub county -Apac, 1 in Koro sub county - Gulu, 1 in Ayer sub county - Kole, 4 in Awere sub county - Pader, 1 in Atiak sub county - Amuru.

Construction of 12 community cattle crushes in the sub counties of Purongo (1 No), Nwoya TC (1 No), Anaka (2 No), Alero (1 No) in Nwoya district, Paicho (1 No) in Gulu district, Lagoro (1 No) and Orom (2 No) in Kitgum, Lapul (1 No) and Acholibur (2 No) in Pader.

Construction of 13 community cattle crushes in the sub counties of Wol (1No), Parabongo (1No), Paimol (1No), Adilang (1No) in Agago, Omoro (3No), Amugu (1No), Abako (1No) in Alebtong, Ogor (1No), Akwang (1No), Olilim (1No) and Orum (1No) in Otuke.

Construction of 10 community cattle crushes in the sub counties of Ongongoja (1No), Toroma (1No), Usuk (1No) Kapujan (1No) in Katakwi and Morungatuny (2No), Kuju (1No), Obalanga (1No), Acowa (1No) and Abarilela (1No) in Amuria.

Construction of Animal and Plant Diagnostic Laboratory (01) at district HQ in Amuria

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

184,007,261

1-Nov2013

1-Apr2014

Imprest

292,519,776

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

237,204,704

1-Nov2013

1-Mar2014

Imprest

289,264,300

1-Nov2013

1-Apr2014

Imprest

269,933,400

1-Nov2013

1-Apr2014

288,011,988

Imprest

1-Nov2013

1-Apr2014

Imprest

Imprest

222,272,624

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

133,390,364

Page | 97 Programme Completion Report 97

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

KEJATU QUALITY SERVICES

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 014

Intergrated Constructors Ltd

EUROPEAID/134545/M/WKS/UG/ 015

Progressive Builders & Civil Engineering RHINO ENGINEERING WORKS LTD

FED/2012/309712/WKS/001

KLR UGANDA LIMITED

EUROPEAID/135656/M/WKS/UG/ 001

FED/2012/309712/WKS/002

Progressive Builders & Civil Engineering Rhino Engineering Works Ltd

FED/2012/309712/WKS/001

Stanhope Construction & General Mechandise

FED/2012/309712/WKS/003

U.K GENERAL SERVICES LTD MULTICON ASSOCIATES PLC

FED/2012/309712/WKS/004 FED/2012/309712/WKS/005

AKA Construction (U) Limited Etang Multipurpose Company Limited AgriNet (U) Ltd UNADA CARE International Iin Uganda Kolline and Hemed Uganda Ltd Kolline and

FED/2012/309712/WKS/002

FED/2012/309712/WKS/006

FED/2012/309712/WKS/007

UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/01/SVC UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/02/SVC UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/03/SVC UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/04/SVC UG/FED/2013/30

district. Fencing of the Production Office premises at district HQ, Amuria.

Construction of 08 market sheds, water harvesting facilities and latrines in Palabek Kal sub county, Lamwo.

Construction of fish fry centers in Inomo sub county, Apac district and Alito sub county, Kole district.

Construction of production office, 2 - stance VIP latrine in Ngetta sub county, Lira.

Completion of district production office each in Kole Town Council Kole and Oyam town Council, Oyam Completion of district production office each in Lamwo Town Council Lamwo District and Agago Town council in Agago siting, drilling & installation of 15 boreholes in selected districts and sub counties of Acholi, Lango and Teso and siting, drilling and Construction of 1 borehole without cattle trough in Aboke Sub County, Kole Completion of district production office each in Kole Town Council Kole and Oyam town Council, Oyam Completion of district production office each in Lamwo Town Council Lamwo and Agago Town council in Agago Construction of 1 produce store each in Koch Goma, Koch Goma sub county, in Nwoya, and in Pabbo, Pabbo sub county, Amuru Opening and rehabilitation of Adipala Agonga Road 13.5Km Completion of Koro and Lalogi sub county production office and Noya production office Construction of sub county production office and 2 stance latrine in Atiak sub county and fish stall in Aboke sub county Kole Demolition and Construction of Community hall for Puranga and Lapul sub county Provision of Market Information to Farmers Increasing presence and build capacity of Agro input dealers establish and implement Financial literacy and linkage banking Provision of Agricultural radio programmes in northern Uganda Provision of Agricultural radio

Page | 98 98 Programme Completion Report

1-Nov2013

1-May2014

Imprest

209,998,165

1-Nov2013

1-Mar2014

Imprest

Imprest

217,383,100

16-Sep2014

30-Nov2014

16-Sep2014

30-Nov2014

Imprest

150,788,623

16-Sep2014

30-Nov2014

Imprest

Imprest

161,133,707

392,372,800

16-Sep2014

30-Nov2014

161,085,050

16-Sep2014

30-Nov2014

149,113,206

10-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

69,496,000

10-Oct2014 10-Oct2014

30-Nov2014 30-Nov2014

24,400,000

10-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

Imprest

Imprest

Imprest Imprest

Imprest

34,363,500

31,809,600

10-Oct2014

30-Nov2014

10-Sep2012 15-Aug2012

10-Jul2013 14-Aug2013

Imprest

10-Aug2012

10-Nov2013

680,000,000

Imprest

27-Jul2012

27-Jul2013

663,250,975

Imprest

1-Feb-

31-Aug-

155,000,000

Imprest

Imprest Imprest

33,905,200

625,944,000 586,956,000

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) Hemed Uganda Ltd Frank Kansiime Africa Broadcasting (Uganda ) Ltd Kolline and Hemed Uganda GIS Consult Limited

9-712/01/SVC UG/FED/2013/30 9-712/03/SVC

UG/FED/2013/30 9-712/04/SVC UG/FED/2013/30 9-712/05/SVC LPO000225 LPO0228

John Omuut LPO00211 Mwase Henry Kazinga Channel Office World Cardno Emergency Markets Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations Ernst and Young Dativa & Associates TMK Private Sector Foundation Uganda Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development (ACTED) Nile Fishing Company Limited

UG/FED/2011/27 6-802/01/SUPPLY FED 2010/244927 FED/2011/259910

FED/2011/260619 FED/2011/268544 FED/203/325-750 FED/2012/291422

FED/2012/284489

FED/2013/309793

AVSI

FED/2012/284490

CESVI Onlus

FED/2012/284491

Arbeiter Samariter Bund Deutschland e.V (ASB)

FED/2012/284492

CESVI Onlus

FED/2012/999928

CESVI Onlus

FED/2012/313771

programmes in northern Uganda Developing training module and guidelines for integrating environmental issues in Northern Uganda Recovery programme

2014

2014

Imprest

22-May2014

22-Jul2014

42,250,000

Imprest

18-Jun2014

30-Nov2014

64,920,302

Imprest

10-Jun2014

30-Nov2014

52,500,000

Imprest

15-Mar2014

30-Sep2014

59,317,125

Imprest

1-Apr2014

1-Jun2014

24,400,000

Imprest

1-Feb2014

30-Jul2014

66,000,000

Imprest

28-Aug2012

28-Nov2012

167,733,000

Provision of Technical Assistance Services to ALREP

Specific

9-Jul2010

8-Mar2015

1,452,700

Improving Food Security and Agricultural Livelihoods of the War Affected Communities in Northern Uganda

Specific

24-Mar2011

31-Jul2014

4,046,108

10-Mar2011 6-Jul2011 6-Jun2013

10-May2011 6-Sep2013 6-Aug2013

Africa Broadcasting (Uganda ) Ltd Production of a story book on achievements and impact of ALREP in Northern Uganda Developing Digital and paper activity atlas Training services for districts in Operations and maintenance of Infrastructure Provision of supervision services for Input dealer shop improvement Supply of brand new Laptops( 42), Desk top Computers(40), Printers(29) and Scanners(9)

Systems Audit of KALIP and ALREP Financial Audit of PE 1 KALIP and ALREP Financial Audit of PE 3 KALIP and ALREP Capacity building of agro processors and produce traders to enhance processing capacity and quality

Specific

Specific

10-Dec2012

10-Dec2014

340,000

Building productive infrastructure to support agriculture and livelihoods in Acholi Sub region

Specific

27-Mar2012

26-Mar2014

1,444,448

Specific

3-Jan2013

3-Mar2013

222,285

Specific

1-Mar2012

28-Feb2014

1,353,511

Specific

11-Apr2012

10-Apr2014

1,436,935

Specific

20-Feb12

19-Sep13

657,969

Specific

26-Mar13

26-Nov14

575,880

Specific

26-May12

26-May14

549,822

Supply of 87 off road motorcycles to district production department staff Building Infrastructure and livelihoods for development Developing productive infrastructure and asset in lingo sub region for improved agriculture production Building productive infrastructure to support agriculture and livelihoods in Acholi, Lango and Teso Sub regions Improved Livelihoods in Lango sub region West through promotion of commercial agriculture Improved Livelihoods in Lango sub region East through promotion of commercial agriculture

Specific Specific

UGX 15,513,774,119

Programme Completion Report

21,590 12,490 6,250

â‚Ź12,119,988

Page | 99 Programme Completion Report 99

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

ANNEX 6: Asset register No

Asset Description

Asset Identification No.

Mode of Acquisition

Office Furniture 1 Office Desk 180cm with Detachable mobile drawers 2 Office Desk 180cm with 3 Drawers

NUREP/GLU/OF/52OPM/ALREP/693 NUREP/GLU/OF/12

3

Office Desk 180cm with 3 Drawers

NUREP/GLU/OF/13

4 5

ALREP/GLU/OF/39 ALREP/GLU/OF/32 ALREP/GLU/OF/33

11

Office Desk STE 1575 + F3 Main desk with 3 drawers - VMB 1500Cherry in colour Main desk with 3 drawers - VMB 1500Cherry in colour Main desk with 3 drawers - VMB 1500Cherry in colour Main desk with 3 drawers - VMB 1500Cherry in colour Compact Desk – Cherry with Detachable Drawer Compact Desk – Cherry with Detachable Drawer Reception Centre Piece

Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased Purchased

12

Top up Counter Table

13

Conference Table Set ( 1800x6)

14

Round Conference Table

NUREP/GLU/OF/2OPM/ALREP/655 NUREP/GLU/OF/15OPM/ALREP/658 NUREP/GLU/OF/16

15

Computer Table

NUREP/GLU/OF/54

16

Computer Table

NUREP/GLU/OF/59

17

Computer Table

NUREP/GLU/OF/60

18

21

Computer Table – PCO118 Cherry in colour Computer Table – PCO118 Cherry in colour Computer Table – PCO118 Cherry in colour Book Shelves

22

Book Shelves

23

Book Shelves

24

Book Shelves

25

Book Shelves

26

Bookcase

27

High Swing Cabinet

6 7 8 9 10

19 20

Page | 100 100 Programme Completion Report

Acquisition Date

Quantity 01 pc

27/3/2009

01 pc

27/3/2009

01 pc

40187 22/07/2010

2 pc 01 pc

Purchased

22/07/2011

01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/34

Purchased

22/07/2012

01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/35

Purchased

22/07/2013

01 pc

NUREP/GLU/OF/3OPM/ALREP/656 NUREP/GLU/OF/10OPM/ALREP/657 NUREP/GLU/OF/61

Purchased

01 pc 01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/24

Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased

ALREP/GLU/OF/25

39910

01 pc 01 pc 01 pc

27/3/2009

01 pc

15/05/2009

01 pc

20/05/2009

01 pc

26/06/2009

01 pc

22/07/2010

01 pc

Purchased

22/07/2011

01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/26

Purchased

22/07/2012

01 pc

NUREP/GLU/OF/47OPM/ALREP/688 NUREP/GLU/OF/48OPM/ALREP/689 NUREP/GLU/OF/49OPM/ALREP/690 NUREP/GLU/OF/50OPM/ALREP/691 NUREP/GLU/OF/51OPM/ALREP/692 NUREP/GLU/OF/55

Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP

NUREP/GLU/OF/17OPM/ALREP/659

01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 15/05/2009

01 pc

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280) 28

Low swing cabinet

NUREP/GLU/OF/14

29

32

Low swing Cabinet- VOD 800L- WB in colour Low swing Cabinet- VOD 800L- WB in colour High Back Chair- BS 0179A Black in colour High Back Chair

33

Low back chair - BS 290L Black in colour

34 35 36 37

Low back chair - BS 290L Black in colour Low back chair - BS 290L Black in colour Low back chair - BS 290L Black in colour IDI 03 Low Back Chair

38

IDI 03 Low Back Chair

39

IDI 03 Low Back Chair

40

IDI 03 Low Back Chair

41

IDI 03 Low Back Chair

42

IDI 03 Low Back Chair

43 44 45 46 47

Visitors' Chair - PVC GSM 1020 HF Visitors' Chair - PVC GSM 1020 HF Visitors' Chair - PVC GSM 1020 HF Visitors' Chair - PVC GSM 1020 HF Visitor’s Chair

ALREP/GLU/OF/28 ALREP/GLU/OF/29 ALREP/GLU/OF/30 NUREP/GLU/OF/18OPM/ALREP/660 NUREP/GLU/OF/19OPM/ALREP/661 NUREP/GLU/OF/20OPM/ALREP/662 NUREP/GLU/OF/21OPM/ALREP/663 NUREP/GLU/OF/22OPM/ALREP/66 NUREP/GLU/OF/23OPM/ALREP/664 ALREP/GLU/OF/19 ALREP/GLU/OF/20 ALREP/GLU/OF/21 ALREP/GLU/OF/22 NUREP/GLU/OF/57

48

Visitor’s Chair

NUREP/GLU/OF/58

49

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

50

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

51

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

52

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

53

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

54

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

55

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

56

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

57

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

58

B5 600 Visitor’s Chair

59

Visitor’s Chair

60

Visitor’s Chair

61

Visitor’s Chair

NUREP/GLU/OF/24OPM/ALREP/665 NUREP/GLU/OF/25OPM/ALREP/666 NUREP/GLU/OF/26OPM/ALREP/667 NUREP/GLU/OF/27OPM/ALREP/668 NUREP/GLU/OF/28OPM/ALREP/669 NUREP/GLU/OF/29OPM/ALREP/670 NUREP/GLU/OF/30OPM/ALREP/671 NUREP/GLU/OF/31OPM/ALREP/672 NUREP/GLU/OF/32OPM/ALREP/673 NUREP/GLU/OF/33OPM/ALREP/674 NUREP/GLU/OF/35OPM/ALREP/675 NUREP/GLU/OF/36 OPM/ALREP/676 NUREP/GLU/OF/36 OPM/ALREP/677

30 31

Programme Completion Report

27/3/2009

01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/36

Transferred from NUREP Purchased

22/07/2010

01 pc

ALREP/GLU/OF/37

Purchased

22/07/2011

01 pc

NUREP/GLU/OF/31OPM/ALREP/ NUREP/GLU/OF/56OPM/ALREP/695 NUREP/GLU/OF/18

Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased Purchased Purchased Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased Purchased Purchased Purchased Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP

01 pc 01 pc 22/07/2012

01 pc

41112 22/07/2012 41112

01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc

22/07/2010 22/07/2011 22/07/2012 22/07/2013 15/05/2009

01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 02 pcs

15/05/2009

02 pcs 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc

Page | 101 Programme Completion Report 101

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287) 62

Visitor’s Chair

63

Visitor’s Chair

64

Visitor’s Chair

65

Visitor’s Chair

66

Visitor’s Chair

67

Visitor’s Chair

68

Visitor’s Chair

69

Visitor’s Chair

70

Visitor’s Chair

71

Visitor’s Chair

Office Equipment & Machinery 1 Photocopier - Canon Image Runner IR2520 2 Photocopier - Canon

NUREP/GLU/OF/37 OPM/ALREP/678 NUREP/GLU/OF/38OPM/ALREP/679 NUREP/GLU/OF/39OPM/ALREP/680 NUREP/GLU/OF/40OPM/ALREP/681 NUREP/GLU/OF/41OPM/ALREP/682 NUREP/GLU/OF/42OPM/ALREP/683 NUREP/GLU/OF/43OPM/ALREP/684 NUREP/GLU/OF/44OPM/ALREP/685 NUREP/GLU/OF/45OPM/ALREP/686 NUREP/GLU/OF/46OPM/ALREP/687

Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP

01 pc

OPM/ALREP/553

Purchased

1 pc

Transferred from NUREP Purchased Purchased Purchased Purchased Purchased Purchased Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred

1 pc

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sony-VPL-EX100 Projector HP Laser jet Pro 400451DW Sony Digital Camera GPS MAP 62S Garmin Sony Digital Camera Sony Digital Camera Digital Camera - Sony

10

Laminating Machine

NUREP/GLU/OE/01(OPM/ALREP/639 OPM/ALREP/697 OPM/ALREP/551 OPM/ALREP/ OPM/ALREP/ OPM/ALREP/ OPM/ALREP/ NUREP/GLU/OE/10(OPM/ALREP/640 NUREP/GLU/OE/41

11

Paper Cutter

NUREP/GLU/2/4

12 13

Solate Voltage Stabilizer 2000va PABX System (plus Distribution Box)

OPM/ALREP/554 NUREP/GLU/OE/37

14

Battery charger

15

Cashbox - Hardline Digital

NUREP/GLU/OE/40OPM/ALREP/653 NUREP/GLU/OE/17

16

Cashbox - Hardline Digital

NUREP/GLU/OE/23

17

Flip Chart Stand

NUREP/GLU/OE/18

18

Calculator

NUREP/GLU/OE/33

19

Calculator

NUREP/GLU/OE/34

20

Calculator

NUREP/GLU/OE/35

21

Paper Shredder

NUREP/GLU/OE/36

22

Battery charger

NUREP/GLU/OE/40

23

Boardroom Notice Board

NUREP/GLU/OE/19

24

Notice Board

NUREP/GLU/OE/20

Page | 102 102 Programme Completion Report

01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc 01 pc

1 pc 1 pc 1 pc 1 pc 1 pc 1 pc 29/03/2010

1 pc

39303

1 pc 1 pc 1 pc 1 pc

28/3/2009

01 pc

28/3/2009

01 pc

28/3/2009

01 pc

16/3/2009

01 pc

16/3/2009

01 pc

16/3/2009

01 pc

22/09/2009

01 pc 1 pc

28/3/2009

01 pc

28/3/2009

03 pcs

Programme Completion Report

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP – UG/FED/2008/020-280)

25

Notice Board

NUREP/GLU/OE/21

26

Notice Board

NUREP/GLU/OE/22

27

Notice Board

28

Notice Board

29

Notice Board

30

Switch Board Operating Phone

NUREP/GLU/OE/20 OPM/ALREP/641 NUREP/GLU/OE/21OPM/ALREP/642 NUREP/GLU/OE/22OPM/ALREP/643 NUREP/GLU/OE/25

31 32 33 34

Nokia 5130 Phone Phone 1 Phone 2 Telephone Handset

ALREP/GLU/OF/16 ALREP/GLU/OF/ ALREP/GLU/OF/ NUREP/GLU/OE/14

35

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

36

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

37

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

38

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

39

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

40

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

41

Telephone Sets - Panasonic

42

LG Refrigerator (double -door)

43

Water Cooler

NUREP/GLU/OE/26OPM/ALREP/644 NUREP/GLU/OE/28OPM/ALREP/646 NUREP/GLU/OE/28OPM/ALREP/646 NUREP/GLU/OE/29OPM/ALREP/647 NUREP/GLU/OE/30OPM/ALREP/648 NUREP/GLU/OE/31OPM/ALREP/649 NUREP/GLU/OE/32OPM/ALREP/650 NUREP/GLU/OE/43OPM/ALREP/654 NUREP/GLU/2/6

44

Coffee Maker

NUREP/GLU/OE/38

Programme Completion Report

from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Purchased Purchased Purchased Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP Transferred from NUREP

16/3/2009

01 pc

23/08/2010

01pc 01pc 01pc 01 set

20/11/2008

01 set 01 set 01 set 01 set 01 set 01 set 01 set 01 pc 39297

01 pc

18/08/2009

01 pc

Page | 103 Programme Completion Report 103

104

Programme Completion Report

EC - Ongoing

UG - Uganda

-

Status

Delegation in charge

Procedure

Title

Total

Coût total/Global Cost Contribution UE/EU Contribution Volet Ouganda Autres Contributions/Other Contributions

projet_fiche_edf.rdf

01 02 0201 03

N°

Analytical breakdown

Project seq. No

20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 0.00 20,000,000.00

Allocated

Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme (ALREP)(Ouganda)

09 / 03 / 2009

Signature date of FA by Beneficiary Country

1

16 / 12 / 2008

Signature date of FA by European Commission

Projects

Final Date for Contracting (FDC ILC)

20,000,000.00 394,416.91 394,416.91 0.00 394,416.91

Balance

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Temporary Allocated

10 / 02 / 2015 10:24:13

0.00 19,605,583.09 19,605,583.09 0.00 19,605,583.09

Contracted

UG - Uganda

Zone benefitting from the action

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Temporary Contracted

UG - Uganda

Final Date for implementing FA (FDI FA)

FDC FA 01 / 01 / 2008

Commission Decision date

Commitment dates follow up

Date of presentation to the Committee

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Temporary Balance

Delegation in charge

End of period of execution (DLE)

Closing date

End date of operational implementation period (LMO=EOI)

- Uganda -

09 / 12 / 2013

31 / 12 / 2009

09 / 03 / 2017

09 / 03 / 2015

Page 1 / 3

Country

20,000,000.00

EU contribution

This intervention responds to Strategic Objective 3 of the PRDP which intends to ¿promote both subsistence and commercialised economic activity within the region¿.

While SO3 has a focus on wider economic recovery, ALREP seeks to contribute to agricultural recovery. This is reflected in the overall goal: The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and

Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme (ALREP)

EUR - EURO

20,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

Starting date

Description

Title

Currency

EU contribution

Total cost

Request date

Title

UG - Uganda

Zone benefitting from the action

16 / 12 / 2008

FED - European Development Fund

Domain

Decision dates follow up

2008/020-287

Reference

Decision (Level 1)

Detailed Decision Form

ANNEX 7: EU CRIS position as of 15 February 2015

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

UG - Uganda

-

Delegation in charge

Procedure

Programme Completion Report

105

Closed

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

2011/276-802

2012/284-489

2012/284-490

2012/284-491

2012/284-492

2012/291-422

projet_fiche_edf.rdf

Closed

Closed

2011/260-619

2011/268-544

Closed

Ongoing

Ongoing

2010/247-838

2011/259-910

Closed

2010/244-927

2010/257-037

Status

Reference

BUILDING INFRASTRACTURES AND LIVELIHOODS FOR DEVELOPMENT (BUILD) Developing Productive Infrastructure and Assets in Lango Sub Region to Improve Agricultural Production and Profitability Increasing Agriculture and Livelihoods Capacity through Production of Productive Infrastructure in Teso Sub-Region Capacity building of agro processors and produce traders to enhance processing capacity, quality and business performance in

Building Productive Infrastructure to Support Agriculture and Livelihoods in Acholi Sub Region, Northern Uganda

A Systems Audit Concerning Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (ALREP) FED/2008/020-287 and Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP) FED/2008/020-280 Financial audit of start-up PE of Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihood Recovery Programme (ALREP) and Karamoja Livelihood Programme (KALIP) Programme Estimate 3 ALREP

Contribution Agreement for ''Improving Food Security and Agricultural Livelihoods of the War Affected Communities in Acholi, Lango and Teso''

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (ALREP) Provision of Technical Assistance Services to ALREP Programme Estimate 2 ALREP

6000429223

6000053398

6000054051

6000056014

6000055547

6000005216

6000382046

6000053442

6000055556

6000005216

6000055405

6000005216

EC - Ongoing

Status

LEF Number

UG - Uganda

Zone benefitting from the action

Title

FED - European Development Fund

Domain

Contracts

2008/020-287

Reference

Decision (Level 1)

10 / 12 / 2012

05 / 04 / 2012

11 / 04 / 2012

24 / 04 / 2012

27 / 03 / 2012

21 / 12 / 2011

06 / 07 / 2011

10 / 03 / 2011

24 / 03 / 2011

16 / 12 / 2010

12 / 08 / 2010

09 / 07 / 2010

EC signature date

10 / 02 / 2015 10:24:13

CESVI FONDAZIONE ONLUS ASSOCIAZIONE ARBEITERSAMARITER-BUND DEUTSCHLAND EV PRIVATE SECTOR FOUNDATION UGANDA LBG

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION TECHNIQUE ET AU DEVELOPPEMENT FONDAZIONE AVSI

DATIVA & ASSOCIATES PARTNERSHIP

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA CARDNO EMERGING MARKETS (UK) LTD REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ERNST AND YOUNG BEDRIJFSREVISORE N CVBA

Legal Entity (LEF)

Description

Title

Currency

EU contribution

Total cost EUR - EURO

20,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

01 / 11 / 2012

27 / 04 / 2012

08 / 05 / 2012

07 / 05 / 2012

28 / 04 / 2012

09 / 03 / 2009

06 / 07 / 2011

14 / 03 / 2011

28 / 03 / 2011

18 / 11 / 2010

27 / 08 / 2010

18 / 06 / 2010

Contractor signature date

24 Month(s)

20 Month(s)

27 Month(s)

27 Month(s)

28 Month(s)

18 Month(s)

5 Month(s)

26 Day(s)

43 Month(s)

12 Month(s)

48 Month(s)

6 Month(s)

Duration

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

Currency

340,000.00

590,000.00

1,220,000.00

1,168,921.07

1,300,000.00

2,751,363.46

12,490.00

21,590.06

4,046,108.00

591,245.58

1,452,700.00

156,217.32

Contracted

64,150.06

10,807.50

136,184.30

117,341.57

248,047.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

42,877.00

0.00

145,270.00

0.00

Balance

Page 2 / 3

275,849.94

579,192.50

1,083,815.70

1,051,579.50

1,051,952.11

2,751,363.46

12,490.00

21,590.06

4,003,231.00

591,245.58

1,307,430.00

156,217.32

Paid

This intervention responds to Strategic Objective 3 of the PRDP which intends to 多promote both subsistence and commercialised economic activity within the region多.

While SO3 has a focus on wider economic recovery, ALREP seeks to contribute to agricultural recovery. This is reflected in the overall goal: The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and

Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme (ALREP)

Detailed Decision Form

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

106

Programme Completion Report

Ongoing

Ongoing

Closed

2013/309-793

2013/313-771

2013/325-750

projet_fiche_edf.rdf

Description

Entity

Statistical breakdown

FEDF-BFEDF-02.10.10.01-10-UG

Title

Sector code

Title

Global commitment

6000381292

6000054051

6000439542

6000005216

AID.DEC.020287.01.1.BFEDF

Support to initiatives that promote the commercialisation of agriculture in Lango Sub Region Financial audit of Programme Estimate 3 of ALREP and KALIP

Supply of 87 Off Road Motorcycles

Budget line

Financial breakdown

Ongoing

-

Procedure

2013/309-712

UG - Uganda

Delegation in charge

6000054051

EC - Ongoing

Status

Northern Uganda Improved livelihoods in Lango Sub Region West through promotion of commercial agriculture Programme Estimate 4 ALREP

UG - Uganda

Zone benefitting from the action

Ongoing

FED - European Development Fund

Domain

2012/299-928

2008/020-287

Reference

Decision (Level 1)

EUR - EURO

20,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

Type

394,416.91

Balance

1 Month(s)

07 / 08 / 2013

19,605,583.09

2 Month(s) 20 Month(s)

07 / 03 / 2013

20 Month(s)

09 / 03 / 2009 03 / 01 / 2013

24 Month(s)

28 / 05 / 2012

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

6,250.00

494,827.45

222,285.00

4,741,585.15

490,000.00

0.00

159,751.15

0.00

450,572.51

65,200.19

Page 3 / 3

6,250.00

335,076.30

222,285.00

4,291,012.64

424,799.81

This intervention responds to Strategic Objective 3 of the PRDP which intends to 多promote both subsistence and commercialised economic activity within the region多.

While SO3 has a focus on wider economic recovery, ALREP seeks to contribute to agricultural recovery. This is reflected in the overall goal: The agricultural sector in Northern Uganda makes a substantial contribution to raising the prosperity for its war-affected population to a level at least at par with the rest of the country, and

Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme (ALREP)

Commited

10 / 02 / 2015 10:24:13

Value

20,000,000.00

06 / 08 / 2013

26 / 03 / 2013

11 / 02 / 2013

11 / 02 / 2013

11 / 04 / 2012

Amount

CESVI FONDAZIONE ONLUS ASSOCIAZIONE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA NILE FISHING COMPANY LIMITED CESVI FONDAZIONE ONLUS ASSOCIAZIONE TMK & CO. PARTNERSHIP

Description

Title

Currency

EU contribution

Total cost

Detailed Decision Form

Northern Uganda Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Programme (UG/FED/2008/020-287)

Office of the Prime Minister New Government Building, Apollo Kaggwa Road, Kampala Website: www.opm.nulep.org

Publishing Consultant: Hai Agency (Uganda) Limited P.O. Box 24413 Kampala-Uganda JK Building behind Apex House Tel: 0414 223507/ 0772/0702 408915 website:www.haiagency.com Cover design: Peter Mugeni Wanyama (slickrep256@gmail.com)