• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013
 

Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013

on

  • 4,083 views

To effectively engage the Government of Uganda to and enhance investment in the sector, the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group [CSBAG] in undertook a study to deepen understanding on how resources ...

To effectively engage the Government of Uganda to and enhance investment in the sector, the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group [CSBAG] in undertook a study to deepen understanding on how resources are being used within this sector. The study provides an in-depth assessment of how 4 agriculture loans have been applied in Uganda to improve agricultural performance. It further analyzes the spending patterns and service delivery within agriculture and brings out the salient issues for action.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,083
Views on SlideShare
4,082
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
50
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://users.unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013 Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsAgriculture Financing and SectorPerfomance in Uganda Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects SBAG C it y Bu qu d g e ti n g f o r e 1
    • Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviation 4 Chapter 3 Performance of Completed Agricultural Loans 27 3.1 Vegetable Oil Development Project 27 SBAG 3.2 Agricultural Improved Rice Production 31 Glossary 5C Acknowledgements 6 Chapter 4 Performance of Ongoing Agricultural Loans 36 it 4.1 Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas 36 y Bu d g e ti n g f o r eq u Forum for Women in Democracy 4.2 Farm Income Enhancement Project –Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda is published by the Foreword 7 Irrigation Component 39Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) supported by Actionaid Uganda Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 42 Chapter 1 Introduction 10 5.1 Conclusions 42© 2012 c/o 1.1 Overview 10 5.2 Recommendations 47Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE) 1.2 Study Objectives 11 References 50P.O. Box 7176, Kampala 1.3 Methodology 12Tel: +256-41-286063 1.4 Report Structure 14E-mail: fowode@fowode.orgWeb www.fowode.org Chapter 2 Agriculture Sector Performance 15 2.1 Introduction 15All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or 2.2 Growth trends 16reprinted in any form by any means without the prior permission of the 2.3 Financing and expenditure trends 17copyright holder. Nevertheless, CSBAG and Actionaid Uganda encourage 2.4 Delivery of key agricultural services 19its use and will be happy if excerpts are copied and used. When doing so,however please acknowledge CSBAG and Actionaid 3
    • Acronyms & Abbreviation Glossary Budget Support Mode of financing that involves transfer of financial resources of a development partner to theACF Agricultural Credit Facility MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework consolidated fund following the fulfillment of agreed conditions for disbursement. The funds areAg HH Agricultural Household NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services part of the national resource and are appropriated by Parliament. They are used in accordanceADF Agricultural Development Fund NAP National Agricultural Policy with the public financial management system of UgandaATAAS Agricultural Technology and Agricultural Advisory NARI National Agricultural Research Institute Services NARO National Agricultural Research OrganizationCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program Food Security Farmer Any farmer who is 18 years and above, a practicing subsistence farmer NARS National Agricultural Research SystemCDO Cotton Development Organization NDP National Development PlanCSBAG Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development Off-Budget funds Resource flows that are managed outside the Government systems of planning, appropriation,CSO Civil Society Organization PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan budgeting and procurement. Government procedures are generally not used in full in managingDDA Dairy Development Authority PMA Plan for Modernization of Agriculture these funds. Includes off budget project aid.DSIP Development Strategy and Investment Plan SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative SocietyFIEFOC Farm Income Enhancement Project STATFA Creation of Tsetse & Trypanosomiasis Free Areas On-budget funds Resource flows that are managed through the country’s public financial management systemsFOWODE Forum for Women in Democracy UA Unit of Account within the MTEF and approved by Parliament. Includes on budget project aid.FSF Food Security Farmer UBOS Uganda Bureau of StatisticsGDP Gross Domestic Product UCA Uganda Census of Agriculture Project Support Aid modality that entails agreement between the development partner or donor andGOAR Government Outlays Analysis Report UCE Uganda Commodity Exchange Government on a set of inputs, activities and outputs to reach specific outcomes within a definedGoU Government of Uganda UCDA Uganda Coffee Development Authority time frame, area and budget. This approach allows use of the donor accounting systems.KCCA Kampala City Council Authority UNHS Uganda National Household SurveyKOPGT Kalangala Oil Palm Growers Trust VODP Vegetable Oil Development Project Technical Assistance Involves the transfer of ideas, knowledge, practices, technologies or skills to foster economicMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries WRS Warehouse Receipt System development. Usually for policy development, institutional development, capacity building andMDG Millennium Development Goal ZARDI Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute. project or programme support.MFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentMOF Market Oriented Farmer 4 5
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsAcknowledgementsThis report is a joint undertaking of the members of the Civil ForewordSociety Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) which since 2004has advocated for pro poor and gender sensitive policies andbudgets. Several individuals and organizations have helpedshape the outcome of this report and these include ActionaidUganda, Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE), DanielLukwago, Frederick Kawooya, Francis Akorikin, Sophie Kyagulanyi,and Dr. Bbaale Edward who reviewed this report and providedtechnical feedback.This report was produced under supervision of Julius Mukundawhose technical insight guided the research team at differentstages which greatly enriched this report. Although agriculture contributes greatly to the economy and a significant proportion of the poor depend on it, Public expenditureSpecial thanks go to Actionaid Uganda whose financial andtechnical support enabled the successful production of this in this sector has declined significantly over the past financialreport. years; with the share of the sector ranging from between 3-4% of the national budget causing a decline in Uganda’s agricultural output and productivity. Uganda’s agricultural growth rate is still below the 6 percent annual growth target of the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). To effectively engage the Government of Uganda Irrigation Component, The study provides an in‐ into concrete actions in improving agricultural to reverse the trend, and enhance investment depth assessment of how agricultural loans have financing and that different actors including in the sector, the Civil Society Budget Advocacy been applied in Uganda to improve agricultural the Civil Society, Government, Donors and the Group [CSBAG] in 2012 deemed it necessary to performance. It further analyzes the spending famers will work collectively towards promoting undertake a study that will facilitate a deepened patterns and service delivery within agriculture the CAADP agenda of reaching a higher path understanding on how resources are being and brings out the salient issues for action. of economic growth through agriculture-led used within this sector. Using case studies of development in Africa . four donor funded projects -the Vegetable Oil There are significant factors affecting the sector’s Development Project, Agricultural Improved Rice, performance that are highlighted in this study Julius Mukunda Production Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis that need redress and, it is our hope that Coordinator-Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group Free Areas, Farm Income Enhancement Project – recommendations made in this study will result6 7
    • Executive Summary Key RecommendationsStudy Context policy and institutional development yet the low implementation/institutional capacity in 1) The budget allocation to the agricultural and accountability systems so that donors 7) Value for money in donor funded projectsExternal assistance flows to Uganda have aver- MAAIF continues to lack sufficient implemen- the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry sector needs to be stepped to at least 10% of have a high level of trust in them and can use should be encouraged. Expenditures shouldaged about US$ 760 million annually between tation capacity. and Fisheries. Although funds absorption the national budgetary resources to expand them instead of the lengthy donor systems. be on critical areas that address the project2001 and 2010. The agricultural sector attracts was high, it was for the wrong reasons, with delivery of agricultural services in Uganda. objectives and give results. Poor allocativepart of the donor funding for enhancing various 3) A major challenge is the slow disbursements 87% of the resources being spent on general This could include deepening of delivery of 4) The Government should take lead in the efficiency whereby the bulk of resourcesservices to farmers. Of concern, however is the of donor funds in the sector in turn leading operating expenses without any tangible out- extension and research services to ensure planning, designing and implementation of are spent on consumptive or recurrentslow disbursement of donor funds in the sector to slow implementation of donor funded come. that farmers access and use improved inputs donor funded projects to enhance ownership unproductive expenditures should bewhich has led to slow implementation of donor interventions. In FY 2011/2012, 74% of the and technologies to bridge the production and proper supervision of the projects. The discouraged.funded projects. total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 341.55 7) Whereas planning and project design is usu- and productivity gap at farm level. Sufficient Government should have an active role in remained undisbursed. ally done jointly between MAAIF and donor counterpart funding should be provided in budgeting and utilization of the donor funds. 8) There is a need for the Government toThe overall aim of this study was to assess the agencies, there are instances where the do- adequate and a timely manner for marching encourage and support the development ofperformance status of agricultural services in nor takes lead which leads to low ownership with the donor funds. 5) Gender planning, budgeting and monitoring public private partnerships in the delivery of 4) The four case study loans bring out manyUganda and utilization of resources to implement of interventions by the beneficiaries and less should be core to all donor projects. Gender agricultural services in Uganda as a means to factors that singularly or in combination slowprogrammes and policies. The study involved project impact. 2) The way donor funded projects in the and equity budgeting should go beyond fill the gap. For example, Government could implementation of donor funded projects.analyzing the performance of four loans (donor agricultural sector are packaged should seeking involvement of women and other partner or support farmer associations, For example, the poor design of the FIEFOCfunded projects) in terms of planning, budgeting 8) Generally, gender mainstreaming is not pri- be reviewed to enhance reach, impact and marginalized groups to promoting equitable NGOs and private sector players to scale up irrigation project slowed funds disbursementand implementation. The extent to which gender oritized in agricultural loans. sustainability. Rather than soliciting for access and use of agricultural services good models of extension that are littered in and project implementation. ADB Fundedissues were addressed in these projects was as- small discrete projects that have limited and monitoring progress made thereafter. different parts of the country. projects generally have long bureaucraticsessed. The study used secondary data sources 9) Delivery of agricultural services such as exten- impact, the Government should focus on Clear gender mainstreaming strategies procurement processes that delay disburse-complemented by primary information collected sion, credit and research is ongoing although encouraging donor funded projects that are should form part and parcel of the project ment of funds. The Government of Japan and 9) District and Sub-county officials of theby the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Econom- reach to majority of farmers remains low. Ac- larger and impactful with adequate reach implementation plan. FAO took lead in the implementation of the respective Local Governments that areic Development. cess to extension services remains low, with geographically and in terms of number of Agriculture improved Rice Production proj- to be involved in implementation of a 80% of the agricultural households having beneficiaries targeted and quantity of inputs 6) The institutional and implementation ect which led to distribution of poor quality donor funded project should be involved not been visited by an extension worker in and technologies provided. capacity of the agency that is to implement inputs, the bulk of funds being used in recur- early in the project design, planning andKey conclusions the recent agricultural survey of 2008/2009. the donor funded projects should be rent expenditures indicative of poor alloca- execution of the project. This will enhance 3) Some level of flexibility in the prior properly scrutinized at planning stage and1) The budget allocation to agriculture as a tive efficiency and low project sustenance. project ownership by the beneficiaries 10) Whereas the bulk of agricultural service deliv- conditions and minimal conditionalities beefed up before project commencement. share of the national budget remains low, at and sustenance of the interventions and ery is undertaken at local government level, imposed by donors for project trigger Where possible, the implementing agency 3.2% in FY 2012/2013. Most funds are dis- outcomes. 5) The VODP case study illustrates that they are the district and sub-county officials are not should be espoused as a means of avoiding can partner with other Government and bursed as small discrete projects whose con- adequately involved in the project design, unjustifiable low absorption of funds. It is non-Government agencies to scale up loans in the agricultural sector that perform tribution is not impactful and nor sustainable. planning and budgeting stages. Often, they critical that the prior conditions are well the implementation capacity to march the well with regard to absorption of allocated re- sources, timely implementation and achieve- brought late into the implementation stage negotiated and are easily implementable. project requirements.2) The agricultural sector attracts less than which lessens ownership, supervision and Government should improve its procurement ment of the intended outcomes. 10% of the donor assistance in Uganda that sustainability of the donor funded projects. is channeled to the development budget. A 6) The FIEFOC case study illustrates that some substantial part of external support to the projects are complete failures because of sector is in form of Technical Assistance8 9
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Figure 1.1: Allocation of Donor Assistance to the Figure 1.2: Disbursed and undisbursed loan commitments across sectors Introduction Development Budget for FY 2011/2012 Chapter 1 1.1 Overview Agriculture loans in this report refer to funds1 that are received There are also substantial official resource flows that are delivered addition and enhancing compliance with food safety requirements in the by Government of Uganda (GoU) to projects but managed outside export markets. A substantial part This is a report of a from external donors to finance the Government systems. The bulk of external support to agriculture key interventions within the sector. of donor funds in agriculture are comes in form of technical research commissioned The report analyzes the spending on-budget. For example, during assistance for policy and institutional by the Civil Society patterns and service delivery within FY 2010/2011, the sector received development and capacity Budget Advocacy agriculture and uses selected case US$ 58.30 million on budget and enhancement. The Government Group on agricultural studies of donor financed projects to US$ 16.07 million off budget. The still faces a challenge of capturing sector performance in bring out the salient issues for action. off budget funds were provided by all donor and technical assistance USAID, UK, Norway and FAO4. The as some of the funds are handled Uganda. The motivation The agricultural sector in Uganda study focused on donor funds that directly by the donors. for the study is rooted primarily encompasses crops, are on-budget. in the need to get a livestock, fisheries and forestry. Of concern, however, is the slow Source: MFPED, 2012b. Source: MFPED, 2012b. clearer picture of how Donor funds that are channeled The agriculture sector attracts disbursement of donor funds in During FY 2011/2012, the agriculture sector had • New loans commitments that are contracted resources to implement programmes and in the sector are either under the less than 10% of the total donor the sector which has led to slow a total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 466.80 agricultural loans have budget or project support aid assistance for the development implementation of donor funded million; of this amount, US$ 119 million (or 26%) but take long to become effective. • Some funds not directly controlled by policies. been applied in Uganda modality. In recent years, external budget. In FY 2011/2012, the sector interventions. Agriculture is one of had been disbursed and US$ 341.55 million Government; expenditure is by the The study had 7 objectives: remained undisbursed. Joint reviews between to improve agricultural financing from donors accounts for attracted 8% of the donor assistance the sectors with large undisbursed MFPED and Development partners suggest a development partners. 1) Provide an overview of the sector performance. about 25% of the budget and 6% (Figure 1.1). The donor funding is loan commitments (Figure 1.2). number of explanatory factors for this scenario5: This study used the case studies to draw out performance, highlighting key priority issues. of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)2. aimed to complimenting Government Note that loan disbursements to lessons on the key constraints to utilization of 2) Identify four Government loans – two External assistance flows to Uganda efforts in number of areas including: agriculture are channeled mainly • Inadequate and untimely release of donor finances in the agricultural sector. that had ended and another two whose have averaged about US$ 760 million improving control and mitigation to MAAIF and its agencies but also Government counterpart funding implementation was still ongoing under the • Complex procurement procedures that are agricultural sector. 1.2 Study Objectives annually between 2001 and 20103. capacity of crop pests and livestock a significant fraction is earmarked required by donors 3) Review the performance of the completed 1 These may be loans , grants or technical diseases; deepening access to to agricultural programmes under • Capacity constraints with institutions relating agricultural loans in terms of budgeting, assistance. markets; capacity for research and Ministry of Local Government (MOLG) to personnel, systems and procedures The main purpose of the study was to assess planning and implementation. 2 MFPED, 2012b. generating new technologies, value and districts. • Poor design of projects the performance status of agricultural services 4) Identify key pertinent gender issues and 3 MFPED, 2012d. 4 MFPED, 2012c. (extension, research, credit, finance, markets, how they were addressed in the completed food security) in Uganda and utilization of projects.10 5 MFPED, 2012b. 11
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects5) Make recommendations on how the projects performed and improvements for future projects. 1.3 Methodology Identification of case study Table 1.2: Case Study donor funded projects No. Project Status of Implementation Key selection criteria6) For the ongoing projects, analyze how the projects are performing based on set benchmarks. projects The study relied on secondary data sources, including primary information The first step involved listing all donor 1 Vegetable Oil First phase completed; • PPP implementation arrangement7) Make recommendations for the ongoing projects regarding how to that had been collected by MFPED on the selected donor projects. Table 1.1 funded projects in Uganda (Annex 1) Development Second phase recently • Funded by IFAD-GoU address gender issues. summarizes the approach used in addressing each of the study objectives. from which the case study projects could Project started. • Reported to be performing well. be selected. The following criteria guided • Implemented in Kalangala district and project selection: The focus will be on the Northern Uganda. Focus will be on theTable 1.1: Methodological approach to study objectives concluded phase. Kalangala Component Objective Approach • Projects must have benefitted from • Has both a completed and an ongoing donor loans; all projects that are phase. 1. Provide an overview of the sector In addition to macro level trend data in the agricultural sector, the areas that were highlighted in solely Government funded were not • Implemented directly by MAAIF performance, highlighting key priority the overall purpose of the study were analyzed, namely: extension, research, credit, finance, markets considered. • Focus is on promoting oil palm plantation issues. and food security. Desk review of secondary data sources at Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), MAAIF, MFPED, NAADS Secretariat, PMA Secretariat, FOWODE, VEDCO, Action Aid, Oxfam, DRT, World Bank. • Implemented by MAAIF or its agriculture. associated agencies for policy • Information easily accessible 2. Identify four Government loans – Reviewed secondary data in MFPED loans and grants reports; Approved Estimates; Public influence. 2 Creation of Ongoing • ADB-GoU funded two that had ended and another Investment Plans and MAAIF Output Oriented Budgeting Tool (OBT); Ministerial Policy Statements. • Easily accessible data and tsetse and • Countrywide two whose implementation was still Other details are below. information; frequently monitored trypanosomiasis • Directly implemented by MAAIF ongoing under the agricultural sector programmes. areas • Reported to be poorly performing 3. Review the performance of the Reviewed primary data that was collected by the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU) • Projects that are reported to be • Focus on control of trypanosomiasis and completed agricultural loans in and budget monitoring reports. Also reviewed project documents, including evaluation reports. performing well as well as those that tsetse fly infestation. terms of budgeting, planning and are seen to be performing poorly. • Information may not be easily accessible. implementation • A mix of donors that funded the 4. Identify key pertinent gender issues chosen projects 3. Agricultural First phase completed • Japan-GoU funded and how they were addressed in the Authors’ analysis of all available primary and secondary data and information. The gender issues • Different enterprise focus. Improved rice and second phase is near • MAAIF implemented completed projects. were identified within the context of the analysis and not as a separate section. • Projects that have public-private production completion • Focus on promoting growing of improved partnership (PPP) investment (NERICA project) rice varieties, the NERICA types. components. • Both good and poor performance 5. Make recommendations on how the reported. projects performed and improvements Authors’ analysis of all available primary and secondary data. • Information easily accessible for future projects. On the basis of the above criteria, the four case study projects that were 4 Farm Income Ongoing • ADB-GoU funded 6. For the ongoing projects, analyze how Reviewed primary data that was collected by the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU) selected for analysis were: Vegetable Oil Enhancement • Focus on rehabilitating four large the projects are performing based on and budget monitoring reports. Also reviewed project documents, including evaluation reports. Development Project (VODP); Creation Project – the irrigation schemes. set benchmarks. of tsetse and trypanosomiasis areas; Agricultural • MAAIF implemented and recently Agricultural Improved rice production Component transferred to MWE due to reported poor 7. Make recommendations for the and Farm Income Enhancement Project performance ongoing projects regarding how to Authors’ analysis of all available primary and secondary data. (FIEFOC) – Agricultural Component (Table • Information fairly accessible address gender issues. 1.2).12 13
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects 1.5 Report Structure The report is structured in five chapters: Chapter 2 Agriculture Sector Performance • Chapter 1: Introduction • Chapter 2: Agricultural Sector Performance • Chapter 3: Performance of Completed 2.1 Introduction Agriculture is categorized as a primary growth sector. At the sector level, two key through coordinated interventions that focus on enhancing productivity and Agricultural Loans policy documents guide implementation: value addition, providing employment opportunities, and promoting • Chapter 4: Performance of Ongoing A key objective of the study was to provide an the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) which is still under development and domestic and international trade. The Agricultural Loans • Chapter 5: Conclusions and overview of agricultural sector performance to the MAAIF Development Strategy and Development Strategy and Investment Recommendations contextualize the study findings. At the macro level, Investment Plan (DSIP) 2010/11 – Plan (DSIP) is the medium term strategic plan for MAAIF. The DSIP has two high agricultural sector interventions are guided by the 2014/15. level objectives or intended outcomes: (1) National Development Plan (NDP) that aims to enhance The overall policy objective of the Rural incomes and livelihoods increased; agricultural production and productivity as a means of NAP is to promote food and nutrition (2) Household food and nutrition security improved. increasing household incomes and promoting equity. security and household incomes The Civil Society Budget Advocacy Figure 2.1: Distribution of working population in Uganda in Uganda by sector (%) Group (CSBAG) has since 2004 brought together CSOs at national and local level to advocate for budgets that address the needs of poor women and men. The largest proportion of the working population in Uganda (66%) derives its livelihood from agriculture (Figure 2.1). Of policy concern however is why such a large population engaged in agriculture contributes only 14% to the national output, indicative of low factor productivity. This issue is further explored in section 2.4 below. Source: UNHS 2009/1014 15
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsThe Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) The rest of this chapter discusses sector performance from three key dimensions: (1) high inflation levels2. Although agriculture Table 2.1: Sectoral Growth Rates and Shares in GDP 2003/04 – 2011/122008/091 estimated that the number of remains very critical for spurring national Growth trends (2) Financing and expenditure Sector 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12agricultural households in Uganda are 3,945,753. growth, the share of agriculture in total GDPOut of these, the Western Region had the trends and (3) Delivery of key services. has declined over the years from 23.8 percent Sector Growth Rateshighest (28.5%), closely followed by the Eastern in FY 2003/04 to 13.9 percent in FY 2010/11. Agriculture 1.6 2.0 0.5 0.1 1.3 2.9 2.4 0.7 3.0Region (28.1%), Northern Region (22.9%) and Whereas the industrial and services sectorsCentral Region (20.5%). Of the 3,575,065agricultural households that responded to the 2.2 Growth trends have in some years hit a 10% growth rate, the growth in the agricultural sector has consistently Industry Services 8.0 7.9 11.6 6.2 14.7 12.2 9.6 8.0 8.8 9.7 5.8 8.8 6.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 1.1 3.1census, 2,821,070 or 78.9% were male headed Uganda’s economy grew at an average GDP remained dismal at 3% (Table 2.1)3. Sector Shares in Total GDP at Current Priceshouseholds and 753,994 or 21.1% were female growth of 7.8 percent between FY 2005/06 and FY 2010/11, and slowed down to 3.2 Agriculture 23.8 25.1 18.3 16.9 15.8 15.1 14.7 13.9headed households (Figure 2.2). The growth of the agricultural sector is still below percent in FY 2011/2012 as a result of high the National Development Plan (NDP) annual Industry 22.9 23.5 24.8 25.1 25.1 24.8 25.0 25.3 global oil and commodity prices, drought, growth target of 5.6 percent and the 6 percent Services 47.4 45.4 49.6 49.6 49.9 50.7 51.6 52.41 UBOS, 2010. power shortages, exchange rate volatility and growth rate that is required for effective poverty Source: UBOS Statistical Abstracts for various years; MFPED, 2012; MFPED, 2011; GoU, 2010. reduction. Research by IFPRI4 demonstratedFigure 2.2: Percent distribution of Agriculture Household Heads by Sex and Region that if agriculture in Uganda grew at 6 percent per annum, the national poverty headcount level would decline from 31.1 percent in 2005 to 19.9 percent in 2015, below the 28 percent 2.3 Financing and expenditure trends Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target. The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and 3 grants: (i) District Agricultural Extension (ii) Uganda’s agricultural growth rate is also below the 6 percent annual growth target of the African Fisheries (MAAIF) is the lead agency coordinating NAADS (Districts) (iii) Production and Marketing Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural agricultural financing both at the Central and Grant. Public funds include GoU and donor Development Program (CAADP)5. Local Government level. At Central Government financing. level, financing is handled through 7 Votes namely: (i) MAAIF (ii) NAADS Secretariat (iii) The budget allocation to agriculture as a share to Cotton Development Organization (CDO) (iv) the national budget remains low (Table 2.2) and Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) stands at 3.2% in FY 2012/2013 which constrains (v) National Agricultural Research Organization agricultural spending6. (NARO) (vi) Dairy Development Authority (DDA) and (vii) Kampala City Council Authority (KCCA) 2 MFPED, 2012. Grant. At the Local Government level, spending 3 MFPED, 2012. for agriculture is majorly channeled through 4 Benin, 2007. 5 The CAADP is an initiative of the New Partnership 6 At the African Union Assembly in Maputo in July 2003, for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) aimed at helping African Heads of State including the Ugandan President, committed countries reach a higher path of economic growth through to allocating at least 10% of national budgetary resources to agriculture-led development. agriculture within 5 years of the meeting date.Source: UBOS, 2010.16 17
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsTable 2.2: Sectoral Budget Allocations – FY 2009/10 – FY 2011/12 Figure 2.3: Budget allocations within the Table 2.3: On-budget and Off-budget Project Aid to Agriculture (US$ millions) Sector 2009/10 Approved 2010/11 Approved 2011/12 Approved Agricultural Sector FY 2011/12 On-budget Off-budget Allocation % Share Allocation % Share Allocation % Share Sector Actual Projections Actual Projections USh bn of Budget USh bn of Budget USh bn of Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/2013 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/2013 Agriculture 310.7 4.7% 366 5.0% 434.0 4.5% Agriculture 68.07 58.30 94.47 100.01 9.51 16.07 23.89 37.20 Lands, Housing & Urban Development 20.3 0.3% 24 0.3% 32.4 0.3% Total all 641.59 515.62 867.36 687.66 399.55 397.30 451.55 402.06 Energy & Mineral Development 698.9 10.5% 391 5.3% 1,320.0 13.7% Sectors Works & Transport 1,214.8 18.2% 1,038 14.1% 1,290.8 13.4% Agric Share Information & Communications Technology 9.5 0.1% 12 0.2% 12.1 0.1% % Source: MFPED, 2012c – Information Tourism, Trade & Industry 47.8 0.7% 49 0.7% 53.2 0.6% The programme is implemented in all submitted by Development partners by districts and sub-counties of Uganda, Education 1,079.6 16.2% 1,243 16.8% 1,416.3 14.7% February 2012. involving provision of advisory services and Health 737.7 11.0% 660 8.9% 799.1 8.3% inputs to various categories of farmers Water & Environment Social Development 172.2 32.5 2.6% 0.5% 250 32 3.4% 0.4% 271.3 50.4 2.8% 0.5% 2.4 Delivery of key and setting up of technology development sites and research trials. The first phase of Security 487.7 7.3% 649 8.8% 974.9 10.1% agricultural services the project ended in 2010 and the second phase commenced in FY 2010/11 under the Justice, Law & Order 359.7 5.4% 532 7.2% 531.6 5.5% Agricultural Technology and Agri-business Advisory Services Project (ATAAS). The ATAAS Public Sector Management 705.0 10.6% 835 11.3% 986.2 10.2% 2.4.1 Extension aims to strengthen the linkages between Accountability 462.9 6.9% 492 6.7% 543.6 5.6% The Government is offering agricultural NAADS and the National Agricultural extension and advisory services to farmers Research Organization (NARO) and increase Legislature 121.8 1.8% 163 2.2% 162.7 1.7% Source: MFPED, 2012a. mainly through the National Agricultural agricultural productivity and farmer access to Public Administration 217.0 3.2% 302 4.1% 231.8 2.4% technology, advice and information. Advisory Services (NAADS) programme, Interest payments due - - 340 4.6% 519.6 5.4% complemented by general extension services by the District and Sub-county Production The NAADS program has enabled farmers Grand Total 6,678.3 100.0% 7,377 100.0% 9,630.0 100.0% Offices. Other farmers pay to access private to access inputs and technologies: in FYSource: MFPED, 2010a; MFPED, 2011a; MFPED, 2012; DRT, 2011. 2010/11, the programme targeted 100 sector service providers, especially in the Close to a half of agricultural spending (42.4%) comes in discrete projects whose contribution livestock sector. The main objective of the Food Security Farmers (FSF) and 8 Market to the overall sector outc omes cannot be easily NAADS programme that has been under Oriented Farmers (MOFs) per Parish; this is earmarked to the NAADS programme that implementation since 2001 is to “ensure that number has gradually come down due to offers advisory services to farmers, followed by ascertained or measured. A significant amount of farmers move from subsistence to market resource constraints to 30 FSF per parish, policy and institutional development by MAAIF aid also comes off budget and its magnitude and oriented and eventually commercial farming”. 4 MOF per parish and 2 commercializing and research and technology development by use is not well captured in Government systems. farmers per Sub-county. The FSF are NARO (Figure 2.3). Most of the donor financing Table 2.3 provides a snapshot of project aid to agriculture in recent years.18 19
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projectsprovided with inputs worth UgSh 100,000 There is a need for the Government to In the study carried out by FOWODE TRACINGincluding seeds for beans, maize, simsim,bananas; hoes, goats and fertilizers, among encourage and support the development of public private partnerships in the delivery of Agriculture Extension grants in Uganda from a gender perspective the following was found, that 2.4.2 Research and technology Productivity growth in Ugandan agriculture has resulted primarily from area expansion andother items. The MOF are provided inputs worthUgShs 450,000 mainly to purchase livestock after extension services in Uganda as a means to fill the gap. For example, Government could very few women benefit directly from NAADs due to the fact that women never own land. Much services not from intensification of production or use of improved varieties that would result in higherthey provide co-funding. The commercializing partner or support farmer associations, NGOs as men benefit most of the work is done by the yields. According to MAAIF9, estimated average Agricultural research and technology servicesfarmers are receiving about Ugshs 1,200,000 and private sector players to scale up good women still as in the figure 2.4 below. yields in recent years at farm level have been in Uganda are spearheaded by the Nationalworth of inputs and technologies. models of extension that are littered in different below those at research stations (Table 2.5). Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) that parts of the country. was established by GoU in 1992. In 2005, theAccording to the recent agricultural census7, out NARO was restructured from being solely a Table 2.5: Yields of selected crops on farmof 3.6 million Agriculture House Holds (Ag HHs) Figure 2.4: public entity to encompassing other stakeholders and at research stations in Ugandain Uganda, 680,000 (19.0%) reported having NAADs including non-public service providers. Thus, the Crop Yield on farmers’ Yield on research Yield gap (%)been visited by an extension worker during2008/2009. The Western Region had the highest benefactors by NARO now coordinates the National Agricultural Research System (NARS). The NARS is offers fields stationpercentage (29.3%) of Ag HHs that were visited gender in four client responsive services through the National Maize 551 5,000 – 8,000 807 – 1,352by an extension worker followed by the EasternRegion (28.7%) and the Central Region with the districts FY Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and Zonal Beans 358 2,000 – 4,000 458 – 1,017 Agricultural Research and Development Institutes Groundnuts 636 2,700 – 3,500 324 - 450least percentage of 16.9% (Table 2.4). Based 2009/10 (ZARDIs).on this evidence, although the Government has Source: Bananas 1,872 4,500 140 Computation based Coffee 369 3,500 849rolled out the NAADS to all districts in Uganda, Agriculture production has improved over the on S/C recordsaccess to extension services remains low, with years with the dissemination of early yielding Source: MAAIF, 2010f. (FOWODE)80% of the agricultural households having not and disease resistant crop varieties and livestockbeen visited by an extension worker. breeds. Examples of high yielding varieties The yield gap between average farm yields and research yields indicates the immerse potential 2.4.3 Agriculture Credit that have been disseminated include, among The Government of Uganda has implemented aTable 2.4: Distribution of Ag HHs visited by others: Sunflower Sesun 1H & 2H, MM3 Maize, in farm productivity. Low and inefficient use of improved inputs is still pervasive among number of reforms since the 1990s to improve Groundnut Serenut 5R and 6R, Barley SGS 564extension workers by region (%) varieties; matooke hybrids with resistance to Uganda farmers and poor land management is a access to agricultural financing. These include: contributory factor. The Agricultural Technology the Cooperative Societies programme (1992); Region Ag HHs Ag HHs visited Percentage Black Sigatoka, weevils, nematodes and banana and Agribusiness Advisory Services Project the Rural Financial Services Programme (2005), Central 715,486 114,559 16.9% bacterial wilt; bean varieties NABE 15 and NABE (ATAAS) that was commenced in 2010 aims at The Poverty Alleviation Fund (1996), Entandikwa 16; 6 cassava varities with high resistance to Eastern 1,069,885 194,903 28.7% addressing these gaps through closer integration Scheme (1996), Microfinance programmes brown streak disease; NERICA Rice varieties; 7 of research and extension services. (2003), Prosperity for All (2005) and the Savings Northern 755,701 171,200 25.2% coffee varieties that are resistant to the coffee and Credit Cooperative Societies (early 2000s). Western 1,033,992 199,156 29.3% wilt disease; improved varieties for mangoes, However, the formal sector supply of credit for oranges, passion fruits, avocado, tomatoes, Uganda 3,575,064 679,818 100% farming in Uganda remains limited: since 2000, nectarines, apples and pears; essential oil cropsSource; UBOS, Uganda Census of Agriculture less than 10 percent of total private sector (Centronella Grass and Lemon Grass) and leaf credit is allocated to agriculture production and2008/9 vegetables. In additional improved breeds of marketing10 (Table 2.6). poultry, cattle, piggery and fisheries have been7 UBOS, 2010. disseminated8. 9 MAAIF, 2009. 10 Ezra Munyambonera et al, 2012.20 8 Various NARO reports. 21
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsTable 2.6: Percentage of Private Credit Distribution through commercial banks by sector Table 2.7: Percent Loan Distribution by Sector and Region through the MSCL Sector 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -11 should be supported to access 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agriculture production 2.00 4.08 6.09 3.70 2.60 2.30 6.00 the ACF facility which is collateral Agriculture-Northern 4.1 1.6 3.8 1.4 16.6 6.7 free. Efforts to reduce the risks Agriculture marketing 5.00 6.51 3.93 1.60 1.90 2.00 3.00 Agriculture-Western 1.9 3.6 7.9 21.8 30.6 38.9 associated with the agricultural Mining and quarrying 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.30 0.33 Agriculture-Central 0.0 12.9 1.3 7.1 16.1 24.2 sector, such as weather, Manufacturing 23.00 20.22 20.08 9.10 10.60 9.30 13.00 insurance and price stabilization, Agriculture-Eastern 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.0 5.7 Electricity and water 5.00 5.89 5.96 4.30 5.40 8.20 0.80 will help to extend financial Building and construction 3.00 4.01 3.40 4.50 5.00 11.80 17.00 Commerce and Trade-Northern 16.5 1.3 4.9 6.6 1.5 0.5 access but are unlikely to be Whole and retail trade 50.00 59.23 69.23 47.50 48.82 66.10 40.30 Commerce and Trade- Western 20.9 8.5 30.6 20.1 3.8 4.7 sufficient. Other 0.01 0.00 00.0 29.30 25.58 0.00 19.57 Commerce and Trade-central 50.8 49.8 40.6 23.1 12.8 12.0Source: Bank of Uganda (BoU) Monetary Statistics, 2011; Ezra Munyambonera et al, 2012. commerce and Trade- Eastern 5.8 6.5 10.0 4.0 2.7 2.4 Business Development-Northern 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 The Government is providing financial In 2009, the Government introduced the Business Development-Western 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.0 4.1 1.6 support through the Microfinance Support Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) for provision Centre Limited (MSCL) to Savings and Credit of subsidized medium and long term Business Development- Central 0.0 4.6 0.0 15.0 4.3 1.6 Cooperative Organisations (SACCOs) to loans to farmers at a 10% interest rate. Business Development- Eastern 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.7 disburse commercial and agricultural loans. Over 200 farmers have benefitted from Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 A recent study by Ezra Munyambonera et the scheme where resources are mainly Source: Microfinance Support Centre, 2010; Ezra al (2012) shows regional disparity in the invested in agricultural equipment and value The main reasons for limited access to credit Munyambonera et al, 2012. among females were high interest rates, lack distribution of the loans with the Western addition and agro processing machinery. and Central regions dominating in receiving Funds are channeled to farmers through of collateral, ignorance (poor understanding The most recent Uganda Census for Whereas Government has attempted to provide support. Funds disbursed for agricultural commercial banks. The funds have enabled credit for agriculture, access remains low. The of procedures for accessing finance due to Agriculture 2008/09 shows that development across regions were less than medium to large scale farmers to expand low literacy levels) and unavailability of lending 20 percent over the years, apart from the their businesses and acquire machinery most recent Uganda Census for Agriculture institutions. The UCA 2008/09 showed only 36.2% of agricultural household The Government is providing financial western region that received substantive for commercializing agriculture. The key 2008/09 shows that only 36.2% of agricultural household members had ever received a credit that the main form of collateral required members had ever received a credit by lending institutions in Uganda was land support through the Microfinance amounts between 2008 and 2010 (Table 2.7). However, the process of acquiring this credit challenges of the ACF relate to i) it cannot be while 63.8% had never received credit. Of the and salary that are rarely owned by female while 63.8% had never received credit. used for financing production inputs ii) many Support Centre Limited (MSCL) to is difficult /costly for small scale farmers as farmers not aware of its availability iii) Limited 487,000 agricultural household members that farmers. Many female farmers earn low received credit, 309,000 (63.4%) were males incomes and hence are unable to save in Savings and Credit Cooperative they are required to pay 10 – 15 % interest grace period iv) High interest rate for young while 179,000 (36.6%) were females. Credit is SACCOs. This limits the ability of female small yet they are not sure of the produce as the enterprises. Organisations (SACCOs) to disburse seasons are not predictable. more easily accessible to males in agricultural holder farmers from expanding production households in all regions of Uganda than commercial and agricultural loans. females (Figure 2.5). to market levels. Government needs to increase financial literacy, especially among women and provide incentives to enhance their borrowing. For example, female farmers22 23
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsFigure 2.5: Distribution of Agricultural contribute to income enhancement of the small Table 2.8: Percentage distribution of Households by Distance to nearest local produce holder farmers11. The warehouse receipt systemHousehold members who received credit by is funded under Uganda Commodity Exchange market Farmers still lack market informationsex and region by 2008/09 (UCE) and the commercial banks Housing Finance, Distance to Local Market Number of Households Proportion of which exposes them to exploitation Stanbic and DFCU. Households by middlemen who offer low prices Less than 1Km 119,726 3.6 The six licensed warehouse in for their produce. In remote and 1 to less than 1,155,526 34.9 Uganda include: 3 Km mountainous areas, access to • Jinja warehouse markets is limited by poor road 3 to less than 765,982 23.2 • Kasese – Elehadai ware house 5 km • Kasese – Nyakatozi ware house infrastructure and lack of regular 5 and above Km 1,267,134 38.3 • Gulu ware house transport means. • Masindi ware house Total 3,308,368 100 • Kapchorwa ware house Source: UCA 2008/2009. • Soroti ware house • Tororo ware house Farmers still lack market information which considered to food secure, the country faces Overall, there was an increase in the proportion Gender mainstreaming is wholly exposes them to exploitation by middlemen who food insecurity. of households taking one meal a day as opposed embraced in the WRS program. The offer low prices for their produce. In remote and to the traditional three meals a day. The problem ware-houses that are operational The UNHS 2009/10 collected information on the mountainous areas, access to markets is limited of food insufficiency was more pronounced in have employed mostly women to by poor road infrastructure and lack of regular average number of meals taken by household rural than urban areas and in Northern Uganda sort the seeds and grains which transport means. members per day in the last 7 days preceding (Table 2.9). have increased on the householdSource: UBOS, 2011. the survey. A meal was considered to be any income in these families and livelihood. For every 30 employees in a warehouse, 25 are substantial amount of food eaten at one time. 2.4.5 Food security2.4.4 Marketing women who sort the seeds while 5 men carry out administration work and moving heavy sacks. Food Security exists when all people, at all times, Table 2.9: Distribution of Households that took one meal a day %Through the liberalization and privatization have physical and economic access to sufficient, Residence 2002/03 2005/06 2009/10policies of the 1990s, the Government divested Although access to markets has improved safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary Rural 6.0 9.0 10.1itself of providing markets for agricultural tremendously with the opening of roads in the needs and food preferences for an active and Urban 8.1 6.3 5.9produce and concentrated since then on playing countryside, farmers still find it a challenge toa facilitative role to private sector to undertake market their produce. The UCA 2008/09 found healthy life12. Two proxies are used widely to Kampala 5.3 6.4 6.9this responsibility. Government mainly provides that about 38% of agricultural households have to measure the food security and nutrition level of a Central 3.7 9.6 7.3market information to farmers and has introduced move 5Km and above to access local markets, the country: the number of meals taken in a day (the problem being more pronounced in the Central more the better) and access to salt which is an Eastern 3.0 4.8 7.3the Ware House Receipt System (WRS) tofacilitate bulk storage and marketing. The main Region (42% reported being 5Km or more from essential and cheap household item. The UNHS Northern 25.1 18.4 20.1objective is to increase storage capacity, value nearest local market) followed by Western region 2009/201013 showed that, although Uganda is Western 4.5 3.8 5.8addition and develop a sustainable marketing (40.7%) – Table 2.8. 12 Adopted from the World Uganda 7.7 8.5 9.3system of agricultural commodities that will 13 UBOS, 2010a. Source: UNHS 2009/10. 11 Warehouse receipt system Act 200924 25
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Chapter 3 Performance of Completed Agricultural LoansThese findings are collaborated by anothermore recent study carried out by the BMAU in Figure 2.6: Households by number of meals eaten by adults before and after NAADS62 districts and 12 Municipalities involving 1,560NAADS beneficiary households14. The studyrevealed that, prior to the NAADS intervention onfood security farmers (FSFs) and market oriented 3.1 Vegetable Oil 3.1.1 Brief project profile Plantation Services, BIDCO, Josovina) that arefarmers (MOFs) in FY 2010/11, adults in about partners in project. The KOPGT is a trustee50 percent of the households had two meals The overall goal of the Vegetable Oil Development body that was established in 2005 to protect theper day, 38 percent could afford three meals per Development Project (VODP) is “to increase interests of and support the smallholder farmersday and 2 percent had four meals per day. Since household cash income of smallholders by Project who are supposed to develop 3500ha of oil palmthe NAADS intervention, the proportion eating revitalizing and increasing domestic vegetable under the VODP. The institution, which is GoUonce or twice per day has reduced slightly while oil production, in partnership with the private funded, supports the farmers by providing credit,those eating three or four times per day have sector”. The project is structured around inputs, marketing infrastructure and selling theirincreased modestly (Figure 2.6). Analysis of the performance of first and three different subprojects: (i) introduction of fruits.14 MFPED, 2012f. commercial oil palm production on Bugala Island concluded phase of the Vegetable Oil in Lake Victoria; (ii) development of traditional Development Project (VODP) is based oilseeds in northern, eastern and mid-western 3.1.2 Planning and project design districts of Uganda; and (iii) research and on two key sources of information: the Interim Evaluation report of March development (R&D) of essential oil crops piloted phase in a variety of districts. The project is financed Because of the complexity of the project in terms Source: MFPED, 2012f. 2011 and the field findings by the by the International Fund for Agricultural of the number of stakeholders involved in the Development (IFAD), Government and the These findings indicate that the country still has Budget Monitoring and Accountability private sector player OPUL. Public Private Partnership (PPP), the planning and close to 10% of the population that take one designing phase was protracted and took a long meal a day and another over 40 percent that take Unit (BMAU) conducted during July- period. The Government of Uganda conceived 2 meals a day which is not adequate. Enhancing September 2008 and February – March The first phase of the project that commenced the idea to establish the VODP in 1986 as a means of promoting import substitution and food production and productivity in the country 2012. The analysis is limited to the in 2003 ended on 31st December 2011 and export diversification to recover the economy remains a major challenge for feeding the closure was on 30th June 2012. Implementation population adequately. The Government needs Oil Palm Component of the VODP of the Oil Palm Component at district level that had been under war. The Government sought the support of IFAD that saw the VODP as to work closely with the private sector and civil which attracted the bulk of the donor involves a tripartite agreement between three an opportunity to increase smallholder incomes. society to bring agricultural services closer to the parties: GoU-MAAIF, the Oil Palm Uganda people and ensure that they are affordable so resources. Limited (OPUL) and Kalangala Oil Palm Growers However, it took a total of eight years of planning that farming can be scaled up in all regions in the Trust (KOPGT). The District Production Officer before the VODP was approved in 1997 by the country using improved inputs and technologies. coordinates the project at district level. OPUL IFAD Executive Board. is a consortium of private companies (Wilmar 1 IFAD, 2011.26 27
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsDuring the planning stage, a value chain thereby bringing the total project costs to Table 3.1: Financial performance of theapproach to the vegetable oil subsector was around US$156 million1.adopted implying working with a variety of VODP by Sub-component (US$ ‘000)vegetable oil crops, stakeholders, institutional The delay in project start up and the loan Sub-component IFAD Loan Government Beneficiaries Totallevels, and geographical areas. It required extensions necessitated re-allocations between Budget Actual % Budget Actual % Budget Actual % Budget Actual %coordination with many public and private budget lines: there was a reduction in vehicles Oil Palm 10,790 5,393 50 2,080 6,334 305 4,000 3,200 80 16,870 14,927 88institutions at national, district and local levels. and equipment and civil works and operating Traditional oil seeds and 6,640 4,976 75 1,360 1,346 99 - - - 8,000 6,322 79Protracted discussions to bring on board the costs rose significantly. Overall expenditure was essential oilsprivate sector OPUL (also referred to as BIDCO) within budget limits and on schedule. There was Institutional support 2,480 2,284 92 340 834 245 - - - 2,820 3,118 111and the public to surrender their land to the an increase in Government commitments while Total costs 19,910 12,653 64 3,780* 8,514 225 4,000 3,200 80 27,690 24,367 88project resulted in a five year delay in project IFAD disbursements lagged behind schedule.implementation. Another two-year delay was Expenditure in the oil palm component was *The Government’s contribution was increased to at 88% of the disbursed funds, reflecting a US$12 million after the oil palm revisions in 2000. targets for physical performance had been in 2011. The average harvest per month roseexperienced to give time to establishment of theKOPGT. Hence, although the project was officially fairly good absorption capacity (Table 3.1). The Source: IFAD, 2011. achieved, as garnered from field findings by from 200 tonnes in 2010 to 500 tonnes in 2012,approved in April 1997, implementation did not increased Government expenditure on oil palm the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit as more farmers started harvesting and appliedcommence until 2005. The project had to beextended four times to enable implementation resulted from the high costs of the new ferry, the purchase of land for the project and efforts 3.1.4 Project Implementation (BMAU)2. OPUL planted 6,100 ha of the targeted 6,500 ha; land planted by smallholders and fertilizers. to counteract negative publicity. IFAD’s low The first phase of the VODP had 6 core targets, out growers was 2,362.4 ha against the target A major shortcoming of the project howeverto take place. The delays during the planning disbursement rate (64 per cent) was attributed among others namely: of 3,500 ha (67.5% achievement); the KOPGT was the lack of focus on involving specialphase negatively affected project outcomes asdiscussed below. to the slow enrolment of smallholders and out office was constructed and furnished; the mill interest groups such as widows and orphans growers in the oil palm subproject. 1) Develop 10,000 ha of oil palm on Bugala for processing Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) started as they lacked land to effectively participate in Island: 6,500 ha on a nucleus plantation and operation in February 2010 with an installed the project. Other challenges included: farmers 3,500 ha planted by out growers and small3.1.3 Budgeting and financing holders organized by KOPGT capacity of 10 metric tonnes (MT) expandable to 30 MTs per hour; 210km out of the 250 km were expressed discomfort with regard to the lack of clarity on how the deduction by KOPGT of 33Total project costs were originally estimated 2) Construct, furnish and equip an office block constructed; percent from proceeds to recover the loans andat US$60 million, consisting of an IFAD loan of for KOPGT transport costs was being computed; wastage of 3) Construct a processing mill at the nucleus By March 2012, the total amount loaned outUS$20 million, US$33.1 million in co-financing fruits as KOPGT did not have enough trucks to estate to farmers to cater for their financing needs atfrom a private-sector partner, and contributions transport the produce from the farmer fields to 4) Construction of 250 km of road network. 10% interest rate stood at Ugshs 19.5 billion,of US$3.8 million and US$3.1 million, respectively the processing mill. The escalating value of land 5) KOPGT to provide of inputs and loans to having risen from Ugshs 12.8 billion in 2011from the Government and the beneficiaries. was another constraining factor in acquisition of farmers. and Ugshs 8.8billion in 2010. The KOPGT hadHowever, the scale of the oil palm subproject land for the oil palm plantations. 6) Harvesting and collecting fresh fruit recovered Ugshs 450 million from the farmers.was later increased to ensure its financial and bunches from farmers. Yields were still low as most trees were yet to The IFAD evaluation report highlighted a numbereconomic viability. The private investor and the By project closure date, almost all the above gain maturity. The harvest rose from 680 tonnes of factors that affected implementation results:Government increased their contributions to 1 IFAD, 2011. in 2010 to 2,900 tonnes of fresh fruit bunchesUS$120 million and US$12 million, respectively, the five year delay in identifying the private 2 MFPED, 2012e; MFPED, 2008.28 29
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects By March 2012, the total amountinvestor and concluding negotiations resultedin delayed planting maturing of the crop. The 31% of the total beneficiaries (Table 3.2). The women tended to get involved in smaller scale loaned out to farmers to cater are required for putting in place large donor funded projects and forging partnerships 3.2 Agricultural Improved focuses on strengthening the capacity for rice seed (breeder/foundation) production at for their financing needs at 10% Rice Productionsetting up of KOPGT, establishment of the processing, transportation of fruits and helping with Government and private sector. National Crops Resources Research Institutenucleus estate and smallholder and out grower their husbands in tending the plantations. interest rate stood at Ugshs 19.5 (NaCRRI) and the capacity for certified seed 2) Funds absorption: The VODP exhibitedoil palm plantings, the harvesting of FFBs and Widows hardly participated as many lacked billion, having risen from Ugshs multiplication and storage at community level. a fairly good absorption capacity of theconstruction of oil mill were all delayed. Thedelays substantially increased costs for both access to land. 12.8 billion in 2011 and Ugshs earmarked funds, indicative of proper 3.2.1 Brief Project Profile 8.8billion in 2010.the Government and the private investor. In theearly years, there was much public opposition to Table 3.2: Number of VODP beneficiaries by budgeting and identification of priority expenditure items, functional financial The Agriculture/Improved Production project3 was a GoU intervention during 1st September 3.2.2 Planning and project designthe project from some NGOs, donors, opposition gender in 2009 management systems and adequate 2008 – 31st August 2010 with the principal phasepoliticians, civil servants and subsector Category No. of No. of Total Proportion capacity building within the implementing objective of “increasing rice production and Consultations held between MAAIF and BMAUcompetitors. This further delayed project Smallholders Out growers (%) agencies. income of resource poor farmers through in 20114 indicated that once the project wasimplementation and dampened the results. Men 396 53 449 69 promoting innovative NERICA rice based 3) Mainstreaming gender: although approved by GoU in 2007/2008, the initial Women 183 19 202 31 technologies in Northern Uganda”. The project gender issues were integrated in the VODP, planning processes were largely undertaken at was implemented by MAAIF in collaboration with Total beneficiaries 579 72 651 100 not much attention was paid to this aspect the offices of the development partners (FAO3.1.5 Key Gender Issues Source: IFAD, 2010. mainstreaming was partially addressed, mainly as implementation progressed. Gender the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and with funding from the Government of Japan. and JICA) with involvement of MAAIF Senior staff. planning should be part and parcel of the The project design was such that the substantiveGender mainstreaming in the VODP was Implementation was undertaken in 9 districts focusing on participation of women and youth in activities would be implemented directly by FAOaddressed mainly from the perspective of A major challenge was that the project did not project design, planning, implementation namely: Amolotar, Amuru, Apac, Dokolo, Gulu, the project. Other key gender dimensions such with MAAIF playing the advisory and monitoringtargeting women and youth to be among develop a detailed strategy of reaching out and monitoring process. Clear gender Kitgum, Lira, Oyam and Pader. The intervention as supporting land access by the disadvantaged role. Hence, FAO worked directly with Districtthe beneficiaries. Women were encouraged to the targeted groups once the project was mainstreaming strategies should be put in was a successor to a previous project known as and enhancing access to extension and inputs Production Offices to organize the farmers toto participate in the project in their own underway. Follow-up meetings were held with place during the implementation process, “Dissemination of NERICA and Improved Rice were not addressed. A number of lessons and participate in the project.right as landowners or tenants, as wives of block groups and to speed uptake, the project and progress should be regularly monitored. production Systems to Reduce Poverty and recommendations emerge from the analysis:landowners or tenants or as plantation workers. increasingly focused on any willing participant, Food Deficit in Uganda” implemented by MAAIF/ The project used a Farmer Field School (FFS)They were also encouraged to participate in especially those with land. FAO during 2006 to 2008 estimated to cost US$ 1) Implementation modalities: Delays approach where farmers were organized inthe membership and leadership of grower 1,239,983. in implementing projects can have gross groups of 30 members and trained in improvedorganizations and access loans and inputs from 3.1.6 Lessons and cost implications and organizational The project used a Farmer Field rice production technologies. Each district had 8KOPGT. Youth, on the other hand, were targeted problems that negatively impact on project School (FFS) approach where farmer groups that benefited from the project.as members of smallholder households and theybenefitted from skills in financial management, recommendations implementation. For large complex projects/ farmers were organized in groups The first project operated in the districts of Mpigi, Wakiso, Mbale, Tororo, Gulu, Lira, Hoima and Provision of seed, input and equipment by the Overall, the VODP achieved a sizeable number PPPs, sufficient time should be allocated of 30 members and trained project was done through a revolving fund sosuccession planning and HIV/AIDS Sensitization. Masindi. Target beneficiaries are IDP returnees, of its targets, despite the delayed start to to the planning process before project that the outputs could be sustained beyond the approval and all the key stakeholders should in improved rice production poor farmers, women farmers and small-scale implementation. The delayed start of the food insecure households. The project also project life. The intervention was implementedOil palm being a commercial crop, more men intervention led to delayed disbursement be adequately sensitized and involved in technologies. by a Project Coordination Unit based in Lirathan women participated in the project. For 3 The full project name is “Agriculture and Rural of funds, escalated project costs and some the project design and planning processes. Development through improved rice based farming systems for district.example, by January 2009, women constituted key outcomes not being realized. Gender Considerable time, resources and flexibility food security and poverty reduction in Northern Uganda”. 4 BMAU Monitoring Visits in FY 2010/2011 Q2.30 31
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects3.2.3 Budgeting and financing Table 3.2: Utilization of Donor Funds in Table 3.3: Farm tools distributed to farmers byBudgeting for the donor funds that accounted Agriculture Improved Rice Production August 2010for over 90% of the disbursements was mainly Project Item Total quantity Quantity Quantity perdone by the Government of Japan, with input Item Budget US$ %age of total costs distributed distributed per farmerfrom FAO. The MAAIF was involved in budgeting district Personnel 105,600 7.04for the counterpart funding from GoU which Serrated Sickle 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmer Equipment and Machinery 424,700 28.32formed less than 10% of the available resource. Hoes 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerThe MAAIF officials, when consulted by BMAU5, Material and supply 155,000 10.34 Panga/Machine 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerindicated that they were not fully aware of the Contract 144,800 9.66expenditure patterns for the donor funds as Consultants for Capacity Building 142,000 9.47 Shovels 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerthese were exclusively handled by the donor and (training and workshop and technical Wheel barrows 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerimplementing agency FAO. manual) Tarpaulins 2,160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmer Capacity Building 106,900 7.13 Tape measures 72 units 8 1 piece per groupThe end of project evaluation report6 indicates (FFS support, training and workshop andthat a total of US$ 1,499,400 was spent on this technical manual) Ox-ploughs 72 pieces 8 1 piece per groupproject, donated by the Government of Japan Duty Travel 187,900 12.53 Oxen 144 heads 16 2 heads per groupand channeled through FAO as the spending GOE 60,000 4.0 Line marker 216 pieces 24 3 pieces per groupagency. In addition, GoU provided counterpart Overhead (13%) 172,500 11.50 Jab planter 216 pieces 24 3 pieces per groupfunding to MAAIF for monitoring this project: UShs Source: Project Coordination Unit – Lira; MAAIF/FAO, 2009. GRAND TOTAL 1,499,400 100149,650,000 in FY 2009/10 and UShs 119,800,000in the first and second quarter of FY 2010/11, all MAAIF/FAO, 2010 benefitted 72 farmer groups with a total of 2,160totaling to UShs 269,450,000. Table 3.2 shows the About 39% of the project funds were used for farmers in 9 districts of Northern Uganda. Inutilization of the donor funds. purchasing equipment, machinery and supplies addition to training on improved rice production, Table 3.4: Post harvest equipment distributed by August 2010 and 61% used in over head costs, capacity the farmers were provided with farm tools and Items Quantity Mode of Distribution building and other expenses. All the funds post harvest equipment as shown in Tables distributed received from GoU were used by MAAIF for 3.3 and Table 3.4. Certified NERICA rice seeds Re-circulating Batch Dryer 1 piece 1 piece for NaCRRI supervision and monitoring of the project. from Namulonge Research Station, fertilizer and Air screen Seed Grader 1 piece 1 piece for NaCRRI herbicides were distributed to seed growers in Hold-on motorized rice thresher on 29 units 1 piece per sub-county the first season of 2009 for seed multiplication trolley or cart 3.2.4 Project Implementation (Table 3.5). Tools and equipment (tractors, pumps, threshers and rice mills) were provided Mill-top SB30 rice mill 9 units 1 unit per District The project was implemented as scheduled over Sefex 25 HP Diesel Engine 9 units 1 unit per District to farmers’ groups or farmers’ associations. In a two-year period. The mid-term and end of the second year, seeds were procured from Weighing Scale 0-100kg 72 units 1 unit per group project reports7 indicate that the interventions farmers for distribution in the production area. NERICA Signposts 9 units 1 unit per District5 BMAU Monitoring Visits in FY 2010/2011 Q2.6 MAAIF/FAO, 2010. 7 MAAIF/FAO, 2009; MAAIF/FAO, 2010. Source: Project Coordination Unit – Lira; MAAIF/FAO, 200932 33
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsTable 3.5: Inputs distributed in 2009 2) Funds utilization and disbursement Type of input Quantity Quantity per farmer 3.2.6 Lessons and modalities: the donor funds were NERICA Seed (1,4,10)* 29,625kg (season 1) 10kg per farmer 23,600kg (season II) 200kg per seed grower recommendations budgeted for and disbursed to beneficiaries from the donor offices. The Ministry of Urea Fertilizer 900 bags of 50 kg 33 bags per seed grower This project met its set objectives of increasing Agriculture was not involved in guiding DAP Fertilizer 450 bags of 50 kg 16 bags per seed grower rice production and income within Northern expenditure and ensuring efficiency and Satunil herbicide 250 litres per district 83 litres per seed grower Uganda. All the donor funds were absorbed effectiveness of the project. The donor by the end of the project. However, the inputsSource: Project Coordination Unit – Lira; MAAIF/FAO, records indicated the bulk of funds were community participation and group dynamics. that were provided to the farmers were used for recurrent expenses which is2009 Hence, sustainability of the project became a grossly inadequate, some of poor quality and indicative of poor allocative efficiency. FutureThe project provided 9 units of rice milling problem (v) Poor quality of inputs. FAO disbursing inappropriate. A year after end of project, projects should allow for the Governmenttechnologies for use in rural areas where access inputs directly to farmers without verification rice production had ceased for some of the agency to have a more active role into milling facilities is a challenge. To improve by the district led to some poor quality inputs groups that had been targeted indicating low budgeting and utilization of the funds.management of the mills and ensure return on being disseminated. For example immature oxen sustainability of the intervention. A number ofthe investment, the equipment is managed on would not be accepted if the district veterinary lessons and recommendations emerge from this 3) Project design: the approach of providinga public-private sector partnership model. The officer had inspected them first. analysis: a small input package to a few farmersprivate sector managing the mills was requested in every geographical locality does notto meet the costs for housing and installation ofthe equipment. Over 850 metric tonnes of rice 3.2.5 Key Gender Issues 1) Planning and implementation modalities: The approach of the donors generate meaningful impacts in terms of enhancing agricultural production andwere produced from a total of 1,700 hectares The project addressed gender from one taking lead in planning and implementation household incomes. Future projects shouldestablished under project support8. perspective: selecting farmer groups that led to less involvement and follow up of be designed to cover a larger project area, were largely constituted of women to be the the interventions by the Government target a significant number of farmers andField monitoring findings by the BMAU in 69 beneficiaries. Many of the farmer groups entities, the MAAIF and the Districts. provide adequate inputs for economicout of the 9 implementing districts 2010 and that benefitted from the inputs had a Poor quality inputs were delivered by the viability and sustainable impact.201110 indicated that the farmers and farmer disproportionately larger representation of donors and the sustenance of the projectgroups received all the inputs as planned, women than men. However, the seed growers and its impacts was low. It is critical thatwith modest variations. Four key challenges to who were responsible for seed multiplication donor funded projects use the approachimplementation were: (1) inadequacy of the and received larger input packages were of Government taking the lead in planninginputs and inappropriateness of some of the predominantly male. This was attributed to the and implementation which will enhancefarm equipment (ii) lack of supervision and follow need for land to undertake seed multiplication supervision of the interventions and longup by MAAIF (iii) very low project coverage as which women did not have access to generally. term impacts.only a few parishes were targeted (Iv) The projectdid not empower the farmers adequately on8 MAAIF/FAO, 20109 Amolator, Kitgum, Lamwo, Lira, Oyam, Pader and Gulu.10 MFPED, 2010a; MFPED, 2011c.34 35
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Chapter 4 Performance of ongoing Agricultural Loans 3) Low counterpart funding which is itemized Table 4.1: Fund disbursements for STATFA in a manner that does not meet the project by March 2010 requirements of the project. For Category ADF Loan ADF Grant GoU (15% contribution) example, there is a large budget UA US$ UA US$ UA US$ line reserved for donor staff Amount signed for 6,550,000.00 9,497,500.00 240,000 348,000 982,500 1,424625 salaries yet the project had only one staff to be paid.4.1 Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas Disbursement to date 886,314.09 1,285,155.43 195,782.69 283,884.9 61,711.68 89,481.944.1.1 Brief Project Profile spraying; Entomological, parasitological and BMAU2 indicate that ADB funded projects suffer Undisbursed amount 5,663,685.91 8,212,344.57 44,217.31 64,115.1 920,788.32 1,335,143.06 4.1.4 Project from bureaucracies that lead to excessive delays socioeconomic baseline Survey; Strategies for controlling tsetse and Trypanosomiasis; in project execution. All major payments are % Disbursement 13.57% 13.57% 81.56% 81.56% 6.28% 6.28% ImplementationUganda is one of the six countries Operationalise the geographical information effected from the donor offices after rigorous Note: 1UA = 1.45US$ = 2465 UShsimplementing the regional Creation of Tsetse & The STATFA project staff and the review The STATFA project has been reviewed and system1. The analysis in this section focuses on assessment procedures. Source: MAAIF, 2010eTrypanosomiasis Free Areas (STATFA) project, documents indicated three key challenges that reports are available on overall progress inother countries being Kenya, Ethiopia, Burkina the first four years of implementation (2006- Table 4.2 shows the extent of utilization of explain these financial trends3: implementation4. A year before completion date,Faso, Mali and Ghana. At the African Continent 2010) as the project was originally scheduled to the funds that had been disbursed. Slightly the project was behind schedule in addressinglevel, the project is coordinated by the Pan be completed in 2011. 4.1.3 Budgeting and financing over a half (54%) of the disbursed funds had 1) Government took long to fulfill some of the loan prior conditions such as hiring the key objectives and activities. The mainAfrican Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication been utilized by the project over the four year activities undertaken were focusing on capacity Table 4.1 presents the disbursement of the the required staff and putting in place aCampaign PATTEC. Although the implementation period. This suggests a very slow rate of funds building, procurement of inputs and some management committee. The Accountantsperiod was indicated as April 2006 to 2011, the 4.1.2 Planning and project design STATFA project funds as of March 2010. After 4 years of implementation of the donor project absorption and project implementation, given were changed twice leading to a disruption implementation focusing on deployment of trapsproject is still ongoing. The project is funded by the fact that only 15% of the total resources had and screening in Kalangala district.the African Development Fund (ADF) and GoU. phase and close to the completion date, the bulk been disbursed. The project was extended for in project activities. In the financing agreement, GoU is supposed to provide of funds under the ADF loan had not been Procurements have been completed for officeThe total loan amount is UA 6,550,000 and Grant Being a regional project, planning for the additional years to allow project implementation disbursed. Only 13.57% of the ADF loan had permanent management staff.Amount UA 240,000. STATFA project involved a wide cross-section to take place. equipment, vehicles, audio visual equipment, been disbursed. About 81% of the ADF Grant 2) Bureaucracies in procurements – using two of stakeholders at national and continent insecticide (400 litres of deltamethrin 20% and only 6.28% of the GoU contribution had procurement systems of ADB and GoU – led level to ensure uniformity in implementation and 6152 litres of pour-on insecticide 1%)The project objective is “to eradicate Tsetse been disbursed. Overall, only 15% of the total Table 4.2: Funds utilization of the STATFA to excessive delays. of the interventions. Hence, the planning and and 1 outbound engine and 20 life jackets alland Trypanosomiasis from Uganda”. The project funds have been disbursed over the four 3 MFPED, 2010a.project is for implementation in the districts designing stage continued even after the project year period. About 85% of the funds remained project during April 2006-March 2010 costing UShs 226,206,640 or was approved for implementation. The MAAIF Source Amount received Amount utilized Balances (UA) % Utilisation US$ 118,650. Procurements areof Rakai, Lyantonde, Masaka, Kalangala, undisbursed, one year to the scheduled project was at the centre of the planning process (UA) (UA) ongoing for 90,000 tsete traps,Mpigi, parts of Sembabule, Wakiso, Kampala, closure date. together with officials from ADB and MFPED. Loan 886,314.09 406,547.59 479,766.50 45.87 insecticides, veterinary drugs,Mukono, Kayunga, Kaliro, Jinja, Mayuge, Iganga, There was not much documented evidence of lab supplies, 10 motorcycles,Bugiri, Tororo, Butaleja and Pallisa. Expected Grant 195,782.69 151,565.38 44,217.01 77.41 the details of how the planning process was protective wear, generators andoutputs include: complete refurbishment GoU 61,711.68 60,477.45 1,234.23 98 actually undertaken. Discussion notes from the other items estimated to costand expansion of insectary at NaLIRRI; Tsetse Source: MAAIF, 2010e.population reduced by 95%-98% using aerial 1 MAAIF, 2010e; MFPED, 2009. 2 Budget Monitoring Visits during January-March 2010. 4 MAAIF, 2010e. STATFA Project, 2009.36 37
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsUS$ 2,245,913. Entomological, parasitological,environmental and socio-economic baseline the destroyed nets hence their usage was for a limited time period. The district had few 4.2 Farm Income restructured to focus on four irrigation schemes. The overall objective of the project is to induce Swamp Rice irrigation Scheme in Dokolo district and Agoro Irrigation Scheme in Kitgum district. Enhancement Project –data. The human sleeping sickness analysis entomologists to implement the project and a commercially sustainable agriculture for The rehabilitation was to be completed bywas conducted. Out of the 12,000 insecticide the project management committee was not The project aims at improving improved income level for the community and December 2010. incomes, rural livelihoods Irrigation Componenttreated tsetse traps that were supposed to be functional. help in poverty alleviation.deployed, 2,300 were deployed in Kalangala and food security through An ADB Supervision mission conducted in Aprildistrict in 3 parishes. In addition, 100 litres of 2011 found that no work had been done bypour-on was delivered to treat cattle. A total 4.1.5 Lessons and sustainable natural resources 4.2.2 Planning and Project Design MAAIF and recommended cancellation of theof 26 entomologists were trained, study tours management and agricultural Phase project if the trend of slow implementation wasundertaken in other countries, 60 of the 120 recommendations enterprise development. 4.2.1 Brief Project Profile not rectified. It was noted that due to passagelaboratory technicians and assistants had been The Farm Income Enhancement and Forest The planning for the project was done jointly The STATFA project lagged behind schedule of time, the funds that were available were norecruited, regional workshops held in Jinja and Conservation Project (FIEFOC) under the by MAAIF and officials from the donor ADB. in implementation in line with the slow longer sufficient for four irrigation schemes.Masaka. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and The Ministry of Water and Environment and disbursement and absorption of funds. Most To rectify the situation, a Presidential Directive 2) Low counterpart funding: Fisheries (MAAIF) commenced in 2005 and was the Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) objectives of the project had not been achieved was issued on 6th April 2011 to restructure theA physical verification visit by the BMAU the unavailability of sufficient counterpart scheduled to end in 2010. The mid-term review were also involved in the planning processes 5 one year before project closure. Hence the project. The main elements of the restructuredindicated that there was no physical presence of funding from GoU grossly affected the pace conducted in April 2009 recommended a further to ensure that environmental and engineering project was given an extension of additional project were to concentrate on 3 irrigationthis project in any of the districts to be targeted, of project implementation. The Government extension of this project to December 2012 aspects of the project are taken care of. five years to continue to complete the pending schemes, transfer implementation of civil worksother than Kalangala district. The district officials should only accept projects for which it has to complete unfinished activities. The project Although the project was flagged off in 2005, the activities and is still ongoing. A number of lessons to Ministry of Water and Environment. Theacknowledged receipt of the tsetse traps assured counterpart funding; this should aims at improving incomes, rural livelihoods various stakeholders continued negotiating over and recommendations emerge from the analysis: Presidential directive was actualized startingwhich had been deployed in 3 parishes. The be disbursement in a timely manner in and food security through sustainable natural the various aspects of the large multi-sectoral June 2011 whereby all existing contractsmost infected areas, Bufumbira and Mugoye adequate amounts for triggering project resources management and agricultural project leading to delays in implementation. The 1) Prior conditions and bureaucracies: under MAAIF where transferred to MWE andSub-counties were yet to be reached by the implementation. enterprise development. The project has original design focused on construction of many the ADB loans had stringent prior conditions implementation of works started thereafter.project. MAAIF had distributed 100 litres of two components: i) Agricultural Enterprise small scale irrigation schemes at farm level in the and lengthy bureaucratic procedures thatpour on chemicals for treating livestock. There different parts of the county.was evidence of farmers whose livestock had affected the pace of project implementation. It is critical that the prior conditions in 3) Limited outreach and project sustainability: this project distributed Development Component coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry 4.1.3 Budgeting and financing The mid-term review conducted in April 20097 Based on the technical engineering estimatesbeen treated by the district officials and their future donor funded projects are well limited traps to 3 parishes in Kalangala and Fisheries (MAAIF) ii) Forestry Support reported very slow progress in implementation by MAAIF in collaboration with the Ministryassistants using these chemicals. negotiated at planning stage to ensure district. The beneficiaries had no skills Component coordinated by the Ministry of Water of this component and very high operational of Water and Environment (MWE), the that they are flexible and implementable and materials for replacing the traps and Environment (MWE). The total project costThe main challenges related to the slow pace of and maintenance costs. It was recommended rehabilitation costs for each medium scale by the Government. Delays in project implying low reach sustainability of the for the five-year period (2005-2010) is estimatedproject implementation and the limited reach. that the sub-component is restructured to focus scheme were budgeted in 2009 as below (Table implementation can be avoided if the project. Future projects should provide at UA51.15m funded by ADB/ADF and GoU6.Many of the traps that had been deployed were on rehabilitation of four existing large scale 4.3): The total estimated cost of the project is UA donors trust and use the Government adequate equipment and inputs that coverdestroyed by weather elements or dislodged Within the Agriculture Enterprise Development irrigation schemes namely: Mubuku Irrigation 11,951,624 or UShs 35,890,882,670, inclusive procurement systems rather than imposing a larger geographical area and also trainby stray animals. The beneficiaries of the traps component was a sub-component to build small- Settlement Scheme in Kasese District, Doho Rice of contingency. Exclusive of contingencies, the their own systems or allowing for parallel the beneficiaries in replacing worn outlacked requisite skills and materials to repair scale irrigation schemes. In 2009, the project was Irrigation Scheme in Butaleja District, Olweny rehabilitation of the four schemes is estimated procurement channels. equipment to ensure reasonable project to cost UA 9,551,935.2 or UShs 28,674,909,692. impact and sustainability. 7 GoU and ADF, 2009.5 MFPED, 2010a 6 GoU and ADF, 2009.38 39
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded ProjectsTable 4.3: Costs for the four irrigation Table 4.4 shows the expenditure incurred Upon completion, the irrigation schemes would 2) Allocative efficiency: For the period by MAAIF by end 2010. By December 2010, be handed back to MAAIF for management. when the project was under MAAIF, itschemes UShs 1,728,873,094 had been spent on the exhibited poor allocative efficiency as over Irrigation Civil works costs Consultancy Total costs (UShs) Beneficiaries Irrigation component, inclusive of expenditures 80% of the funds were being spent on scheme (UShs) supervision (households) costs (UShs) incurred during FY 2006/07 – FY 2007/08 on the small scale irrigation sub-component that 4.1.5 Lessons and operational expenses without any tangible output. Absorption was high but for less Mubuku Doho 5,508,174,368 6,340,265,738 1,489,264,293 1,346,213,384 6,997,438,661 7,686,479,122 1,200 2,350 was suspended in April 2009. The bulk of recommendations critical expenditures. For future projects, the expenditures were on general operating There are a number of lessons and entities should only be allowed to spend Olweny 14,911,718,038 1,096,425,352 16,008,143,390 3,300 expenses (54%) and specialized services and after establishing that they have adequate recommendations that can be drawn from this Agoro 4,102,396,145 1,096,425,352 5,198,821,497 1,000 demonstration (24%). During FY 2009/10, the project: capacity to manage and spend funds Total 30,862,554,289 5,028,328,381 35,890,882,670 7,850 bulk of expenditures on the four irrigation efficiently and effectively. Value for moneyNote: The schemes’ civil works costs include 15% price schemes (87%) was on general operating 1) Institutional and Implementation should be promoted in donor fundedcontingency and 5% physical contingency. expenses, indicative of poor allocative efficiency. capacity: MAAIF lacked sufficient projects.Source: GoU and ADF, 2009 It is at this point that the remaining funds for capacity to supervise construction and funding were transferred from MAAIF to MWE implementation of irrigation schemes. The 3) Decentralised planning and Table 4.4: Irrigation Expenditure by Category 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9, 2009/10 during 2011. abrupt change in project design without execution: The relevant district officials for MAAIF H/Q (UShs) analyzing the capacity of the ministry to (District Engineer, District Water Officer and District Community Development Officer) Light Specialized Services and Training and Vehicle and Equipment General Operating Total 4.1.4 Project implementation implement 4 large irrigation schemes was a major constraint. MAAIF had only one were brought late in the implementation Equipment Capacity The only activities undertaken while process. They were not fully involved in Demonstration maintenance Expenses resident Engineer at project start who could Building the project was in the hands of MAAIF the planning process and yet they were not supervise such a large project single 2006/07 67,300,500 51,353,400 4,306,698 14,427,100 137,387,698 were procurement of contractors and expected constantly supervise the project. handedly. Other Engineers where co-opted 2007/08 21,555,000 285,974,000 10,960,000 37,649,400 37,714,000 393,852,400 preparation of Bills of Quantities (BoQs). from other ministries but they were still The Local Governments should be brought The documentation was transferred inadequate. Future projects that are largely on board at project inception stage to 2008/09 21,698,000 212,197,000 12,531,382 335,182,120 581,608,502 to MWE in 2011 which concentrated of a civil works nature require recruitment help in implementation and setting up 2009/10 38,054,213 - 40,484,629 537,485,652 616,024,494 on construction of Agoro Scheme in of adequate engineers and other requisite management structures at community Lamwo district, Doho Scheme in Butaleja skills before project start to ensure smooth level to ensure project sustainability. TOTAL 21,555,000 413,026,713 274,510,400 94,972,109 924,808,872 1,728,873,094 district and Mobuku Scheme in Kasese implementation. Implementation and Decentralized planning and executionSource: MAAIF data, December 2010. should be encouraged as the districts are district. A discussion held with officials of institutional capacity of the responsible MWE in November 2012 indicated that 85% agency should be properly scrutinized at the final beneficiaries of the project; they construction/rehabilitation works had been planning stage and stepped up accordingly. should own it right from planning and achieved and construction would be completed Joint ventures such as was done between execution phase. by December 2012. The beneficiary farmers MAAIF and MWE should be encouraged to were being trained in proper management of the harness capacity where it exists. schemes, including operations and maintenance.40 41
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations5.1 Conclusions 1) The budget allocation to agriculture as a share of the national budget remains low, 4) The four case study loans do confirm the gravity of these factors as they singularly at 3.2% in FY 2012/2013. Most of the donor or in combination slow implementation of donor funded projects. For example,The study set out to assess the financing comes in discrete projects whose contribution to the overall sector outcomes the poor design of the FIEFOC irrigation 6) The FIEFOC case study illustrates that some projects are complete failures because of 8) Generally, gender mainstreaming is not prioritized in agricultural loans. Gender isperformance status of agricultural cannot be easily ascertained or measured. project slowed funds disbursement and low implementation/institutional capacity in often integrated from one perspective ofservices in Uganda and use of project implementation. ADB Funded the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry ensuring that women and youth participateresources to implement Government 2) The agricultural sector attracts less than projects generally have long bureaucratic and Fisheries. Although funds absorption in the project interventions. The extent 10% of the donor assistance in Uganda that procurement processes that delay was high, it was for the wrong reasons, with to which this aspect is followed up duringprogrammes and policies. The study is channeled to the development budget. A disbursement of funds. The Government 87% of the resources being spent on general project implementation varies from projectinvolved analyzing performance of substantial part of external support to the of Japan and FAO took lead in the The budget allocation to the operating expenses without any tangible to project.four loans (donor funded projects) sector comes in form of Technical Assistance implementation of the Agriculture improved outcome.in terms of planning, budgeting and for policy and institutional development and Rice Production project which led to agricultural sector needs to 9) Delivery of agricultural services such asimplementation. The extent to which capacity enhancement. distribution of poor quality inputs, the bulk of be stepped to at least 10% 7) Whereas planning and project design is extension, credit and research is ongoing funds being used in recurrent expendituresgender issues were addressed in these 3) A major challenge is the slow disbursements indicative of poor allocative efficiency and of the national budgetary usually done jointly between MAAIF and donor agencies, there are instances where although reach to majority of farmers remains low. Access to extension servicesprojects was assessed. The following of donor funds in the sector in turn leading to slow implementation of donor funded low project sustenance. resources to expand delivery the donor takes lead. For example the remains low, with 80% of the agriculturalconclusions emerge from the analysis: interventions. In FY 2011/2012, 74% of of agricultural services in FAO was the lead agency in planning and households having not been visited by an 5) The VODP case study illustrates that they are implementing the Agriculture Improved extension worker in the recent agricultural the total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 341.55 remained undisbursed. From a loans in the agricultural sector that perform Uganda. Rice Production project. The MAAIF had no survey of 2008/2009. well with regard to absorption of allocated full knowledge of the detailed plans and sector perspective, the core explanatory resources, timely implementation and expenditure patterns of the donor finances. factors for the low absorption capacity 10) Whereas the bulk of agricultural service achievement of the intended outcomes. The This led to less supervision and monitoring include: Inadequate and untimely release delivery is undertaken at local government key explanatory factors of good performance of the project by MAAIF, resulting in less of Government counterpart funding; level, the district and sub-county officials include proper planning and budgeting that project impact. complex procurement procedures; capacity are not adequately involved in the involves all the key stakeholders; proper constraints; poor design of projects; new project design, planning and budgeting identification of priority expenditure items; loan commitments that take long to become stages. Often, they brought late into the functional financial management systems effective; and some funds being controlled implementation stage which lessens and adequate capacity to implement the directly by development partners. ownership, supervision and sustainability of projects. the donor funded projects.42 43
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects5.2 Recommendations unjustifiable low absorption of funds. It is critical that the prior conditions are well non-Government agencies to scale up the implementation capacity to march the project References negotiated and are easily implementable. requirements. DRT, 2011. Situational Analysis of the Agricultural and Investment Plan Analytical Report, July 2012. Agriculture for Food and Income Security. MinistryThe following recommendations emerge from Government should improve its Sector in Uganda. Positioning the Small Scale of Agriculture, Animal industry and Fisheries,the analysis: procurement and accountability systems so 7) Value for money in donor funded projects Producers. December, 2011. Development MAAIF, 2010. Final Inception Report for the Uganda. that donors have a high level of trust in them should be encouraged. Expenditures should Research and Training, Kampala. Design and Construction Supervision for the1) The budget allocation to the agricultural and can use them instead of the lengthy be on critical areas that address the project Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of Olweny and MAAIF, 2009. Uganda Review of Ongoing sector needs to be stepped to at least 10% donor systems. objectives and give results. Poor allocative Ezra Munyambonera, Dorothy Nampewo, Annet Agoro Irrigation Schemes – Lot 1. Otieno Odong Agricultural Development Efforts. Comprehensive of the national budgetary resources to efficiency whereby the bulk of resources Adong and Musa Mayanja, 2012. Access and Use & Partners in Association with Arch Design Ltd. Africa Agriculture Development Programme expand delivery of agricultural services in 4) The Government should take lead in the are spent on consumptive or recurrent of Credit in Uganda: Unlocking the Dilemma of Brochure 2 – October 2009. Uganda. This could include deepening of planning, designing and implementation unproductive expenditures should be Financing Small Holder Farmers. Economic Policy MAAIF, 2010a. MAAIF Ministerial Policy delivery of extension and research services of donor funded projects to enhance discouraged. Working Paper, Draft December 2012. Statement for FY 2010/11. June 2010. Ministry MAAIF/FAO, 2010. End of Project Evaluation to ensure that farmers access and use ownership and proper supervision of the of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Report of the NERICA Rice Project. Mission improved inputs and technologies to bridge projects. The Government should have an 8) There is a need for the Government to FAO/GoU, 2008. Project Agreement for Entebbe. Report 15th June – 31st July 2010. the production and productivity gap at active role in budgeting and utilization of the encourage and support the development of GCP/UGA/036/JPN Agriculture and Rural public private partnerships in the delivery of Development through improved rice based MAAIF, 2010b. MAAIF Half-Year Progress Report MAAIF/FAO, 2009. Mid-Term Review Report. GCP/ farm level. Sufficient counterpart funding donor funds. agricultural services in Uganda as a means farming systems for food security and poverty for FY 2009/10. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal UGA/036/JPN Agriculture and Rural Development should be provided in adequate and a timely 5) Gender planning, budgeting and monitoring to fill the gap. For example, Government reduction in Northern Uganda. Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe. through improved rice based farming systems manner for marching with the donor funds. should be core to all donor projects. Gender could partner or support farmer associations, for food security and poverty reduction in GoU and ADF, 2009. Mid-Term Review Report. MAAIF, 2010c. MAAIF Quarter 1 Progress Report Northern Uganda.2) The way donor funded projects in the and equity budgeting should go beyond NGOs and private sector players to scale up Farm Income Enhancement and Forest for FY 2010/11. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal agricultural sector are packaged should seeking involvement of women and other good models of extension that are littered in Conservation project. Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe. MFPED, 2012. The Background to the Budget be reviewed to enhance reach, impact and marginalized groups to promoting equitable different parts of the country. sustainability. Rather than soliciting for access and use of agricultural services 2012/13 Fiscal Year. Priorities for renewed GoU, 2007a. Uganda: Agriculture Sector Public MAAIF, 2010d. Inception Report for the small discrete projects that have limited and monitoring progress made thereafter. 9) District and Sub-county officials of the Economic Growth and Development. Ministry of Expenditure Review, Phases 1 and 2. Oxford Design and Construction Supervision for the impact, the Government should focus on Clear gender mainstreaming strategies respective Local Governments that are to Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Policy Management. Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of Mubuku encouraging donor funded projects that are should form part and parcel of the project be involved in implementation of a donor June 2012. and Doho Irrigation Schemes – Lot 2. Yerere larger and impactful with adequate reach implementation plan. funded project should be involved early in the IFAD, 2011. Project Evaluation of the Vegetable Engineering and BEC Engineers, Kampala. MFPED, 2012a. Draft Estimates of Revenue and geographically and in terms of number of project design, planning and execution of the Oil Development Project. Interim Evaluation. Expenditure (Recurrent and Development) FY beneficiaries targeted and quantity of inputs 6) The institutional and implementation project. This will enhance project ownership MAAIF, 2010e. Creation of Sustainable Tsetse capacity of the agency that is to implement by the beneficiaries and sustenance of the 2012/13. Volume 1: Central Government Votes. and technologies provided. and Trypanosomiasis Free Areas in Uganda. IFAD, 2010. Vegetable Oil Development Project Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic the donor funded projects should be interventions and outcomes. Project Progress Report April 2006 – March Phase 2 (VODP2). Project Design Report Volume Development, Kampala.3) Some level of flexibility in the prior properly scrutinized at planning stage and 2010, Entebbe. 1 – Main Report and Appendices, March 2010. conditions and minimal conditionalities beefed up before project commencement. MAAIF, 2010f. Agriculture Sector Development MFPED, 2012b. Report on Loans, Grants and imposed by donors for project trigger Where possible, the implementing agency MAAIF, 2012. Operationalisation of the non Guarantees for Financial Year 2011/2012. should be espoused as a means of avoiding can partner with other Government and Strategy and Investment Plan: 2010/11-2014/15. ATAAS Component of the Development Strategy Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Kampala, June 2012.44 45
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Annex 1: Donor Funded Projects in the Agricultural Sector MFPED, 2011b. Annual Economic Performance STATFA project, 2009. Creation of SustainableMFPED, 2012c. Summary of Project Support Report 2009/10. Directorate of Economic Affairs. Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Free Areas in East Donor Donor Period of Total budgetManaged outside Government Systems FY Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic and West Africa – Uganda Component Progress   Project Name Donor contribution contribution Coverage implementation US$ Millions2010/2011. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Development, January 2011. 2010/11 2012/13 Report September 2008 – September 2009.Economic Development, Kampala, June 2012. Agricultural Marketing Adjuman,Bundibujo MFPED, 2011c. Annual Budget Monitoring UBOS, 2010. Uganda Census of Agriculture 1 Promoting and Regional WFP 2007 – 2011 9.54 1 0 Gulu,Kitgum Pader, AruaMFPED, 2012d. Semi-annual Report on External Report July 2010 – June 2011. Ministry of 2008/09. Volume III: Agricultural Household & inte Moyo , YumbeAssistance to Uganda July-December 2011. Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Holding Characteristics Report. December 2010. Kabalore, Jinja, Kyenjojo,Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Kampala. Hoima, Kibaale, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Kampala. Mubende, Masaka,Development, Kampala. Mukono,Bushenyi, MFPED, 2010. Government Outlays Analysis FY UBOS, 2010a. Uganda National Household Support for Tea Cocoa 2 2004 – 2011 938000 0 0 Kanungu, Wakiso, Mpigi,MFPED, 2012e. Budget Monitoring Report 2008/09. Public Expenditure and Development Seedlings Survey 2009/2010. Socio-Economic Module. Luwero, Kiboga,Mubende,January – March 2012. Ministry of Finance, Results. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Abridged Report. Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Masindi, Kamwenge,Planning and Economic Development, Kampala. Economic Development, December 2010. Bundubujo, Kamuli,Iganga, November 2010. Mayuge, LiraMFPED, 2012f. Financing the Food Security Vegetable Oil MFPED, 2010a. Budget Monitoring Report UBOS, 2008. Uganda Statistical Abstract 2008. International fund for 1998 – 2011 3 Development Project 1353312 1310000 0Budget in the National Agricultural Advisory January – March 2010. Ministry of Finance, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Kampala agric and D phase 1Services. Adequacy and Impacts in a Planning and Economic Development, Kampala. Masaka, Wakiso,Decentralized System. Ministry of Finance, World Bank, 2010. Uganda: Agriculture Public Kiboga,Rakai, Hoima,Planning and Economic Development, Kampala, Expenditure Review. February, 2010. Masindi. Kabalore,February 2012. MFPED, 2010b. Budget Monitoring Report Kyenjojo, Kamwnge, October – December 2009. Ministry of Finance, Kasese, Mbarara,Kabal e,Kisoro,BushenyiRukuMFPED, 2011. Government Outlays Analysis Planning and Economic Development, January ngiri,Ntungamu,Arua,Ad 2010, Kampala. Farm Income ADB , ADF, Nordic dev2009/10. Public Expenditure and Development 4 2005 – 2011 10101000 600000 0 juman Nebbi Lira,Gulu, Enhancement Project fundResults. December 2011. Ministry of Finance, Kitgum, Pallisa, Sironko, MFPED, 2009. Public Investment Plan FY Mbale, Jinja, Iganga,Soroti,Planning and Economic Development, Kampala. 2009/2010-2011/2012. Kamuli, Bugiri,Tororo, Nakapiripirit,MFPED, 2011a. The Background to the Budget Kumi, Moroto MFPED, 2008. Budget Monitoring Report July –2011/12 Fiscal Year. Promoting Economic Luwero,Sembabule, September 2008. Ministry of Finance, PlanningGrowth, Job Creation and Improving Service Nakasongola, and Economic Development, Kampala.Delivery. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Crop Disease and Pest 5 DANIDA,FAO 2006 – 2012 746000 0 0 ControlEconomic Development, June 2011. Improvement of Food 6 Security in cross boarder FAO 2005 -2011 0 0 districts Sustainable Land 7 UNEP/GEF, UNDP, 2/12/2007 1172000 0 0 Management Project46 47
    • Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects Donor Donor Donor Donor Period of Total budget Period of Total budget   Project Name Donor contribution contribution Coverage   Project Name Donor contribution contribution Coverage implementation US$ Millions implementation US$ Millions 2010/11 2012/13 2010/11 2012/13 Masaka,Pader, Kitgum, Masaka, Wakiso, Hoima, Regional NERICA research Lira, Apac, Moroto, 8 Gov of Japan 2009 – 2011 1363981 2.000 0 Masindi, Lira,Gulu, Mbale, and training centre Kotido, Nakapiripirit, Tororo Katakwi, Kaberamaido, Agricultural improved rice FOOD AND AGRIC Soroti,Kumi,Pallisa, 9 2009 - 2012 1.896 0 0 Soronko, Kamuli, Kayunga, production ORGANISATIONS Sustainable Irrigated rice Luwero, Nakasongola, 11 Japan 2008 - 2011 10102 993000 0 Masindi , Kyenjojo, production in eastern Ug Trans-boundary agro- Mubende Kiboga, Kibaall, Vegetable Oil 24 FAO 2007 – 2012 279000 International fund for system management Mpigi, Sembabule, Rakai, 12 Development Project 2012 -2016 19301000 14350000 agric and D Mbarara, Kamwenge , phase II Ntungamu, Bushenyi, 13 Rice development project 0 6260000 Dokolo Amulata, Oyam, Creation of tsetse and Abim, Budaka, Bukedea, 14 ADB 2006 – 2011 916000 2472000 0 Bukwa, Bulisa, Nakaseke, tryp areas Avian and human Kaliro, Kaabong Butaleja, 15 influenza preparedness 5538000 0 Ibanda ,Kiruhura, Isingiro, and response Mityana Support to quality National livestock 16 2380118 1127260 25 productivity improvement ADB 2005 – 2010 59202000 0 0 assurance fish marketing project Technical assistance to 17 improve animal disease 0 3230000 Arua, Nebbi, Mbarara, diag Kabale, Palisa, Luwero, 26 Rural electrification ERT IDA 2002 -2012 1478000 Development of national Lira, Kasese, Wakiso, 18 Norway 2005 -2008 213000 Ntungamo early warning system Trans-boundary agro- Bigiri, Busia, Iganga, Jinja, 27 FAO 2007 – 2012 770000 countrywide system management Farming in tsetse EU, Multi -lateral Kamuli, Kayunga, Mayuge, 19 2001 – 2011 1354000 Plan for national controlled areas development partners Mbale, Mukono, Palisa 28 World bank DFID 2007 – 2012 220000 MAAIF ,Soroti,Tororo agricultural statistics Integrated pest and North west small holder Adjuman, Arua, Nebbi, 29 Italian Government 2007 – 2010 3000000 Kabale, Kisoro 20 ADB 2001 – 2008 26.89 disease management(E.A) Agric dev project Moyo Yumbe GoU 75% 30 NAADS Countrywide 21 Livestock disease control GTZ and EU 2001 – 2012 5454000 Donors 25% Source: Public Investment Plans, Background to the Budget for various years. Support to fisheries Lakes Albert, Kyoga, 22 ADB 2002 – 2008 5677000 0 0 development( loan) Victoria, Edward, George48 49
    • Our teamThe Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) since its launch in 2004 has made major leaps towards ensuring that the Ugandan budget makingprocess is more participatory, transparent and citizen concerns are prioritized in government budget allocations and implementation. The partnershipcomprises of both individuals and organisations including; Profile of CSBAG membership Forum for Women in Democracy (www.fowode.org. The Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI-U) www.seatini.org African Centre for Trade and Development (ACTADE) www.actade.org The Uganda Debt Network (UDN) www.udn.or.ug The Uganda National NGO Forum donor community. www.ngoforum.or.ug Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) www.pelumuganda.org Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment www.acode-u.org The Centre for Women in Governance (CEWIGO) www.cewigo.org The Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers Forum (ESAFF- Uganda) www.esaff.org Environmental Alert (EA) www.envalert.org Uganda Road Sector Support Initiative (URSSI) The Human Rights Network Uganda (HURINET- U) www.hurinet.or.ug National Union of Women with Disabilities of Uganda (NUWODU) Development Research and Training (DRT) www.drt-ug.org Uganda Women’s Network (UWONET ) www.uwonet.or.ug Water Aid Uganda www.wateraid.org/uganda Platform For Citizenship Participation and Accountability (PLACA) www.placaug.org African Youth Development Link (AWYDL) www.aydl.org Action Group for Health Human Rights and HIV/AIDS (AGHA)www.agha.or.ug African Women’s Economic Policy Network (AWEPON) www.awepon.net Hope after Rape www.har.interconnection.org Women and Girl Child Development Association50
    • Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CS BAG] is a coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Individuals which was formed in 2004, to advocate for pro-poor budget policies in Uganda. The major aim is to ensure that the views and concerns of the poor and marginalized people are incorporated into local and national budgets. CS BAG STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES • The national and local government budget processes are transparent, inclusive and accountable • Critical information for effective participation of all stakeholders is availed to CSOs and other stakeholders and in good time • Central and Local Government budgets are pro-poor and adhere to results oriented budget management principles • Pro-poor budget principles and practices are initiated and integrated in the overall budget process. SBAG C52 Email: csbag@csbag.org • www.csbag.org t ui y Bu q d g e ti n g f o r e