Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda

EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterprise

DevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda

2010‐2012

MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisa

CAEDPEvaluation2012 ii

CAEDPEvaluation2012 iii

EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda2010‐2012MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisaJanuary2013

CAEDPEvaluation2012 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheevaluationteamwouldliketothankallrespondentsfortheirtimeandinput,especiallyallfarmerswhowerewillingtosharetheirstoriesandexperienceswiththeteam.TheyalsothankRichardNsambaandFrancisKiwanukafromTriasUgandafortheirendlessenergy,goodadvices,patienceandtheirgreatsenseofhumourwhilearrangingandguidingtheteamtothecommunities.AspecialwordofthanksgoestothefieldadvisorsfromHodfa(GodfreyAyangira,BobGeorgeSundayandElishaR.Mucwa)andMadfa(DavidWanzala)forshowingtheirfieldworktotheteam,facilitationandtranslation.Davidwasthekingoftranslationandgreatlyfacilitatedtheevaluationbyspeakingatleast5ofthelocallanguages.TheteamwouldalsoliketothankPaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorofTriasUgandaforhisgeneroushospitality.MarlènArkesteijninfo@[email protected]

CAEDPEvaluation2012 v

EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisdocumentreflectsthefindings,conclusionsandlessonslearnedofboththeevaluationoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme(CAEDP),andtheadditionalstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperationsintheprogrammearea.FindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyserveasinputforthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCAEDP.TheCAEDPisfundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam(financialinstitution),HodfaandMadfa(bothfarmerassociations)inHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda.Astheprogrammewasapproachingtheendofitsfirstphase(runningfrom2010‐2012),TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringthesameperiod.DuringtheCAEDPevaluationthattookplaceinOctober‐November2012,Tullowplacedarequestforanadditionalstudyintotheidentificationofalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.Thisstudytookplacerightafterthefieldworkoftheevaluationwascompleted.TheultimategoaloftheCAEDPistoincreasethefood‐andincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Tocontributetothisultimategoaltheprogrammehasseveralspecificobjectives:Enhancedadoptionofpracticesforgoodandbalancednutrition(Specificobjective1),increasedaccesstoandparticipationofsmallholdersinremunerativemarkets(Specificobjective2)andincreasedinvestmentinfarming(Specificobjective3).AfourthspecificobjectivefocusesonenhancingthecapacitiesofTrias,Hofokam,HodfaandMadfatocoordinateandimplementprogrammeactivities.Forspecificobjective2theprogrammeusestheso‐calledParticipatoryAgriculturalEnterpriseDevelopment(currentlyrenamedinto'EnablingRuralInnovation'(ERI))approach.Theevaluationfocussedonassessingearlysignsofimpact(increasedfoodandincomesecurity),andonresultsintermsofincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets(SO2)andincreasedinvestmentbyfarmersintheirfarmingpractices(SO3).Fortheevaluationusewasmadeofbothqualitative(Mostsignificantchangestoriesmethodandfocusgroupdiscussions)andquantitativemethods(questionnaire).ThefocusofthestudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperations,wasonexploringthepossible(negative)impactofTullowoperationsonthelivelihoodofcommunitiesandonexploringalternativelivelihoods.MainfindingsoftheevaluationTheevaluationteamconcludedthattheCAEDprogrammeshowsearlysignsofimpactindeedandhascontributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurityoftheparticipatingsmallholderfarmersinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Almostallhouseholdsinterviewedshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices.Non‐participatinghouseholdshaveincreasedtheirfoodandincomesecurityindicesaswellbutshowsignificantlyfewerpositivechangesinthevariouselementsoftheindicesthanparticipatinghouseholds.Almostallhouseholdsshowincreasedincomesecurity,eventhosehouseholdsthatdonotembarkoncollectivemarketingandcontinuetosellatindividuallevels.

CAEDPEvaluation2012 vi

Allinterviewedhouseholdshaveincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets.Theynotonlyhavehigheryields,theycultivatemoreacresandselllargerpercentagesoftheiryieldsat(mainlylocal)markets.Althoughtheprogrammeindicatorsincludesallgroupsthatmakeprofitwiththeir'enterprises',thelevelsofprofitabilityvaryconsiderablybetweengroups.Thereare a)CAEDPgroupsthatmadethechangefromsubsistencedrivento'moremarket driven'farmersalready; b)Groupsthatareintheprocessoftransformationbutmainlylackaccesstogood markets(eitherduetoremotenessand/orlackofself‐organisation),and c)Groupsthatdonothavethepotentialtomakethemovetowardsmarketdriven farmerssincetheyeitherlackthetraditionofcultivatingcrops,lackmotivation and/orenablingconditionsforcropcultivation.Ingeneraltheparticipatinghouseholdsandgroupsareratherstronginsavingmoney,alsothankstootherprogrammesintheregion.Insomegroupstheyhaveamassedratherimportantvolumesofsavings.TheCAEDprogrammehasbenefitedfromthissavingcultureandhasadded,especiallyinBuliisa,anintensifieduseofthesavingsforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.ThenumberandvolumeofloansprovidedbyHofokamtofarmergroupshasincreasedsincethestartoftheprogramme,withadrawbackin2012duetostaffingproblems.Manygroupsareeagerlyanticipatingtowardsfutureloans,althoughthecreditfundwasalmostnearlyfullyinuseasoutstandingloansduringthetimeoftheevaluation.Oneoftheobjectivesoftheprogrammeistosupportfarmerstoobtainbetterpricesfortheirproduce.Aspricesarelowatthetimeofharvest,itoftenmeansthattheproduceneedstobestoredforsometimeafterharvest.However,theloansgivenoutbyHofokamingeneralneedtobepaidbackafter6months.Forsomecropsthismaymeanduringharvesttime,whenpricesareattheirlowest.Thisseemstobeacontradictionwithintheprogramme.Mainfindingsofthealternativelivelihoodstudy ThemainareasofTullowoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict.Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseen.Tullowhasnoclearview(yet)onhowandtowhatextentcommunitiesmaybeaffectedbytheiroperations.IngeneralthreetypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperations:

• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonfishing(Kiryambogo,Sebagoro,andBugoigolandingsites);

• Communitiesrelyingonfishingandagriculture(WansekoCOUsite),and• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonagriculture(Ngwedotradingcentre).

Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.AlthoughTullowrequestedtheresearcherstopayextraattentiontofishingcommunities,themainthreatforfishingcommunitiesiscomingfromwithinandnotdirectlyfromTullow

CAEDPEvaluation2012 vii

operations.Unsustainablefishingpracticesarequicklydiminishingcertainfishstocksandifnolawenforcementisfollowed,hardlyanyfishwillbefishedoutofLakeAlbertinthenearfuture.Manyhouseholdsdependingonfishingneedtoembarkonalternativelivelihoodssoon,despitethedevelopmentofanewfish‐landingsite.Thereisnoone‐approach‐fits‐allforaffectedcommunities.Theteamisproposingtailor‐madealternativelivelihoods(asaguidelinenotasablueprint)forthedifferentgroups:•Cropcultivationforthosewithexperience(e.g.cotton,cassava,maize,beans,peas,citrusandvegetables);•Alternativelivelihoodsforthosemainlydependingonfishing:Sustainablefishfarming,sustainablefishing,livestockandtrading.Thismayindicateare‐directionoftheprogramme,includingadditionalpartnersthatareexperiencedinfishing,livestockandtrading.Trias'newstrategicchoicesforsupportingSmallScaleEntrepreneurscouldplayaroleindiversifyinglivelihoodsaswell.

CAEDPEvaluation2012 viii

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSAbITrust AgribusinessInitiativeTrustAE AgricultureEnterpriseBAU BuildAfricaUgandaCAEDP CommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeDAC DevelopmentAssistanceCommitteeDLSP DistrictLivelihoodSupportProgrammeERI EnablingRuralInnovationFIEFOC FarmIncomeEnhancementandForestConservationprogrammeFS FoodSecurityGO GovernmentalorganizationHH HouseholdsHODFA HoimaDistrictFarmers’AssociationHOFOKAM Hoima,FortPortal,KaseseMicroFinance(institution)MFI Micro‐financeInstitutionMADFA MasindiDistrictFarmers’AssociationMDGs MillenniumDevelopmentGoalsMSC MostSignificantChangeNAADS NationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesprogrammeNDP NationalDevelopmentPlanNGO Non‐governmentalorganizationOS/ID OrganizationalStrengthening/InstitutionalDevelopmentPAED ParticipatoryAgro‐enterpriseDevelopmentPMA PlanforModernizationofAgriculturePME Planning,MonitoringandEvaluationSACCO SavingsandCreditCo‐operativeSO SpecificObjectiveToR TermsofReferenceVCA ValueChainAnalysis

CAEDPEvaluation2012 ix

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Acknowledgements ivExecutivesummary vListofabbreviations viiiTableofcontents ix1.Introduction 12.Programmedescriptionandinterventioncontext 93.Evaluation&studyfindings 13Part1Evaluationfindings 13Part2Findingsonalternativelivelihoods 324.Conclusions,lessonslearned&recommendations 37Part1.Conclusions,lessonslearned&recommendationsoftheevaluation 37Part2.Conclusionsandrecommendationsofthelivelihoodstudy 40Annexes 43AnnexI.Listofdocumentsreviewedandconsulted 43AnnexII.Overviewofpeopleconsulted 45a.Peopleconsultedfortheevaluation 45b.Peopleconsultedforthealternativelivelihoodstudy 48AnnexIII.Termsofreference(includingtheextraassignment) 51AnnexIV.LogframeandObjectivesofCAEDProgramme 58AnnexV.Questionnaire 60AnnexVI.Foodandincomeindicescalculation 61

CAEDPEvaluation2012 1

1.INTRODUCTIONThisdocumentreflectsthefindings,conclusionsandlessonslearnedofboththeevaluationoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme(CAEDP),andtheadditionalstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperationsintheprogrammearea.TheCAEDPisfundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam(financialinstitution),HodfaandMadfa(bothfarmerassociations)inHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda.Astheprogrammewasapproachingtheendofitsfirstphase(runningfrom2010‐2012),TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringthesameperiod.DuringtheCAEDPevaluationthattookplaceinOctober‐November2012,Tullowplacedarequestforanadditionalstudyintotheidentificationofalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.ThisstudytookplacerightafterthefieldworkoftheevaluationitselfwascompletedinNovember‐December2012.FindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyserveasinputforthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCAEDP.TheultimategoaloftheCAEDPistoincreasethefood‐andincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Tocontributetothisultimategoaltheprogrammehasseveralspecificobjectives:Enhancedadoptionofpracticesforgoodandbalancednutrition(Specificobjective1),increasedaccesstoandparticipationofsmallholdersinremunerativemarkets(Specificobjective2)andincreasedinvestmentinfarming(Specificobjective3).AfourthspecificobjectivefocusesonenhancingthecapacitiesofTrias,Hofokam,HodfaandMadfatocoordinateandimplementprogrammeactivities.Forspecificobjective2theprogrammeusestheso‐calledParticipatoryAgriculturalEnterpriseDevelopment(currentlyrenamedinto'EnablingRuralInnovation'(ERI))approach.Duringtheevaluationearlysignsofincreasedfoodandincomesecuritywereassessed,aswellasresultsintermsofincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets(SO2)andincreasedinvestmentbyfarmersintheirfarmingpractices(SO3).Inthisdocumenttheevaluationteampresentsinchapter1theobjectivesoftheevaluationandtheadditionalstudy,themainquestionsandtheevaluationandstudymethodology.Inchapter2ashortsummaryoftheCAEDprogrammeanditscontextisprovided,whileinchapter3themainfindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyareshared.Inchapter4themainconclusions,lessonslearnedandrecommendationsarepresented.1.1ObjectiveoftheevaluationandthelivelihoodstudyTheobjectiveoftheCAEDP‐evaluationwastoassessthemostcriticalresults,outcomes,andpotentialimpactoftheprogrammeduringtheperiod2010‐2012,andtogeneratelessons‐learnedandrecommendationstoimprovetheinterventionofTriasanditspartnersHofokam,HodfaandMadfaduringafollow‐upphaseoftheCAEDP.DuringtheevaluationspecialattentionwasgiventoearlysignsofincreasedfoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsthatparticipateintheCAEDP.Besidestheseearlysignsofimpact,theevaluationfocussedonthetwospecificobjectives'increasedaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarkets'(SO2)and'increasedinvestmentinfarming'(SO3).


Theobjectiveofthelivelihoodstudywastoidentifyalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.Recommendationsonthesealternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationareintendedtoguidethedesignofthefollow‐upprogrammeofthecurrentphaseoftheCAEDP.1.2Evaluationandstudyquestionsa.EvaluationquestionsrelatedtotheoverallobjectiveQ1.FoodandincomesecurityArethereanyearlysignsofimpactwrtsustainableimprovementofthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert?Sub‐questions:Q1.1 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofa businessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?Q1.2 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredand knowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.Q1.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetarget group’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐and districtlevel?b.Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective2Q2.Increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets?Sub‐questions:Q2.1 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto markets?Q2.2 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasein competencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Q2.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarket functioning?Q2.4 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfrom agricultureathouseholdlevel?Q2.5 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityand qualityofagriculturalproduce?Q2.6 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof HodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup?c.Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective3Q3.IncreasedinvestmentinfarmingbusinessTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness?Sub‐questions:Q3.1 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto financialservicesforthetargetgroup?


Q3.2 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureof thetargetgroup?Q3.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialand productioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Q3.4 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentin farmingbusiness?Q3.5 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof Hofokamtothetargetgroup?Besidesansweringtheseevaluationquestions,theteamhadashortassessmentofspecificobjective4'Enhancingcapacitiesofpartnersforprogrammecoordinationandimplementation'.d.EvaluationquestionsrelatedtotheDACTevaluationcriteriaNexttothespecificevaluationquestions,theDACevaluationcriteria1werepartoftheevaluationaswell:Q4.1 Relevance:Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywith requirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?Q4.2 Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?Q4.3 Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedto alternatives?Q4.4 Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐term impact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?Q4.5 Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii) financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?e.ResearchquestionstoidentifyalternativelivelihoodsQ5.1 How and to what extent will Tullow operations affect communities and the livelihoodsofcommunitiesintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley? Theassumptionisthate.g.resettlementrequiresdifferentapproachesforthe restorationoridentificationforalternativelivelihoodsthanthelossofoneortwo resources(land,water,fishgroundsetc).Q5.2 WhattypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperationsandhow? Theassumptionhereisthatthetypeofcommunitiesandtheirlivelihoodmay influencethechoiceforalternativelivelihoods(e.g.affectedfishingcommunities mayneeddifferentapproachesthanfarmercommunities).Q5.3 GiventhevariousscenariosofnegativeimpactbyTullowoperations,thetypesof affectedcommunitiesandtheirgeographicallocations:Whatarepossible alternativelivelihoodsorrestoredlivelihoodsofaffectedcommunities?1.3CompositionoftheevaluationandstudyteamTheevaluationteamconsistedoftwoconsultants:BonifaceMugisa(Ugandannational,expertinagriculturalenterprisedevelopmentandmicrofinance)andMarlènArkesteijn(Netherlandsnational,expertin(visual)evaluationmethodologyandruraldevelopment).MarlènArkesteijnwastheleadconsultantandresponsibleforthedesignoftheevaluationandthestudy,itsworkshops,fieldvisitsandpartnerinterviewsandassessments,datacollectionandanalysis,andwritingofthereport.Shedidthisinclosecooperationwith

1 http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html


BonifaceMugisa.Bonifacewasmainlyresponsibleforthequantitativedatacollectionduringtheevaluation,whileMarlènfocussedonthe(visual)qualitativedatacollection.Thedatagatheringinthefieldfortheadditionalstudy(includingtheanalyses)wasdonebyBonifaceMugisa,whilecoachingandreportingwasdonebyMarlènArkesteijn.Duringtheevaluation,theteamwasstrengthenedbyRichardNsamba(fieldadvisorofTriasinMasindi,HoimaandBuliisa).Hearrangedallvisitstotrainingcentresandcommunitiesandcreatedallenablingconditions(asfarasinhiscontrol,rangingfromlogistics,backgroundinformationandharmonywithintheextendedevaluationteam)fortheteamtodoitswork.FrancisKiwanuka,thedriverofTrias,Ugandamadesuretheteamreachedthecommunitiessafely,despitemud,rainandrivers.InHoimatheteamwasaccompaniedduringthefieldvisitsbyfieldadvisorsfromHodfa,respectivelyBobGeorgeSunday(Runga),GodfreyAganyira(Kabanda),andMucwaElisha(Kaseeta).AndronziGaditranslatedinHoima.InBuliisathe(evaluation)teamworked,besidesRichardandFrancis,withDavidWanzala,fieldadvisorfromMadfa.Davidservedasamulti‐talent,notonlyfacilitatingthecommunitymeetings,butalsodoingmostofthetranslationsashewastheonlyoneoftheteamwhospokeandunderstoodalllocallanguages(fromLugungu,Alur,BunyorotoSwahili).1.4Evaluationandstudyprocessandmethodologya.EvaluationprocessandmethodologyFortheevaluation,theteamusedacombinationofqualitativeandquantitativeresearch,basedontheCORT(CollaborativeOutcomeReportingTechnique)method(Dart,2010)thatincludestheMostSignificantChangemethod(DaviesandDart,2005)andfocusgroupdiscussionscombinedwithquantitativesecondaryandprimarydatacollection(includingtheuseofaquestionnaireandsemi‐structuredinterviews).ThisCORTmethodenablesfarmersandpartnerstoparticipateasfaraspossibleindatacollectionandanalysis.Theevaluationtookplaceatthree(embedded)levels:Programmelevel,partner/districtlevelandcommunitylevel.Ateachleveltheevaluationstartedwithakick‐offmeetingorworkshopafterwhichdatacollectioncommenced,andclosedwithavalidationandreflectionmeetingorworkshoptopresentanddiscussthefirstfindings.Atprogrammeandpartner/districtleveltheteamheldsemi‐structuredinterviewswithTriasstaff,Tullow,variousstakeholders,likeotherNGOsanddistrictofficers.Withthepartnerstheteamheldworkshopsandsemi‐structuredinterviews,capacityself‐assessmentsandaMostSignificantChangeexerciseoncapacitystrengthening.Atcommunityleveltheteamheldgroupdiscussions,didtheMostSignificantChangeexerciseonimpactandoutcomes,anddidfacetofaceinterviewswiththehelpofaquestionnaire.TheMostSignificantChangemethodwastargetingatharvestingearlysignsof(expectedandunexpected)outcomesandimpactathouseholdsandcommunitylevel,andqualitativeargumentationonhowtheprogrammecontributedtothesechanges.Throughaquestionnairequantitativedatawasgatheredonfoodandincomesecurity(atcommunitylevel)ofbothbeforetheprogrammestarted(2009)andcurrentlevels,anddataonmarketaccess.SomeoftheMostSignificantChangestorieswererecordedonvideosinceusing


visualswerepartandparceloftheevaluationtofacilitatedirectrepresentationoffarmers,andtofacilitatereflection.Whiledesigningtheevaluationapproachtheteamaimedatincludingnon‐CAEDPfarmersaswell,togetabetterunderstandingofthecontributionoftheCAEDPtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.Duetotherathershortvisitstothecommunities(from10.00‐16.00),theteamonlyinterviewedaverylimitednumberofnon‐CAEDPfarmers(11outof83totalrespondents).Forthefieldworkthreecommunities(trainingcentres)perdistrictwereselected.Theevaluationteamrequestedforrepresentativecentreswithgroupsthatwereconsideredstrongadopters(goodCAEDPresults),middleadopters(averageCAEDPresults)andweakadopters(hardlyornoCAEDPresults(yet)).Thisresultedinthefollowingselectionofcommunities/trainingcentresandgroups(seetable1). Numberofgroups/participants

inevaluationNumber(percentage)ofwomen

participatinginevaluationHoima 41people(10groups) 13(31%)Kigorobya/Runga(middle) 16people(4groups) 5Buseruka/Kabanda(weak) 10people(3groups) 4Kabwoya/Kaseeta(strong) 15people(3groups) 4Buliisa 52people(14groups) 22(42%)Biiso/Biiso(strong‐middle) 20people(5groups) 6Ngwedo/Avogera(middle‐weak) 16people(5groups) 9Kisyabi/Uribo(middle‐weak) 16people(4groups) 7Total 93people(24groups) 35(38%)Table1Trainingcentres,groupsand(women)farmersinvolvedintheevaluationIntotaltheprogrammeworkswith130groupsinHoimaandaround110inBuliisa.Theteamwasabletovisit24groupsofthe240intotal(10%).Thenumberofwomenparticipantsintheevaluationisratherlow(38%),especiallywhenknowingthathalf(50%)ofthemembersofthegroupstheteamvisitedwerewomen.Itisuncleartotheevaluationteamwhythenumberofwomenthatparticipatedintheevaluationdidnotrepresenttheirparticipationinthegroups.OnselectionoftheMostSignificantChangestoriesSincenotallreadersmaybeversedintheuseofMSC,ashortsummaryoftheMSCmethodandselectionofstoriesispresentedhere:Ineverycommunitytheteamworkedwithmembersofdifferentfarmergroupsintwosmallevaluationgroups(ofaround8farmerspergroup)toharvestandselectMostSignificantChangeStories.Thequestionaskedtothefarmerswas:Fromyourpointofview,whatisforyouthemostsignificantchangethathastakenplaceinyourlifeoverthelast2‐3yearsafteryoujoinedyourfarmersgroup?Aftertellingthestories,adiscussionwouldfollowonthestoriesandbasedonargumentationoneofthestorieswouldbeselectedasthestorythatrepresentstheresultsoftheprogrammebest.Ineverycommunitytheteamwouldcapturethesetwostories(sometimesthreewhenthegroupfoundtwostoriesbest)onvideo.Attheendoftheday,thevideoswouldbepresentedonavideo‐screentothewholecommunitytosharethestoriesandtofacilitatediscussiononwhythesestorieswereconsideredimportantandhowrepresentativetheywereforthecommunity.Aftervisitingthreecommunities,the6‐8videoswouldbeshowntothepartnersinthedistricttosharethestoriesandtofacilitatediscussionandreflectiononresultsoftheprogrammefromtheirpointofview.


Basedondiscussions,thepartnerswouldselecttwostories‐thatintheirviewsrepresent

theresultsoftheprogrammebest‐tobesharedanddiscussedatprogrammelevel.b.StudyprocessandmethodologyFortheadditionallivelihoodstudy,thefollowingmethodswereused:

a.In‐depthinterviewswithTullowstaffonhow,whereandwhenTullowoperationswillaffectlivelihoodsofcommunities,andidentifythepossiblelevelofimpact(fromlossofsomeresourcestoresettlement).b.Fieldworkusingfocusgroupdiscussionsin5communitiesandaone‐pagequestionnaireforhouseholdinterviewsin4possiblyaffectedcommunities(withdifferentlevelsofimpact)toidentifycurrentlivelihoodsandlevelsofincome,andpossiblealternativelivelihoodsthatfittheagriculturalandtradingzone,cultureofthecommunitiesand(atleast)levelsofcurrentincomeandfoodsecuritylevels.c.In‐depthinterviewswithdistrictofficerstoidentifypossiblealternativelivelihoodstobeincludedinthefollow‐upproposalfortheCAEDprogramme.

InconsultationwithTullowandtheCAEDPpartnersthefollowingcommunitieswereselectedforthestudy.ThesecommunitiesmoreorlessrepresentthosecommunitiesaffectedorlikelytobeaffectedbyTullowoperations(seetable2):HoimadistrictSub‐county Community DescriptionBuseruka Kiryambogo

LandingsiteDownescarpment,remoteanddifficulttoaccessbyvehicles,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.

Kabwoya SebagoroLandingsite

Downescarpment,veryremote,poorroad,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.

BuliisadistrictKigwera WansekoCOU

siteNearferrycrossing,fishing/farmingcommunity,oilfoundinvicinity,noexploitationyet.

Ngwedo NgwedoTradingcentre

Remote,mainlyfarmingcommunity,morethan5oilwellsdetected,noexploitationyet.

Butiaba BugoigoLandingsite

Fishingcommunity,surroundedbyoilwells,noexploitationyet.

Table2Communitiesvisitedduringthelivelihoodstudy

Community Community Community Community Community Community

CAEDP

District/partners District/partners

Figure1MSCselectionprocess


1.5MainevaluationandstudyactivitiesThemainevaluationactivitiesincludedthefollowing:

• Deskreview.• Collectionof80MostSignificantChangestoriestoldbyfarmers.• Intotal13MSCstorieswerevideotaped,6inHoimaand7inBuliisa.InbothHoima

andBuliisadistricts,2MSCstorieswereselectedbyrespectivelyHodfaandMadfa/HofokamasrepresentingtheresultsoftheCAEDPbest.DuringthevalidationworkshopinKampalathesefourMSCstorieswereshownanddiscussedbyrepresentativesofTullow,TriasandHofokam,HodfaandMadfa.

• Collectionof83questionnaires(72CAEDPand11nonCAEDPfarmers).• Groupdiscussionswith24groupsonfunctioningoffarmergroups(atcommunity

level).• Groupdiscussioninfishingcommunitytounderstandfishingissues.• Kick‐offandvalidationworkshops&discussionswithpartners&Trias.• Capacityself‐assessmentsby10staffmembersofthepartnersHofokam,Hodfaand

Madfa.• Collectionof8MSConcapacitydevelopmentbypartners,ofwhich3wererecorded

onvideotape.• Interviewswith13stakeholders(districtofficers,Tullow,Traidlinks).• Analyses(duringvalidationworkshopsandwithintheevaluationteam.

Themainstudyactivitiesincluded:

• Deskreview.• Collectionof68questionnaires(ofwhom46CAEDPparticipantsand22non‐CAEDP

participants)• Groupdiscussionswith5groupsonlivelihoodsandalternatives• Interviewswith11stakeholders(districtofficers,Tullow).• Analyses

1.6FactorscontributingorinfluencingtheevaluationandstudyexercisesFactorscontributingtotheevaluationandstudyexercisesFromallthreepartners(Hofokam,HodfaandMadfa),TriasandTullowtheteamreceivedfullcooperationandmotivationtoparticipateintheevaluationandthestudy.EspeciallythetimeandeffortsprovidedbythefieldadvisorsofMadfa,HodfaandTriaswereveryconduciveforconductingbothresearches.ThetranslationsofAndronziGadi(thetranslatorinHoima)andDavidWanzala(fieldadvisorMadfa)duringtheevaluationwereindispensableinaworldoftribesandlocallanguages.Mostofthefarmersparticipatingintheevaluationandstudywerehighlymotivatedtosharetheirexperiences,andtoshowtheteamtangibleresults,eitheratgrouporhouseholdlevel.Someoftheminsistedonshowingtheirfieldsandhouseswithlimitlessenergy.TheuseofvideoduringtheevaluationforrecordingtheMostSignificantChangestoriesworkedverywellintermsofdirectrepresentation,andcontributedtolivelyandinspiringdiscussionsatbothcommunity,partnerandprogrammelevel.FactorsnegativelyinfluencingtheevaluationandstudyexercisesUnfortunatelydataonfoodandincomesecurityandsomeoutcomeindicatorswerenot‐asplanned‐availablebeforetheteam'sdeparturetothefield.Incomeandfoodsecurity


indices,andsomeoftheoutcomeindicatorscouldnotbeverifiedduringtheevaluationasplannedinthefield.Thisisoneofthereasonswhytheteamdecidedtogetthefoodandincomesecuritydatathroughtheirownquestionnaire.Boththeevaluationandstudytookplaceinthemiddleoftherainyseasonwhenfarmersarebusyintheirfields.Manytimestherewasratherlimitedtimeinthecommunitiesforalltheevaluationandstudyactivities(usuallyfrom11.30AM‐16.00PM).Asaresultaverylimitednumberofnon‐CAEDPfarmerscouldbeinterviewed,andsometimesevenalimitednumberofparticipatingfarmers.Althoughtherewas‐duringtheevaluation‐alwaysapersonthattranslatedintheteam,manytimes,especiallyinBuliisa,onlyonepersonoftheteamcouldspeakallthelocallanguages.Thismeantthatsometimes2cyclesoftranslationhadtobedone.Thereforetheevaluationactivitiestooklongerthananticipated,especiallythequestionnairessinceboththeinternationalandnationalevaluatordidnotmasterthelocallanguages.Againtherainyseasoncanbepartlyblamedfornotbeingabletoreachoneofthecommunitiesintimeduringtheevaluation.Twocarsgotstuckinthemud,andeventuallycouldnotcrossthetemporaryriverswhengoingtoKabanda,Hoima.WhenKabandawasreachedaround13.30PMmostofthefarmershadleftthemeetingplace.ForKabandaonly2effectiveworkinghourswereavailabletoconducttheinterviews,groupsession,andMSCstorycollection.


2.PROGRAMMEDESCRIPTIONANDINTERVENTIONCONTEXT2.1DesignoftheCAEDprogrammeTheCommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentprogrammeisgearedatimprovingthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsandtosupportthemtomovefromsubsistencetomore'commercial'farming(throughfirst'marketingpartoftheiryield'andeventuallytomore'commercial'farming).Thispathtomorecommercialfarmingistoensurethatfarmersgetmorecashincome(withoutlosingfoodsecurity)andcancaterforthegrowingdemandforfoodintheregionandUganda.2TheprogrammeusestheParticipatoryAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopment(PAEDorERI)approachtoenablefarmerstobecomemoremarketoriented.ThecoreofthePAEDliesintheformationoffarmergroupsthroughwhichthefarmerschooseprofitableagriculturalenterprises,researchthemarket,docost‐benefitanalyses,gettrainingonagricultureandpost‐harveststoragetechniques,andintheend,markettheir(individual)producecollectively.Theideabehindsellingcollectivelyisamongothersthatfarmerscannegotiatebetterpriceswhentheysellasagroup.Nexttotheproductionandmarketingaspecttheprogrammepaysattentiontofoodcropsandfoodsecurity,andtriestofacilitateanincreaseofinvestmentsinagriculturethroughsavingschemesandloans(bothinternalandexternal).Thesethreeaspectsofincreasingproductionandmarketing,foodsecurityandinvestmentinfarmingformthepillarsoftheprogramme(seefigure2GoalsandobjectivesoftheCAEDprogramme,page10).Workingingroupsrunsthroughotherelementsoftheprogrammeaswell:Thegroupselectsanenterprise,makesabusinessplan,savestogether,takes(iffeasible/needed)aloanasagroup(butdivideitoverthehouseholds)andmarketasagroup.Theprogrammeisimplementedby3localpartnerorganisations:2districtfarmerorganisations(HoimaDistrictFarmers’Association(Hodfa)andMasindiDistrictFarmers’Association(Madfa),bothestablishedin1992)andonemicro‐financeinstitution(Hoima,FortPortal,KaseseMicroFinance(HOFOKAM)foundedin2003).TheyattheirturnaresupportedbyTriasUganda.2.2ContextdescriptionTheCAEDprogrammeaimedtotargetapproximately3,640smallholderfarmhouseholdsbetween2010‐2012infoursub‐countiesinHoima(Kabwoya,Buseruka,Kigorobya&Kyangwali)and(all)3sub‐countiesinBuliisadistrict(Biiso,BuliisaandBuliisaTownCouncil).BothdistrictsareborderingLakeAlbertinwesternUganda.BuliisadistrictisanewdistrictinwesternUganda,createdin2006.Priortothat,thedistrictusedtobepartofMasindiDistrict.Thedistrictisprimarilyruralandmostpeopleinthedistrictarepastoralists,fishermenorsubsistencesmallholderfarmers.The'maintown'inthedistrictisBuliisa‐town,located80kilometres(50miles)by(rough)roadnorthwestofMasindiandborderingLakeAlbert.Buliisatownis'lands‐end'andthereforeratherisolatedandremote.In2010thepopulationofBuliisadistrictwasestimatedtobeapproximately88,700.ThemajortribesfoundinBuliisaincludetheBagungu,theAlur,theLuoandBanyoro.Hoimadistrictisatypicalruraldistrictwithupto91%ofthepopulationlivingintheruralareasandengagedinagriculture.Theymainlycultivatecoffee,maize,cassava,banana,beans,vegetables,millet,groundnuts,cocoa,Irishpotatoes,tea,tobacco,soyabeansand 2The'ComprehensiveFoodSecurity&VulnerabilityAnalysisonUganda'(WFP,2009)showsthatwhilethepopulationisincreasingattherateof3.2percentannually;foodproductionisgrowingatlessthan3percent.


UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway

SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear

SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets

SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness

Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation

Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden

Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops

Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh

HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome

FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened

Groups:knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE

Groups:skillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE

Groups:knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages

Groups:knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest

Groups:facilitatedwithcollectivemarketing

Groups:skillsinPME

Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement

Savingsculturepromoted

Outreachservicesincreased

Partnersequippedwithstaff&capacitytoprovideappr.servicestomembers

Partners:Agriculturefriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

CapacitytoPMEandreportimproved

Capacitytomanageresourcestransparentlyandaccountablestrengthened

Programmeplansandactivitiespartnerswellcoordinated

Infosharingandcollaborationwithmajorstakeholdersenhanced

TRIAS:CapacityTriasstafftoprovidecapacitybuildingsupporttolocalpartners&tocoordinateprogrammeactivitiesenhanced

TRIAS

HODFA,MADFA,HOFOKAM

Farmerhouseholds&groups

Figure2GoalsandobjectivesoftheCAEDprogramme


uplandrice.Thedistricthad(in2006)apopulationofabout383,500people,withanannualpopulationgrowthrateof4.7%.Thedistricthasafairlyyoungpopulationwith46%ofthepeoplebeingbelow15yearsofage(57%below18yearsofage).ThelargestethnicgrouparetheBanyoro,followedbytheBagungu,Banyankole,theBakiga,Lugbara,Langi,Acholi,BagisuandtheBaganda.TheCAEDPbaselinestudyconductedin2009quotesthatmorethan75%ofthepopulationofthesetwodistrictsaresmallholderfarmersthataremainlysubsistenceorientedwithlandholdingsrangingfrom0.25‐5hectares.Theyareincomeandfoodinsecure,marketilliterate,facealackofcapitaland/oraccesstoexternalcapitalandareusuallyunorganisedwithlimitedcollectivemarketing.Ingeneral,smallholderfarmhouseholdsconstitutethemostvulnerableandpoorestsegmentofHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Whileapproximately55%ofthehouseholdsassertedin2009tohavingsufficientfoodthroughouttheyear,dietsareone‐sidedandbasedon‘whatisavailableonthefarm’.Farmhouseholdsgenerallylackedskillsandknowledgeonfoodnutrition,appropriatefoodstorageandpreservation(includingprocessing)andfoodpreparation.ThenumberofHIV/Aidsaffectedfamiliesvariedfrom25%to65%.Ofthesehouseholdsanestimated30‐35%arefemale‐headedandapproximately7‐10%areorphan‐headedhouseholds.EstimationsonHIV/Aidsinfectedheadsofhouseholds(husband/wife)rangedfrom10‐15%(seeTrias,2010).Animportantdevelopmentintheregionisthediscoveryofoil:Duringthefirst10yearsofthe2000s,aconsiderableamountofcrudeoildepositshavebeendiscoveredinbothHoimaandBuliisadistricts.TheUgandanGovernmentisinthefinalstagesofpreparingtoextracttheoildiscoveredinthedistricts.ThediscoveryofoilisalreadyattractingtheinfluxofpeoplefromothersidesofUgandaandCongo.Insomeplacethishascreatedtensionbetweenvarioustribesandtheirlivelihoodstrategies(farmersversuspastoralists).InstitutionalsurroundingsoftheprogrammeInthepast10yearsthepolicyenvironmentfortheagriculturesectorinUgandahasbeenshapedbyboththeNationalDevelopmentPlan(NDP,launchedin2010)andthePlanforModernizationofAgriculture(PMA).TheNDPidentifiedalonglistoflimitationsaffectingagriculturalproductionandfoodsecurity:Inadequateproductionandpost‐harvestfacilities;limitedextensionsupport;inadequatediseaseandpestcontrols;weakstandardsinfoodsecurityandqualityassuranceinfrastructure;weakvaluechainlinkages;etc.Consequently,theNDPincorporatesspecificstrategicobjectivesaimingatenhancingagricultureproductionandproductivity;increasingthenumberoffunctioningandsustainableagriculturefarmersorganizationsinvolvedincollectivemarketing;improvingaccessandsustainabilityofmarkets;supportingthehungerpreventioninitiatives;improvingaccesstohighqualityinputs,plantingandstockingmaterials;enhanceproductivityoflandandwaterresources;etc.ThePMAcomplementstheNDPwithprovidingnationalagricultureadvisoryservices,ruralfinancing,agro‐processing,andmarketing,agricultureeducation,etc.InmanycommunitiesinbothHoimaandBuliisadistricts,theNationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesprogramme(NAADS)givesshapetotheabove‐mentionedpoliciesby(amongothers)activelystimulatingtheformationoffarmergroups.TheapproachoftheNAADSistoworkwithmodelfarmerswhoarebeingtrained,andget(inpractice'free')inputs.Themodelfarmersattheirturnaresupposedtoextendtheirknowledge,skillsandsometimesinputstotheothergroupmembers(Esfim,2011).Insomecommunitiesandgroupsthisapproachseemstowork,inothercommunitiesnotatall.


Facilitatingpracticesofmicro‐financeisoneoftheapproachesthathavebeenadoptedbygovernmenttoachievetheMDGs.ThepreferredformoffinancialintermediationintheruralsectoristhroughSavingsandCreditCo‐operatives(SACCOs).Communitiesinallsub‐countiesinUgandaareencouragedandassistedbythegovernmenttoestablishfunctionalandviableSACCOs.ThisentailsintheorysupportingcommunitiestostartupSACCOswherenoneexist,whileweakSACCOsaresupposedtobestrengthenedintosafeandsoundinstitutions.EachoftheSACCOsstrengthenedshouldfurtherbelinkedtoaformalfinancialinstitution,usuallyacommercialbank.In2005,amicro‐financepolicyandregulatoryframeworkforUganda(2005–2015)waslaunchedwiththethemetosupportanintegratedmicrofinancesectorinthecountry.InHoimaandBuliisatheseSACCOswerenotexistingandfarmersdidnothaveaccesstomicro‐financeinstitutionswhentheprogrammestarted.InbothHoimaandBulliisamanyotherNGOsandGOprogrammesareactivetocontributetopovertyeradicationandfoodandincomesecurity.BuildAfricaUgandaisactiveinsettingupsavinggroups,UgandaWildlifeAssociationhandedoutbeehivesasanincomegeneratingactivity,NAADSdidthesameandalsoprovidedinputsforcroppingandgoats,FarmIncomeEnhancementandForestConservation(FIEFOC)programmesupportedcommunities,theDistrictLivelihoodSupportProgramme(DLSP)isactive,etc.


3.EVALUATION&STUDYFINDINGSPART1EVALUATIONFINDINGS3.1IntroductionInordertounderstandthefindingsandthedifferencesinresultsoftheprogramme,theteamconsidersithelpfultofirstpresentthedifferencesbetweenthecommunitiestheteamvisited.Impactandoutcomesaredefinitelynotonlyinfluencedbytheprogramme,butbymanyotherfactorsandactorsthateitherfacilitateand/orhinderresultstoemerge(seefigure3).Theagriculturalzone,(micro‐)climates,thevicinityofatradingcentre,goodroads,astablepopulation,stablegroups,cultureandsocialstructuresinacommunity,presenceofotherNGOandGOprogrammes,experiencewiththecultivationofcropsforexamplemayenableandfacilitateagriculturalproductionandcollectivemarketing.Semi‐aridplaceswithpoorsoils,remotenessofacommunity,anunstablepopulation(in‐andoutflux)arefactorsthatarelessenablingforincreasedagriculturalproduction,andfoodandincomesecurityimprovements.Tomakechangehappeninsuchcommunitiesmaytakemoreeffortandtime,ormayevenrequiredifferentapproachesthanthepromotionofcultivatingcrops.Inthedistrictstheteamobservedgreatdifferencesinenablingandhinderingfactorsthatdefinitelyinfluencedthelevelofsuccessoftheprogramme(seetable3,page14).

Subsistencesmallholder

farmerhouseholds

Agriculturalconditions(soil

etc)

Markets

Culture,history

Weather/microclimate

Migrationpatters

PhysicalInfrastructure

Figure3Actorsandfactorsinfluencingfarmerhouseholds

Knowledge

Ownership/accesstoland

Labour

Alternativelivelihoods

OtherGO/NGOprogrammes

Lawsandregulations

CAEDP


HoimadistrictSub‐county/parish

Community

Kigorobya Runga Downescarpment,remote,fishing,farming,livestock,mixedAlur,Bagungu,Congolese,in‐outflux,semi‐arid,shortseason,Hodfaentered2011

Buseruka Kabanda Downescarpment,remote,fishing,tradeandlivestock,verymixedpopulation,strongin‐outflux,extremeclimateconditions,Hodfaentered2011.

Kabwoya Kaseeta Upescarpment,tradingcentre/road,farming&trade,Alur&Lugbara,stablepopulation,enablingconditionsforagriculture,Hodfaentered2010.

BuliisadistrictBiiso Biiso Upescarpment,road/tradingcentre,mixedpopulation,farming,

trading.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2011,stableandexistinggroups.

Buliisa/Ngwedo Avogera Upescarpment,remote,mainlyAlur,mainlyfarming.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2010,existinggroups.

Buliisa/Kisyabi Uribo Upescarpment,remote,mainlyAlur.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2010,existinggroups.

Table3Enablingandhinderingfactorsinthecommunitiesvisited,asobservedbytheteam3.2OverallfindingsAswillbeshowninthefollowingparagraphstheresultsoftheCAEDprogrammearepositive:

• AlmostallsmallholderfarmhouseholdsparticipatingintheCAEDPshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices;

• Almostallfarmershaveincreasedaccesstoandparticipateinremunerativemarkets;

• Alargegroupoffarmersmakeuseofloansandsavingsforinvestmentintheiragriculturalproduction.

Whenexploringabitdeeperintotheresultsandhowtheprogrammehascontributedtotheresults,theevaluationteamfoundthefollowingpatterns:

• Somehouseholdsbenefitmorefromtheprogrammethanothers:Betweenthecommunitieslargedifferencescanbeseenwhenprobingbeyondtheprogrammeindicators;

• Amajorityofthehouseholdshasincreasedtheirincomeandfoodsecurity,buthavedonesothroughindividualmarketingandnot,asintendedbytheprogramme,throughcollectivemarketing;

• Whiletheprogrammeanditspartnersintendtodeliveranoverallapproachforincreasingproduction(foodandcashcrops),marketing,saving,loaningetc,mostfarmersregardtheprogrammeasaprogrammetoincreaseproductionand/orasasavingprogramme.

3.3FindingsbasedontheMSCstoriesThesepatternsmentionedabovebecameclearthroughthegroupdiscussionsinthecommunityandwereconfirmedbytheMostSignificantChangestories.DuringtheMostSignificantChangeexercises,althoughfarmerswererequestedtotalkabout'changesintheirlivelihoodsituations',themajorityoffarmersreferredtooutcomesoftheCAEDPprogrammeasmostsignificantchanges.Mostofthestorieswereabouttheuseofnewmethodsforfarminglikespacing,improvedseed,plantinginrows,forbothfoodandcashcrops(39ofthe80stories),orabout'saving'(20/80)(seefigure3).


Only7outofthe80storieshadimprovedincomeandfoodsecurityasmaintopic.Thisdoesnotmeanthathouseholdsdidnotimprovetheirincomeand/orfoodsecuritysituation(58farmersindicatedintheirstoriesthattheirincomeandfoodsecurityhadimprovedthroughe.g.improvedfarmingmethods)butforthemthechangeinfarmingmethodswasmoresignificant(andlikelymoretangible)thanthechangeinincomeandfoodsecurity.ThiscouldalsobeexplainedbythereasoningthattheimprovedfarmingmethodscouldbeeasilyconnectedtotheCAEDP,whileotherfactorsthantheprogrammealsocontributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.FarmersassociatedtheCAEDPmorewithimprovedagriculturalpracticesandsavingpractices(bothpracticeswerewidelyused)thanwithmarketing,marketingingroups,cost‐benefitsanalyses(attributesof'farmingasabusiness').Againanexplanationcouldbepossiblyfoundinthetangibilityofagriculturalpracticesandsaving,andpossiblyinthefactthatformanygroupstheprogrammejuststarted.

UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway

SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear

SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets

SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness

Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation

Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden

Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops

Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh

HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome

FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened

Knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE

SkillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE

Knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages

Knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest

Groupsfacilitatedwithcollectivemarketing

SkillsinPME

Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement

Savingsculturepromoted

Outreachservicesincreased

Farmerhouseholds2 5

13

1

22

20

1

39

1

Other:Hopeforthefuture 1

Other:Knowledge&skillsinimprovinganimalhusbandry:goats 2

Figure3MaintopicsofMostSignificantChangestoriesbyfarmersThenumbersindicatehowmanystories(ofthe80)wererelatedtothe(sub)objectives.Redboxesindicatenewtopics.


PartnersHodfa,MadfaandHofokamselectedthosestories(4)thatwereaboutincreasedincome,investmentforastableincomeandworkingingroupssincetheyfoundthesestoriesrepresentingtheresultsoftheprogrammebest(seethestoriesatpage16and17).MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyHodfa1:Theimportanceofbelongingtoagroup(inAlur)

IamOcunaYotam,fromRungavillage,Kibiroparish,Kigorobyasub‐county,Hoima.Itisgoodtobeinagroup(Tekwakogroup)becauseithasbroughtchange.IusedtobeafishermanbutIdidnotgetmuchprofitoutofitanylonger.Thegroupgivesmealotofprofit:WithmygroupIcancultivatemylandeasilysincetheyhelpme.Idonothavemuchlabour,butwiththehelpofthegroupIcantilltheland.ThroughthegroupIknowhowtosavemoney,andhowtogetloans.WegettrainingfromHodfaonagriculturalmethodsinagrouponly.Soitisimportanttobeinagroup.Werealisethebenefitsofbeingin

agroupandifwecontinuewemayseechangesin2‐3years’time.Iamhappytobeinagroup.IfweregisterwithHodfaIamsurethatwewillprofitinthefuture.Ihavealreadyseensomedifferences.Allbenefitswillcomethroughtheeffortsofthegroup.Stayinginagroupmeansthatwelookforamarketofthecropsthatwearegoingtoplant.Sothatwhenwesell,wewillgetprofitoutofit.Ifwejoinhandswithmicro‐finance,weshallgetevenmoreprofit.ThatiswhyIamgratefulofbeinginagroup.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyHodfa2:Improvedproductionandincome(English)

IamAdrikoLetiSustain,fromKaseetaparish,Kabwoyasub‐county,Hoima.Infactthereisaverybigchangesincetheprogrammestartedandtaughtusnewmethodsofagriculturalproduction.ThechangeIhaveseenisreal.Formerlyweusedtoplantourcropswithoutknowinganythingaboutspacingandlining.WhenHodfaintroducedandtrainedusinmodernmethodsoffarming,wemanagetoincreaseouryields.Beforeweproducedandplantedzigzag;nowweplantinlineandusespacingof30x70cm.Thatspacingchangedouryields.BeforeIproduced600kg/acre,currentlyIamproducing1500kg/acre.Thesearethe

benefitsIhaveseenfromtheprogramme.Wealsouseimprovedseedsandthisalsoincreasesouryield.Throughthesehighyields,ourincomehasincreasedaswell.AsaresultIconstructedapermanenthousewithfourrooms.Imanagedtostartbusinesseslikeasaloon,andaphonechargingbusiness.Thevideohallwherewearesittingnowisalsoaresultoftheprogramme.MostimportanttomeisthatIhaveacquiredknowledgeandskillsandthatIcouldabandontheoldmethods.ThatisthelittlestoryIcantell.Irequesttheprogrammetocontinuesupportingus.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyMadfa&Hofokam‐Buliisa1:Improvedproductionandincome(Alur)

IamOnenJackson,DikiriberticKutegogroup,fromAvogeravillage,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐county.Iamgoingtotalkaboutthechangewehaveseen,andthehardshipwegot.Beforewedidnothavegoodpracticesinfarming.WhenMadfacametheyprovidedmanytypesoftraining:Weweretrainedoncultivatingsoybean,e.g.spacingof50x25cm.ThroughthispracticeIgetverygoodyields.Wealsolearnedaboutthespacingforcotton.FromoneacreofcottonIcanget1000kgnow.Wewerealsotaughthowtocultivatecassava:FromoneacreIcangetnowUGX1millionperacreifIsell.SoIhavenoticedbigchangesbetweenpreviousandcurrentyields.Thesehigh

yieldshavehelpedmetoincreasemyincomeandIcanpayschoolfeesnowformychildren.Ithank


MadfaandHofokamforhavingtrainedus.Hofokamisevengoingtogetusaloantoboostmyproductionfurtherandtoexpandmycassavagarden.IthankMadfaverymuch.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyMadfa&Hofokam‐Buliisa2:Investmentforstableincome

(Alur)IamPacudakaJeanette,fromChanPonjojogroup,Avogera,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐county.TherewasanannouncementfromMadfaonRadioMasindiandsomychairpersonencouragedtogofortraining.MadfatrainedusonvariousmethodsforagriculturalproductionandIstartedcultivating1acreofcassava.ThenTullowcameandduringtheirseismicsurveytheydestroyedmyfieldandthusmycassava.Asaconsequencetheyhadtocompensateme.TullowpaidmeUGX600.000.FromthismoneyIboughtagrindingmillforcassavaflour.FromtherestofthemoneyIrentedmorelandtoproducecassava.NowIhave2acres

withcassava.WiththegrindingmillIhaveastableincome,sometimesIevenearnUGX10.000/day!IthankMadfafortrainingmeintheskillsandknowledgethatenabledmetodothis,andIreallyhopeMadfacontinuestosupportme.3.4Findingsontheoverallobjective3.4.1Q1FoodandincomesecurityArethereanyearlysignsofimpactwrtsustainableimprovementofthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert?a.Claims(positiveresults)AsindicatedintheMostSignificantChangestories,theevaluationteamhasnotedandseenvarioussignsofimpact,andimprovementsoffoodandincomesecurity.Thequestionnairesconfirmtheearlysignsofimpactintermsofimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.Duringthebaselineoftheprogrammefoodandincomesecurityindicesweredeveloped(seeTrias,2010,andannexVIforexplanationoncalculationofindices).Theevaluationteamfollowedthesamemethodandcollecteddataonfoodandincomesecurityaswell.Fortheyear2009thefarmerswereaskedtoestimatefoodandincomedata,whiletheywereaskedtoprovidecurrentdataontheirfoodandincomesituationaswell.Intable4thevariousbaselines(Trias,2010;andevaluationteam2009estimates),3‐year

Foodsecurityindex Incomesecurityindex

CAEDPBaseline2009

Evaluationestimates2009

Evaluationfindings2012

3‐yearprognoses(2012)

CAEDPBaseline2009

Evaluationestimates2009

Evaluationfindings2012

3‐yearprognoses(2012)

Hoima 0.47 0.47 0.59 0.56 0.28 0.29 0.45 0.36

•Runga 0.47 0.62 0.21 0.35

•Kabanda 0.38 0.50 0.23 0.41

•Kaseeta 0.57 0.65 0.43 0.59

Buliisa 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.59 0.36 0.32 0.47 0.44

•Biiso 0.63 0.78 0.33 0.53

•Avogera 0.40 0.47 0.33 0.44

•Uribo 0.57 0.47 0.29 0.43 Table4OverviewFood&Incomesecurityindices2009and2012


prognosesasgivenintheprogrammedocument,andthecurrentindicesasgatheredbytheevaluationteamarepresented.Whatthetableshowsisthatmosthouseholdsinthevisitedcommunitieshaveimprovedfood‐andincomesecurityindices,withincomesecurityindicesthatevensurpassthe3‐yearprognosesdonein2009duringthebaselineandprogrammedocumentdevelopment.Inalmostallvillagesvisitedbothincomeandfoodsecurityindiceshaveincreased,showingthat‐ingeneral‐sellingmoreproducedoesnotharmfoodsecurity,exceptforhouseholdsinUribo(seeconcern).Whatthetablealsoshowsisthatthe2009estimatesoftheevaluationareratherconsistentwiththebaselinedatagatheredin2009.b.Concern(spaceforimprovement)InUribo,Buliisathefoodsecurityindexgoesdown.ThisisrathersurprisingsinceintheMSCstoriesandgroupdiscussions,thefarmersindicatedtheysoldsurplusfromtheirfoodcrops,andhadincreasedincomes.Whatcouldpartlyexplainthislowerfoodsecurityisthatsomeofthecashcropsdidnot‐orhardly‐yieldoverthelastfewyears(soybean,someofthecotton).Farmersmayhavebeeninclinedtosellalargerpartoftheirfoodcropstocompensatethelossoftheircashcrops.Besidesthenewvarietyofcassavathatwasintroduceddidnotgrowverywellinthevillage,whichmayhavecauseddecreasingfoodsecurityaswell.Althoughtheevaluationteamcannotfullyexplainthislowerfoodsecurity,thesituationrequestsforclosemonitoringofintroducingnewvarietiesofbothcashandfoodcrops.c.Issue(fordiscussion)Almostallhouseholdsshowanincreaseofincomeandincomesecurity,includingthefarmersthatdidnotembarkongroupmarketing.WhattheevaluationteamhasfoundisthatingeneralonlygroupsinKaseetaandsomeinBiisodoactualgroupmarketing,whiletheothersstillselltheirproduceindividually.FarmersinbothKaseetaandBiisoshowhigherincomesecurityindicesthanfarmersinothercommunities.However,theevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatetowhatextent'groupmarketing'iscontributingtohigherincomesecurityindices.Tocomparethebenefitsofgroupmarketingversusindividualmarketing,theincomesofgroupswithidenticalcircumstances‐exceptforthevariablecollectiveversusindividualmarketing‐needtobecomparedindetail.Theteamdidunfortunatelynothavethetimetodoso.d.CantheimprovedfoodandincomesecurityindicesberelatedtotheCAEDP?Despitethelimitednumberofquestionnaireswithnon‐CAEDPhouseholds(11outof83households),theevaluationteamconcludesthatthenon‐CAEDPhouseholdsshowsignificantfewerpositivechangesinfoodandincomeindicatorsthantheCAEDPhouseholds.Thesedifferences,asshowninCharts1and2,givestrongindicationsthattheCAEDprogrammecontributedtothesepositivechanges.


ThemostsignificantchangestoriessupportthepositivecontributionoftheCAEDPtoincreasedfoodandincomesecurity.Manystoriesindicatedthatnewfarmingmethodsincreasedtheiryields(39ofthe80stories),andthattheseincreasedyieldscontributedtotheirfoodandincomesecurity.3.4.2Sub‐questions:Q1.1: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?Q1.2Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredandknowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.Theevaluationteamhasnotedthattheprogrammehascontributedindeedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunities.However,thelevelofthesebusinessandself‐relianceattitudedifferssignificantlybetweencommunities.AsisreflectedunderSpecificObjective2alimitednumberofgroups,mainlyinKaseetaandtosomeextentinBiiso,showmaturebusinessattitudes:Thesegroupstreattheirfarmingasabusiness.Theyinvestintheirfarmingbusiness(includingbuildingastorageandanoffice),andareactiveinmarketingintheirproduce.OthergroupslikegroupsinUriboshowattheirturnasomewhatdependentattitude,waitingforNGOsandotherstohelpthem.Alimitednumberofgroups(likeinKabanda)areverymuchinvolvedinotherbusinessthan'farming'(fishing,livestock,tradeingeneral)butnotinthecultivationofcrops.Themajorityofgroupsisembarkingonthepathtowards'farmingasabusiness'.Ine.g.Runga,AvogeraandsomegroupsinBiisofarmershavetheattitudeandareworkinghardonimprovingtheiryields,butstillfacelimitationsinfindingsuitablemarketsandbuyerstomarkettheirproducecollectively(eitherduetothedistancetothemarketand/oralackofguidanceonhowtoapproachthemarket).TheCAEDprogrammeactuallytrainsfarmersinfindingmarketsfirstandthenstartproduction,butinpracticethisdoesnotalwaystakeplaceinthatorder.Q1.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetargetgroup’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐anddistrictlevel?Theevaluationteamhasseengroupsthatareveryactiveintheirproductionandmarketingactivities.Theyhaveseennosignsorindicationsoffarmersorfarmergroupsvoicingtheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐countyanddistrictslevels.3.5Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective2Q2Increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets?


Sub‐questions:Q2.1: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto markets?Q2.2: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasein competencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Q2.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarket functioning?Q2.4: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfrom agricultureathouseholdlevel?Q2.5: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityand qualityofagriculturalproduce?Q2.6: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof HodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup?Thesequestionsaresointerwovenandinterconnectedthattheevaluationteamhaschosentoanswerthemintegrally. a.ClaimsToputthequestionsinperspective,firstthenumberofgroupsinvolvedintheCAEDPispresented:ThenumberofgroupstheCAEDPhasestablishedand/orisworkingwithhasgrownconsiderablysincethebeginningoftheprogrammeandhassurpassedthetargetednumberofgroups.Thisisquiteanachievement,especiallygiventheroughterrainandtheremotenessofsomeofthecommunitiesinBuliisaandHoima(seeTable5).Numberofgroups

Actuals2010 Actuals2011 Actuals2012 Targetendprogramme2012

Hoima 45 89 131 110Buliisa 40 80 110 96TotalCAEDP 85 169 241 206Table5NumberofgroupsinvolvedinCAEDP,peryear,totalandtargetedforendofprogrammeWhenlookingattheindicatorsthatarecollectedbytheCAEDPitselfforindicatingimprovedaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarkets(seecharts3and4),itcouldbestatedthatoverthelastthreeyearsthenumberofgroupswithaprofitableenterpriseANDthenumberofenterprisegroupsthatincreasedtheirproducesoldhaveincreasedconsiderably(basedondatacollectedbytheCAEDprogrammefortheirmonitoringreports).


AlsotheMSCstoriesandthequestionnairesconfirmthatmostfarmershaveincreasedtheirproduction/acre,increasedtheiracreageofcultivation,andsellalargerpartoftheircropsthanin2009beforetheCAEDPstarted(seetable6).

Acresowned(averageofhhvisited)

Acrescultivated(eitheronownorleasedland)inacresandaspercentageoflandowned

Increasedyieldsscale1‐10*

%ofyieldsold

2009 2012 2009 2012 2009‐12 2009 2012 # % # %

Hoima 4.54 5.41 1.74 38% 3.06 57%

•Runga 1.67 3.30 1.43 86% 2.43 74% 3.2 19 51

•Kabanda 3.33 2.92 0.23 7% 1.18 40% 0.5 45 52

•Kaseeta 7.89 8.53 2.66 34% 4.43 52% 2.2 51 60

Buliisa 4.70 6.03 2.73 58% 4.08 68%

•Biiso 4.40 6.10 2.50 57% 3.95 65% 3.2 37 57

•Avogera 5.30 6.96 3.04 57% 5.23 75% 2.2 24 42

•Uribo 4.80 4.96 2.77 58% 3.12 63% 2.0 25 48

Table6Acresownedandcultivated,yieldsand%ofyieldsold2009‐2012*Farmerswererequestedtoranktheiryieldperacrein2009and2012with1‐10,1indicatinglowyield,10indicatingveryhighyield.Thescalementionedinthistableistheaveragedifferenceinrankingbetween2009‐2012.

Thistablealsorevealsthattherearequitesomedifferencesinareascultivatedandproducesoldbetweenthecommunitiesvisited.SomemoreprobingonvariationsingroupsCombiningthechartsandtable6,theevaluationteamconcludesthatmosthouseholdsandgroupshaveincreasedaccesstomarkets,butsomehouseholdsandgroupsdefinitelyprofitmorefromthismarketaccessthanothers.Incharts3and4(basedoninformationgatheredbytheprogrammeitself)allgroupsthatmakeprofithavebeenincluded,includingprobablygroupsinKabandathathardlycultivatebutsellafewthingsonthelocalmarket.Intable6wehaveseenquitesomedifferencesamongcommunities,notallcommunitiesbenefitequally.


Theevaluationteamhasbasicallyseenthreetypesofgroups:

• Groupsthathavetakenupfarmingasabusinessandsellcollectivelytoabuyer(groupAintable7);

• Groupsthatjuststartedcultivatingmoreandaregettingbetteryieldsandarestilllookingformarkets(groupB)and,

• Groupsthathardlycultivateandsellapartoftheirlimitedyields(groupC).Thegroupsnotonlydifferintheirresults,butalsoshow‐ingeneral‐ratherdifferentcharacteristics(seetable7).

Theprogrammeaimstofacilitatethetransformationfromsubsistencefarmerstomorecommercialfarmers.ForgroupA(5ofthe24groupstheevaluationteamvisited)thistransformationisquitesuccessful.GroupsinKaseetaandsomeinBiisohavedefinedprofitableenterprises,aresellingcollectively,andaremakingquitesubstantialprofit.OneofthegroupsinKaseetaboughtapieceoflandtobuildanofficeandstorageforthegroup.Theymakeuseofloans,saveetc.PartoftheexplanationwhytheCAEDPworkssowellinthesecommunitiesisthattheenablingconditionsforproductionarefavourable;andevenmoresothevicinityofamarketandrathergoodinfrastructure.Themajorityofgroupsthatparticipatedintheevaluation(16/24)isstilltryingtocometogripswithmarketingandespeciallycollectivemarketing(despitethefactthatthemarketshouldhavebeenexploredbeforechoosinganenterprise/cropwithinthesequenceoftheprogramme).Ingeneralproductionandyieldsareincreasing,butfindingmarketsandsellinginbulkasagroupisachallengeespeciallyinremoteareaslikeAvogera,UriboandRunga.AgriculturalconditionsinAvogeraandUriboaregood,whileinRungathefarmersarefacingharsherclimates(semi‐arid).InbothAvogeraandUribothereareverystrongsavingcultures(initiatedatthebeginningofthe2000sbyorganisationslikeBuildAfricaUganda).Despitethesestrengthsandincreasedinvestmentsinagriculture,thegroupsmakerathermarginalprofitduetothechallengingmarketsituation.Theyusuallyselltheirproduceindividuallyatlocalmarkets,notknowinghowtoaccessthemarketotherwise.

GroupA‘Commercialfarmers’ GroupB‘Subsistence‐commercial’

GroupCFarmers?

Stablegroups Somestability(limited) Hardlystable

Matureenterprises Emergingenterprises Somecrops

Marketlinkages/buyer Marketlinkagesweak/localmarkets

Localmarket

Savings(internal&external) Savings(mainlyinternal) Weaksavingculture

Loans(internal&external) Loans(mainlyinternal) Limitedinternalloans

Groupselling Somegroupselling Mainlyindividualselling

Substantialprofit Someprofits Verylimitedprofits

Varioustypesofspin‐off Somespin‐off ‐

Evaluation:5outof24groups 16outof24 3/24Estimatespartners35‐45%ofgroups

25‐40% 25‐30%

Table7Typesoffarmergroupsandtheircharacteristics


Thenthereisathirdtypeofgroupsthatingeneralshowunstablegroups,peopleenteringandexitingthegroups(andthecommunity),hardlysaving(asaresultofunstablegroups),withmembersthatarehardlyengagedinthecultivationofcrops.Thesegroups,mainlyfoundinKabanda,usuallyincludefishermen,andpeopleactiveinfishtradingwithoutatraditionofcultivatingcrops(incontrast,inRungamanyhouseholdsaretraditionallyengaginginbothfishingandagriculture).Someofthehouseholdsstartedvegetablegrowingandselling,butitisataverysmallscaleandseeminglywithoutstrongmotivation.Thesegroupsdonothavemuchpotentialforbecomingcommercialcropfarmers.Theyarehowevermanytimesinvolvedinanimalhusbandryandtrade.Whenlookingatthenumberofgroupsmetduringtheevaluationandtheestimatesofthepartnersonwhatpercentageofthegroupsbelongtoacertaincategory,theevaluationfiguresgivearatherdifferent(andmorein‐depth)pictureof'accesstomarkets'thantheCAEDPindicatorsasusedintheCAEDPreporting.b.ConcernsDespiteincreasedmarketaccessasindicatedabove,manyofthegroupshavenotembarkedoncollectivemarketingwhilethisisoneofthekeyissuesoftheCAEDprogramme.TheevaluationteamhasseensomegroupsinKaseetaandBiisothatarebulkingtheir(individuallyproduced)produceforsellingtoa(specific)buyer.InplaceslikeAvogeraandUribofarmersingeneraldonotbulktheirindividuallyproducedharvest.Theyselltheharvestoftheirgroupdemonstrationfield(whichmanygroupshave)asagroupandcallthiscollectivemarketing.Theyusuallysellthisharvestatthelocalmarketsincethevolumesaresmallandothermarketsarefaraway.InRungacollectivemarketingisexceptionalaswell.Farmersexplainthislackofcollectivefarmingthroughvariousargumentations:'Theyieldsarelow','thereisnomarket','themarketistoofaraway','buyersdonotwanttocomeallthewaytoourvillage(exceptforOlam,thecottonbuyer)','wearejuststartingandintendtostartcollectivemarketingnextyear'etc.AlthoughgroupmarketingispartofthetrainingcurriculumoftheCAEDprogramme,alsofieldadvisorsofthepartnersadmitthatmarketingisaweakpointintheprogramme.Thefieldadvisorsareusuallyverygoodatagriculturalproductionandfarmingtechniques,butlesswellversedinmarketingissues.Evenso:Thefarmersmaybeempoweredtolookformarkets,moreisneededtoreallymakeaconnectionbetweenproducersandbuyers:Investmentsininfrastructure,storage,collectionanddistributioncentres,packaging,buyersknowingwheretogetproduceetc.WhenconditionsarefavourablelikeinKaseeta,farmersmayfindtheirownway.Whencommunitiesaresituatedinremoteareas,andfacelessfavourableagriculturalandinfrastructuralconditions,more(inthesenseoforganisationandinvestment)isneededtomakecollectivemarketingwork.c.IssuesRegardingaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarketstherearetwoimportantquestionstobeasked:1.Giventhetypologyofthevariousfarmergroups,thefactthatfieldadvisorsarecoveringhugeareastocoachandmentortheirgroups,andtheobservationthatespeciallythemiddletypeofgroupseasilyloosetheirmotivationwhennotwellmonitoredandcoached,the


questionariseswhethertheprogrammeshouldkeepontargetingall'farmers',eventhosethatdonothavemuchpotentialforcultivatingcrops.Trias,Hodfa,MadfaandHofokamaretargetingthe'active'poor,thosefarmersthathavethepotentialtoaltertheirsituationsandcouldtransformtheir'subsistence'farmingtowardsmorecommercialfarming.ThisseeminglydoesnotincludetypeC'farmers'.Tullowthoughseesthesegroups,aslongastheymaybenegativelyaffectedbytheiroperations,asanimportanttargetgroup.Alternativelivelihoodsmaybelookedfortocaterfortheneedsofthesecommunities(seeparagraph3.11onalternativelivelihoods,pages35‐36).2.Giventheweakcollectivemarketingwithinmanyofthecommunities,alotofworkistobedoneonthisissue.Thisdoesnotonlyentailworkingonempoweringoffarmers,butonotherstakeholdersinthevaluechains;andonphysicalinfrastructure(storage,distribution)andtransportationaswell.Itcouldalsomeanare‐orientationontheconceptof'collective'marketing.Whatdoestheprogrammeenvisionwith'collective'marketing,andhowshoulditworkexactly?Isitphysicalbulkingmainly,orismakingagreementsonpricesbyindividualmemberssufficient(sellingindividuallybutatgrouplevelagreedprices)?3.6Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective3Q3IncreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinessTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness?Sub‐questions:Q3.1: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto financialservicesforthetargetgroup?Q3.2: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureof thetargetgroup?Q3.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialand productioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Q3.4: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentin farmingbusiness?Q3.5: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof Hofokamtothetargetgroup?Thesequestionsare‐again‐sointerwovenandinterconnectedthattheevaluationteamhaschosentoanswerthemintegrally. Themainindicatorsthatareusedintheprogrammetoindicateprogressonthisobjectiveanditsoutcomesincludeindicatorsonsavings(increasedamounts),loans(increasedloanvolume),loanrepaymentsandthegraduationofgroupstowardsbiggeramounts.Unfortunatelytheprogrammedidnotgatherinformationonactual'increasedinvestment'ofloansand/orsavingofhouseholdsintheirfarmingpractices,andalsotheevaluationteamcouldnotgetproperdataonthe'levelsofinvestment'.Theteamgotmixedmessagesonusingloansandsavingsforbuyingagriculturalinputs,land,combinedwithusingthemoneyforbuildingpermanenthouses,schoolfees,motorcycles,medicalbillsetc.AstudyconductedbytheMountainsoftheMoonUniversityprovidesmoreinformationoncashflowswithinhouseholdsbutatthetimeoftheevaluationstudythefindingsofthisstudywerenotavailableyettotheevaluators.


3.6.1Internalsavingandloaninga.ClaimsInternalsavingreferstosavingbygroupsthemselveswithoutputtingthesavingsonabankaccountwithaformalinstitution.Manytimesgroupsusesavingboxesthatcanonlybeopenedwhenatleastthreemembersofthegrouparepresent.Fromthesesavingsindividualmemberscangetaloan.WhenlookingattheCAEDPindicatorsanddatagatheredbytheprogrammeitself,greatimprovementinnumbersandvolumeofinternalsavingandloaningcanbeseen.Inthe

communitiesvisitedtheevaluationteamencounteredmanygroupswitharatherstronginternalsavingculture:Allgroupsvisitedsavedmoneyintheirgroups,althoughtheamountsvaryconsiderably.EspeciallyinAvogeraandUribotheteamencounteredstrongsavingcultures.InAvogeragroupssavedbetween1and8millionUGX!OneofthereasonstheinternalsavinginAvogeraissohighisthattheyanticipatetoobtainloansfromHofokam,andinAvogeranoexternalsaving(usingaformalbankaccount)isundertakenalthoughseveralgroupsmentionedtheyareintheprocessofgettingabankaccount.InKaseeta,BiisoandUriboalsosubstantialexternalsavingwithformalinstitutionsisdone.Allgroupsvisitedclaimtheygiveoutinternalloanstogroupmembers,basedontheirneeds,withaninterestrateof10%permonth(loanersaresupposedtorepaywithinamonth'stime).EspeciallyinBuliisadistricttheinternalsavingcultureisstrong(18ofthe49MSCstorieshadsavingastheirmaintopic,against2ofthe31inHoima).ThiscannotbeattributedtotheCAEDPprogrammeonlysinceBuildAfricaUgandastartedinthe2000ssavingsgroupsinthevillagesvisited.SomegroupsclaimthoughthattheirsavingdisciplinehasbeenrevitalisedaftertheCAEDprogrammeenteredthecommunity.ThegroupsalsosaythataftertheCAEDPcameintheystartedusingthesavingsinadifferentway.Whilebeforetheymainlyusedthesavingsformedicalbills,bridginggapsandschoolfees,theynowstartedusingitforagriculturalinputslikeseedsandplantingmaterial.Theevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatethe%ofsavingsinvestedinagriculturalinputs.FormoreinformationontheuseofsavingstheteamwouldliketorefertotheMountainsoftheMoonUniversitystudy(2012).b.IssueIftheinternalsavingcultureissostronginsomeofthecommunities,whyarethegroupsstilltryingtoobtainloansfromexternalsources?Whyaren'ttheyusingtheinternalsavings


instead?Insteadofbeingdependentonloansfromexternalsources,woulditnotbemoreprofitableforcommunitiestostartusingtheirowncapitalasamicro‐financefund?Whatfactorspreventthegroupsfromusingtheirowninternalsavingsasamicro‐financefund?3.6.2Externalloansa.ClaimsTheprogrammeindicatorsshowquiteanumberofgroupsthathaveaccesstoexternalloans(withHofokam):Currently37groupshaveintotalUGX119millionoutstandingloan.

InHoima2012showsareducednumberofloans.Thisisdue‐accordingtoHofokam‐totheirstaffturnoverinHoima.Alsorecoveryratesdecreasedin2012,duetolocaldroughts,combinedwithstaffturnover.Theevaluationteammet8groups(outofthe24)thatacquiredloansfromHofokam.Oneofthemisalreadyinits4thcycle(Kaseeta),othersareintheir3rd(1),second(5groups)orfirstloancycle(1).OnlygroupsinKaseeta,BiisoandUriboareengagedinexternalloans.InRunga,KabandaandAvogeranoexternalloansweregivenout,despitethefactthatAvogerahasenormousinternalsavings.b.Concerns•InBuliisa,inBiisoandUribogroupswereabletoattractloansfortheir'enterprise'butdidintheendnotgetsufficientprofitduetolowyieldscausedbydroughts.Thegroupsrepaidtheloanthroughothersourcesofincome.•Currently37groupsreceivealoanwithanoutstandingamountof119M.Manynewgroupswanttoentertheloanscheme(especiallygroupsinAvogera),whilealmostallthemoneyfromtheTullowFundiscurrentlyoutstandingasloansalready.•LoansgivenoutbyHofokamtofarmer‐groups,needtoberepaidwithin6months.Formanycropsthistimeframemeansthatfarmersneedtorepaytheirloanwhenpricesofthecropsarelowest,duringorrightafterharvesttime.Thisisgoingagainsttheobjectiveoftheprogrammetosupportfarmersinobtainingbetterpricesfortheirproduce.3.6.3InvestmentsNoreliabledatawasfoundonthelevelofinvestmentsinagriculturalproduction,notwithintheCAEDPindicatorset,notduringtheevaluation.Theteamgotmanymixedmessagesoninvestments,buthasseenvarioussignsofincreasedinvestment,especiallyinKaseetawhere


farmersbuyinputs,andgoodplantingmaterials.ThestudyconductedbyMountainsoftheMoonUniversitymaycontainsomemoreinformationonthisissue.

3.7CapacitystrengtheningAlthoughnotincludedasanevaluationquestion,theteamspentsometimetoassessthecapacitiesofthepartners.Theteamdidacapacityself‐assessmentwiththepartners,basedonthe5‐capabilitiesmodel,andinvitedpartnerstotellMostSignificantChangeStoriesonCapacitystrengthening.Fivecapabilities:

A. Capacitiestoactandcommit.Thismeansthepartnersareequippedwithsufficient staff,capacitiesandresourcestodeliverservices.B. Capacitiestodeliverdevelopmentresultsandcreateoutcomesandimpactinthe communities.C. Capacitiestoadoptandrenew,findingnewcustomers,adjustservicesandproducts.D. CapacitiestorelatetoexternalandinternalactorsE. Capacitiestomaintain,sustainandcreateinternalandexternal(withpoliciesof others,rules,regulations)coherence.

Figure3Fivecapabilitiesmodel(IOB(2011),basedonBaserandMorgan,2008)


PartnerstaffinvolvedintheCAEDPwasrequestedtoscoreonvariousquestionswithscoresfrom1‐5.Whenlookingattheself‐assessments,thefollowingresultscanbedetected:BothHodfa,MadfaandHofokamfeelmajorprogressincapacitiestodeliverdevelopmentresults,toadoptandrenew,torelatetoexternalandinternalactorsandtomaintaincoherence.AdifferencebetweenthetwoFarmers’AssociationsandHofokamliesinthecapacitytoadoptandrenew,andtorelatetoexternalandinternalactors.Hofokamdeemsitselfstrongerinadoptionandrenewal,whilethetwoFAsfeelstrongerinrelatingtoexternalandinternalactors.Hofokamseesitselfasratherstronginadjustingtheirloanproductsandservicestotheirrelativelynewgroupofclientele,smallholderfarmhouseholds.HodfaandMadfahavealwaysbeentargetingthatclientelesoforthemthechangeinadoptionandrenewalislessobvious.Forallthreepartners,thecapacitiestocommitandactwerealreadyquitestrongatthestartoftheprogrammeanddidnotchangedmuch.Forallthreepartners,MSCstoriesoncapacitydevelopmentwereharvested,andforeachpartneronestorywasselectedasthemostsignificantone.BothstoriesofthefarmersassociationsHodfaandMadfadealtwiththePAEDapproachandincreasedvisibilityinthedistricts.TheMSCstoryofHofokamdealtwiththenewgroupofclients,smallholderfarmhouseholds.SomeoftheseMSCstorieshavebeencapturedonvideoaswell.MostsignificantchangestoryoncapacitiesselectedbyMadfa:CapacitiestofacilitatefarmerstomovefromsubsistencetocommercialfarmingIamDavidWanzala,42andmarriedwithchildren.IgraduatedfromBullallasaAgriculturalCollege

withadiplomaincropscienceandproduction.Iamafarmerbyoccupationaswell(practisingcropproductionandagroforestry).IjoinedMadfain2006.MadfaidentifiedTriasUganda,aBelgiumbasedNGOthatsupportsdevelopingcountries.ThroughtheregularsupportTriasprovidedtechnicaltrainingtoallthefieldstaffofMadfatocapacitatethemtoserveandsupportfarmersindevelopingtheirfarmingbusiness.AsanindividualIhavebenefitedalotsincethetraininghasimprovedmyfacilitationskills,communicationskills,Iacquiredmoreknowledgeandskillsin

farming,andithasenabledmetoreachouttomanyfarmergroups.Mychallengesareharshworking


conditions.FormethemostsignificantchangeisthatIamabletocontributetosmallholderfarmers'transformationfromsubsistencetocommercialfarming.MostsignificantchangestoryoncapacitiesfromHodfa:Fromhandoutstoempowerment

IamBobGeorgeSunday,AgriculturalFieldadvisorforHodfa.IjoinedHodfain2010.OnethingIamveryproudofisthePAEDapproach.Iusedtoworkwithanorganisationthatprovidedhandoutstofarmers.Theygavelivestock,plantingmaterials,bicyclesandsoitwasveryeasytomobilisefarmers.WhenIstartedworkingwithHodfaIthought'Uhh,ifwearenotgivinghandouts,howarewegoingtomobilisefarmers?'Butactually,thePAEDapproachwassoself‐empowering!Itusesparticipatorydiagnosesthroughwhichthefarmersanalysetheirowncurrentsituationandthatstimulatesthemtodesignastrategyon

howtheycanbecomebetteroff.SoIamreallyproudthatthisapproachworks.Ithasshapedme,notonlyinworkingwithfarmersbutalsoinmyfamily.AthomeIamsittingdownandplanmyfutureaswell.IneedtopracticewhatIamtellingothers.Thatisall!StoryfromHofokam:Theprogrammeasplatformtoreachactivepoor

IamRosie‐MarieKaddu,andIworkforHofokamasaprogrammeaccountant.WorkingwiththeCAEDprogrammeIhaveseenseveralsignificantchanges.Firstofalltheprogrammehashelpedustomeetourtargetandourmission,namelytoreachandempowerthe'activepoor.'Basicallytheprogramme'smissionistoimprovethefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmersandweaimattheactivepoor.Thesegroupsfallunderthesamecategory.Webelievethatthisprogrammehasprovideduswithaplatformtoreachtheseactivepoor.Throughworkingwiththefarmersassociations,thenumberofgroupsofsmallholderfarmersweareworkingwithis

increasing.Theprogrammehashelpedustoincreaseourportfolio,wehaveseenagrowthintheportfolioandoutreach.3.8AppreciationalongtheDACCriteriaa.Relevance:Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywithrequirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?TheevaluationteamassessestherelevanceoftheCAEDprogrammeveryhighforseveralreasons.Currentlystill96%ofthefarmersinUgandaaresmallholderfarmerswhoarebasicallyproducingfortheirownsurvival,withoutmuchaccesstofinancialinstitutions.Atthesametimethepopulationisgrowingatarateof3.2%annuallywhilefoodproductionisgrowingatarateof3%only.Thislowproductioncanbemainlyattributedtopoortechnology,reducedsoilfertility,povertyandlimitedknowledgeandskills.ThediscoveryofoilinUgandahascontributedtoanintensifieddebateonthepossiblynegativeconsequencesfortheagriculturalsectorandaddedtotheurgencyofincreasedfoodproduction.Variousauthors(Rwakakamba,2012;IFPRI,2011;Tumusiine‐Mutebile,2012))refertotheDutchdisease.ThetheoryofDutchdiseaseisthatanincreaseinrevenuesfromoilwilladverselyaffectthetradables(manufacturingandagriculture)ofanation’seconomybyappreciatingthelocalcurrency,whichinturnmakesmanufacturingandagriculturelesscompetitive.RwakakambagivesthesituationofGabonasexample,wheresinceinitiatingtheexportof


oilhasseenitsagriculturesectorcollapse;itisnowentirelydependentonimportedfood.Despitetherisks,theIFPRI(2011)alsoreferstothepositiveimpactofoilonagriculturalproductioniftheDutchdiseasewillbehandledproperly.Domesticdemandforstaplesandhighervalueproductslikehorticultureandlivestockproductswillincreaseasincomesrise.Inrecentdiscussionsontheeffectofoilonagriculturalproduction,voicesinUganda(TumusiineMutebile,2012)state,"Unlessthereareradicalchangesinourapproachtoagriculture,ouragriculturalperformancewillweakenfurther,withverydeleteriousconsequencesforruralpoverty,employment,inequality,geographicallybalancedgrowthandfoodsecurity."Thesesamevoicesstatethattheagriculturalsectorneedstobemodernizedbyraisingproductivityandpromotingcommercialization,withafocusonsmallholderfarmers,betterpoliciesandinvestments,andincreasedaccesstofinancialinstitutions.PreciselythoseissuestheCAEDPisworkingonandissuccessfulat.AlsoarecentstudyoftheRabobank(RabobankGroup,2012)emphasizestheimportanceofinvolvingsmallholderfarmersinfoodproductionforthemarket,improvingtheiraccesstofinancialservicesandformingcooperativesforinputsandmarketing.AlsointhisrespectistheCAEDprogrammerelevantasever.Anotherissueatatotallydifferentlevel‐butveryimportantfortheempowermentofthesmallholderfarmersinUganda‐isthe'no‐hand‐outs'principleoftheapproach.Theevaluationteamhasseenhowhandoutsofotherprogrammeshavecorruptedtheentrepreneurialspiritofsmallholdersinsomeofthecommunities.Empoweringfarmersandespeciallysmallholders,ashasbeenshowninotherpartsofAfricawherelandgrabbingistakingplace,isextremelyimportant,especiallygivendevelopmentsintheregion(oilandinfluxofotherpeople),andtheincreasingpressureonlandandhencethevalueoflandforsettlements,foodandcashcrops.b.Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?Inparagraphs3.4‐3.6theevaluationteamhasshownthattheprogrammeisverywellonitswayinreachingitsobjectivesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughouttheyear,increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsforsmallholderfarmersandincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinesses.Atallthreespecificobjectivestheprogrammehasmadegoodcontributions.Areasofimprovementconcernmainlythemarketingcomponentsoftheprogrammeingeneral,collectivemarketing,theloanrepaymenttermsandthefocuson'external'loansversusinternalloans.c.Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedtoalternatives?Asfarastheevaluationteamcouldsee,theobjectiveswereimplementedratherefficiently.Theprogrammeworkedasmuchaspossiblewithexistinggroups(setupbyotherGOandNGOprogrammes),andtrainedthefarmergroupsinapragmaticandefficientwayinfoodsecurity,increasedproductionmethods,savingandcreditandtoalesserextentonmarketing.Wherepossibletheprogrammetrainedfarmerfacilitatorsthattookoverpartoftheworkoftheagriculturaladvisors,andfieldvisitsbyagriculturaladvisorstoactivegroupsareusuallycombinedwithothervisitsand/oractivities.Fortheevaluatorsitwasnotpossibletocompareefficiencyoftheprogrammewithefficiencyofotherprogrammesduetotimelimitations.


Theprogrammehasgrownveryrapidlyinashortperiodoftime.Aconcernhereistoconsolidatethesuccessesoftheexistinggroups,ratherthancontinuingwithrapidgrowthofthenumberofgroups.Theteamhasseenthatgroupseasilylosetheirmotivationandcourageifthementoringandcoachingofprogrammesstopstooearly.d.Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐termimpact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?Inparagraph3.4theevaluationteamhasdiscussedtheearlysignsofimpactoftheprogramme.Theteamisconvincedthatinthecomingyearsmoresignsofimpactwillappear,especiallywhenmoreattentionwillbepaidtothecollectivemarketingaspectsoftheprogramme,andwhenworkingwiththosegroupsthatshowpotential(seetypologyoffarmergroupsintable7,page22).e.Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii)financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?Regardinglongtermeffectsoftheultimategoal:Theevaluationteamfindsitverylikelythatiftheprogrammecontinues,theeffectoftheultimategoalmaysustaininthelongterm,especiallysincethefarmersnotonlylearntechnicalandmarketingskills,butlife‐skillsingeneralaswell.Financialsustainabilityatthelevelofthefarmergroupsiswellcovered.Thegroupsthatsurvivethefirstyears,willverylikelybeabletosustainthemselvessincealthoughsavingandloaningisdoneatgrouplevel,thefarmersareaccountableatindividuallevelandtilldateareingeneralcapabletorepayloansandsavemoney.Financialsustainabilityofthepartnersisadifferentstory.AtthemomentofwritingbothMadfaandHodfaaremainlydependingonfundsprovidedbydonorsandprogrammes:Madfadependsfor70%oftheirincomeondonors,15%onmembershipfeesand15%ontheirbusinesswing.Hodfadependedin2011for5%oftheirincomeonmembershipfees,2%frombusinessand93%fromdonors.ThequestionhereiswhetherMadfaandHodfacancontinuetheirCAEDPworkinbothHoimaandBuliisaiftheCAEDPfundingstops.Theworkinbothdistrictsconsumesalotoftimeofthefieldadvisorsandalthoughmainlythefirstyearrequiresasignificanttimeinvestmentoftheadvisors,coachingandmentoringofthegroupsrequires(travel)timeaswell.HodfaandMadfahavereceivedtraininginfundraisingandresourcemobilisationandforexampleMadfawascapableofattractingfundingovertheyearsfromAbITrust.HoweverbothFarmers’Associationsneedtopayurgentattentiontothedevelopmentoftheirbusinesswingtobeabletosurvivewhendonorsareeitherwithdrawingorreducingthebudgets.Hodfamadeagoodstartin2012bysettingupahubforagro‐businessanddeliveryofcropstoTullowcampsthroughTraidlinks.Hofokamisamicro‐financeinstitutionandhasdrilledintoanewreservoirofclients.CurrentlytheyclaimthatthecroploansarenotsufficientlyprofitableyettoworkwithouttheTullowfund.VerylikelyHofokamwillbeabletoindependentlyservefarmerclientsinafewyearstime.Regardingenvironmentalsustainabilitytheteamhasnoticedthattheenvironmentmaybeaffectedovertimeiftheprogrammedoesnotpayspecificattentiontosustainableagriculturalpractices.Thedatashowthatalmostallhouseholdsinterviewed,arecultivatingmoreacresthanbefore.Althoughtheevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatetowhatextentthishasaffectedtheenvironment,itislikelythatlandhasbeenclearedoftreesandbushes.


Theevaluationteamhasalsonotedthatmoreandmorefarmersstartedusingfertilizersandpesticides.Combinedwithheavyrainfall,thiscouldpossiblycausepollutionofsurfaceandgroundwater.Otherissuesthatmayneedattentioninthenearfuture:Withtheinfluxofpeopleintothedistricts,thedemandforfuel(forcooking)willincreaseaswell,threateningthevegetationinthedistricts.Somefirstsignsofencroachingofforestandgamereserveswerenotedbydistrictofficersinterviewed. PART2FINDINGSONALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODS3.9 How and towhat extentwill Tullow operations affect communities and thelivelihoodsofcommunitiesintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley?AtpresenttheimpactofTullow'soperationsintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalleyisstillratherlimitedsincetheexplorationphaseisstillgoingon.Oilwellshavebeenidentifiedandfirstcampshavebeenestablished,butoilexploitationitselfhasnotstartedyet.Duringtheseismicsurveyscropsandotherassetsplacedonthefieldshavebeendamagedandfarmershavebeencompensatedfortheirlossthroughcompensationschemes.Somelandhasbeenfencedofftoprotectoilwells.ThislandisnotcompensatedsinceaccordingtoTullowstaff,thegovernmentisexpectedtodothispartofthecompensation.Othereffectsmentionedbydistrictpeople,includeareportedincreaseintrafficaccidents,especiallyaffectingchildrenandlivestock.Someofthecaseshavebeenreportedtothepoliceandtakentocourttobesettled.Anothereffect,butmainlyinanticipationoftheoilexploitation:Althoughtheresearchercannotsubstantiateit,theinfluxofpeopleintotheareainanticipationontheoilindustryhasstarted,especiallyintheriftvalleycommunities.Somepositiveeffectscanbeseeninthefollowing:Improvementsofroads,andtheemergenceofdemandforlocalcontentandlocalproducefortheoilcamps.Groupsoffarmers(connectedtoHodfa)have,incooperationwithHodfa,Traidlinks,TriasandTullow,startedtodeliverlocalproducetothecampcatererEquator.Inthefuturethough,especiallywhenoilexploitationwillcommence,theimpactonlocalcommunitiesandtheirlivelihoodsislikelytoincrease.Howthecommunitieswillbeaffectedexactlyislargelyunknownbyallinterviewees,butTullowstaffstatesthat'alloptionsareopen‐fromsocialandeconomiceffectstoenvironmentaleffects'.

Thelandwheretherefineryandsomeofthesecondaryindustrieswillbelocatedwillin5years'timeorsodisplacemanypeople.Thegovernmentisexpectedtodealwiththisresettlement.Therefinerywillbelocateduptheescarpment.TullowwillmainlyrestrictitsoperationsintheAlbertinevalleyarea.ThemainareasofoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict(seemap1).Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseentilldate.Positiveeffectsanticipatedinthefutureincludeincreasedbusinessopportunities,increaseddemandforagriculturalproduce,furtherimprovementandextensionsofroadsespeciallytothevillageswherewellsarelocated,someplaceswillgetelectricityandgetconnectedtothenationalgrid,increasedemploymentetc.


Sinceitisstillunknownhowandwhichthecommunitieswillbeaffectedinthefuture,thereisquitesomeuncertaintyandconcerninthecommunities.Peopleanticipateanincreaseintrafficaccidents(duetobigtrucksrunningupanddown,whilelivestockandchildrenareplayingandwalkingalongtheroad);anincreasedinfluxofpeoplefromoutside;lossofland,cropsandotherassets;increaseofcrime,prostitution,spreadofHIV/AIDS;increaseof

pollution(air,waterandland)fromexhaustandleakingoilpipes.Andincaseofresettlementordisplacementofcommunitiesthereislikelytobelossoflivelihoodsfromtheland,thecommunalfirewoodgatheringwoodlandsandforests,thefishingvillagesandgrazingareas.3.10WhattypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperationsandhow?Asisshowninparagraph3.9mainlycommunitiesintheriftbottomareasinHoimaandBuliisawillbedirectlyaffectedbyTullowoperations,andnomajoractivitiesareexpectedtotakeplaceoffshore.InthissenseTullowisnotexpectedtodirectlyinfluencethewaterqualityofthelake,norofthefishstocksthemselves.Itaremainlyunsustainablefishingpracticesthatareaffectingthefishstocksandthreateningthelivelihoodoffisherycommunities.WhatmighthappeninthefuturethoughistheresettlementofsomeofthefishingcommunitiessinceTullowmayneedmorespacefortheircampsandmaycontinuetheirexplorationforoil,likeforexampleinKiryambogo,Hoima.

Map1LocationofTullowoperationswithplacesvisitedforstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsinyellow

WansekoCU

NgwedoTC

Bugoigo

Kiryambogo

Sebagoro


Togetabetterviewonwhattypesofcommunitiesmaybeaffected,5communitiesintheriftbottomareasinHoimaandBuliisawerevisited(seetable2,page6),andtheircurrentandpossiblealternativelivelihoodswereexamined.Ingeneralthesecommunitiesrepresent:



HouseholdsinSebagorolandingsite,Hoimaaremainlydependingonfishing.AlthoughTullowisnotdirectlyimpactingthiscommunity,thiscommunityisfacinganotherthreatoftheirlivelihood:Duetounsustainablefishingpractices,thefishstockshavebeentoalargeextentdepleted.Fishingbynowisratherstrictlyregulated(atleastbylaw,andtoalesserextentbylawenforcement).Theirincomefromfisheryisstillhighbutslowlydiminishing.NotallhouseholdsinSebagorohaveland(67%),andnotalllandownerscultivatetheland,althoughoverthelastfewyearsthesepercentagesaregrowing(seetable8,page35).Althoughthestudyteamcannotsubstantiatethis,thetrendofincreasedlandholdingandcultivationmaybepartlyduetotheCAEDprogrammeinterventions.TheKiryambogoFishingCommunity,Hoimaisstillpredominantlyafishingcommunityaswell,withsomecropsandsomelivestockwithlotsofpastures.ThefishinghouseholdsfacethesamereductionoffishstockandgovernmentregulationsasinSebagoro.JustlikeinSebagoronotallhouseholdshaveland(only60%ofinterviewedhouseholds)andnotevenhalfofthelandownersiscultivatingtheland,althoughalsoherethesepercentagearegrowing(seetable8)aswell.ThecommunityislocatedcloselytotheBuserukamini‐hydropowerstation(underconstruction).ItispossiblethatthiscommunitymayberesettledsinceTullowmayexpandtheiroilexplorationtothisarea.OneofTullow'slargestcampsisinthisareaaswell.BugoigoFishingCommunity,HoimaisborderingBugunguGameReserveandissurroundedbyoilwells.ThesefeaturesplusthefactthatfishingisnowanunreliableventureputBugoigoinavulnerableposition.InneighbouringButiaba,theMinistryofAgricultureisconstructingamodernfish‐landingsite.Thisdevelopmentcouldmeanthatallfishery‐relatedactivitieswillbemovedtoButiaba,leavingBugoigoempty‐handed.InNgwedoTradingCentreCommunity,Buliisatherearemorethan5oilwells.Furtherexplorationisstillgoingon.Thecommunityisexcitedbutatthesametimeanxiousastowhatwillhappentotheircurrentlivelihoodssources–mainlyderivedfromfarming.InNgwedoallhouseholdsownandcultivatetheirland.Theaveragehouseholdincomeisveryhighwhencomparedtoothercommunities.Herethecommunityorhouseholdsarelikelytoloseland.Thisenhancestheneedtoincreaseproductivity,aslandbecomesalimitingfactor.TheKigweraCommunitynearWansekoLanding/Ferrycrossingpoint,Buliisaisdependingonbothfarmingandfishing.Manyfishermeninvestmoneyfromfishingintoagricultureitissaid.Landisratherfertile,andtraditionallyfarmersgrowcassavaandlatelycitrushasbeenintroduced.Alsopasturesareavailableandhouseholdskeepcattle,sheepandgoats.TheNgwedoandBuliisaoilfieldsareclosewhichmakesKigweravulnerabletoTullowoperations.KigweraisattheintersectionoftheTullowandTotalconcessions.Kigwerarepresentsaverydiverseandactivecommunity.TherearemanytribesincludingtribesfromCongo.Itisalsoatransitpointforpeopleandcommerce.


Intable8somemoredetailsonthecurrentsituationandlivelihoodsof4ofthe5visitedcommunities.In4communitieshouseholdinterviewswereconducted,asrepresentedinthetable.

HOIMADISTRICT BULIISADISTRICT IndicatorDescription

KiryambogoFishLandingSite(Samplesize,

N=26)

SebagoroFishLandingSite(N=12)

NgwedoTradingCentre(N=14)

KigweraCOU(nearWansekoFerryTerminal)

(N=16) INCOMESECURITYINDICATORS‐Assets

2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012

1.%ofhhwithland 54 60 50 67 93 100 94 94 2.Averagelandholding(acres)/landowner

8.5 7.65 6.4 6.0 4.8 6.5 2 3.2

3.%ofhhwithlandthatcultivatecrops

20 46 42 67 57 100 94 94

4.Averageacresoflandcultivated/cultivators

2.0 1.85 3.0 2.69 3.2 5.1 1.5 2.8

5.%ofhhswithgrasshouses

85 58 42 33 64 21 50 25

6.%ofhhswithbicycles

23 27 42 50 79 93 50 56

7.%ofhhswithlivestock

34 77 83 100 79 100 75 94

8.%ofhhswithphones 23 62 92 100 50 64 25 81 9.Averageannualincome(UGXinmillions)/householdinterviewed

1.60m 1.72m 9.7m 7.8m 5.8m 11m 1.4m 1.52m

10.CurrentmainsourcesofIncomeofthecommunity

Fishingand

Trading

Fishingandsome

cropping/

livestock

Cropfarming,livestock,&trading

Livestock,cropsandfishing

Table8Currentlivelihoodsin4visitedcommunities3.11GiventhevariousscenariosofnegativeimpactbyTullowoperations,thetypesofaffectedcommunitiesandtheirgeographicallocations:Whatarepossiblealternativelivelihoodsorrestoredlivelihoodsofaffectedcommunities?Togetgoodviewsonalternativelivelihoodsfarmersanddistrictleaderswereaskedfortheiropinion.Alsousewasmadeoftheresearcher'sownexpertisewhileformulatingthefindingsonthisresearchquestion.IffishingisnolongeranoptionforfishinghouseholdsinKiryambogoCommunitythehouseholdsstatetheywouldoptforcommercialtomatogrowing,andlargescalerearingoflocalchickenandducks.Theconditionsarequitefavourablefortheseactivitiesandsomeofthehouseholdshavesomeexperiencealready.ThedistrictofficersandtheresearcherobservethatKiryambogocommunityalsohasaccesstopasturesandthereiswaterallyearroundforlivestock.Thecommunityhasquitesomeexperiencewithlivestockalready(sheep,goats,cattle).Apointofattentionhereisuncontrolledgrazingoflivestock.Iflivestockistobeanimportantalternativeforfishing,thensomethingneedstobedoneonprotectingcrops,anddemarcationofland.


Anotheralternativeisgrowingvegetables.Forgrowingvegetablesthewaterthatflowsfromthehydropowerplantcouldbeareliablesourceofirrigationifwaterisneededindryperiods.ItslocationandproximitytoBuserukaminihydropowerstationcreatesalotofopportunitiesforsmall‐scaleindustrydevelopmentaswell.Thisisespeciallyimportantforthosehouseholdswithoutanyland(still40%ofthehouseholdsdonothaveland).Fishfarmingismentionedbythedistrictofficersasalternativeforthecurrentfishingpractices.Again,thislivelihoodmaybeofgreatimportancetothosehouseholdswithoutland.Incaseofreallocationofthecommunity,alternativelivelihoodsentirelydependontheconditionsofthenewlocations.Whatisimportanttokeepinmindaswellasisthatmanyhouseholdsarenottraditionalcropcultivators.HouseholdsinSebagoroCommunityinvolvedinfishingactivities,andowningland,statethattheyarereadytogobacktothelandandgrowcassava,maizeandbeansforbothfoodandcash.ManyofthemhavedualhomesandlanduptheescarpmentinKabwoya/Kaseetaareas.However,still33%ofthehouseholdsiswithoutland.Forhouseholdswithoutlandfishfarmingmaybeanoptionaswell.InNgwedoCommunitymosthouseholdsareinvolvedincultivationofcropsandinlivestock.HerehouseholdsstatethatiftheywilllooselandduetoTullow'soperationstheywouldintensifycassavaandcottoncultivationandtherearingofgoats.Someofthehouseholdshavelandfurtherin‐landandsaytheywouldstartcultivatingoverthere.Forthosewhodonothaveland(althoughallhouseholdsintervieweddohaveland),theysaidthatthereisstilltheoptionofrentingcurrentlyatabout50,000UGXperacreperseason.TheNgwedocommunityhassomeenterprisingindividualsinvolvedinprovidingserviceslikecarpentry,buildingandrepairmechanicsinadditiontovendingfuelformotorcyclesamongothertrades.WhilehouseholdsinKigweraCommunityarecurrentlyengagedinlivestockrearing,cropfarmingandfishing,theystatethatincaseoflossoflandorlossoffisheryincome,theywouldstillconcentrateontheirtraditionallivelihoodslikecassavagrowing,goatrearingandfishtradingsincetheseenterprisesarelowrisk.Onfishtrading,theystatethatthefactthatanewlandingsiteisbeingdeveloped,meansthatfishingwillstillberelevantinthenearfuture.CassavaisamajorcropfortheregionandacrossthelakeinDRC.Cassavahasintheireyesalotofmarketandvalueadditionopportunitieslikemakinglocalandmodern/bottledbrewandindustrialstarch.Fromthedistrictofficers'pointofview,theagriculturalhinterlandisfavourableforcitrusgrowing,andKigweraisatransitpointforbothpeopleandcommerceandhasalotofscopefortradeofanykind,especiallysinceitisalsoatthecrossroadsoftheareasoftwomajoroilcompanies,TullowandTotal.CurrentlyBugoigoCommunityisamajorfishingcommunity.Peoplestatethatiffishingactivitieswereaffected,theywouldconcentrateongeneraltrading.Iflandwouldbestillavailablethosewhohaveland,wouldgrowcassavaandreargoatsastheirnewsourcesofincome.Thehouseholdsclaimthatcassavahasmarketandisagoodfoodsecuritycropwhilegoatsareeasytoproduceandcanbesoldatshortnoticeifneeded.


4.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONS

PART1.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEEVALUATION

4.1Conclusions1.TheCAEDprogrammehas‐nexttootheractorsandfactors‐contributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurityoftheparticipatingsmallholderfarmersinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Almostallhouseholdsinterviewedshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices.ExceptionsarethehouseholdsinUribowherelowerfoodsecurityindicesarefoundfor2012thanfor2009.CausesfortheselowerindicesinUriboarenotcleartotheevaluationteambutcouldbepartlyduetobadharvestsinthelast2years.Non‐participatinghouseholdshaveincreasedtheirfoodandincomesecurityindicesaswellbutshowsignificantlyfewerpositivechangesinthevariouselementsoftheindicesthanparticipatinghouseholds.2.Almostallhouseholdsshowincreasedincomesecurity,eventhosehouseholdsthatdonotembarkoncollectivemarketingandcontinuetosellatindividuallevels.Ifthepartners,TullowandTriasregardcollectivemarketingasanimportantapproachoftheprogramme,thispartneedsmoreattention.3.Allinterviewedhouseholdshaveincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets.Theynotonlyhavehigheryields,theycultivatemoreacresandselllargerpercentagesoftheiryieldsat(mainlylocal)markets.4.Althoughtheprogrammeincludesallgroupsthatmakeprofitwiththeir'enterprises',thelevelsofprofitabilityvaryconsiderablybetweengroups.Therearea)CAEDPgroupsthatmadethechangefromsubsistencedrivento'moremarketdriven'farmersalready(seefigure2.1.1Farmproductionpyramid),b)thosethatareintheprocessoftransformationbutmainlylackaccesstogoodmarkets(eitherduetoremotenessand/orlackofself‐organisation),andc)groupsthatdonothavethepotentialtomakethemovetowardsmarketdrivenfarmerssincetheyeitherlackthemotivationand/orenablingconditionsformarketingandcropcultivation.


5.TheCAEDprogrammeisvaluedbythesmallholderfarmersmainlybecauseoftheservicesrelatedtoskillsandknowledgeforimprovingfoodandcashcropproduction,andthesavingsandloanelements(especiallyinBuliisa).Althoughthisislaudable,thisdoesnotreflectthefullscopeofthePAEDapproach.Marketing,postharvestmeasures,storage,collectivemarketing,enterpriseselection,workingingroupsandmakingafist(thoseelementsthatwouldactuallyempowerfarmers)arehardlymentionedasimportantelementsoftheprogramme.6.Ingeneraltheparticipatinghouseholdsandgroupsareratherstronginsavingmoney,alsothankstootherprogrammesintheregion.Insomegroupstheyhaveamassedratherimportantvolumesofsavings.TheCAEDprogrammehasbenefitedfromthissavingcultureandhasadded,especiallyinBuliisa,anintensifieduseofthesavingsforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.Theevaluationteamcouldnotsubstantiatehowmuchofthesavingsisusedforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.ThestudyconductedbytheMountainsoftheMoonUniversity(MMU)(notavailableatthetimeofwriting)mayprovidemoredetailsonthisissue.7.ThenumberandvolumeofloansprovidedbyHofokamtofarmergroupshasincreasedsincethestartoftheprogramme,withadrawbackin2012duetostaffingproblems.Manygroupsareeagerlyanticipatingtowardsfutureloans,althoughthecreditfundwasalmostnearlyfullyinuseasoutstandingloansduringthetimeoftheevaluation.8.Somegroupshaveobtainedloansfortheirenterprisebuthadtorepaytheloansthroughothersourcessinceeithertheharvestfailedand/ortheloanwasusedforanotherpurposethantheenterprise.Althoughitseemsthismechanismisnotwidespread,itisimportanttokeeponmonitoringthesecasestoavoidloan‐traps.9.Oneoftheobjectivesoftheprogrammeistosupportfarmerstoobtainbetterpricesfortheirproduce.Aspricesarelowatthetimeofharvest,itoftenmeansthattheproduceneedstobestoredforsometimeafterharvest.However,theloansgivenoutbyHofokamingeneralneedtobepaidbackafter6months.Forsomecropsthismaymeanduringharvesttime,whenpricesareattheirlowest.Thisseemstobeacontradictionwithintheprogramme.4.2Lessonslearned10.TheCAEDPworkswellespeciallyincommunitiesthathavestablegroups,thathaveenablingagriculturalconditions,andaccesstomarketsthatisfacilitatedbyinfrastructurelikeroadsandstore‐housesasseeninKaseetaandBiiso.Somemoreeffortsareneededinremotecommunitieswhereagriculturalconditionsareenabling,butwhereaccesstomarketsisdifficult.Theprogrammehardlysucceedsincommunitiesthatareunstable(greatin‐andoutfluxofpeople)andwherepeoplehavenocultivationtradition,likethefishingcommunityinKabanda.ThisisespeciallysosincecropproductionisthecorefocusintheCAEDprogramme(seeformorelessonsandrecommendationspart2onalternativelivelihoods).11.TheCAEDPprogrammecontributedtoincreasedincomesecurityevenwhengroupsarenotmarketingcollectively.12.Marketinginitsbroadfacetsisanareainneedfordevelopment,andespeciallycollectivemarketing.Moststaff(ofbothTriasandthepartnersMadfaandHodfa)iswell‐


versedinagriculturalcropcultivationbuthavelessknowledgeandskillstoofferonmarketing.13.Empoweringfarmerstoproduceforthemarketisasuccessfulthoughone‐sidedapproachthatneedstobeaccompaniedbychangesinbehaviouroftheotheractorsinthemarketchain,andadjustmentsinpolicies,infrastructure(storagesandroads)aswell.14.IngeneralthePAEDapproachisverypowerfulbutnotusedtoitsfullpotentialyet.Especiallythemobilizationoffarmerswithoutprovidinghandoutssetsanexampleforotherprogrammesinthearea.4.3Recommendations15.TheteamrecommendstheCAEDPtocontinuewiththosefarmersthathavepotentialforthecultivationofcrops(typesAandB)sincetheprogrammehasshowngoodfirstresultsintermsofincomeandfoodsecurity.16.ItisrecommendedtofurtherdiversifytheCAEDPapproach,basedonthepresenceorabsenceofotherenablingconditions,likefertility,climate,infrastructure,accesstomarketsetc.Theprogrammecoulddevelopdifferentapproachesforcommunitiesthatbenefitfromenablingconditionsandforthosecommunitiesthatdonotbenefitfromenablingconditions(agriculturalzone,stablegroups,remoteness,infrastructureetc).17.Themarketingaspects(includingcost‐benefitanalyses,enterpriseselection,storage,collectivemarketing,packaging,transportation,distributionetc)needfarmoreattentionthanwasgivenduringthefirstphaseoftheprogramme.Thismeanstheprogrammeneedstoseekadditionalexpertisetostrengthenthemarketingaspects.18.Theprogramme'svisionon'collectivemarketing'(whatisitsupposedtobe,andhowshoulditwork)needstobefurtherdefined.Isitreallynecessarytophysicallybulkproduceandsellittoonebuyerorarepriceagreementsamongindividualgroupmemberssufficientaswell?19.ThepartnersMadfa,HodfaandHofokam,TriasandTullowareadvisedtoreconsiderhowtheywishtoproceedwiththosegroupsthatdonothavemuchpotentialforcultivatingcrops(typeC).ArethesethegroupsoffarmerstheywanttorepresentasFarmerAssociations,arethesethegroupsTriaswantstotarget?ArethesethegroupTullowwantstotarget?DotheneedsofthesegroupsneedtobecateredduringthenextphasebytheCAEDP?Iftheanswerisyes,recommendationsforalternativelivelihoodsarepresentedinthenextpartofconclusionsandrecommendations.ThismayentailasearchforadditionalpartnersfortheCAEDPthatarewellversedinfishing(wildandfarming),livestockandtrading(seeforfurtherdetailspage41‐43).20.Withregardtoloansandsaving:Ifthereisaconsiderablevolumeofsavingsingroupsandhouseholds,theprogrammeshouldresearchhowfarmerscouldbeencouragedtousethismoneyforagriculturalinvestmentsinsteadofloaningfromHofokamorothermicro‐financeinstitutions.21.Withintheprogrammemanydifferentindicatorsarebeingusedtotrackprogress.Theteamrecommendstoreducethenumberofindicators,andtostartusingamongothersforspecificobjective2,thetypologiesofgroupsA,B,andC.Theteamalsorecommendsto


furtherdefinethesecategoriessothatattheendoftheprogramme,theprogrammeisabletoshowpercentagesofgroupsthatmadethemovetowardsmarketdrivenfarming,thosethatmadefirststepsandthosethatfailedtodoso,and/orfellback.Alsoforthespecificobjective3itisrecommendedtostartusingvolumes/percentagesofmoneythatareusedforinvestmentinsteadofusingsavingsandloansasindicators.22.ItisrecommendedthatHofokamreviewstheirloanproducttermstomatchwithbettercashflowneedsofthetargetgroup.

PART2.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODSTUDY

Onaffectingcommunitiesanduncertainty23.ThemainareasofTullowoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict(seemap1).Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseen.Tullowhasnoclearview(yet)onhowandtowhatextentcommunitiesmaybeaffectedbytheiroperations.Nevertheless,withinthecommunitiesvisitedthereisalotofuncertaintywhetherandhowtheircommunitiesmaybeaffectedbyTullowoperations.Thisiscausingspeculationaboutresettlements,anddegradationofwater,landandair,especiallyamongthefishingcommunities,althoughtheyarelikelyleastaffectedbyTullowoperations.Tullowisrecommendedtomapoutwhichcommunitieswillbeaffectedtowhatextent,andcommunicatethistotherelatedcommunitiesassoonaspossible.Tullowisalsorecommendedtomapoutthepathoftransitiontowardsre‐allocationand/oralternativelivelihoodsifneeded,collectivelywiththecommunities&householdsconcernedandCAEDPpartners,andpreparethecommunitieswellinadvance.Onaffectingfishingcommunities24.AlthoughTullowrequestedtheresearchertopayextraattentiontofishingcommunities,themainthreatforfishingcommunitiesiscomingfromwithinandnotdirectlyfromTullowoperations.Unsustainablefishingpracticesarequicklydiminishingcertainfishstocksandifnolawenforcementisfollowed,soonnofishwillbefishedoutofLakeAlbert.Manyhouseholdsdependingonfishingneedtoembarkonalternativelivelihoodssoon,despitethedevelopmentofanewfish‐landingsite.TheCAEDPisrecommendedtoplayaroleinthistransitiontowardsalternativelivelihoodsaselaboratedinconclusions26and27.Onaffectingcommunitiesingeneral25.IngeneralthreetypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperations:



Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.


ItisrecommendedwhenandifTullowisaffectingcommunitiestocloselyscrutinizeanddistinguishcurrentlivelihoodsandconsulthouseholdsontheirneedsandskillsforpossiblealternativelivelihoods.TheCAEDPevaluationhasshownthatnotallhouseholdsarefitforcultivatingcrops,especiallywhentheydonothaveanytraditionincultivation(likesomehouseholdsinKiryambogo,SebagoroandBugoigo).Somehouseholdsmaybebetteratlivestockrearing,tradingorfishfarminginstead.Thereisnoonefitsallapproachforaffectedcommunities.Thefollowingrecommendationsforpossiblealternativelivelihoodsserveasaguidelinenotasablueprint.Cropcultivationforthosewithexperience26.Communitiesintheriftvalleyareasthathaveaccesstolandandarealreadywellengagedincultivatingcrops(likehouseholdsinNgwedo,Wansekoandalsosomehouseholdsintheothercommunities)shouldbeencouragedtocontinuecropfarmingasatoppriority,evenincaseofre‐allocation.Cropsprioritisedbythecommunitiesincludecotton,cassava,maize,beans,peas,andcitrus.Vegetablesespeciallythosethataretoleranttodroughtlikewatermelonandpumpkinsaregoodoptionsaswell.Othervegetablesliketomatoesandcabbagesmayneedthesupportofirrigationinordertobeviable.Whenplanningforirrigation(eitherlakeorriverwaterorharvestingrainwater)italsoimportanttoplanfordrainageaswellasthesameareasareusuallypronetofloodsanddroughts.Inordertoimproveoncropcultivation(bothfoodandcash)thereisalottolearnfromthecurrentCAEDprogrammeandtheiradvisors.TofurtherdevelopcropcultivationCAEDPisencouragedtopromotevalueaddition.Anexampleofthisisthecultivationandprocessingofcassavaforindustrialstarchandlocalbeer.Toensureinvestmentincropcultivationandprotectcropsfromgrazinglivestock,andtoavoidotherlandconflictsandlandgrabbinginthefuture,CAEDPpartnersareencouragedtolobbywithinthecommunitiesforformalregistrationofland,alsoofcommunallands.Alternativelivelihoodsforthosemainlydependingonfishing27.Forthosehouseholdsthatdonothaveaccesstoland(especiallyinHoimadistrict)andhad/havefishingastheirmainsourceoflivelihoodtherearethreemainoptionsofalternativelivelihoods:Sustainablefishfarming,sustainablefishing,livestockandtrading.Ingeneralhouseholdsdependingonfishing,haveexperienceinrearinglivestockanddotradingaswell.SustainablefishfarmingAlthoughonlyaselectnumberofhouseholdscanembarkonfishfarming,theCAEDPisrecommendedtoexploreaffordablewaysforfishfarming,eithercageorlagoonfishing.Thedemandforfishislargeandinsteadofcatchingfish,fishfarming‐aslongasitisdoneinasustainableway‐couldbeagoodalternative.Forthis,expertisefromoutsidemayneedtobeinvolvedintheprogramme.SustainablefishingCurrentlyfishingpracticesareunsustainableandlawenforcementislimited.Thereisneedforexamplesofsustainablefishing.TheCAEDPisrecommendedtoexplorehowtheycanguideapartofthefisherhouseholdstobechampionsofsustainablefishingpractices.Forthis,expertisefromoutsidemayneedtobeinvolvedintheprogramme.


LivestockrearingInareaswherepasturesareavailable,manyhouseholdsalreadyhavesomesmalllivestocklikegoatsandsheep.Itisrecommendedtoguidehouseholdstowardsbettergrazingpracticesandgoodbreedsofgoatsandsheep(betterafewgoodgoatsthanmanyweakones).Thiscanonlyberecommendedifnoconflictsbetweencropcultivatorsandgoatkeepersareexpected,andlandrights(especiallyoncommunalland)havebeenclarified.HeretheCAEDPcouldmakeuseofHodfa'sexpertiseonguidingfishinghouseholdstowardsgoatkeepers(inforexampleRunga,Hoima).Alsoraisingducksandpoultrycouldserveasalternativelivelihoods.TradeEspeciallyintradingcentresandsomeofthelandingsite(especiallyWanseko)alotoftradingisgoingon:Tradersandshopowners/keepers,producedealers,marketvendorsofallkinds,transporters,smallscaleprocessors,smallgrainmillers,restaurantownersandoperators,variousserviceproviderslikerepairshops,builders,carpentersetc.Theseprofessionsoffergoodalternativesforfisherswithoutland,livingclosebytothesecentres.InthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCEADProgrammestrengtheningofthesesmall(trade)enterprisesthrough‐amongothers‐vocationaltrainingishighlyrecommended.

43

ANNEXES

ANNEXI.LISTOFDOCUMENTSREVIEWEDANDCONSULTED

• Baser,H.andMorgan,P.(2008)Capacity,ChangeandPerformance:StudyReport.Maastricht:ECDPM,theNetherlands.

• TheDailyMonitor(2012)'Oilcouldnegativelyimpactagriculture,saysMutebile'Discussionretrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Commodities/Oil‐could‐negatively‐impact‐agriculture‐‐‐says‐Mutebile/‐/688610/1614054/‐/uxmyqfz/‐/index.html

• Dart,Jess(2010),CollaborativeOutcomeReportingTechnique(CORT).HandoutsfortheConferenceEvaluationrevisited:improvingthequalityofevaluatepracticebyembracingcomplexity,Utrecht,theNetherlands.

• Davies,RickandJessDart(2005)TheMostSignificantChange(MSC)Technique.Aguidetoitsuse.

• Dhaene,Corina,andGeorgeKasumba(2011),EndEvaluation.RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmerhouseholdsinMasindi(Uganda).'AceEurope.

• Esfim(2011),TheNaadsthatFarmerswant.Dialoguereport.Downloadedon15January2013fromhttp://www.esfim.org/wp‐content/uploads/The‐Naads‐That‐Farmers‐want‐Dialogue‐Report1.pdf

• Goodwin‐Groen,Ruth,TillBruettandAlexiaLatortue(2004),UgandaMicrofinanceEffectivenessReview,CGAP,October2004.

• Hodfa(2012)HodfadataforCAEDPevaluationfinal• Hofokam,FactsheetJune2012• Madfa(2012)MadfadataforCAEDPevaluationfinal• IFPRI(2011)ManagingFutureOilRevenueinUgandaforAgriculturalDevelopment

andPovertyReduction.ACGEAnalysisofChallengesandOptions.IFPRIDiscussionPaper01122.Retrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01122.pdf

• IOB(2011),SynthesisreportoftheevaluationofDutchsupporttocapacitydevelopment.Facilitatingresourcefulness.IOBreport336.TheNetherlands.

• MinistryofFinance(2005)TheMicrofinancePolicyAndRegulatoryFrameworkInUganda,Uganda,2005‐2015

• NationalPlanningAuthority(2010),TheNationalDevelopmentPlan,NPAUganda.• RabobankGroup(2012)FrameworkforanInclusiveFoodStrategy.Co‐operatives‐a

KeyforSmallholderInclusionintoValueChains.• RwakakambaMorrison(2012),OilinUganda:Whatdoesitmeanforagriculture

sector?Retrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.fao.org/fsnforum/resources/oil‐uganda‐what‐does‐it‐mean‐agriculture‐sector.

• Trias&Horizon3000(2012)ERIManual• Trias (2012) Tullow Summary Narrative Report January‐May 2012(Hoima and

Buliisa)• Trias(2012)HighlightsoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme

2011• Trias(2012)InternalevaluationofTriasUgandaFinal,AppreciationHofokam,

AppreciationMadfa,AppreciationHodfa.• Trias(2012)CAEDPNarrativereportMayandJune2012• Trias(2011)CAEDPAnnualreport2011• Trias(2011)PartnershipAgreement2011version2

44

• Trias(2011)HighlightsoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme2010

• Trias(2011)Mid‐TermEvaluationReportForTriasUgandaProgram,February2011• Trias(2011),CommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentprogramme(CAEDP).

Progressreport2010&Plan2011.• Trias(2010)'Raisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholds

borderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportBuliisaDistrict.'

• Trias(2010)'RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholdsborderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportHoimaDistrict.'

• TriasandTullow(2010)FinalpartnershipagreementTrias.• Trias(2010)LogicalFrameworkTullowprogrammeFinal• Tumusiime‐Mutebile,Emmanuel(2012),Thechallengeswhichwillfaceagriculture

inanoileconomy.InNewVision.Retrievedon26November2012fromhttp://www.newvision.co.ug/news/637265‐the‐challenges‐which‐will‐face‐agriculture‐in‐an‐oil‐economy.html

• WFP(2009)'ComprehensiveFoodSecurityandVulnerabilityAnalysisonUganda'.

45

ANNEXII.OVERVIEWOFPEOPLECONSULTED

A.PEOPLECONSULTEDFORTHEEVALUATION

TriasPaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorTriasUganda,KampalaMosesMuwanga,ProgrammeOfficerTriasUganda,KampalaPeterVanErumAgro‐enterpriseDevelopmentCoordinator,KampalaRichardNsamba,Agro‐enterpriseDevelopmentAdvisorMasindi/HoimaJanuarioMtungura,Micro‐financeAdvisor,KampalaMirjamSsenyonga‐Thesing,OS/IDCoordinatorHoimaJuliusBarigye,Agro‐enterpriseDevelopmentAdvisor,Mbarara

TullowNahyaNkinzi,SocialInvestmentManagerFlorenceNangendo,SocialInvestmentManagerFredBazarabusa,SocialEnterpriseMonitoringOfficerHodfaCharlesKasangaki,CoordinatorMosesByenkya,ProgrammeOfficerGodfreyAganyira,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorBobGeorgeSunday,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorWalterWesigeomu,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorMucwaR.Elisha,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorMadfaDavidMutyabaKatende,CoordinatorNezaphoroAliganyera,ProgrammeOfficerCAEDPDavidWanzala,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorEugeneLuzige,BusinessManagerPatrickMugusha,GenderAdviserJuliusKisembo,FieldAdvisorHofokamCharlesIsingoma,GeneralManagerHofokamLTDRosie‐MarieKaddu,CAEDProgrammeAccountant,HoimaDanielKaahwaManagerHofokam‐HoimaRobertMugisa,Hofokam‐MasindiBranch,LoansSupervisorTraidlinksFionaShera,CountryDirectorUgandaJohnBoscoKaluke,AgriculturalSupplyChainProjectManagerSNVUgandaBernardConilhdeBeyssac,Advisor

46

HoimadistrictAndronziGadi,Translator&FacilitatorMr.FabiasNdozireho,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficer,HoimaDrKajura,ProductionCoordinator,HoimaBernardNuwamanya,DistrictNAADSCoordinatorRungaGroupdiscussions‐GreenLifegroup‐NewStargroup‐Tekakwogroup‐TulibangroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(allCAEDPfarmers)DavidMakesh KutegekaMuherzaFrancisOkello BabyendaYokisanSarahOpar TumusiimeKutegekoBintuSkoviaAcen GilbertMichaelMugisaMuheezaMuhumuze IbrahimOcenOchunaYotam AlfredOkiSalimaRashida B.F.KutegekaDanielImutung JamesOkumuLutungKabandaGroupdiscussions‐Agriterrainegroup‐Albatgroup‐KabandaStargroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)KisemboGeorgeGraceKiizaMugisaKosiaByabasaijaJohnsonAssimweSyliviaInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)SimonMugenyiEphraimBikaraElijahKasangakiKaseeta Groupdiscussions‐Katwimwikyogroup‐Katwekambegroup‐AbahikainegroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)AdrikoKasiano BisoborwaJosephTundunduluAlfred AdrikoLetiSosten

47

BuliaFestus SaboJohanMbabaziAdah ZaitunKomugiseAngeyongaMartina AbduOmbibiOnewVidal DriciaThomasMigandaChristopher BiingiTheopistaInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)AtuhaireJohnByabasaijaRobertKarubangaIsokeKamanyireJames

BuliisadistrictMrRobertKaahwa,DistrictProductionCoordinatorDrRashidMubiru,DistrictVeterinaryOfficerandAg.NAADSCoordinatorMr.GodfreyBusiinge,Ag.SecretaryBuliisaDistrictLandBoard&SubCountyChiefBuliisaBiisoGroupdiscussions‐BabanzaKwajuragroup‐MunnoMukabigroup‐K'palaBeeKeepersgroup‐Tobyogenkinegroup‐UhurnnaKazigroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OkecJames IagandaAntonyKatsaveJennifer IsingomoJosephRobinaKabichwomo FredKabakunguMaizoGilbert NdagambakiDoreenBonabanaSilivya LucianoOkabeOlogwoJoseph JohnOlusoMogeshaJulius UkokoStephenKatasawaSayun, BalikurungiK.WilliamMaryKasangakiInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)ByaruhangaDenisMukuluGodfreyNgonzebwaOliverOlowoMichaelAvogeraGroupdiscussions‐KloroMugisagroup‐ChanPonjojogroup‐Dikiribertickutegogroup‐DikiriTimogroup‐ChanberKuparugroup

48

MSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OgenMilton OrombiCharlesApothePacuwere JosephineNyamundoOkayaRosaline OkumuCharlesPacuriamaMagdalena AwacangoKamwoOnenJackson ToraciAmulaAdubangoAmula AkumuClementinaBitumPascalina JanetPacudagaOzeleFambe AngeiCelestinaUriboGroupdiscussions‐MunguMiyogroup‐Bidokmitgroup‐Dikirotegogroup‐WakeupnowgroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OkecClaver NgavitaJosephineFuaceEmily KucakeGenesioAkenoneGenesio FambweRoseSalidaPacumbe ImmaculateAnerwothBirunnuJacqueline OnenCanVitalOnenDavid OryemKasianoAbehoneGrace OnenAlfonstinaFDmongoDeo AsimwePachal

B.PEOPLECONSULTEDFORTHEALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODSTUDY

a) In‐depthinterviewswereconductedwiththefollowing;TullowOilstaffMsNahyaNkinzi,SocialInvestmentsManager,KampalaLocalgovernmentleadersofHoimadistrictMsJeanKaliba,ResidentDistrictCommissionerMrKakorakiFred,DeputyLCVMrAbenaitweRobert,DeputyCAOMrKennetEbong,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficerMsJoyceKabatalya,AsstDCDO,BuserukaSubcountyMsJoyceKyamulesire,ACDO,KabwoyaSubcountyLocalgovernmentleadersofBuliisadistrictMrFerdLukumu,ChairmanMrRobertKaahwa,DistrictProductionOfficerMrBernardBarugahara,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficerDrMubiruRashid,DistrictVeterinaryOfficer

b)Householdinterviews

NgwedoCommunityi) AnerwothGertrude(F)

KigweraCommunityi)ManyirekiJulius(M)

49

ii) RachiwuBena(F)iii) ApioRoseline(F)iv) JagenAldo(M)v) BinenStella(F)vi) OfungrwothChristopher(M)vii) OyirwothCharles(F)viii) AtimangoSwazi(M)ix) OkumuInnocent(M)x) UcungirwothJoel(M)xi) EmmanuelNom(M)xii) AlithumSelethino(M)xiii) OloyaEdgar(M)xiv) LucianoThumitho(M)

NB:7membersarefromOdokomitCAEDPGroup

ii)ChanceWandera(M)iii)MujuniRobert(M)iv)MargaretNyakato(F)v)AngumaBeatrice(F)vi)NtakimanyeMoses(M)vii)MbabaziJennifer(F)viii)AseraNight(F)ix)MuhiigwaWilliam(F)x)MbabaziFredrick(M)xi)KabaroleFelix(M)xii)MbabaziNyamweFred(M)xiii)AbokJoshua(M)xiv)AtugonzaAnna(F)xv)WanderaDarlisonxvi)KwemaraChristopher(M)NB:12membersarefromTwesigawamaaniCAEDPgroup

KiryambogoCommunityi) AndromeGadi(M)ii) OikanJoyce(F)iii) ChotunGasto(M)iv) AcenSanta(F)v) DaikanPecudia(F)vi) MungurwiyoEvelyne(F)vii) AmigoJoseph(M)viii) OwachiBeatrice(F)ix) OwachiDidan(M)x) OnimJapot(M)xi) TekwooEmmanuel(M)xii) OnenchanAlfred(M)xiii) OkwamFelimina(F)xiv) OnenchanMugwiek(M)xv) OfodAnjeli(F)xvi) DrichiruJoyce(F)xvii) BatambaraVasta(F)xviii) BeriuGrace(F)xix) AvutiaManuel(F)xx) AmithoJustin(F)xxi) FalingJanet(F)xxii) BerochanChitum(F)xxiii) BidongJetufin(F)xxiv) OnenchanJombe(M)xxv) KyarukibuMolly(F)xxvi) MzeeThomas(M)

NB:15arefromBalyesiimaCEADPgroup

SebagoroCommunityi) MuchwaElsha(M)j) TumwesigeLangton(M)ii) KyomuhendoAlice(F)iii) NgandoBen(M)iv) TumiHadija(F)v) AliyoStephen(M)vi) DorothyTwesige(F)vii) KisahoJoseph(M)viii) KatusiimeMuhereza(M)ix) MawaSadiq(M)x) OlamGilbert(M)xi) KwonkaRehema(F)xii) MamaSadiq(F)AllmembersarefromSebagorolakesideCEADPgroup

FieldSupportTeam• MrCharlesKasangaki,Coordinator,Hodfa• MrGodfreyAganyira,HodfaFieldAdvisor,BuserukaSubcounty

50

• MrMucwaElisha,HodfaFieldAdvisor,KabwoyaSubcounty• MrDavidMutyabaKatende,Coordinator,Madfa• MrRichardNsamba,Ag‐EnterpriseDevAdvisor,Masindi/Hoima• MrAliganyiraNezaphoro,ProgOfficerCEADProgram,Masindi• MrDavidWanzala,MadfaFieldAdvisor,BuliisaDistrict

OverallCoordination• PaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorTriasUganda,Kampala

51

ANNEXIII.TERMSOFREFERENCE(INCLUDINGTHEEXTRAASSIGNMENT)

TERMSOFREFERENCE

EvaluationCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeCAEDP2010–2012,Tullow&TriasUganda

1. IntroductionTheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme–CAEDP–isaprogrammethatinitscurrentphaseisrunningfrom2010–2012.It’saprogrammefundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam,HodfaandMadfa.Astheprogrammeisapproachingtheendofthecurrentphase,TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringtheperiod2010–2012.TheaimofthisToRistoprovidetheframeworkfortheevaluationoftheCAEDP.ThisframeworkwasjointlyelaboratedbyTullowOilUgandaandTriasUganda.2. Evaluationobjectives2.1.ThegeneralobjectiveThegeneralobjectivefortheevaluationis:Togenerateafocussedin‐depthassessmentofthemostcriticalresults,outcomes,andpotentialimpactoftheCAEDProgrammeduringtheperiod2010‐2012;togeneratelessons‐learnedandrecommendations.IfasecondphasefortheCAEDPisagreedandapprovedbyTullowOil,thereportoftheevaluationalsoservestoimprovetheinterventionofTriasanditspartnersduringafollow‐upphaseoftheCAEDP.Thisgeneralobjectivereferstothefollowingcomplementaryevaluationelements:

- Assessprogresstowardstheachievementsofthemainprogramobjectives(theOverallObjectiveandSO2+SO3)

- Assessearlysignsofprogramsuccessorfailure(outcomes/impact)- Identifylessonslearnedandrecommendations- Identifynecessaryadjustmentstoachieveprogramobjectives- Identifynecessaryadjustmentstobeincludedinafollow‐upproject;whichinclude

identificationofalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperationsandagreaterfocusoncommunitiesinthevalley(Kaiso‐TonyaandBuliisa)andlivelihoodrestorationforresettledcommunities.

Theevaluationhastoexplorewhatworkedandwhatdidnot,whatledtosuccess,andwhatdidnot,whatareunexpected/emergingoutcomesandimpacts?Howdidthecontextinfluencetheprogramme,etc?TheCAEDPisacomplexmulti‐stakeholderprogrammeinwhichAdidnotautomaticallyleadtoB,manyemergingresults,andprobablysomeactivitiesthatwereplanneddidnottakeplaceandviceversa,thecontextchangeddirectionoftheprogrammeetc..Forthatreasontheevaluationshouldfocusonthemostcriticalobjectives,viz.SO2andSO3.Theseobjectivesare‘theheart’oftheCAEDP.Focussingonthoseobjectivesallowsforamorein‐depthassessmentandmakingspaceforthedifferentperspectivesonwhatsuccessisandwhatnot,whatissuesareatstake,andexploringunderlyingcausesandviews.Theassessmentshouldalsoconsiderhowsuccessescanbebuiltonforafollow‐upprogrammewhichwillhaveagreaterfocusinthevalleyandwill

52

includeactivitiestosupportalternativelivelihoodsforfishingandotherimpactedcommunitiesandlivelihoodrestorationforresettledcommunities.Consideringthiscontextidentifywhatotherlivelihoodactivitiestakeplaceandhowtheprogrammecanbeadjustedtoincludelivelihoodalternativesandrestoration.Outcomesandimpactaredefinedasfollowing:Outcomescanbedescribedaschangesinbehaviour–atthelevelofpartnersandthetargetgroup.Ifthestrategyiseffectiveandcorrect,thenthesechangesinbehaviourwilleventuallycontributetowardsimpact,i.e.improvedfoodandincomesecurityofthetargetgroup.Impactcanbedescribedaschangesinthesocio‐economicorinstitutional‘status’ofthetargetgroup2.2EvaluationquestionsTheobjectivesoftheCAEDProgrammearepresentedinannex1.IndevelopingtheobjectivesoftheCAEDP,outputandoutcomeindicatorsweredevelopedatthespecificobjectiveandexpectedresults’level,aswellasincomeandfoodsecurityindicesatthegeneralobjectivelevel.Asmentionedunder2.1,theevaluationwillmainlyfocusontheSO2andSO3andtheircontributiontotheOverallObjective.ThroughtheregularPlanning,MonitoringandReporting(PMR)system,quantitativeinformationwasgatheredfortheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsattheendof2010and2011.Theprogressontheincomeandfoodsecurityindicesisplannedtobemeasuredattheendoftheprogramme’s3‐yearperiod.It’simportantthatprogresswiththeincomeandfoodsecurityindicesandthemeasurementoftheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsasofAugust2012willbedonefirst(see3.1).Forthequalitativeinformation,alistofevaluationquestionsiselaboratedfortheSpecificObjectives2and3oftheCAEDP.Thesequestionsaimtoassessoutcomes/impactonthegeneralandthose2specificobjectivesoftheCAEDP,whilereferringtotheoutcomeindicatorswherepossible.Assuch,thequalitativeevaluationaddstoandqualifiesthequantitativeinformationfromtheregularPMRsystem.ThelistofevaluationquestionsisbasedontheCAEDPobjectives:OverallObjective Thefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsin

HoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert,isimprovedinasustainableway

QuestionO.1:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?QuestionO.2:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredandknowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.QuestionO.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetargetgroup’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐anddistrictlevel?

53

SpecificObjective2 Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets

Question1.1:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccesstomarkets?Question1.2:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseincompetencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Question1.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarketfunctioning?Question1.4:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfromagricultureathouseholdlevel?Question1.5:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityandqualityofagriculturalproduce?Question1.6:TowhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryofHodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup? SpecificObjective3 Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedinvestmentin

theirfarmingbusinessQuestion1.1:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccesstofinancialservicesforthetargetgroup?Question1.2:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureofthetargetgroup?Question1.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialandproductioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Question1.4:TowhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentinfarmingbusinessQuestion1.5:TowhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryofHofokamtothetargetgroup? 2.3EvaluationcriteriaThefollowingDACevaluationcriteria3needtobeused,whenansweringtheevaluationquestionsforeachspecificobjective:

- Relevance: Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywithrequirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?

- Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?- Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedto

alternatives?- Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐term

impact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?- Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii)

financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?AppreciationalongtheseDACevaluationcriteriahavetobereportedinaseparatechapterinthereport(see6.Report).

3 http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html

54

2.4EvaluationconclusionsBasedontheevaluationquestions,andaccordingtotheevaluationcriteria,theevaluationreportshouldresultinconclusionsforeachspecificobjective,covering:

- Strengthsand/orgoodpractices(+principlereasons/causes)- Weaknesses,challengesand/orpitfalls(+principlereasons/causes)- Lessonslearnedwithfocusoninnovation- Lessonslearnedwithfocusonextension/follow‐upprogrammeoftwoyears(plus

three);preliminaryfindingsofwhatalternativesarepossibleandrelevanttoimpactedcommunities,whichcanbefurtherexploredduringprogrammedesign

- Recommendations;includingrecommendationsforalternativelivelihoodsforfishingandothercommunities,restorationoflivelihoodsrequiredasaconsequenceofresettlementduetoTullowoperations,andagreaterfocusofactivitiesdowntheescarpment(Kaiso‐TonyaandBuliisa).

3. Evaluationprocess/approach3.1Evaluationprocess3.1.1.IncomeandfoodsecurityindicesandoutputandoutcomeindicatorsasofAugust2012Itisimportantthatthequalitativeinformationwrttheincomeandfoodsecurityindicesandtheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsiscollectedfirst.Thisisnotpartoftheevaluationexercise,butwillbecoveredseparately.Withthesupportofthe3partnersandalocalconsultantthisquantitativedatawillbecompiledlatestbyAugust2012.Thereportwillbeusedasinputsfortheevaluation.3.1.2EvaluationTheevaluationmethodologyshouldalsoincludetheuseofmultimediatoolssuchasvideo,photographyandsocialmediathatareintegratedintoquantitativeandqualitativemethods.Gatheringofdatashouldnotonlybedonethroughsecondarydata,butalsothroughcollectionofstoriese.g.MostSignificantChangeandothermethods.Thosestoriesshouldberecordedonvideo,validated,discussed,quantifiedandtranscribedforthewrittenevaluationreport.Visualsshouldcomplementthewrittenevaluationreportandprovideextrainformation.3.2ScopeoftheevaluationTheCAEDprogramme2010‐2012isimplementedwith3partnersin2districtsofUganda.InHoima,itconcernsHoimaDistrictFarmerAssociation(Hodfa)andinBuliisa,itconcernsMasindiDistrictFarmerAssociation(Madfa).ForbothdistrictsHofokamisengagedastheFinanceInstitution.Theevaluationcoverstheactivitiesundertakingwiththese3partnersinthe2districtsaswellastheactivitiescoordinatedfromtheTriasRegionalOfficeinKampala.3.3EvaluationteamAnexternalevaluatorwillleadtheevaluationandheadsanevaluationteam,whichconsistsoftheteamleader(i.e.theexternalevaluator)andalocalevaluator.Toenhancethe‘processuse’oftheevaluation,Tullow&TRIASstaffandrespectivepartnerstaffare,asfaraspossible,activelyinvolvedinthepreparation,implementationandfinalstagesoftheevaluationprocess.Tosafeguardthis,atleastajointsessionatthebeginningoftheevaluationisforeseentohavethosestaffmembersatthesamelevelofinformationandunderstanding.

55

Tosafeguardthequalityoftheprocessanditsresult,theProgrammeOfficerandtheRegionalCoordinatorofTriasUgandawillcloselymonitortheevaluationprogress.Meetingswiththeevaluationteamwillbeorganisedinwhichprogressoftheevaluationprocessisdiscussed,andpossibleconstraintsaddressed.Firstresultsandexperiencesderivedfromtheevaluationinoneofthetwointerventionareaswillbediscussed,beforeengagingtheprocessinthesecondinterventionarea.Adraftreportwillbepresentedanddiscussed,beforeafinalversionissubmittedtoTullow&Trias.ProfileexternalevaluatorBesidesthefactthattheevaluatorshouldbefamiliarwiththefieldofparticipatoryagro‐enterprisedevelopmentand/ormicro‐finance,thecontextofUganda,therealitiesofinternationaldevelopmentandtheconcepts/practiceoforganisationallearning,itiscrucialthatthattheexternalevaluatorisabletolead/facilitateaparticipatoryevaluationprocesswithavarietyofstakeholders.TheexternalevaluatorhasalsoexperienceandknowledgeonPME–andmoreinparticularevaluations(DACcriteriaetc)–andM&Eofcomplexprogrammes,asthatofTrias.MethodsofinquiryPossiblemethodsofinquiry:fieldtrips,focusgroupdiscussions,stories,interviews,peer‐to‐peerdiscussions(withe.g.actorsinthefield),feedbacksessions,roundtablediscussion,guidedself‐assessment,documentanalysis,andothers.Astheevaluationtouchesoneffects/outcomesattargetgrouplevel,itismandatorythatthemethodsofinquiryincludetoolsandapproachesthataregoingtobeusedwithrepresentativesofthetargetgroups.Theconsultant’sproposalhastoclearlyindicatehowthisinvolvementofthetargetgroupintheevaluationprocessisgoingtobetakenupandorganised.It’salsoimportantthatthevariousstakeholdersinvolvedinand/orrelatedtotheprogrammeareincludedintheevaluation.Thisalsoincludes(some)otherdevelopmentpartnersengagedintheinterventionareaoftheprogramme.Inlightoftheabove,activitieswillprobablyincludethefollowing:

≠ Deskstudyofrelevantprogrammedocumentation(annualplans,reports);≠ Designofevaluationmethodology≠ Introductorymeetingwithpartnerstopresentanddiscusspurposeandscopeof

evaluation≠ Prepareevaluation(questionnaires,samplingframes,audiovisuals,toolsfor

analysis)≠ Jointsessionwithevaluationteam≠ Facilitateandimplementevaluation≠ Analyseandreportonfindingsevaluation≠ Preparedraftevaluationreport≠ Facilitate1‐daystakeholders’workshop≠ Preparefinalevaluationreport

56

TimeframeItissuggestedthattheevaluationtakesplaceinSeptember2012;withtheevaluationreporttobefinalisedlatestby15October2012.Theproposeddurationoftheassignmentisapproximately25workingdays,including(international/local)travel,brokendownasfollows:• Deskstudyofdocumentation,incl.preparationofscope,methodology,tools:2days• Kick‐offmeetings:1day• Facilitation&implementationofevaluation(fielddays):10days(5/district)• Analysis&interpretationofdata:4days• Reportwriting:4days• Preparation&facilitationofstakeholders’restitutionworkshop:2days• Internationaltravel:2days(onlyforteamleader)4. IntendeduseofevaluationfindingsTheintendedusesoftheevaluationfindingsare:• TheevaluationreportwilldirectlybetheTullowrequestedevaluationreportforthe

period2010‐2012;• TheevaluationfindingswillbeusedtoimproveTRIAS’strategies,partnershipsand

interventionsforitsprogrammesandwillbedirectlyusedtofurtherfine‐tuneandadjustafollow‐uptotheCAEDP2010‐2012programme;

• TheevaluationfindingsareusedfortheTriasoverallreport;• Theevaluationfindingswillbesharedwithotherco‐financingdonorsanddiscussed

duringthedonorvisits/meetings;• Illustrativestories,picturesandotherdocumentationresultingfromtheevaluation

processcanbeusedforpublicationsandexternalcommunication.5. BudgetAtentativebudgetfortheevaluationentailsthefollowingbudgetlines: USD

Description units unitprice total

1 Internationalconsultantairticket 1 800 8002 Feesint.consultantfr27days 27 350 9,4503 Feesnationalconsultantfr32days 32 200 6,4004 Operationalcosts: 0

a.Fieldtransport 12 25 300

Total 16,9506. ReportAsaguidelinefortheevaluationreport,thefollowingformatwillbeused.Thereisamaximumof30pages(excl.annexes).1Introduction

1.1Objectiveoftheevaluation

57

1.2Compositionevaluationteam1.3Evaluationprocessandmethodology1.4Mainevaluationactivities1.5Factorscontributingordisturbingtheevaluationexercise

2Interventioncontextandprojectdescription 2.1Concisecontextdescription 2.2DesignofCAEDprogramme 2.3Descriptionofbeneficiaries(partnersandtargetgroup)3Assessment 3.1OverallObjective2 3.1.1Question1 3.1.2Question2 3.1.3Question3 3.2SpecificObjective3 3.2.1Question1

3.2.2Question2,etc.

3.3AppreciationalongtheDACCriteria 3.3.1Relevance 3.3.2Effectiveness 3.3.3Efficiency 3.3.4Impact 3.3.5Sustainability 4Overallconclusions,lessonslearnedandrecommendations

4.1Conclusions 4.2Lessonslearned 4.3RecommendationsAnnexes

58

ANNEXIV.LOGFRAMEANDOBJECTIVESOFCAEDPROGRAMME

OverallObjective:“thefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert,isimprovedinasustainableway”SpecificObjective1:SmallholderfarmhouseholdshaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughouttheyearExpectedResults:1.1 Farmhouseholdsawareoftheimportanceoffoodsecurityandnutrition1.2 Farmhouseholdsawareoftheneedforjointplanning,decisionmakingandsharing

ofresponsibilitieswithinhouseholds1.3 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithappropriateknowledgeandskillsonproductionof

staplefoodcrops1.4 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithappropriateknowledgeandskillstoimprovetheir

backyardgardens1.5 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithknowledgeandskillsinpost‐harvesthandling,

preservationandpreparationofnutritiousfoods.SpecificObjective2:Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsExpectedResults:2.1 Farmergroupsmobilisedandstrengthened2.2 Farmergroupsequippedwithknowledgeandskillstoassessandselectprofitable

agro‐enterprises2.3 Farmergroupsequippedwithskillstoassessthevaluechainsofselectedagro‐

enterprises2.4 Farmergroupsequippedwithappropriateentrepreneurskills&knowledgetoforge

remunerativemarketsandlinkages(incl.linkageswithotherserviceproviders)2.5 Farmergroupsimpartedwithknowledgeandskillsinimprovingtheirproduction

andpost‐harvesthandling2.6 Farmergroupsfacilitatedwithcollectivemarketing(includingqualityassurance,use

ofmarketinformationandintelligence,otherrelevantskills)2.7 Farmergroupsequippedwithskillstoself‐evaluatetheirperformanceandmake

necessaryimprovements(PM&E)2.8 Partnerorganisationsequippedwithstaffandcapacitytoprovideappropriate

servicestohermembers–thesmallholderfarmerhouseholdsofHoimaandBuliisaDistricts

SpecificObjective3:SmallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinessExpectedResults:3.1 Agriculturefriendlyfinancialservicesavailed3.2 Farmergroupsstrengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement3.3 Savingsculturepromoted3.4 Farmergroupsimpartedwithfinancialbusinessmanagementskills3.5 Outreachservicestofarmhouseholdsincreased

59

SpecificObjective4:Theprogrammeiseffectivelymanagedandcoordinatedinaresults‐orientedwayExpectedResults:4.1 ThecapacityofTriasUgandastafftoprovidecapacitybuildingsupporttolocal

partnerorganizationsandtocoordinateprogrammeactivities,enhanced4.2 Thecapacityoflocalpartnerorganizationstoeffectivelyplan,monitor/evaluateand

reportonprogrammeinputs,outputs,outcomesandimpact(includingcross‐cuttingissues),improved

4.3 Thecapacityoflocalpartnerorganizationstomanagetheirresourcesinatransparentandaccountableway,strengthened

4.4 Programmeplansandactivitiesoflocalpartnerorganizationsarewell‐coordinated4.5 Informationsharingandcollaborationwithothermajorstakeholders(government,

domesticandinternationaldonors),enhanced

60

ANNEXV.QUESTIONNAIRE

SubCounty…………………………………………………………………………….. Sample#……………….

CAEDPHOUSEHOLDQUESTIONNAIRE1.NameofRespondent/Farmer……………………………………………………………………………………………2.Village/LC1…………………………………………………………………Parish…………………………………………3.PositionintheHousehold…………………………………………………………………………………………………ASSETOWNERSHIPIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)

Levels 1.HouseholdLandownershipinAcres 2.HouseCharacteristics(Roof)‐Grass/IronSheets 3.HouseCharacteristics(wall)–Mud/burntbricks 4.Housecharacteristics(Floor)–Bareground/Cemented 5.Ownershipofmeansoftransport(None/Bicycle/M’cycle/car)

6.OwnershipofCows/SmallLivestockUnits(SLUs) 7.Others–(Specified)e.g.Radio/Phones/SolarPanelsetc. FOODPRODUCTIVITYANDSECURITYSTATUSIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)

levels 1.Numberofmonthsoffoodshortage 2.Cultivationoffoodsecuritycrops 3.Levelofyieldsperacre(onascaleof1to10) 4.Qualityofdiet(Proteins(1)Carbohydrates(2)Vitamins(3)FatsOils(4)

5.Perceivedqualityofproduce(onascaleof1to10) ACCESSTOVIABLEMARKETSANDFINANCIALSERVICESIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)

levels 1.Howmuchoftheproductionwasmarketed 2.Levelofdemand(onascaleof1to10) 3.Levelofprofitability(onascaleof1to10) 4.LevelofBusinessdevel.services(onascaleof1to10) 5.Savingslevelspermonth(inshillings) 6.Levelofaccesstocredit/loans 7.Averageloanamounts(inShillingsor$equivalents)

61

ANNEXVI.FOODANDINCOMEINDICESCALCULATION

Forcalculationofthefoodandincomeindicestheevaluationteamusedtheindicesasdevelopedduringthebaselineoftheprogramme.Belowthechapterfromthebaselinestudywiththeexplanationsontheindiceshasbeenreproduced(Trias(2010)'RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholdsborderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportBuliisaDistrict').------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEVELOPMENTOFIMPACTINDICATORS(fromBaselinestudy)Astheprogrammefocusesonincomeandfoodsecurityofruralfarmhouseholds,itisimportanttounderstandanddefinetheseconceptsfromthetargetgroup’spointofview;theirperspectivewouldhelpthestudyindeterminingasetofproxyindicatorsthatsuitseachconceptinthegivenlocality.Aggregatingthecollectionofselectedproxiesintheirorderofpriorityperconceptwouldthenenablethestudyteamtoconstructacompositeindexforeachconcept.Itisthecompositeindicesthatthestudywillthenuseinassessingtheincomesecurityandfoodsecuritystatusofthefarmhouseholds‐atbaselineandlateronatendoftheprogramme.ThestudyteamheldfocusgroupdiscussionswithtwogroupsoffarmhouseholdsinNgwedotradingcentre,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐countywith21farmhouseholds(13menand8women)andthesecondmeetingswasinBusiisavillage,Westernparish,BuliisaTownCouncilsub‐county,with12farmers(8menand5women).Thesegroupsidentifiedproxiesforincomesecurityandfoodsecurityaccordingtotheirperspective.Toensurefullandfreecontributionsduringpreliminarydiscussions,themenwereseparatedfromthewomen.Afterwards,bothmenandwomenwerebroughttogetherinaplenary,todevelopacommonunderstandingoftheissues/ideasandtobuildconsensusonthefinalresults.Theexerciseproceededverywell.Threeincomeandfoodsecuritycategoriesweredistinguishedduringthefocusgroupdiscussions:thebetteroff,themediumincomeandthepoor.Alistofitemsandtheirassociatedmeasures,sizeand/orattributeswasthengeneratedforeachcategory.Thislistwasusedtodefineproxyindicatorsforconstructingcompositeindicesforincomeandfoodsecurityamongsthouseholdswithinthisinterventionarea.IncomesecurityindexIncomesecurityisheredefinedastheabilitytosustainsufficientincometocoverfamilyneedsthroughouttheyear(albeitminorcalamitiessuchasadverseweatherconditions).Focusgroupdiscussionsfirstcentredonthedefinitionofwealth(orputnegatively,poverty):whichwealthcategoriescanbediscernedatruralvillagelevel,whichattributestheyrevealandhowtheseattributescanbequalified/quantifiedwhenmovingfromonecategorytothenext.Participantsdistinguished3categoriesofwealth:thepoor,themediumandbetter‐off.Thentheyidentifiedmainattributesthatshowdifferentiationbetweencategories.Finally,participantsrankedtheseattributesaccordingtopriority,frommostimportanttoleastimportant.

62

Thefollowingcharacteristicsorattributesofhouseholdwealthorpovertystatus‐inorderofpriority‐wereidentified:

1. Acreageoflandowned;2. Qualityofhousingunit;3. Meansoftransport;4. Numberofcowsowned;and5. Savingincomeinformalfinancialinstitutions,

Attributes1‐4relatetothe‘fixed’assetsofaspecifichousehold–land,cattle,housingandtransportmeans.Thelastattribute,ontheotherhand,ismoreconcernedwiththe‘expenditure’patternofhouseholds:savingatformalfinancialinstitutions(whichisalsousuallyaprerequisiteforobtainingloansorcredit).Whilethegeneralwealthstatusofagivenhouseholdisanimportantdeterminingfactorforincomesecurity,itisnottheonlyone.Participantsofthefocusgroupdiscussionsagreeduponthreefurtherthreefactorsthattheyfeelalsodetermineincomesecurity,being:1. Acreageofcropscultivated(withspecificreferencetocassava);2. Diversificationofmainsourcesofincome;and3. Numberofsmallstock(primarilygoats,butalsoothersmallstocklikepigs&poultry).Theseadditionalfactorswerejustifiedasfollows:1. Farmhouseholdswithalargerareaundercultivation(usuallyindifferentlocations)can

bettercopewithrisksofadverseweathercondition.Moreover,alargerareaundercultivationusuallyimpliesalargermixofcropsundercultivation,cropsthatareaffecteddifferentlybyweatherconditions.

2. Farmhouseholdswithmorethanonemainsourceofincomecanbettercopeandwithstanddownfalls/threatstooneofthem.

3. Smallstock–goats,pigsandpoultry–withwhichafarmhouseholdhaslessemotionalattachment,caneasilybeboughtandsold,andcanthereforeeasilycompensateshortcomingsinincomeforwhateverreason.

Inordertodevelopacompositeindexforincomesecurity,eachfactorwasgivenaweightconformtheirpriorityranking.Inaddition,eachfactorwasgivenascorefrom0to3(fromworsttobest,respectively)tovaluethedifferentcharacteristicsascribedtoeachattributeaccordingtoincomesecurityclass.Asillustration,fortypeofhouseowned:ahousewithagrassthatchedroof,mudwallsandasoilfloorisregardedasworstqualityofhousingandisgivenscore0;ontheotherhand,ahousewithironsheetroof,burntbrickwallsandgoodconcreteorcementedfloorisseenasthebestandisthusscored3.Theresultsarepresentedintable2below.

Table1:Weightingofattributesthatsignifyhouseholdincomesecuritystatus

Itemcategories Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3

1. HouseholdWealth 50% • Acreageoflandowned (0.25) Noland

owned <2acres 2‐<10acres >10acres

63

• Typeofhouseowned (0.20) Grassthatchedroof,mudwalls,soilfloor

Rustedironsheets,mudwalls,soilfloor

Ironsheetroof,mudwalls,concretefloor

Ironsheetroof,burntbrickwalls&concretefloor

• Numberofcattle (0.20) Nocattle 1‐2cows 3‐9cows 10cows&above

• Ownershipofmeansoftransport

(0.15) None 1bicycle >1bicycle 1m/cycle

• Abilitytosavemoneywithformalfinancialinstitutions

(0.20) No SACCOs CommercialBanks

Itemcategories Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3

2. Cultivatedarea(acres) 20% <1acreofland

1‐<2acres

2‐<5acres 5acres&above

3. Diversifiedsourcesofincome

15% Cropfarmingonly

Crop+livestockfarming

Crop,livestock+atleastoneadditionalmainsourceofincome

4. Numberofsmalllivestockunits(SLU)*

15% 0SLU 1–<5SLU 5‐<15SLU 15SLU&above

Whenalltheminimumandmaximumassignedweightsforattributesofincomesecurityareaddedtogether,itbecomesclearthatthecompositescorestartsat0.0(sumofalltheminimumweights)andgoesto3.0(sumofallthemaximumweights).Inlinewiththecategorisationmadebyparticipantsduringthegroupdiscussions,thethreerelativeincomesecuritycategoriescanbedistinguished:Category1:Householdswithsumsofweights0.0–1.5have………….PoorincomesecurityCategory2:Householdswithsumofweights1.6–2.5have……….......FairincomesecurityCategory3:Householdswithsumsofweights2.5–3.0have…………GoodincomesecurityInordertodeveloptheincomesecurityindexwithmaximumvalueof1,theindividualhouseholdsumofweightsweredividedbythemaximumsumofweights(3.0).Thisresultedinthefollowingweightsperincomesecuritycategory:Category1:Householdswithanindexfrom0.00–0.50havepoorincomeinsecurityCategory2:Householdswithanindexfrom0.51–0.83havefairincomesecurityCategory3:Householdswithanindexfrom0.84–1.00havegoodincomesecurityFoodsecurityindex

64

Foodsecurityisheredefinedastheabilityoffarmhouseholdstoprovidesufficientfoodtocoverfamilyneedsthroughouttheyear(albeitminorcalamitiessuchasadverseweatherconditions).Foodsecurityherecoversbothquantitative(sufficientfoodinquantity)andqualitative(nutritiousbalancedmeals)aspects.Inordertodevelopacompositeindex,bothquantitativeandqualitativeaspectsweregivenequalweight.Twoproxieswereidentifiedforthequantitativeaspect:(a)numberofmonthsoffoodshortage,and(b)cultivationofselectedcategoriesoffoodsecuritycrops.Participantsoffocusgroupdiscussionsidentifiedthreecategoriesoffoodsecuritycrops:(i)staplefoodcrops(bananas,beans,sweetpotatoes);(ii)droughtresistantfoodcrops(milletandsorghum);and(iii)cropsthatcanbestoredforlongerperiodsoftime(cassava,maize,groundnuts).Theextenttowhichfarmhouseholdscultivatecropsfromeachcategorydeterminestheextenttowhichtheyarefoodsecure.Forexample,ifafarmhouseholdgrowsbananas(categoryi),millet(categoryii)andcassava(categoryiii),thisfarmhouseholdiscategorisedasmorefoodsecurethanonewhocultivatescropsof2categoriesonly.Theproxy“consumptionofsufficientsourcesofcarbohydrates,protein,fatandvitaminsduringanormalmeal”wasidentifiedastheonlyproxyforthequalitativeaspectoffoodsecurity.Here,foodhasbeensubdividedinto4categories,accordingtotheirmainsourceofnutrition:(i)starchy‐carbohydratefoodstuffs(bananas,tubers+grains);(ii)vegetativeproteinrichfoodstuffs(legumessuchasgroundnutsandbeans);(iii)vitaminrichfoodstuffs(fruits&vegetables);and(iv)animalproteinandfats(e.g.meat,eggs,milk,cheese).Theextenttowhichhouseholdseatfoodofeachofthesefourcategoriesdeterminesthenutritionalbalanceoftheirmeals.Ifforexample,ahouseholdcommonlyeatsfoodsfromall4categories,thehouseholdisratedas‘good’intermsofqualitativenutritionalpractises;ahouseholdthatcommonlyeatsfoodofonly3categoriesisgivenalowerrating;andsoforth.Theweightsandscoresassignedtoeachattributeanditsrespectivecharacteristicsarepresentedintable3below.

Table2:Weightingofattributesthatsignifyhouseholdfoodsecuritystatus

Items Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3

1. Noofmonthsoffoodshortage

25% >4monthsfoodshortage

3‐4monthsfoodshortage

1‐2monthsoffoodshortage

Nofoodshortage

2. Cultivationof‘foodsecurity’categoriesofcrops

25% Noneoffoodsecuritycategoriesarecultivated

Onlyonecategoryoffoodsecuritycropsiscultivated

Twocategoriesoffoodsecuritycropsarecultivated

All3categoriesoffoodsecuritycropsarecultivated

3. Quality/balanceofdiet

50% Onlyfoodsfrom1out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten

Onlyfoodsfrom2out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten

Onlyfoodsfrom3out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten

Foodsfromall4categoriesarecommonlyeaten

65

Thetotalscoresvaryfrom0to3.Afterconversiontouniformfoodsecurityindices(withmaximumvalueof1),thefollowingrelativecategoriesandratesweredetermined:Category1:Householdswithsumsofweights0.00–0.50have…………poorfoodsecurityCategory2:Householdswithsumsofweights0.51–0.83have………….fairfoodsecurityCategory3:Householdswithsumsofweights0.84–1.00have………….goodfoodsecurity

Documents

Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda