Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Document ofThe World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No.: 22045
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(2446-UG)
ONACREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$28.8 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & TRAINING PROJECT
March 30, 2001
Rural Development OperationsEastern and Southern AfricaAfrica Region
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.l
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Exchange Rate Effective )
Currency Unit Ugandan Shillings (USh)At Appraisal (June 1992) UShl,170 = US$ I
US$ I = USh 1,800 At Completion (September 2000)
FISCAL YEARJuly I June 30
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AEATRI Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research InstituteACMD African Cassava Mosaic DiseaseARDC Agricultural Research and Development CentreARIS Agricultural Research Information ServiceARTP Agricultural Research and-Training -ProjectCOREC Coffee Research CentreCSDP Cotton Sector Development ProjectFAO/CP Food and Agriculture Organization (Cooperative Programme with the WB)FIRI Fisheries Research InstituteFORI Forestry Research InstituteFOSRI Food Science and Technology Research InstituteGOU Government of UgandaIARCs International Agricultural Research CentresICR Implementation Completion ReportIDA International Development AgencyISNAR International Service for National Agricultural ResearchKARI Kawanda Agricultural Research InstituteLIRI Livestock Health Research InstituteMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and FisheriesMAK Makerere UniversityMEPU Monitoring, Evaluation and Planning UnitMUARIK Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute at KabanyoloMTR Mid-Term ReviewNAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services ProgrammeNAARI Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research InstituteNARO National Agricultural Research OrganisationNAROSEC NARO SecretariatNARS National Agricultural Research SystemNARSP National Agricultural Research Strategy and PlanQAG Quality Assurance GroupRELU Research and Extension Liaison UnitSAR Staff Appraisal ReportSAARI Serere Agricultural and Animal Production Research InstituteTA Technical AssistanceUCDA Uganda Coffee Development Authority
Vice President: Callisto MadavoCountry Manager/Director: James W. Adams
Sector Manager/Director: Sushma GangulyTask Team Leader/Task Manager: Edgardo Quisumbing
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UGANDAAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & TRAINING - PHASE I
CONTENTS
Page-No.1. PROJECT DATA ............................................................................ 4
2. PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS ............................................................................ 4
3. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND QUALITY AT ENTRY .......... 5
4. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVE AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................... 6
5. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ..................................... 11
6. SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................... 12
7. BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE ........................................................................... 13
8. LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................... 14
9. PARTNER COMMENTS ............................................................................ 15
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 16
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/LOG FRAME MATRIX ........................................ 16
ANNEX 2. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ........................................................................... 18
ANNEX 3. ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS ........................................................................... 19
ANNEX 4. BANK INPUTS ........................................................................... 20
ANNEX 5. RATING FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/OUTPUTS OF COMPONENTS ...... 21
ANNEX 6. RATINGS OF BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE ............................................. 22
ANNEX 7. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ........................................................................... 22Annex 7a. - Supplementary Tables
STI NARO Institutes and MandatesST2 Project Financing and Disbursement CategoriesST3 Funding of Agricultural Research (from all sources)ST4 Comparison of Annual Salaries and Allowance, NARO and MAAIFST5 NARO Scientific Staff as at July 1999ST6 MSc and PhD Training
Annex 7b - Borrowers Implementation Completion ReportAnnex 7c. ARTP Beneficiary Assessment Study
FIGURE 1. NARO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ...................................... 49
MAP NO. IBRD 24111
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
1. PROJECT DATA
Name.' AGRIC. RESEARCH & TRAINING L/C/TF Number: 24460Country/Department: UGANDA Region: Africa Regional
OfficeSector/subsector: AE - Agricultural Extension; AG - Agency
Reform; AR - Research
KEY DATESOriginal Revised/Actual
PCD.' 12/31/91 Effective: 06/24/93 08/31/93Appraisal: 06/15/92 MTR: 01/22/96 02/22/96Approval. 12/15/92 Closing: 12/31/2000 09/30/2000
Borrower/Implementing Agency.' GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA/NAROOther Partners:
STAFF Current At AppraisalVice President: Callisto E. Madavo E. JaycoxCountry Manager: James W. Adams B. FalconerSector Manager: Sushma Ganguly Jayasankar ShivakumarTeam Leader at ICR: Edgardo Quisumbing Edgardo QuisumbingICR Primary Author: G. Evers (FAO/CP)
2. PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE RATINGS
(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely,HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)
Outcome: SSustainability: L
Institutional Development Impact: SUBank Performance: S
Borrower Performance: S
QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S S
Project at Risk at Any Time: No
- 4 -
3. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN, AND OFQUALITY AT ENTRY
3.1 Original Objective:
The Project was to support the Government's strategy for improving agricultural growth anddiversification through the development and transfer of improved technologies. The broad objectives ofthe project were to develop an organizational framework and institutional process for agricultural researchwhich were to be sustainable and efficient, as well as responsive to the constraints faced by farmersthrough the establishment of the National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO). The specificobjectives of the project were to: (i) launch and support key research activities of NARO; (ii) strengthenlinkages and coordination within the research system, with the extension services and the agriculturalfaculties of MAK; and (iii) improve agricultural education and training capacky.
The project was intended to establish a semi-autonomous NARO' through the consolidation ofvarious agricultural research institutions. Project objectives were responsive to the constraints prevailingin the early 1990s when the country was undergoing post-war reconstruction and agricultural researchwas largely moribund and fragmented between several ministries. Objectives were clear, consistent withthe Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), in line with Government's development priorities andrightly emphasized institutional and human resource development. The project was conceived as the firstphase of a long-term development program to strengthen agricultural research in Uganda. Financial,institutional and macro-economic project risks articulated in the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) did notprove to be major problems during implementation. Indeed, not investing in re-establishing andstrengthening agricultural research in a country so heavily dependent on agriculture could well haveposed a greater risk2.
3.2 Revised Objective: (not revised)
3.3 Original Components:
* Institutional Development of NARO (US$7.0 million): funding of its Secretariat activities,research priority-setting and program coordination, monitoring and evaluation (M&E),studies on research funding and new headquarters construction, project mid-term review(MTR), and provision of mobility and equipment;
* Rehabilitation of NARO Research Institutes (US$4.2 million): including offices, laboratoriesand staff housing, as well as equipment and transport;
* Execution of High Priority Research Programs (US$12.3 million): funding NAROincremental operating costs, and staff salaries and allowances; and
* Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training Capacity (US$5.3 million) at MAK,support for local and foreign-based higher degree education, and upgrading of facilities andequipment of the agricultural faculties; and establishment of a Continuing AgriculturalEducation Center.
NARO is composed of a Secretariat (NAROSEC), eight Institutes and one Centre. Six Instilutes existed before ARTP:Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute(NAARI), Serere Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute (SAARI), the Forestry Research Institute(FORI), the Livestock Health Research Institute (LIRI), and the Fisheries Research Institute (FIRI). Two additionalinstitutes were established at ARTP inception: the Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology ResearchInstitute (AEATRI) and the Food Science and Technology Research Institute (FOSRI). The Coffee Research Centre(COREC) was established in 1996. AEATRI and COREC were previously two programs of KARI, and FOSRI wasunder FIRI. See Figure I (Organization Chart).
2 At time of appraisal, agriculture accounted for 60% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 95% of export earnings, 80%of employment and 40% of government revenues.
- 5-
Project design was appropriate, directly addressing key institutional issues and the componentsclearly related to objectives. The project was not intended to fund all research activities, but, rather todevelop an effective organization able to attract and efficiently manage funds from GOU, donors,international centers, the private sector and multilateral agencies3 It was designed to focus initially oninstitutional development and to support new priority research programs in the latter half of projectimplementation. Between project Appraisal and Credit Effectiveness, two additional Institutes, FOSRIand AEATRI, were created by GOU. Around 1996, COREC was also established.
3.4 Revised Components: (not revised)
3.5 Quality at Entry.
Overall, the quality at entry was considered satisfactory by both the ICR mission and the QualityAssurance Group (QAG). The design was responsive to prevailing conditions at the time and preparationand appraisal were generally well managed. Borrower ownership and commitment were strongthroughout, and the project was adequately prepared, with NARO statutes and a detailed ImplementationPlan in place prior to Board presentation. Although component design was generally satisfactory, projectidentification stressed the importance of having a broad geographic research presence to respond tolocation-specific needs of farmers in all agro-ecological zones. The issues of over-concentration ofresearch institutes in the Kampala area and the need for decentralization were recognized but were notfully addressed by the project as priority was given to the consolidation of existing institutes into onenational organization (NARO), the operationalization of NARO, and to human resource development,rather than funding new infrastructures. It was agreed that these issues would be better addressed duringthe second phase of IDA's assistance to agricultural research and NARO was fully operational.
The ICR shares the view of the QAG that an analysis of the Borrower's long-term capacity tosustain its NARS without eventual donor support would have provided a useful appraisal tool todetermine what size of NARS the Borrower should aim at, and to serve as a point of reference forsecuring long-term institutional and financialsustainability. Project vision and entry quality would havebeen enhanced, had these considerations been taken into account. The main external factor that affectedentry quality was the absence of a clear government policy to attract private sector investment in seedproduction, which restric,ted the diffusion of crop varieties released by research4.
4. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVE AND OUTPUTS
4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:
Overall, the outcome of the project is rated as satisfactory. The project met its principal objectivesof establishing a stronger, semi-autonomous NARO and developing management and operationalprocesses for agricultural research planning and implementation. The new autonomy enabled NARO toapply competitive terms of service and be more flexible in resource allocation and management.Specifically, the project has: (a) successfully launched NARO and established a prioritized nationalresearch program; (b) developed strong functional linkages with regional and international researchinstitutions and with faculties of MAK; and (c) had a significant impact on improving training capacityand agricultural education. The outcomes of developing M&E and human resource managementcapacities were less satisfactory. NARO needs to further improve the quality of its interaction withfarmers and other stakeholders, which has been constrained by the current concentration of institutes
Including the IDA-funded Headstart Agricultural Research and Extension Program under the Agricultural SectorAdjustment Credit; the Cotton Sector Development Project (CSDP); and the Lake Victoria EnvironmentalManagement Project, IFAD funded Smallholder Cotton Rehabilitation Project, EU funded Coffee Cropping SystemsProject and commodity research programs funded by USAID, GTZ, UNDP and FAO.
4 Consistent with QAG remarks, but the ICR considers that it was not the role of NARO to provide such services.
- 6 -
around Kampala and the financial limitations to conducting on-farm research. NARO's outreachactivities throughout the country have been seriously affected by the failure of the IDA funded NationalExtension Project to develop the capacity of the agricultural extension service to perform its functions andserve as active partners.
The project impact on agricultural growth is difficult to assess since it is still in the first Ihase of along-term institutional development strategy. The SAR did not attempt to estimate an economic rate ofreturn in this project phase. While impact indicators had been defined at Appraisal, these were onlyquantified in 1998, and no impact data were available at this time. Nevertheless, some technologiesclearly contributed to increased food production and income, and prevented major food productioncollapse and related food security problems. This is illustrated by the cases of wide adoption of AfricanCassava Mosaic Disease (ACMD)-tolerant cassava varieties which increased yields from 7 tons perhectare to over 30 tons per hectare and are currently planted in 150,000 hectares or 60% of the total areaplanted to cassava. In monetary terms, at a conservative average production of 15 tons per hectare andcost of $100 per ton, the value of the cassava produced would be US$225 million. But in terms of livessaved from dying of hunger, the value of the ACMD-resistant varieties introduced cannot beoveremphasized. NARO has also contributed to water hyacinth control in the lake complex, theeconomic value of which still requires estimation. Other notable achievements include the release of arange of crop varieties, and agro-forestry species; and improved understanding of livestock diseaseepidemiology and lake ecologies. The project significantly increased the number of MAK and NAROstaff trained in relevant disciplines, and has markedly enhanced education capacity at MAK.
Beneficiary Assessment (BA). The findings from the beneficiary assessment study' suggest that, inorder to further improve its performance, NARO should: (i) update its priority research programsregularly to better reflect farmer priorities and tackle key bottlenecks in the farming systems (areas ofimmediate attention include soil and water management, control of new disease outbreaks, seedproduction and post-harvest technologies); (ii) stress the importance of good land husbandry and cropmanagement practices as pre-requisites to increasing farm productivity and to increasing returns frompurchased inputs such as seeds and fertilizers; (iii) develop labor saving technologies consistent withpracticed farming systems, gender and other socio-economic concerns, or develop with stakeholders new,less labor demanding production systems, including conservation agriculture and no-tillage systems; and(iv) monitor the impact and economic viability of the new technologies.
4.2 Outputs by components:
Institutional Development of the National Agricultural Research System (US$7.0 million)
Overall, this component has been successfully implemented, and staff are enjoying competitiveterms and conditions of service that were introduced as a result of the change from a civil service to semi-autonomous status. The research activities of existing Institutes have been integrated into one nationalagricultural research program which is coordinated by the National Agricultural Research Organizationthrough a Secretariat. Management, administrative, accounting, and financial systems were strengthened;research infrastructure of 4 institutes was rehabilitated, and a Continuing Agricultural Education Centerwas constructed at MAK in Kabanyolo.
Management Systems and Capacity Development Considerable progress has been made inestablishing operational and planning procedures, financial management and accounting, procurement andtraining systems. Management introduced in 1996, a computerized financial management (FINPRO) andan asset recording and management system in 1999. Observations of the ICR mission in visits to severalstores, workshops and laboratories indicate that there is considerable scope to further improve fixed assetmanagement. The process of annual research and budget planning within a rolling five-year plan has
Carried out by NARO in support of the ICR preparation (January/February 2000), see Annex 8.
- 7 -
been introduced but is not yet fully effective6, especially in programs constrained by inadequate non-salary operating funds. Given that inter-institute and program coordination in plan and budgetdevelopment are not yet fully operational, there is some inefficiencyin resource utilization. A researchmanagement program (INFORM developed by ISNAR) has also been introduced to track researchprograms and activities but has still to be fully utilized.
Terms and Conditions of Service. Project funding included some US$10 million for staff salariesand allowances, equivalent to about 35% of total project costs. The intention was that salaries andallowances should be high enough to allow scientists to dedicate themselves full-time to research, attractand retain high quality staff, and support a possible establishment of 840 staff. Soon after CreditEffectiveness, SAR costed salaries and allowance levels were substantially increased, and serviceconditions to adjust for inflation and make them competitive. However, because of this major salaryadjustment, funds have not subsequently been available to apply performance-based incentives throughpromotion or incremental advance5 , and to fill positions falling vacant. The staff establishment has fallenfrom a peak of about 780 in 1998 to 709 in early 2000 (including 187 scientific staff). The inability tofill a relatively small number of key vacant scientific positions through re-deployment or recruitment hashad a disproportionate impact on research implementation in a number of programs. Although NAROsalary and allowance levels have become less competitive when compared to those of MAAI 9, turnoverof senior staff has not been excessive. For example in 1998 and 1999, senior staff loss averaged 5% perannum (mainly through death and retirement).
Agricultural Research Information Service (ARIS). ARIS has been developed into an effectivecenter for coordinating and disseminating information to NARO scientists and other stakeholders. Itprovides several services such as literature search and document delivery and has also established anagricultural research and information network, an electronic library and publishes a Journal ofAgricultural Science. Six Institute libraries were equipped with computers. Books, periodicals and CDROM databases were acquired in partnership with international information centers. Email and internetconnections with all Institutes have improved communication.
Research and Extension Liaison Unit (RELU). One research and extension liaison officer fromMAAIF has been posted to each Institute to promote and co-ordinate outreach activities and facilitatefarmer-extension-research interaction. RELU activities include: extension training, needs assessmentstudies, pre-seasonal planning, technical workshops, on-farm demonstrations, farm field days, productionof brochures and leaflets, and publication of a monthly bulletin. Despite undertaking a broad range ofactivities, national impact has not fully met expectations, being constrained by organizationaluncertainties and the ineffectiveness of the partner extension operations. Under the follow-up of ARTPII, RELU activities are expected to be absorbed by the proposed Agricultural Research and DevelopmentCentres (ARDCs), and funding issues of extension addressed under the proposed National AgriculturalAdvisory Services Program (NAADS).
Monitoring, Evaluation and Planning Unit (MEPU). The establishment of MEPU was delayed andfaced serious problems of staff recruitment and high turnover. MEPU has developed an evaluationmanual with quantifiable indicators to track progress and determine impact, but methodologies foreconomic analysis and beneficiary assessment need further strengthening. In 1998, MEPU conducted anOrganisation Performance Assessment, which is a commendable step. Although this "self assessment"methodology needs to be refined, it made useful recommendations to improve NARO performance, mostof which are in line with the ICR findings. The most critical task facing MEPU is the development of a
6 QAG noted "the annual work plan tool was not adequately used, and the five year rolling plan did not materialisemaking it difficult for NARO to properly update the research program".An analysis of salaries and allowances indicates an increase of over 100% for all grades (Annex 7, Table ST 4).A staff performance assessment process was developed with technical assistance support and introduced in 1997. Itproved cumbersome, was revised and the 1998/99 assessment is now underway.
9 Table ST 4 indicates that even after the major increase in the MAAIF remuneration package, existing NARO terms arestill better, though NARO terms are generally below those of other parastatals in Uganda.
- 8 -
management information system (MIS) to track research progress and implementation and serve as a toolfor management; and the development of capacity to evaluate research benefits and impact. NARO willbe seeking the assistance of outside consultants to develop the MIS as well asoperationalize the M&Efunction of MEPU.
Studies and Technical Assistance. The project intended to focus heavily on identifying sources ofincremental research funding, including the possibility of establishing a research endowment trust,identifying contract research opportunities from Government and agribusiness, and optimizing donorcontributions. In 1996, a study on "Sustainable Funding Initiative" proposed a range of direct revenuegeneration opportunities, and discussed cess and trust fund options, but without apparent outcome. Nonew initiatives have been taken and NARO has mostly pursued incremental funding through other donorsand international agencies. These contributions have proved vitally important in running researchprograms but their total annual contribution has not increased since 1993 (Annex 7, Table ST3).Significant technical assistance (TA) input was employed for research and education capacity buildingand for management support and institutional capacity building. The output of TA was generallypositive.
Rehabilitation of Research Institutes (US$4.2 million)
The project financed the rehabilitation of buildings at SAARI, LIRI and FIRI, which wascompleted by September 2000. Savings generated on this sub-component allowed undertakingrehabilitation of laboratories and improvement of utilities (electricity and water systems) at KARI. Muchwork remains to be done, especially at SAARI where laboratory rehabilitation was not included. Thefuture maintenance of these rehabilitated buildings is a concern given the inadequate maintenance budgetsin the past and early deterioration seen at some rehabilitated housing. Vehicle and equipmentprocurement for the Institutes was completed ahead of schedule. This sub-component has significantlyimproved the working environment of the concerned Institutes.
Execution of Priority Research Programs (US$12.3 million)
This component included mainly funding of NARO staff incremental salaries and allowances, andalso non-salary operating costs to complement on-going and future priority research. In 1991, GOU hadundertaken several studies that formed the basis for preparing the National Agricultural ResearchStrategy and Plan (NARSP), which set national research priorities, largely on a commodity basis, toaddress the country's agricultural development objectives. The project succeeded in providing animproved enabling environment for agricultural research and, as staff were gradually recruited andbenefited from training, research on identified priorities was implemented. Although generallycompatible with NARSP priorities, a large number of small research projects have been supported byvarious donors and agencies (Table 7a ST3), which could have been better coordinated and consolidatedinto fewer more focused priority research activities. Notably, most research programs have establishedgood collaboration with International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs).
A marked focus on crop breeding and introduced variety screening has led to release of over 50varieties (Borrower's ICR, Table 3). There was less emphasis on equally important cross-cutting andfarming systems-based issues such as agricultural engineering (labor-saving technologies, farmimplements), soil fertility and weed management, post-harvest and socio-economic aspects. Livestockresearch appeared well balanced between production and health issues, and fisheries between productionand resource management issues. Forestry activities covered both forest management, production andagro-forestry. Demand-driven, participatory research planning and implementation methodologies havebeen introduced, through interactions with IARCs and NGOs, but they are not yet fully internalized. Inaddition, priority has been increasingly given to on-farm research. In spite of the economic importance of
-9-
the coffee industry (65% of foreign exchange earnings), coffee research appeared relatively under-resourced'°. NARO needs to vigorously pursue additional funding contribution from the UCDA.
NARO was able to adjust its work program and mobilize financial and human resources tosuccessfully respond to major crises threatening the sector, in particular for the ACMD outbreak and thewater hyacinth infestation on Lakes Victoria and Kyoga. A similar approach is expected to be developedto address the Coffee Wilt Disease threat which is currently occurring throughout the Robustacoffeegrowing areas.
Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training (US$5.3 million)
The project provided funds for staff training and for developing the education capacity at MAK.Higher degree training and short courses were to be sponsored locally and overseas in priority disciplines.Capacity building at MAK was supported through a twinning arrangement with Ohio State and CornellUniversities to improve the curriculum of Bukalasa Agricultural College and develop non-degree trainingthrough a continuing education program. US$0.8 million was provided to establish a ContinuingAgricultural Education Centre at Makerere University's Agricultural Research Institute in Kabanyolo.Training was well planned and covered the priority needs identified at appraisal for scientific,management and support staff; 24 NARO and 40 MAK staff benefited from higher degree training (29Ph.D. and 35 M.Sc., see Annex 7a, Table ST4). Candidates performed well (100% pass rate) and oncompletion all were absorbed into NARO and MAK as research officers and lecturers. In addition, some840 short-term training sessions were undertaken in a range of topics including: participatorymethodologies, scientific publication, management information systems, leadership, teamwork, strategicplanning, logical framework, financial management and computer use. The performance of thecomponent is considered highly satisfactory.
4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return:
Being a first phase of a long-term research development process, appraisal considered thatconventional cost/benefit analysis was not an appropriate measure for evaluation of this project, whichfocused on institutional developmente". SAR justification was based on a number of studies undertakenin other countries that have shown strong positive relationships between spending on agricultural researchand changes in produc.ivity. As an indication of the order of magnitude of the returns of research, thepotential effects on banana production were analyzed during appraisal. The analysis indicated that if theresearch program were able to increase banana yields by 10 percent starting in the year 2000, the benefitswould provide a rate of return of between 35 and 40 percent of the full cost of the six-year project and onincremental recurrent funding requirements over 20 years. Several success stories provide indications ofpositive returns. The resolution of the African Cassava Mosaic Disease (ACMD) epidemic which had acatastrophic effect on cassava production and food security is one example. It is estimated that, between1988 and 1993, cassava annual production had dropped by some 70%, from 3.5 to around 1 millionmetric tons (equivalent to US$100 million). The subsequent development of ACMD tolerant varietiesand their dissemination covered 150,000 hectares and resulted in the recovery of the crop so that, by1999, production exceeded pre-epidemic levels.
4.4. Financial Rate of Return (not calculated)
4.5. Institutional development impact:
As already discussed above, the project had a highly significant impact on institutionaldevelopment and strengthening of NARO capacity to manage the national agricultural research system.
IS In 1998/99, coffee research budget amounted to some US$400,000, equivalent to just 0.15% of US$283 million, thetotal value of the crop, and only 15% of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority cess in that year.The second phase (ARTP II) invests more into research operations and an ERR has been calculated.
- 10-
5. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME
5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implemenfing agency:
NARO was unable to retain economists and finance staff, as its terms and conditions for thosepositions are not competitive on the market. As a result the M&E and finance departments wereunderstaffed for much of the project's duration.
5.2 Factors generally subject to government control:
Political stability and economic growth combined with a strong commitment on the parts ofGovernment, NARO management and staff provided a positive environment for institutional reform anddevelopment. This commitment was witnessed by the provision of adequate Government counterpartfunding (though not always timely) which eventually exceeded SAR estimates.
The absence of a clear government seed and planting material policy and a lack of private sectorinterest in seed and planting material production restrict diffusion of superior crop varieties and adverselyaffected research impact. In recent years, the radical reorganization of the national extension service andchronic under-funding has rendered field level extension almost non-operational and in turn impededfeedback from farmer to research, thus limiting technology dissemination, and adoption, and researchimpact.
5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control:
A well designed TA input provided critical support to NARO management in establishing the neworganization and developing operational procedures. The satisfactory outcome of the human resourcedevelopment training activities through a twinning arrangement between NARO and MAK with OhioState and Cornell universities was instrumental achieving the success of the training component and inimproving the capacities of NARO and MAK to fulfil their respective mandates. The continuity andeffective partnership between NARO management and the Bank Task Team were a further importantfactor exerting positive influence on outcome.
The major structural salary and allowance increase of 1993, although gratifying staff at the time,had an adverse long-term impact on morale. Effectively, it committed all salary and allowance provisionsunder the Credit, leaving little scope to apply intended performance-based financial incentives,subsequent inflation-linked salary adjustment, or even to replace key staff. Remuneration levels havethus been largely stagnant for over seven years, diminishing NARO competitiveness; staff have not beenrewarded for good performance and morale has eroded. In addition, the delayed recruitment (or re-deployment where feasible) to replace critical professional staff who left the organization has hamperedresearch implementation in several programs.
The current geographic distribution of research facilities and NAROSEC, and operationalprocedures have: (a) resulted in excessive demand on transport, with related high operating costs and timespent "on the road"; and (b) made on-farm research operations expensive and technology development formost zones more difficult. Lack of flexibility in sharing staff resources between Institutes and Programshas also reduced efficiency12. GOU/IDA co-financing arrangements of non-salary research operatingcosts proved difficult to operate and resulted in inadequate and patchy fund releases frequentlyconstraining research operations, especially those on-farm.
12 Cognisant of this, NARO is considering the introduction of a project approach whereby staff and resources could beused across programs and institutes. This would seem appropriate for specific research and outreach activitiesrequiring multi-disciplinary inputs, within the current program framework.
- 11-
5.4 Costs andfinancing:
Financial management and disbursement rates have been fully satisfactory. The total cost of thesix-year project was estimated at US$28.9 million, of which US$25.04 million was to be funded by IDA(SDR 17.8 million) and US$3.8 million by GOU. The DCA was amended once in August 1997 to adjustcategory allocations and disbursement percentages. The original Credit Closing Date was December 31,2000, but it was revised to September 30, 2000 due to early project completion At project closure, totaldisbursements amounted to US 25.2 million (SDR 17.8 million). The project disbursement rate hasclosely tracked the SAR disbursement plan. Total GOU counterpart funding amounted to an equivalentof US$7.0 million, far exceeding the planned contribution of US$3.8 million. Project procurement andcivil works have been completed, although there was an earlier problem in the procedures for acceptingdelivery of tractors, which had been since rectified'3.
6. SUSTAINABILITY
6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating:
Sustainability is assured in the short-term by the continued IDA support under ARTP II, byongoing and anticipated support from bilateral donors and international agencies and by Governmentcommitment to provide adequate counterpart funding. However, longer-term sustainability is still to besecured. At present, NARO is heavily donor dependent as over 60% of total expenditures are financedfrom external sources (Annex 7a, Table ST3). On completion of ARTP II in 2005, the annual charges forsalaries, allowances and operating costs are estimated to be some US$4.7 million, whereas currentdevelopment budget contributions to NARO are around 30% of what would be required in five years'time.
Similarly, as the real costs of maintaining the NARS are not readily apparent to Government (i.e.,over 60% of costs borne by donors), a larger than sustainable organization may develop, based on apremise of perpetual donor support. The medium-term financial and institutional sustainability of NAROwill to a large degree depend on Government capacity to increase its direct contribution, and on NAROcapacity to generate significant revenues through cost recovery on services, and in raising extra resourcesthrough commercial activities and cess income. In the longer run, experience from other parts of theworld suggests that the development of new agricultural technology would come from a combination ofpublic and private sector investment. By supporting the development of a research capacity throughtraining and practical research experience within NARO, and by establishing a policy environment thatencourages the development of research based on private sector companies, many new technologieswould be developed with no additional government funding needed.
6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:
The next five years will be a critical transition period in which to address the sustainability issue.NARO must accord high priority to revenue generation opportunities. Current rules and proceduresgoverning such activities should be reviewed with Government to ensure that disincentives are removedand positive incentives put in place. Opportunities to increase research funding from cess funds should beexplored. There are opportunities to privatize coffee research and possibly increase industrialcontribution in the cotton sector. NARO should also review options for institutional consolidation and toimprove efficiency through containing its own operational and administrative costs. NARO commitment
'3 The main issue has been the procurement of 10 tractors and equipment that proved unsuitable and most of which arenow unusable (many with hardly 1000 hours on the clock). This problem was not reported promptly to suppliers andIDA within warranty periods. Though NARO had recommended that the third lowest bidder be accepted as neither ofthe lower two had well established post sales servicing, IDA guidelines required acceptance of the lowest evaluatedbidder.
- 12 -
to decentralize operations by establishing 12 Agricultural Research and Development Centres (ARDCs)will further challenge its long-term sustainability. It is suggested that a study be undertaken to determinethe sustainable size of the NARS, including review of staff requirements, Institute/Centre numbers andlocations, current organization and operational procedures, and sustainable funding arrangements.
7. BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE
Bank
7.1 Lending:
The performance of the Bank was generally satisfactory. Given the institutional complexity andsignificant design changes during preparation, lending development was managed efficiently. Althoughidentification mission views on the need to decentralize research were not given priority attention,preparation otherwise adequately covered major aspects giving strong emphasis to critical institutionaldevelopment. Appraisal recognized administrative weakness inherent in a newly organized implementingagency and rightly made substantial TA provisions in initial years to support financial management andaccounts, procurement, and the development of research management systems including planning andbudgeting processes. This proved critical and was generally successful. The severe financial constraintsof GOU pertaining at that time were also recognized and an appropriate financing package was devisedwhereby IDA funded 90% of total costs net of taxes, including a high proportion of NARO salary costs.
7.2 Supervision:
The Bank supervision is considered satisfactory by the ICR, but marginally satisfactory by QAG'4.Supervision has generally been constructive and focused on the major implementation issues. However,because of limited budgetary resources, intensive and early supervision emphasis was given towards theestablishment of research management and operation, and financial and internal control systems ofNARO, leaving minimal coverage to other aspects like the establishment of capacities for M&E, humanresource management, revenue generation initiatives, and in the general encouragement of a morebusiness-oriented culture within NARO management. The major increase in salary scales, introducedunilaterally by GOU in 1993, was not identified early enough as a problem which would impact onNARO's subsequent ability to apply performance-based financial incentives and on the early depletion ofIDA funds allocated for salaries. IDA brought the matter to the attention of the borrower, whichsubsequently provided additional funds to pay salaries.
7.3 Overall Bankperformance:
Overall, the Bank performance has been satisfactory. IDA staff inputs have been consistent, withthe same task management and technical back-stopping team from preparation through completion and inappraisal of the follow-up project. Such consistency has clear advantages and has facilitated aconstructive and collaborative working relationship. The ICR-does not share the concerns expressed inthe QAG report on the wisdom of retaining the same Task Team Leader and support team frompreparation through completion. OED has in the past been consistently critical of the disruption causedby frequent changes in the task management of projects so an effort has been made to address thisconcern. Bank supervision missions have been complemented by specialists from the Bank and outsideto ensure a "fresh and objective" look at the project. The Borrower in its report recognized the benefits ofhaving to deal with the same task manager over the life of the project which has allowed speedy actionand resolution of implementation issues.
4 ICR considers supervision satisfactory overall because main project objectives were achieved and because, asrecognised by QAG, supervision was constrained by limited resources.
- 13 -
Borrower
7.4 Preparation.
The Borrower managed the preparation of the project satisfactorily. It created a Working Group onResearch comprising all the relevant stakeholders to prepare a National Agricultural Research Strategyand Plan which became the basis for ARTP. The ARTP is wholly owned by the Borrower.
7.5 Government implementation performance:
The Borrower's provision of recurrent operating costs has been sporadic at times but its totalcontribution to the project exceeded its commitments. The additional amount was made available toprovide for NARO staff salaries towards the end of the project. The efficient and effectiveimplementation is manifested in the closure of the project 3-months ahead of the original closing date.
7.6 Implementing Agency.
NARO has implemented the project satisfactorily and completed it ahead of schedule. It hasestablished an efficient accounting and internal control systems, procurement and fixed assetsmanagement procedures, and successfully managed and completed the civil works and the trainingcomponents which involved MAK.
7.7 Overall Borrower performance:
Overall, borrower performance has been satisfactory. Ownership has been strong from the outsetand although funding of non-salary research operating costs has been sporadic, overall counterpartfunding has exceeded commitments. The Borrower has performed well in establishing a nationalorganization and in setting up and internalizing effective operational procedures for research planning,financial management, procurement, and training management. The Borrower has not, however,established an effective M&E capacity to measure project impact and is still in the process of introducingperformance based financial incentives for its staff. Given current strategies to decentralize researchresources, greater emphasis should be accorded to issues of NARO long-term financial sustainability,including opportunities to rationalize and consolidate institutional arrangements, improve financialefficiency and minimize overhead administrative costs within the organization.
8. LESSONS LEARNED
In the course of project implementation the following lessons were learnt:
* Changing the status of a research organization (NARS) from a government department to asemi-autonomous organization does not automatically result in more dynamic management, achange of culture and greater efficiency. Effective research management systems,particularly research planning and operational procedures, as well as budgeting, financialmanagement and controls have to be put in place. NARS management and Bank supervisionhave to be pro-active from the outset and give attention to monitoring and evaluation ofperformance of the research programs and staff, and the institution of an incentive frameworkto reward outstanding performance.
* The genetic potential of most existing varieties is far from being fully exploited on-farm, andsubstantial production gains can accrue from various approaches to improved farmmanagement, i.e., integrated pest management, weed management, soil, crop and animalhusbandry. To exploit this opportunities, research and extension should give as great anemphasis to addressing farm and crop management constraints vis-a-vis plant breeding.
* As illustrated by the cassava and water hyacinth programs, focusing research resources on afew critical production issues, the resolution of which can have rapid and substantial impact,
- 14 -
may make a more effective use of resources than dispersing them over a large number ofsmall activities.
* In instances where competent staff cannot be attracted or retained (e.g., in M&E, financialmanagement, and socio-economics), or in cases where the institution has no internalcomparative advantage in providing a service or activity (e.g., vehicle and machinery repairand maintenance, as well as baseline and impact studies), these activities should be contractedout.
* Given the typically under-funded status of many NARS, financial sustainability should not bedependent on Government and donor support alone. Fund raising should become arecognized function of research managers. Researchers must also do what they can to raisefunds and government should take steps to encourage the development of technologies by theprivate sector. In this regard, the establishment of a research trust fund or researchfoundation/endowment should be vigorously pursued.
* Good cooperation and continuity between the implementing agency, the Bank and the keyTA contribute to a real partnership and smooth implementation; the benefits of Bank supportteam continuity are exemplified by this project. Bank management should ensure that suchcontinuity be complemented by backstopping from other specialists within and outside theBank, as necessary.
9. PARTNER COMMENTS
(a) Borrower/implementing agency.
NARO prepared an Implementation Completion Report on behalf of the Borrower (November2000), whose findings are largely in line with those described in this ICR. The report is attached asAnnex 7b. The findings of the Beneficiary Assessment carried out by the Borrower in early 2000, arepresented as Annex 8.
(b) Cofinanciers.
Other donors'"5 contribution to the project are given in Annex 7a, Table ST3).
(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector).
The Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries considers this project highly successfulin establishing NARO as a strong organization to serve as the vanguard to support agriculturaldevelopment in Uganda. ISNAR regards the process and collaborative efforts of donors, the InternationalAgricultural Research Centers and the Government in establishing NARO a model for other countries tofollow.
s Other donors include: DANIDA, DFID, EU, FAO, Gastsby Foundation, GTZ, IDRC, IFAD, Rockefeller Foundation,U7NDP, USAID, and WHO aggregating to about $6.5 million over the life of the project.
- 15-
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Annex 1
Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix
Outcome/Impact Indicators:
Indicator/Matrix Projected in SAR Actual
Per capita rural income Increased from US$ 180 to US$ 250 US$ 250
Food production and security Yields of food crops - cassava and beans Cassava, national average yields increased byincreased by 5% 50% from 6.5 tons/ha in 1994 to 10 tons in
1998
Beans from 650 kg/ha to 700 kg/ha; anincrement of 7.7%
Reduction of crop imports Maize by 50% No record
Agricultural exports Coffee earnings to agricultural export Contribution of coffee declined from 74.6%declined to ... % (not defined) in 1994 to 51 % in 1999
Comprehensive institutional Doneframework forNARS establishedMajor technology constraints n.a.16 Contribution (part of long-term programme)facing farmers alleviated
Output Indicators:Research/Extension Linkages Projected in SAR ActualNo. of extension district workers 50% of district extension workers over 1,000 trainedtrained in new technologies exposed to 10 new technologies
NARO Technical Workshops for n.a. 341 stakeholder workshopsExtension Workers
No. of on-farm demonstrations 100% increment (base not defined) 108 demonstrations
No. of field days I in two years per Institute (about 25) 656 in 5 years
No. of district planning n.a. No recordworkshops attended
No. of farmers trained n.a. around 2,900
Adoption rates of ARTP 5 new technologies by 10% of 70.7% adopted improved beans. 45.7%technologies beneficiaries adopted improved millet (Pese 1)
2-new technologies by 30% of 72% adopted improved cassava varietiesbeneficiaries 63.3% adopted I ground nut variety
66.1% of acreage under sweet potato isreportedly planted with improved varieties inKatakwi and Soroti districts
Effectiveness Projected in SAR ActualResearch priorities set for all Set in 1994 and validated after 1995NARO research programmes
No. of new technologies 2 per programme 253 technologies developed between 1993-developed per programme l998'7'
16 n.a. = not available (not defined).17This figure, reported by NARO, is largely above target, and should be read with caution, as a number of
technologies were transferred/promoted by NARO, but had been developed elsewhere or before ARTP.
- 16 -
Outcome/Impact Indicators:Indicator/Matrix Projected in SAR ActualNo. of annual programme I annual meeting per Institute I meeting per Institute for 9 Institutes sinceplanning meetings with 1995-99stakeholder
Collaborative research 10% of all research involving external No recordprogrammes collaborators
No. of Donor coordination 2 per year Less than I per year, donors met separatelymeetings convened by NAROMAK students using NARO 10 of MAK postgraduates undertake 23 MAK postgraduates received fundingfacilities and staff research in NARO under ARTPI, 9 of them NARO staff.NARO staff teaching in MAK 10% of staff No record
No. of scientific publications To increase by 50% (base not defined) 535 publications
10 workshop proceedings
114 articles in Bulletin/Newspaper
73 Annual Reports150 Journal articles/Research paper/Bookchapter
Operating procedures for finance, Procurement committee set-up Doneprocurement and M&E developed Financial manual set-upand tested Computerisation
Improved Research Capacity of NARONo. of new PhDs in NARO 10 13No. of new MSc in NARO 11 11No. of women in research Increment of 30% (base not defined) From 16% in 1993 to 21% in 1999NARO
Short-term training 20% staff participating each year, 840 sessionsequivalent to some 860 over six years
No. of buildings rehabilitated Construction of NARO office and Detailed designs preparedrehabilitation
Staff quarters and housing 41 constructed/rehabilitatedDormitory at MUARIK Continuing Agricultural Education CentreRehabilitation of teaching facilities at completed in September 2000, dormitoryMUARIK completed
No. of laboratories rehabilitated KARI Tissue culture laboratory operationaland equipped Laboratory block at LIRI completed by
LIRI, FIRI and SAARI September 2000Three Institutes rehabilitated
No. of vehicles procured n.a. 55 from 1993-1998No. of computers procured n.a. 54 from 1993-1998Training in MIS for NARO Train 22 scientists in NARO 60 scientists and technicians trainedresearch managers
Makerere University Projected in SAR ActualNo. of new PhDs in MAK 15 16
No. of new MSc in MAK 31 24 (7 to be completed by 2000/2001)
1/ Projections were finalized in 1998.
- 17 -
Outcome/Impact Indicators: Projected in SAR Actual/Latest Estimate
Indicator/Matrix% of female undergraduates in 30% 18%agriculture in MAK
Centre for Continuing Education Operational Buildings completed, operational December(Kabanyole) 2000
No. of contract research projects n.a. None
Contribution of contract research Volume to increase by 2% Noneprojects to budget
No. of research projects n.a. 140 researchers falling under 20 projectsfocussing on export commodities focusing on coffee, maize, fish, cotton and
cocoaContribution of private funding 5% of operating costs and 20% of costs UCDA contributed to COREC, otherto NARO budget of export commodities financed by commodities < 5%
private sector
No. of sustainable fund raising At least one fund raising project for each Noneactivities developed and Instituteoperationalised
Staff turnover % Below 10% 12%
Annex 2a
Project Costs and Financing (in US$ million Equivalent)l/
Project Component Appraisal Estimate Actual Percentage ofAppraisal
Institutional Development 7.02 9.96 142%
Rehabilitation of Research Institutes 4.20 3.67 87%
Priority Research Programs 2/ 12.34 13.41 109%
Agricultural Education, Makerere 5.31 5.16 92%UniversityTOTAL 28.87 32.20 112%
1/ including taxes.2/ Of which some US$ 10 million for NARO staff salaries and allowances.
- 18-
Annex2b
Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (in US$ Million Equivalent)
Expenditure Categories Procurement Method Appraisa Procurement Method LatestEstimate Estimate
ICB LCB Other Total ICB LCB Other Total1. Works 2.98 2.98 2.47 2.472. Goods 2.53 0.22 0.2 2.95 2.98 0.95 3.933. Services 8.63 8.63 9.62 9.624. Miscellaneous I 14.31 14.31 0.28 15.88 16.16Total 2.53 3.2 23.14 28.87 3.26 2.47 25.98 32.10
Annex 2c
Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)
Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/LatestEstimate 1/ Percentage of
Bank GOU Bank GOU Bank GOU
Institutional Development 6.22 0.80 8.69 1.27 160 159Rehabilitation of Research Institutes 4.04 0.16 3.47 0.20 86 125Priority Research Programs 9.49 2.85 7.90 5.51 83 193Agricultural Ecucation/Makerere 5.29 0.02 5.12 0.04 97 200Total Project Costs 25.04 3.83 25.18 7.02 2/ 100 183
1/ Estimate of final expenditure made March 2000.2/ Including taxes: US$1.03 million at appraisal and US$ 2.75 million actual.
Annex 3
Economic Costs and Benefits
Present Value of FlowsEconomic Analysis I Financial Analysis
Appraisal Latest Estimates Appraisal Latest Estimates
Benefits Not ApplicableCosts
Net Benefits|IRR/NPV ____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ____9
- 19 -
Annex 4a
Bank Inputs: Site Visits
Stage of Project Cycle Month/Year No. of Persons and Performance Ratings2/Specialityl/
Implementation DevelopmentProgress Objectives
Identification/Preparation 1989Pre-preparation Mar-90 Ag; AR n.a.
Preparation Apr-May 1991 Ag; AR; LR; FR; CR; Ex n.a.
Final Preparation Sep-Oct. 1991 Ag; Ex (2); Ec n.a.
Pre-appraisal Jan-Feb.1992 Ag; Ex (2); Ec n.a.
Second Pre-appraisal Apr-May 1992 Ag; Ex (3); Ag; FA; Ec n.a.Appraisal Jun-July 1992 Ag; FA (2); Pr; AR; FM n.a.Negotiation to Effective.
l ~~~~~~~~~SUPERVISIONS (SPN)|Supervision I Oct 21 - Nov 11, 1993 Ag; AR[Supervision 2 Jun 24 - July 9, 1994 Ag; Fi S S
Supervision 3 Jan 29 - Feb 11, 1995 Ag; FM S SSupervision 4 (MTR) Feb 1-22, 1996 Ag; FA; Tr (3) Ec; AR (2) SS
Supervision 6 March 18- April 8, 1997 Ag; AR (2) FA S SSupervision 7 June 24 - July 9, 1997 Ag; Ec; Tr S S
Supervision 8 Jan 30 - Feb 10, 1998 Ag; AR; FA S SSupervision 9 June 24 - July 10, 1998 Ag; AR; Ec (2); AS; Ag S SSupervision 10 Nov 9-23, 1998 Ag S SSupervision 11 Aug 3-13, 1999 Ag; AS S SSupervision 12 Feb. 2000 Ag, Ec (2) S S
ICR Feb. 2000 Ag, AS, SE S S
1/Ag = Agriculturalist Ec = Economist Ed = Agricultural EducationAR = Agricultural Research FA = Financial Analyst CE = Civil EngineerLR = Livestock Research Pr = Procurement Fi = Fisheries ResearchFR = Forest Research FM = Financial Management Tr = Training
AS = Agricultural ServicesCR = Crop Research Ex = Extension SE = Socio-economist
2/ S = Satisfactory
- 20 -
Annex 4b
Bank Inputs: Staff
Stae Of Project Cycle Actual/Latest EstimateEstimated No. SWS UIS$ ('000)
Identification/Preparation 162.8 319.1
Appraisal/Negotiations 33.5 108.6
Supervision 189.5 702.4
ICR 14.9 63.2
Total 400.7 1,193.3
Note: * Also includes Bank-financed and trust fund consultants
Annex 5
Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components
Objectives/Outputs Highly Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Highly NotSatisfactory Unsatisfactory Applicable
Macro Policies XSector Policies XPhysical XFinancial X _
Institutional Development XEnvironmental XSocial:
Poverty Reduction _ XGender . XOther (Specify)Private Sector Development X
Public Sector Management XOther (Specify)
Notes: ** Relates to the objectives specified in the SAR*** Relates to the outputs specified in the PAD
- 21 -
Annex 6
Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
Highly Satisfactory Unsatisfactory HighlySatisfactory ;7fUnsatisfactory
Bank Performance.Lending XSupervision XOverall XBorrower Performance.Preparation _ XGovernment _ _ _ X _ X_ _
Implementation XPerformance XImplementing Agency X _ X
Annex 7
List of Supporting Documents and Additional Information
Annex 7a. Supplementary Tables
ST 1: NARO's Institutes And their Mandates
1. Kawanda Agricultural Banana, horticulture, post-harvest crop losses, soils and soil fertilityResearch Institute (KARI) management and any other field as approved by the Board
2. Namulonge Agricultural Cassava; Solanum potato; sweet potato; yams; maize; rice; beans;and Animal Production animal production, integrated pest management, agro-meteorology andResearch Institute (NAARI) any other field as approved by the Board
3. Serere Agricultural and Animal Cotton; groundnuts; sesame; sunflower; sorghum; millet; legumes,Production Research Institute animal production and any other field as approved by the Board(SAARI)
4. Fisheries Research Institute (FIRI) Capture fisheries, fishing technology, fish production processes,aquatic environment, aquaculture, post-harvest handling, and any otherfield as approved by the Board
5. Forestry Research Institute (FORI) Natural forests, plantation forests, forest products and utilisation,agroforestry, recreation, and any other field as approved by the Board
6. Livestock Health Research Institute Animal health and any other field as approved by the Board(LIRI)
7. Agricultural Engineering and Farm power source and implements: Agricultural processing andAppropriate Technology Research storage; Environmentally friendly energy sources; Water harvestingInstitute (AEATRI) structures; Soil conservation, irrigation and drainage and any other
field as approved by the Board8. Food Science and Technology Food quality and hygiene, food preservation, processing storage,
Research Institute (FOSRI) marketing, nutrition and any other field as approved by the Board9. Coffee Research Centre (COREC) Coffee; Oil palm; Cocoa and any other field as approved by the Board
- 22 -
ST 2: Project Financing by Disbursement Category (US$ million)
IDA GOU IDA GOU1. Civil Works 2.09 0.15 1.89 0.092. Equip., Vehicles 2.89 0.03 3.20 0.053. TA/Consultants 3.66 - 3.77 -
4. Training 4.75 - 4.745. Studies 0.29 - 0.40 -
Total Investment Cost 13.68 0.18 13.95 0.146 (a) Salaries/Allowance 8.08 2.23 8.02 3.246 (b) Operating Costs 3.29 0.39 3.21 0.89Total Recurrent 11.36 2.62 11.23 4.13Total Project 25.04 2.80 25.18 4.27Taxes - 1.03 - 2.75Total Project Taxes 25.04 3.83 25.18 7.02
ST 3: Funding of Agricultural Research (from all sources) (US$ '000)
GOU. Development BudgetARTP (IDA) 0.13 0.28 0.61 0.61 0.87 1.64 4.14CSDP (IDA) - 0.04 - 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.23Other Donors - 1.18 0.50 1.07 0.61 0.61 3.97Sub-total 0.13 1.50 1.11 1.75 1.54 2.31 8.34GOU. Recurrent Budget 1.2 1.74 1.22 1.64 1.59 1.59 8.98GOU Total 1.33 3.24 2.33 3.39 3.113 3.90 17.32LoansIDA ARTP/2446 2.26 4.67 5.87 4.01 4.31 3.92 25.04IDA ARTPII - - - - - 0.15 0.15IDA CSDP/2609 - 0.21 - 0.21 0.73 0.55 1.70IDA ASAC/2190"8 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 2.50IFAD 316019 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 1.49Sub-total 3.01 5.63 6.62 4.97 5.79 4.86 30.88Grants 2.40 4.10 3.40 4.50 2.00 2.60 19.00Other DonorsTotal all donors 5.41 9.73 10.02 9.47 7.79 7.46 49.88Total all Sources 6.74 12.97 12.35 12.86 10.92 11.36 67.20% GOU of Total 34 25 19 26 29 34 26
Is Estimates.9 Estimates.
- 23 -
ST 4: Comparison of Annual Salaries and Allowances°: ARTP and MAAIF(US$ Equivalent)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __0707700 7S W_ L _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ 19 3' 9 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Categoi;- ARTP ARTP MAAIF MAAIF ARTP11UR2 (i) 5,130 13,000 (153)26 420 12,700 16,120 (25)27UR4 2,800 5,750 (105) 250 4,956 9,520 (63)UR5 (i) 2,250 4,800 (113) 175 1,890 8,100 (68)PR6 1,430 3,100 (116) 175 1.862 4,320 (40)
ST 5: NARO Scientific Staffing at JULY 19998
Economics/ Socio economics 12 6Engineering 8 4Agronomy/Agriculture 22 11Animal Health/ Production 26 14Entomology 7 4Plant Breeding/Genetics 20 10Horticulture IForestry/Environment 6 3Plant Protection 23 12Plant Production/Physiology 9 5Fisheries 13 7Food Science 3 1Natural Resources 3 1Basic and Support Sciences 23 12Soil Science/Survey 12 7Other 4 2
192 100
20 Allowances include Housing (50% Base); Education/Travel (10% of Base); and Medical (10% of Base). 20% of baseprovident fund for ARTP staff is not included.
21 Exchange rate USh 1170 per US$.22 Exchange Rate USh 1087 per US$.23 Includes allowances paid as cash supplement. Other hidden payments may not have been captured.24 Exchange rate USh 1340 per US$ for 1998 and 2001 proposed salaries. Salary scale for 2001 as included in ARTPII
costs.25 Mid -point of scale.26 % salary and allowance increase over SAR estimated costs.27 % salary and allowance increase over 1993 scale.28 Total NARO staff at 7/99 was 724, 28% of which are scientific and senior management and 725 technical,
administrative and support positions.
- 24 -
ST 6: Long-term Training (Ph.D. and MSc.)
Ph.D. SAR Actual SAR Actual SAR Actual
Overseas 10 10 9 8 19 18Universities
Regional - 2 - 2
Local (MAK) - 2 6 6 6 8
Other I I
Total 10 13 15 16 25 29
M.Sc.
Overseas 2 1 7 7 7 8Universities
Regional - 2 - 4 - 6
Local (MAK) 0 7 24 13 33 20
Other - 1 - - - I
Total 11 11 31 24 40 35
- 25 -
Annex 7b
Borrowers' ICR
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT
UGANDA
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAININGPROJECT (ARTP) - IDA Cr 2446 UG
November, 2000
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Prepared by:
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation UnitNational Agricultural Research Organisation
P.O. Box 295ENTEBBE.
- 26 -
1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND29
Uganda inherited a colonial agricultural research system which was designed to serve the industriesabroad. Research was not directed to serve the national requirements in terms of food security anddevelopment of domestic agro-industries. After independence, the system was fragmented and dispersedamong several government ministries without suitable structural and functional changes to respond to thedevelopment needs of the newly emerged country. During the civil war in '70s and early '80s, the oldresearch infrastructures were virtually destroyed and the research activities were reduced to a very lowlevel. Since 1986, determined efforts have been made to rehabilitate and reactivate the research system.These efforts were supported by various donors through disjointed activities as part of developmentprojects without addressing the total needs of the system. In recognition of the necessity of researchservices to support the economic recovery program, the government decided to reorganize and restructurethe old research system into a National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) to link, plan, directand coordinate all agricultural research in the country.
A semi-autonomous National Agricultural Research Organization was created by an act ofparliament in 1992, as recommended in the National Strategic Agricultural Research Plan drawn upearlier in 1991. The IDA-funded ARTP was designed to support the establishment of NARO and theimplementation of the Strategic Plan.
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND COMPONENTS
2.1 Project Objectives and Components
The project was designed to support the Government's strategy for improving productivity anddiversification in the agricultural sector through the development and transfer of improved technology.The broad objective of the project was to develop an organizational framework and institutional processesfor agricultural research which are sustainable and efficient as well as responsive to the productionconstraints facing farmers in Uganda. The specific objectives of the projects were threefold:
(a) launch and support the key activities of NARO, including high pricrity research;(b) strengthen the linkages and coordination among the research system, the extension
service and the agricultural faculties of the university; and,(c) improve agricultural education and training capacity.
To achieve its objectives, the Project supported four components over a period of seven years:
(a) Institutional Development of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) - US$ 7.02million. The project provided financing for:
(i) research management systems to improve the planning, priority-setting, and monitoringand evaluation of research programs;
(ii) the management and coordination of priority research programs;(iii) administrative and management systems and operational costs for vehicles and
equipment, and financial and accounting systems;(iv) the design of the Forestry Research Institute and the NARO headquarters;(v) the first-phase construction of the NARO headquarters office;
29 This report was compiled by the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (MEPU) and the Finance Unit ofNARO Secretariat with assistance from staff of the other units of the Secretariat and the Institutes. The NARO teamcomprised of Dr. Clesensio Tizikara, Director, MEPU; Dr. Gadi Gumisiriza, PRO (Projects); and Mr. J.B. Kanakulya,Associate Director for Finance.
- 27 -
(vi) the implementation of new Terms and Conditions of Service for Research;(vii) studies on sustainable funding for research;(viii) a mid-term review; and(ix) vehicles, and computers, audio-visual and other office equipment.
(b) Rehabilitation of NARO Research Institutes - US$ 4.20 million. The project providedfinancing to rehabilitate research offices, laboratories and staff housing at SAARI, FIRI, LIRI, thepartial rehabilitation of utility facilities (water, electricity and sewage) at KARI and thearchitectural designs for the FORI at Kifu, and the NARO headquarters at Kajansi, and to providevehicles and office, laboratory, and field equipment.
(c) Execution of High Priority Research Programs - US$ 12.34 million. The project providedfinancing to support:
(i) on-going, high-priority research programs;(ii) new research programs determined during the annual research planning process; and(iii) the incremental salaries and allowances of NARO staff under the new Terms and
Conditions of Service for Research.
(d) Strengthening ofAgricultural Education and Training Capacity - US$ 5.31 million. Theproject provided financing to support:
(i) upgrading the training and managerial capacity of the agricultural faculties of MAKunder: a "twinning arrangement"with an internationally renowned university and bysupporting the training of local and foreign degree candidates from MAK and NARO;
(ii) research support for young/newly returned professional staff;(iii) studies to improve the curricula of the agricultural colleges;(iv) the running costs of continuing education courses at MAK for MAAIF, NARO and the
private agribusiness sector;(v) constructing five staff houses, a classroom for continuing education and a dormitory for
postgraduate female students at MUARIK; and(vi) vehicles and field and office equipment for MUARIK
2.2 Special Loan Covenants/ Agreements
The list of agreements and assurances, as demanded by IDA, is indicated in the SAR (Section VII,pp.45-47) and the DCA (articles III, IV and VI). They represent special loan covenants/agreements andassurances that were expected to promote achievement of project objectives. IDA set a number ofconditions to be satisfied by GOU before ARTP could be declared effective, with June 1993 set as thedeadline for meeting those conditions. NARO met these conditions as indicated below:
Condition DatesAppointment of NARO Director General March 1993Appointment of NARO Deputy Director General May 1993Appointment of Financial Management Specialist (expatriate) March 1993Appointment of Procurement Specialist (expatriate) May 1993Establishing a viable accounting system May 1993Formal approval by GOU of NARO Scheme of Service June 1993Signing of Subsidiary Agreement between the Government and NARO June 1993Opening of Project Account (dollar & local) June 1993Audit report of the CMB for the period ending September 30, 1991 July 1993Legal opinion of Attorney General on DCA and Project Agreement August 1993
- 28 -
3. IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT
3.1 Start-up Activities and Credit Effectiveness
Implementation of ARTP I started with the preparatory activities under a project preparationfacilities (PPF) established in August 1992. This included establishment of interim NARO Secretariat,identification of staff candidates and sending them off for post-graduate training; procurement of somevehicles, office equipment; consultant services of a Financial Management and a Procurement Specialist,and a Consulting Firm for civil works. Government and NARO met all the conditions for crediteffectiveness before the stipulated time, except for the legal opinion from the Attorney General which wasdelayed for two months.
3.2 Achievement of Project Objectives
The revival of agricultural research in Uganda came through the creation of NARO. The 1991Strategic Plan for Agricultural Research defined the organizational framework for the establishment ofNARO and provided guidance on its legal status, governance mechanism, and research and resourcemanagement systems. NARO brought together a fragmented set of institutes within a single structure.
Under the institutional development component, support was provided for the establishment ofresearch management systems, administrative, financial and accounting systems, design and constructionof NARO headquarters (first phase) and designing of forestry research institute, implementation of newterms and condition of service for research, sustainable funding studies and the provision of vehicles,computers, audio-visual and other office equipment.
A Governing Board was appointed, under the NARO Statute, to guide and direct the activities ofNARO. Research planning at national level had been completed in 1991 with the preparation of aStrategic Plan for National Agricultural Research. These priorities were revisited and updated in 1994.
An annual research planning cycle was established and monitorable guidelines for researchprogram formulation were provided to the institutes for the preparation of annual research proposals.These were gradually developed into logical frameworks based on the NARO generic logframe.Research Planning and Review Committees were established to ensure stakeholder participation indeciding the research agenda and evaluating research outcomes. The annual research programs andbudgets were routinely prepared and submitted to IDA and GOU before the stipulated times.
An information management strategy and proposals for sustainable funding for NARO wereformulated but not implemented for lack of adequate funding. INFORM for agricultural researchmanagement was established at each institute and staff trained in the use of reflex software program forcreating data bases and reports for research management. Mechanisms were designed for management ofphysical and financial resources and supplies. NARO established a sound financial management (fullycomputerised), accounting and auditing system. Procurement of goods and services was completed onschedule. The civil works experienced initial delays but was eventually completed by project closure.
Overseas and local degree training was completed in record time, thanks to the very closecollaboration between NARO and Makerere University and the support of Cornell and Ohio StateUniversities.
Research planning was strengthened by shifting focus from disciplines to commodities andgradually to constraint-based projects. Participatory processes were adopted for prioritizing projectsbased on the identified constraints and opportunities existing within a defined production system. M&E
- 29 -
of research programs were, however, not consistently carried out. Instead, annual reviews of individualprograms determined priorities and set the research agenda.
Periodic performance assessments guided NARO Secretariat and Institutes in improvinggovernance and management processes. An annual staff performance assessment system was introducedand progressively updated with active staff participation. Procedures and methodologies for performanceevaluation of the organisation were developed and successfully tested. The evaluation carried outconcluded that the research restructuring effort had been largely successful. NARO is capable offormulating, coordinating and executing research to serve most farmers. Since its creation, NARO hasfocused on institutional capacity building, and has made rapid progress in releasing improved varieties formost food crops that are crucial to improving smallholder productivity and income.
3.3 Project Costs and Financing Arrangements
The allocation of project funds per eligible category and component is indicated in Annex 2a.The total project cost, as contained in the DCA of March 26, 1993 was US$ 28.87 million of which IDAwas to contribute US$ 25.04 million (SDR 17.8 million). GOU was to contribute US$ 3.83m of totalproject costs (Annex 2c). The project has since FY1993/94 received a total of US$ 7.01 millionequivalent in direct GOU contributions and taxes (Table l) which amounts to well over 180% of theexpected contribution from Government. In addition, NARO also received from GOU a total of USh 9.83billion (US$ 9.04 million equivalent) as recurrent budget allocations over the FY93/94 to FY98/99period.
Table 1. Project Costs by Source of Funds
CATEGORY IDA GOU TOTALSAR ACTUAL SAR ACTUAL SAR ACTUAL
Civil Works 2,382 1,785 149 89 2,531 1,874
Equipment & Vehicles 2,776 2,901 30 52 2,806 2,953T.A/Consultants 3,658 3,614 - - 3,658 3,614
Training 4,683 4,785 4,683 4,785
Studies 289 215 - - 289 215
Total Investment (A) 13,788 13,300 179 141 13,967 13,441Salaries & Allowances 8,075 7,885 2,232 3,242 10,307 11,127Operating Cost 3,182 3,270 384 882 3,566 5,152
Total Recurrent (B) 11,257 11,155 2,616 4,124 13,873 15,279Total Project Cost (A+B) 25,045 24,455 2,795 4,265 27,840 28,720Unutilised Balance available ****- - -
under IDATotal Excluding Taxes 25,045 25,089 2,795 4,265 27,840 29,354Taxes - - 1,030 2,750 1,030 2,750Total Including Taxes 25,045 [ 25,089 3,825 7,015 28,870 32,104
- 30 -
3.4 Key Factors that Affected Achievement of Project Objectives
Project implementation generally run very well except for a few external and internal factors.Capacity constraints, especially in areas of livestock research and high staff turn-over in areas ofpersonnel management, monitoring and evaluation, and financial management were major impedimentsto implementation of some activities. Because of delays in the recruitment of a civil engineer, initiationof the civil works component stalled.. The implementation of some of the project activities related totechnology transfer heavily depended on active participation of other independent or Governmentagencies and institutions which were not directly answerable to NARO. Such arrangements often resultedin delays because of low priority rating for NARO activities relative to these agencies' own assignments,lack of adequate capacity and general ineffectiveness of the extension service.
3.5 Assessment of Performance of IDA and GOU
3.5.1 Performance of GOU
GOU and NARO performance with respect to their obligations under the Credit agreement was asfollows:
(a) Providing NARO with operating costs: Government was expected to increase its allocation of fundsto cover operational costs for agricultural research by about 10% annually so that, by the end of year6 of the project, GOU research budget would amount to US$2.95 million. There was substantialincrease in resource allocation, with Government contribution far exceeding what was anticipated(Tables I & 2).
Table 2: GOU releases of funds as counterpart development budget for ARTP andrecurrent expenditure for NARO, 1993 - 1999.
Financial Development Budget Recurrent Budget Exchange RateYear (USh million) (USh million) (US$ = USh)
1993/94 137.5 1,310.7 1,087.50
1994/95 270.7 1,698.6 974.50
1995/96 600.8 1,205.3 984.50
1996/97 643.4 1,724.9 1,050.00
1997/98 954.0 1,748.2 1,100.00
1998/99 2,196.0 2,137.9 1,340.00
Total 4,802.4 9,825.6
Because of operating on a cash budget, there was lack of consistency in releasing funds and failure tomaintain an attractive scheme of service for staff. In a number of cases, releases were never made ormade late, making it impossible to move by planned schedule. The availability of local resources toeffect salary increments under the approved scheme of service was a serious threat to sustainability.A number of critical units (MEPU, Personnel, Finance) could not attract and retain high quality staff.By the end of the project life there was clear discontent amongst staff about the remunerationpackage.
- 31 -
Because of revisions in the Scheme of Service long after the project was prepared, the approvedsalary levels were higher than what had been included in the cost tables. Consequently, the IDAshare was exhausted before project completion. Government met the total salary bill with effect fromJuly 1999.
(b) Ability of NARO to obtain incomes and contributions: Loans, grants and GOU support remained themajor sources of NARO core budget. Little was achieved in generating funds internally or attractingstakeholders to contract the organisation or pay for the research results.
(c) Compliance with covenants and agreements: As earlier indicated, most assurances given in the DCAand Aide-Memoire of IDA supervision missions were met within the stipulated times, except where itwas not practically possible.
(d) Commitment to the objectives of the project: The level of success in generating and disseminatingrelevant improved technologies and the general public support for NARO is indicative of the level ofcommitment to achieving the project objectives. NARO outputs are visibly available to a largenumber of target beneficiaries. In a number of cases the impact created is far in excess of targets setat project design. In recognition of these achievements, it was not difficult to justify the design of asubsequent follow-on operation - ARTP 11.
3.5.2 Performance of IDA
The ARTP has been one of the few operations in Uganda that have been well and effectivelysupervised. The conditionalities, assurances and clarifications often demanded were reasonably meant toenhance performance and not to act as bottlenecks. Supervision missions provided timely advice andtechnical backstopping, particularly in research management systems, financial management and humanresources development. One aspect that was found most useful was the continuity of the task managerassigned to the project. This ensured consistency in provision of technical backstopping required andminimized disruption usually experienced when project managers are changed.
4. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPACT
4.1 Overall Project Benefits
It is difficult to discern the net impact of ARTP intervention due to the effect of other projects andthe generalised economic improvement due to the economic liberalisation policy. The lack of baselineindicators, and an effective M&E system also complicate the assessment of the project impact. Despitethe above shortcomings, ARTP has made a significant contribution to the development of the NARS,since it has been the largest programme in terms of financial contribution, and areas of intervention.
Two separate external reviews of NARO (by the Quality Assurance Group of World Bank and anexternal review by ISNAR) concluded that the research restructuring effort in Uganda had been largelysuccessful. In 1998, NARO conducted a self-evaluation of its organizational management and researchperformance to identify strengths and weaknesses as well as build its own evaluation capacity' Theresults show that NARO has made considerable progress in strategic planning, priority setting,formulating priority research projects, human resource development, perfornance evaluation andfinancial management. NARO is capable of formulating, coordinating and executing agricultural researchto better serve the majority of farmers. Since its creation, NARO has correctly focused on building itsinstitutional capacity, and has made rapid progress in releasing improved varieties for the major foodcrops that are crucial to improvements in smallholder productivity and incomes .
- 32 -
The technological advances from a stronger agricultural research service have greatly contributedto improving the productivity and profitability of the crop and livestock husbandry practices of smallfarmers. Farmers that have adopted NARO technologies have increased their income. For example, awoman farmer in eastern Uganda, estimated that replacing K20 bean variety with K:132 boosted herannual income by 50% to nearly half a million shillings. She used bean earnings to purchase householditems such as paraffin, soap, salt, sugar, clothes for her five grandchildren, animals (including a dairycow) and to pay school fees for two daughters. In 1997, Nalongo was able to pay a major medical bill.The following year, she bought land and began constructing a tin roofed house with money from the saleof 700 kg of K132. The higher yields of K132 improved food security in this poor home. Her familynow eat beans four times a week instead of just twice. Fast cooking K132 reduced Nalongo's fuel woodexpenditures from 6000 to 2500 shillings per month, a savings of 42,000 shillings per year.
ARTP has also contributed to change the economic climate for agricultural (crop, livestock,fisheries and forestry) production in the country. Recent surveys by NARO and others reveal that themajority of farmers are aware of improved new technologies in beans, cassava, potato, maize and sweetpotato; and over 85 % of the farmers have adopted them (see Table 3). Survey results also show that theadoption levels are higher than those targeted under ARTP. Currently over 50% of the total area plantedto maize are covered by the improved variety Longe 1. New high yielding varieties and othertechnologies in banana, horticultural crops, pigeon peas, finger millet, sorghum, groundnuts; and postharvest technologies for quality improvement, soil and water management technologies, and vaccine forimmunization against East Coast Fever have reached farmers. Technologies on fishing gear andaquaculture have been tested and released. Forestry technologies include the introduction of fast-growingnew tree species, tree management techniques and agroforestry systems and management. Many of thesetechnologies have been recommended and producers have started using them. A BA Survey conductedby NARO in February 2000 confirms many of these findings.
Between 1991 and 1996, NARO's Cassava Programme through the National Network of CassavaWorkers conducted accelerated on-farm trials, training of farmers and multiplication and distribution ofmosaic tolerant varieties. Over 35,000 farmers, opinion leaders and extension agents were trained and536 on-farm trials were conducted. The Programme worked with over 75 NGOs from all over thecountry and many district and local leaders from over 32 districts. Approximately 150,000 hectares ofdisease tolerant varieties were multiplied and distributed to farmers in all parts of the country by 1998.The new cassava varieties occupy over 60% of the total area planted to cassava. Farmers are obtainingyields of 6 -7 tons hai of the local varieties as compared to the potential of 20-25 tons hail from the newcassava varieties. The new varieties have significantly increased production, particularly in eastern andnorthern Uganda where farmers and traders are realizing increased incomes from the sale of fresh tubersand dry chips.
4.2 Lessons Learnt
The most important findings of the project implementation experience were reviewed during theOPA exercise30 (see report) and during ARTP II design. A summary of these is given in the ARTP IIPAD (pp. 12-13 of Report No. 19144-UG of WB). In addition, the following general observations canbe made:
(a) Project Design: The design of a project needs to be kept as simple as practicable. Parallel structuresto those existing should be avoided and since decentralization is channeling more resources andresponsibilities to the Districts, it is important that many of NARO activities are also decentralized.
30 OPA: Organisational Performance Assessment. Task Force Report Edited by T. Sengooba and D. Kisauzi,
NARO, Entebbe, Oct. 1999.
- 33 -
(b) Policy: It is important at project design stage to examine the existing policies vis-a-vis the projectinterventions to be implemented and advocate for changes early enough. The success of NARO andARTP was closely tied to the implementation of the Agricultural Research Plan and Strategy thatushered in radical but positive policy shifts.
(c) Funding for project activities: Resources should be channeled where the responsibility is. The flowof funds should be consistent to maintain the implementation pace and avoid cost overruns.
(d) Co-ordination: It is desirable to coordinate activities and support into a single coherent program.
(e) Participatory Project Identification and Planning: For effective implementation of projects,participatory planning whereby grass root implementers and beneficiaries provide their input into theidentification and regular planning and evaluation of project activities is necessary.
(f) Supervision and Publicity: Project management needs to involve beneficiaries and relevantstakeholders in field supervision and monitoring to assess the situation on the ground and to affordmembers better perception of the issues at hand in addition to rallying support for the projectactivities.
Table 3: Technologies Released by NARO
FORESTRY SUB-SECTORl Tree/shrubs for fodder production: Calliandra, Gliricidia. Tree/shrub barrier hedges for soil water conservation; Grevillea, Casuarina, Calliandra, Gliricidia, Alnus and Leucaena. Recommendations for practices that promote natural regeneration of natural forests. Recommendations for suitable species and varieties for planting development. Recommendations for pest and disease management in planting forest crop: Aphids and Psyllid and termites. Timber cutting: Improved methods and tools. Timber seasoning/treatment: Chemicals, improved methods (stacking, shade/kiln) and time. Charcoal production: Improved kilns. Recommendations for appropriate timber harvesting and processing practicesFISHERIES SUB-SECTOR. Recommendation on water hyacinth control technologies and policies. Recommendation on conservation and management of wetlands. Recommendations on conservation and management of water environment. Breeding aquaculture species: Mirror carp, Crayfish. Recommendations on economic fish farmingCROPS SUB-SECTORImproved varieties and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Packages:• Maize: OPVLonge 1, KWCA, Hybrids: 8556-6 and 8535-23 (restricted release), Control of maize stem borer using chemicals* Sweet potato: varieties - New Kawogo, Kyebandula, Tanzania, Nylon, Bitambi, Kisa kya bikira Maliya, Wagabolige, Ecuru, and
E29 (restricted release) IPM - Management package for sweet potato weevil. Cassava: Varieties - NASE I & 11, Migyera, 1PM- Biological control (Wasps for Mealybug and Phytoseiids for Green mite)* Groundnut: Igola-1, Red Beauty, ROXO. Simsim: SERRA, S, and EM-14 (restricted release). Sunflower: New Sufnola* Soya bean: Nam I and Nam 11. Sorghum: Seredo, Sekedo, Epuripuri. Finger millet: PESE I and 11, Serere 1, Engeny. Peal Millet: Serere Composite. Cotton: Varieties: BPA 89, BPA 95, SA TU 85, SATU 95 IPM - Scouting techniques, biological control (use ofparasitoids,
intercropping, safe and effective botanical pesticides - Neem and Khaya. Fresh market tomatoes: Marglobe, Caribe, Tropic. Banana: IPM - Use of Triadimefon Fungicide, Cultivars resistant to Fusarium wilt. Coffee: Clonal Coffee
- 34 -
Table 3: Technologies Released by NARO (con't.)Agronomic packages:* Cassava: Land preparation, planting, intercropping, weeding* Simsim, Groundnut, Sunflower: Row planting, spacing, seed rate, time of planting* Sweet potato: Vine length and number per heap* Coffee: Nursery management packages, intercropping, control of weeds (herbicides)* Maize: Land preparation, seed rate, spacing, intercropping, control of weeds (herbicides)* Cotton: Spacing and sequence, planting dates, intercropping, growth regulators (pix) and detopping
LIVESTOCK SUB-SECTOR* Increased livestock production: Improved breeds of poultry, small ruminants, and cattle for meat* Early warning systems for livestock disease outbreaks* Recommendations on improved livestock husbandry practices* Livestock feeds: Forages-lab lab, Silage/hay making and preparing, crop residues and use of agro-industrial by-products* Recommendations on management packages for rangeland* Recommendations on control and management packages of major livestock diseases* Recommendations on economic livestock production and disease control packages* Recommendations on marketing of livestock and livestock productsPOST-HARVEST RESEARCH PROGRAMME* Recommendation packages for drying of: Fruits and vegetables (solar dryer), Roots and tubers (methods of eliminating cyanide in
cassava, e.g. grating)* Recommendation package for on-farm handling of: Local purple passion fruit* Recommendations on farm storage: Management of storage pests - Bean and pigeon pea bruchids, Sweet potato weevils, Storage
techniques for fresh cassava and sweet potato, Improved storage structuresFOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY* Recommendations on processing and diversification of utilisation of: Maize, Cassava, Sweet potato, Finger millet, Sorghum,
Bananas* Recommendations on processing and diversification of utilisation of: Livestock products* Recommendations on value addition to fish and fish products* Recommendations on reduction of post-harvest and quality losses in fish* Recommendations on reduction of post-harvest and quality losses in livestock productsAGRICULTURAL PROCESSING AND STORAGE SYSTEMS* Improved and appropriate processing equipment:* Improved crop dryers (tray/crib/hybrid), Threshers/shellers/Hullers, Winnower/Sorters/Graders, Chippers/Graters, Oil
extractors/Juice extractors, Small grain mills* Improved and appropriate storage facilities:* Granaries, silos/Crips, Warehouse stores, Housing Structures for selected livestock* Recommendations on improved technologies for detoxification of crop residue and wastesON-FARM ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS* Improved household energy appliances: Cook stoves (woodfuel, biogas & solar). Lamps (biogas & solar)* Household water harvesting, storage and conveyance: Water tanks (above and underground), Manually operated pumps,
Aquaculture structures* Environmentally friendly energy sources: Improved woodfuels, Biogas, Solar, Agricultural residues, WindFARM POWER SOURCES AND IMPLEMENTS* Farm power sources: Work animals, Matched implement - animal - human system* Farm tools and implements: Ploughs/Planters/Weeders, Sprayers (knap sack), Harvesters (ground nut)* On-farm transport: Manually operated and animal drawn equipment, Improved harnesses and methods* Animal Traction: SAARI number I master plough, SAARI ox weederSOIL MANAGEMENT* Production efficiency without adverse environmental effects: Availability of upland rice varieties* Recommendation packages for management and recycling of crop residues: Composting, Crop residue/manure application* Recommendations on use of Rhizobia to increase crop production* Recommendations on soil fertility management practices including fertiliser application* Update on fertiliser recommendations: Soil/plant analysis* Recommendation on appropriate soil and water conservation structure* Recommendations on water harvesting and conservation for irrigation
- 35 -
Annex 7c
ARTP Beneficiary Assessment Study Summary Findings
Introduction
1. The National Agricultural Research-Organisation (NARO) was established in 1992 as a semi-autonomous organisation with a mandate to undertake and promote research in crop, livestock, fisheriesand forestry and to ensure dissemination of research results to clients. The first six years (1993-1999) ofNARO were supported by the Agricultural Research and Training Project (ARTP), funded by the Worldbank (WB). NARO has nine research institutes and some 200 scientists undertaking some 30 researchprogrammes. A Beneficiary Assessment (BA) study was carried out as an integral part of the ARTPImplementation Completion Report (ICR). In the period under evaluation, a number of new technologieswere reportedly3 I released by NARO's following research programmes32: crop (including 53 cropvarieties), fisheries (32), livestock (8) and forestry (60). This report discusses the results of a case-studysurvey undertaken by NARO.
Objectives and Methodology
2. The objective of the BA study was to enhance NARO understanding of farmer perceptions oftechnical innovations and to assess their impact on farm productivity. The BA is composed of a set ofdetailed case studies undertaken by NARO Monitoring and Evaluation Planning Unit (MEPU) to trackspecific technologies released under ARTP I. These include: bean varieties K132 and KI31; cassavavarieties SS4, Nase 1, 2 and 3; millet variety Pese I; banana cultural practices (sanitation and mulching);East Coast Fever vaccine and fishpond construction and management. In the case study survey, apurposive sampling procedure combining simple random techniques was used with a sample of 25adopters and 15 non-adopters in each district33. Semi-structured questionnaires and PRA tools were usedto facilitate farmer interviews. In addition, focus group discussions were held with farmers and keyinformant interviews with extension workers, NGOs, local government and community leaders includingwomen's groups.
Description of Study Districts and Characteristics of Respondents
3. The study covered eight districts, Apac, Lira, Mbale, Palissa, Mbarara, Ntungamo, Mukono andKisoro, representing the major farming systems of Uganda. It is estimated that there are 2.6 millionsmall-scale farm families in Uganda with an average holding of 2-3 hectares, although significantvariations exist between farming systems and districts.
4. For all technologies tracked, the majority of farmers interviewed were men34 A disproportionatenumber of men (over 80%) were interviewed under the cassava technology. This is because once a cropbecomes an important cash crop, it is taken over by men. Approximately a third of the sampled farmerswere not members of an extension group. Possibly, the non-participation of Lira, Kisoro and Kiboga
3 Source: Organisational Performance Assessment (OPA) Report, NARO, 1999.32 Programmes under the following institutes/centre: Coffee Research Centre (COREC); Kawanda Agricultural Research
Institute (KARI); Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute (NAARI) and Serere Agriculturaland Animal Production Research Institute (SAARI).
33 The study does not claim to be statistically representative. Too few technologies and districts were covered. The in-depth qualitative methodology of long conversational interviews employed in this BA study provides a great deal ofunderstanding from a relatively small number of beneficiaries.
34 There appear to have been a bias in the sampling, as men seemed to have been early adopters of the new innovationswhich require some capital outlay such as fish ponds, ECF vaccine, etc.
- 36 -
districts in the AEP contributed to the low number of contact farmers. The farming community is young,with 46% of respondents below the age of 40. Eighty-three percent of household heads had received someform of primary education leaving only 16.7% as illiterates, although progression beyond primary levelwas not significant. The Uganda mean household size is 4.8, and most heads of households interviewedare primarily peasant farmers.
Table 1. General Characteristics of the Survey Districts and Sampled Farmers
District Apac Lira Mukono Mbale Kisoro Kiboga Ntungamo Pallisa
Sub-counties Akalo Amach Mukono Bunam- Busanza Kiboga Ntungamo ApopongAduku Goma butyo; Nyundo Bamusuta
Muyembe VvubaKirinya
Farming Northern Northern Banana/ Montane Montane Banana/ Montane Banana, millet/systems Millet/ Millet/ Coffee Potatoes/ Beans/ Coffee Banana/ cotton
Cassava sorghum/ beans/ Potatoes! beans/cassava livestock Livestock livestock
AEP district Yes No, under Yes Yes No No Yes Yes but notCSDP under AEP
I________ fundingAv. Farm 7.9 6.8 3.9 4.8 1.5 95.4 3! 4.6 12.7size (acres)Average 6.6 7.3 6.6 9.4 n.a. 9.6 10.6 8.2HouseholdsizeMean age 40 36 52 50 n.a. 48 52 47Gender 81% 88.6% 42.9% 90% n.a. 84.8% 76.7% 98.1%% men% contact 19 11.4 23.8 20 n.a. n.a. 26.7 14.3groupmembersTechnology Cassava; Cassava Beans Beans Beans ECF Banana Millettracked Millet K131 K131 & K132, vaccine cultural Pese 1, Cassava
Pese I &132, K132, K131. practicesFish Fish
Usesofcrop"- 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 T 1,2,3
Awareness 61.9% 91% 100% 100% n.a 97% 100%4' 100% Cassava,rates 50% Pese IAdoption 57.1% 60% 76.2% 65% n.a. 90.9% 100%2' 100% Cassava,rates I . I_ I _II _29% Pese I
1/ codes: 1. Food 2. Cash 3. Brewing2/ Only adopters were interviewed.
3/ large areas due to commercial farms and ranches.
5. Cropping Systems: Matoke is the most important staple crop followed by cassava. Bananaproduction is important in the coffee/banana and millet/banana farming systems found mainlyaroundLake Victoria, the slopes of Mountain Rwenzori and Elgon, and the wet areas of Bushenyi, Mbarara,Ntungamo and Hoima districts. Despite its importance, the crop has been forced into sharp productiondecline by various constraints, including nematodes, Fusarium wilt, weevils and Black Sigatoka diseasewhich cause low yields. Today, its production is concentrated in the westem region of the country. Inter-
- 37 -
cropping cassava with beans is the most common cropping system in Uganda. Millet is an importantstaple in the drier north and eastern districts. In Pallisa district, millets occupy approximately 20% of the totalcultivated area. Agricultural production is done manually using family labour, a few implements andpurchased inputs.
Survey Findings: Farmer Perceptions of Selected Technologies
6. This section details the extent to which NARO technologies are used and this is determined byadoption rates. In this study, adoption is defined as the uptake and subsequent use of a newinnovation/technology (Feder et al., 1985).
7. Cassava: After the outbreak of African Cassava Mosaic Disease (ACMD) in the 1980s threatenedto wipe out the cassava crop nation-wide, NARO in collaboration with IITA sought to find disease-resistant varieties. In 1994, three selected varieties; namely Nase 1, 2 and 3 (Migyera) were released,followed by SS4 a year later. The survey tracked the four varieties in Apac, Lira and Pallisa districts.
8. The improved cassava varieties are generally well known, although Nase 1, which has lower yieldsthan the other new varieties is less known. Only 31% of respondents were aware of Nase I compared toNase 2 (74%) and SS4 (57%). Seventy-two percent of the sampled farmers have adopted one or more ofthe new varieties. The high levels of adoption are in line with Bua, 1996, who reported adoption levels ashigh as 95% in Kumi, 75% in Lira and 70% in Luwero. Nase 2 and 3, grown by 38% and 35% ofadopters, are the most popular because of their high yield potential of 20-35 t/ha compared to 6-7 t/ha.Twenty-one percent and only 6% have adopted SS4 and Nase I respectively. According to NARO'sOPA, the current area planted with improved cassava varieties exceeds 60% of total land under cassava(1 999).
9. Despite high adoption rates, 52% of adopters did not fully grasp the recommended agronomicpractices for the improved varieties. This appears to stem from a number of reasons, including limitedextension services, emphasis of the message on multiplication aspects, and distorted information transferfrom farmer to farmer. Planting in lines was generally adhered to but plant spacing and timely plantingwere only adhered to by 25% of the adopters Farmers had made few adaptations to the technologypackage. Only 4% of the interviewed farmers reported using a closer spacing for cassava, while 6%practised mixed cropping.
10. Beans: Beans are widely grown in Uganda for food and for sale. The major areas of productionare Buganda, Busoga, Mbale, Kapchorwa, Kasese and Kisoro districts. The average bean plot per farmhousehold is estimated to be between 0.1-0.4 ha. The NAARI Bean Programme's focus was onincreasing bean productivity. Several factors were identified as causes of low productivity including lackof high yielding varieties, susceptibility to insect pests (aphids) and diseases (such as common bacterialblight, bean root rot, bean common mosaic virus and angular leaf spot) and poor agronomic practices.Apart from seed, no external inputs (fertilisers, pesticides) are used. Although the yield potential of localvarieties is estimated at 1.5 t/ha under farmer conditions, the current yields only average 0.68 t/ha.
11. In 1994, NARO released improved varieties K131, K132, OBA 1, MCM 105 and MCM 2001.Collaboration with international organisations such as CIAT saw introduction of climbing varieties ofUmbano and Gishenyi. The new varieties (K131 and K132) tracked in this study have been disseminatedin over 30 districts and, to-date, estimates suggest that some 200 to 600 farmers have had access to themin each of these districts. These varieties have potential yields of 2,500 kg /ha, an increase of 1,000kg/hawhen compared to local varieties.
12. Of the interviewed farmers, 85.4% and 61% indicated that they were aware of the new K132 andK13 1 bean varieties respectively. Seventy-one percent of sampled farmers had subsequently adopted the
- 38 -
two varieties. K132, grown by 52% of the adopters, was slightly more popular than K131. The non-adopters were mainly growing traditional varieties such as Kanyeebwa. The bean adoption rates areslightly lower than those reported by Mugisa, 1997, and the OPA report, 1999. Both report adoption ratesof 80, 84, 81 and 86.7% respectively, in the districts of Mukono, Mbale, Masaka and Kapchorwa.Nevertheless, the area under improved bean varieties in the surveyed district is significant, estimated at64% of total bean area (OPA, 1999).
13. 61 % of adopters felt they had received adequate advice on the proper adoption of bean varieties,while 39% did not fully comprehend the recommended agronomic practices. The recommendedagronomic practices included planting in rows (adopted by 48.8% of the cases), earthing-up and weeding(adopted by 55%), timely planting (adopted by 35%), correct spacing (17.1 %) and compost making(adopted by only 5%). Farmers have made no marked changes to the technology package. Some 4% ofthe interviewed farmers reported using a wider spacing for beans and 2.4% adapted to complete drying ofthe beans in the field. Pests, diseases, shortage of labour, reduced soil fertility and unavailability of seeds,coupled with high prices, continue to hinder increased bean production.
14. Millet: Millet is widely grown, mainly for food and brewing in Eastern, Northern and WesternUganda. The cereals programme of SAARI released a high yielding variety, Pesel, in 1995. Awarenessand adoption rates for millet Pese I in Pallisa district are relatively low, 57.1% and 45.7% respectively,and the area under the new variety is 20% of total area under millet production. In contrast to otherdistricts, NGO activity seems to be limited in Pallisa, which may explain the low awareness rates.
15. Of the adopters, 18% discontinued, 55% were satisfied with the new variety, while 27% hadidentified weaknesses, such as poor storability (Table 6). Sixty-six percent of adopters were aware of therecommended production practices of Pese I and of these, 75% were planting in rows and 50% hadplanted on time. However, 26% of the adopters have abandoned the recommended practice of plantingin rows and prefer to broadcast their seed (minimal labour required), while 3% inter-cropped the newvariety with beans. The survey revealed that there was need for more emphasis on research and/ordissemination of information on storage pests in cereals and grain legumes.
16. Banana cultural practices: Matoke (banana) is a major food crop in Uganda, with total acreageestimated at 22% of all arable land. From 1.298 million hectares, a total of 7.3 million metric tonnes ofbanana are produced per year. Aggregate national production data indicates productivity estimates ofaround 6 t/ha in contrast to the more than 20t/ha attainable at research stations. Although NARO, incollaboration with IITA, are undertaking variety breeding for Black Sigatoka resistance (variety may bereleased in 2001), there are a number of improved agronomic practices that NARO is promoting.
17. The banana on-farm trials (OFTs) held in Ntungamo district focused on improving bananahusbandry practices, including soil and water conservation, mulching, pruning, disease and weevil controlaspects35. Data was collected on knowledge of trial purpose, expected results, role of the farmer andguidelines on the experiments, practices adopted, advantages of participating in the trials, and suggestionson how to improve collaboration between researchers and farmers.
18. The majority of the 30 participants were men (76.7%), since Matoke is a cash crop, now grown bymen. Fifty percent of participants were already members of a contact/farmer group and 72% reported thatthey had understood the purpose of trials, their role and the procedures to be followed. Only 23% saidthey would have liked to meet with the researchers more often, perhaps once a week.
3 It should be noted that similar demonstrations and related farmers' training had been undertaken under the IFAD/WB-funded Southwest Region Agricultural rehabilitation Project (SWRARP), which closed some three years ago, as wellas by the Swedish-funded Uganda Soil Conservation and Agroforestry Project (USCAP), followed by the UgandaLand Management Project (ULAMP).
- 39 -
Table 2. Adoption of Banana Management Practices
Variable % of Farmers
Practices Adopted
Trenches and grass bands 79.2Uprooting and splitting corms 70.8Splitting pseudo stems 58.3Proper mulching 45.8
Compost making 33.3Trapping weevils 33.3Proper pruning 16.7
19. The benefits from participation were highlighted as positive yield gains in terms of increased size ofbanana. Weight of bunches increased by up to 50%. There was less weed infestation and soil erosionwas greatly reduced. Respondents were asked if they had subsequently adopted the management practices intheir own fields. Despite significantly higher yields obtained during the on-farm trial, subsequentadoption of recommended management practices was poor. Compost making, trapping weevils andproper pruning were least popular, implying labour constraints. Yet, these practices are important inimproving soil fertility and reducing prevalence of weevils and nematodes.
20. Livestock East Coast Fever (ECF) control: ECF, a tick-borne disease of cattle, is prevalent inUganda causing significant morbidity, mortality and loss of production. The widely used preventivemethod is tick control through dipping in acaricide. In 1995, the immunisation technology, that is theECF vaccine was introduced from Kenya into Kiboga, Bushenyi, Masaka, Mpigi, Mubende and Mukonodistricts. The proportion of total herd size immunised against ECF and the number of times the farmerhad used the service were used as proxies for farmer adoption of the technology.
21. A total of 31 cattle farmers were interviewed in Kiboga district. Ninety-seven percent were awareof the new ECF vaccine. Out of a total herd size of 2,101 heads of cattle, of which 1,345 were gradedanimals, 537 heads of cattle had been immunised against ECF, representing 25.6% of the total herd sizeand 39.9% of the graded animals. It was also reported that 45.5% of farmers had used the vaccine morethan once. The low adoption rates appear to be due to the introduction of cost-recovery (USh 5,000 perhead) and also because traditional breeds are generally not immunised against ECF, as they areconsidered to be tolerant.
22. About 93.9% of the sample farmers reported to have got advice in terms of guidelines on the properuse of the vaccine, including information on possible side effects, recording temperatures and monitoringof the herds. Despite low adoption rates, some benefits were realised from ECF immunisation. Thenumber of crossbred cattle had increased by approximately 10%. Significant reductions in mortality andmorbidity rates reduced by 26 and 30% respectively amongst vaccinated herds; and reduced tick controlcosts were recorded. However, the vaccination programme is only carried out by NARO staff when theyvisit an area, hence, coverage and availability of the vaccine at critical periods (i.e. when new calves areborn or bought) is limited resulting in high re-infection risks. Although the technology has beendemonstrated to be effective and acceptable to farmers, it remains largely under-utilised. Manyveterinarians are unfamiliar with the technology and should therefore be re-trained and there is also aneed to establish accessible district storage facilities (vaccine has to be stored in liquid nitrogen).
- 40 -
23. Fishpond construction and management: The FIRI fishpond construction techniques and breedsof Tilapia and Mirror Carp species have been adopted by farmers, especially richer households withaccess to capital investment. Mirror carp mono-culture, Tilapia and Mirror carp mixed culture andTilapia mono-culture have been adopted by 42%, 39% and 19% of farmers respectively. The Mirror carpis the preferred species as it grows rapidly (1.5 kg within a year) and has a good taste. Although Tilapiais a prolific breeder, it is slow growing and is often fed to other fish species such catfish or sold asfingerings. Farmers (65%) appear to have adopted the recommended practices of slanting ponds andweeding, although insertion of inlet and outlet sieves was only practised by 45% of the farmers. Propermanagement skills, especially on feed rations for specific fish breeds and pond fertilisation were notablyabsent. There were also reports of poor reproduction of Mirror carp compelling farmers to rely onpurchased fresh stock to replenish their ponds. However, lack of fry centres for districts which are farfrom Kajansi Aquaculture Station (near Entebbe) and pond fishing gears limit the expansion of this fishproduction system. Farmers noted the high nutritional and income benefits from fish production andhence, special support and perhaps credit would be required to assist women and poorer households toparticipate.
24. Summary: The assessment suggests that the level of awareness and adoption of improved cropvarieties, livestock, agro-forestry, post-harvest and fish technologies was generally good amonginterviewed farmers in all eight districts. However, considerable variations exist between the yields thatfarmers are getting and estimated potential of the varieties on farmer fields (Table 3).
25. Possible explanation for the yield differences include: (i) for all crops, 25 - 40% of adopters did notgrasp the entire agronomic package associated with the improved variety36(see para 10); (ii) amongstfarmers who had full knowledge of the recommended management practices, only a few (33%) reportedto have attempted to follow all the recommendations (see para. 22), suggesting that labour shortage mayrepresent a major constraint; and (iii) potential estimates are generally for a mono crop, yet these cropsare grown in inter and multiple cropping systems. Practices related to soil and water conservation andnutrient management were least adopted, likely contributing also to the gap between potential and actualyields.
Table 3. Potential and Actual Yields of Cassava, Beans and Millets
Crop Mean yield on farmer Potential yieldsfields (actual) kg/ha (researcher estimate)
kg/ha
Cassava 1,782 3,451 (std. dev. = 4.20)
Beans 679 1,397 (std. dev. =2.13)
Millet 589 964 (std. dev. = 2.52)
36 It is not clear where the bottleneck in information lies. NARO's technology brochures clearly indicate the associatedmanagement practices, but perhaps extension's large work-load makes it difficult for extension workers to spendenough time supervising relevant agronomic practices. In some cases, extension workers are unavailable when neededby farmers.
- 41 -
Factors Affecting Adoption Rates
26. The survey gathered information on the constraints on adoption of new technologies. Thisinformation gives insight into the decision making process that target groups of farmers go through whennew technologies are introduced.
27. From the analysis of farmer and key informant discussions, the main factors that influence adoptionof new technologies are: (i) farmer perception of the incremental benefits to be derived from the newtechnology, that is, the attributes of the technology; (ii) the availability of necessary inputs, especiallyseed/planting materials and labour; and (iii) the relative ease with which the technology fits into existingfarming practices, e.g. inter-cropping and weeding regimes. Continued use of the technology, especiallyin the case of crops and fish, depends on factors such as back-up extension services, storability of product,processing requirements in terms of preparation and cooking, and palatability and taste. These factorsalso determine marketability of the crop.
28. Technology attributes (Table 6): Farmers generally appreciated the yield, pest and diseasetolerance of the new crop varieties. However, yield is not the only important criteria: palatability andmarketability are also important. Some farmers indicated that they would rather grow the new cassavavarieties for the market but not for home consumption, as they prefer the taste of the traditional varieties.Other attributes are also valued by farmers. For instance, farmers prefer tall cassava varieties, whichallow them to inter-crop the first and second crops easily. Although SS4 has high yields, it is a shortplant making inter-cropping difficult. Farmers indicated that they would prefer to have NARO improvethe yield and disease tolerance of some of the traditional varieties, which are notably very tasty(Namulonge Women's Group).
29. Overall, farmers ranked highly yield and disease tolerance attributes of K13 1 and K132 varieties,but felt variety K13 1 was inferior to the old varieties in terms of size of seed, colour, cooking time andtaste. As long as the old varieties remain somewhat tolerant to bean rot diseases, farmers will prefertraditional bean varieties. Moreover, they are assured of seed for the old varieties.
30. Despite the relatively low adoption rates of the Pese I millet variety, its yield and early maturingattributes are valued by farmers. The women also appreciated the flour quality. There are however, stillreservations on storability and brewing quality, limiting its marketability.
31. Farmer perceptions indicate that, although the new food crop varieties are strong in their yield anddisease tolerance attributes, their adoption is going to be somewhat restricted if they fall short onpalatability and storability. It appears from the findings that disease tolerance is, perhaps, the mostimportant determinant of whether a new crop variety is adopted or not as depicted by the ACMD. Incases where diseases are not threatening to wipe-out the crop, e.g. beans, palatability becomes highlyimportant. Perhaps, the picture is different for cash crops such as coffee and cotton, where increasingyield is certainly essential for raising incomes, but possibly quality becomes an important criterion.
32. The timely availability of improved seed/planting materials on a regular basis at affordable priceswas reported to be a key factor influencing continued use of a technology. In the case of new bean, milletand maize varieties, which need to be replenished every three or so years, farmers highlighted theproblems of getting clean and disinfected seeds when required. There were instances where unscrupuloustraders were selling incorrectly labelled contaminated seed, providing no advice on use of chemicals,hence, undermining farmer confidence in the continued uptake of the varieties.
33. Suitability of technology in existing farming systems: Existing farming systems tend to be low-input, low-output systems (see section on production constraints). Thus, technologies that requireincreased use of resources including capital may constrain adoption by resource-poor households. Also,
- 42 -
technologies that require substantial changes in terms of established seasonal cropping patterns andcultural practices might not be favourable. Generally, farmers in Uganda inter-crop, do not plant in rows,have defined first and second crops and male and female crops. Thus, technologies should seek toenhance and complement existing farming/cropping systems and cultural practices.
34. From simple correlation analysis, other factors including education level of farmer, gender offarmer, whether a farmer is a member of extension contact/farmer group, family size and farmers'production objectives had a positive impact on adoption rates3 7 In a study conducted in Iganga district onadoption rates of improved Longe I maize variety, adopters were found to be slightly older, owned largerfarms, were more educated, had more access to extension services as well as non-farm employment. Menwere more likely than women to adopt improved varieties (Agri Forum, 2000).
35. It was important to understand the constraints that smallholder farmers face in their widerenvironment, so that research can introduce technologies consistent with farmer needs. Some of theconstraints (produce prices and extension services) are not researchable within NARO's current mandateand have to be handled by other institutions, and have not been discussed further in this report. Someissues like drought and land shortage are area specific.
Table 4. Production Constraints: Ranking Cited By Farmers
Constraint Cassava Beans Millet Banana Overall!___________________________ R anking
Shortage of labour 1 1 1 1 1
Shortage of land 2 9
Drought 3 2 4 3
Lack of planting material/seeds 5 2 5 4
Low crop prices 6 4 3 5
Diseases 4 3 3 4 2
Diminishing soil fertility 8 6 4 7
Storage Pests 9 5 2 6
Lack of access to agricultural 7 7 6 8
extension services
36. Labour: Shortage of labour to carry out timely field operations was the most predominantconstraint reported by farmers, which often leads to poor agronomic practices including untimely landpreparation, late planting and/ or no weeding and consequently low yields. Livestock keepers reportedthat they generally do not undertake pasture management, slashing, and forage collection activities becauseof labour shortages. The increasing rate of urbanisation, loss of productive labour to the AIDS epidemic,lack of draught power and drudgery saving technologies severely constrain what a household is able to domanually.
37. Diseases: The second most frequently factor curtailing increased production cited by farmers waspest and diseases. Reported incidences had increased recently, exacerbated by land pressure and, hence,
37 It would be useful to further characterize non-adopters and adopters in terms of: education; gender; household size; ageof household head; farm size; livestock ownership and participation in farmer groups.
- 43 -
reduction in land rotation, resulting in high yields losses.. In Mpigi districts, farmers reported thatMatoke production had moved to western districts because of the prevalence of nematodes, weevils andthe Black Sigatoka leaf spot disease. ACMD is now under control but coffee wilt is threatening to wipe-out both traditional and new clonal varieties.
38. Diminishing soil fertility: Coupled with the increased prevalence of diseases and pests, farmersnoted that soil fertility, including its ability to retain moisture, had progressively diminished over theyears. According to farmers in Mpigi, poor soil fertility contributed to the non-viability of Matoke in thearea. Climate change is also perceived to be a driving force of soil changes and farming systems.
39. Low prices of output. Lack of marketing opportunities beyond the village market means thatduring peak production periods, there is a glutton in the market and prices are low. The low farm gateprice of milk was highlighted as a disincentive to increased production. Because of poor storability of theproduce, farmers cannot take advantage of seasonal price changes
40. Land appeared to be a less critical bottleneck in most of the surveyed districts, although Mbale andKisoro are beginning to face severe shortages, calling for an intensification of farming systems and betterutilisation of soil and water resources. Kisoro and Mbale are already showing better adoption rates forconservation technologies, including terracing and bunding.
Dissemination of Technologies
41. Research/extension/farmer linkages: The technology uptake pathways vary and in general widedissemination of new technologies benefited from the AEP, with a higher concentration of NAROtraining activities and on-farm trials in AEP districts. AEP facilitated the demonstration of technologiesand improved access to planting materials (OPA, 1999). Although the benefit of participation in on-farmtrials was considered to be substantial (banana OFTs in Ntungamo district), coverage is limited. NGOsand, in particular UNFA, as well as farmer-to-farmer transfer of technology, are currently the maindissemination vehicles for technologies.
42. Dissemination of technologies is biased in favour of seed/planting materials. Approximately onethird of adopters had limited information on crop and disease management of the new varieties asevidenced by the few recommended cultural practices taken-up by farmers.
43. While field extension staff indicated that they had benefited from the technical training they hadreceived from NARO scientists on the various technologies, they still felt that thefarmer/extension/researcher relationship needed strengthening. It was reported that on many occasions,researchers had conducted OFTs without clearly explaining to field staff and farmers the objectives of thetrials and the type of data to be collected and results were rarely communicated back. Coupled with that,was lack of regular and timely follow-up of the trials by researchers, reducing morale and subsequentadoption of the technologies (OPA, 1999). The 1997 MAAIF BA reports that 55% of Subject MatterSpecialists had rated the quality of researcher feedback to farmers as poor. It is hoped that the ARDCswould encourage greater collaboration of all key stakeholders, including farmers.
- 44 -
Table S. Source of Technology Information Reaching Farmers (%)
Technology Cassava Beans Millet Banana ECF Fish_ _ _ _ _ _ iBanana~~ L vaccine
Source of information
Extension visit 56 55 65 90 78
Friend/neighbour 50 30 20 - 3 53
NARO On-farm 6 30 10 100 - 6research contact
NGO 2 3 5 - 9
Radio 3 5 . 12
1/Note: only farmers participating to the trials were interviewed.
Impact of Technologies
44. Improved crop varieties were the most popular technologies. Women were most interested in newfood crop varieties that improve household food security'8. Other technologies for livestock and fish aretargeted at better-off households. Although agro-forestry technologies (tree species, soil conservation)have been promoted, most farmers do not seem to value these technologies. Perhaps, labour constraintslimit the adoption of these low-cost technologies.
45. Adoption of improved disease tolerant cassava, millet and bean varieties has generally improvedhousehold food security and increased incomes from sale of surplus production. The success of theACMD tolerant cassava varieties is notable in the north and east of Uganda, where farmer confidence inthe crop has been restored. However, production figures for cassava are yet to return to 1980 levels.Prior to the ACMD outbreak in the 1980s, a total of about 3.5 million metric tonnes of crop used to beproduced annually from about 360,000 ha. Yields are still around 7 tlha, although potential is estimated at20-25 tlha. To-date the crop occupies an estimated 342,000 ha (MFPED, 1998). The area under beanproduction estimated at 630,000 ha in 1997 is projected to increase to 762,000 ha by the year 2000. Milletproduction has picked up from 223,000 tonnes in the 1980s to an estimated 632,000 tonnes in 1998.
46. A significant percentage of households operate close to the margin of survival. therefore, any yieldincreases are, in the first instance, used to satisfy unmet demand for household food consumption, withonly a small surplus marketed to get cash. However, farmers could benefit more in terms of higher yieldincreases from both new and old varieties if they consistently adopted recommended agronomic practices.In view of the poor taste and other undesirable attributes of some of the new crop varieties (beans K13 1),long-term adoption is doubtful. Moreover, doubling of yields, brought about by new varieties, may notbe sustainable if farmers do not implement measures to improve soil and water management practices,including to replenish soil nutrients.
3 The reader may note an apparent contradiction between the popularity of crop varieties and the perception that there istoo much emphasis on breeding and not enough management. It is important to note that farmers were onlycommenting on the benefits of what was provided by extension and research services and not on relative importance oftechnology in relation to their perceived priority problems.
- 45 -
Lessons
47. While adoption rates are reasonably high for the technologies tracked, the associated cropmanagement practices appear to be ignored by a majority of farmers. This stemmed mainly fromincomplete information reaching farmers and perhaps a lack of sufficient labour as many of the abandonedcultural practices such as compost making, timely planting are strongly dependent on the availability oflabour. Technology development needs to take into account the range of constraints faced by resource-poor households and provide a variety of technological options, which farmers can choose from to suittheir own local circumstances. This suggests the need for NARO to pilot more participatory technologydevelopment activities.
48. Management guidelines and recommendations provided by NARO to extension staff throughbrochures, grower's guides and researcher demonstration plots are always for pure crop stands. Farmersrarely plant pure crops but often inter-crop 2 to 3 other crops within a main crop. Thus, existing croppingsystems should be imitated as much as possible in demonstration plots and this will provide an invaluableopportunity to solve crosscutting issues. The need for addressing cross-cutting issues justifies the needfor an all-round cadre of researchers, e.g. agronomists, capable of handling all aspects of farmproduction.
49. Technology generation is biased in favour of crop breeding and high yielding variety releases39.While high yield is a key attribute, it is not the only criteria of interest to farmers. Palatability and relativeease of adopting technology into current cultural practices are also valid. One of the distinctive featuresof smallholder agriculture is the wide variability of production systems, which are constantly changingover time. This variability confounds the standardised technology package approach in most cases.Local varieties may achieve comparable yield levels to those of improved unfamiliar varieties when goodcrop husbandry is practised. Perhaps the adaptation of local varieties, (e.g. improving disease resistanceof local bean varieties) and improving on what is already familiar to the farmer, taking into account theconstraints in the farming system, should be the starting point for research.
50. Extension messages reaching farmers appear to emphasise adoption of crop varieties in isolationand not in association with good management practices, which can enhance total farm productivity. This,perhaps, has contributed to the persistence of high pest and disease incidences, despite varietyimprovements. Increasing farm productivity is not only about getting improved varieties to farmers butalso entails placing emphasis on improving soil fertility and good crop husbandry, without which, highyields cannot be realised. Researchers need to direct increased resources to improving and promotingintegrated soil, water, pest and disease management, that is, farm management.
51. Post-harvest and food utilisation information and technologies should be disseminated inassociation with the improved crop varieties to avoid inappropriate utilisation. Drying technologies are,particularly, relevant in the highlands, where there is no pronounced dry season.
52. Financing technology development in the absence of effective dissemination and input supplymechanisms will clearly constrain widespread adoption of technologies. Strengthening researcher-extension- farmer linkages and extension systems is essential if research is to have an impact. Otherinterventions such as market development, road network improvements, development of farmerorganisations and support to private sector such as rural stockists/buying agents by providing training instock management and input use are also important. As long as farmers remain seed insecure (or vaccineinsecure, in the case of ECF), traditional varieties and cattle breeds will continue to be important tofarmers, undermining NARO's research efforts.
39 While farmers appreciate the high yield benefits of crop varieties, an increased focus on improving total farmproductivity will result in higher sustainable long-term benefits for the farmers.
- 46 -
Table 6. Technology AttributesTechnology Positive WeaknessesCassava * High yields; ACMD resistant (Nase 2 by all * Migyera, Nase '1 and Nase 2 varieties tasted
cases, SS4 by 91.7% of the cases and bitter, Migyera is the most bitter recordedMigyera by 88.9% of the cases); by 100% of respondents.
* Drought resistant; * Inferior ground storability (42.1% Nase 2,* Early maturing (76.2% Nase 2, 83.3 SS4 and 33.3% SS4);
Migyera); * Fibrous (78.9% Nase 2, 66.7% SS4)* Big canopies suppressing weeds. especially when young
* Nase 2 rots if planted in spear grass proneareas
* Inferior brewing quality
Beans * High yield * K132 is not heavy and this seems to stem* K132 has good taste and colour from the small seed coat. K132 does not* Early maturity store well.* Drought tolerance * K 132 pods shatter if left for long before* Disease resistance harvesting.
* K131 takes long to cook* K 131 has hard pods, making it difficult to
thresh.* K131 is small
Millet Pese I * High yielding, has bigger heads; * Long stems and lodges in the face of strong* Good taste and flour quality - good for winds;
bread & porridge making. * Inferior brewing quality resulting in* Disease tolerant restricted marketability;
* At harvesting if heads are heaped togetherbefore threshing, Pese I often germinates.
* Inferior drought resistance and late maturity
Banana Cultural * Increased bunch size and weight * Mulching is labour intensivePractices * Increased moisture retention and less
weeds
ECF * Reduced use of acaricide (90%) * Labour intensive in terms of* Reduction in mortality by 46% monitoring temperatures
* Reduced use of chemotherapeutic drugs * Some animals reacting to the diseasewhich necessitates treatment withexpensive drugs
* A few animals do not develop theexpected immunity and are affectedby the disease in subsequent contacts
Fish * Mirra carp has a good taste * Tilapia is a prolific breeder, so* Mirra carp attains market weight tends to crowd and is small
within a short time* Tilapia - good for sale as
fingerlings or prey for other speciessuch as catfish
53. Dissemination: NARO needs to pilot outreach activities, which encourage greater involvement ofother extension service providers. There is currently a plurality of extension approaches in Uganda, manyof which have proved to be successful. Notable are Africa 2000 Network, UNFA, other NGOs such as
- 47 -
CARE, AT (U), and the newly introduced Farmers'-Field School, amongst many others. A participatoryapproach involving these stakeholders would enhance understanding of farmer problems and encouragedialogue and feedback.
54. Impact assessment: Although NARO set socio-economic research priorities, it appears not to havedone enough technology assessment and adoption studies to provide feedback into the research system. Itis advisable for NARO to consider contracting some of the assessment work to external agencies. Abaseline survey is urgently required so as to have a concrete basis for evaluating ARTP II.
Implications
55. NARO would need to update its priority research programmes in response to farmer priorities andidentified key bottlenecks in farming systems. Areas of attention include measures to reduce disease andpests incidence; improving soil fertility and water management; developing drought tolerantvarieties/crops; and post-harvest information and technologies.
56. The new priority areas for research are crosscutting, calling for a shift from a single commodityfocus to a multidisciplinary problem solving approach which recognises agro-ecological zone diversity.A learning process between farmers and researchers should be established so that priority developmentneeds of farmers are better articulated and farmers fully participate in identifying solutions. Theobligation is on NARO to stress the importance of good land, crop and livestock husbandry (i.e. goodmanagement practices) as prerequisites to increasing and sustaining farm productivity.
57. In view of existing labour shortages, NARO should develop and introduce labour savingtechnologies consistent with existing production systems, gender and other socio-economic factors. Thedevelopment of no-tillage systems would contribute to address both the land productivity and the labourshortage issues.
58. The economic viability of the new technologies within current farming systems should be tested andguidelines on usage updated.
Bibliography
Agri-Forum, January 2000 'Impact of maize and Wheat Research In Eastern Africa: Results of RecentStudies' Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Strengthening Research in Eastern and CentralAfrica.
Bua, A.; G.W. Otim-Nape; B. Byabakama; G. Acola and Y.K. Baguma "The uptake of ImprovedVarieties in Six Gatsby project districts of Uganda",
MPED, 1997: Statistical Abstract
MPED, 1996: Uganda's Export Statistics 1990-1996.
Organisational Performance Assessment (OPA), 1999: NARO Task Force Report. Edited by T.Sengooba and D. Kisauzi.
- 48 -
Figure 1. NARO Organizational Chart during ARTP I (1999)
National Agricultural Research Board(NARB)
Secretariat
Director General
Internal Audit~
Deputy DirectorGeneral
Administrative W Finance MEPU RELU NADICUnit Unit Monitoring, Evaluation and Planning Research-Extension National Documentation and Information
Unit Liaison Centre
RESEARCH INSTITUTES
KARI | | SAARI |3NAARI LIRI FIRI FORI FOSRI AER COREC
KARI= Kawanda Agricultural Research InstituteASSOCIATE RESEARCH INSTITUTES SAARI= Serere Agricultural Research Insdttue
Makerere University o E NAARI_ NamnultgeAgricuural andEAnimal ProductionAgricultural Research Institute, Kabanyolo Uganda Institute Research Institute
LIRI= Livestock Health Research InstituteFIRI= Fisheries Research Institute
FORI= Forestry Research InstituteFOSRI= Food Science and Technology Research Institute
AEATRI= Agricultural Engineering andAppropriate Technology Research Institute
_ 49 - COREC= Coffee Research Centre
IBRD 241 1 1
300 32^ 34- 36'
SUDAN UGANDA4-4 / (a AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING PROJECT~%g MOYO a,wd iOpi Research Institutes
\Keokol °Yumnbo K leboroKITOUM r" 0 KAWANDA AGRICULTURAL
0. Aiok ' ' 0NAMULONGE AGRICULTURAL AND/Afho.ibo, ANIMAL PRODUCTION
-ARUA NOR iHERN KOTIDO 9 SERERE AGRICULTURAL ANDEnu'bo ANIMAL PRODUCTION
/ -AULUo :/ '. _ " 6' .Adiloog ' °0 FORESTRY at Kifu
/ r-- ' \ .MOROTO \ ^ 9t LIVESTOCK HEALTH at Tar,raZAI RE NEBBIN act PIano.o o FISHERIES at Jinja
o0 FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~at Kampala
urn 0 4 . X >1 \ MUARIK at Kabanyolo
-2- f w/ 1 t ,} _APAC , Jr \ 1 Npoilotuk0
2
PRIMARY BITUMEN ROADS
j / J MASINDI K,oono $ -OTI S SoLo PRIMARY GRAVEL ROADS
7 4 /p5 Leon"';t ^ T- No /~5 el3 \ 1KUMIl t / RAILROADS
7 / / <7IMAi Bukedec- v i9.,=iw ) tNo-m58;t t;AP R o SELECTED TOWNS AND VILLAGES
7 '0O\ 1
ttokoeon2ol, LbA P\LS Kkr > SIP /4 DISTRICT CAPITALS
No-mo.god StFPN y NATIONAL CAPITALYNESTLiI?N KIBOGA IA -ULI <E 1*iKIBuICe i l iLUER MbuOd g OL>tir>M-. toI Moo DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
B5 DIB°6ujuniUGYO miro ,'. KowngoO Busento . b REGION BOUNDARIESBu~~~~~jr,
0No~~~~~~~kono TOROR
t~F . PORT ° 0 ) ,MUBENDE 6B-t 9 > AO -oeX kMoo- INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
D,otict -- meo coinciide with DiStTiCt Copifolo, ath oneaception Fort Portal in the Donnint Capitol of Kbe I Dor io O,to
B en ' KASESE KENYA
/ ~~~BUSHENYI Lo j6t; 0 |<S UA
Ql KKaj
o h, MRSAKA_ tuoo
1 Lake /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AM I
Edwar~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i
to0
This sop Thooenprp'dh-
RWANDA iodament b nge- Y ._a34' tTANZANIA 3 6°
NOVEMBER 1992
