evaluation of the community agriculture enterprise development ... · evaluation of the community...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterprise
DevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda
2010‐2012
MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisa
![Page 2: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 ii
![Page 3: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 iii
EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda2010‐2012MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisaJanuary2013
![Page 4: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheevaluationteamwouldliketothankallrespondentsfortheirtimeandinput,especiallyallfarmerswhowerewillingtosharetheirstoriesandexperienceswiththeteam.TheyalsothankRichardNsambaandFrancisKiwanukafromTriasUgandafortheirendlessenergy,goodadvices,patienceandtheirgreatsenseofhumourwhilearrangingandguidingtheteamtothecommunities.AspecialwordofthanksgoestothefieldadvisorsfromHodfa(GodfreyAyangira,BobGeorgeSundayandElishaR.Mucwa)andMadfa(DavidWanzala)forshowingtheirfieldworktotheteam,facilitationandtranslation.Davidwasthekingoftranslationandgreatlyfacilitatedtheevaluationbyspeakingatleast5ofthelocallanguages.TheteamwouldalsoliketothankPaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorofTriasUgandaforhisgeneroushospitality.MarlènArkesteijninfo@[email protected]
![Page 5: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 v
EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisdocumentreflectsthefindings,conclusionsandlessonslearnedofboththeevaluationoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme(CAEDP),andtheadditionalstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperationsintheprogrammearea.FindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyserveasinputforthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCAEDP.TheCAEDPisfundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam(financialinstitution),HodfaandMadfa(bothfarmerassociations)inHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda.Astheprogrammewasapproachingtheendofitsfirstphase(runningfrom2010‐2012),TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringthesameperiod.DuringtheCAEDPevaluationthattookplaceinOctober‐November2012,Tullowplacedarequestforanadditionalstudyintotheidentificationofalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.Thisstudytookplacerightafterthefieldworkoftheevaluationwascompleted.TheultimategoaloftheCAEDPistoincreasethefood‐andincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Tocontributetothisultimategoaltheprogrammehasseveralspecificobjectives:Enhancedadoptionofpracticesforgoodandbalancednutrition(Specificobjective1),increasedaccesstoandparticipationofsmallholdersinremunerativemarkets(Specificobjective2)andincreasedinvestmentinfarming(Specificobjective3).AfourthspecificobjectivefocusesonenhancingthecapacitiesofTrias,Hofokam,HodfaandMadfatocoordinateandimplementprogrammeactivities.Forspecificobjective2theprogrammeusestheso‐calledParticipatoryAgriculturalEnterpriseDevelopment(currentlyrenamedinto'EnablingRuralInnovation'(ERI))approach.Theevaluationfocussedonassessingearlysignsofimpact(increasedfoodandincomesecurity),andonresultsintermsofincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets(SO2)andincreasedinvestmentbyfarmersintheirfarmingpractices(SO3).Fortheevaluationusewasmadeofbothqualitative(Mostsignificantchangestoriesmethodandfocusgroupdiscussions)andquantitativemethods(questionnaire).ThefocusofthestudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperations,wasonexploringthepossible(negative)impactofTullowoperationsonthelivelihoodofcommunitiesandonexploringalternativelivelihoods.MainfindingsoftheevaluationTheevaluationteamconcludedthattheCAEDprogrammeshowsearlysignsofimpactindeedandhascontributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurityoftheparticipatingsmallholderfarmersinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Almostallhouseholdsinterviewedshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices.Non‐participatinghouseholdshaveincreasedtheirfoodandincomesecurityindicesaswellbutshowsignificantlyfewerpositivechangesinthevariouselementsoftheindicesthanparticipatinghouseholds.Almostallhouseholdsshowincreasedincomesecurity,eventhosehouseholdsthatdonotembarkoncollectivemarketingandcontinuetosellatindividuallevels.
![Page 6: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 vi
Allinterviewedhouseholdshaveincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets.Theynotonlyhavehigheryields,theycultivatemoreacresandselllargerpercentagesoftheiryieldsat(mainlylocal)markets.Althoughtheprogrammeindicatorsincludesallgroupsthatmakeprofitwiththeir'enterprises',thelevelsofprofitabilityvaryconsiderablybetweengroups.Thereare a)CAEDPgroupsthatmadethechangefromsubsistencedrivento'moremarket driven'farmersalready; b)Groupsthatareintheprocessoftransformationbutmainlylackaccesstogood markets(eitherduetoremotenessand/orlackofself‐organisation),and c)Groupsthatdonothavethepotentialtomakethemovetowardsmarketdriven farmerssincetheyeitherlackthetraditionofcultivatingcrops,lackmotivation and/orenablingconditionsforcropcultivation.Ingeneraltheparticipatinghouseholdsandgroupsareratherstronginsavingmoney,alsothankstootherprogrammesintheregion.Insomegroupstheyhaveamassedratherimportantvolumesofsavings.TheCAEDprogrammehasbenefitedfromthissavingcultureandhasadded,especiallyinBuliisa,anintensifieduseofthesavingsforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.ThenumberandvolumeofloansprovidedbyHofokamtofarmergroupshasincreasedsincethestartoftheprogramme,withadrawbackin2012duetostaffingproblems.Manygroupsareeagerlyanticipatingtowardsfutureloans,althoughthecreditfundwasalmostnearlyfullyinuseasoutstandingloansduringthetimeoftheevaluation.Oneoftheobjectivesoftheprogrammeistosupportfarmerstoobtainbetterpricesfortheirproduce.Aspricesarelowatthetimeofharvest,itoftenmeansthattheproduceneedstobestoredforsometimeafterharvest.However,theloansgivenoutbyHofokamingeneralneedtobepaidbackafter6months.Forsomecropsthismaymeanduringharvesttime,whenpricesareattheirlowest.Thisseemstobeacontradictionwithintheprogramme.Mainfindingsofthealternativelivelihoodstudy ThemainareasofTullowoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict.Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseen.Tullowhasnoclearview(yet)onhowandtowhatextentcommunitiesmaybeaffectedbytheiroperations.IngeneralthreetypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperations:
• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonfishing(Kiryambogo,Sebagoro,andBugoigolandingsites);
• Communitiesrelyingonfishingandagriculture(WansekoCOUsite),and• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonagriculture(Ngwedotradingcentre).
Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.AlthoughTullowrequestedtheresearcherstopayextraattentiontofishingcommunities,themainthreatforfishingcommunitiesiscomingfromwithinandnotdirectlyfromTullow
![Page 7: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 vii
operations.Unsustainablefishingpracticesarequicklydiminishingcertainfishstocksandifnolawenforcementisfollowed,hardlyanyfishwillbefishedoutofLakeAlbertinthenearfuture.Manyhouseholdsdependingonfishingneedtoembarkonalternativelivelihoodssoon,despitethedevelopmentofanewfish‐landingsite.Thereisnoone‐approach‐fits‐allforaffectedcommunities.Theteamisproposingtailor‐madealternativelivelihoods(asaguidelinenotasablueprint)forthedifferentgroups:•Cropcultivationforthosewithexperience(e.g.cotton,cassava,maize,beans,peas,citrusandvegetables);•Alternativelivelihoodsforthosemainlydependingonfishing:Sustainablefishfarming,sustainablefishing,livestockandtrading.Thismayindicateare‐directionoftheprogramme,includingadditionalpartnersthatareexperiencedinfishing,livestockandtrading.Trias'newstrategicchoicesforsupportingSmallScaleEntrepreneurscouldplayaroleindiversifyinglivelihoodsaswell.
![Page 8: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 viii
LISTOFABBREVIATIONSAbITrust AgribusinessInitiativeTrustAE AgricultureEnterpriseBAU BuildAfricaUgandaCAEDP CommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeDAC DevelopmentAssistanceCommitteeDLSP DistrictLivelihoodSupportProgrammeERI EnablingRuralInnovationFIEFOC FarmIncomeEnhancementandForestConservationprogrammeFS FoodSecurityGO GovernmentalorganizationHH HouseholdsHODFA HoimaDistrictFarmers’AssociationHOFOKAM Hoima,FortPortal,KaseseMicroFinance(institution)MFI Micro‐financeInstitutionMADFA MasindiDistrictFarmers’AssociationMDGs MillenniumDevelopmentGoalsMSC MostSignificantChangeNAADS NationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesprogrammeNDP NationalDevelopmentPlanNGO Non‐governmentalorganizationOS/ID OrganizationalStrengthening/InstitutionalDevelopmentPAED ParticipatoryAgro‐enterpriseDevelopmentPMA PlanforModernizationofAgriculturePME Planning,MonitoringandEvaluationSACCO SavingsandCreditCo‐operativeSO SpecificObjectiveToR TermsofReferenceVCA ValueChainAnalysis
![Page 9: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 ix
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Acknowledgements ivExecutivesummary vListofabbreviations viiiTableofcontents ix1.Introduction 12.Programmedescriptionandinterventioncontext 93.Evaluation&studyfindings 13Part1Evaluationfindings 13Part2Findingsonalternativelivelihoods 324.Conclusions,lessonslearned&recommendations 37Part1.Conclusions,lessonslearned&recommendationsoftheevaluation 37Part2.Conclusionsandrecommendationsofthelivelihoodstudy 40Annexes 43AnnexI.Listofdocumentsreviewedandconsulted 43AnnexII.Overviewofpeopleconsulted 45a.Peopleconsultedfortheevaluation 45b.Peopleconsultedforthealternativelivelihoodstudy 48AnnexIII.Termsofreference(includingtheextraassignment) 51AnnexIV.LogframeandObjectivesofCAEDProgramme 58AnnexV.Questionnaire 60AnnexVI.Foodandincomeindicescalculation 61
![Page 10: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 1
1.INTRODUCTIONThisdocumentreflectsthefindings,conclusionsandlessonslearnedofboththeevaluationoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme(CAEDP),andtheadditionalstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesaffectedbyTullowoperationsintheprogrammearea.TheCAEDPisfundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam(financialinstitution),HodfaandMadfa(bothfarmerassociations)inHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda.Astheprogrammewasapproachingtheendofitsfirstphase(runningfrom2010‐2012),TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringthesameperiod.DuringtheCAEDPevaluationthattookplaceinOctober‐November2012,Tullowplacedarequestforanadditionalstudyintotheidentificationofalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.ThisstudytookplacerightafterthefieldworkoftheevaluationitselfwascompletedinNovember‐December2012.FindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyserveasinputforthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCAEDP.TheultimategoaloftheCAEDPistoincreasethefood‐andincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Tocontributetothisultimategoaltheprogrammehasseveralspecificobjectives:Enhancedadoptionofpracticesforgoodandbalancednutrition(Specificobjective1),increasedaccesstoandparticipationofsmallholdersinremunerativemarkets(Specificobjective2)andincreasedinvestmentinfarming(Specificobjective3).AfourthspecificobjectivefocusesonenhancingthecapacitiesofTrias,Hofokam,HodfaandMadfatocoordinateandimplementprogrammeactivities.Forspecificobjective2theprogrammeusestheso‐calledParticipatoryAgriculturalEnterpriseDevelopment(currentlyrenamedinto'EnablingRuralInnovation'(ERI))approach.Duringtheevaluationearlysignsofincreasedfoodandincomesecuritywereassessed,aswellasresultsintermsofincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets(SO2)andincreasedinvestmentbyfarmersintheirfarmingpractices(SO3).Inthisdocumenttheevaluationteampresentsinchapter1theobjectivesoftheevaluationandtheadditionalstudy,themainquestionsandtheevaluationandstudymethodology.Inchapter2ashortsummaryoftheCAEDprogrammeanditscontextisprovided,whileinchapter3themainfindingsofboththeevaluationandthestudyareshared.Inchapter4themainconclusions,lessonslearnedandrecommendationsarepresented.1.1ObjectiveoftheevaluationandthelivelihoodstudyTheobjectiveoftheCAEDP‐evaluationwastoassessthemostcriticalresults,outcomes,andpotentialimpactoftheprogrammeduringtheperiod2010‐2012,andtogeneratelessons‐learnedandrecommendationstoimprovetheinterventionofTriasanditspartnersHofokam,HodfaandMadfaduringafollow‐upphaseoftheCAEDP.DuringtheevaluationspecialattentionwasgiventoearlysignsofincreasedfoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmerhouseholdsthatparticipateintheCAEDP.Besidestheseearlysignsofimpact,theevaluationfocussedonthetwospecificobjectives'increasedaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarkets'(SO2)and'increasedinvestmentinfarming'(SO3).
![Page 11: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 2
Theobjectiveofthelivelihoodstudywastoidentifyalternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationforfishingcommunitiesand/orforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperations‐gasandoilexploration‐intheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley.Recommendationsonthesealternativelivelihoodsand/orlivelihoodrestorationareintendedtoguidethedesignofthefollow‐upprogrammeofthecurrentphaseoftheCAEDP.1.2Evaluationandstudyquestionsa.EvaluationquestionsrelatedtotheoverallobjectiveQ1.FoodandincomesecurityArethereanyearlysignsofimpactwrtsustainableimprovementofthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert?Sub‐questions:Q1.1 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofa businessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?Q1.2 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredand knowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.Q1.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetarget group’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐and districtlevel?b.Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective2Q2.Increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets?Sub‐questions:Q2.1 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto markets?Q2.2 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasein competencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Q2.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarket functioning?Q2.4 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfrom agricultureathouseholdlevel?Q2.5 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityand qualityofagriculturalproduce?Q2.6 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof HodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup?c.Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective3Q3.IncreasedinvestmentinfarmingbusinessTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness?Sub‐questions:Q3.1 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto financialservicesforthetargetgroup?
![Page 12: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 3
Q3.2 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureof thetargetgroup?Q3.3 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialand productioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Q3.4 Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentin farmingbusiness?Q3.5 Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof Hofokamtothetargetgroup?Besidesansweringtheseevaluationquestions,theteamhadashortassessmentofspecificobjective4'Enhancingcapacitiesofpartnersforprogrammecoordinationandimplementation'.d.EvaluationquestionsrelatedtotheDACTevaluationcriteriaNexttothespecificevaluationquestions,theDACevaluationcriteria1werepartoftheevaluationaswell:Q4.1 Relevance:Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywith requirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?Q4.2 Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?Q4.3 Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedto alternatives?Q4.4 Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐term impact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?Q4.5 Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii) financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?e.ResearchquestionstoidentifyalternativelivelihoodsQ5.1 How and to what extent will Tullow operations affect communities and the livelihoodsofcommunitiesintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley? Theassumptionisthate.g.resettlementrequiresdifferentapproachesforthe restorationoridentificationforalternativelivelihoodsthanthelossofoneortwo resources(land,water,fishgroundsetc).Q5.2 WhattypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperationsandhow? Theassumptionhereisthatthetypeofcommunitiesandtheirlivelihoodmay influencethechoiceforalternativelivelihoods(e.g.affectedfishingcommunities mayneeddifferentapproachesthanfarmercommunities).Q5.3 GiventhevariousscenariosofnegativeimpactbyTullowoperations,thetypesof affectedcommunitiesandtheirgeographicallocations:Whatarepossible alternativelivelihoodsorrestoredlivelihoodsofaffectedcommunities?1.3CompositionoftheevaluationandstudyteamTheevaluationteamconsistedoftwoconsultants:BonifaceMugisa(Ugandannational,expertinagriculturalenterprisedevelopmentandmicrofinance)andMarlènArkesteijn(Netherlandsnational,expertin(visual)evaluationmethodologyandruraldevelopment).MarlènArkesteijnwastheleadconsultantandresponsibleforthedesignoftheevaluationandthestudy,itsworkshops,fieldvisitsandpartnerinterviewsandassessments,datacollectionandanalysis,andwritingofthereport.Shedidthisinclosecooperationwith
1 http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html
![Page 13: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 4
BonifaceMugisa.Bonifacewasmainlyresponsibleforthequantitativedatacollectionduringtheevaluation,whileMarlènfocussedonthe(visual)qualitativedatacollection.Thedatagatheringinthefieldfortheadditionalstudy(includingtheanalyses)wasdonebyBonifaceMugisa,whilecoachingandreportingwasdonebyMarlènArkesteijn.Duringtheevaluation,theteamwasstrengthenedbyRichardNsamba(fieldadvisorofTriasinMasindi,HoimaandBuliisa).Hearrangedallvisitstotrainingcentresandcommunitiesandcreatedallenablingconditions(asfarasinhiscontrol,rangingfromlogistics,backgroundinformationandharmonywithintheextendedevaluationteam)fortheteamtodoitswork.FrancisKiwanuka,thedriverofTrias,Ugandamadesuretheteamreachedthecommunitiessafely,despitemud,rainandrivers.InHoimatheteamwasaccompaniedduringthefieldvisitsbyfieldadvisorsfromHodfa,respectivelyBobGeorgeSunday(Runga),GodfreyAganyira(Kabanda),andMucwaElisha(Kaseeta).AndronziGaditranslatedinHoima.InBuliisathe(evaluation)teamworked,besidesRichardandFrancis,withDavidWanzala,fieldadvisorfromMadfa.Davidservedasamulti‐talent,notonlyfacilitatingthecommunitymeetings,butalsodoingmostofthetranslationsashewastheonlyoneoftheteamwhospokeandunderstoodalllocallanguages(fromLugungu,Alur,BunyorotoSwahili).1.4Evaluationandstudyprocessandmethodologya.EvaluationprocessandmethodologyFortheevaluation,theteamusedacombinationofqualitativeandquantitativeresearch,basedontheCORT(CollaborativeOutcomeReportingTechnique)method(Dart,2010)thatincludestheMostSignificantChangemethod(DaviesandDart,2005)andfocusgroupdiscussionscombinedwithquantitativesecondaryandprimarydatacollection(includingtheuseofaquestionnaireandsemi‐structuredinterviews).ThisCORTmethodenablesfarmersandpartnerstoparticipateasfaraspossibleindatacollectionandanalysis.Theevaluationtookplaceatthree(embedded)levels:Programmelevel,partner/districtlevelandcommunitylevel.Ateachleveltheevaluationstartedwithakick‐offmeetingorworkshopafterwhichdatacollectioncommenced,andclosedwithavalidationandreflectionmeetingorworkshoptopresentanddiscussthefirstfindings.Atprogrammeandpartner/districtleveltheteamheldsemi‐structuredinterviewswithTriasstaff,Tullow,variousstakeholders,likeotherNGOsanddistrictofficers.Withthepartnerstheteamheldworkshopsandsemi‐structuredinterviews,capacityself‐assessmentsandaMostSignificantChangeexerciseoncapacitystrengthening.Atcommunityleveltheteamheldgroupdiscussions,didtheMostSignificantChangeexerciseonimpactandoutcomes,anddidfacetofaceinterviewswiththehelpofaquestionnaire.TheMostSignificantChangemethodwastargetingatharvestingearlysignsof(expectedandunexpected)outcomesandimpactathouseholdsandcommunitylevel,andqualitativeargumentationonhowtheprogrammecontributedtothesechanges.Throughaquestionnairequantitativedatawasgatheredonfoodandincomesecurity(atcommunitylevel)ofbothbeforetheprogrammestarted(2009)andcurrentlevels,anddataonmarketaccess.SomeoftheMostSignificantChangestorieswererecordedonvideosinceusing
![Page 14: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 5
visualswerepartandparceloftheevaluationtofacilitatedirectrepresentationoffarmers,andtofacilitatereflection.Whiledesigningtheevaluationapproachtheteamaimedatincludingnon‐CAEDPfarmersaswell,togetabetterunderstandingofthecontributionoftheCAEDPtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.Duetotherathershortvisitstothecommunities(from10.00‐16.00),theteamonlyinterviewedaverylimitednumberofnon‐CAEDPfarmers(11outof83totalrespondents).Forthefieldworkthreecommunities(trainingcentres)perdistrictwereselected.Theevaluationteamrequestedforrepresentativecentreswithgroupsthatwereconsideredstrongadopters(goodCAEDPresults),middleadopters(averageCAEDPresults)andweakadopters(hardlyornoCAEDPresults(yet)).Thisresultedinthefollowingselectionofcommunities/trainingcentresandgroups(seetable1). Numberofgroups/participants
inevaluationNumber(percentage)ofwomen
participatinginevaluationHoima 41people(10groups) 13(31%)Kigorobya/Runga(middle) 16people(4groups) 5Buseruka/Kabanda(weak) 10people(3groups) 4Kabwoya/Kaseeta(strong) 15people(3groups) 4Buliisa 52people(14groups) 22(42%)Biiso/Biiso(strong‐middle) 20people(5groups) 6Ngwedo/Avogera(middle‐weak) 16people(5groups) 9Kisyabi/Uribo(middle‐weak) 16people(4groups) 7Total 93people(24groups) 35(38%)Table1Trainingcentres,groupsand(women)farmersinvolvedintheevaluationIntotaltheprogrammeworkswith130groupsinHoimaandaround110inBuliisa.Theteamwasabletovisit24groupsofthe240intotal(10%).Thenumberofwomenparticipantsintheevaluationisratherlow(38%),especiallywhenknowingthathalf(50%)ofthemembersofthegroupstheteamvisitedwerewomen.Itisuncleartotheevaluationteamwhythenumberofwomenthatparticipatedintheevaluationdidnotrepresenttheirparticipationinthegroups.OnselectionoftheMostSignificantChangestoriesSincenotallreadersmaybeversedintheuseofMSC,ashortsummaryoftheMSCmethodandselectionofstoriesispresentedhere:Ineverycommunitytheteamworkedwithmembersofdifferentfarmergroupsintwosmallevaluationgroups(ofaround8farmerspergroup)toharvestandselectMostSignificantChangeStories.Thequestionaskedtothefarmerswas:Fromyourpointofview,whatisforyouthemostsignificantchangethathastakenplaceinyourlifeoverthelast2‐3yearsafteryoujoinedyourfarmersgroup?Aftertellingthestories,adiscussionwouldfollowonthestoriesandbasedonargumentationoneofthestorieswouldbeselectedasthestorythatrepresentstheresultsoftheprogrammebest.Ineverycommunitytheteamwouldcapturethesetwostories(sometimesthreewhenthegroupfoundtwostoriesbest)onvideo.Attheendoftheday,thevideoswouldbepresentedonavideo‐screentothewholecommunitytosharethestoriesandtofacilitatediscussiononwhythesestorieswereconsideredimportantandhowrepresentativetheywereforthecommunity.Aftervisitingthreecommunities,the6‐8videoswouldbeshowntothepartnersinthedistricttosharethestoriesandtofacilitatediscussionandreflectiononresultsoftheprogrammefromtheirpointofview.
![Page 15: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 6
Basedondiscussions,thepartnerswouldselecttwostories‐thatintheirviewsrepresent
theresultsoftheprogrammebest‐tobesharedanddiscussedatprogrammelevel.b.StudyprocessandmethodologyFortheadditionallivelihoodstudy,thefollowingmethodswereused:
a.In‐depthinterviewswithTullowstaffonhow,whereandwhenTullowoperationswillaffectlivelihoodsofcommunities,andidentifythepossiblelevelofimpact(fromlossofsomeresourcestoresettlement).b.Fieldworkusingfocusgroupdiscussionsin5communitiesandaone‐pagequestionnaireforhouseholdinterviewsin4possiblyaffectedcommunities(withdifferentlevelsofimpact)toidentifycurrentlivelihoodsandlevelsofincome,andpossiblealternativelivelihoodsthatfittheagriculturalandtradingzone,cultureofthecommunitiesand(atleast)levelsofcurrentincomeandfoodsecuritylevels.c.In‐depthinterviewswithdistrictofficerstoidentifypossiblealternativelivelihoodstobeincludedinthefollow‐upproposalfortheCAEDprogramme.
InconsultationwithTullowandtheCAEDPpartnersthefollowingcommunitieswereselectedforthestudy.ThesecommunitiesmoreorlessrepresentthosecommunitiesaffectedorlikelytobeaffectedbyTullowoperations(seetable2):HoimadistrictSub‐county Community DescriptionBuseruka Kiryambogo
LandingsiteDownescarpment,remoteanddifficulttoaccessbyvehicles,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.
Kabwoya SebagoroLandingsite
Downescarpment,veryremote,poorroad,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.
BuliisadistrictKigwera WansekoCOU
siteNearferrycrossing,fishing/farmingcommunity,oilfoundinvicinity,noexploitationyet.
Ngwedo NgwedoTradingcentre
Remote,mainlyfarmingcommunity,morethan5oilwellsdetected,noexploitationyet.
Butiaba BugoigoLandingsite
Fishingcommunity,surroundedbyoilwells,noexploitationyet.
Table2Communitiesvisitedduringthelivelihoodstudy
Community Community Community Community Community Community
CAEDP
District/partners District/partners
Figure1MSCselectionprocess
![Page 16: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 7
1.5MainevaluationandstudyactivitiesThemainevaluationactivitiesincludedthefollowing:
• Deskreview.• Collectionof80MostSignificantChangestoriestoldbyfarmers.• Intotal13MSCstorieswerevideotaped,6inHoimaand7inBuliisa.InbothHoima
andBuliisadistricts,2MSCstorieswereselectedbyrespectivelyHodfaandMadfa/HofokamasrepresentingtheresultsoftheCAEDPbest.DuringthevalidationworkshopinKampalathesefourMSCstorieswereshownanddiscussedbyrepresentativesofTullow,TriasandHofokam,HodfaandMadfa.
• Collectionof83questionnaires(72CAEDPand11nonCAEDPfarmers).• Groupdiscussionswith24groupsonfunctioningoffarmergroups(atcommunity
level).• Groupdiscussioninfishingcommunitytounderstandfishingissues.• Kick‐offandvalidationworkshops&discussionswithpartners&Trias.• Capacityself‐assessmentsby10staffmembersofthepartnersHofokam,Hodfaand
Madfa.• Collectionof8MSConcapacitydevelopmentbypartners,ofwhich3wererecorded
onvideotape.• Interviewswith13stakeholders(districtofficers,Tullow,Traidlinks).• Analyses(duringvalidationworkshopsandwithintheevaluationteam.
Themainstudyactivitiesincluded:
• Deskreview.• Collectionof68questionnaires(ofwhom46CAEDPparticipantsand22non‐CAEDP
participants)• Groupdiscussionswith5groupsonlivelihoodsandalternatives• Interviewswith11stakeholders(districtofficers,Tullow).• Analyses
1.6FactorscontributingorinfluencingtheevaluationandstudyexercisesFactorscontributingtotheevaluationandstudyexercisesFromallthreepartners(Hofokam,HodfaandMadfa),TriasandTullowtheteamreceivedfullcooperationandmotivationtoparticipateintheevaluationandthestudy.EspeciallythetimeandeffortsprovidedbythefieldadvisorsofMadfa,HodfaandTriaswereveryconduciveforconductingbothresearches.ThetranslationsofAndronziGadi(thetranslatorinHoima)andDavidWanzala(fieldadvisorMadfa)duringtheevaluationwereindispensableinaworldoftribesandlocallanguages.Mostofthefarmersparticipatingintheevaluationandstudywerehighlymotivatedtosharetheirexperiences,andtoshowtheteamtangibleresults,eitheratgrouporhouseholdlevel.Someoftheminsistedonshowingtheirfieldsandhouseswithlimitlessenergy.TheuseofvideoduringtheevaluationforrecordingtheMostSignificantChangestoriesworkedverywellintermsofdirectrepresentation,andcontributedtolivelyandinspiringdiscussionsatbothcommunity,partnerandprogrammelevel.FactorsnegativelyinfluencingtheevaluationandstudyexercisesUnfortunatelydataonfoodandincomesecurityandsomeoutcomeindicatorswerenot‐asplanned‐availablebeforetheteam'sdeparturetothefield.Incomeandfoodsecurity
![Page 17: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 8
indices,andsomeoftheoutcomeindicatorscouldnotbeverifiedduringtheevaluationasplannedinthefield.Thisisoneofthereasonswhytheteamdecidedtogetthefoodandincomesecuritydatathroughtheirownquestionnaire.Boththeevaluationandstudytookplaceinthemiddleoftherainyseasonwhenfarmersarebusyintheirfields.Manytimestherewasratherlimitedtimeinthecommunitiesforalltheevaluationandstudyactivities(usuallyfrom11.30AM‐16.00PM).Asaresultaverylimitednumberofnon‐CAEDPfarmerscouldbeinterviewed,andsometimesevenalimitednumberofparticipatingfarmers.Althoughtherewas‐duringtheevaluation‐alwaysapersonthattranslatedintheteam,manytimes,especiallyinBuliisa,onlyonepersonoftheteamcouldspeakallthelocallanguages.Thismeantthatsometimes2cyclesoftranslationhadtobedone.Thereforetheevaluationactivitiestooklongerthananticipated,especiallythequestionnairessinceboththeinternationalandnationalevaluatordidnotmasterthelocallanguages.Againtherainyseasoncanbepartlyblamedfornotbeingabletoreachoneofthecommunitiesintimeduringtheevaluation.Twocarsgotstuckinthemud,andeventuallycouldnotcrossthetemporaryriverswhengoingtoKabanda,Hoima.WhenKabandawasreachedaround13.30PMmostofthefarmershadleftthemeetingplace.ForKabandaonly2effectiveworkinghourswereavailabletoconducttheinterviews,groupsession,andMSCstorycollection.
![Page 18: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 9
2.PROGRAMMEDESCRIPTIONANDINTERVENTIONCONTEXT2.1DesignoftheCAEDprogrammeTheCommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentprogrammeisgearedatimprovingthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsandtosupportthemtomovefromsubsistencetomore'commercial'farming(throughfirst'marketingpartoftheiryield'andeventuallytomore'commercial'farming).Thispathtomorecommercialfarmingistoensurethatfarmersgetmorecashincome(withoutlosingfoodsecurity)andcancaterforthegrowingdemandforfoodintheregionandUganda.2TheprogrammeusestheParticipatoryAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopment(PAEDorERI)approachtoenablefarmerstobecomemoremarketoriented.ThecoreofthePAEDliesintheformationoffarmergroupsthroughwhichthefarmerschooseprofitableagriculturalenterprises,researchthemarket,docost‐benefitanalyses,gettrainingonagricultureandpost‐harveststoragetechniques,andintheend,markettheir(individual)producecollectively.Theideabehindsellingcollectivelyisamongothersthatfarmerscannegotiatebetterpriceswhentheysellasagroup.Nexttotheproductionandmarketingaspecttheprogrammepaysattentiontofoodcropsandfoodsecurity,andtriestofacilitateanincreaseofinvestmentsinagriculturethroughsavingschemesandloans(bothinternalandexternal).Thesethreeaspectsofincreasingproductionandmarketing,foodsecurityandinvestmentinfarmingformthepillarsoftheprogramme(seefigure2GoalsandobjectivesoftheCAEDprogramme,page10).Workingingroupsrunsthroughotherelementsoftheprogrammeaswell:Thegroupselectsanenterprise,makesabusinessplan,savestogether,takes(iffeasible/needed)aloanasagroup(butdivideitoverthehouseholds)andmarketasagroup.Theprogrammeisimplementedby3localpartnerorganisations:2districtfarmerorganisations(HoimaDistrictFarmers’Association(Hodfa)andMasindiDistrictFarmers’Association(Madfa),bothestablishedin1992)andonemicro‐financeinstitution(Hoima,FortPortal,KaseseMicroFinance(HOFOKAM)foundedin2003).TheyattheirturnaresupportedbyTriasUganda.2.2ContextdescriptionTheCAEDprogrammeaimedtotargetapproximately3,640smallholderfarmhouseholdsbetween2010‐2012infoursub‐countiesinHoima(Kabwoya,Buseruka,Kigorobya&Kyangwali)and(all)3sub‐countiesinBuliisadistrict(Biiso,BuliisaandBuliisaTownCouncil).BothdistrictsareborderingLakeAlbertinwesternUganda.BuliisadistrictisanewdistrictinwesternUganda,createdin2006.Priortothat,thedistrictusedtobepartofMasindiDistrict.Thedistrictisprimarilyruralandmostpeopleinthedistrictarepastoralists,fishermenorsubsistencesmallholderfarmers.The'maintown'inthedistrictisBuliisa‐town,located80kilometres(50miles)by(rough)roadnorthwestofMasindiandborderingLakeAlbert.Buliisatownis'lands‐end'andthereforeratherisolatedandremote.In2010thepopulationofBuliisadistrictwasestimatedtobeapproximately88,700.ThemajortribesfoundinBuliisaincludetheBagungu,theAlur,theLuoandBanyoro.Hoimadistrictisatypicalruraldistrictwithupto91%ofthepopulationlivingintheruralareasandengagedinagriculture.Theymainlycultivatecoffee,maize,cassava,banana,beans,vegetables,millet,groundnuts,cocoa,Irishpotatoes,tea,tobacco,soyabeansand 2The'ComprehensiveFoodSecurity&VulnerabilityAnalysisonUganda'(WFP,2009)showsthatwhilethepopulationisincreasingattherateof3.2percentannually;foodproductionisgrowingatlessthan3percent.
![Page 19: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 10
UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway
SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear
SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets
SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness
Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation
Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden
Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops
Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh
HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome
FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened
Groups:knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE
Groups:skillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE
Groups:knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages
Groups:knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest
Groups:facilitatedwithcollectivemarketing
Groups:skillsinPME
Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed
Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement
Savingsculturepromoted
Outreachservicesincreased
Partnersequippedwithstaff&capacitytoprovideappr.servicestomembers
Partners:Agriculturefriendlyfinancialservicesavailed
CapacitytoPMEandreportimproved
Capacitytomanageresourcestransparentlyandaccountablestrengthened
Programmeplansandactivitiespartnerswellcoordinated
Infosharingandcollaborationwithmajorstakeholdersenhanced
TRIAS:CapacityTriasstafftoprovidecapacitybuildingsupporttolocalpartners&tocoordinateprogrammeactivitiesenhanced
TRIAS
HODFA,MADFA,HOFOKAM
Farmerhouseholds&groups
Figure2GoalsandobjectivesoftheCAEDprogramme
![Page 20: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 11
uplandrice.Thedistricthad(in2006)apopulationofabout383,500people,withanannualpopulationgrowthrateof4.7%.Thedistricthasafairlyyoungpopulationwith46%ofthepeoplebeingbelow15yearsofage(57%below18yearsofage).ThelargestethnicgrouparetheBanyoro,followedbytheBagungu,Banyankole,theBakiga,Lugbara,Langi,Acholi,BagisuandtheBaganda.TheCAEDPbaselinestudyconductedin2009quotesthatmorethan75%ofthepopulationofthesetwodistrictsaresmallholderfarmersthataremainlysubsistenceorientedwithlandholdingsrangingfrom0.25‐5hectares.Theyareincomeandfoodinsecure,marketilliterate,facealackofcapitaland/oraccesstoexternalcapitalandareusuallyunorganisedwithlimitedcollectivemarketing.Ingeneral,smallholderfarmhouseholdsconstitutethemostvulnerableandpoorestsegmentofHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Whileapproximately55%ofthehouseholdsassertedin2009tohavingsufficientfoodthroughouttheyear,dietsareone‐sidedandbasedon‘whatisavailableonthefarm’.Farmhouseholdsgenerallylackedskillsandknowledgeonfoodnutrition,appropriatefoodstorageandpreservation(includingprocessing)andfoodpreparation.ThenumberofHIV/Aidsaffectedfamiliesvariedfrom25%to65%.Ofthesehouseholdsanestimated30‐35%arefemale‐headedandapproximately7‐10%areorphan‐headedhouseholds.EstimationsonHIV/Aidsinfectedheadsofhouseholds(husband/wife)rangedfrom10‐15%(seeTrias,2010).Animportantdevelopmentintheregionisthediscoveryofoil:Duringthefirst10yearsofthe2000s,aconsiderableamountofcrudeoildepositshavebeendiscoveredinbothHoimaandBuliisadistricts.TheUgandanGovernmentisinthefinalstagesofpreparingtoextracttheoildiscoveredinthedistricts.ThediscoveryofoilisalreadyattractingtheinfluxofpeoplefromothersidesofUgandaandCongo.Insomeplacethishascreatedtensionbetweenvarioustribesandtheirlivelihoodstrategies(farmersversuspastoralists).InstitutionalsurroundingsoftheprogrammeInthepast10yearsthepolicyenvironmentfortheagriculturesectorinUgandahasbeenshapedbyboththeNationalDevelopmentPlan(NDP,launchedin2010)andthePlanforModernizationofAgriculture(PMA).TheNDPidentifiedalonglistoflimitationsaffectingagriculturalproductionandfoodsecurity:Inadequateproductionandpost‐harvestfacilities;limitedextensionsupport;inadequatediseaseandpestcontrols;weakstandardsinfoodsecurityandqualityassuranceinfrastructure;weakvaluechainlinkages;etc.Consequently,theNDPincorporatesspecificstrategicobjectivesaimingatenhancingagricultureproductionandproductivity;increasingthenumberoffunctioningandsustainableagriculturefarmersorganizationsinvolvedincollectivemarketing;improvingaccessandsustainabilityofmarkets;supportingthehungerpreventioninitiatives;improvingaccesstohighqualityinputs,plantingandstockingmaterials;enhanceproductivityoflandandwaterresources;etc.ThePMAcomplementstheNDPwithprovidingnationalagricultureadvisoryservices,ruralfinancing,agro‐processing,andmarketing,agricultureeducation,etc.InmanycommunitiesinbothHoimaandBuliisadistricts,theNationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesprogramme(NAADS)givesshapetotheabove‐mentionedpoliciesby(amongothers)activelystimulatingtheformationoffarmergroups.TheapproachoftheNAADSistoworkwithmodelfarmerswhoarebeingtrained,andget(inpractice'free')inputs.Themodelfarmersattheirturnaresupposedtoextendtheirknowledge,skillsandsometimesinputstotheothergroupmembers(Esfim,2011).Insomecommunitiesandgroupsthisapproachseemstowork,inothercommunitiesnotatall.
![Page 21: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 12
Facilitatingpracticesofmicro‐financeisoneoftheapproachesthathavebeenadoptedbygovernmenttoachievetheMDGs.ThepreferredformoffinancialintermediationintheruralsectoristhroughSavingsandCreditCo‐operatives(SACCOs).Communitiesinallsub‐countiesinUgandaareencouragedandassistedbythegovernmenttoestablishfunctionalandviableSACCOs.ThisentailsintheorysupportingcommunitiestostartupSACCOswherenoneexist,whileweakSACCOsaresupposedtobestrengthenedintosafeandsoundinstitutions.EachoftheSACCOsstrengthenedshouldfurtherbelinkedtoaformalfinancialinstitution,usuallyacommercialbank.In2005,amicro‐financepolicyandregulatoryframeworkforUganda(2005–2015)waslaunchedwiththethemetosupportanintegratedmicrofinancesectorinthecountry.InHoimaandBuliisatheseSACCOswerenotexistingandfarmersdidnothaveaccesstomicro‐financeinstitutionswhentheprogrammestarted.InbothHoimaandBulliisamanyotherNGOsandGOprogrammesareactivetocontributetopovertyeradicationandfoodandincomesecurity.BuildAfricaUgandaisactiveinsettingupsavinggroups,UgandaWildlifeAssociationhandedoutbeehivesasanincomegeneratingactivity,NAADSdidthesameandalsoprovidedinputsforcroppingandgoats,FarmIncomeEnhancementandForestConservation(FIEFOC)programmesupportedcommunities,theDistrictLivelihoodSupportProgramme(DLSP)isactive,etc.
![Page 22: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 13
3.EVALUATION&STUDYFINDINGSPART1EVALUATIONFINDINGS3.1IntroductionInordertounderstandthefindingsandthedifferencesinresultsoftheprogramme,theteamconsidersithelpfultofirstpresentthedifferencesbetweenthecommunitiestheteamvisited.Impactandoutcomesaredefinitelynotonlyinfluencedbytheprogramme,butbymanyotherfactorsandactorsthateitherfacilitateand/orhinderresultstoemerge(seefigure3).Theagriculturalzone,(micro‐)climates,thevicinityofatradingcentre,goodroads,astablepopulation,stablegroups,cultureandsocialstructuresinacommunity,presenceofotherNGOandGOprogrammes,experiencewiththecultivationofcropsforexamplemayenableandfacilitateagriculturalproductionandcollectivemarketing.Semi‐aridplaceswithpoorsoils,remotenessofacommunity,anunstablepopulation(in‐andoutflux)arefactorsthatarelessenablingforincreasedagriculturalproduction,andfoodandincomesecurityimprovements.Tomakechangehappeninsuchcommunitiesmaytakemoreeffortandtime,ormayevenrequiredifferentapproachesthanthepromotionofcultivatingcrops.Inthedistrictstheteamobservedgreatdifferencesinenablingandhinderingfactorsthatdefinitelyinfluencedthelevelofsuccessoftheprogramme(seetable3,page14).
Subsistencesmallholder
farmerhouseholds
Agriculturalconditions(soil
etc)
Markets
Culture,history
Weather/microclimate
Migrationpatters
PhysicalInfrastructure
Figure3Actorsandfactorsinfluencingfarmerhouseholds
Knowledge
Ownership/accesstoland
Labour
Alternativelivelihoods
OtherGO/NGOprogrammes
Lawsandregulations
CAEDP
![Page 23: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 14
HoimadistrictSub‐county/parish
Community
Kigorobya Runga Downescarpment,remote,fishing,farming,livestock,mixedAlur,Bagungu,Congolese,in‐outflux,semi‐arid,shortseason,Hodfaentered2011
Buseruka Kabanda Downescarpment,remote,fishing,tradeandlivestock,verymixedpopulation,strongin‐outflux,extremeclimateconditions,Hodfaentered2011.
Kabwoya Kaseeta Upescarpment,tradingcentre/road,farming&trade,Alur&Lugbara,stablepopulation,enablingconditionsforagriculture,Hodfaentered2010.
BuliisadistrictBiiso Biiso Upescarpment,road/tradingcentre,mixedpopulation,farming,
trading.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2011,stableandexistinggroups.
Buliisa/Ngwedo Avogera Upescarpment,remote,mainlyAlur,mainlyfarming.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2010,existinggroups.
Buliisa/Kisyabi Uribo Upescarpment,remote,mainlyAlur.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2010,existinggroups.
Table3Enablingandhinderingfactorsinthecommunitiesvisited,asobservedbytheteam3.2OverallfindingsAswillbeshowninthefollowingparagraphstheresultsoftheCAEDprogrammearepositive:
• AlmostallsmallholderfarmhouseholdsparticipatingintheCAEDPshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices;
• Almostallfarmershaveincreasedaccesstoandparticipateinremunerativemarkets;
• Alargegroupoffarmersmakeuseofloansandsavingsforinvestmentintheiragriculturalproduction.
Whenexploringabitdeeperintotheresultsandhowtheprogrammehascontributedtotheresults,theevaluationteamfoundthefollowingpatterns:
• Somehouseholdsbenefitmorefromtheprogrammethanothers:Betweenthecommunitieslargedifferencescanbeseenwhenprobingbeyondtheprogrammeindicators;
• Amajorityofthehouseholdshasincreasedtheirincomeandfoodsecurity,buthavedonesothroughindividualmarketingandnot,asintendedbytheprogramme,throughcollectivemarketing;
• Whiletheprogrammeanditspartnersintendtodeliveranoverallapproachforincreasingproduction(foodandcashcrops),marketing,saving,loaningetc,mostfarmersregardtheprogrammeasaprogrammetoincreaseproductionand/orasasavingprogramme.
3.3FindingsbasedontheMSCstoriesThesepatternsmentionedabovebecameclearthroughthegroupdiscussionsinthecommunityandwereconfirmedbytheMostSignificantChangestories.DuringtheMostSignificantChangeexercises,althoughfarmerswererequestedtotalkabout'changesintheirlivelihoodsituations',themajorityoffarmersreferredtooutcomesoftheCAEDPprogrammeasmostsignificantchanges.Mostofthestorieswereabouttheuseofnewmethodsforfarminglikespacing,improvedseed,plantinginrows,forbothfoodandcashcrops(39ofthe80stories),orabout'saving'(20/80)(seefigure3).
![Page 24: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 15
Only7outofthe80storieshadimprovedincomeandfoodsecurityasmaintopic.Thisdoesnotmeanthathouseholdsdidnotimprovetheirincomeand/orfoodsecuritysituation(58farmersindicatedintheirstoriesthattheirincomeandfoodsecurityhadimprovedthroughe.g.improvedfarmingmethods)butforthemthechangeinfarmingmethodswasmoresignificant(andlikelymoretangible)thanthechangeinincomeandfoodsecurity.ThiscouldalsobeexplainedbythereasoningthattheimprovedfarmingmethodscouldbeeasilyconnectedtotheCAEDP,whileotherfactorsthantheprogrammealsocontributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.FarmersassociatedtheCAEDPmorewithimprovedagriculturalpracticesandsavingpractices(bothpracticeswerewidelyused)thanwithmarketing,marketingingroups,cost‐benefitsanalyses(attributesof'farmingasabusiness').Againanexplanationcouldbepossiblyfoundinthetangibilityofagriculturalpracticesandsaving,andpossiblyinthefactthatformanygroupstheprogrammejuststarted.
UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway
SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear
SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets
SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness
Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation
Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden
Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops
Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh
HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome
FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened
Knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE
SkillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE
Knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages
Knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest
Groupsfacilitatedwithcollectivemarketing
SkillsinPME
Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed
Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement
Savingsculturepromoted
Outreachservicesincreased
Farmerhouseholds2 5
13
1
22
20
1
39
1
Other:Hopeforthefuture 1
Other:Knowledge&skillsinimprovinganimalhusbandry:goats 2
Figure3MaintopicsofMostSignificantChangestoriesbyfarmersThenumbersindicatehowmanystories(ofthe80)wererelatedtothe(sub)objectives.Redboxesindicatenewtopics.
![Page 25: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 16
PartnersHodfa,MadfaandHofokamselectedthosestories(4)thatwereaboutincreasedincome,investmentforastableincomeandworkingingroupssincetheyfoundthesestoriesrepresentingtheresultsoftheprogrammebest(seethestoriesatpage16and17).MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyHodfa1:Theimportanceofbelongingtoagroup(inAlur)
IamOcunaYotam,fromRungavillage,Kibiroparish,Kigorobyasub‐county,Hoima.Itisgoodtobeinagroup(Tekwakogroup)becauseithasbroughtchange.IusedtobeafishermanbutIdidnotgetmuchprofitoutofitanylonger.Thegroupgivesmealotofprofit:WithmygroupIcancultivatemylandeasilysincetheyhelpme.Idonothavemuchlabour,butwiththehelpofthegroupIcantilltheland.ThroughthegroupIknowhowtosavemoney,andhowtogetloans.WegettrainingfromHodfaonagriculturalmethodsinagrouponly.Soitisimportanttobeinagroup.Werealisethebenefitsofbeingin
agroupandifwecontinuewemayseechangesin2‐3years’time.Iamhappytobeinagroup.IfweregisterwithHodfaIamsurethatwewillprofitinthefuture.Ihavealreadyseensomedifferences.Allbenefitswillcomethroughtheeffortsofthegroup.Stayinginagroupmeansthatwelookforamarketofthecropsthatwearegoingtoplant.Sothatwhenwesell,wewillgetprofitoutofit.Ifwejoinhandswithmicro‐finance,weshallgetevenmoreprofit.ThatiswhyIamgratefulofbeinginagroup.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyHodfa2:Improvedproductionandincome(English)
IamAdrikoLetiSustain,fromKaseetaparish,Kabwoyasub‐county,Hoima.Infactthereisaverybigchangesincetheprogrammestartedandtaughtusnewmethodsofagriculturalproduction.ThechangeIhaveseenisreal.Formerlyweusedtoplantourcropswithoutknowinganythingaboutspacingandlining.WhenHodfaintroducedandtrainedusinmodernmethodsoffarming,wemanagetoincreaseouryields.Beforeweproducedandplantedzigzag;nowweplantinlineandusespacingof30x70cm.Thatspacingchangedouryields.BeforeIproduced600kg/acre,currentlyIamproducing1500kg/acre.Thesearethe
benefitsIhaveseenfromtheprogramme.Wealsouseimprovedseedsandthisalsoincreasesouryield.Throughthesehighyields,ourincomehasincreasedaswell.AsaresultIconstructedapermanenthousewithfourrooms.Imanagedtostartbusinesseslikeasaloon,andaphonechargingbusiness.Thevideohallwherewearesittingnowisalsoaresultoftheprogramme.MostimportanttomeisthatIhaveacquiredknowledgeandskillsandthatIcouldabandontheoldmethods.ThatisthelittlestoryIcantell.Irequesttheprogrammetocontinuesupportingus.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyMadfa&Hofokam‐Buliisa1:Improvedproductionandincome(Alur)
IamOnenJackson,DikiriberticKutegogroup,fromAvogeravillage,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐county.Iamgoingtotalkaboutthechangewehaveseen,andthehardshipwegot.Beforewedidnothavegoodpracticesinfarming.WhenMadfacametheyprovidedmanytypesoftraining:Weweretrainedoncultivatingsoybean,e.g.spacingof50x25cm.ThroughthispracticeIgetverygoodyields.Wealsolearnedaboutthespacingforcotton.FromoneacreofcottonIcanget1000kgnow.Wewerealsotaughthowtocultivatecassava:FromoneacreIcangetnowUGX1millionperacreifIsell.SoIhavenoticedbigchangesbetweenpreviousandcurrentyields.Thesehigh
yieldshavehelpedmetoincreasemyincomeandIcanpayschoolfeesnowformychildren.Ithank
![Page 26: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 17
MadfaandHofokamforhavingtrainedus.Hofokamisevengoingtogetusaloantoboostmyproductionfurtherandtoexpandmycassavagarden.IthankMadfaverymuch.MostsignificantchangestoryselectedbyMadfa&Hofokam‐Buliisa2:Investmentforstableincome
(Alur)IamPacudakaJeanette,fromChanPonjojogroup,Avogera,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐county.TherewasanannouncementfromMadfaonRadioMasindiandsomychairpersonencouragedtogofortraining.MadfatrainedusonvariousmethodsforagriculturalproductionandIstartedcultivating1acreofcassava.ThenTullowcameandduringtheirseismicsurveytheydestroyedmyfieldandthusmycassava.Asaconsequencetheyhadtocompensateme.TullowpaidmeUGX600.000.FromthismoneyIboughtagrindingmillforcassavaflour.FromtherestofthemoneyIrentedmorelandtoproducecassava.NowIhave2acres
withcassava.WiththegrindingmillIhaveastableincome,sometimesIevenearnUGX10.000/day!IthankMadfafortrainingmeintheskillsandknowledgethatenabledmetodothis,andIreallyhopeMadfacontinuestosupportme.3.4Findingsontheoverallobjective3.4.1Q1FoodandincomesecurityArethereanyearlysignsofimpactwrtsustainableimprovementofthefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert?a.Claims(positiveresults)AsindicatedintheMostSignificantChangestories,theevaluationteamhasnotedandseenvarioussignsofimpact,andimprovementsoffoodandincomesecurity.Thequestionnairesconfirmtheearlysignsofimpactintermsofimprovedfoodandincomesecurity.Duringthebaselineoftheprogrammefoodandincomesecurityindicesweredeveloped(seeTrias,2010,andannexVIforexplanationoncalculationofindices).Theevaluationteamfollowedthesamemethodandcollecteddataonfoodandincomesecurityaswell.Fortheyear2009thefarmerswereaskedtoestimatefoodandincomedata,whiletheywereaskedtoprovidecurrentdataontheirfoodandincomesituationaswell.Intable4thevariousbaselines(Trias,2010;andevaluationteam2009estimates),3‐year
Foodsecurityindex Incomesecurityindex
CAEDPBaseline2009
Evaluationestimates2009
Evaluationfindings2012
3‐yearprognoses(2012)
CAEDPBaseline2009
Evaluationestimates2009
Evaluationfindings2012
3‐yearprognoses(2012)
Hoima 0.47 0.47 0.59 0.56 0.28 0.29 0.45 0.36
•Runga 0.47 0.62 0.21 0.35
•Kabanda 0.38 0.50 0.23 0.41
•Kaseeta 0.57 0.65 0.43 0.59
Buliisa 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.59 0.36 0.32 0.47 0.44
•Biiso 0.63 0.78 0.33 0.53
•Avogera 0.40 0.47 0.33 0.44
•Uribo 0.57 0.47 0.29 0.43 Table4OverviewFood&Incomesecurityindices2009and2012
![Page 27: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 18
prognosesasgivenintheprogrammedocument,andthecurrentindicesasgatheredbytheevaluationteamarepresented.Whatthetableshowsisthatmosthouseholdsinthevisitedcommunitieshaveimprovedfood‐andincomesecurityindices,withincomesecurityindicesthatevensurpassthe3‐yearprognosesdonein2009duringthebaselineandprogrammedocumentdevelopment.Inalmostallvillagesvisitedbothincomeandfoodsecurityindiceshaveincreased,showingthat‐ingeneral‐sellingmoreproducedoesnotharmfoodsecurity,exceptforhouseholdsinUribo(seeconcern).Whatthetablealsoshowsisthatthe2009estimatesoftheevaluationareratherconsistentwiththebaselinedatagatheredin2009.b.Concern(spaceforimprovement)InUribo,Buliisathefoodsecurityindexgoesdown.ThisisrathersurprisingsinceintheMSCstoriesandgroupdiscussions,thefarmersindicatedtheysoldsurplusfromtheirfoodcrops,andhadincreasedincomes.Whatcouldpartlyexplainthislowerfoodsecurityisthatsomeofthecashcropsdidnot‐orhardly‐yieldoverthelastfewyears(soybean,someofthecotton).Farmersmayhavebeeninclinedtosellalargerpartoftheirfoodcropstocompensatethelossoftheircashcrops.Besidesthenewvarietyofcassavathatwasintroduceddidnotgrowverywellinthevillage,whichmayhavecauseddecreasingfoodsecurityaswell.Althoughtheevaluationteamcannotfullyexplainthislowerfoodsecurity,thesituationrequestsforclosemonitoringofintroducingnewvarietiesofbothcashandfoodcrops.c.Issue(fordiscussion)Almostallhouseholdsshowanincreaseofincomeandincomesecurity,includingthefarmersthatdidnotembarkongroupmarketing.WhattheevaluationteamhasfoundisthatingeneralonlygroupsinKaseetaandsomeinBiisodoactualgroupmarketing,whiletheothersstillselltheirproduceindividually.FarmersinbothKaseetaandBiisoshowhigherincomesecurityindicesthanfarmersinothercommunities.However,theevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatetowhatextent'groupmarketing'iscontributingtohigherincomesecurityindices.Tocomparethebenefitsofgroupmarketingversusindividualmarketing,theincomesofgroupswithidenticalcircumstances‐exceptforthevariablecollectiveversusindividualmarketing‐needtobecomparedindetail.Theteamdidunfortunatelynothavethetimetodoso.d.CantheimprovedfoodandincomesecurityindicesberelatedtotheCAEDP?Despitethelimitednumberofquestionnaireswithnon‐CAEDPhouseholds(11outof83households),theevaluationteamconcludesthatthenon‐CAEDPhouseholdsshowsignificantfewerpositivechangesinfoodandincomeindicatorsthantheCAEDPhouseholds.Thesedifferences,asshowninCharts1and2,givestrongindicationsthattheCAEDprogrammecontributedtothesepositivechanges.
![Page 28: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 19
ThemostsignificantchangestoriessupportthepositivecontributionoftheCAEDPtoincreasedfoodandincomesecurity.Manystoriesindicatedthatnewfarmingmethodsincreasedtheiryields(39ofthe80stories),andthattheseincreasedyieldscontributedtotheirfoodandincomesecurity.3.4.2Sub‐questions:Q1.1: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?Q1.2Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredandknowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.Theevaluationteamhasnotedthattheprogrammehascontributedindeedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunities.However,thelevelofthesebusinessandself‐relianceattitudedifferssignificantlybetweencommunities.AsisreflectedunderSpecificObjective2alimitednumberofgroups,mainlyinKaseetaandtosomeextentinBiiso,showmaturebusinessattitudes:Thesegroupstreattheirfarmingasabusiness.Theyinvestintheirfarmingbusiness(includingbuildingastorageandanoffice),andareactiveinmarketingintheirproduce.OthergroupslikegroupsinUriboshowattheirturnasomewhatdependentattitude,waitingforNGOsandotherstohelpthem.Alimitednumberofgroups(likeinKabanda)areverymuchinvolvedinotherbusinessthan'farming'(fishing,livestock,tradeingeneral)butnotinthecultivationofcrops.Themajorityofgroupsisembarkingonthepathtowards'farmingasabusiness'.Ine.g.Runga,AvogeraandsomegroupsinBiisofarmershavetheattitudeandareworkinghardonimprovingtheiryields,butstillfacelimitationsinfindingsuitablemarketsandbuyerstomarkettheirproducecollectively(eitherduetothedistancetothemarketand/oralackofguidanceonhowtoapproachthemarket).TheCAEDprogrammeactuallytrainsfarmersinfindingmarketsfirstandthenstartproduction,butinpracticethisdoesnotalwaystakeplaceinthatorder.Q1.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetargetgroup’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐anddistrictlevel?Theevaluationteamhasseengroupsthatareveryactiveintheirproductionandmarketingactivities.Theyhaveseennosignsorindicationsoffarmersorfarmergroupsvoicingtheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐countyanddistrictslevels.3.5Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective2Q2Increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets?
![Page 29: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 20
Sub‐questions:Q2.1: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto markets?Q2.2: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasein competencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Q2.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarket functioning?Q2.4: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfrom agricultureathouseholdlevel?Q2.5: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityand qualityofagriculturalproduce?Q2.6: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof HodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup?Thesequestionsaresointerwovenandinterconnectedthattheevaluationteamhaschosentoanswerthemintegrally. a.ClaimsToputthequestionsinperspective,firstthenumberofgroupsinvolvedintheCAEDPispresented:ThenumberofgroupstheCAEDPhasestablishedand/orisworkingwithhasgrownconsiderablysincethebeginningoftheprogrammeandhassurpassedthetargetednumberofgroups.Thisisquiteanachievement,especiallygiventheroughterrainandtheremotenessofsomeofthecommunitiesinBuliisaandHoima(seeTable5).Numberofgroups
Actuals2010 Actuals2011 Actuals2012 Targetendprogramme2012
Hoima 45 89 131 110Buliisa 40 80 110 96TotalCAEDP 85 169 241 206Table5NumberofgroupsinvolvedinCAEDP,peryear,totalandtargetedforendofprogrammeWhenlookingattheindicatorsthatarecollectedbytheCAEDPitselfforindicatingimprovedaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarkets(seecharts3and4),itcouldbestatedthatoverthelastthreeyearsthenumberofgroupswithaprofitableenterpriseANDthenumberofenterprisegroupsthatincreasedtheirproducesoldhaveincreasedconsiderably(basedondatacollectedbytheCAEDprogrammefortheirmonitoringreports).
![Page 30: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 21
AlsotheMSCstoriesandthequestionnairesconfirmthatmostfarmershaveincreasedtheirproduction/acre,increasedtheiracreageofcultivation,andsellalargerpartoftheircropsthanin2009beforetheCAEDPstarted(seetable6).
Acresowned(averageofhhvisited)
Acrescultivated(eitheronownorleasedland)inacresandaspercentageoflandowned
Increasedyieldsscale1‐10*
%ofyieldsold
2009 2012 2009 2012 2009‐12 2009 2012 # % # %
Hoima 4.54 5.41 1.74 38% 3.06 57%
•Runga 1.67 3.30 1.43 86% 2.43 74% 3.2 19 51
•Kabanda 3.33 2.92 0.23 7% 1.18 40% 0.5 45 52
•Kaseeta 7.89 8.53 2.66 34% 4.43 52% 2.2 51 60
Buliisa 4.70 6.03 2.73 58% 4.08 68%
•Biiso 4.40 6.10 2.50 57% 3.95 65% 3.2 37 57
•Avogera 5.30 6.96 3.04 57% 5.23 75% 2.2 24 42
•Uribo 4.80 4.96 2.77 58% 3.12 63% 2.0 25 48
Table6Acresownedandcultivated,yieldsand%ofyieldsold2009‐2012*Farmerswererequestedtoranktheiryieldperacrein2009and2012with1‐10,1indicatinglowyield,10indicatingveryhighyield.Thescalementionedinthistableistheaveragedifferenceinrankingbetween2009‐2012.
Thistablealsorevealsthattherearequitesomedifferencesinareascultivatedandproducesoldbetweenthecommunitiesvisited.SomemoreprobingonvariationsingroupsCombiningthechartsandtable6,theevaluationteamconcludesthatmosthouseholdsandgroupshaveincreasedaccesstomarkets,butsomehouseholdsandgroupsdefinitelyprofitmorefromthismarketaccessthanothers.Incharts3and4(basedoninformationgatheredbytheprogrammeitself)allgroupsthatmakeprofithavebeenincluded,includingprobablygroupsinKabandathathardlycultivatebutsellafewthingsonthelocalmarket.Intable6wehaveseenquitesomedifferencesamongcommunities,notallcommunitiesbenefitequally.
![Page 31: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 22
Theevaluationteamhasbasicallyseenthreetypesofgroups:
• Groupsthathavetakenupfarmingasabusinessandsellcollectivelytoabuyer(groupAintable7);
• Groupsthatjuststartedcultivatingmoreandaregettingbetteryieldsandarestilllookingformarkets(groupB)and,
• Groupsthathardlycultivateandsellapartoftheirlimitedyields(groupC).Thegroupsnotonlydifferintheirresults,butalsoshow‐ingeneral‐ratherdifferentcharacteristics(seetable7).
Theprogrammeaimstofacilitatethetransformationfromsubsistencefarmerstomorecommercialfarmers.ForgroupA(5ofthe24groupstheevaluationteamvisited)thistransformationisquitesuccessful.GroupsinKaseetaandsomeinBiisohavedefinedprofitableenterprises,aresellingcollectively,andaremakingquitesubstantialprofit.OneofthegroupsinKaseetaboughtapieceoflandtobuildanofficeandstorageforthegroup.Theymakeuseofloans,saveetc.PartoftheexplanationwhytheCAEDPworkssowellinthesecommunitiesisthattheenablingconditionsforproductionarefavourable;andevenmoresothevicinityofamarketandrathergoodinfrastructure.Themajorityofgroupsthatparticipatedintheevaluation(16/24)isstilltryingtocometogripswithmarketingandespeciallycollectivemarketing(despitethefactthatthemarketshouldhavebeenexploredbeforechoosinganenterprise/cropwithinthesequenceoftheprogramme).Ingeneralproductionandyieldsareincreasing,butfindingmarketsandsellinginbulkasagroupisachallengeespeciallyinremoteareaslikeAvogera,UriboandRunga.AgriculturalconditionsinAvogeraandUriboaregood,whileinRungathefarmersarefacingharsherclimates(semi‐arid).InbothAvogeraandUribothereareverystrongsavingcultures(initiatedatthebeginningofthe2000sbyorganisationslikeBuildAfricaUganda).Despitethesestrengthsandincreasedinvestmentsinagriculture,thegroupsmakerathermarginalprofitduetothechallengingmarketsituation.Theyusuallyselltheirproduceindividuallyatlocalmarkets,notknowinghowtoaccessthemarketotherwise.
GroupA‘Commercialfarmers’ GroupB‘Subsistence‐commercial’
GroupCFarmers?
Stablegroups Somestability(limited) Hardlystable
Matureenterprises Emergingenterprises Somecrops
Marketlinkages/buyer Marketlinkagesweak/localmarkets
Localmarket
Savings(internal&external) Savings(mainlyinternal) Weaksavingculture
Loans(internal&external) Loans(mainlyinternal) Limitedinternalloans
Groupselling Somegroupselling Mainlyindividualselling
Substantialprofit Someprofits Verylimitedprofits
Varioustypesofspin‐off Somespin‐off ‐
Evaluation:5outof24groups 16outof24 3/24Estimatespartners35‐45%ofgroups
25‐40% 25‐30%
Table7Typesoffarmergroupsandtheircharacteristics
![Page 32: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 23
Thenthereisathirdtypeofgroupsthatingeneralshowunstablegroups,peopleenteringandexitingthegroups(andthecommunity),hardlysaving(asaresultofunstablegroups),withmembersthatarehardlyengagedinthecultivationofcrops.Thesegroups,mainlyfoundinKabanda,usuallyincludefishermen,andpeopleactiveinfishtradingwithoutatraditionofcultivatingcrops(incontrast,inRungamanyhouseholdsaretraditionallyengaginginbothfishingandagriculture).Someofthehouseholdsstartedvegetablegrowingandselling,butitisataverysmallscaleandseeminglywithoutstrongmotivation.Thesegroupsdonothavemuchpotentialforbecomingcommercialcropfarmers.Theyarehowevermanytimesinvolvedinanimalhusbandryandtrade.Whenlookingatthenumberofgroupsmetduringtheevaluationandtheestimatesofthepartnersonwhatpercentageofthegroupsbelongtoacertaincategory,theevaluationfiguresgivearatherdifferent(andmorein‐depth)pictureof'accesstomarkets'thantheCAEDPindicatorsasusedintheCAEDPreporting.b.ConcernsDespiteincreasedmarketaccessasindicatedabove,manyofthegroupshavenotembarkedoncollectivemarketingwhilethisisoneofthekeyissuesoftheCAEDprogramme.TheevaluationteamhasseensomegroupsinKaseetaandBiisothatarebulkingtheir(individuallyproduced)produceforsellingtoa(specific)buyer.InplaceslikeAvogeraandUribofarmersingeneraldonotbulktheirindividuallyproducedharvest.Theyselltheharvestoftheirgroupdemonstrationfield(whichmanygroupshave)asagroupandcallthiscollectivemarketing.Theyusuallysellthisharvestatthelocalmarketsincethevolumesaresmallandothermarketsarefaraway.InRungacollectivemarketingisexceptionalaswell.Farmersexplainthislackofcollectivefarmingthroughvariousargumentations:'Theyieldsarelow','thereisnomarket','themarketistoofaraway','buyersdonotwanttocomeallthewaytoourvillage(exceptforOlam,thecottonbuyer)','wearejuststartingandintendtostartcollectivemarketingnextyear'etc.AlthoughgroupmarketingispartofthetrainingcurriculumoftheCAEDprogramme,alsofieldadvisorsofthepartnersadmitthatmarketingisaweakpointintheprogramme.Thefieldadvisorsareusuallyverygoodatagriculturalproductionandfarmingtechniques,butlesswellversedinmarketingissues.Evenso:Thefarmersmaybeempoweredtolookformarkets,moreisneededtoreallymakeaconnectionbetweenproducersandbuyers:Investmentsininfrastructure,storage,collectionanddistributioncentres,packaging,buyersknowingwheretogetproduceetc.WhenconditionsarefavourablelikeinKaseeta,farmersmayfindtheirownway.Whencommunitiesaresituatedinremoteareas,andfacelessfavourableagriculturalandinfrastructuralconditions,more(inthesenseoforganisationandinvestment)isneededtomakecollectivemarketingwork.c.IssuesRegardingaccesstoandparticipationinremunerativemarketstherearetwoimportantquestionstobeasked:1.Giventhetypologyofthevariousfarmergroups,thefactthatfieldadvisorsarecoveringhugeareastocoachandmentortheirgroups,andtheobservationthatespeciallythemiddletypeofgroupseasilyloosetheirmotivationwhennotwellmonitoredandcoached,the
![Page 33: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 24
questionariseswhethertheprogrammeshouldkeepontargetingall'farmers',eventhosethatdonothavemuchpotentialforcultivatingcrops.Trias,Hodfa,MadfaandHofokamaretargetingthe'active'poor,thosefarmersthathavethepotentialtoaltertheirsituationsandcouldtransformtheir'subsistence'farmingtowardsmorecommercialfarming.ThisseeminglydoesnotincludetypeC'farmers'.Tullowthoughseesthesegroups,aslongastheymaybenegativelyaffectedbytheiroperations,asanimportanttargetgroup.Alternativelivelihoodsmaybelookedfortocaterfortheneedsofthesecommunities(seeparagraph3.11onalternativelivelihoods,pages35‐36).2.Giventheweakcollectivemarketingwithinmanyofthecommunities,alotofworkistobedoneonthisissue.Thisdoesnotonlyentailworkingonempoweringoffarmers,butonotherstakeholdersinthevaluechains;andonphysicalinfrastructure(storage,distribution)andtransportationaswell.Itcouldalsomeanare‐orientationontheconceptof'collective'marketing.Whatdoestheprogrammeenvisionwith'collective'marketing,andhowshoulditworkexactly?Isitphysicalbulkingmainly,orismakingagreementsonpricesbyindividualmemberssufficient(sellingindividuallybutatgrouplevelagreedprices)?3.6Evaluationquestionsrelatedtospecificobjective3Q3IncreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinessTowhatextenthavesmallholderfarmhouseholdsincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness?Sub‐questions:Q3.1: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccessto financialservicesforthetargetgroup?Q3.2: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureof thetargetgroup?Q3.3: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialand productioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Q3.4: Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentin farmingbusiness?Q3.5: Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryof Hofokamtothetargetgroup?Thesequestionsare‐again‐sointerwovenandinterconnectedthattheevaluationteamhaschosentoanswerthemintegrally. Themainindicatorsthatareusedintheprogrammetoindicateprogressonthisobjectiveanditsoutcomesincludeindicatorsonsavings(increasedamounts),loans(increasedloanvolume),loanrepaymentsandthegraduationofgroupstowardsbiggeramounts.Unfortunatelytheprogrammedidnotgatherinformationonactual'increasedinvestment'ofloansand/orsavingofhouseholdsintheirfarmingpractices,andalsotheevaluationteamcouldnotgetproperdataonthe'levelsofinvestment'.Theteamgotmixedmessagesonusingloansandsavingsforbuyingagriculturalinputs,land,combinedwithusingthemoneyforbuildingpermanenthouses,schoolfees,motorcycles,medicalbillsetc.AstudyconductedbytheMountainsoftheMoonUniversityprovidesmoreinformationoncashflowswithinhouseholdsbutatthetimeoftheevaluationstudythefindingsofthisstudywerenotavailableyettotheevaluators.
![Page 34: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 25
3.6.1Internalsavingandloaninga.ClaimsInternalsavingreferstosavingbygroupsthemselveswithoutputtingthesavingsonabankaccountwithaformalinstitution.Manytimesgroupsusesavingboxesthatcanonlybeopenedwhenatleastthreemembersofthegrouparepresent.Fromthesesavingsindividualmemberscangetaloan.WhenlookingattheCAEDPindicatorsanddatagatheredbytheprogrammeitself,greatimprovementinnumbersandvolumeofinternalsavingandloaningcanbeseen.Inthe
communitiesvisitedtheevaluationteamencounteredmanygroupswitharatherstronginternalsavingculture:Allgroupsvisitedsavedmoneyintheirgroups,althoughtheamountsvaryconsiderably.EspeciallyinAvogeraandUribotheteamencounteredstrongsavingcultures.InAvogeragroupssavedbetween1and8millionUGX!OneofthereasonstheinternalsavinginAvogeraissohighisthattheyanticipatetoobtainloansfromHofokam,andinAvogeranoexternalsaving(usingaformalbankaccount)isundertakenalthoughseveralgroupsmentionedtheyareintheprocessofgettingabankaccount.InKaseeta,BiisoandUriboalsosubstantialexternalsavingwithformalinstitutionsisdone.Allgroupsvisitedclaimtheygiveoutinternalloanstogroupmembers,basedontheirneeds,withaninterestrateof10%permonth(loanersaresupposedtorepaywithinamonth'stime).EspeciallyinBuliisadistricttheinternalsavingcultureisstrong(18ofthe49MSCstorieshadsavingastheirmaintopic,against2ofthe31inHoima).ThiscannotbeattributedtotheCAEDPprogrammeonlysinceBuildAfricaUgandastartedinthe2000ssavingsgroupsinthevillagesvisited.SomegroupsclaimthoughthattheirsavingdisciplinehasbeenrevitalisedaftertheCAEDprogrammeenteredthecommunity.ThegroupsalsosaythataftertheCAEDPcameintheystartedusingthesavingsinadifferentway.Whilebeforetheymainlyusedthesavingsformedicalbills,bridginggapsandschoolfees,theynowstartedusingitforagriculturalinputslikeseedsandplantingmaterial.Theevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatethe%ofsavingsinvestedinagriculturalinputs.FormoreinformationontheuseofsavingstheteamwouldliketorefertotheMountainsoftheMoonUniversitystudy(2012).b.IssueIftheinternalsavingcultureissostronginsomeofthecommunities,whyarethegroupsstilltryingtoobtainloansfromexternalsources?Whyaren'ttheyusingtheinternalsavings
![Page 35: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 26
instead?Insteadofbeingdependentonloansfromexternalsources,woulditnotbemoreprofitableforcommunitiestostartusingtheirowncapitalasamicro‐financefund?Whatfactorspreventthegroupsfromusingtheirowninternalsavingsasamicro‐financefund?3.6.2Externalloansa.ClaimsTheprogrammeindicatorsshowquiteanumberofgroupsthathaveaccesstoexternalloans(withHofokam):Currently37groupshaveintotalUGX119millionoutstandingloan.
InHoima2012showsareducednumberofloans.Thisisdue‐accordingtoHofokam‐totheirstaffturnoverinHoima.Alsorecoveryratesdecreasedin2012,duetolocaldroughts,combinedwithstaffturnover.Theevaluationteammet8groups(outofthe24)thatacquiredloansfromHofokam.Oneofthemisalreadyinits4thcycle(Kaseeta),othersareintheir3rd(1),second(5groups)orfirstloancycle(1).OnlygroupsinKaseeta,BiisoandUriboareengagedinexternalloans.InRunga,KabandaandAvogeranoexternalloansweregivenout,despitethefactthatAvogerahasenormousinternalsavings.b.Concerns•InBuliisa,inBiisoandUribogroupswereabletoattractloansfortheir'enterprise'butdidintheendnotgetsufficientprofitduetolowyieldscausedbydroughts.Thegroupsrepaidtheloanthroughothersourcesofincome.•Currently37groupsreceivealoanwithanoutstandingamountof119M.Manynewgroupswanttoentertheloanscheme(especiallygroupsinAvogera),whilealmostallthemoneyfromtheTullowFundiscurrentlyoutstandingasloansalready.•LoansgivenoutbyHofokamtofarmer‐groups,needtoberepaidwithin6months.Formanycropsthistimeframemeansthatfarmersneedtorepaytheirloanwhenpricesofthecropsarelowest,duringorrightafterharvesttime.Thisisgoingagainsttheobjectiveoftheprogrammetosupportfarmersinobtainingbetterpricesfortheirproduce.3.6.3InvestmentsNoreliabledatawasfoundonthelevelofinvestmentsinagriculturalproduction,notwithintheCAEDPindicatorset,notduringtheevaluation.Theteamgotmanymixedmessagesoninvestments,buthasseenvarioussignsofincreasedinvestment,especiallyinKaseetawhere
![Page 36: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 27
farmersbuyinputs,andgoodplantingmaterials.ThestudyconductedbyMountainsoftheMoonUniversitymaycontainsomemoreinformationonthisissue.
3.7CapacitystrengtheningAlthoughnotincludedasanevaluationquestion,theteamspentsometimetoassessthecapacitiesofthepartners.Theteamdidacapacityself‐assessmentwiththepartners,basedonthe5‐capabilitiesmodel,andinvitedpartnerstotellMostSignificantChangeStoriesonCapacitystrengthening.Fivecapabilities:
A. Capacitiestoactandcommit.Thismeansthepartnersareequippedwithsufficient staff,capacitiesandresourcestodeliverservices.B. Capacitiestodeliverdevelopmentresultsandcreateoutcomesandimpactinthe communities.C. Capacitiestoadoptandrenew,findingnewcustomers,adjustservicesandproducts.D. CapacitiestorelatetoexternalandinternalactorsE. Capacitiestomaintain,sustainandcreateinternalandexternal(withpoliciesof others,rules,regulations)coherence.
Figure3Fivecapabilitiesmodel(IOB(2011),basedonBaserandMorgan,2008)
![Page 37: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 28
PartnerstaffinvolvedintheCAEDPwasrequestedtoscoreonvariousquestionswithscoresfrom1‐5.Whenlookingattheself‐assessments,thefollowingresultscanbedetected:BothHodfa,MadfaandHofokamfeelmajorprogressincapacitiestodeliverdevelopmentresults,toadoptandrenew,torelatetoexternalandinternalactorsandtomaintaincoherence.AdifferencebetweenthetwoFarmers’AssociationsandHofokamliesinthecapacitytoadoptandrenew,andtorelatetoexternalandinternalactors.Hofokamdeemsitselfstrongerinadoptionandrenewal,whilethetwoFAsfeelstrongerinrelatingtoexternalandinternalactors.Hofokamseesitselfasratherstronginadjustingtheirloanproductsandservicestotheirrelativelynewgroupofclientele,smallholderfarmhouseholds.HodfaandMadfahavealwaysbeentargetingthatclientelesoforthemthechangeinadoptionandrenewalislessobvious.Forallthreepartners,thecapacitiestocommitandactwerealreadyquitestrongatthestartoftheprogrammeanddidnotchangedmuch.Forallthreepartners,MSCstoriesoncapacitydevelopmentwereharvested,andforeachpartneronestorywasselectedasthemostsignificantone.BothstoriesofthefarmersassociationsHodfaandMadfadealtwiththePAEDapproachandincreasedvisibilityinthedistricts.TheMSCstoryofHofokamdealtwiththenewgroupofclients,smallholderfarmhouseholds.SomeoftheseMSCstorieshavebeencapturedonvideoaswell.MostsignificantchangestoryoncapacitiesselectedbyMadfa:CapacitiestofacilitatefarmerstomovefromsubsistencetocommercialfarmingIamDavidWanzala,42andmarriedwithchildren.IgraduatedfromBullallasaAgriculturalCollege
withadiplomaincropscienceandproduction.Iamafarmerbyoccupationaswell(practisingcropproductionandagroforestry).IjoinedMadfain2006.MadfaidentifiedTriasUganda,aBelgiumbasedNGOthatsupportsdevelopingcountries.ThroughtheregularsupportTriasprovidedtechnicaltrainingtoallthefieldstaffofMadfatocapacitatethemtoserveandsupportfarmersindevelopingtheirfarmingbusiness.AsanindividualIhavebenefitedalotsincethetraininghasimprovedmyfacilitationskills,communicationskills,Iacquiredmoreknowledgeandskillsin
farming,andithasenabledmetoreachouttomanyfarmergroups.Mychallengesareharshworking
![Page 38: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 29
conditions.FormethemostsignificantchangeisthatIamabletocontributetosmallholderfarmers'transformationfromsubsistencetocommercialfarming.MostsignificantchangestoryoncapacitiesfromHodfa:Fromhandoutstoempowerment
IamBobGeorgeSunday,AgriculturalFieldadvisorforHodfa.IjoinedHodfain2010.OnethingIamveryproudofisthePAEDapproach.Iusedtoworkwithanorganisationthatprovidedhandoutstofarmers.Theygavelivestock,plantingmaterials,bicyclesandsoitwasveryeasytomobilisefarmers.WhenIstartedworkingwithHodfaIthought'Uhh,ifwearenotgivinghandouts,howarewegoingtomobilisefarmers?'Butactually,thePAEDapproachwassoself‐empowering!Itusesparticipatorydiagnosesthroughwhichthefarmersanalysetheirowncurrentsituationandthatstimulatesthemtodesignastrategyon
howtheycanbecomebetteroff.SoIamreallyproudthatthisapproachworks.Ithasshapedme,notonlyinworkingwithfarmersbutalsoinmyfamily.AthomeIamsittingdownandplanmyfutureaswell.IneedtopracticewhatIamtellingothers.Thatisall!StoryfromHofokam:Theprogrammeasplatformtoreachactivepoor
IamRosie‐MarieKaddu,andIworkforHofokamasaprogrammeaccountant.WorkingwiththeCAEDprogrammeIhaveseenseveralsignificantchanges.Firstofalltheprogrammehashelpedustomeetourtargetandourmission,namelytoreachandempowerthe'activepoor.'Basicallytheprogramme'smissionistoimprovethefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmersandweaimattheactivepoor.Thesegroupsfallunderthesamecategory.Webelievethatthisprogrammehasprovideduswithaplatformtoreachtheseactivepoor.Throughworkingwiththefarmersassociations,thenumberofgroupsofsmallholderfarmersweareworkingwithis
increasing.Theprogrammehashelpedustoincreaseourportfolio,wehaveseenagrowthintheportfolioandoutreach.3.8AppreciationalongtheDACCriteriaa.Relevance:Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywithrequirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?TheevaluationteamassessestherelevanceoftheCAEDprogrammeveryhighforseveralreasons.Currentlystill96%ofthefarmersinUgandaaresmallholderfarmerswhoarebasicallyproducingfortheirownsurvival,withoutmuchaccesstofinancialinstitutions.Atthesametimethepopulationisgrowingatarateof3.2%annuallywhilefoodproductionisgrowingatarateof3%only.Thislowproductioncanbemainlyattributedtopoortechnology,reducedsoilfertility,povertyandlimitedknowledgeandskills.ThediscoveryofoilinUgandahascontributedtoanintensifieddebateonthepossiblynegativeconsequencesfortheagriculturalsectorandaddedtotheurgencyofincreasedfoodproduction.Variousauthors(Rwakakamba,2012;IFPRI,2011;Tumusiine‐Mutebile,2012))refertotheDutchdisease.ThetheoryofDutchdiseaseisthatanincreaseinrevenuesfromoilwilladverselyaffectthetradables(manufacturingandagriculture)ofanation’seconomybyappreciatingthelocalcurrency,whichinturnmakesmanufacturingandagriculturelesscompetitive.RwakakambagivesthesituationofGabonasexample,wheresinceinitiatingtheexportof
![Page 39: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 30
oilhasseenitsagriculturesectorcollapse;itisnowentirelydependentonimportedfood.Despitetherisks,theIFPRI(2011)alsoreferstothepositiveimpactofoilonagriculturalproductioniftheDutchdiseasewillbehandledproperly.Domesticdemandforstaplesandhighervalueproductslikehorticultureandlivestockproductswillincreaseasincomesrise.Inrecentdiscussionsontheeffectofoilonagriculturalproduction,voicesinUganda(TumusiineMutebile,2012)state,"Unlessthereareradicalchangesinourapproachtoagriculture,ouragriculturalperformancewillweakenfurther,withverydeleteriousconsequencesforruralpoverty,employment,inequality,geographicallybalancedgrowthandfoodsecurity."Thesesamevoicesstatethattheagriculturalsectorneedstobemodernizedbyraisingproductivityandpromotingcommercialization,withafocusonsmallholderfarmers,betterpoliciesandinvestments,andincreasedaccesstofinancialinstitutions.PreciselythoseissuestheCAEDPisworkingonandissuccessfulat.AlsoarecentstudyoftheRabobank(RabobankGroup,2012)emphasizestheimportanceofinvolvingsmallholderfarmersinfoodproductionforthemarket,improvingtheiraccesstofinancialservicesandformingcooperativesforinputsandmarketing.AlsointhisrespectistheCAEDprogrammerelevantasever.Anotherissueatatotallydifferentlevel‐butveryimportantfortheempowermentofthesmallholderfarmersinUganda‐isthe'no‐hand‐outs'principleoftheapproach.Theevaluationteamhasseenhowhandoutsofotherprogrammeshavecorruptedtheentrepreneurialspiritofsmallholdersinsomeofthecommunities.Empoweringfarmersandespeciallysmallholders,ashasbeenshowninotherpartsofAfricawherelandgrabbingistakingplace,isextremelyimportant,especiallygivendevelopmentsintheregion(oilandinfluxofotherpeople),andtheincreasingpressureonlandandhencethevalueoflandforsettlements,foodandcashcrops.b.Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?Inparagraphs3.4‐3.6theevaluationteamhasshownthattheprogrammeisverywellonitswayinreachingitsobjectivesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughouttheyear,increasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsforsmallholderfarmersandincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinesses.Atallthreespecificobjectivestheprogrammehasmadegoodcontributions.Areasofimprovementconcernmainlythemarketingcomponentsoftheprogrammeingeneral,collectivemarketing,theloanrepaymenttermsandthefocuson'external'loansversusinternalloans.c.Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedtoalternatives?Asfarastheevaluationteamcouldsee,theobjectiveswereimplementedratherefficiently.Theprogrammeworkedasmuchaspossiblewithexistinggroups(setupbyotherGOandNGOprogrammes),andtrainedthefarmergroupsinapragmaticandefficientwayinfoodsecurity,increasedproductionmethods,savingandcreditandtoalesserextentonmarketing.Wherepossibletheprogrammetrainedfarmerfacilitatorsthattookoverpartoftheworkoftheagriculturaladvisors,andfieldvisitsbyagriculturaladvisorstoactivegroupsareusuallycombinedwithothervisitsand/oractivities.Fortheevaluatorsitwasnotpossibletocompareefficiencyoftheprogrammewithefficiencyofotherprogrammesduetotimelimitations.
![Page 40: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 31
Theprogrammehasgrownveryrapidlyinashortperiodoftime.Aconcernhereistoconsolidatethesuccessesoftheexistinggroups,ratherthancontinuingwithrapidgrowthofthenumberofgroups.Theteamhasseenthatgroupseasilylosetheirmotivationandcourageifthementoringandcoachingofprogrammesstopstooearly.d.Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐termimpact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?Inparagraph3.4theevaluationteamhasdiscussedtheearlysignsofimpactoftheprogramme.Theteamisconvincedthatinthecomingyearsmoresignsofimpactwillappear,especiallywhenmoreattentionwillbepaidtothecollectivemarketingaspectsoftheprogramme,andwhenworkingwiththosegroupsthatshowpotential(seetypologyoffarmergroupsintable7,page22).e.Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii)financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?Regardinglongtermeffectsoftheultimategoal:Theevaluationteamfindsitverylikelythatiftheprogrammecontinues,theeffectoftheultimategoalmaysustaininthelongterm,especiallysincethefarmersnotonlylearntechnicalandmarketingskills,butlife‐skillsingeneralaswell.Financialsustainabilityatthelevelofthefarmergroupsiswellcovered.Thegroupsthatsurvivethefirstyears,willverylikelybeabletosustainthemselvessincealthoughsavingandloaningisdoneatgrouplevel,thefarmersareaccountableatindividuallevelandtilldateareingeneralcapabletorepayloansandsavemoney.Financialsustainabilityofthepartnersisadifferentstory.AtthemomentofwritingbothMadfaandHodfaaremainlydependingonfundsprovidedbydonorsandprogrammes:Madfadependsfor70%oftheirincomeondonors,15%onmembershipfeesand15%ontheirbusinesswing.Hodfadependedin2011for5%oftheirincomeonmembershipfees,2%frombusinessand93%fromdonors.ThequestionhereiswhetherMadfaandHodfacancontinuetheirCAEDPworkinbothHoimaandBuliisaiftheCAEDPfundingstops.Theworkinbothdistrictsconsumesalotoftimeofthefieldadvisorsandalthoughmainlythefirstyearrequiresasignificanttimeinvestmentoftheadvisors,coachingandmentoringofthegroupsrequires(travel)timeaswell.HodfaandMadfahavereceivedtraininginfundraisingandresourcemobilisationandforexampleMadfawascapableofattractingfundingovertheyearsfromAbITrust.HoweverbothFarmers’Associationsneedtopayurgentattentiontothedevelopmentoftheirbusinesswingtobeabletosurvivewhendonorsareeitherwithdrawingorreducingthebudgets.Hodfamadeagoodstartin2012bysettingupahubforagro‐businessanddeliveryofcropstoTullowcampsthroughTraidlinks.Hofokamisamicro‐financeinstitutionandhasdrilledintoanewreservoirofclients.CurrentlytheyclaimthatthecroploansarenotsufficientlyprofitableyettoworkwithouttheTullowfund.VerylikelyHofokamwillbeabletoindependentlyservefarmerclientsinafewyearstime.Regardingenvironmentalsustainabilitytheteamhasnoticedthattheenvironmentmaybeaffectedovertimeiftheprogrammedoesnotpayspecificattentiontosustainableagriculturalpractices.Thedatashowthatalmostallhouseholdsinterviewed,arecultivatingmoreacresthanbefore.Althoughtheevaluationteamcannotsubstantiatetowhatextentthishasaffectedtheenvironment,itislikelythatlandhasbeenclearedoftreesandbushes.
![Page 41: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 32
Theevaluationteamhasalsonotedthatmoreandmorefarmersstartedusingfertilizersandpesticides.Combinedwithheavyrainfall,thiscouldpossiblycausepollutionofsurfaceandgroundwater.Otherissuesthatmayneedattentioninthenearfuture:Withtheinfluxofpeopleintothedistricts,thedemandforfuel(forcooking)willincreaseaswell,threateningthevegetationinthedistricts.Somefirstsignsofencroachingofforestandgamereserveswerenotedbydistrictofficersinterviewed. PART2FINDINGSONALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODS3.9 How and towhat extentwill Tullow operations affect communities and thelivelihoodsofcommunitiesintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalley?AtpresenttheimpactofTullow'soperationsintheKaiso‐TonyaandBuliisavalleyisstillratherlimitedsincetheexplorationphaseisstillgoingon.Oilwellshavebeenidentifiedandfirstcampshavebeenestablished,butoilexploitationitselfhasnotstartedyet.Duringtheseismicsurveyscropsandotherassetsplacedonthefieldshavebeendamagedandfarmershavebeencompensatedfortheirlossthroughcompensationschemes.Somelandhasbeenfencedofftoprotectoilwells.ThislandisnotcompensatedsinceaccordingtoTullowstaff,thegovernmentisexpectedtodothispartofthecompensation.Othereffectsmentionedbydistrictpeople,includeareportedincreaseintrafficaccidents,especiallyaffectingchildrenandlivestock.Someofthecaseshavebeenreportedtothepoliceandtakentocourttobesettled.Anothereffect,butmainlyinanticipationoftheoilexploitation:Althoughtheresearchercannotsubstantiateit,theinfluxofpeopleintotheareainanticipationontheoilindustryhasstarted,especiallyintheriftvalleycommunities.Somepositiveeffectscanbeseeninthefollowing:Improvementsofroads,andtheemergenceofdemandforlocalcontentandlocalproducefortheoilcamps.Groupsoffarmers(connectedtoHodfa)have,incooperationwithHodfa,Traidlinks,TriasandTullow,startedtodeliverlocalproducetothecampcatererEquator.Inthefuturethough,especiallywhenoilexploitationwillcommence,theimpactonlocalcommunitiesandtheirlivelihoodsislikelytoincrease.Howthecommunitieswillbeaffectedexactlyislargelyunknownbyallinterviewees,butTullowstaffstatesthat'alloptionsareopen‐fromsocialandeconomiceffectstoenvironmentaleffects'.
Thelandwheretherefineryandsomeofthesecondaryindustrieswillbelocatedwillin5years'timeorsodisplacemanypeople.Thegovernmentisexpectedtodealwiththisresettlement.Therefinerywillbelocateduptheescarpment.TullowwillmainlyrestrictitsoperationsintheAlbertinevalleyarea.ThemainareasofoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict(seemap1).Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseentilldate.Positiveeffectsanticipatedinthefutureincludeincreasedbusinessopportunities,increaseddemandforagriculturalproduce,furtherimprovementandextensionsofroadsespeciallytothevillageswherewellsarelocated,someplaceswillgetelectricityandgetconnectedtothenationalgrid,increasedemploymentetc.
![Page 42: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 33
Sinceitisstillunknownhowandwhichthecommunitieswillbeaffectedinthefuture,thereisquitesomeuncertaintyandconcerninthecommunities.Peopleanticipateanincreaseintrafficaccidents(duetobigtrucksrunningupanddown,whilelivestockandchildrenareplayingandwalkingalongtheroad);anincreasedinfluxofpeoplefromoutside;lossofland,cropsandotherassets;increaseofcrime,prostitution,spreadofHIV/AIDS;increaseof
pollution(air,waterandland)fromexhaustandleakingoilpipes.Andincaseofresettlementordisplacementofcommunitiesthereislikelytobelossoflivelihoodsfromtheland,thecommunalfirewoodgatheringwoodlandsandforests,thefishingvillagesandgrazingareas.3.10WhattypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperationsandhow?Asisshowninparagraph3.9mainlycommunitiesintheriftbottomareasinHoimaandBuliisawillbedirectlyaffectedbyTullowoperations,andnomajoractivitiesareexpectedtotakeplaceoffshore.InthissenseTullowisnotexpectedtodirectlyinfluencethewaterqualityofthelake,norofthefishstocksthemselves.Itaremainlyunsustainablefishingpracticesthatareaffectingthefishstocksandthreateningthelivelihoodoffisherycommunities.WhatmighthappeninthefuturethoughistheresettlementofsomeofthefishingcommunitiessinceTullowmayneedmorespacefortheircampsandmaycontinuetheirexplorationforoil,likeforexampleinKiryambogo,Hoima.
Map1LocationofTullowoperationswithplacesvisitedforstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsinyellow
WansekoCU
NgwedoTC
Bugoigo
Kiryambogo
Sebagoro
![Page 43: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 34
Togetabetterviewonwhattypesofcommunitiesmaybeaffected,5communitiesintheriftbottomareasinHoimaandBuliisawerevisited(seetable2,page6),andtheircurrentandpossiblealternativelivelihoodswereexamined.Ingeneralthesecommunitiesrepresent:
• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonfishing(Kiryambogo,Sebagoro,andBugoigolandingsites);
• Communitiesrelyingonfishingandagriculture(WansekoCOUsite),and• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonagriculture(Ngwedotradingcentre).
HouseholdsinSebagorolandingsite,Hoimaaremainlydependingonfishing.AlthoughTullowisnotdirectlyimpactingthiscommunity,thiscommunityisfacinganotherthreatoftheirlivelihood:Duetounsustainablefishingpractices,thefishstockshavebeentoalargeextentdepleted.Fishingbynowisratherstrictlyregulated(atleastbylaw,andtoalesserextentbylawenforcement).Theirincomefromfisheryisstillhighbutslowlydiminishing.NotallhouseholdsinSebagorohaveland(67%),andnotalllandownerscultivatetheland,althoughoverthelastfewyearsthesepercentagesaregrowing(seetable8,page35).Althoughthestudyteamcannotsubstantiatethis,thetrendofincreasedlandholdingandcultivationmaybepartlyduetotheCAEDprogrammeinterventions.TheKiryambogoFishingCommunity,Hoimaisstillpredominantlyafishingcommunityaswell,withsomecropsandsomelivestockwithlotsofpastures.ThefishinghouseholdsfacethesamereductionoffishstockandgovernmentregulationsasinSebagoro.JustlikeinSebagoronotallhouseholdshaveland(only60%ofinterviewedhouseholds)andnotevenhalfofthelandownersiscultivatingtheland,althoughalsoherethesepercentagearegrowing(seetable8)aswell.ThecommunityislocatedcloselytotheBuserukamini‐hydropowerstation(underconstruction).ItispossiblethatthiscommunitymayberesettledsinceTullowmayexpandtheiroilexplorationtothisarea.OneofTullow'slargestcampsisinthisareaaswell.BugoigoFishingCommunity,HoimaisborderingBugunguGameReserveandissurroundedbyoilwells.ThesefeaturesplusthefactthatfishingisnowanunreliableventureputBugoigoinavulnerableposition.InneighbouringButiaba,theMinistryofAgricultureisconstructingamodernfish‐landingsite.Thisdevelopmentcouldmeanthatallfishery‐relatedactivitieswillbemovedtoButiaba,leavingBugoigoempty‐handed.InNgwedoTradingCentreCommunity,Buliisatherearemorethan5oilwells.Furtherexplorationisstillgoingon.Thecommunityisexcitedbutatthesametimeanxiousastowhatwillhappentotheircurrentlivelihoodssources–mainlyderivedfromfarming.InNgwedoallhouseholdsownandcultivatetheirland.Theaveragehouseholdincomeisveryhighwhencomparedtoothercommunities.Herethecommunityorhouseholdsarelikelytoloseland.Thisenhancestheneedtoincreaseproductivity,aslandbecomesalimitingfactor.TheKigweraCommunitynearWansekoLanding/Ferrycrossingpoint,Buliisaisdependingonbothfarmingandfishing.Manyfishermeninvestmoneyfromfishingintoagricultureitissaid.Landisratherfertile,andtraditionallyfarmersgrowcassavaandlatelycitrushasbeenintroduced.Alsopasturesareavailableandhouseholdskeepcattle,sheepandgoats.TheNgwedoandBuliisaoilfieldsareclosewhichmakesKigweravulnerabletoTullowoperations.KigweraisattheintersectionoftheTullowandTotalconcessions.Kigwerarepresentsaverydiverseandactivecommunity.TherearemanytribesincludingtribesfromCongo.Itisalsoatransitpointforpeopleandcommerce.
![Page 44: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 35
Intable8somemoredetailsonthecurrentsituationandlivelihoodsof4ofthe5visitedcommunities.In4communitieshouseholdinterviewswereconducted,asrepresentedinthetable.
HOIMADISTRICT BULIISADISTRICT IndicatorDescription
KiryambogoFishLandingSite(Samplesize,
N=26)
SebagoroFishLandingSite(N=12)
NgwedoTradingCentre(N=14)
KigweraCOU(nearWansekoFerryTerminal)
(N=16) INCOMESECURITYINDICATORS‐Assets
2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012
1.%ofhhwithland 54 60 50 67 93 100 94 94 2.Averagelandholding(acres)/landowner
8.5 7.65 6.4 6.0 4.8 6.5 2 3.2
3.%ofhhwithlandthatcultivatecrops
20 46 42 67 57 100 94 94
4.Averageacresoflandcultivated/cultivators
2.0 1.85 3.0 2.69 3.2 5.1 1.5 2.8
5.%ofhhswithgrasshouses
85 58 42 33 64 21 50 25
6.%ofhhswithbicycles
23 27 42 50 79 93 50 56
7.%ofhhswithlivestock
34 77 83 100 79 100 75 94
8.%ofhhswithphones 23 62 92 100 50 64 25 81 9.Averageannualincome(UGXinmillions)/householdinterviewed
1.60m 1.72m 9.7m 7.8m 5.8m 11m 1.4m 1.52m
10.CurrentmainsourcesofIncomeofthecommunity
Fishingand
Trading
Fishingandsome
cropping/
livestock
Cropfarming,livestock,&trading
Livestock,cropsandfishing
Table8Currentlivelihoodsin4visitedcommunities3.11GiventhevariousscenariosofnegativeimpactbyTullowoperations,thetypesofaffectedcommunitiesandtheirgeographicallocations:Whatarepossiblealternativelivelihoodsorrestoredlivelihoodsofaffectedcommunities?Togetgoodviewsonalternativelivelihoodsfarmersanddistrictleaderswereaskedfortheiropinion.Alsousewasmadeoftheresearcher'sownexpertisewhileformulatingthefindingsonthisresearchquestion.IffishingisnolongeranoptionforfishinghouseholdsinKiryambogoCommunitythehouseholdsstatetheywouldoptforcommercialtomatogrowing,andlargescalerearingoflocalchickenandducks.Theconditionsarequitefavourablefortheseactivitiesandsomeofthehouseholdshavesomeexperiencealready.ThedistrictofficersandtheresearcherobservethatKiryambogocommunityalsohasaccesstopasturesandthereiswaterallyearroundforlivestock.Thecommunityhasquitesomeexperiencewithlivestockalready(sheep,goats,cattle).Apointofattentionhereisuncontrolledgrazingoflivestock.Iflivestockistobeanimportantalternativeforfishing,thensomethingneedstobedoneonprotectingcrops,anddemarcationofland.
![Page 45: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 36
Anotheralternativeisgrowingvegetables.Forgrowingvegetablesthewaterthatflowsfromthehydropowerplantcouldbeareliablesourceofirrigationifwaterisneededindryperiods.ItslocationandproximitytoBuserukaminihydropowerstationcreatesalotofopportunitiesforsmall‐scaleindustrydevelopmentaswell.Thisisespeciallyimportantforthosehouseholdswithoutanyland(still40%ofthehouseholdsdonothaveland).Fishfarmingismentionedbythedistrictofficersasalternativeforthecurrentfishingpractices.Again,thislivelihoodmaybeofgreatimportancetothosehouseholdswithoutland.Incaseofreallocationofthecommunity,alternativelivelihoodsentirelydependontheconditionsofthenewlocations.Whatisimportanttokeepinmindaswellasisthatmanyhouseholdsarenottraditionalcropcultivators.HouseholdsinSebagoroCommunityinvolvedinfishingactivities,andowningland,statethattheyarereadytogobacktothelandandgrowcassava,maizeandbeansforbothfoodandcash.ManyofthemhavedualhomesandlanduptheescarpmentinKabwoya/Kaseetaareas.However,still33%ofthehouseholdsiswithoutland.Forhouseholdswithoutlandfishfarmingmaybeanoptionaswell.InNgwedoCommunitymosthouseholdsareinvolvedincultivationofcropsandinlivestock.HerehouseholdsstatethatiftheywilllooselandduetoTullow'soperationstheywouldintensifycassavaandcottoncultivationandtherearingofgoats.Someofthehouseholdshavelandfurtherin‐landandsaytheywouldstartcultivatingoverthere.Forthosewhodonothaveland(althoughallhouseholdsintervieweddohaveland),theysaidthatthereisstilltheoptionofrentingcurrentlyatabout50,000UGXperacreperseason.TheNgwedocommunityhassomeenterprisingindividualsinvolvedinprovidingserviceslikecarpentry,buildingandrepairmechanicsinadditiontovendingfuelformotorcyclesamongothertrades.WhilehouseholdsinKigweraCommunityarecurrentlyengagedinlivestockrearing,cropfarmingandfishing,theystatethatincaseoflossoflandorlossoffisheryincome,theywouldstillconcentrateontheirtraditionallivelihoodslikecassavagrowing,goatrearingandfishtradingsincetheseenterprisesarelowrisk.Onfishtrading,theystatethatthefactthatanewlandingsiteisbeingdeveloped,meansthatfishingwillstillberelevantinthenearfuture.CassavaisamajorcropfortheregionandacrossthelakeinDRC.Cassavahasintheireyesalotofmarketandvalueadditionopportunitieslikemakinglocalandmodern/bottledbrewandindustrialstarch.Fromthedistrictofficers'pointofview,theagriculturalhinterlandisfavourableforcitrusgrowing,andKigweraisatransitpointforbothpeopleandcommerceandhasalotofscopefortradeofanykind,especiallysinceitisalsoatthecrossroadsoftheareasoftwomajoroilcompanies,TullowandTotal.CurrentlyBugoigoCommunityisamajorfishingcommunity.Peoplestatethatiffishingactivitieswereaffected,theywouldconcentrateongeneraltrading.Iflandwouldbestillavailablethosewhohaveland,wouldgrowcassavaandreargoatsastheirnewsourcesofincome.Thehouseholdsclaimthatcassavahasmarketandisagoodfoodsecuritycropwhilegoatsareeasytoproduceandcanbesoldatshortnoticeifneeded.
![Page 46: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 37
4.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONS
PART1.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEEVALUATION
4.1Conclusions1.TheCAEDprogrammehas‐nexttootheractorsandfactors‐contributedtoimprovedfoodandincomesecurityoftheparticipatingsmallholderfarmersinHoimaandBuliisadistricts.Almostallhouseholdsinterviewedshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices.ExceptionsarethehouseholdsinUribowherelowerfoodsecurityindicesarefoundfor2012thanfor2009.CausesfortheselowerindicesinUriboarenotcleartotheevaluationteambutcouldbepartlyduetobadharvestsinthelast2years.Non‐participatinghouseholdshaveincreasedtheirfoodandincomesecurityindicesaswellbutshowsignificantlyfewerpositivechangesinthevariouselementsoftheindicesthanparticipatinghouseholds.2.Almostallhouseholdsshowincreasedincomesecurity,eventhosehouseholdsthatdonotembarkoncollectivemarketingandcontinuetosellatindividuallevels.Ifthepartners,TullowandTriasregardcollectivemarketingasanimportantapproachoftheprogramme,thispartneedsmoreattention.3.Allinterviewedhouseholdshaveincreasedaccesstoremunerativemarkets.Theynotonlyhavehigheryields,theycultivatemoreacresandselllargerpercentagesoftheiryieldsat(mainlylocal)markets.4.Althoughtheprogrammeincludesallgroupsthatmakeprofitwiththeir'enterprises',thelevelsofprofitabilityvaryconsiderablybetweengroups.Therearea)CAEDPgroupsthatmadethechangefromsubsistencedrivento'moremarketdriven'farmersalready(seefigure2.1.1Farmproductionpyramid),b)thosethatareintheprocessoftransformationbutmainlylackaccesstogoodmarkets(eitherduetoremotenessand/orlackofself‐organisation),andc)groupsthatdonothavethepotentialtomakethemovetowardsmarketdrivenfarmerssincetheyeitherlackthemotivationand/orenablingconditionsformarketingandcropcultivation.
![Page 47: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 38
5.TheCAEDprogrammeisvaluedbythesmallholderfarmersmainlybecauseoftheservicesrelatedtoskillsandknowledgeforimprovingfoodandcashcropproduction,andthesavingsandloanelements(especiallyinBuliisa).Althoughthisislaudable,thisdoesnotreflectthefullscopeofthePAEDapproach.Marketing,postharvestmeasures,storage,collectivemarketing,enterpriseselection,workingingroupsandmakingafist(thoseelementsthatwouldactuallyempowerfarmers)arehardlymentionedasimportantelementsoftheprogramme.6.Ingeneraltheparticipatinghouseholdsandgroupsareratherstronginsavingmoney,alsothankstootherprogrammesintheregion.Insomegroupstheyhaveamassedratherimportantvolumesofsavings.TheCAEDprogrammehasbenefitedfromthissavingcultureandhasadded,especiallyinBuliisa,anintensifieduseofthesavingsforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.Theevaluationteamcouldnotsubstantiatehowmuchofthesavingsisusedforinvestmentinagriculturalproduction.ThestudyconductedbytheMountainsoftheMoonUniversity(MMU)(notavailableatthetimeofwriting)mayprovidemoredetailsonthisissue.7.ThenumberandvolumeofloansprovidedbyHofokamtofarmergroupshasincreasedsincethestartoftheprogramme,withadrawbackin2012duetostaffingproblems.Manygroupsareeagerlyanticipatingtowardsfutureloans,althoughthecreditfundwasalmostnearlyfullyinuseasoutstandingloansduringthetimeoftheevaluation.8.Somegroupshaveobtainedloansfortheirenterprisebuthadtorepaytheloansthroughothersourcessinceeithertheharvestfailedand/ortheloanwasusedforanotherpurposethantheenterprise.Althoughitseemsthismechanismisnotwidespread,itisimportanttokeeponmonitoringthesecasestoavoidloan‐traps.9.Oneoftheobjectivesoftheprogrammeistosupportfarmerstoobtainbetterpricesfortheirproduce.Aspricesarelowatthetimeofharvest,itoftenmeansthattheproduceneedstobestoredforsometimeafterharvest.However,theloansgivenoutbyHofokamingeneralneedtobepaidbackafter6months.Forsomecropsthismaymeanduringharvesttime,whenpricesareattheirlowest.Thisseemstobeacontradictionwithintheprogramme.4.2Lessonslearned10.TheCAEDPworkswellespeciallyincommunitiesthathavestablegroups,thathaveenablingagriculturalconditions,andaccesstomarketsthatisfacilitatedbyinfrastructurelikeroadsandstore‐housesasseeninKaseetaandBiiso.Somemoreeffortsareneededinremotecommunitieswhereagriculturalconditionsareenabling,butwhereaccesstomarketsisdifficult.Theprogrammehardlysucceedsincommunitiesthatareunstable(greatin‐andoutfluxofpeople)andwherepeoplehavenocultivationtradition,likethefishingcommunityinKabanda.ThisisespeciallysosincecropproductionisthecorefocusintheCAEDprogramme(seeformorelessonsandrecommendationspart2onalternativelivelihoods).11.TheCAEDPprogrammecontributedtoincreasedincomesecurityevenwhengroupsarenotmarketingcollectively.12.Marketinginitsbroadfacetsisanareainneedfordevelopment,andespeciallycollectivemarketing.Moststaff(ofbothTriasandthepartnersMadfaandHodfa)iswell‐
![Page 48: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 39
versedinagriculturalcropcultivationbuthavelessknowledgeandskillstoofferonmarketing.13.Empoweringfarmerstoproduceforthemarketisasuccessfulthoughone‐sidedapproachthatneedstobeaccompaniedbychangesinbehaviouroftheotheractorsinthemarketchain,andadjustmentsinpolicies,infrastructure(storagesandroads)aswell.14.IngeneralthePAEDapproachisverypowerfulbutnotusedtoitsfullpotentialyet.Especiallythemobilizationoffarmerswithoutprovidinghandoutssetsanexampleforotherprogrammesinthearea.4.3Recommendations15.TheteamrecommendstheCAEDPtocontinuewiththosefarmersthathavepotentialforthecultivationofcrops(typesAandB)sincetheprogrammehasshowngoodfirstresultsintermsofincomeandfoodsecurity.16.ItisrecommendedtofurtherdiversifytheCAEDPapproach,basedonthepresenceorabsenceofotherenablingconditions,likefertility,climate,infrastructure,accesstomarketsetc.Theprogrammecoulddevelopdifferentapproachesforcommunitiesthatbenefitfromenablingconditionsandforthosecommunitiesthatdonotbenefitfromenablingconditions(agriculturalzone,stablegroups,remoteness,infrastructureetc).17.Themarketingaspects(includingcost‐benefitanalyses,enterpriseselection,storage,collectivemarketing,packaging,transportation,distributionetc)needfarmoreattentionthanwasgivenduringthefirstphaseoftheprogramme.Thismeanstheprogrammeneedstoseekadditionalexpertisetostrengthenthemarketingaspects.18.Theprogramme'svisionon'collectivemarketing'(whatisitsupposedtobe,andhowshoulditwork)needstobefurtherdefined.Isitreallynecessarytophysicallybulkproduceandsellittoonebuyerorarepriceagreementsamongindividualgroupmemberssufficientaswell?19.ThepartnersMadfa,HodfaandHofokam,TriasandTullowareadvisedtoreconsiderhowtheywishtoproceedwiththosegroupsthatdonothavemuchpotentialforcultivatingcrops(typeC).ArethesethegroupsoffarmerstheywanttorepresentasFarmerAssociations,arethesethegroupsTriaswantstotarget?ArethesethegroupTullowwantstotarget?DotheneedsofthesegroupsneedtobecateredduringthenextphasebytheCAEDP?Iftheanswerisyes,recommendationsforalternativelivelihoodsarepresentedinthenextpartofconclusionsandrecommendations.ThismayentailasearchforadditionalpartnersfortheCAEDPthatarewellversedinfishing(wildandfarming),livestockandtrading(seeforfurtherdetailspage41‐43).20.Withregardtoloansandsaving:Ifthereisaconsiderablevolumeofsavingsingroupsandhouseholds,theprogrammeshouldresearchhowfarmerscouldbeencouragedtousethismoneyforagriculturalinvestmentsinsteadofloaningfromHofokamorothermicro‐financeinstitutions.21.Withintheprogrammemanydifferentindicatorsarebeingusedtotrackprogress.Theteamrecommendstoreducethenumberofindicators,andtostartusingamongothersforspecificobjective2,thetypologiesofgroupsA,B,andC.Theteamalsorecommendsto
![Page 49: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 40
furtherdefinethesecategoriessothatattheendoftheprogramme,theprogrammeisabletoshowpercentagesofgroupsthatmadethemovetowardsmarketdrivenfarming,thosethatmadefirststepsandthosethatfailedtodoso,and/orfellback.Alsoforthespecificobjective3itisrecommendedtostartusingvolumes/percentagesofmoneythatareusedforinvestmentinsteadofusingsavingsandloansasindicators.22.ItisrecommendedthatHofokamreviewstheirloanproducttermstomatchwithbettercashflowneedsofthetargetgroup.
PART2.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODSTUDY
Onaffectingcommunitiesanduncertainty23.ThemainareasofTullowoperationfortheforeseeablefuturewillbelimitedtothelandareaandthemidsectionexplorationareasspreadingfromBugomauptoNgwedoWansekoareaintheMurchisonFallsNationalparkareaofBuliisadistrict(seemap1).Operationswillbeconfinedtotheriftvalleybottomareas,andnoorhardlyanyoffshoreoperations(inLakeAlbert)areforeseen.Tullowhasnoclearview(yet)onhowandtowhatextentcommunitiesmaybeaffectedbytheiroperations.Nevertheless,withinthecommunitiesvisitedthereisalotofuncertaintywhetherandhowtheircommunitiesmaybeaffectedbyTullowoperations.Thisiscausingspeculationaboutresettlements,anddegradationofwater,landandair,especiallyamongthefishingcommunities,althoughtheyarelikelyleastaffectedbyTullowoperations.Tullowisrecommendedtomapoutwhichcommunitieswillbeaffectedtowhatextent,andcommunicatethistotherelatedcommunitiesassoonaspossible.Tullowisalsorecommendedtomapoutthepathoftransitiontowardsre‐allocationand/oralternativelivelihoodsifneeded,collectivelywiththecommunities&householdsconcernedandCAEDPpartners,andpreparethecommunitieswellinadvance.Onaffectingfishingcommunities24.AlthoughTullowrequestedtheresearchertopayextraattentiontofishingcommunities,themainthreatforfishingcommunitiesiscomingfromwithinandnotdirectlyfromTullowoperations.Unsustainablefishingpracticesarequicklydiminishingcertainfishstocksandifnolawenforcementisfollowed,soonnofishwillbefishedoutofLakeAlbert.Manyhouseholdsdependingonfishingneedtoembarkonalternativelivelihoodssoon,despitethedevelopmentofanewfish‐landingsite.TheCAEDPisrecommendedtoplayaroleinthistransitiontowardsalternativelivelihoodsaselaboratedinconclusions26and27.Onaffectingcommunitiesingeneral25.IngeneralthreetypesofcommunitieswillbeaffectedbyTullowoperations:
• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonfishing(Kiryambogo,Sebagoro,andBugoigolandingsites);
• Communitiesrelyingonfishingandagriculture(WansekoCOUsite),and• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonagriculture(Ngwedotradingcentre).
Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.
![Page 50: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 41
ItisrecommendedwhenandifTullowisaffectingcommunitiestocloselyscrutinizeanddistinguishcurrentlivelihoodsandconsulthouseholdsontheirneedsandskillsforpossiblealternativelivelihoods.TheCAEDPevaluationhasshownthatnotallhouseholdsarefitforcultivatingcrops,especiallywhentheydonothaveanytraditionincultivation(likesomehouseholdsinKiryambogo,SebagoroandBugoigo).Somehouseholdsmaybebetteratlivestockrearing,tradingorfishfarminginstead.Thereisnoonefitsallapproachforaffectedcommunities.Thefollowingrecommendationsforpossiblealternativelivelihoodsserveasaguidelinenotasablueprint.Cropcultivationforthosewithexperience26.Communitiesintheriftvalleyareasthathaveaccesstolandandarealreadywellengagedincultivatingcrops(likehouseholdsinNgwedo,Wansekoandalsosomehouseholdsintheothercommunities)shouldbeencouragedtocontinuecropfarmingasatoppriority,evenincaseofre‐allocation.Cropsprioritisedbythecommunitiesincludecotton,cassava,maize,beans,peas,andcitrus.Vegetablesespeciallythosethataretoleranttodroughtlikewatermelonandpumpkinsaregoodoptionsaswell.Othervegetablesliketomatoesandcabbagesmayneedthesupportofirrigationinordertobeviable.Whenplanningforirrigation(eitherlakeorriverwaterorharvestingrainwater)italsoimportanttoplanfordrainageaswellasthesameareasareusuallypronetofloodsanddroughts.Inordertoimproveoncropcultivation(bothfoodandcash)thereisalottolearnfromthecurrentCAEDprogrammeandtheiradvisors.TofurtherdevelopcropcultivationCAEDPisencouragedtopromotevalueaddition.Anexampleofthisisthecultivationandprocessingofcassavaforindustrialstarchandlocalbeer.Toensureinvestmentincropcultivationandprotectcropsfromgrazinglivestock,andtoavoidotherlandconflictsandlandgrabbinginthefuture,CAEDPpartnersareencouragedtolobbywithinthecommunitiesforformalregistrationofland,alsoofcommunallands.Alternativelivelihoodsforthosemainlydependingonfishing27.Forthosehouseholdsthatdonothaveaccesstoland(especiallyinHoimadistrict)andhad/havefishingastheirmainsourceoflivelihoodtherearethreemainoptionsofalternativelivelihoods:Sustainablefishfarming,sustainablefishing,livestockandtrading.Ingeneralhouseholdsdependingonfishing,haveexperienceinrearinglivestockanddotradingaswell.SustainablefishfarmingAlthoughonlyaselectnumberofhouseholdscanembarkonfishfarming,theCAEDPisrecommendedtoexploreaffordablewaysforfishfarming,eithercageorlagoonfishing.Thedemandforfishislargeandinsteadofcatchingfish,fishfarming‐aslongasitisdoneinasustainableway‐couldbeagoodalternative.Forthis,expertisefromoutsidemayneedtobeinvolvedintheprogramme.SustainablefishingCurrentlyfishingpracticesareunsustainableandlawenforcementislimited.Thereisneedforexamplesofsustainablefishing.TheCAEDPisrecommendedtoexplorehowtheycanguideapartofthefisherhouseholdstobechampionsofsustainablefishingpractices.Forthis,expertisefromoutsidemayneedtobeinvolvedintheprogramme.
![Page 51: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
CAEDPEvaluation2012 42
LivestockrearingInareaswherepasturesareavailable,manyhouseholdsalreadyhavesomesmalllivestocklikegoatsandsheep.Itisrecommendedtoguidehouseholdstowardsbettergrazingpracticesandgoodbreedsofgoatsandsheep(betterafewgoodgoatsthanmanyweakones).Thiscanonlyberecommendedifnoconflictsbetweencropcultivatorsandgoatkeepersareexpected,andlandrights(especiallyoncommunalland)havebeenclarified.HeretheCAEDPcouldmakeuseofHodfa'sexpertiseonguidingfishinghouseholdstowardsgoatkeepers(inforexampleRunga,Hoima).Alsoraisingducksandpoultrycouldserveasalternativelivelihoods.TradeEspeciallyintradingcentresandsomeofthelandingsite(especiallyWanseko)alotoftradingisgoingon:Tradersandshopowners/keepers,producedealers,marketvendorsofallkinds,transporters,smallscaleprocessors,smallgrainmillers,restaurantownersandoperators,variousserviceproviderslikerepairshops,builders,carpentersetc.Theseprofessionsoffergoodalternativesforfisherswithoutland,livingclosebytothesecentres.InthedesignofthenextphaseoftheCEADProgrammestrengtheningofthesesmall(trade)enterprisesthrough‐amongothers‐vocationaltrainingishighlyrecommended.
![Page 52: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
43
ANNEXES
ANNEXI.LISTOFDOCUMENTSREVIEWEDANDCONSULTED
• Baser,H.andMorgan,P.(2008)Capacity,ChangeandPerformance:StudyReport.Maastricht:ECDPM,theNetherlands.
• TheDailyMonitor(2012)'Oilcouldnegativelyimpactagriculture,saysMutebile'Discussionretrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Commodities/Oil‐could‐negatively‐impact‐agriculture‐‐‐says‐Mutebile/‐/688610/1614054/‐/uxmyqfz/‐/index.html
• Dart,Jess(2010),CollaborativeOutcomeReportingTechnique(CORT).HandoutsfortheConferenceEvaluationrevisited:improvingthequalityofevaluatepracticebyembracingcomplexity,Utrecht,theNetherlands.
• Davies,RickandJessDart(2005)TheMostSignificantChange(MSC)Technique.Aguidetoitsuse.
• Dhaene,Corina,andGeorgeKasumba(2011),EndEvaluation.RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmerhouseholdsinMasindi(Uganda).'AceEurope.
• Esfim(2011),TheNaadsthatFarmerswant.Dialoguereport.Downloadedon15January2013fromhttp://www.esfim.org/wp‐content/uploads/The‐Naads‐That‐Farmers‐want‐Dialogue‐Report1.pdf
• Goodwin‐Groen,Ruth,TillBruettandAlexiaLatortue(2004),UgandaMicrofinanceEffectivenessReview,CGAP,October2004.
• Hodfa(2012)HodfadataforCAEDPevaluationfinal• Hofokam,FactsheetJune2012• Madfa(2012)MadfadataforCAEDPevaluationfinal• IFPRI(2011)ManagingFutureOilRevenueinUgandaforAgriculturalDevelopment
andPovertyReduction.ACGEAnalysisofChallengesandOptions.IFPRIDiscussionPaper01122.Retrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01122.pdf
• IOB(2011),SynthesisreportoftheevaluationofDutchsupporttocapacitydevelopment.Facilitatingresourcefulness.IOBreport336.TheNetherlands.
• MinistryofFinance(2005)TheMicrofinancePolicyAndRegulatoryFrameworkInUganda,Uganda,2005‐2015
• NationalPlanningAuthority(2010),TheNationalDevelopmentPlan,NPAUganda.• RabobankGroup(2012)FrameworkforanInclusiveFoodStrategy.Co‐operatives‐a
KeyforSmallholderInclusionintoValueChains.• RwakakambaMorrison(2012),OilinUganda:Whatdoesitmeanforagriculture
sector?Retrievedon15January2013fromhttp://www.fao.org/fsnforum/resources/oil‐uganda‐what‐does‐it‐mean‐agriculture‐sector.
• Trias&Horizon3000(2012)ERIManual• Trias (2012) Tullow Summary Narrative Report January‐May 2012(Hoima and
Buliisa)• Trias(2012)HighlightsoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme
2011• Trias(2012)InternalevaluationofTriasUgandaFinal,AppreciationHofokam,
AppreciationMadfa,AppreciationHodfa.• Trias(2012)CAEDPNarrativereportMayandJune2012• Trias(2011)CAEDPAnnualreport2011• Trias(2011)PartnershipAgreement2011version2
![Page 53: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
44
• Trias(2011)HighlightsoftheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme2010
• Trias(2011)Mid‐TermEvaluationReportForTriasUgandaProgram,February2011• Trias(2011),CommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentprogramme(CAEDP).
Progressreport2010&Plan2011.• Trias(2010)'Raisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholds
borderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportBuliisaDistrict.'
• Trias(2010)'RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholdsborderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportHoimaDistrict.'
• TriasandTullow(2010)FinalpartnershipagreementTrias.• Trias(2010)LogicalFrameworkTullowprogrammeFinal• Tumusiime‐Mutebile,Emmanuel(2012),Thechallengeswhichwillfaceagriculture
inanoileconomy.InNewVision.Retrievedon26November2012fromhttp://www.newvision.co.ug/news/637265‐the‐challenges‐which‐will‐face‐agriculture‐in‐an‐oil‐economy.html
• WFP(2009)'ComprehensiveFoodSecurityandVulnerabilityAnalysisonUganda'.
![Page 54: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
45
ANNEXII.OVERVIEWOFPEOPLECONSULTED
A.PEOPLECONSULTEDFORTHEEVALUATION
TriasPaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorTriasUganda,KampalaMosesMuwanga,ProgrammeOfficerTriasUganda,KampalaPeterVanErumAgro‐enterpriseDevelopmentCoordinator,KampalaRichardNsamba,Agro‐enterpriseDevelopmentAdvisorMasindi/HoimaJanuarioMtungura,Micro‐financeAdvisor,KampalaMirjamSsenyonga‐Thesing,OS/IDCoordinatorHoimaJuliusBarigye,Agro‐enterpriseDevelopmentAdvisor,Mbarara
TullowNahyaNkinzi,SocialInvestmentManagerFlorenceNangendo,SocialInvestmentManagerFredBazarabusa,SocialEnterpriseMonitoringOfficerHodfaCharlesKasangaki,CoordinatorMosesByenkya,ProgrammeOfficerGodfreyAganyira,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorBobGeorgeSunday,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorWalterWesigeomu,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorMucwaR.Elisha,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorMadfaDavidMutyabaKatende,CoordinatorNezaphoroAliganyera,ProgrammeOfficerCAEDPDavidWanzala,AgriculturalFieldAdvisorEugeneLuzige,BusinessManagerPatrickMugusha,GenderAdviserJuliusKisembo,FieldAdvisorHofokamCharlesIsingoma,GeneralManagerHofokamLTDRosie‐MarieKaddu,CAEDProgrammeAccountant,HoimaDanielKaahwaManagerHofokam‐HoimaRobertMugisa,Hofokam‐MasindiBranch,LoansSupervisorTraidlinksFionaShera,CountryDirectorUgandaJohnBoscoKaluke,AgriculturalSupplyChainProjectManagerSNVUgandaBernardConilhdeBeyssac,Advisor
![Page 55: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
46
HoimadistrictAndronziGadi,Translator&FacilitatorMr.FabiasNdozireho,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficer,HoimaDrKajura,ProductionCoordinator,HoimaBernardNuwamanya,DistrictNAADSCoordinatorRungaGroupdiscussions‐GreenLifegroup‐NewStargroup‐Tekakwogroup‐TulibangroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(allCAEDPfarmers)DavidMakesh KutegekaMuherzaFrancisOkello BabyendaYokisanSarahOpar TumusiimeKutegekoBintuSkoviaAcen GilbertMichaelMugisaMuheezaMuhumuze IbrahimOcenOchunaYotam AlfredOkiSalimaRashida B.F.KutegekaDanielImutung JamesOkumuLutungKabandaGroupdiscussions‐Agriterrainegroup‐Albatgroup‐KabandaStargroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)KisemboGeorgeGraceKiizaMugisaKosiaByabasaijaJohnsonAssimweSyliviaInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)SimonMugenyiEphraimBikaraElijahKasangakiKaseeta Groupdiscussions‐Katwimwikyogroup‐Katwekambegroup‐AbahikainegroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)AdrikoKasiano BisoborwaJosephTundunduluAlfred AdrikoLetiSosten
![Page 56: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
47
BuliaFestus SaboJohanMbabaziAdah ZaitunKomugiseAngeyongaMartina AbduOmbibiOnewVidal DriciaThomasMigandaChristopher BiingiTheopistaInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)AtuhaireJohnByabasaijaRobertKarubangaIsokeKamanyireJames
BuliisadistrictMrRobertKaahwa,DistrictProductionCoordinatorDrRashidMubiru,DistrictVeterinaryOfficerandAg.NAADSCoordinatorMr.GodfreyBusiinge,Ag.SecretaryBuliisaDistrictLandBoard&SubCountyChiefBuliisaBiisoGroupdiscussions‐BabanzaKwajuragroup‐MunnoMukabigroup‐K'palaBeeKeepersgroup‐Tobyogenkinegroup‐UhurnnaKazigroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OkecJames IagandaAntonyKatsaveJennifer IsingomoJosephRobinaKabichwomo FredKabakunguMaizoGilbert NdagambakiDoreenBonabanaSilivya LucianoOkabeOlogwoJoseph JohnOlusoMogeshaJulius UkokoStephenKatasawaSayun, BalikurungiK.WilliamMaryKasangakiInterviews(non‐CAEDPfarmers)ByaruhangaDenisMukuluGodfreyNgonzebwaOliverOlowoMichaelAvogeraGroupdiscussions‐KloroMugisagroup‐ChanPonjojogroup‐Dikiribertickutegogroup‐DikiriTimogroup‐ChanberKuparugroup
![Page 57: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
48
MSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OgenMilton OrombiCharlesApothePacuwere JosephineNyamundoOkayaRosaline OkumuCharlesPacuriamaMagdalena AwacangoKamwoOnenJackson ToraciAmulaAdubangoAmula AkumuClementinaBitumPascalina JanetPacudagaOzeleFambe AngeiCelestinaUriboGroupdiscussions‐MunguMiyogroup‐Bidokmitgroup‐Dikirotegogroup‐WakeupnowgroupMSCstoriesandinterviews(CAEDPfarmers)OkecClaver NgavitaJosephineFuaceEmily KucakeGenesioAkenoneGenesio FambweRoseSalidaPacumbe ImmaculateAnerwothBirunnuJacqueline OnenCanVitalOnenDavid OryemKasianoAbehoneGrace OnenAlfonstinaFDmongoDeo AsimwePachal
B.PEOPLECONSULTEDFORTHEALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODSTUDY
a) In‐depthinterviewswereconductedwiththefollowing;TullowOilstaffMsNahyaNkinzi,SocialInvestmentsManager,KampalaLocalgovernmentleadersofHoimadistrictMsJeanKaliba,ResidentDistrictCommissionerMrKakorakiFred,DeputyLCVMrAbenaitweRobert,DeputyCAOMrKennetEbong,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficerMsJoyceKabatalya,AsstDCDO,BuserukaSubcountyMsJoyceKyamulesire,ACDO,KabwoyaSubcountyLocalgovernmentleadersofBuliisadistrictMrFerdLukumu,ChairmanMrRobertKaahwa,DistrictProductionOfficerMrBernardBarugahara,DistrictCommunityDevelopmentOfficerDrMubiruRashid,DistrictVeterinaryOfficer
b)Householdinterviews
NgwedoCommunityi) AnerwothGertrude(F)
KigweraCommunityi)ManyirekiJulius(M)
![Page 58: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
49
ii) RachiwuBena(F)iii) ApioRoseline(F)iv) JagenAldo(M)v) BinenStella(F)vi) OfungrwothChristopher(M)vii) OyirwothCharles(F)viii) AtimangoSwazi(M)ix) OkumuInnocent(M)x) UcungirwothJoel(M)xi) EmmanuelNom(M)xii) AlithumSelethino(M)xiii) OloyaEdgar(M)xiv) LucianoThumitho(M)
NB:7membersarefromOdokomitCAEDPGroup
ii)ChanceWandera(M)iii)MujuniRobert(M)iv)MargaretNyakato(F)v)AngumaBeatrice(F)vi)NtakimanyeMoses(M)vii)MbabaziJennifer(F)viii)AseraNight(F)ix)MuhiigwaWilliam(F)x)MbabaziFredrick(M)xi)KabaroleFelix(M)xii)MbabaziNyamweFred(M)xiii)AbokJoshua(M)xiv)AtugonzaAnna(F)xv)WanderaDarlisonxvi)KwemaraChristopher(M)NB:12membersarefromTwesigawamaaniCAEDPgroup
KiryambogoCommunityi) AndromeGadi(M)ii) OikanJoyce(F)iii) ChotunGasto(M)iv) AcenSanta(F)v) DaikanPecudia(F)vi) MungurwiyoEvelyne(F)vii) AmigoJoseph(M)viii) OwachiBeatrice(F)ix) OwachiDidan(M)x) OnimJapot(M)xi) TekwooEmmanuel(M)xii) OnenchanAlfred(M)xiii) OkwamFelimina(F)xiv) OnenchanMugwiek(M)xv) OfodAnjeli(F)xvi) DrichiruJoyce(F)xvii) BatambaraVasta(F)xviii) BeriuGrace(F)xix) AvutiaManuel(F)xx) AmithoJustin(F)xxi) FalingJanet(F)xxii) BerochanChitum(F)xxiii) BidongJetufin(F)xxiv) OnenchanJombe(M)xxv) KyarukibuMolly(F)xxvi) MzeeThomas(M)
NB:15arefromBalyesiimaCEADPgroup
SebagoroCommunityi) MuchwaElsha(M)j) TumwesigeLangton(M)ii) KyomuhendoAlice(F)iii) NgandoBen(M)iv) TumiHadija(F)v) AliyoStephen(M)vi) DorothyTwesige(F)vii) KisahoJoseph(M)viii) KatusiimeMuhereza(M)ix) MawaSadiq(M)x) OlamGilbert(M)xi) KwonkaRehema(F)xii) MamaSadiq(F)AllmembersarefromSebagorolakesideCEADPgroup
FieldSupportTeam• MrCharlesKasangaki,Coordinator,Hodfa• MrGodfreyAganyira,HodfaFieldAdvisor,BuserukaSubcounty
![Page 59: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
50
• MrMucwaElisha,HodfaFieldAdvisor,KabwoyaSubcounty• MrDavidMutyabaKatende,Coordinator,Madfa• MrRichardNsamba,Ag‐EnterpriseDevAdvisor,Masindi/Hoima• MrAliganyiraNezaphoro,ProgOfficerCEADProgram,Masindi• MrDavidWanzala,MadfaFieldAdvisor,BuliisaDistrict
OverallCoordination• PaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorTriasUganda,Kampala
![Page 60: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
51
ANNEXIII.TERMSOFREFERENCE(INCLUDINGTHEEXTRAASSIGNMENT)
TERMSOFREFERENCE
EvaluationCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeCAEDP2010–2012,Tullow&TriasUganda
1. IntroductionTheCommunityAgro‐EnterpriseDevelopmentProgramme–CAEDP–isaprogrammethatinitscurrentphaseisrunningfrom2010–2012.It’saprogrammefundedbyTullowOilUgandaandimplementedbyTriasUgandaanditspartnersHofokam,HodfaandMadfa.Astheprogrammeisapproachingtheendofthecurrentphase,TullowOilrequestedforanevaluationoftheCAEDPcoveringtheperiod2010–2012.TheaimofthisToRistoprovidetheframeworkfortheevaluationoftheCAEDP.ThisframeworkwasjointlyelaboratedbyTullowOilUgandaandTriasUganda.2. Evaluationobjectives2.1.ThegeneralobjectiveThegeneralobjectivefortheevaluationis:Togenerateafocussedin‐depthassessmentofthemostcriticalresults,outcomes,andpotentialimpactoftheCAEDProgrammeduringtheperiod2010‐2012;togeneratelessons‐learnedandrecommendations.IfasecondphasefortheCAEDPisagreedandapprovedbyTullowOil,thereportoftheevaluationalsoservestoimprovetheinterventionofTriasanditspartnersduringafollow‐upphaseoftheCAEDP.Thisgeneralobjectivereferstothefollowingcomplementaryevaluationelements:
- Assessprogresstowardstheachievementsofthemainprogramobjectives(theOverallObjectiveandSO2+SO3)
- Assessearlysignsofprogramsuccessorfailure(outcomes/impact)- Identifylessonslearnedandrecommendations- Identifynecessaryadjustmentstoachieveprogramobjectives- Identifynecessaryadjustmentstobeincludedinafollow‐upproject;whichinclude
identificationofalternativelivelihoodsforcommunitiesimpactedbyTullowoperationsandagreaterfocusoncommunitiesinthevalley(Kaiso‐TonyaandBuliisa)andlivelihoodrestorationforresettledcommunities.
Theevaluationhastoexplorewhatworkedandwhatdidnot,whatledtosuccess,andwhatdidnot,whatareunexpected/emergingoutcomesandimpacts?Howdidthecontextinfluencetheprogramme,etc?TheCAEDPisacomplexmulti‐stakeholderprogrammeinwhichAdidnotautomaticallyleadtoB,manyemergingresults,andprobablysomeactivitiesthatwereplanneddidnottakeplaceandviceversa,thecontextchangeddirectionoftheprogrammeetc..Forthatreasontheevaluationshouldfocusonthemostcriticalobjectives,viz.SO2andSO3.Theseobjectivesare‘theheart’oftheCAEDP.Focussingonthoseobjectivesallowsforamorein‐depthassessmentandmakingspaceforthedifferentperspectivesonwhatsuccessisandwhatnot,whatissuesareatstake,andexploringunderlyingcausesandviews.Theassessmentshouldalsoconsiderhowsuccessescanbebuiltonforafollow‐upprogrammewhichwillhaveagreaterfocusinthevalleyandwill
![Page 61: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
52
includeactivitiestosupportalternativelivelihoodsforfishingandotherimpactedcommunitiesandlivelihoodrestorationforresettledcommunities.Consideringthiscontextidentifywhatotherlivelihoodactivitiestakeplaceandhowtheprogrammecanbeadjustedtoincludelivelihoodalternativesandrestoration.Outcomesandimpactaredefinedasfollowing:Outcomescanbedescribedaschangesinbehaviour–atthelevelofpartnersandthetargetgroup.Ifthestrategyiseffectiveandcorrect,thenthesechangesinbehaviourwilleventuallycontributetowardsimpact,i.e.improvedfoodandincomesecurityofthetargetgroup.Impactcanbedescribedaschangesinthesocio‐economicorinstitutional‘status’ofthetargetgroup2.2EvaluationquestionsTheobjectivesoftheCAEDProgrammearepresentedinannex1.IndevelopingtheobjectivesoftheCAEDP,outputandoutcomeindicatorsweredevelopedatthespecificobjectiveandexpectedresults’level,aswellasincomeandfoodsecurityindicesatthegeneralobjectivelevel.Asmentionedunder2.1,theevaluationwillmainlyfocusontheSO2andSO3andtheircontributiontotheOverallObjective.ThroughtheregularPlanning,MonitoringandReporting(PMR)system,quantitativeinformationwasgatheredfortheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsattheendof2010and2011.Theprogressontheincomeandfoodsecurityindicesisplannedtobemeasuredattheendoftheprogramme’s3‐yearperiod.It’simportantthatprogresswiththeincomeandfoodsecurityindicesandthemeasurementoftheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsasofAugust2012willbedonefirst(see3.1).Forthequalitativeinformation,alistofevaluationquestionsiselaboratedfortheSpecificObjectives2and3oftheCAEDP.Thesequestionsaimtoassessoutcomes/impactonthegeneralandthose2specificobjectivesoftheCAEDP,whilereferringtotheoutcomeindicatorswherepossible.Assuch,thequalitativeevaluationaddstoandqualifiesthequantitativeinformationfromtheregularPMRsystem.ThelistofevaluationquestionsisbasedontheCAEDPobjectives:OverallObjective Thefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsin
HoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert,isimprovedinasustainableway
QuestionO.1:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtothedevelopmentofabusinessandself‐relianceattitudeinthefarmingcommunity?QuestionO.2:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanempoweredandknowledgeablefarmingcommunity,engagedin“farmingasabusiness”.QuestionO.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtostrengthenthetargetgroup’scapabilitiestovoicetheiropinionsandconcernsatthesub‐county‐anddistrictlevel?
![Page 62: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
53
SpecificObjective2 Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarkets
Question1.1:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccesstomarkets?Question1.2:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseincompetencesandimprovedparticipationofthetargetgroupinmarkets?Question1.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoimprovedmarketfunctioning?Question1.4:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedprofitfromagricultureathouseholdlevel?Question1.5:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoincreasedproductivityandqualityofagriculturalproduce?Question1.6:TowhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryofHodfaandMadfatothetargetgroup? SpecificObjective3 Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedinvestmentin
theirfarmingbusinessQuestion1.1:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedaccesstofinancialservicesforthetargetgroup?Question1.2:Towhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreasedsavingcultureofthetargetgroup?Question1.3:Towhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseinfinancialandproductioncapitalforthetargetgroup?Question1.4:TowhatextenthastheprogrammecontributedtoanincreaseininvestmentinfarmingbusinessQuestion1.5:TowhatextendhastheprogrammecontributedtoanimprovedservicedeliveryofHofokamtothetargetgroup? 2.3EvaluationcriteriaThefollowingDACevaluationcriteria3needtobeused,whenansweringtheevaluationquestionsforeachspecificobjective:
- Relevance: Towhatextentistheobjectivestillvalid(intermsofconsistencywithrequirementsandneedsofthetargetgroup)?
- Effectiveness:Towhatextenthastheobjectivebeenachieved?- Efficiency:Wastheobjectiveimplementedinthemostefficientwaycomparedto
alternatives?- Impact:Whatisthepotentialcontributionoftheobjectivetowardslong‐term
impact(contributiontogeneralobjectiveoftheprogramafter6years)?- Sustainability:Whatistheprobabilityof(i)longtermeffectsoftheobjective,(ii)
financialsustainability,and(iii)environmentalsustainability?AppreciationalongtheseDACevaluationcriteriahavetobereportedinaseparatechapterinthereport(see6.Report).
3 http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html
![Page 63: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
54
2.4EvaluationconclusionsBasedontheevaluationquestions,andaccordingtotheevaluationcriteria,theevaluationreportshouldresultinconclusionsforeachspecificobjective,covering:
- Strengthsand/orgoodpractices(+principlereasons/causes)- Weaknesses,challengesand/orpitfalls(+principlereasons/causes)- Lessonslearnedwithfocusoninnovation- Lessonslearnedwithfocusonextension/follow‐upprogrammeoftwoyears(plus
three);preliminaryfindingsofwhatalternativesarepossibleandrelevanttoimpactedcommunities,whichcanbefurtherexploredduringprogrammedesign
- Recommendations;includingrecommendationsforalternativelivelihoodsforfishingandothercommunities,restorationoflivelihoodsrequiredasaconsequenceofresettlementduetoTullowoperations,andagreaterfocusofactivitiesdowntheescarpment(Kaiso‐TonyaandBuliisa).
3. Evaluationprocess/approach3.1Evaluationprocess3.1.1.IncomeandfoodsecurityindicesandoutputandoutcomeindicatorsasofAugust2012Itisimportantthatthequalitativeinformationwrttheincomeandfoodsecurityindicesandtheoutputandoutcomeindicatorsiscollectedfirst.Thisisnotpartoftheevaluationexercise,butwillbecoveredseparately.Withthesupportofthe3partnersandalocalconsultantthisquantitativedatawillbecompiledlatestbyAugust2012.Thereportwillbeusedasinputsfortheevaluation.3.1.2EvaluationTheevaluationmethodologyshouldalsoincludetheuseofmultimediatoolssuchasvideo,photographyandsocialmediathatareintegratedintoquantitativeandqualitativemethods.Gatheringofdatashouldnotonlybedonethroughsecondarydata,butalsothroughcollectionofstoriese.g.MostSignificantChangeandothermethods.Thosestoriesshouldberecordedonvideo,validated,discussed,quantifiedandtranscribedforthewrittenevaluationreport.Visualsshouldcomplementthewrittenevaluationreportandprovideextrainformation.3.2ScopeoftheevaluationTheCAEDprogramme2010‐2012isimplementedwith3partnersin2districtsofUganda.InHoima,itconcernsHoimaDistrictFarmerAssociation(Hodfa)andinBuliisa,itconcernsMasindiDistrictFarmerAssociation(Madfa).ForbothdistrictsHofokamisengagedastheFinanceInstitution.Theevaluationcoverstheactivitiesundertakingwiththese3partnersinthe2districtsaswellastheactivitiescoordinatedfromtheTriasRegionalOfficeinKampala.3.3EvaluationteamAnexternalevaluatorwillleadtheevaluationandheadsanevaluationteam,whichconsistsoftheteamleader(i.e.theexternalevaluator)andalocalevaluator.Toenhancethe‘processuse’oftheevaluation,Tullow&TRIASstaffandrespectivepartnerstaffare,asfaraspossible,activelyinvolvedinthepreparation,implementationandfinalstagesoftheevaluationprocess.Tosafeguardthis,atleastajointsessionatthebeginningoftheevaluationisforeseentohavethosestaffmembersatthesamelevelofinformationandunderstanding.
![Page 64: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
55
Tosafeguardthequalityoftheprocessanditsresult,theProgrammeOfficerandtheRegionalCoordinatorofTriasUgandawillcloselymonitortheevaluationprogress.Meetingswiththeevaluationteamwillbeorganisedinwhichprogressoftheevaluationprocessisdiscussed,andpossibleconstraintsaddressed.Firstresultsandexperiencesderivedfromtheevaluationinoneofthetwointerventionareaswillbediscussed,beforeengagingtheprocessinthesecondinterventionarea.Adraftreportwillbepresentedanddiscussed,beforeafinalversionissubmittedtoTullow&Trias.ProfileexternalevaluatorBesidesthefactthattheevaluatorshouldbefamiliarwiththefieldofparticipatoryagro‐enterprisedevelopmentand/ormicro‐finance,thecontextofUganda,therealitiesofinternationaldevelopmentandtheconcepts/practiceoforganisationallearning,itiscrucialthatthattheexternalevaluatorisabletolead/facilitateaparticipatoryevaluationprocesswithavarietyofstakeholders.TheexternalevaluatorhasalsoexperienceandknowledgeonPME–andmoreinparticularevaluations(DACcriteriaetc)–andM&Eofcomplexprogrammes,asthatofTrias.MethodsofinquiryPossiblemethodsofinquiry:fieldtrips,focusgroupdiscussions,stories,interviews,peer‐to‐peerdiscussions(withe.g.actorsinthefield),feedbacksessions,roundtablediscussion,guidedself‐assessment,documentanalysis,andothers.Astheevaluationtouchesoneffects/outcomesattargetgrouplevel,itismandatorythatthemethodsofinquiryincludetoolsandapproachesthataregoingtobeusedwithrepresentativesofthetargetgroups.Theconsultant’sproposalhastoclearlyindicatehowthisinvolvementofthetargetgroupintheevaluationprocessisgoingtobetakenupandorganised.It’salsoimportantthatthevariousstakeholdersinvolvedinand/orrelatedtotheprogrammeareincludedintheevaluation.Thisalsoincludes(some)otherdevelopmentpartnersengagedintheinterventionareaoftheprogramme.Inlightoftheabove,activitieswillprobablyincludethefollowing:
≠ Deskstudyofrelevantprogrammedocumentation(annualplans,reports);≠ Designofevaluationmethodology≠ Introductorymeetingwithpartnerstopresentanddiscusspurposeandscopeof
evaluation≠ Prepareevaluation(questionnaires,samplingframes,audiovisuals,toolsfor
analysis)≠ Jointsessionwithevaluationteam≠ Facilitateandimplementevaluation≠ Analyseandreportonfindingsevaluation≠ Preparedraftevaluationreport≠ Facilitate1‐daystakeholders’workshop≠ Preparefinalevaluationreport
![Page 65: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
56
TimeframeItissuggestedthattheevaluationtakesplaceinSeptember2012;withtheevaluationreporttobefinalisedlatestby15October2012.Theproposeddurationoftheassignmentisapproximately25workingdays,including(international/local)travel,brokendownasfollows:• Deskstudyofdocumentation,incl.preparationofscope,methodology,tools:2days• Kick‐offmeetings:1day• Facilitation&implementationofevaluation(fielddays):10days(5/district)• Analysis&interpretationofdata:4days• Reportwriting:4days• Preparation&facilitationofstakeholders’restitutionworkshop:2days• Internationaltravel:2days(onlyforteamleader)4. IntendeduseofevaluationfindingsTheintendedusesoftheevaluationfindingsare:• TheevaluationreportwilldirectlybetheTullowrequestedevaluationreportforthe
period2010‐2012;• TheevaluationfindingswillbeusedtoimproveTRIAS’strategies,partnershipsand
interventionsforitsprogrammesandwillbedirectlyusedtofurtherfine‐tuneandadjustafollow‐uptotheCAEDP2010‐2012programme;
• TheevaluationfindingsareusedfortheTriasoverallreport;• Theevaluationfindingswillbesharedwithotherco‐financingdonorsanddiscussed
duringthedonorvisits/meetings;• Illustrativestories,picturesandotherdocumentationresultingfromtheevaluation
processcanbeusedforpublicationsandexternalcommunication.5. BudgetAtentativebudgetfortheevaluationentailsthefollowingbudgetlines: USD
Description units unitprice total
1 Internationalconsultantairticket 1 800 8002 Feesint.consultantfr27days 27 350 9,4503 Feesnationalconsultantfr32days 32 200 6,4004 Operationalcosts: 0
a.Fieldtransport 12 25 300
Total 16,9506. ReportAsaguidelinefortheevaluationreport,thefollowingformatwillbeused.Thereisamaximumof30pages(excl.annexes).1Introduction
1.1Objectiveoftheevaluation
![Page 66: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
57
1.2Compositionevaluationteam1.3Evaluationprocessandmethodology1.4Mainevaluationactivities1.5Factorscontributingordisturbingtheevaluationexercise
2Interventioncontextandprojectdescription 2.1Concisecontextdescription 2.2DesignofCAEDprogramme 2.3Descriptionofbeneficiaries(partnersandtargetgroup)3Assessment 3.1OverallObjective2 3.1.1Question1 3.1.2Question2 3.1.3Question3 3.2SpecificObjective3 3.2.1Question1
3.2.2Question2,etc.
3.3AppreciationalongtheDACCriteria 3.3.1Relevance 3.3.2Effectiveness 3.3.3Efficiency 3.3.4Impact 3.3.5Sustainability 4Overallconclusions,lessonslearnedandrecommendations
4.1Conclusions 4.2Lessonslearned 4.3RecommendationsAnnexes
![Page 67: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
58
ANNEXIV.LOGFRAMEANDOBJECTIVESOFCAEDPROGRAMME
OverallObjective:“thefoodandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsinHoimaandBuliisaDistricts‐borderingLakeAlbert,isimprovedinasustainableway”SpecificObjective1:SmallholderfarmhouseholdshaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughouttheyearExpectedResults:1.1 Farmhouseholdsawareoftheimportanceoffoodsecurityandnutrition1.2 Farmhouseholdsawareoftheneedforjointplanning,decisionmakingandsharing
ofresponsibilitieswithinhouseholds1.3 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithappropriateknowledgeandskillsonproductionof
staplefoodcrops1.4 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithappropriateknowledgeandskillstoimprovetheir
backyardgardens1.5 Farmhouseholdsequippedwithknowledgeandskillsinpost‐harvesthandling,
preservationandpreparationofnutritiousfoods.SpecificObjective2:Smallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipationinremunerativemarketsExpectedResults:2.1 Farmergroupsmobilisedandstrengthened2.2 Farmergroupsequippedwithknowledgeandskillstoassessandselectprofitable
agro‐enterprises2.3 Farmergroupsequippedwithskillstoassessthevaluechainsofselectedagro‐
enterprises2.4 Farmergroupsequippedwithappropriateentrepreneurskills&knowledgetoforge
remunerativemarketsandlinkages(incl.linkageswithotherserviceproviders)2.5 Farmergroupsimpartedwithknowledgeandskillsinimprovingtheirproduction
andpost‐harvesthandling2.6 Farmergroupsfacilitatedwithcollectivemarketing(includingqualityassurance,use
ofmarketinformationandintelligence,otherrelevantskills)2.7 Farmergroupsequippedwithskillstoself‐evaluatetheirperformanceandmake
necessaryimprovements(PM&E)2.8 Partnerorganisationsequippedwithstaffandcapacitytoprovideappropriate
servicestohermembers–thesmallholderfarmerhouseholdsofHoimaandBuliisaDistricts
SpecificObjective3:SmallholderfarmhouseholdshaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusinessExpectedResults:3.1 Agriculturefriendlyfinancialservicesavailed3.2 Farmergroupsstrengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement3.3 Savingsculturepromoted3.4 Farmergroupsimpartedwithfinancialbusinessmanagementskills3.5 Outreachservicestofarmhouseholdsincreased
![Page 68: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
59
SpecificObjective4:Theprogrammeiseffectivelymanagedandcoordinatedinaresults‐orientedwayExpectedResults:4.1 ThecapacityofTriasUgandastafftoprovidecapacitybuildingsupporttolocal
partnerorganizationsandtocoordinateprogrammeactivities,enhanced4.2 Thecapacityoflocalpartnerorganizationstoeffectivelyplan,monitor/evaluateand
reportonprogrammeinputs,outputs,outcomesandimpact(includingcross‐cuttingissues),improved
4.3 Thecapacityoflocalpartnerorganizationstomanagetheirresourcesinatransparentandaccountableway,strengthened
4.4 Programmeplansandactivitiesoflocalpartnerorganizationsarewell‐coordinated4.5 Informationsharingandcollaborationwithothermajorstakeholders(government,
domesticandinternationaldonors),enhanced
![Page 69: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
60
ANNEXV.QUESTIONNAIRE
SubCounty…………………………………………………………………………….. Sample#……………….
CAEDPHOUSEHOLDQUESTIONNAIRE1.NameofRespondent/Farmer……………………………………………………………………………………………2.Village/LC1…………………………………………………………………Parish…………………………………………3.PositionintheHousehold…………………………………………………………………………………………………ASSETOWNERSHIPIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)
Levels 1.HouseholdLandownershipinAcres 2.HouseCharacteristics(Roof)‐Grass/IronSheets 3.HouseCharacteristics(wall)–Mud/burntbricks 4.Housecharacteristics(Floor)–Bareground/Cemented 5.Ownershipofmeansoftransport(None/Bicycle/M’cycle/car)
6.OwnershipofCows/SmallLivestockUnits(SLUs) 7.Others–(Specified)e.g.Radio/Phones/SolarPanelsetc. FOODPRODUCTIVITYANDSECURITYSTATUSIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)
levels 1.Numberofmonthsoffoodshortage 2.Cultivationoffoodsecuritycrops 3.Levelofyieldsperacre(onascaleof1to10) 4.Qualityofdiet(Proteins(1)Carbohydrates(2)Vitamins(3)FatsOils(4)
5.Perceivedqualityofproduce(onascaleof1to10) ACCESSTOVIABLEMARKETSANDFINANCIALSERVICESIndicatorDescription 2009Level Current(2012)
levels 1.Howmuchoftheproductionwasmarketed 2.Levelofdemand(onascaleof1to10) 3.Levelofprofitability(onascaleof1to10) 4.LevelofBusinessdevel.services(onascaleof1to10) 5.Savingslevelspermonth(inshillings) 6.Levelofaccesstocredit/loans 7.Averageloanamounts(inShillingsor$equivalents)
![Page 70: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
61
ANNEXVI.FOODANDINCOMEINDICESCALCULATION
Forcalculationofthefoodandincomeindicestheevaluationteamusedtheindicesasdevelopedduringthebaselineoftheprogramme.Belowthechapterfromthebaselinestudywiththeexplanationsontheindiceshasbeenreproduced(Trias(2010)'RaisingthefoodandincomesecurityofpoorfarmhouseholdsborderingLakeAlbert(HoimaandBuliisadistricts),Uganda.BaselineSurveyreportBuliisaDistrict').------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEVELOPMENTOFIMPACTINDICATORS(fromBaselinestudy)Astheprogrammefocusesonincomeandfoodsecurityofruralfarmhouseholds,itisimportanttounderstandanddefinetheseconceptsfromthetargetgroup’spointofview;theirperspectivewouldhelpthestudyindeterminingasetofproxyindicatorsthatsuitseachconceptinthegivenlocality.Aggregatingthecollectionofselectedproxiesintheirorderofpriorityperconceptwouldthenenablethestudyteamtoconstructacompositeindexforeachconcept.Itisthecompositeindicesthatthestudywillthenuseinassessingtheincomesecurityandfoodsecuritystatusofthefarmhouseholds‐atbaselineandlateronatendoftheprogramme.ThestudyteamheldfocusgroupdiscussionswithtwogroupsoffarmhouseholdsinNgwedotradingcentre,Ngwedoparish,Buliisasub‐countywith21farmhouseholds(13menand8women)andthesecondmeetingswasinBusiisavillage,Westernparish,BuliisaTownCouncilsub‐county,with12farmers(8menand5women).Thesegroupsidentifiedproxiesforincomesecurityandfoodsecurityaccordingtotheirperspective.Toensurefullandfreecontributionsduringpreliminarydiscussions,themenwereseparatedfromthewomen.Afterwards,bothmenandwomenwerebroughttogetherinaplenary,todevelopacommonunderstandingoftheissues/ideasandtobuildconsensusonthefinalresults.Theexerciseproceededverywell.Threeincomeandfoodsecuritycategoriesweredistinguishedduringthefocusgroupdiscussions:thebetteroff,themediumincomeandthepoor.Alistofitemsandtheirassociatedmeasures,sizeand/orattributeswasthengeneratedforeachcategory.Thislistwasusedtodefineproxyindicatorsforconstructingcompositeindicesforincomeandfoodsecurityamongsthouseholdswithinthisinterventionarea.IncomesecurityindexIncomesecurityisheredefinedastheabilitytosustainsufficientincometocoverfamilyneedsthroughouttheyear(albeitminorcalamitiessuchasadverseweatherconditions).Focusgroupdiscussionsfirstcentredonthedefinitionofwealth(orputnegatively,poverty):whichwealthcategoriescanbediscernedatruralvillagelevel,whichattributestheyrevealandhowtheseattributescanbequalified/quantifiedwhenmovingfromonecategorytothenext.Participantsdistinguished3categoriesofwealth:thepoor,themediumandbetter‐off.Thentheyidentifiedmainattributesthatshowdifferentiationbetweencategories.Finally,participantsrankedtheseattributesaccordingtopriority,frommostimportanttoleastimportant.
![Page 71: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
62
Thefollowingcharacteristicsorattributesofhouseholdwealthorpovertystatus‐inorderofpriority‐wereidentified:
1. Acreageoflandowned;2. Qualityofhousingunit;3. Meansoftransport;4. Numberofcowsowned;and5. Savingincomeinformalfinancialinstitutions,
Attributes1‐4relatetothe‘fixed’assetsofaspecifichousehold–land,cattle,housingandtransportmeans.Thelastattribute,ontheotherhand,ismoreconcernedwiththe‘expenditure’patternofhouseholds:savingatformalfinancialinstitutions(whichisalsousuallyaprerequisiteforobtainingloansorcredit).Whilethegeneralwealthstatusofagivenhouseholdisanimportantdeterminingfactorforincomesecurity,itisnottheonlyone.Participantsofthefocusgroupdiscussionsagreeduponthreefurtherthreefactorsthattheyfeelalsodetermineincomesecurity,being:1. Acreageofcropscultivated(withspecificreferencetocassava);2. Diversificationofmainsourcesofincome;and3. Numberofsmallstock(primarilygoats,butalsoothersmallstocklikepigs&poultry).Theseadditionalfactorswerejustifiedasfollows:1. Farmhouseholdswithalargerareaundercultivation(usuallyindifferentlocations)can
bettercopewithrisksofadverseweathercondition.Moreover,alargerareaundercultivationusuallyimpliesalargermixofcropsundercultivation,cropsthatareaffecteddifferentlybyweatherconditions.
2. Farmhouseholdswithmorethanonemainsourceofincomecanbettercopeandwithstanddownfalls/threatstooneofthem.
3. Smallstock–goats,pigsandpoultry–withwhichafarmhouseholdhaslessemotionalattachment,caneasilybeboughtandsold,andcanthereforeeasilycompensateshortcomingsinincomeforwhateverreason.
Inordertodevelopacompositeindexforincomesecurity,eachfactorwasgivenaweightconformtheirpriorityranking.Inaddition,eachfactorwasgivenascorefrom0to3(fromworsttobest,respectively)tovaluethedifferentcharacteristicsascribedtoeachattributeaccordingtoincomesecurityclass.Asillustration,fortypeofhouseowned:ahousewithagrassthatchedroof,mudwallsandasoilfloorisregardedasworstqualityofhousingandisgivenscore0;ontheotherhand,ahousewithironsheetroof,burntbrickwallsandgoodconcreteorcementedfloorisseenasthebestandisthusscored3.Theresultsarepresentedintable2below.
Table1:Weightingofattributesthatsignifyhouseholdincomesecuritystatus
Itemcategories Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3
1. HouseholdWealth 50% • Acreageoflandowned (0.25) Noland
owned <2acres 2‐<10acres >10acres
![Page 72: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
63
• Typeofhouseowned (0.20) Grassthatchedroof,mudwalls,soilfloor
Rustedironsheets,mudwalls,soilfloor
Ironsheetroof,mudwalls,concretefloor
Ironsheetroof,burntbrickwalls&concretefloor
• Numberofcattle (0.20) Nocattle 1‐2cows 3‐9cows 10cows&above
• Ownershipofmeansoftransport
(0.15) None 1bicycle >1bicycle 1m/cycle
• Abilitytosavemoneywithformalfinancialinstitutions
(0.20) No SACCOs CommercialBanks
Itemcategories Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3
2. Cultivatedarea(acres) 20% <1acreofland
1‐<2acres
2‐<5acres 5acres&above
3. Diversifiedsourcesofincome
15% Cropfarmingonly
Crop+livestockfarming
Crop,livestock+atleastoneadditionalmainsourceofincome
4. Numberofsmalllivestockunits(SLU)*
15% 0SLU 1–<5SLU 5‐<15SLU 15SLU&above
Whenalltheminimumandmaximumassignedweightsforattributesofincomesecurityareaddedtogether,itbecomesclearthatthecompositescorestartsat0.0(sumofalltheminimumweights)andgoesto3.0(sumofallthemaximumweights).Inlinewiththecategorisationmadebyparticipantsduringthegroupdiscussions,thethreerelativeincomesecuritycategoriescanbedistinguished:Category1:Householdswithsumsofweights0.0–1.5have………….PoorincomesecurityCategory2:Householdswithsumofweights1.6–2.5have……….......FairincomesecurityCategory3:Householdswithsumsofweights2.5–3.0have…………GoodincomesecurityInordertodeveloptheincomesecurityindexwithmaximumvalueof1,theindividualhouseholdsumofweightsweredividedbythemaximumsumofweights(3.0).Thisresultedinthefollowingweightsperincomesecuritycategory:Category1:Householdswithanindexfrom0.00–0.50havepoorincomeinsecurityCategory2:Householdswithanindexfrom0.51–0.83havefairincomesecurityCategory3:Householdswithanindexfrom0.84–1.00havegoodincomesecurityFoodsecurityindex
![Page 73: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
64
Foodsecurityisheredefinedastheabilityoffarmhouseholdstoprovidesufficientfoodtocoverfamilyneedsthroughouttheyear(albeitminorcalamitiessuchasadverseweatherconditions).Foodsecurityherecoversbothquantitative(sufficientfoodinquantity)andqualitative(nutritiousbalancedmeals)aspects.Inordertodevelopacompositeindex,bothquantitativeandqualitativeaspectsweregivenequalweight.Twoproxieswereidentifiedforthequantitativeaspect:(a)numberofmonthsoffoodshortage,and(b)cultivationofselectedcategoriesoffoodsecuritycrops.Participantsoffocusgroupdiscussionsidentifiedthreecategoriesoffoodsecuritycrops:(i)staplefoodcrops(bananas,beans,sweetpotatoes);(ii)droughtresistantfoodcrops(milletandsorghum);and(iii)cropsthatcanbestoredforlongerperiodsoftime(cassava,maize,groundnuts).Theextenttowhichfarmhouseholdscultivatecropsfromeachcategorydeterminestheextenttowhichtheyarefoodsecure.Forexample,ifafarmhouseholdgrowsbananas(categoryi),millet(categoryii)andcassava(categoryiii),thisfarmhouseholdiscategorisedasmorefoodsecurethanonewhocultivatescropsof2categoriesonly.Theproxy“consumptionofsufficientsourcesofcarbohydrates,protein,fatandvitaminsduringanormalmeal”wasidentifiedastheonlyproxyforthequalitativeaspectoffoodsecurity.Here,foodhasbeensubdividedinto4categories,accordingtotheirmainsourceofnutrition:(i)starchy‐carbohydratefoodstuffs(bananas,tubers+grains);(ii)vegetativeproteinrichfoodstuffs(legumessuchasgroundnutsandbeans);(iii)vitaminrichfoodstuffs(fruits&vegetables);and(iv)animalproteinandfats(e.g.meat,eggs,milk,cheese).Theextenttowhichhouseholdseatfoodofeachofthesefourcategoriesdeterminesthenutritionalbalanceoftheirmeals.Ifforexample,ahouseholdcommonlyeatsfoodsfromall4categories,thehouseholdisratedas‘good’intermsofqualitativenutritionalpractises;ahouseholdthatcommonlyeatsfoodofonly3categoriesisgivenalowerrating;andsoforth.Theweightsandscoresassignedtoeachattributeanditsrespectivecharacteristicsarepresentedintable3below.
Table2:Weightingofattributesthatsignifyhouseholdfoodsecuritystatus
Items Relativeweight/score 0 1 2 3
1. Noofmonthsoffoodshortage
25% >4monthsfoodshortage
3‐4monthsfoodshortage
1‐2monthsoffoodshortage
Nofoodshortage
2. Cultivationof‘foodsecurity’categoriesofcrops
25% Noneoffoodsecuritycategoriesarecultivated
Onlyonecategoryoffoodsecuritycropsiscultivated
Twocategoriesoffoodsecuritycropsarecultivated
All3categoriesoffoodsecuritycropsarecultivated
3. Quality/balanceofdiet
50% Onlyfoodsfrom1out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten
Onlyfoodsfrom2out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten
Onlyfoodsfrom3out4categoriesarecommonlyeaten
Foodsfromall4categoriesarecommonlyeaten
![Page 74: Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development Programme in Hoima and Buliisa districts, Uganda](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022043017/5f39dd42de44652c6537c0c7/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
65
Thetotalscoresvaryfrom0to3.Afterconversiontouniformfoodsecurityindices(withmaximumvalueof1),thefollowingrelativecategoriesandratesweredetermined:Category1:Householdswithsumsofweights0.00–0.50have…………poorfoodsecurityCategory2:Householdswithsumsofweights0.51–0.83have………….fairfoodsecurityCategory3:Householdswithsumsofweights0.84–1.00have………….goodfoodsecurity