Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community...

EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterprise

DevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda

2010‐2012

MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisa

CAEDPEvaluation2012 ii

CAEDPEvaluation2012 iii

EvaluationoftheCommunityAgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentProgrammeinHoimaandBuliisadistricts,Uganda2010‐2012MarlènArkesteijnBonifaceMugisaJanuary2013

CAEDPEvaluation2012 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheevaluationteamwouldliketothankallrespondentsfortheirtimeandinput,especiallyallfarmerswhowerewillingtosharetheirstoriesandexperienceswiththeteam.TheyalsothankRichardNsambaandFrancisKiwanukafromTriasUgandafortheirendlessenergy,goodadvices,patienceandtheirgreatsenseofhumourwhilearrangingandguidingtheteamtothecommunities.AspecialwordofthanksgoestothefieldadvisorsfromHodfa(GodfreyAyangira,BobGeorgeSundayandElishaR.Mucwa)andMadfa(DavidWanzala)forshowingtheirfieldworktotheteam,facilitationandtranslation.Davidwasthekingoftranslationandgreatlyfacilitatedtheevaluationbyspeakingatleast5ofthelocallanguages.TheteamwouldalsoliketothankPaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorofTriasUgandaforhisgeneroushospitality.MarlènArkesteijninfo@capturingdevelopment.comBonifaceMugisabbmugisa2002@yahoo.com

CAEDPEvaluation2012 v

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

CAEDPEvaluation2012 vi

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

• Communitiesmainlyrelyingonfishing(Kiryambogo,Sebagoro,andBugoigolandingsites);

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

Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.AlthoughTullowrequestedtheresearcherstopayextraattentiontofishingcommunities,themainthreatforfishingcommunitiesiscomingfromwithinandnotdirectlyfromTullow

CAEDPEvaluation2012 vii

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

CAEDPEvaluation2012 viii

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

CAEDPEvaluation2012 ix

TABLEOFCONTENTS

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

CAEDPEvaluation2012 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

inevaluationNumber(percentage)ofwomen

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

Basedondiscussions,thepartnerswouldselecttwostories‐thatintheirviewsrepresent

theresultsoftheprogrammebest‐tobesharedanddiscussedatprogrammelevel.b.StudyprocessandmethodologyFortheadditionallivelihoodstudy,thefollowingmethodswereused:

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

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

LandingsiteDownescarpment,remoteanddifficulttoaccessbyvehicles,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.

Kabwoya SebagoroLandingsite

Downescarpment,veryremote,poorroad,fishingcommunity,limitedcropcultivation.

BuliisadistrictKigwera WansekoCOU

siteNearferrycrossing,fishing/farmingcommunity,oilfoundinvicinity,noexploitationyet.

Ngwedo NgwedoTradingcentre

Remote,mainlyfarmingcommunity,morethan5oilwellsdetected,noexploitationyet.

Butiaba BugoigoLandingsite

Fishingcommunity,surroundedbyoilwells,noexploitationyet.

Table2Communitiesvisitedduringthelivelihoodstudy

Community Community Community Community Community Community

District/partners District/partners

Figure1MSCselectionprocess

1.5MainevaluationandstudyactivitiesThemainevaluationactivitiesincludedthefollowing:

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

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

• Collectionof83questionnaires(72CAEDPand11nonCAEDPfarmers).• Groupdiscussionswith24groupsonfunctioningoffarmergroups(atcommunity

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

Madfa.• Collectionof8MSConcapacitydevelopmentbypartners,ofwhich3wererecorded

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

Themainstudyactivitiesincluded:

• Deskreview.• Collectionof68questionnaires(ofwhom46CAEDPparticipantsand22non‐CAEDP

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

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

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

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

UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway

SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear

SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets

SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness

Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation

Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden

Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops

Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh

HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome

FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened

Groups:knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE

Groups:skillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE

Groups:knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages

Groups:knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest

Groups:facilitatedwithcollectivemarketing

Groups:skillsinPME

Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement

Savingsculturepromoted

Outreachservicesincreased

Partnersequippedwithstaff&capacitytoprovideappr.servicestomembers

Partners:Agriculturefriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

CapacitytoPMEandreportimproved

Capacitytomanageresourcestransparentlyandaccountablestrengthened

Programmeplansandactivitiespartnerswellcoordinated

Infosharingandcollaborationwithmajorstakeholdersenhanced

TRIAS:CapacityTriasstafftoprovidecapacitybuildingsupporttolocalpartners&tocoordinateprogrammeactivitiesenhanced

HODFA,MADFA,HOFOKAM

Farmerhouseholds&groups

Figure2GoalsandobjectivesoftheCAEDprogramme

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

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

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

Subsistencesmallholder

farmerhouseholds

Agriculturalconditions(soil

Markets

Culture,history

Weather/microclimate

Migrationpatters

PhysicalInfrastructure

Figure3Actorsandfactorsinfluencingfarmerhouseholds

Knowledge

Ownership/accesstoland

Labour

Alternativelivelihoods

OtherGO/NGOprogrammes

Lawsandregulations

HoimadistrictSub‐county/parish

Community

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

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

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

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

trading.Enablingagriculturalconditions.Madfaenteredin2011,stableandexistinggroups.

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

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

Table3Enablingandhinderingfactorsinthecommunitiesvisited,asobservedbytheteam3.2OverallfindingsAswillbeshowninthefollowingparagraphstheresultsoftheCAEDprogrammearepositive:

• AlmostallsmallholderfarmhouseholdsparticipatingintheCAEDPshowincreasedfoodandincomesecurityindices;

• Almostallfarmershaveincreasedaccesstoandparticipateinremunerativemarkets;

• Alargegroupoffarmersmakeuseofloansandsavingsforinvestmentintheiragriculturalproduction.

Whenexploringabitdeeperintotheresultsandhowtheprogrammehascontributedtotheresults,theevaluationteamfoundthefollowingpatterns:

• Somehouseholdsbenefitmorefromtheprogrammethanothers:Betweenthecommunitieslargedifferencescanbeseenwhenprobingbeyondtheprogrammeindicators;

• Amajorityofthehouseholdshasincreasedtheirincomeandfoodsecurity,buthavedonesothroughindividualmarketingandnot,asintendedbytheprogramme,throughcollectivemarketing;

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

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

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

UltimategoalFoodandIncomesecurityofsmallholderfarmhouseholdsisimprovedinasustainableway

SO1HHhaveadoptedpracticesofensuringgoodandbalancednutritionthroughoutyear

SO2HHhaveincreasedaccessto‐andparticipateinremunerativemarkets

SO3HHhaveincreasedinvestmentintheirfarmingbusiness

Knowledge&skillspostharvest,preservationandpreparation

Knowledge&skillsimprovementbackyardgarden

Knowledge&skillsimprovedproductionstaplefoodcrops

Awareneedjointplanning,decision,andsharingresponsibilitiesinhh

HH:Awareofimportancefoodsecurityandincome

FarmerAEgroupsstrengthened

Knowledge&skillstoassessandselectprofitableAE

SkillstoassessvaluechainsofselectedAE

Knowledge&skillstoforgeremunerativemarketlinkages

Knowledge&skillsinimprovingproductionandpostharvest

Groupsfacilitatedwithcollectivemarketing

SkillsinPME

Agriculturalfriendlyfinancialservicesavailed

Groups:Strengthenedonsavingsandcreditmanagement

Savingsculturepromoted

Outreachservicesincreased

Farmerhouseholds2 5

Other:Hopeforthefuture 1

Other:Knowledge&skillsinimprovinganimalhusbandry:goats 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yieldshavehelpedmetoincreasemyincomeandIcanpayschoolfeesnowformychildren.Ithank

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

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

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

Foodsecurityindex Incomesecurityindex

CAEDPBaseline2009

Evaluationestimates2009

Evaluationfindings2012

3‐yearprognoses(2012)

CAEDPBaseline2009

Evaluationestimates2009

Evaluationfindings2012

3‐yearprognoses(2012)

Hoima 0.47 0.47 0.59 0.56 0.28 0.29 0.45 0.36

•Runga 0.47 0.62 0.21 0.35

•Kabanda 0.38 0.50 0.23 0.41

•Kaseeta 0.57 0.65 0.43 0.59

Buliisa 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.59 0.36 0.32 0.47 0.44

•Biiso 0.63 0.78 0.33 0.53

•Avogera 0.40 0.47 0.33 0.44

•Uribo 0.57 0.47 0.29 0.43 Table4OverviewFood&Incomesecurityindices2009and2012

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

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

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

Actuals2010 Actuals2011 Actuals2012 Targetendprogramme2012

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

AlsotheMSCstoriesandthequestionnairesconfirmthatmostfarmershaveincreasedtheirproduction/acre,increasedtheiracreageofcultivation,andsellalargerpartoftheircropsthanin2009beforetheCAEDPstarted(seetable6).

Acresowned(averageofhhvisited)

Acrescultivated(eitheronownorleasedland)inacresandaspercentageoflandowned

Increasedyieldsscale1‐10*

%ofyieldsold

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

Hoima 4.54 5.41 1.74 38% 3.06 57%

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

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

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

Buliisa 4.70 6.03 2.73 58% 4.08 68%

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

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

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

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

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

Theevaluationteamhasbasicallyseenthreetypesofgroups:

• Groupsthathavetakenupfarmingasabusinessandsellcollectivelytoabuyer(groupAintable7);

• Groupsthatjuststartedcultivatingmoreandaregettingbetteryieldsandarestilllookingformarkets(groupB)and,

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

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

GroupA‘Commercialfarmers’ GroupB‘Subsistence‐commercial’

GroupCFarmers?

Stablegroups Somestability(limited) Hardlystable

Matureenterprises Emergingenterprises Somecrops

Marketlinkages/buyer Marketlinkagesweak/localmarkets

Localmarket

Savings(internal&external) Savings(mainlyinternal) Weaksavingculture

Loans(internal&external) Loans(mainlyinternal) Limitedinternalloans

Groupselling Somegroupselling Mainlyindividualselling

Substantialprofit Someprofits Verylimitedprofits

Varioustypesofspin‐off Somespin‐off ‐

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

25‐40% 25‐30%

Table7Typesoffarmergroupsandtheircharacteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

farmersbuyinputs,andgoodplantingmaterials.ThestudyconductedbyMountainsoftheMoonUniversitymaycontainsomemoreinformationonthisissue.

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

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

Figure3Fivecapabilitiesmodel(IOB(2011),basedonBaserandMorgan,2008)

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

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

farming,andithasenabledmetoreachouttomanyfarmergroups.Mychallengesareharshworking

conditions.FormethemostsignificantchangeisthatIamabletocontributetosmallholderfarmers'transformationfromsubsistencetocommercialfarming.MostsignificantchangestoryoncapacitiesfromHodfa:Fromhandoutstoempowerment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map1LocationofTullowoperationswithplacesvisitedforstudyintoalternativelivelihoodsinyellow

WansekoCU

NgwedoTC

Bugoigo

Kiryambogo

Sebagoro

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

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

Intable8somemoredetailsonthecurrentsituationandlivelihoodsof4ofthe5visitedcommunities.In4communitieshouseholdinterviewswereconducted,asrepresentedinthetable.

HOIMADISTRICT BULIISADISTRICT IndicatorDescription

KiryambogoFishLandingSite(Samplesize,

SebagoroFishLandingSite(N=12)

NgwedoTradingCentre(N=14)

KigweraCOU(nearWansekoFerryTerminal)

(N=16) INCOMESECURITYINDICATORS‐Assets

2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012

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

8.5 7.65 6.4 6.0 4.8 6.5 2 3.2

3.%ofhhwithlandthatcultivatecrops

20 46 42 67 57 100 94 94

4.Averageacresoflandcultivated/cultivators

2.0 1.85 3.0 2.69 3.2 5.1 1.5 2.8

5.%ofhhswithgrasshouses

85 58 42 33 64 21 50 25

6.%ofhhswithbicycles

23 27 42 50 79 93 50 56

7.%ofhhswithlivestock

34 77 83 100 79 100 75 94

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

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

10.CurrentmainsourcesofIncomeofthecommunity

Fishingand

Trading

Fishingandsome

cropping/

livestock

Cropfarming,livestock,&trading

Livestock,cropsandfishing

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

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

4.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONS

PART1.CONCLUSIONS,LESSONSLEARNED&RECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEEVALUATION

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

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

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

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

PART2.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONSBASEDONTHEALTERNATIVELIVELIHOODSTUDY

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

Manycommunitiesdependpartlyontradingaswell.

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

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

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

• 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'.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

OverallCoordination• PaulAllertz,RegionalCoordinatorTriasUganda,Kampala

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

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

• 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

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

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

Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the Community Agriculture Enterprise Development ... · Evaluation of the Community...

HOIMA DISTRICT Investment Profile

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS’ PERFORMANCE AND PUBLIC · PDF fileLOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS’ PERFORMANCE AND PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY IN UGANDA Buliisa District Council Score-Card Report

P. O. BOX 406, HOIMA - BETTER WORLD UGANDAbetterworlduganda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/BWU-2016-Report.pdfp. o. box 406, hoima better world uganda end of year 2016 report january

City of Palm Coast Comprehensive Plan Æÿ A1A Map CP-1.5 ...y Agriculture & Timberland Agriculture & Timberland Agriculture & Timberland Agriculture & Timberland Agriculture & Timberland

Makerere implements low cost rain water harvesting ... · addition technologies to enhance vegetable production and household incomes in Hoima . Farmers use solar dryers to process

Report on the deployment of the WASHCon Tool in Hoima ...washconhcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Final-WVU-WASH...Paper surveys were also printed and used in case of technical issues

HOIMA DISTRICT ARCHIVES

REPORT ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOIMA DISTRICT … · Achieved through presentation on FP goal on midpoint uptake by MoH To learn new policies that have come up on FP. Achieved through

Uganda - Link Community Development · 4 Links Uganda School Improvement Programme is focused on the rural and poor districts of Masindi, Buliisa, Kiryandongo and Kamwenge. These

The gendered production-marketing continuum of NERICA upland rice in Hoima District, Uganda

Gendered effects of NERICA upland rice: The case of labor dynamics in Hoima District, Uganda

Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan. Jaipurindustries.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/agriculture/Agriculture...Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan. Jaipur ... ASSTT.DAG.(EXT) KISHANGARH

Management and motivation in Ugandan primary schools: Impact … · 2016. 8. 2. · Hoima, Iganga, and Kiboga. To allow estimation of causal e ects of the program, schools were randomly

Agriculture Careers. Eight Major Career Areas Production Agriculture Agriculture Mechanics Agriculture Sales & Service Agriculture Processing Horticulture.

Introduction to Agriculture - MAGEREZA ACADEMYmagerezaacademy.sc.ke/.../uploads/2017/03/AGRICULTURE-FORM-1-… · Introduction to Agriculture Definition of Agriculture Agriculture

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF OIL EXPLORATION AMONG …€¦ · Hoima district, located in mid-western Uganda, was originally part of former Bunyoro district, at independence Bunyoro

Agriculture and Agriculture et

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF OIL EXPLORATION AMONG … · 2019-05-16 · Following oil exploration and discovery in the Albertine graben, Hoima is becoming an attractive and dynamic

Hydroponic Agriculture Controlled Environment Agriculture.

H.M. OMUKAMA RUKIRABASAIJA GUTAMBA · H.M. OMUKAMA RUKIRABASAIJA AGUTAMBA SOLOMON GAFABUSA IGURU I. Royal Palace Karuziika, P.O. Box 1, Hoima, Republic of Uganda THE OLDEST KINGDOM