Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013

1

Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda - Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects

Case Study of Donor-Funded Projects

Agriculture Financing and Sector Perfomance in Uganda

C S B A G

Budgeting for equity

3

Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda is published by the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) supported by Actionaid Uganda

copy 2012 co Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)PO Box 7176 KampalaTel +256-41-286063E-mail fowodefowodeorgWeb wwwfowodeorg

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or reprinted in any form by any means without the prior permission of the copyright holder Nevertheless CSBAG and Actionaid Uganda encourage its use and will be happy if excerpts are copied and used When doing so however please acknowledge CSBAG and Actionaid

Acronyms and Abbreviation 4

Glossary 5

Acknowledgements 6

Foreword 7

Chapter 1 Introduction 1011 Overview 1012 Study Objectives 1113 Methodology 1214 Report Structure 14

Chapter 2 Agriculture Sector Performance 1521 Introduction 1522 Growth trends 1623 Financing and expenditure trends 1724 Delivery of key agricultural services 19

Table of Contents

C S B A G

Budgeting for equity Forum for Women in Democracy

Chapter 3 Performance of Completed Agricultural Loans 2731 Vegetable Oil Development Project 2732 Agricultural Improved Rice Production 31

Chapter 4 Performance of Ongoing Agricultural Loans 3641 Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas 3642 Farm Income Enhancement Project ndash Irrigation Component 39

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 4251 Conclusions 4252 Recommendations 47 References 50

54

ACF Agricultural Credit FacilityAg HH Agricultural HouseholdADF Agricultural Development FundATAAS Agricultural Technology and Agricultural Advisory ServicesCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development ProgramCDO Cotton Development OrganizationCSBAG Civil Society Budget Advocacy GroupCSO Civil Society OrganizationDDA Dairy Development AuthorityDSIP Development Strategy and Investment PlanFIEFOC Farm Income Enhancement Project FOWODE Forum for Women in DemocracyFSF Food Security FarmerGDP Gross Domestic ProductGOAR Government Outlays Analysis ReportGoU Government of UgandaKCCA Kampala City Council AuthorityKOPGT Kalangala Oil Palm Growers TrustMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and FisheriesMDG Millennium Development GoalMFPED Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic DevelopmentMOF Market Oriented Farmer

Acronyms amp Abbreviation

MTEF Medium Term Expenditure FrameworkNAADS National Agricultural Advisory ServicesNAP National Agricultural PolicyNARI National Agricultural Research InstituteNARO National Agricultural Research OrganizationNARS National Agricultural Research SystemNDP National Development PlanNEPAD New Partnership for Africarsquos Development PEAP Poverty Eradication Action PlanPMA Plan for Modernization of AgricultureSACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative SocietySTATFA Creation of Tsetse amp Trypanosomiasis Free Areas UA Unit of AccountUBOS Uganda Bureau of StatisticsUCA Uganda Census of AgricultureUCE Uganda Commodity ExchangeUCDA Uganda Coffee Development AuthorityUNHS Uganda National Household Survey VODP Vegetable Oil Development ProjectWRS Warehouse Receipt SystemZARDI Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute

Budget Support Mode of financing that involves transfer of financial resources of a development partner to the consolidated fund following the fulfillment of agreed conditions for disbursement The funds are part of the national resource and are appropriated by Parliament They are used in accordance with the public financial management system of Uganda

Food Security Farmer Any farmer who is 18 years and above a practicing subsistence farmer

Off-Budget funds Resource flows that are managed outside the Government systems of planning appropriation budgeting and procurement Government procedures are generally not used in full in managing these funds Includes off budget project aid

On-budget funds Resource flows that are managed through the countryrsquos public financial management systems within the MTEF and approved by Parliament Includes on budget project aid

Project Support Aid modality that entails agreement between the development partner or donor and Government on a set of inputs activities and outputs to reach specific outcomes within a defined time frame area and budget This approach allows use of the donor accounting systems

Technical Assistance Involves the transfer of ideas knowledge practices technologies or skills to foster economic development Usually for policy development institutional development capacity building and project or programme support

Glossary

76


This report is a joint undertaking of the members of the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) which since 2004 has advocated for pro poor and gender sensitive policies and budgets Several individuals and organizations have helped shape the outcome of this report and these include Actionaid Uganda Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE) Daniel Lukwago Frederick Kawooya Francis Akorikin Sophie Kyagulanyi and Dr Bbaale Edward who reviewed this report and provided technical feedback

This report was produced under supervision of Julius Mukunda whose technical insight guided the research team at different stages which greatly enriched this report

Special thanks go to Actionaid Uganda whose financial and technical support enabled the successful production of this report

To effectively engage the Government of Uganda to reverse the trend and enhance investment in the sector the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group [CSBAG] in 2012 deemed it necessary to undertake a study that will facilitate a deepened understanding on how resources are being used within this sector Using case studies of four donor funded projects -the Vegetable Oil Development Project Agricultural Improved Rice Production Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas Farm Income Enhancement Project ndash

Irrigation Component The study provides an in‐depth assessment of how agricultural loans have been applied in Uganda to improve agricultural performance It further analyzes the spending patterns and service delivery within agriculture and brings out the salient issues for action

There are significant factors affecting the sectorrsquos performance that are highlighted in this study that need redress and it is our hope that recommendations made in this study will result

into concrete actions in improving agricultural financing and that different actors including the Civil Society Government Donors and the famers will work collectively towards promoting the CAADP agenda of reaching a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development in Africa

Julius MukundaCoordinator-Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group

Acknowledgements Foreword

Although agriculture contributes greatly to the economy and a significant proportion of the poor depend on it Public expenditure in this sector has declined significantly over the past financial years with the share of the sector ranging from between 3-4 of the national budget causing a decline in Ugandarsquos agricultural output and productivity Ugandarsquos agricultural growth rate is still below the 6 percent annual growth target of the African Unionrsquos Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP)

98

Study Context

External assistance flows to Uganda have aver-aged about US$ 760 million annually between 2001 and 2010 The agricultural sector attracts part of the donor funding for enhancing various services to farmers Of concern however is the slow disbursement of donor funds in the sector which has led to slow implementation of donor funded projects

The overall aim of this study was to assess the performance status of agricultural services in Uganda and utilization of resources to implement programmes and policies The study involved analyzing the performance of four loans (donor funded projects) in terms of planning budgeting and implementation The extent to which gender issues were addressed in these projects was as-sessed The study used secondary data sources complemented by primary information collected by the Ministry of Finance Planning and Econom-ic Development

Key conclusions

1) The budget allocation to agriculture as a share of the national budget remains low at 32 in FY 20122013 Most funds are dis-bursed as small discrete projects whose con-tribution is not impactful and nor sustainable

2) The agricultural sector attracts less than 10 of the donor assistance in Uganda that is channeled to the development budget A substantial part of external support to the sector is in form of Technical Assistance

policy and institutional development yet the MAAIF continues to lack sufficient implemen-tation capacity

3) A major challenge is the slow disbursements of donor funds in the sector in turn leading to slow implementation of donor funded interventions In FY 20112012 74 of the total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 34155 remained undisbursed

4) The four case study loans bring out many factors that singularly or in combination slow implementation of donor funded projects For example the poor design of the FIEFOC irrigation project slowed funds disbursement and project implementation ADB Funded projects generally have long bureaucratic procurement processes that delay disburse-ment of funds The Government of Japan and FAO took lead in the implementation of the Agriculture improved Rice Production proj-ect which led to distribution of poor quality inputs the bulk of funds being used in recur-rent expenditures indicative of poor alloca-tive efficiency and low project sustenance

5) The VODP case study illustrates that they are loans in the agricultural sector that perform well with regard to absorption of allocated re-sources timely implementation and achieve-ment of the intended outcomes

6) The FIEFOC case study illustrates that some projects are complete failures because of

low implementationinstitutional capacity in the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Although funds absorption was high it was for the wrong reasons with 87 of the resources being spent on general operating expenses without any tangible out-come

7) Whereas planning and project design is usu-ally done jointly between MAAIF and donor agencies there are instances where the do-nor takes lead which leads to low ownership of interventions by the beneficiaries and less project impact

8) Generally gender mainstreaming is not pri-oritized in agricultural loans

9) Delivery of agricultural services such as exten-sion credit and research is ongoing although reach to majority of farmers remains low Ac-cess to extension services remains low with 80 of the agricultural households having not been visited by an extension worker in the recent agricultural survey of 20082009

10) Whereas the bulk of agricultural service deliv-ery is undertaken at local government level the district and sub-county officials are not adequately involved in the project design planning and budgeting stages Often they brought late into the implementation stage which lessens ownership supervision and sustainability of the donor funded projects

Executive Summary Key Recommendations1) The budget allocation to the agricultural

sector needs to be stepped to at least 10 of the national budgetary resources to expand delivery of agricultural services in Uganda This could include deepening of delivery of extension and research services to ensure that farmers access and use improved inputs and technologies to bridge the production and productivity gap at farm level Sufficient counterpart funding should be provided in adequate and a timely manner for marching with the donor funds

2) The way donor funded projects in the agricultural sector are packaged should be reviewed to enhance reach impact and sustainability Rather than soliciting for small discrete projects that have limited impact the Government should focus on encouraging donor funded projects that are larger and impactful with adequate reach geographically and in terms of number of beneficiaries targeted and quantity of inputs and technologies provided

3) Some level of flexibility in the prior conditions and minimal conditionalities imposed by donors for project trigger should be espoused as a means of avoiding unjustifiable low absorption of funds It is critical that the prior conditions are well negotiated and are easily implementable Government should improve its procurement

and accountability systems so that donors have a high level of trust in them and can use them instead of the lengthy donor systems

4) The Government should take lead in the planning designing and implementation of donor funded projects to enhance ownership and proper supervision of the projects The Government should have an active role in budgeting and utilization of the donor funds

5) Gender planning budgeting and monitoring should be core to all donor projects Gender and equity budgeting should go beyond seeking involvement of women and other marginalized groups to promoting equitable access and use of agricultural services and monitoring progress made thereafter Clear gender mainstreaming strategies should form part and parcel of the project implementation plan

6) The institutional and implementation capacity of the agency that is to implement the donor funded projects should be properly scrutinized at planning stage and beefed up before project commencement Where possible the implementing agency can partner with other Government and non-Government agencies to scale up the implementation capacity to march the project requirements

7) Value for money in donor funded projects should be encouraged Expenditures should be on critical areas that address the project objectives and give results Poor allocative efficiency whereby the bulk of resources are spent on consumptive or recurrent unproductive expenditures should be discouraged

8) There is a need for the Government to encourage and support the development of public private partnerships in the delivery of agricultural services in Uganda as a means to fill the gap For example Government could partner or support farmer associations NGOs and private sector players to scale up good models of extension that are littered in different parts of the country

9) District and Sub-county officials of the respective Local Governments that are to be involved in implementation of a donor funded project should be involved early in the project design planning and execution of the project This will enhance project ownership by the beneficiaries and sustenance of the interventions and outcomes

1110


Agriculture loans in this report refer to funds1 that are received by Government of Uganda (GoU) from external donors to finance key interventions within the sector The report analyzes the spending patterns and service delivery within agriculture and uses selected case studies of donor financed projects to bring out the salient issues for action

The agricultural sector in Uganda primarily encompasses crops livestock fisheries and forestry Donor funds that are channeled in the sector are either under the budget or project support aid modality In recent years external financing from donors accounts for about 25 of the budget and 6 of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)2 External assistance flows to Uganda have averaged about US$ 760 million annually between 2001 and 20103

1 These may be loans grants or technical assistance2 MFPED 2012b3 MFPED 2012d

There are also substantial official resource flows that are delivered to projects but managed outside the Government systems The bulk of donor funds in agriculture are on-budget For example during FY 20102011 the sector received US$ 5830 million on budget and US$ 1607 million off budget The off budget funds were provided by USAID UK Norway and FAO4 The study focused on donor funds that are on-budget

The agriculture sector attracts less than 10 of the total donor assistance for the development budget In FY 20112012 the sector attracted 8 of the donor assistance (Figure 11) The donor funding is aimed to complimenting Government efforts in number of areas including improving control and mitigation capacity of crop pests and livestock diseases deepening access to markets capacity for research and generating new technologies value 4 MFPED 2012c

addition and enhancing compliance with food safety requirements in the export markets A substantial part of external support to agriculture comes in form of technical assistance for policy and institutional development and capacity enhancement The Government still faces a challenge of capturing all donor and technical assistance as some of the funds are handled directly by the donors

Of concern however is the slow disbursement of donor funds in the sector which has led to slow implementation of donor funded interventions Agriculture is one of the sectors with large undisbursed loan commitments (Figure 12) Note that loan disbursements to agriculture are channeled mainly to MAAIF and its agencies but also a significant fraction is earmarked to agricultural programmes under Ministry of Local Government (MOLG) and districts

IntroductionChapter 1

11 OverviewThis is a report of a research commissioned by the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group on agricultural sector performance in Uganda The motivation for the study is rooted in the need to get a clearer picture of how agricultural loans have been applied in Uganda to improve agricultural performance

Figure 11 Allocation of Donor Assistance to the Development Budget for FY 20112012

Figure 12 Disbursed and undisbursed loan commitments across sectors

Source MFPED 2012b

During FY 20112012 the agriculture sector had a total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 46680 million of this amount US$ 119 million (or 26) had been disbursed and US$ 34155 million remained undisbursed Joint reviews between MFPED and Development partners suggest a number of explanatory factors for this scenario5

bull Inadequate and untimely release of Government counterpart funding

bull Complex procurement procedures that are required by donors

bull Capacity constraints with institutions relating to personnel systems and procedures

bull Poor design of projects

5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b

bull New loans commitments that are contracted but take long to become effective

bull Some funds not directly controlled by Government expenditure is by the development partners

This study used the case studies to draw out lessons on the key constraints to utilization of donor finances in the agricultural sector

12 Study ObjectivesThe main purpose of the study was to assess the performance status of agricultural services (extension research credit finance markets food security) in Uganda and utilization of

resources to implement programmes and policies

The study had 7 objectives

1) Provide an overview of the sector performance highlighting key priority issues

2) Identify four Government loans ndash two that had ended and another two whose implementation was still ongoing under the agricultural sector

3) Review the performance of the completed agricultural loans in terms of budgeting planning and implementation

4) Identify key pertinent gender issues and how they were addressed in the completed projects

1312


5) Make recommendations on how the projects performed and improvements for future projects

6) For the ongoing projects analyze how the projects are performing based on set benchmarks

7) Make recommendations for the ongoing projects regarding how to address gender issues

Table 11 Methodological approach to study objectivesObjective Approach

1 Provide an overview of the sector performance highlighting key priority issues

In addition to macro level trend data in the agricultural sector the areas that were highlighted in the overall purpose of the study were analyzed namely extension research credit finance markets and food security Desk review of secondary data sources at Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) MAAIF MFPED NAADS Secretariat PMA Secretariat FOWODE VEDCO Action Aid Oxfam DRT World Bank

2 Identify four Government loans ndash two that had ended and another two whose implementation was still ongoing under the agricultural sector

Reviewed secondary data in MFPED loans and grants reports Approved Estimates Public Investment Plans and MAAIF Output Oriented Budgeting Tool (OBT) Ministerial Policy Statements Other details are below

3 Review the performance of the completed agricultural loans in terms of budgeting planning and implementation

Reviewed primary data that was collected by the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU) and budget monitoring reports Also reviewed project documents including evaluation reports

4 Identify key pertinent gender issues and how they were addressed in the completed projects

Authorsrsquo analysis of all available primary and secondary data and information The gender issues were identified within the context of the analysis and not as a separate section

5 Make recommendations on how the projects performed and improvements for future projects

Authorsrsquo analysis of all available primary and secondary data

6 For the ongoing projects analyze how the projects are performing based on set benchmarks


7 Make recommendations for the ongoing projects regarding how to address gender issues


Identification of case study projectsThe first step involved listing all donor funded projects in Uganda (Annex 1) from which the case study projects could be selected The following criteria guided project selection

bull Projects must have benefitted from donor loans all projects that are solely Government funded were not considered

bull Implemented by MAAIF or its associated agencies for policy influence

bull Easily accessible data and information frequently monitored programmes

bull Projects that are reported to be performing well as well as those that are seen to be performing poorly

bull A mix of donors that funded the chosen projects

bull Different enterprise focusbull Projects that have public-private

partnership (PPP) investment components

On the basis of the above criteria the four case study projects that were selected for analysis were Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) Creation of tsetse and trypanosomiasis areas Agricultural Improved rice production and Farm Income Enhancement Project (FIEFOC) ndash Agricultural Component (Table 12)

Table 12 Case Study donor funded projectsNo Project Status of Implementation Key selection criteria

1 Vegetable Oil Development Project

First phase completed Second phase recently started

The focus will be on the concluded phase

bull PPP implementation arrangementbull Funded by IFAD-GoUbull Reported to be performing wellbull Implemented in Kalangala district and

Northern Uganda Focus will be on the Kalangala Component

bull Has both a completed and an ongoing phase

bull Implemented directly by MAAIFbull Focus is on promoting oil palm plantation

agriculturebull Information easily accessible

2 Creation of tsetse and trypanosomiasis areas

Ongoing bull ADB-GoU fundedbull Countrywidebull Directly implemented by MAAIFbull Reported to be poorly performingbull Focus on control of trypanosomiasis and

tsetse fly infestationbull Information may not be easily accessible

3 Agricultural Improved rice production (NERICA project)

First phase completed and second phase is near completion

bull Japan-GoU fundedbull MAAIF implementedbull Focus on promoting growing of improved

rice varieties the NERICA typesbull Both good and poor performance

reportedbull Information easily accessible

4 Farm Income Enhancement Project ndash the Agricultural Component

Ongoing bull ADB-GoU fundedbull Focus on rehabilitating four large

irrigation schemesbull MAAIF implemented and recently

transferred to MWE due to reported poor performance

bull Information fairly accessible

13 MethodologyThe study relied on secondary data sources including primary information that had been collected by MFPED on the selected donor projects Table 11 summarizes the approach used in addressing each of the study objectives

1514


15 Report StructureThe report is structured in five chaptersbull Chapter 1 Introductionbull Chapter 2 Agricultural Sector Performancebull Chapter 3 Performance of Completed

Agricultural Loansbull Chapter 4 Performance of Ongoing

Agricultural Loansbull Chapter 5 Conclusions and

Recommendations

The Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) has since 2004 brought together CSOs at national and local level to advocate for budgets that address the needs of poor women and men

Agriculture is categorized as a primary growth sector At the sector level two key policy documents guide implementation the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) which is still under development and the MAAIF Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) 201011 ndash 201415

The overall policy objective of the NAP is to promote food and nutrition security and household incomes

Agriculture Sector PerformanceChapter 221 IntroductionA key objective of the study was to provide an overview of agricultural sector performance to contextualize the study findings At the macro level agricultural sector interventions are guided by the National Development Plan (NDP) that aims to enhance agricultural production and productivity as a means of increasing household incomes and promoting equity

through coordinated interventions that focus on enhancing productivity and value addition providing employment opportunities and promoting domestic and international trade The Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) is the medium term strategic plan for MAAIF The DSIP has two high level objectives or intended outcomes (1) Rural incomes and livelihoods increased (2) Household food and nutrition security improved

Figure 21 Distribution of working population in Uganda in Uganda by sector ()

The largest proportion of the working population in Uganda (66) derives its livelihood from agriculture (Figure 21) Of policy concern however is why such a large population engaged in agriculture contributes only 14 to the national output indicative of low factor productivity This issue is further explored in section 24 below

Source UNHS 200910

1716


The Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) 2008091 estimated that the number of agricultural households in Uganda are 3945753 Out of these the Western Region had the highest (285) closely followed by the Eastern Region (281) Northern Region (229) and Central Region (205) Of the 3575065 agricultural households that responded to the census 2821070 or 789 were male headed households and 753994 or 211 were female headed households (Figure 22)

1 UBOS 2010

The rest of this chapter discusses sector performance from three key dimensions (1) Growth trends (2) Financing and expenditure trends and (3) Delivery of key services

22 Growth trendsUgandarsquos economy grew at an average GDP growth of 78 percent between FY 200506 and FY 201011 and slowed down to 32 percent in FY 20112012 as a result of high global oil and commodity prices drought power shortages exchange rate volatility and

Table 21 Sectoral Growth Rates and Shares in GDP 200304 ndash 201112Sector 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910 201011 201112Sector Growth RatesAgriculture 16 20 05 01 13 29 24 07 30Industry 80 116 147 96 88 58 65 79 11Services 79 62 122 80 97 88 82 84 31Sector Shares in Total GDP at Current PricesAgriculture 238 251 183 169 158 151 147 139Industry 229 235 248 251 251 248 250 253Services 474 454 496 496 499 507 516 524

Source UBOS Statistical Abstracts for various years MFPED 2012 MFPED 2011 GoU 2010

23 Financing and expenditure trendsThe Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) is the lead agency coordinating agricultural financing both at the Central and Local Government level At Central Government level financing is handled through 7 Votes namely (i) MAAIF (ii) NAADS Secretariat (iii) Cotton Development Organization (CDO) (iv) Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) (v) National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) (vi) Dairy Development Authority (DDA) and (vii) Kampala City Council Authority (KCCA) Grant At the Local Government level spending for agriculture is majorly channeled through

3 grants (i) District Agricultural Extension (ii) NAADS (Districts) (iii) Production and Marketing Grant Public funds include GoU and donor financing

The budget allocation to agriculture as a share to the national budget remains low (Table 22) and stands at 32 in FY 20122013 which constrains agricultural spending6

6 At the African Union Assembly in Maputo in July 2003 Heads of State including the Ugandan President committed to allocating at least 10 of national budgetary resources to agriculture within 5 years of the meeting date

high inflation levels2 Although agriculture remains very critical for spurring national growth the share of agriculture in total GDP has declined over the years from 238 percent in FY 200304 to 139 percent in FY 201011 Whereas the industrial and services sectors have in some years hit a 10 growth rate the growth in the agricultural sector has consistently remained dismal at 3 (Table 21)3

The growth of the agricultural sector is still below the National Development Plan (NDP) annual growth target of 56 percent and the 6 percent growth rate that is required for effective poverty reduction Research by IFPRI4 demonstrated that if agriculture in Uganda grew at 6 percent per annum the national poverty headcount level would decline from 311 percent in 2005 to 199 percent in 2015 below the 28 percent Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target Ugandarsquos agricultural growth rate is also below the 6 percent annual growth target of the African Unionrsquos Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP)5

2 MFPED 20123 MFPED 20124 Benin 20075 The CAADP is an initiative of the New Partnership for Africarsquos Development (NEPAD) aimed at helping African countries reach a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development

Figure 22 Percent distribution of Agriculture Household Heads by Sex and Region

Source UBOS 2010

1918


Table 22 Sectoral Budget Allocations ndash FY 200910 ndash FY 201112Sector 200910 Approved 201011 Approved 201112 Approved

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Agriculture 3107 47 366 50 4340 45Lands Housing amp Urban Development 203 03 24 03 324 03

Energy amp Mineral Development 6989 105 391 53 13200 137

Works amp Transport 12148 182 1038 141 12908 134

Information amp Communications Technology 95 01 12 02 121 01

Tourism Trade amp Industry 478 07 49 07 532 06

Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83

Water amp Environment 1722 26 250 34 2713 28

Social Development 325 05 32 04 504 05

Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101

Justice Law amp Order 3597 54 532 72 5316 55

Public Sector Management 7050 106 835 113 9862 102

Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17

Public Administration 2170 32 302 41 2318 24

Interest payments due - - 340 46 5196 54

Grand Total 66783 1000 7377 1000 96300 1000Source MFPED 2010a MFPED 2011a MFPED 2012 DRT 2011

Figure 23 Budget allocations within the Agricultural Sector FY 201112

Table 23 On-budget and Off-budget Project Aid to Agriculture (US$ millions)

Source MFPED 2012a

SectorOn-budget Off-budget

Actual Projections Actual Projections200910 201011 201112 20122013 200910 201011 201112 20122013

Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share

Source MFPED 2012c ndash Information submitted by Development partners by February 2012

24 Delivery of key agricultural services

241 Extension The Government is offering agricultural extension and advisory services to farmers mainly through the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) programme complemented by general extension services by the District and Sub-county Production Offices Other farmers pay to access private sector service providers especially in the livestock sector The main objective of the NAADS programme that has been under implementation since 2001 is to ldquoensure that farmers move from subsistence to market oriented and eventually commercial farmingrdquo

Close to a half of agricultural spending (424) is earmarked to the NAADS programme that offers advisory services to farmers followed by policy and institutional development by MAAIF and research and technology development by NARO (Figure 23) Most of the donor financing

comes in discrete projects whose contribution to the overall sector outc omes cannot be easily ascertained or measured A significant amount of aid also comes off budget and its magnitude and use is not well captured in Government systems Table 23 provides a snapshot of project aid to agriculture in recent years

The programme is implemented in all districts and sub-counties of Uganda involving provision of advisory services and inputs to various categories of farmers and setting up of technology development sites and research trials The first phase of the project ended in 2010 and the second phase commenced in FY 201011 under the Agricultural Technology and Agri-business Advisory Services Project (ATAAS) The ATAAS aims to strengthen the linkages between NAADS and the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) and increase agricultural productivity and farmer access to technology advice and information

The NAADS program has enabled farmers to access inputs and technologies in FY 201011 the programme targeted 100 Food Security Farmers (FSF) and 8 Market Oriented Farmers (MOFs) per Parish this number has gradually come down due to resource constraints to 30 FSF per parish 4 MOF per parish and 2 commercializing farmers per Sub-county The FSF are

2120


provided with inputs worth UgSh 100000 including seeds for beans maize simsim bananas hoes goats and fertilizers among other items The MOF are provided inputs worth UgShs 450000 mainly to purchase livestock after they provide co-funding The commercializing farmers are receiving about Ugshs 1200000 worth of inputs and technologies

According to the recent agricultural census7 out of 36 million Agriculture House Holds (Ag HHs) in Uganda 680000 (190) reported having been visited by an extension worker during 20082009 The Western Region had the highest percentage (293) of Ag HHs that were visited by an extension worker followed by the Eastern Region (287) and the Central Region with the least percentage of 169 (Table 24) Based on this evidence although the Government has rolled out the NAADS to all districts in Uganda access to extension services remains low with 80 of the agricultural households having not been visited by an extension worker

Table 24 Distribution of Ag HHs visited by extension workers by region ()

Region Ag HHs Ag HHs visited Percentage

Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293

Uganda 3575064 679818 100Source UBOS Uganda Census of Agriculture 20089

7 UBOS 2010

242 Research and technology services

Agricultural research and technology services in Uganda are spearheaded by the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) that was established by GoU in 1992 In 2005 the NARO was restructured from being solely a public entity to encompassing other stakeholders including non-public service providers Thus the NARO now coordinates the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) The NARS is offers client responsive services through the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (ZARDIs)

Agriculture production has improved over the years with the dissemination of early yielding and disease resistant crop varieties and livestock breeds Examples of high yielding varieties that have been disseminated include among others Sunflower Sesun 1H amp 2H MM3 Maize Groundnut Serenut 5R and 6R Barley SGS 564 varieties matooke hybrids with resistance to Black Sigatoka weevils nematodes and banana bacterial wilt bean varieties NABE 15 and NABE 16 6 cassava varities with high resistance to brown streak disease NERICA Rice varieties 7 coffee varieties that are resistant to the coffee wilt disease improved varieties for mangoes oranges passion fruits avocado tomatoes nectarines apples and pears essential oil crops (Centronella Grass and Lemon Grass) and leaf vegetables In additional improved breeds of poultry cattle piggery and fisheries have been disseminated8

8 Various NARO reports

Productivity growth in Ugandan agriculture has resulted primarily from area expansion and not from intensification of production or use of improved varieties that would result in higher yields According to MAAIF9 estimated average yields in recent years at farm level have been below those at research stations (Table 25)

Table 25 Yields of selected crops on farm and at research stations in Uganda

Crop Yield on farmersrsquo fields

Yield on research station

Yield gap ()

Maize 551 5000 ndash 8000 807 ndash 1352Beans 358 2000 ndash 4000 458 ndash 1017

Groundnuts 636 2700 ndash 3500 324 - 450Bananas 1872 4500 140Coffee 369 3500 849

Source MAAIF 2010f

The yield gap between average farm yields and research yields indicates the immerse potential in farm productivity Low and inefficient use of improved inputs is still pervasive among Uganda farmers and poor land management is a contributory factor The Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services Project (ATAAS) that was commenced in 2010 aims at addressing these gaps through closer integration of research and extension services

9 MAAIF 2009

243 Agriculture Credit The Government of Uganda has implemented a number of reforms since the 1990s to improve access to agricultural financing These include the Cooperative Societies programme (1992) the Rural Financial Services Programme (2005) The Poverty Alleviation Fund (1996) Entandikwa Scheme (1996) Microfinance programmes (2003) Prosperity for All (2005) and the Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies (early 2000s) However the formal sector supply of credit for farming in Uganda remains limited since 2000 less than 10 percent of total private sector credit is allocated to agriculture production and marketing10 (Table 26)

10 Ezra Munyambonera et al 2012

In the study carried out by FOWODE TRACING Agriculture Extension grants in Uganda from a gender perspective the following was found that very few women benefit directly from NAADs due to the fact that women never own land Much as men benefit most of the work is done by the women still as in the figure 24 below

There is a need for the Government to encourage and support the development of public private partnerships in the delivery of extension services in Uganda as a means to fill the gap For example Government could partner or support farmer associations NGOs and private sector players to scale up good models of extension that are littered in different parts of the country

Figure 24 NAADs benefactors by gender in four districts FY 200910Source Computation based on SC records (FOWODE)

2322


Table 26 Percentage of Private Credit Distribution through commercial banks by sector

Sector 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -11Agriculture production 200 408 609 370 260 230 600Agriculture marketing 500 651 393 160 190 200 300Mining and quarrying 001 007 006 000 010 030 033Manufacturing 2300 2022 2008 910 1060 930 1300Electricity and water 500 589 596 430 540 820 080Building and construction 300 401 340 450 500 1180 1700Whole and retail trade 5000 5923 6923 4750 4882 6610 4030Other 001 000 000 2930 2558 000 1957

Source Bank of Uganda (BoU) Monetary Statistics 2011 Ezra Munyambonera et al 2012

In 2009 the Government introduced the Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) for provision of subsidized medium and long term loans to farmers at a 10 interest rate Over 200 farmers have benefitted from the scheme where resources are mainly invested in agricultural equipment and value addition and agro processing machinery Funds are channeled to farmers through commercial banks The funds have enabled medium to large scale farmers to expand their businesses and acquire machinery for commercializing agriculture The key challenges of the ACF relate to i) it cannot be used for financing production inputs ii) many farmers not aware of its availability iii) Limited grace period iv) High interest rate for young enterprises

The Government is providing financial support through the Microfinance Support Centre Limited (MSCL) to Savings and Credit Cooperative Organisations (SACCOs) to disburse commercial and agricultural loans

The most recent Uganda Census for Agriculture 200809 shows that only 362 of agricultural household members had ever received a credit while 638 had never received credit

Table 27 Percent Loan Distribution by Sector and Region through the MSCL

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Agriculture-Northern 41 16 38 14 166 67Agriculture-Western 19 36 79 218 306 389Agriculture-Central 00 129 13 71 161 242Agriculture-Eastern 00 12 09 09 30 57

Commerce and Trade-Northern 165 13 49 66 15 05Commerce and Trade- Western 209 85 306 201 38 47Commerce and Trade-central 508 498 406 231 128 120commerce and Trade- Eastern 58 65 100 40 27 24Business Development-Northern 00 10 00 00 08 00Business Development-Western 00 50 01 00 41 16Business Development- Central 00 46 00 150 43 16Business Development- Eastern 00 39 00 00 37 17Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source Microfinance Support Centre 2010 Ezra Munyambonera et al 2012

Whereas Government has attempted to provide credit for agriculture access remains low The most recent Uganda Census for Agriculture 200809 shows that only 362 of agricultural household members had ever received a credit while 638 had never received credit Of the 487000 agricultural household members that received credit 309000 (634) were males while 179000 (366) were females Credit is more easily accessible to males in agricultural households in all regions of Uganda than females (Figure 25)

The main reasons for limited access to credit among females were high interest rates lack of collateral ignorance (poor understanding of procedures for accessing finance due to low literacy levels) and unavailability of lending institutions The UCA 200809 showed that the main form of collateral required by lending institutions in Uganda was land and salary that are rarely owned by female farmers Many female farmers earn low incomes and hence are unable to save in SACCOs This limits the ability of female small holder farmers from expanding production to market levels Government needs to increase financial literacy especially among women and provide incentives to enhance their borrowing For example female farmers

should be supported to access the ACF facility which is collateral free Efforts to reduce the risks associated with the agricultural sector such as weather insurance and price stabilization will help to extend financial access but are unlikely to be sufficient

The Government is providing financial support through the Microfinance Support Centre Limited (MSCL) to Savings and Credit Cooperative Organisations (SACCOs) to disburse commercial and agricultural loans A recent study by Ezra Munyambonera et al (2012) shows regional disparity in the distribution of the loans with the Western and Central regions dominating in receiving support Funds disbursed for agricultural development across regions were less than 20 percent over the years apart from the western region that received substantive amounts between 2008 and 2010 (Table 27) However the process of acquiring this credit is difficult costly for small scale farmers as they are required to pay 10 ndash 15 interest yet they are not sure of the produce as the seasons are not predictable

2524


Figure 25 Distribution of Agricultural Household members who received credit by sex and region by 200809

Source UBOS 2011

244 Marketing Through the liberalization and privatization policies of the 1990s the Government divested itself of providing markets for agricultural produce and concentrated since then on playing a facilitative role to private sector to undertake this responsibility Government mainly provides market information to farmers and has introduced the Ware House Receipt System (WRS) to facilitate bulk storage and marketing The main objective is to increase storage capacity value addition and develop a sustainable marketing system of agricultural commodities that will

contribute to income enhancement of the small holder farmers11 The warehouse receipt system is funded under Uganda Commodity Exchange (UCE) and the commercial banks Housing Finance

Stanbic and DFCU

The six licensed warehouse in Uganda includebull Jinja warehousebull Kasese ndash Elehadai ware house bull Kasese ndash Nyakatozi ware housebull Gulu ware house bull Masindi ware house bull Kapchorwa ware housebull Soroti ware housebull Tororo ware houseGender mainstreaming is wholly embraced in the WRS program The ware-houses that are operational have employed mostly women to sort the seeds and grains which have increased on the household

income in these families and livelihood For every 30 employees in a warehouse 25 are women who sort the seeds while 5 men carry out administration work and moving heavy sacks

Although access to markets has improved tremendously with the opening of roads in the countryside farmers still find it a challenge to market their produce The UCA 200809 found that about 38 of agricultural households have to move 5Km and above to access local markets the problem being more pronounced in the Central Region (42 reported being 5Km or more from nearest local market) followed by Western region (407) ndash Table 28

11 Warehouse receipt system Act 2009

considered to food secure the country faces food insecurity

The UNHS 200910 collected information on the average number of meals taken by household members per day in the last 7 days preceding the survey A meal was considered to be any substantial amount of food eaten at one time

Table 29 Distribution of Households that took one meal a day Residence 200203 200506 200910Rural 60 90 101Urban 81 63 59Kampala 53 64 69Central 37 96 73Eastern 30 48 73Northern 251 184 201Western 45 38 58Uganda 77 85 93

Source UNHS 200910

Farmers still lack market information which exposes them to exploitation by middlemen who offer low prices for their produce In remote and mountainous areas access to markets is limited by poor road infrastructure and lack of regular transport means

Table 28 Percentage distribution of Households by Distance to nearest local produce market

Distance to Local Market Number of Households Proportion of Households

Less than 1Km 119726 361 to less than 3 Km

1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232

5 and above Km 1267134 383Total 3308368 100

Source UCA 20082009


245 Food security Food Security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life12 Two proxies are used widely to measure the food security and nutrition level of a country the number of meals taken in a day (the more the better) and access to salt which is an essential and cheap household item The UNHS 2009201013 showed that although Uganda is

12 Adopted from the World13 UBOS 2010a

Overall there was an increase in the proportion of households taking one meal a day as opposed to the traditional three meals a day The problem of food insufficiency was more pronounced in rural than urban areas and in Northern Uganda (Table 29)

2726


311 Brief project profileThe overall goal of the Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) is ldquoto increase household cash income of smallholders by revitalizing and increasing domestic vegetable oil production in partnership with the private sectorrdquo The project is structured around three different subprojects (i) introduction of commercial oil palm production on Bugala Island in Lake Victoria (ii) development of traditional oilseeds in northern eastern and mid-western districts of Uganda and (iii) research and development (RampD) of essential oil crops piloted in a variety of districts The project is financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Government and the private sector player OPUL

The first phase of the project that commenced in 2003 ended on 31st December 2011 and closure was on 30th June 2012 Implementation of the Oil Palm Component at district level involves a tripartite agreement between three parties GoU-MAAIF the Oil Palm Uganda Limited (OPUL) and Kalangala Oil Palm Growers Trust (KOPGT) The District Production Officer coordinates the project at district level OPUL is a consortium of private companies (Wilmar

Performance of Completed Agricultural LoansChapter 3


Analysis of the performance of first and concluded phase of the Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) is based on two key sources of information the Interim Evaluation report of March 2011 and the field findings by the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU) conducted during July- September 2008 and February ndash March 2012 The analysis is limited to the Oil Palm Component of the VODP which attracted the bulk of the donor resources

1 IFAD 2011

Plantation Services BIDCO Josovina) that are partners in project The KOPGT is a trustee body that was established in 2005 to protect the interests of and support the smallholder farmers who are supposed to develop 3500ha of oil palm under the VODP The institution which is GoU funded supports the farmers by providing credit inputs marketing infrastructure and selling their fruits

312 Planning and project design phase

Because of the complexity of the project in terms of the number of stakeholders involved in the Public Private Partnership (PPP) the planning and designing phase was protracted and took a long period The Government of Uganda conceived the idea to establish the VODP in 1986 as a means of promoting import substitution and export diversification to recover the economy that had been under war The Government sought the support of IFAD that saw the VODP as an opportunity to increase smallholder incomes However it took a total of eight years of planning before the VODP was approved in 1997 by the IFAD Executive Board

These findings are collaborated by another more recent study carried out by the BMAU in 62 districts and 12 Municipalities involving 1560 NAADS beneficiary households14 The study revealed that prior to the NAADS intervention on food security farmers (FSFs) and market oriented farmers (MOFs) in FY 201011 adults in about 50 percent of the households had two meals per day 38 percent could afford three meals per day and 2 percent had four meals per day Since the NAADS intervention the proportion eating once or twice per day has reduced slightly while those eating three or four times per day have increased modestly (Figure 26)

14 MFPED 2012f

Figure 26 Households by number of meals eaten by adults before and after NAADS

Source MFPED 2012f

These findings indicate that the country still has close to 10 of the population that take one meal a day and another over 40 percent that take 2 meals a day which is not adequate Enhancing food production and productivity in the country remains a major challenge for feeding the population adequately The Government needs to work closely with the private sector and civil society to bring agricultural services closer to the people and ensure that they are affordable so that farming can be scaled up in all regions in the country using improved inputs and technologies

2928


During the planning stage a value chain approach to the vegetable oil subsector was adopted implying working with a variety of vegetable oil crops stakeholders institutional levels and geographical areas It required coordination with many public and private institutions at national district and local levels Protracted discussions to bring on board the private sector OPUL (also referred to as BIDCO) and the public to surrender their land to the project resulted in a five year delay in project implementation Another two-year delay was experienced to give time to establishment of the KOPGT Hence although the project was officially approved in April 1997 implementation did not commence until 2005 The project had to be extended four times to enable implementation to take place The delays during the planning phase negatively affected project outcomes as discussed below

313 Budgeting and financingTotal project costs were originally estimated at US$60 million consisting of an IFAD loan of US$20 million US$331 million in co-financing from a private-sector partner and contributions of US$38 million and US$31 million respectively from the Government and the beneficiaries However the scale of the oil palm subproject was later increased to ensure its financial and economic viability The private investor and the Government increased their contributions to US$120 million and US$12 million respectively

thereby bringing the total project costs to around US$156 million1

The delay in project start up and the loan extensions necessitated re-allocations between budget lines there was a reduction in vehicles and equipment and civil works and operating costs rose significantly Overall expenditure was within budget limits and on schedule There was an increase in Government commitments while IFAD disbursements lagged behind schedule Expenditure in the oil palm component was at 88 of the disbursed funds reflecting a fairly good absorption capacity (Table 31) The increased Government expenditure on oil palm resulted from the high costs of the new ferry the purchase of land for the project and efforts to counteract negative publicity IFADrsquos low disbursement rate (64 per cent) was attributed to the slow enrolment of smallholders and out growers in the oil palm subproject

1 IFAD 2011

Table 31 Financial performance of the VODP by Sub-component (US$ lsquo000)Sub-component IFAD Loan Government Beneficiaries Total

Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Oil Palm 10790 5393 50 2080 6334 305 4000 3200 80 16870 14927 88Traditional oil seeds and essential oils

6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79

Institutional support 2480 2284 92 340 834 245 - - - 2820 3118 111Total costs 19910 12653 64 3780 8514 225 4000 3200 80 27690 24367 88

The Governmentrsquos contribution was increased to US$12 million after the oil palm revisions in 2000

Source IFAD 2011

314 Project ImplementationThe first phase of the VODP had 6 core targets among others namely

1) Develop 10000 ha of oil palm on Bugala Island 6500 ha on a nucleus plantation and 3500 ha planted by out growers and small holders organized by KOPGT

2) Construct furnish and equip an office block for KOPGT

3) Construct a processing mill at the nucleus estate

4) Construction of 250 km of road network5) KOPGT to provide of inputs and loans to

farmers6) Harvesting and collecting fresh fruit

bunches from farmersBy project closure date almost all the above

targets for physical performance had been achieved as garnered from field findings by the Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU)2 OPUL planted 6100 ha of the targeted 6500 ha land planted by smallholders and out growers was 23624 ha against the target of 3500 ha (675 achievement) the KOPGT office was constructed and furnished the mill for processing Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) started operation in February 2010 with an installed capacity of 10 metric tonnes (MT) expandable to 30 MTs per hour 210km out of the 250 km were constructed

By March 2012 the total amount loaned out to farmers to cater for their financing needs at 10 interest rate stood at Ugshs 195 billion having risen from Ugshs 128 billion in 2011 and Ugshs 88billion in 2010 The KOPGT had recovered Ugshs 450 million from the farmers Yields were still low as most trees were yet to gain maturity The harvest rose from 680 tonnes in 2010 to 2900 tonnes of fresh fruit bunches

2 MFPED 2012e MFPED 2008

in 2011 The average harvest per month rose from 200 tonnes in 2010 to 500 tonnes in 2012 as more farmers started harvesting and applied fertilizers

A major shortcoming of the project however was the lack of focus on involving special interest groups such as widows and orphans as they lacked land to effectively participate in the project Other challenges included farmers expressed discomfort with regard to the lack of clarity on how the deduction by KOPGT of 33 percent from proceeds to recover the loans and transport costs was being computed wastage of fruits as KOPGT did not have enough trucks to transport the produce from the farmer fields to the processing mill The escalating value of land was another constraining factor in acquisition of land for the oil palm plantations

The IFAD evaluation report highlighted a number of factors that affected implementation results the five year delay in identifying the private

3130


investor and concluding negotiations resulted in delayed planting maturing of the crop The setting up of KOPGT establishment of the nucleus estate and smallholder and out grower oil palm plantings the harvesting of FFBs and construction of oil mill were all delayed The delays substantially increased costs for both the Government and the private investor In the early years there was much public opposition to the project from some NGOs donors opposition politicians civil servants and subsector competitors This further delayed project implementation and dampened the results

315 Key Gender IssuesGender mainstreaming in the VODP was addressed mainly from the perspective of targeting women and youth to be among the beneficiaries Women were encouraged to participate in the project in their own right as landowners or tenants as wives of landowners or tenants or as plantation workers They were also encouraged to participate in the membership and leadership of grower organizations and access loans and inputs from KOPGT Youth on the other hand were targeted as members of smallholder households and they benefitted from skills in financial management succession planning and HIVAIDS Sensitization

Oil palm being a commercial crop more men than women participated in the project For example by January 2009 women constituted

31 of the total beneficiaries (Table 32) The women tended to get involved in smaller scale processing transportation of fruits and helping their husbands in tending the plantations Widows hardly participated as many lacked access to land

Table 32 Number of VODP beneficiaries by gender in 2009

Category No of Smallholders

No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()

Men 396 53 449 69Women 183 19 202 31Total beneficiaries 579 72 651 100

Source IFAD 2010

A major challenge was that the project did not develop a detailed strategy of reaching out to the targeted groups once the project was underway Follow-up meetings were held with block groups and to speed uptake the project increasingly focused on any willing participant especially those with land

316 Lessons and recommendations

Overall the VODP achieved a sizeable number of its targets despite the delayed start to implementation The delayed start of the intervention led to delayed disbursement of funds escalated project costs and some key outcomes not being realized Gender

By March 2012 the total amount loaned out to farmers to cater for their financing needs at 10 interest rate stood at Ugshs 195 billion having risen from Ugshs 128 billion in 2011 and Ugshs 88billion in 2010

are required for putting in place large donor funded projects and forging partnerships with Government and private sector

2) Funds absorption The VODP exhibited a fairly good absorption capacity of the earmarked funds indicative of proper budgeting and identification of priority expenditure items functional financial management systems and adequate capacity building within the implementing agencies

3) Mainstreaming gender although gender issues were integrated in the VODP not much attention was paid to this aspect as implementation progressed Gender planning should be part and parcel of the project design planning implementation and monitoring process Clear gender mainstreaming strategies should be put in place during the implementation process and progress should be regularly monitored

32 Agricultural Improved Rice Production

321 Brief Project ProfileThe AgricultureImproved Production project3 was a GoU intervention during 1st September 2008 ndash 31st August 2010 with the principal objective of ldquoincreasing rice production and income of resource poor farmers through promoting innovative NERICA rice based technologies in Northern Ugandardquo The project was implemented by MAAIF in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and with funding from the Government of Japan Implementation was undertaken in 9 districts namely Amolotar Amuru Apac Dokolo Gulu Kitgum Lira Oyam and Pader The intervention was a successor to a previous project known as ldquoDissemination of NERICA and Improved Rice production Systems to Reduce Poverty and Food Deficit in Ugandardquo implemented by MAAIFFAO during 2006 to 2008 estimated to cost US$ 1239983

The first project operated in the districts of Mpigi Wakiso Mbale Tororo Gulu Lira Hoima and Masindi Target beneficiaries are IDP returnees poor farmers women farmers and small-scale food insecure households The project also 3 The full project name is ldquoAgriculture and Rural Development through improved rice based farming systems for food security and poverty reduction in Northern Ugandardquo

focuses on strengthening the capacity for rice seed (breederfoundation) production at National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) and the capacity for certified seed multiplication and storage at community level


Consultations held between MAAIF and BMAU in 20114 indicated that once the project was approved by GoU in 20072008 the initial planning processes were largely undertaken at the offices of the development partners (FAO and JICA) with involvement of MAAIF Senior staff The project design was such that the substantive activities would be implemented directly by FAO with MAAIF playing the advisory and monitoring role Hence FAO worked directly with District Production Offices to organize the farmers to participate in the project

The project used a Farmer Field School (FFS) approach where farmers were organized in groups of 30 members and trained in improved rice production technologies Each district had 8 farmer groups that benefited from the project Provision of seed input and equipment by the project was done through a revolving fund so that the outputs could be sustained beyond the project life The intervention was implemented by a Project Coordination Unit based in Lira district

4 BMAU Monitoring Visits in FY 20102011 Q2

The project used a Farmer Field School (FFS) approach where farmers were organized in groups of 30 members and trained in improved rice production technologies

mainstreaming was partially addressed mainly focusing on participation of women and youth in the project Other key gender dimensions such as supporting land access by the disadvantaged and enhancing access to extension and inputs were not addressed A number of lessons and recommendations emerge from the analysis

1) Implementation modalities Delays in implementing projects can have gross cost implications and organizational problems that negatively impact on project implementation For large complex projectsPPPs sufficient time should be allocated to the planning process before project approval and all the key stakeholders should be adequately sensitized and involved in the project design and planning processes Considerable time resources and flexibility

3332


323 Budgeting and financingBudgeting for the donor funds that accounted for over 90 of the disbursements was mainly done by the Government of Japan with input from FAO The MAAIF was involved in budgeting for the counterpart funding from GoU which formed less than 10 of the available resource The MAAIF officials when consulted by BMAU5 indicated that they were not fully aware of the expenditure patterns for the donor funds as these were exclusively handled by the donor and implementing agency FAO

The end of project evaluation report6 indicates that a total of US$ 1499400 was spent on this project donated by the Government of Japan and channeled through FAO as the spending agency In addition GoU provided counterpart funding to MAAIF for monitoring this project UShs 149650000 in FY 200910 and UShs 119800000 in the first and second quarter of FY 201011 all totaling to UShs 269450000 Table 32 shows the utilization of the donor funds

5 BMAU Monitoring Visits in FY 20102011 Q26 MAAIFFAO 2010

Table 32 Utilization of Donor Funds in Agriculture Improved Rice Production Project

Item Budget US$ age of total costsPersonnel 105600 704Equipment and Machinery 424700 2832Material and supply 155000 1034Contract 144800 966Consultants for Capacity Building (training and workshop and technical manual)

142000 947

Capacity Building (FFS support training and workshop and technical manual)

106900 713

Duty Travel 187900 1253GOE 60000 40Overhead (13) 172500 1150GRAND TOTAL 1499400 100

MAAIFFAO 2010About 39 of the project funds were used for purchasing equipment machinery and supplies and 61 used in over head costs capacity building and other expenses All the funds received from GoU were used by MAAIF for supervision and monitoring of the project

324 Project ImplementationThe project was implemented as scheduled over a two-year period The mid-term and end of project reports7 indicate that the interventions

7 MAAIFFAO 2009 MAAIFFAO 2010

Table 33 Farm tools distributed to farmers by August 2010

Item Total quantity distributed

Quantity distributed per district

Quantity per farmer

Serrated Sickle 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerHoes 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerPangaMachine 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerShovels 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerWheel barrows 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerTarpaulins 2160 pieces 240 1 piece per farmerTape measures 72 units 8 1 piece per groupOx-ploughs 72 pieces 8 1 piece per groupOxen 144 heads 16 2 heads per groupLine marker 216 pieces 24 3 pieces per groupJab planter 216 pieces 24 3 pieces per group

Source Project Coordination Unit ndash Lira MAAIFFAO 2009

benefitted 72 farmer groups with a total of 2160 farmers in 9 districts of Northern Uganda In addition to training on improved rice production the farmers were provided with farm tools and post harvest equipment as shown in Tables 33 and Table 34 Certified NERICA rice seeds from Namulonge Research Station fertilizer and herbicides were distributed to seed growers in the first season of 2009 for seed multiplication (Table 35) Tools and equipment (tractors pumps threshers and rice mills) were provided to farmersrsquo groups or farmersrsquo associations In the second year seeds were procured from farmers for distribution in the production area

Table 34 Post harvest equipment distributed by August 2010Items Quantity

distributedMode of Distribution

Re-circulating Batch Dryer 1 piece 1 piece for NaCRRIAir screen Seed Grader 1 piece 1 piece for NaCRRIHold-on motorized rice thresher on trolley or cart

29 units 1 piece per sub-county

Mill-top SB30 rice mill 9 units 1 unit per DistrictSefex 25 HP Diesel Engine 9 units 1 unit per DistrictWeighing Scale 0-100kg 72 units 1 unit per groupNERICA Signposts 9 units 1 unit per District


3534


Table 35 Inputs distributed in 2009Type of input Quantity Quantity per farmerNERICA Seed (1410) 29625kg (season 1)

23600kg (season II)10kg per farmer200kg per seed grower

Urea Fertilizer 900 bags of 50 kg 33 bags per seed growerDAP Fertilizer 450 bags of 50 kg 16 bags per seed growerSatunil herbicide 250 litres per district 83 litres per seed grower

Source Project Coordination Unit ndash Lira MAAIFFAO

2009The project provided 9 units of rice milling technologies for use in rural areas where access to milling facilities is a challenge To improve management of the mills and ensure return on the investment the equipment is managed on a public-private sector partnership model The private sector managing the mills was requested to meet the costs for housing and installation of the equipment Over 850 metric tonnes of rice were produced from a total of 1700 hectares established under project support8

Field monitoring findings by the BMAU in 69 out of the 9 implementing districts 2010 and 201110 indicated that the farmers and farmer groups received all the inputs as planned with modest variations Four key challenges to implementation were (1) inadequacy of the inputs and inappropriateness of some of the farm equipment (ii) lack of supervision and follow up by MAAIF (iii) very low project coverage as only a few parishes were targeted (Iv) The project did not empower the farmers adequately on

8 MAAIFFAO 20109 Amolator Kitgum Lamwo Lira Oyam Pader and Gulu10 MFPED 2010a MFPED 2011c

2) Funds utilization and disbursement modalities the donor funds were budgeted for and disbursed to beneficiaries from the donor offices The Ministry of Agriculture was not involved in guiding expenditure and ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of the project The donor records indicated the bulk of funds were used for recurrent expenses which is indicative of poor allocative efficiency Future projects should allow for the Government agency to have a more active role in budgeting and utilization of the funds

3) Project design the approach of providing a small input package to a few farmers in every geographical locality does not generate meaningful impacts in terms of enhancing agricultural production and household incomes Future projects should be designed to cover a larger project area target a significant number of farmers and provide adequate inputs for economic viability and sustainable impact

community participation and group dynamics Hence sustainability of the project became a problem (v) Poor quality of inputs FAO disbursing inputs directly to farmers without verification by the district led to some poor quality inputs being disseminated For example immature oxen would not be accepted if the district veterinary officer had inspected them first

325 Key Gender IssuesThe project addressed gender from one perspective selecting farmer groups that were largely constituted of women to be the beneficiaries Many of the farmer groups that benefitted from the inputs had a disproportionately larger representation of women than men However the seed growers who were responsible for seed multiplication and received larger input packages were predominantly male This was attributed to the need for land to undertake seed multiplication which women did not have access to generally


This project met its set objectives of increasing rice production and income within Northern Uganda All the donor funds were absorbed by the end of the project However the inputs that were provided to the farmers were grossly inadequate some of poor quality and inappropriate A year after end of project rice production had ceased for some of the groups that had been targeted indicating low sustainability of the intervention A number of lessons and recommendations emerge from this analysis

1) Planning and implementation modalities The approach of the donors taking lead in planning and implementation led to less involvement and follow up of the interventions by the Government entities the MAAIF and the Districts Poor quality inputs were delivered by the donors and the sustenance of the project and its impacts was low It is critical that donor funded projects use the approach of Government taking the lead in planning and implementation which will enhance supervision of the interventions and long term impacts

3736


Performance of ongoing Agricultural LoansChapter 4

411 Brief Project ProfileUganda is one of the six countries implementing the regional Creation of Tsetse amp Trypanosomiasis Free Areas (STATFA) project other countries being Kenya Ethiopia Burkina Faso Mali and Ghana At the African Continent level the project is coordinated by the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign PATTEC Although the implementation period was indicated as April 2006 to 2011 the project is still ongoing The project is funded by the African Development Fund (ADF) and GoU The total loan amount is UA 6550000 and Grant Amount UA 240000

The project objective is ldquoto eradicate Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis from Ugandardquo The project is for implementation in the districts of Rakai Lyantonde Masaka Kalangala Mpigi parts of Sembabule Wakiso Kampala Mukono Kayunga Kaliro Jinja Mayuge Iganga Bugiri Tororo Butaleja and Pallisa Expected outputs include complete refurbishment and expansion of insectary at NaLIRRI Tsetse population reduced by 95-98 using aerial

spraying Entomological parasitological and socioeconomic baseline Survey Strategies for controlling tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Operationalise the geographical information system1 The analysis in this section focuses on the first four years of implementation (2006-2010) as the project was originally scheduled to be completed in 2011


Being a regional project planning for the STATFA project involved a wide cross-section of stakeholders at national and continent level to ensure uniformity in implementation of the interventions Hence the planning and designing stage continued even after the project was approved for implementation The MAAIF was at the centre of the planning process together with officials from ADB and MFPED There was not much documented evidence of the details of how the planning process was actually undertaken Discussion notes from the

1 MAAIF 2010e MFPED 2009

41 Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas

Table 41 Fund disbursements for STATFA project by March 2010

Category ADF Loan ADF Grant GoU (15 contribution)UA US$ UA US$ UA US$

Amount signed for 655000000 949750000 240000 348000 982500 1424625Disbursement to date

88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306

Disbursement 1357 1357 8156 8156 628 628Note 1UA = 145US$ = 2465 UShs

Source MAAIF 2010e

Table 42 shows the extent of utilization of the funds that had been disbursed Slightly over a half (54) of the disbursed funds had been utilized by the project over the four year period This suggests a very slow rate of funds absorption and project implementation given the fact that only 15 of the total resources had been disbursed The project was extended for additional years to allow project implementation to take place

Table 42 Funds utilization of the STATFA project during April 2006-March 2010

Source Amount received (UA)

Amount utilized (UA)

Balances (UA) Utilisation

Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e

The STATFA project staff and the review documents indicated three key challenges that explain these financial trends3

1) Government took long to fulfill some of the loan prior conditions such as hiring the required staff and putting in place a management committee The Accountants were changed twice leading to a disruption in project activities In the financing agreement GoU is supposed to provide permanent management staff

2) Bureaucracies in procurements ndash using two procurement systems of ADB and GoU ndash led to excessive delays

3 MFPED 2010a

BMAU2 indicate that ADB funded projects suffer from bureaucracies that lead to excessive delays in project execution All major payments are effected from the donor offices after rigorous assessment procedures

413 Budgeting and financingTable 41 presents the disbursement of the STATFA project funds as of March 2010 After 4 years of implementation of the donor project and close to the completion date the bulk of funds under the ADF loan had not been disbursed Only 1357 of the ADF loan had been disbursed About 81 of the ADF Grant and only 628 of the GoU contribution had been disbursed Overall only 15 of the total project funds have been disbursed over the four year period About 85 of the funds remained undisbursed one year to the scheduled project closure date

2 Budget Monitoring Visits during January-March 2010

3) Low counterpart funding which is itemized in a manner that does not meet the

requirements of the project For example there is a large budget line reserved for donor staff salaries yet the project had only one staff to be paid

414 Project Implementation

The STATFA project has been reviewed and reports are available on overall progress in implementation4 A year before completion date the project was behind schedule in addressing the key objectives and activities The main activities undertaken were focusing on capacity building procurement of inputs and some implementation focusing on deployment of traps and screening in Kalangala district

Procurements have been completed for office equipment vehicles audio visual equipment insecticide (400 litres of deltamethrin 20 and 6152 litres of pour-on insecticide 1) and 1 outbound engine and 20 life jackets all

costing UShs 226206640 or US$ 118650 Procurements are ongoing for 90000 tsete traps insecticides veterinary drugs lab supplies 10 motorcycles protective wear generators and other items estimated to cost

4 MAAIF 2010e STATFA Project 2009

3938


US$ 2245913 Entomological parasitological environmental and socio-economic baseline data The human sleeping sickness analysis was conducted Out of the 12000 insecticide treated tsetse traps that were supposed to be deployed 2300 were deployed in Kalangala district in 3 parishes In addition 100 litres of pour-on was delivered to treat cattle A total of 26 entomologists were trained study tours undertaken in other countries 60 of the 120 laboratory technicians and assistants had been recruited regional workshops held in Jinja and Masaka

A physical verification visit by the BMAU5 indicated that there was no physical presence of this project in any of the districts to be targeted other than Kalangala district The district officials acknowledged receipt of the tsetse traps which had been deployed in 3 parishes The most infected areas Bufumbira and Mugoye Sub-counties were yet to be reached by the project MAAIF had distributed 100 litres of pour on chemicals for treating livestock There was evidence of farmers whose livestock had been treated by the district officials and their assistants using these chemicals

The main challenges related to the slow pace of project implementation and the limited reach Many of the traps that had been deployed were destroyed by weather elements or dislodged by stray animals The beneficiaries of the traps lacked requisite skills and materials to repair

5 MFPED 2010a

the destroyed nets hence their usage was for a limited time period The district had few entomologists to implement the project and the project management committee was not functional


The STATFA project lagged behind schedule in implementation in line with the slow disbursement and absorption of funds Most objectives of the project had not been achieved one year before project closure Hence the project was given an extension of additional five years to continue to complete the pending activities and is still ongoing A number of lessons and recommendations emerge from the analysis

1) Prior conditions and bureaucracies the ADB loans had stringent prior conditions and lengthy bureaucratic procedures that affected the pace of project implementation It is critical that the prior conditions in future donor funded projects are well negotiated at planning stage to ensure that they are flexible and implementable by the Government Delays in project implementation can be avoided if the donors trust and use the Government procurement systems rather than imposing their own systems or allowing for parallel procurement channels

2) Low counterpart funding the unavailability of sufficient counterpart funding from GoU grossly affected the pace of project implementation The Government should only accept projects for which it has assured counterpart funding this should be disbursement in a timely manner in adequate amounts for triggering project implementation

3) Limited outreach and project sustainability this project distributed limited traps to 3 parishes in Kalangala district The beneficiaries had no skills and materials for replacing the traps implying low reach sustainability of the project Future projects should provide adequate equipment and inputs that cover a larger geographical area and also train the beneficiaries in replacing worn out equipment to ensure reasonable project impact and sustainability

The project aims at improving incomes rural livelihoods and food security through sustainable natural resources management and agricultural enterprise development

42 Farm Income Enhancement Project ndash Irrigation Component

421 Brief Project ProfileThe Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation Project (FIEFOC) under the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) commenced in 2005 and was scheduled to end in 2010 The mid-term review conducted in April 2009 recommended a further extension of this project to December 2012 to complete unfinished activities The project aims at improving incomes rural livelihoods and food security through sustainable natural resources management and agricultural enterprise development The project has two components i) Agricultural Enterprise Development Component coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) ii) Forestry Support Component coordinated by the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) The total project cost for the five-year period (2005-2010) is estimated at UA5115m funded by ADBADF and GoU6

Within the Agriculture Enterprise Development component was a sub-component to build small-scale irrigation schemes In 2009 the project was

6 GoU and ADF 2009

restructured to focus on four irrigation schemes The overall objective of the project is to induce a commercially sustainable agriculture for improved income level for the community and help in poverty alleviation

422 Planning and Project Design Phase

The planning for the project was done jointly by MAAIF and officials from the donor ADB The Ministry of Water and Environment and the Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) were also involved in the planning processes to ensure that environmental and engineering aspects of the project are taken care of Although the project was flagged off in 2005 the various stakeholders continued negotiating over the various aspects of the large multi-sectoral project leading to delays in implementation The original design focused on construction of many small scale irrigation schemes at farm level in the different parts of the county

The mid-term review conducted in April 20097 reported very slow progress in implementation of this component and very high operational and maintenance costs It was recommended that the sub-component is restructured to focus on rehabilitation of four existing large scale irrigation schemes namely Mubuku Irrigation Settlement Scheme in Kasese District Doho Rice Irrigation Scheme in Butaleja District Olweny

7 GoU and ADF 2009

Swamp Rice irrigation Scheme in Dokolo district and Agoro Irrigation Scheme in Kitgum district The rehabilitation was to be completed by December 2010

An ADB Supervision mission conducted in April 2011 found that no work had been done by MAAIF and recommended cancellation of the project if the trend of slow implementation was not rectified It was noted that due to passage of time the funds that were available were no longer sufficient for four irrigation schemes To rectify the situation a Presidential Directive was issued on 6th April 2011 to restructure the project The main elements of the restructured project were to concentrate on 3 irrigation schemes transfer implementation of civil works to Ministry of Water and Environment The Presidential directive was actualized starting June 2011 whereby all existing contracts under MAAIF where transferred to MWE and implementation of works started thereafter

413 Budgeting and financingBased on the technical engineering estimates by MAAIF in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) the rehabilitation costs for each medium scale scheme were budgeted in 2009 as below (Table 43) The total estimated cost of the project is UA 11951624 or UShs 35890882670 inclusive of contingency Exclusive of contingencies the rehabilitation of the four schemes is estimated to cost UA 95519352 or UShs 28674909692

4140


Table 43 Costs for the four irrigation schemes

Irrigation scheme

Civil works costs (UShs)

Consultancy supervision costs (UShs)

Total costs (UShs) Beneficiaries (households)

Mubuku 5508174368 1489264293 6997438661 1200Doho 6340265738 1346213384 7686479122 2350Olweny 14911718038 1096425352 16008143390 3300Agoro 4102396145 1096425352 5198821497 1000Total 30862554289 5028328381 35890882670 7850

Note The schemesrsquo civil works costs include 15 price contingency and 5 physical contingencySource GoU and ADF 2009

Table 44 shows the expenditure incurred by MAAIF by end 2010 By December 2010 UShs 1728873094 had been spent on the Irrigation component inclusive of expenditures incurred during FY 200607 ndash FY 200708 on the small scale irrigation sub-component that was suspended in April 2009 The bulk of the expenditures were on general operating expenses (54) and specialized services and demonstration (24) During FY 200910 the bulk of expenditures on the four irrigation schemes (87) was on general operating expenses indicative of poor allocative efficiency It is at this point that the remaining funds for funding were transferred from MAAIF to MWE during 2011

Upon completion the irrigation schemes would be handed back to MAAIF for management


There are a number of lessons and recommendations that can be drawn from this project

1) Institutional and Implementation capacity MAAIF lacked sufficient capacity to supervise construction and implementation of irrigation schemes The abrupt change in project design without analyzing the capacity of the ministry to implement 4 large irrigation schemes was a major constraint MAAIF had only one resident Engineer at project start who could not supervise such a large project single handedly Other Engineers where co-opted from other ministries but they were still inadequate Future projects that are largely of a civil works nature require recruitment of adequate engineers and other requisite skills before project start to ensure smooth implementation Implementation and institutional capacity of the responsible agency should be properly scrutinized at planning stage and stepped up accordingly Joint ventures such as was done between MAAIF and MWE should be encouraged to harness capacity where it exists

2) Allocative efficiency For the period when the project was under MAAIF it exhibited poor allocative efficiency as over 80 of the funds were being spent on operational expenses without any tangible output Absorption was high but for less critical expenditures For future projects entities should only be allowed to spend after establishing that they have adequate capacity to manage and spend funds efficiently and effectively Value for money should be promoted in donor funded projects

3) Decentralised planning and execution The relevant district officials (District Engineer District Water Officer and District Community Development Officer) were brought late in the implementation process They were not fully involved in the planning process and yet they were expected constantly supervise the project The Local Governments should be brought on board at project inception stage to help in implementation and setting up management structures at community level to ensure project sustainability Decentralized planning and execution should be encouraged as the districts are the final beneficiaries of the project they should own it right from planning and execution phase

Table 44 Irrigation Expenditure by Category 20067 20078 20089 200910 for MAAIF HQ (UShs)

Light Equipment

Specialized Services and

Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building

Vehicle and Equipment

maintenance

General Operating Expenses

Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094

Source MAAIF data December 2010

414 Project implementationThe only activities undertaken while the project was in the hands of MAAIF were procurement of contractors and preparation of Bills of Quantities (BoQs) The documentation was transferred to MWE in 2011 which concentrated on construction of Agoro Scheme in Lamwo district Doho Scheme in Butaleja district and Mobuku Scheme in Kasese

district A discussion held with officials of MWE in November 2012 indicated that 85 constructionrehabilitation works had been achieved and construction would be completed by December 2012 The beneficiary farmers were being trained in proper management of the schemes including operations and maintenance

4342


1) The budget allocation to agriculture as a share of the national budget remains low at 32 in FY 20122013 Most of the donor financing comes in discrete projects whose contribution to the overall sector outcomes cannot be easily ascertained or measured

2) The agricultural sector attracts less than 10 of the donor assistance in Uganda that is channeled to the development budget A substantial part of external support to the sector comes in form of Technical Assistance for policy and institutional development and capacity enhancement

3) A major challenge is the slow disbursements of donor funds in the sector in turn leading to slow implementation of donor funded interventions In FY 20112012 74 of the total loan portfolio equivalent to US$ 34155 remained undisbursed From a sector perspective the core explanatory factors for the low absorption capacity include Inadequate and untimely release of Government counterpart funding complex procurement procedures capacity constraints poor design of projects new loan commitments that take long to become effective and some funds being controlled directly by development partners

Conclusions and RecommendationsChapter 551 ConclusionsThe study set out to assess the performance status of agricultural services in Uganda and use of resources to implement Government programmes and policies The study involved analyzing performance of four loans (donor funded projects) in terms of planning budgeting and implementation The extent to which gender issues were addressed in these projects was assessed The following conclusions emerge from the analysis

4) The four case study loans do confirm the gravity of these factors as they singularly or in combination slow implementation of donor funded projects For example the poor design of the FIEFOC irrigation project slowed funds disbursement and project implementation ADB Funded projects generally have long bureaucratic procurement processes that delay disbursement of funds The Government of Japan and FAO took lead in the implementation of the Agriculture improved Rice Production project which led to distribution of poor quality inputs the bulk of funds being used in recurrent expenditures indicative of poor allocative efficiency and low project sustenance

5) The VODP case study illustrates that they are loans in the agricultural sector that perform well with regard to absorption of allocated resources timely implementation and achievement of the intended outcomes The key explanatory factors of good performance include proper planning and budgeting that involves all the key stakeholders proper identification of priority expenditure items functional financial management systems and adequate capacity to implement the projects

6) The FIEFOC case study illustrates that some projects are complete failures because of low implementationinstitutional capacity in the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Although funds absorption was high it was for the wrong reasons with 87 of the resources being spent on general operating expenses without any tangible outcome

7) Whereas planning and project design is usually done jointly between MAAIF and donor agencies there are instances where the donor takes lead For example the FAO was the lead agency in planning and implementing the Agriculture Improved Rice Production project The MAAIF had no full knowledge of the detailed plans and expenditure patterns of the donor finances This led to less supervision and monitoring of the project by MAAIF resulting in less project impact

8) Generally gender mainstreaming is not prioritized in agricultural loans Gender is often integrated from one perspective of ensuring that women and youth participate in the project interventions The extent to which this aspect is followed up during project implementation varies from project to project

9) Delivery of agricultural services such as extension credit and research is ongoing although reach to majority of farmers remains low Access to extension services remains low with 80 of the agricultural households having not been visited by an extension worker in the recent agricultural survey of 20082009

10) Whereas the bulk of agricultural service delivery is undertaken at local government level the district and sub-county officials are not adequately involved in the project design planning and budgeting stages Often they brought late into the implementation stage which lessens ownership supervision and sustainability of the donor funded projects

The budget allocation to the agricultural sector needs to be stepped to at least 10 of the national budgetary resources to expand delivery of agricultural services in Uganda

4544


unjustifiable low absorption of funds It is critical that the prior conditions are well negotiated and are easily implementable Government should improve its procurement and accountability systems so that donors have a high level of trust in them and can use them instead of the lengthy donor systems



6) The institutional and implementation capacity of the agency that is to implement the donor funded projects should be properly scrutinized at planning stage and beefed up before project commencement Where possible the implementing agency can partner with other Government and

non-Government agencies to scale up the implementation capacity to march the project requirements




52 RecommendationsThe following recommendations emerge from the analysis

1) The budget allocation to the agricultural sector needs to be stepped to at least 10 of the national budgetary resources to expand delivery of agricultural services in Uganda This could include deepening of delivery of extension and research services to ensure that farmers access and use improved inputs and technologies to bridge the production and productivity gap at farm level Sufficient counterpart funding should be provided in adequate and a timely manner for marching with the donor funds


3) Some level of flexibility in the prior conditions and minimal conditionalities imposed by donors for project trigger should be espoused as a means of avoiding

DRT 2011 Situational Analysis of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda Positioning the Small Scale Producers December 2011 Development Research and Training Kampala

Ezra Munyambonera Dorothy Nampewo Annet Adong and Musa Mayanja 2012 Access and Use of Credit in Uganda Unlocking the Dilemma of Financing Small Holder Farmers Economic Policy Working Paper Draft December 2012

FAOGoU 2008 Project Agreement for GCPUGA036JPN Agriculture and Rural Development through improved rice based farming systems for food security and poverty reduction in Northern Uganda

GoU and ADF 2009 Mid-Term Review Report Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation project

GoU 2007a Uganda Agriculture Sector Public Expenditure Review Phases 1 and 2 Oxford Policy Management

IFAD 2011 Project Evaluation of the Vegetable Oil Development Project Interim Evaluation

IFAD 2010 Vegetable Oil Development Project Phase 2 (VODP2) Project Design Report Volume 1 ndash Main Report and Appendices March 2010

MAAIF 2012 Operationalisation of the non ATAAS Component of the Development Strategy

Referencesand Investment Plan Analytical Report July 2012

MAAIF 2010 Final Inception Report for the Design and Construction Supervision for the RehabilitationReconstruction of Olweny and Agoro Irrigation Schemes ndash Lot 1 Otieno Odong amp Partners in Association with Arch Design Ltd

MAAIF 2010a MAAIF Ministerial Policy Statement for FY 201011 June 2010 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Entebbe

MAAIF 2010b MAAIF Half-Year Progress Report for FY 200910 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Entebbe

MAAIF 2010c MAAIF Quarter 1 Progress Report for FY 201011 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Entebbe

MAAIF 2010d Inception Report for the Design and Construction Supervision for the RehabilitationReconstruction of Mubuku and Doho Irrigation Schemes ndash Lot 2 Yerere Engineering and BEC Engineers Kampala

MAAIF 2010e Creation of Sustainable Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Free Areas in Uganda Project Progress Report April 2006 ndash March 2010 Entebbe

MAAIF 2010f Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan 201011-201415

Agriculture for Food and Income Security Ministry of Agriculture Animal industry and Fisheries Uganda

MAAIF 2009 Uganda Review of Ongoing Agricultural Development Efforts Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Brochure 2 ndash October 2009

MAAIFFAO 2010 End of Project Evaluation Report of the NERICA Rice Project Mission Report 15th June ndash 31st July 2010

MAAIFFAO 2009 Mid-Term Review Report GCPUGA036JPN Agriculture and Rural Development through improved rice based farming systems for food security and poverty reduction in Northern Uganda

MFPED 2012 The Background to the Budget 201213 Fiscal Year Priorities for renewed Economic Growth and Development Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development June 2012

MFPED 2012a Draft Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (Recurrent and Development) FY 201213 Volume 1 Central Government Votes Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2012b Report on Loans Grants and Guarantees for Financial Year 20112012 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala June 2012

4746


MFPED 2012c Summary of Project Support Managed outside Government Systems FY 20102011 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala June 2012

MFPED 2012d Semi-annual Report on External Assistance to Uganda July-December 2011 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2012e Budget Monitoring Report January ndash March 2012 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2012f Financing the Food Security Budget in the National Agricultural Advisory Services Adequacy and Impacts in a Decentralized System Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala February 2012

MFPED 2011 Government Outlays Analysis 200910 Public Expenditure and Development Results December 2011 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2011a The Background to the Budget 201112 Fiscal Year Promoting Economic Growth Job Creation and Improving Service Delivery Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development June 2011

MFPED 2011b Annual Economic Performance Report 200910 Directorate of Economic Affairs Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development January 2011

MFPED 2011c Annual Budget Monitoring Report July 2010 ndash June 2011 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2010 Government Outlays Analysis FY 200809 Public Expenditure and Development Results Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development December 2010

MFPED 2010a Budget Monitoring Report January ndash March 2010 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

MFPED 2010b Budget Monitoring Report October ndash December 2009 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development January 2010 Kampala

MFPED 2009 Public Investment Plan FY 20092010-20112012

MFPED 2008 Budget Monitoring Report July ndash September 2008 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development Kampala

STATFA project 2009 Creation of Sustainable Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Free Areas in East and West Africa ndash Uganda Component Progress Report September 2008 ndash September 2009

UBOS 2010 Uganda Census of Agriculture 200809 Volume III Agricultural Household amp Holding Characteristics Report December 2010 Uganda Bureau of Statistics Kampala

UBOS 2010a Uganda National Household Survey 20092010 Socio-Economic Module Abridged Report Uganda Bureau of Statistics November 2010

UBOS 2008 Uganda Statistical Abstract 2008 Uganda Bureau of Statistics Kampala

World Bank 2010 Uganda Agriculture Public Expenditure Review February 2010

Annex 1 Donor Funded Projects in the Agricultural Sector

Project Name Donor Period of implementation

Total budget US$ Millions

Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage

1Agricultural Marketing Promoting and Regional inte

WFP 2007 ndash 2011 954 1 0AdjumanBundibujo GuluKitgum Pader Arua Moyo Yumbe

2 Support for Tea Cocoa Seedlings 2004 ndash 2011 938000 0 0

Kabalore Jinja Kyenjojo Hoima Kibaale Mubende Masaka MukonoBushenyi Kanungu Wakiso Mpigi Luwero KibogaMubende Masindi Kamwenge Bundubujo KamuliIganga Mayuge Lira

3Vegetable Oil Development Project phase 1

International fund for agric and D

1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0

4 Farm Income Enhancement Project

ADB ADF Nordic dev fund 2005 ndash 2011 10101000 600000 0

Masaka Wakiso KibogaRakai Hoima Masindi Kabalore Kyenjojo Kamwnge Kasese MbararaKabaleKisoroBushenyiRukungiriNtungamuAruaAdjuman Nebbi LiraGulu Kitgum Pallisa Sironko Mbale Jinja IgangaSoroti Kamuli BugiriTororo Nakapiripirit Kumi Moroto LuweroSembabule Nakasongola

5 Crop Disease and Pest Control DANIDAFAO 2006 ndash 2012 746000 0 0

6Improvement of Food Security in cross boarder districts

FAO 2005 -2011 0 0

7 Sustainable Land Management Project UNEPGEF UNDP 2122007 1172000 0 0

4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage

8 Regional NERICA research and training centre Gov of Japan 2009 ndash 2011 1363981 2000 0

Masaka Wakiso Hoima Masindi LiraGulu Mbale Tororo

9 Agricultural improved rice production

FOOD AND AGRIC ORGANISATIONS 2009 - 2012 1896 0 0

11 Sustainable Irrigated rice production in eastern Ug Japan 2008 - 2011 10102 993000 0

12Vegetable Oil Development Project phase II

International fund for agric and D 2012 -2016 19301000 14350000

13 Rice development project 0 6260000

14 Creation of tsetse and tryp areas ADB 2006 ndash 2011 916000 2472000 0

15Avian and human influenza preparedness and response

5538000 0

16 Support to quality assurance fish marketing 2380118 1127260

17Technical assistance to improve animal disease diag

0 3230000

18 Development of national early warning system Norway 2005 -2008 213000

19 Farming in tsetse controlled areas

EU Multi -lateral development partners 2001 ndash 2011 1354000

Bigiri Busia Iganga Jinja Kamuli Kayunga Mayuge Mbale Mukono Palisa SorotiTororo

20 North west small holder Agric dev project ADB 2001 ndash 2008 2689 Adjuman Arua Nebbi

Moyo Yumbe

21 Livestock disease control GTZ and EU 2001 ndash 2012 5454000

22 Support to fisheries development( loan) ADB 2002 ndash 2008 5677000 0 0 Lakes Albert Kyoga

Victoria Edward George



Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage

24 Trans-boundary agro-system management FAO 2007 ndash 2012 279000

MasakaPader Kitgum Lira Apac Moroto Kotido Nakapiripirit Katakwi Kaberamaido SorotiKumiPallisa Soronko Kamuli Kayunga Luwero Nakasongola Masindi Kyenjojo Mubende Kiboga Kibaall Mpigi Sembabule Rakai Mbarara Kamwenge Ntungamu Bushenyi Dokolo Amulata Oyam Abim Budaka Bukedea Bukwa Bulisa Nakaseke Kaliro Kaabong Butaleja Ibanda Kiruhura Isingiro Mityana

25National livestock productivity improvement project

ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0

26 Rural electrification ERT IDA 2002 -2012 1478000

Arua Nebbi Mbarara Kabale Palisa Luwero Lira Kasese Wakiso Ntungamo

27 Trans-boundary agro-system management FAO 2007 ndash 2012 770000 countrywide

28 Plan for national agricultural statistics World bank DFID 2007 ndash 2012 220000 MAAIF

29 Integrated pest and disease management(EA) Italian Government 2007 ndash 2010 3000000 Kabale Kisoro

30 NAADS GoU 75Donors 25 Countrywide

Source Public Investment Plans Background to the Budget for various years

50

Our teamThe Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) since its launch in 2004 has made major leaps towards ensuring that the Ugandan budget making process is more participatory transparent and citizen concerns are prioritized in government budget allocations and implementation The partnership comprises of both individuals and organisations including

Profile of CSBAG membershipForum for Women in Democracy (wwwfowodeorg

The Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI-U) wwwseatiniorg

African Centre for Trade and Development (ACTADE) wwwactadeorg

The Uganda Debt Network (UDN) wwwudnorug

The Uganda National NGO Forum donor community wwwngoforumorug

Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) wwwpelumugandaorg

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment wwwacode-uorg

The Centre for Women in Governance (CEWIGO) wwwcewigoorg

The Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers Forum (ESAFF- Uganda) wwwesafforg

Environmental Alert (EA) wwwenvalertorg

Uganda Road Sector Support Initiative (URSSI)

The Human Rights Network Uganda (HURINET- U) wwwhurinetorug

National Union of Women with Disabilities of Uganda (NUWODU)

Development Research and Training (DRT) wwwdrt-ugorg

Uganda Womenrsquos Network (UWONET ) wwwuwonetorug

Water Aid Uganda wwwwateraidorguganda

Platform For Citizenship Participation and Accountability (PLACA) wwwplacaugorg

African Youth Development Link (AWYDL) wwwaydlorg

Action Group for Health Human Rights and HIVAIDS (AGHA)wwwaghaorug

African Womenrsquos Economic Policy Network (AWEPON) wwwaweponnet

Hope after Rape wwwharinterconnectionorg

Women and Girl Child Development Association

52

Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CS BAG] is a coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Individuals which was formed in 2004 to advocate for pro-poor budget policies in Uganda The major aim is to ensure that the views and concerns of the poor and marginalized people are incorporated into local and national budgets

CS BAG STRATEGIC OBJECTIVESbull Thenationalandlocalgovernmentbudgetprocessesaretransparent

inclusive and accountablebull Criticalinformationforeffectiveparticipationofallstakeholdersisavailedto

CSOs and other stakeholders and in good timebull CentralandLocalGovernmentbudgetsarepro-poorandadheretoresults

oriented budget management principlesbull Pro-poorbudgetprinciplesandpracticesareinitiatedandintegratedinthe

overall budget process

C S B A G


Email csbagcsbagorg bull wwwcsbagorg

3

Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Uganda is published by the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) supported by Actionaid Uganda

copy 2012 co Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)PO Box 7176 KampalaTel +256-41-286063E-mail fowodefowodeorgWeb wwwfowodeorg

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or reprinted in any form by any means without the prior permission of the copyright holder Nevertheless CSBAG and Actionaid Uganda encourage its use and will be happy if excerpts are copied and used When doing so however please acknowledge CSBAG and Actionaid

Acronyms and Abbreviation 4

Glossary 5

Acknowledgements 6

Foreword 7

Chapter 1 Introduction 1011 Overview 1012 Study Objectives 1113 Methodology 1214 Report Structure 14

Chapter 2 Agriculture Sector Performance 1521 Introduction 1522 Growth trends 1623 Financing and expenditure trends 1724 Delivery of key agricultural services 19

Table of Contents

C S B A G

Budgeting for equity Forum for Women in Democracy

Chapter 3 Performance of Completed Agricultural Loans 2731 Vegetable Oil Development Project 2732 Agricultural Improved Rice Production 31

Chapter 4 Performance of Ongoing Agricultural Loans 3641 Creation of Tsetse and Trypanomiasis Free Areas 3642 Farm Income Enhancement Project ndash Irrigation Component 39

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 4251 Conclusions 4252 Recommendations 47 References 50

54










Glossary

76












98

Study Context



Key conclusions
























1110













Source MFPED 2012b






5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b











1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



54










Glossary

76












98

Study Context



Key conclusions
























1110













Source MFPED 2012b






5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b











1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



76












98

Study Context



Key conclusions
























1110













Source MFPED 2012b






5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b











1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



98

Study Context



Key conclusions
























1110













Source MFPED 2012b






5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b











1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



1110













Source MFPED 2012b






5 MFPED 2012b

Source MFPED 2012b











1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



1312




















































1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



1514





Recommendations








Source UNHS 200910

1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



1716



1 UBOS 2010













Source UBOS 2010

1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



1918



Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget

Allocation USh bn

Share of Budget






Education 10796 162 1243 168 14163 147

Health 7377 110 660 89 7991 83



Security 4877 73 649 88 9749 101



Accountability 4629 69 492 67 5436 56

Legislature 1218 18 163 22 1627 17






Source MFPED 2012a



Agriculture 6807 5830 9447 10001 951 1607 2389 3720

Total all Sectors

64159 51562 86736 68766 39955 39730 45155 40206

Agric Share








2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



2120






Central 715486 114559 169

Eastern 1069885 194903 287

Northern 755701 171200 252

Western 1033992 199156 293


7 UBOS 2010









Yield gap ()



Source MAAIF 2010f


9 MAAIF 2009






2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



2322









2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010








2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



2524



Source UBOS 2011



Stanbic and DFCU








Source UNHS 200910





1155526 349

3 to less than 5 km

765982 232


Source UCA 20082009





2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



2726







1 IFAD 2011





14 MFPED 2012f


Source MFPED 2012f


2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



2928






1 IFAD 2011



6640 4976 75 1360 1346 99 - - - 8000 6322 79



Source IFAD 2011














3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



3130








No of Out growers

Total Proportion ()


Source IFAD 2010



















3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



3332







142000 947


106900 713








Quantity per farmer










3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



3534
















3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



3736













88631409 128515543 19578269 2838849 6171168 8948194

Undisbursed amount

566368591 821234457 4421731 641151 92078832 133514306


Source MAAIF 2010e






Loan 88631409 40654759 47976650 4587Grant 19578269 15156538 4421701 7741GoU 6171168 6047745 123423 98

Source MAAIF 2010e




3 MFPED 2010a











3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



3938





5 MFPED 2010a











6 GoU and ADF 2009





7 GoU and ADF 2009




4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



4140



Irrigation scheme














Light Equipment


Demonstration

Training and

Capacity Building


maintenance


Total

200607 67300500 51353400 4306698 14427100 137387698

200708 21555000 285974000 10960000 37649400 37714000 393852400

200809 21698000 212197000 12531382 335182120 581608502

200910 38054213 - 40484629 537485652 616024494

TOTAL 21555000 413026713 274510400 94972109 924808872 1728873094




4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



4342














4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



4544





































4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



4746























Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage







1998 ndash 2011 1353312 1310000 0






FAO 2005 -2011 0 0


4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



4948




Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage











5538000 0



0 3230000






Moyo Yumbe






Donor contribution

201011

Donor contribution

201213Coverage




ADB 2005 ndash 2010 59202000 0 0








50
























52







C S B A G



50
























52







C S B A G



52







C S B A G



Documents

Agriculture financing and sector performance in Uganda, 2013