Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Main report and appendices

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and acronyms 2WT 2-Wheel Tractor 4WT 4-Wheel Tractor AEATREC Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Centre AEF Agricultural Extension Facilitator AEO Agricultural Extension Officer AWPB Annual Workplan and Budget AWS Automatic Weather Stations BBS Online Banking System CAN Capacity Needs Assessment CAO Chief Administrative Officer CAR Community Access Road CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture DFA District Farmers' Associations DLG District Local Governments, DNRO District Natural Resources Officer FBS Farmer Business Schools FFS Farmer Field School GALS Gender Action Learning Strategy GoU Government of Uganda HH Household ICRAF World Agro-Forestry Centre IFMS Integrated Financial Management System ISSD Integrated Seed Sector Development MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development MFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development MoLG Ministry of Local Government MSP Market Stakeholder Platform NRM Natural Resources Management PDU Procurement and Disposal Unit PHH Post-Harvest Handling PIM Project Implementation Manual PMU Project Management Unit PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal Authority/Act PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRELNOR Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region RET Renewable Energy Technology UGX Uganda Shillings UNFFE Uganda National Farmers Federation UNMA Uganda National Meteorological Authority ZARDI Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute

1/38 A. Project Overview

Region: East and Southern Africa Division Project at Risk Status: Not at risk Country: Uganda Environmental and Social B Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods Category: Project Name: in the Northern Region Climate Risk Classification: not available yet Project Id: 1100001681 Ministry of Local Executing Institution: Project Type: Marketing/Storage/Processing Government Ministry of Local CPM: Lakshmi Moola Implementing Institutions: Government Project Director: not available yet Project Area: Acholi Sub-region plus Adjumani District

Approval Date: 16/12/2014 Last audit receipt: 08/02/2019 Signing Date: 05/08/2015 Date of Last SIS mission: 24/05/2019 Entry into Force Date: 05/08/2015 Number of SIS Missions: 9 Available for Disbursement Date: 12/01/2016 Number of extensions: 0 First Disbursement Date: 15/01/2016 Effectiveness lag: 8 months MTR Date: 05/05/2019 Original Completion Date: 30/09/2022 Current Completion Date: 30/09/2022 Financial Closure: not available yet

Project total financing

IFAD Financing breakdown IFAD $50,200,000

ASAP Trust Fund $10,000,000

Domestic Financing breakdown Beneficiaries $1,494,000

National Government $9,290,000

Co-financing breakdown,

Project total financing: $70,984,000

Current Mission

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Days in the field: 13 days Mission composition: Ms. Lakshmi Moola, (Country Programme Manager); Mr. Pontian Muhwezi, (IFAD Country Programme Officer); Ms Maliha Hamid Hussein (Team Leader); Mr. Rami Salman (Co-Mission Leader and Environmental Specialist); Mr David Radcliffe (ASAP Consultant-DFID); Mr. Mawira Chitima (Infrastructure Specialist); Mr. Robert Delve, (IFAD's Senior Agronomist); Ms Lorina Sthapit (M&E & Gender); Mr. Mohamed Abdel-Latif (Procurement Specialist); Mr Davis Autogonza (Financial Management Specialist) and Mr Baraka Bensolomon (Commodity Logistics Analysis courtesy of Kuhne Foundation) and Kevin Codrey (University of Cape Town). A representative from the MoFPED Ms. Molly Apio-IFAD Desk Officer joined the mission for the field visits.

Field sites visited: Adjumani, Kitgum, Agago and Omoro Districts

2/38 B. Overall Assessment

Key SIS Indicator #1 ∅ Rating Key SIS Indicator #2 ∅ Rating

Likelihood of Achieving the Development 4 Assessment of the Overall Implementation 4 Objective Performance

Effectiveness and Developmental Focus 4 Project Management 4

Effectiveness 3 Quality of Project Management 4

Targeting and Outreach 5 Knowledge Management 4

Gender equality & women's participation 5 Value for Money 3

Agricultural Productivity 4 Coherence between AWPB and 3 Implementation Nutrition 4 Performance of M&E System 4 Adaptation to Climate Change 5 Requirements of Social, Environmental and 3 Climate Assessment Procedures (SECAP)

Sustainability and Scaling-up 4 Financial Management and Execution 4

Institutions and Policy Engagement N/A Acceptable Disbursement Rate 4

Partnership-building 4 Quality of Financial Management 4

Human and Social Capital and 5 Quality and Timeliness of Audit 5 Empowerment Counterparts Funds 5 Quality of Beneficiary Participation 4 Compliance with Loan Covenants 5 Responsiveness of Service Providers 5 Procurement 3 Environment and Natural Resource 4 Management

Exit Strategy 4

Potential for Scaling-up 4

Relevance 5

3/38 C. Mission Objectives and Key Conclusions

Background and Main Objective of the Mission

The Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in Northern Uganda (PRELNOR) came into force on 5 August 2015. It's implemented by Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) over a seven year period, for a total cost of USD 70.9 million, financed as follows: an IFAD loan of USD 50.2 million; a grant from the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) of USD 10 million, and USD 9.2 million by Government of Uganda (GoU) and USD 1.5 million by the beneficiaries. The project development objective is: Increased sustainable production, productivity and climate resilience of small holder farmers with increased and profitable access to domestic and export markets. The project area covers nine districts in Northern Uganda, i.e. Adjumani, Agago, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Lamwo, Nwoya, Omoro and Pader. The project is now in its second year of full implementation with all implementation agencies already brought on board.

An IFAD supervision mission has been held from 3 to 14 December 2018. The overall objective of the mission was to review the implementation progress of the project and provide the necessary implementation support to the Project Management Unit (PMU). The mission worked with the PMU team in Gulu and conducted field visits to Adjumani, Kitgum, Agago and Omoro Districts, where it met and had discussions with Local Government officials, farmers and selected households.

Two de-briefing meeting were held, one with the PMU in Gulu on 11 December 2018, and another with Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) on 13 December 2018. A wrap-up meeting with the Permanent Secretary, MoLG was held in Kampala on 14 December 2018.

Key Mission Agreements and Conclusions

Notable progress has been realised by the project. Technical support to the first batches of 600 famers' groups (FGs), through extension, and mentoring of the first batch of 2000 vulnerable households has been largely done. Evaluation of bids for construction/ rehabilitation of the first batch of 614km of community access roads is almost finalised with works expected to commence in February 2019, while a total of 216 community based natural resources management (CBNRM) plans have been developed and 191 of them financed. A total of 42 renewable energy technologies (RETs) have been installed in public institutions and are function well. All proposed sites for 3 bulk and 8 satellite markets have been identified and procurement of consultants to design the market structures is in advanced stages.

The project is currently conducting Participatory Rural Appraisal exercises to identify the second batches of 600 FGs and 2000 vulnerable households for mentoring.

Overall, project implementation remains behind schedule largely due to delays in procurement processes. While one of the Loan Covenants is the appointment of a delegated PRELNOR's Contract Committee to consider and approve all project procurements, the one put in place was restricted to procurements whose value doesn't go beyond UGX 200 million. As most of the significant procurements have value of more than UGX 200 million, they are handled by MoLG's Contract Committee which, has however led to very significant delays as it takes long to consider and approve.

Actions Responsibility Deadline Status

PRELNOR Contracts Committee will be fully delegated to handle all PS, MoLG Immediate Agreed the project's procurements.

Conducting Mid-term Review (MTR) IFAD and GoU 31 May 2019 Agreed

4/38 D. Overview and Project Progress

Component A – Rural Livelihoods

Farmer group capacity building. All Batch 1 farmer groups (FG) have received training and refresher training in development of a group constitution, leadership skills and sustainability of groups. To date 574 of the target 600 FGs have developed, and are implementing their action plans. Each FG therefore has a unique action plan that requires tailored extension support to increase productivity and to link to market opportunities. Of these groups, 200 have been identified as agribusiness groups and have received additional support in farming as a business, postharvest handling and in linking to markets. Selection of 600 FGs under Batch 2, started in the first quarter of 2018/19 and will end in February 2019. After a training needs assessment, the new FGs will receive training in areas like governance, leadership, group dynamics, visioning, GALS, farming as a business, financial literacy, record keeping, savings and also on main streaming issues of household nutrition, HIV/AIDS, and preventing gender based violence. This leads to their FG Action Plan and demand for extension services.

Household mentoring has been completed for the first batch of 2000 households. Enormous changes are evident in lives of mentored households that include: positive mind-set and behavioural changes towards engaging in socio- economic development activities; increased agricultural production; increased household ownership of assets (like cows, goats, and chicken); improvements in household hygiene and sanitation, housing/dwelling, gender relations in terms of joint planning and decision making on household expenditure; and reduced gender based violence and alcoholism. The process of providing food security grants to these 2000 households was completed using the voucher system, for assorted agro-inputs. Households have utilised the grants to increase acreage under cultivation, yields, and sales and now have enough produce for food consumption. Incomes are invested in buying HH assets and paying school fees for children.

Implementation of the FG action plans is supported primarily through extension services provided by local government and Gulu and Adjumani DFAs, with specialised support provided by other partners where needed. The main areas of investment has been in capacity building of the agricultural extension services for sustainable agricultural development and training of farmer groups to improve production practices. The role out of FBS and postharvest handling will start now that extension staff have all been trained. Batch 1 FGs have had 1 to 2 seasons of support in increasing crop productivity, building climate resilience, and improved farm level post-harvest handling. In the last financial year (2017/18) 452 out of a target 574 demonstrations were established. This means that 132 FGs who had been trained did not have a field demonstration. This lower number was due to procurement delays by DLGs and DFAs. Demos were on cassava (Narocas 1, Nase 14, Nase 19), beans, maize (OPV varieties - Longe 4, 5 and 5D, MM3 and hybrids Longe 7H, 10H) and rice. Data on yield increases is not yet available and the cassava demonstrations have yet to be harvested.

As in previous missions it was noted that many demonstrations (and adaptive research trials) were implemented late due to delayed procurement of inputs. This adversely affects the quality of the demonstrations and undermines their value in showing improved options to farmers.

Development of extension manuals. Good progress has been made on this and the following manuals are finalised and are being used to facilitate capacity building of FGs and agri-business groups: commodity-based curriculum and technical guide for beans, cassava, groundnut, maize, sesame, soybean, sorghum and rice; and agricultural extension handbook, which has sections on extension approaches, communication, facilitation and adult learning skills and report writing. The commodity based curriculum and technical manual plus the extension manual (which looks at processes) are being used together in the FFS extension methodology. A Financial Literacy manual will be drafted through a write-shop in mid- December and it is planned to finalise and start using it by March 2019.

Partnership with DFA and DLG extension services. The project currently supports 150 Agricultural Extension staff (108 males and 42 females) and 200 CBFs (125 males and 75 females). Since the last mission they have received refresher trainings in Plant Clinics and Local Seed Business development and continue to support the FGs and agri-business groups. There was a delay in contracting the Uganda National Farmers' Federation (UNFFE) to start implementation of the agreed capacity building of existing and emerging DFAs, and the first report of this work is expected by end of December 2018.

Partnership with NARO (AEATREC). This activity has been delayed mainly due to challenges in procurement of the 2- wheel tractors (2-WT). The bidding process was launched in August and closed in September 2018, unfortunately due to lack of compliance with the bidding documents, the IFAD no-objection was not granted and the process has to be restarted with new speciation's. Local fabrication of 2-WT equipment (25 trailers, 25 planters), animal drawn equipment (45 planters, 75 weeders and 25 carts) and processing equipment (25 threshers, 25 maize shellers) is on-going. Two draft manuals for operation and maintenance of the different machines have not been finalised since the last mission.

Delays in procurement of the equipment has not permitted implementation of demonstrations and adaptive trials in the 20178 B season. A total of 54 selected host farmers for the up-coming demonstrations and 12 AEFs from six districts went on an exchange visit to see the use of the technologies on other farmers. A similar exchange visit for the remaining three districts will be conducted early 2019. The business model of PRELNOR is based on youth groups being supported to provide mechanised services to farmer groups and this seems to not have been elaborated yet and needs to be worked

5/38 out with the Agri-business team. A recent FAO-CIMMYT publication on 'Hire services as a business enterprise' has been shared with the PMU as a potential option of what the project can do.

Partnership with NARO for foundation seed production – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs .At Abi ZARDI in the 2018A season, a total of 7 acres were established (3 acres cassava, 2 acres beans and 2 acres maize). In the 2018B season 6.5 acres were established (2 acres beans, 2 acres maize and 2.5 acres rice). For Ngetta ZARDI, in the 2018A season, a total of 75 acres were established (52 acres cassava, 8 acres beans, 7 acres maize and 8 acres groundnut). In the 2018B season 15 acres for soybeans were established. Ngetta ZARDI also supported foundation seed production through 7 Local Seed Businesses (LSBs). Through these LSBs, a total of 65 acres were planted under different crops. The foundation seeds being produced will be accessed on a cost-recovery basis by project seed production groups (LSBs) in the next planting season (season A of 2019). Seed production data collection is not completed yet, but some data was included in the PRELNOR Mission Report July-November 2018. Abi ZARDI has sold some foundation seeds already (cassava UGX 5.5m, rice UGX 3.4m and maize seed UGX 45,000).

Partnership with NARO for adaptive research trials – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs.I n April 2018 a range of adaptive trials were established. In Adjumani District one trial per project parish was established – each trial was one acre in size, divided into four crops (rice, beans, maize and cassava). For each crop there were three or four improved varieties and a local variety for comparison purpose. Each of the 12 trial sites were established by host farmer groups, with guidance from technical staff from Abi ZARDI and Adjumani DFA. The annual crops have been harvested and the cassava still has at least six months before maturity. Samples were taken at harvest and the data is currently being complied and analysed and the ZARDIs are preparing their report. Alongside these trials, soil and water conservation practices were also demonstrated, where the trenches help to trap run-off water and soil during rain events that can subsequently be used by the crops. The collected soil is excavated and returned to the crop field. The 2017/18 Annual Report noted that Ngetta ZARDI was unable to manage its 88 adaptive research trials and recommended a reduction in future years to a number that Ngetta staff can manage. The mission agrees with this recommendation.

Ngetta ZARDI conducted conservation agriculture demonstrations. Maize was planted as a test crop with several different cultivation approaches, i.e. permanent planting basins, rip lines opened using animal drawn ripper tine, alley cropping and conventional tillage. The results are yet to be reported.

Reviewing the 2017/18 Annual Report shows that there is still confusion over what is a mother-baby trial – it is not where the same trial is done on a one acre plot at community level and the same trial is repeated on farmers field but on smaller plots. The methodology for mother baby trials has been shared with the PMU before.

Development of Local Seed Businesses. To continue with the planned activities the project used the ISSD Uganda manual 'Supporting Local Seed Businesses, a training manual and conducted a ToT in October 2018 for 50 AEFs from all 29 sub-counties, plus the agri-business officers of 2 DFAs. The training was also facilitated by two chairpersons of existing and experienced ISSD LSB groups to share their practical experiences. The AEFs have since identified two LSB groups per sub-county to be trained as LSBs. As mentioned above, Ngetta ZARDI is supporting foundation seed production through 7 LSBs. As cassava is such a key food security and income generating crop, PRELNOR has developed a community multiplication approach to supply larger volumes of improved varieties and make them available locally. So far, 100 FGs planted in 2018A season 427 acres of cassava, of which 418 acres are well established. These fields are being monitored regularly to ensure there are no mixed varieties and diseases problems, and they will be officially inspected by the National Seed Certification Services of MAAIF during and at the end of the season to ensure they can be sold as improved varieties when harvested.

The seed demand assessment recommended by the November 2017 mission has been conducted and data collected and analysed, but the report is not yet finished. It is critical that this is completed and used for planning purposes. A seed road map also needs to be developed so that demand for seeds locally can be matched to LSB production, and that the foundation seed needed by these LSBs will be available from the NARO.

Partnership with PlantWise. A new addition to the programme is the work with the MAAIF on supporting the PlantWise Plant Doctor extension approach. One training was conducted in August 2018 for 26 AEF (8 female and 18 male) and covered three areas of: Field diagnosis and operations of clinics; recommendations and the art of advice, and ICT in plant clinics or e-plant clinics. The trained AEFs will now organise and conduct plant clinic sessions during the 2019A season. With the advent of the fall army worm attack and spreading diseases like cassava brown streak, the mission commends the team for taking this approach.

Component B – Market Linkages and Infrastructure

The training on Farming as a Business (FAAB), Business Plans Development and Post-Harvest Handling (PHH) was conducted for CBFs, Agribusiness Staff and new AEFs in all districts from May to June. A total of 209 participants (37.8% female and 62.2% male), have been trained. These have in turn started to mentor FGs in agribusiness aspects and PHH.

Market linkages. The project had discussions with 4 produce buyers (Agri Exim (soybeans), Mount Meru Millers (soybeans), Harree (maize) and Bukona Agro-processors (cassava)). In the last season Agri Exim Ltd purchased 17 MT of soybeans from Paicho and Lalogi sub-counties from 8 farmers at a market price of UGX 1300-1,500. In total, UGX 23.8

6/38 million was received by the FGs. From 2019 Season A, Mt. Meru Millers is interested in entering into contract farming with FGs for soybeans, paying UGX 10 above the market price. Bukona agro-processors is opening a new factory with a production capacity of 70 MT of dried cassava and 20MT of fresh cassava per day.

Market sites identification: A total of 3 bulk and 8 satellite markets are planned for construction. These include sites in the Economic Development Clusters of Gulu, Kitgum and Elegu. For the proposed 3 bulk markets, all the 3 sites have been assessed and confirmed.

Procurement of contractors for Batch A of Community access roads (CARs). Evaluation of bids for construction of 614 km of CAR is in advanced stages. All the 9 districts have submitted their evaluation reports to the PMU for review. A total of 406 bids were received for the 50 lots, averaging 8 bids per lot. Actual works are expected to commence in February and be finalised by 31 August 2019. This is behind schedule as works were earlier planned to start in December 2018.

Design of CARs under Batch B: Procurement of design consultants for the 608.2 km Batch B CARs is at evaluation stage. Evaluation of the technical proposals has been done and issued with IFAD's no objection. Proceeding to opening of financial proposals is awaiting the decision of Contracts Committee in MoLG.

Batch C CARs: Technical Proposals for the design of the third batch of 350 km are currently being evaluated. Actual design work is expected to commence by 15 April 2019.

Road Management Committees (RMCs). Establishment and training of RMCs for batches B and C, is planned to be undertaken by end of January 2019. Guidelines for the establishment and operationalization of RMCs have been updated. These have been printed out into booklets for ease of reference and are ready to be communicated to the DLGs to enable them establish the committees. Formation and training of these committees is planned to be done by 31 January 2019.

Design of Strategic and Satellite Markets: The procurement process for consultants to carry out the designs of typical bulk and satellite markets is in advanced stages. The combined technical and financial evaluation has received IFAD's no objection is awaiting award of contract. The design process for both sets is planned to be completed by 15 May 2019.

The mission has noted with concern that delays in reviewing and evaluation of procurement documents by the MoLG's PDU and Contracts Committee, has led to delays in start of civil works. The earlier schedule on design and start of construction, agreed in May 2018, is being pushed forward by 3 to 6 months, and delays in procurement is one of the main reasons for this.

Rain Water Harvesting from CAR: A draft Request for Proposal (RFP) documents for procurement of Technical Assistance for the promotion of Rain Water Harvesting, is being prepared by the PMU. Selection of sites for water harvesting will be done jointly by the consultant and PMU, together with members of the RMCs.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Overview and Project Progress

On-farm trials ZARDIs 07/2018

Follow the mother and baby trial methodology as it should be and refine the on-farm adaptation trials and demonstrations

Participatory approaches ZARDIs 08/2018

Finalise the participatory approaches manual, including criteria to be used by the EAFs to evaluate the trials

First batch of 208 CBNRM PMU 08/2018

Fund first batch of 208 CBNRM plans through direct transfers

Link mentored households CDS / 10/2018 Agronomist Link mentored households to farmers groups to benefit from extension services

7/38 Seed production ZARDIs 10/2018

Develop a realist seed roadmaps of target crops for 2018/19 to 21/22 to guide seed production planning and align early generation seed production with quality seed multiplication

Agribusiness Agribusiness 12/2018 specialist Support FGs in forming marketing committees in the governance structure and give them the necessary skills in collective marketing and resource mobilisation.

Quality assurance ZARDIs 12/2018

Establish a quality assurance system to guarantee the quality of foundation seed distributed to farmers (field inspection, seed sampling and testing, labelling and bagging)

Capacity of MSPs ABS 12/2018

Constituting and building capacity of four MSPs for the four remaining satellite markets of Opit, Porogali 2, Lokole, and Pabbo

Collaboration PMU / IFAD 12/2018

Exploring opportunities for collaboration with NU-TEC on AMIS

PMU urgently follows-up on the 2-WT bidding process PMU 12/2018

Now and until finalised

NARO PMU 01/2019

Engage with NARO to apply the ISSD's LSB model with identified groups.

Develop business plan for provision of mechanisation services PMU 01/2019

Decide if ZARDIs continue to use the mother-baby trial approach or PMU 01/2019 not.

Develop seed map to inform programme activities in 2019 and PMU 01/2019 beyond

Procurement of Contractors for the construction of 614km of CARs PEs/PO 01/2019 under Batch A

Procurement of Consultants for the design of 3 bulk & 8 satellite PEs 01/2019 markets

Formation and training of RMCs for Batch B &C CARs PEs 01/2019

Land titles ABS 02/2019

Engaging with LGs to secure land titles for identified market sites

If needed, guide the ZARDIs on how to implement mother-baby trials. PMU 02/2019

8/38 Seed farm ZARDIs 06/2019

Establish a seed farm with a full-time seed production officer and provide a low-cost irrigation system to secure seed production

VSLAs PMU 12/2019

Encourage mentored households to join VSLAs

Farmer groups Agribusiness 12/2019 specialist Link farmer groups to current commodity value chain actors

Conduct exchange visits and farmer fields in at least each parish DLG/DFAs each season

During each season

Improve pre-season procurement process to ensure timely PMU establishment of demonstration and research plots.

9/38 E. Project implementation a. Development Effectiveness

Effectiveness and Developmental Focus

Effectiveness Rating: 3 Previous rating: 3

Justification of rating

Effectiveness so far is moderately satisfactory. While overall implementation is behind schedule especially with infrastructure, a lot of progress has been made in the procurement processes for consultants to design and construct/ rehabilitate. Once actual works commence, they will all be finalised in not more than 2 years.

Log-Frame Analysis & Main Issues of Effectiveness

The project is still far from meeting half of its targets. Only 15,957 households, have been reached out of the overall target of 64,000, with a few months towards MTR. Only 600 farmers' groups have graduated from capacity building and selection of 600 new groups is underway. A total of 2000 households (23% of overall target) have graduated, received food security grant and selection of another batch of 200households is underway. A total of 15,975 farmers have been trained in crop production practices and technologies and receive climate information services. A total of 191 community-based natural resources management plans have been funded. Construction of access roads is expected to begin in February 2019, while construction of markets will start in June 2019.

Delays in the procurement process and absence of full-time civil engineers for almost two years, are the main reasons why civil works have not yet started. With two engineers now fully on board and the procurement process for contractors to construct / rehabilitate the first batch of roads, and design consultants for the next two batches plus markets, the project is expected to have finalised all the civil works by 31 December 2020 (as per the roadmap indicated in Section E). While this is positive, such infrastructure would preferably be finalised earlier so as to integrate well with the component on agricultural production, so that increased produce is marketed through better access roads and market structures.

The project is, overall, reaching out to its intended target group. Geographic targeting is respected. It's on the quantitative outreach targets that the project is still behind schedule. At MTR, a decision will be made on whether to increase on the number of FGs and HHs to support per batch, in order to compensate for lost time.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Development Effectiveness

Conduct MTR (and decide on whether to increase on the number of IFAD and GoU 05/2019 FGs and HHs to support per batch)

populate all baseline figures, targets and update on performance PMU 06/2019

With the completion of the baseline report and the annual outcome survey and in preparation for forthcoming MTR, PMU should be able to populate all baseline figures, targets and update on performance.

Development Focus

Targeting and Outreach Rating: 5 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

Overall the project is reaching out to its intended target group. The selection criteria for mentored households and that of selecting farmer groups emphasise that vulnerable interest groups such as women, the youth, and people with disability should be prioritised. Women comprise majority of the beneficiaries and there is anecdotal evidence that youth are involved in farmers groups. The mentoring programmes, capacity building initiatives as well as the existence of mentors, community based facilitators, Agricultural extensions and the entire network of implementing agencies provides the communities with enabling environment. Deliberate integration of the project components during implementation will ensure that the right targets are reached with the right service at the right time.

Agreed by CPM and PAT.

10/38 Main issues

While targeting is already, outreach is still limited due to the overall delays in implementation. Only the first batches of 600 FGs and 2000 poor households have been supported by the project. Physical infrastructure, which is expected to reach most of the targeted beneficiaries is not yet on ground.

Gender equality & women's Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5 participation

Justification of rating

PRELNOR interventions provide opportunity for both men and women to participate in development processes. Sex- disaggregated data are collected on those indicators that require disaggregation. Through mentoring, mentees have developed positive mind-set and behavioural changes towards engaging in socio-economic activities. Change in gender relations in mentored households in terms of joint planning and decision making on household expenditure; and reduced gender based violence; and alcoholism is evident. The community natural resources management activities are aimed at restoring the environment, affording firewood to households; renewable energy stoves provide women with clean cooking environment. FGs and market oriented groups enable members majority of which are women to engage in business. Women and youth are in leadership positions as well as in community leadership structures as trainers, mentors and opinion leaders. The AEFs recruited are comprised of 36% females while household mentors are comprised of both males and females on 50:50 basis. Continued mainstreaming of the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) methodology in the project and undertaking gender analysis of the agricultural enterprises, ensures strong emphasis on improving intra- household gender issues and women empowerment. While there's anecdotal evidence of youth participation in project activities, the PMU and DLGs need to establish the actual figures.

The PMU has a dedicated Community Development Specialist and one of her key areas of focus is ensuring gender mainstreaming in the project.

Agreed by CPM and PAT.

Main issues

While the project is doing well regarding gender equality and women participation, no gender analysis of the selected value chains has been done to understand the implications. In addition, while there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of participation of young women and young men, there's no consolidated data on this at the PMU.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Development Effectiveness

participation of the youth CDS 01/2019

Establish the current participation of the youth throughout the programme components in terms of membership and engagement in leadership positions (consolidated at PMU)

gender analysis of the value chains CDS 09/2019

Undertake gender analysis of the value chains of the four selected enterprises and use this information to sensitise farmer groups

Agricultural Productivity Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The project has built the capacity of extension workers who, working together with NARO, have facilitated FGs to establish demonstrations of improved varieties of maize, beans, cassava and rice, with better agronomic practices. In addition, some of these demonstrations are functioning as multiplication sites for planting material, especially for cassava.

From the trials, there seems to be good potential for improved beans, cassava and rice varieties. Hopefully the next mission will be able to also report on increased production for farmers, given that the PMU will begin with the collection of crop production data from farmers.

Main issues

11/38 Though harvests have been made in the first trials, yield data was not yet consolidated to determine the increases in productivity for the different crop enterprises. The procurement of 2-wheel tractors and other equipment for ploughing and weeding, thereby increasing productivity, has delayed

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Development Effectiveness

data on yields Agronomist 03/2019

Consolidate data on yields from NARO trials and demonstration sites to determine the increase in productivity due to use of improved varieties and better agronomic practices

Nutrition Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

Assessment of nutrition security is embedded in the CBNRM-PRAs while nutrition interventions are integrated in the household mentoring methodology. The project has designated the Community Development Specialist, as the nutrition focal person in the PMU, responsible for coordinating mainstreaming of nutrition in the project.

PRELNOR is not nutrition sensitive at design, but it has the potential to become a nutrition-sensitive project. This would require: i) ensuring that the Bioversity training of trainers on improvement of family nutrition is further cascaded to farmer groups and households; ii) adding an indicator on the proportion of households with children aged 6-23 months that are consuming minimum acceptable diets (this can be added to the project M&E system, not necessarily in the log-frame given that the log-frame has just been revised); add a training on food and nutrition security for farmer groups.

Main issues

While nutrition is strong in household mentoring methodology, the majority of the project target group are not covering by this mentoring, and it's only recently that the PMU is moving to put more focus on mainstreaming it across the board. The PMU is partnering with Bio-diversity Uganda on this exercise.

Adaptation to Climate Change Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5

Justification of rating

The project is progressively contributing to adaptation and mitigation of climate change through several interventions. These include: afforestation and agroforestry; promoting energy saving cook stoves and solar PV systems; climate and weather information provision; drought tolerant and disease resistant varieties of maize, beans, rice and cassava; soil and water conservation; and conservation agriculture among others. Incorporating water harvesting and social forestry into the design and execution of community access roads (CARs) will contribute to climate resilience. To enhance the accuracy of climate and weather forecasts, there is need to integrate conventional climate and weather information with indigenous or local knowledge being applied by farmers, into extension provision.

Main issues

The project is investing in drought tolerant, disease resistant and early maturing varieties (of cassava, beans, maize, rice), and exposing farmers to them through training. Rural roads water harvesting and social forestry have been embedded into the design process of CARs and will contribute to climate adaptation. The project is encouraged to learn from the Upper Tana Nairobi Water Fund in Kenya, which has succeeded in harvesting water from rural roads and directing it into farmers' water pans for use in crop irrigation. Rehabilitation of six non-functional automatic weather stations has begun, with spare parts already delivered to the project, with UNMA providing technical support for the rehabilitation process. A contract for the supply of 15 new automatic weather stations has been awarded and the equipment delivered to the project. Installations are underway. Fencing off of some of the installation sites has also been done. To strengthen dissemination of climate and weather information among farmers and relevant stakeholders, a weather and climate information dissemination strategy was developed and shared with implementing partners.

UNMA has built the capacity of 185 district and sub-county focal persons to enable them disseminate agrometeorological information and to assist farmers in making informed farming decisions. A learning visit to Kenya undertaken in July 2018, has resulted in improvements in the devolution of climate and weather information from UNMA to smallholders, particularly in the provision of sector specific advisories and use of simple terms and language. To downscale agrometeorological information and improve the accuracy of forecasts, the project opened and is currently evaluating bids

12/38 for the supply of a server and computer to facilitate UNMA's data capture, analysis and dissemination. Preliminary findings of the evaluation of the bids indicated that the lowest bidder’s cost for the server was substantially higher than what was allocated for in the AWPB. There is need for PMU to follow up with UNMA on this to clarify technical specifications and market prices, vis a vis needs, and to allocate a budget as needed.

Farmers indicated they are appreciative of the project's efforts in disseminating climate and weather information through radio shows and extension provision. The advisories assist them in making informed decisions on cropping patterns and farming interventions at house hold and group/communal levels. There were concerns that the information is not always accurate. This concern is likely to be addressed to a large extent, by the installation of the server and computers, resulting in downscaling of information and forecasts. To further strengthen the accuracy of information and complement conventional information, the PMU and UNMA are encouraged to integrate indigenous/local climate and weather information with conventional information, as it was apparent that farmers are already using indigenous/local knowledge in making weather and climate related forecasts. This may be done through first identifying reliable indigenous or local indicators of climate and weather patterns (e.g. flora, fauna or environmental indicators) and integrating them with the conventional information into extension provision. b. Sustainability and Scaling up

Institutions and Policy Engagement Rating: N/A

Partnership-building Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The project is working with a variety of implementing partners including NARO's ZARDIs, UNMA and District Local Governments as part of the public sector on one hand, and DFAs and UNFFE which are non- state actors. These implementing agencies are currently working well in partnership. The project is partnering with PlantWise on the Plant Doctor extension approach and with WOCAT through Uganda Land Care on SLM.

In addition, the project has facilitated a few linkages between FGs and produce buyers , i.e. Agri Exim Ltd (soybeans), Mount Meru Millers Ltd (soybeans), Harree Millers Ltd (maize) and Bukona Agro processors Ltd (cassava). The initiative by NARO to partner with 7 Local Seed Businesses is also commendable. While these are still at early stages, it's a good opportunity for sustainable markets.

In addition to what is stated in this section of the report on the need to collaborate more with other key on-going projects in the region, PRELNOR also needs to make more efforts in partnering with the private sector to improve market access for the supported farmer groups.

Human and Social Capital and Rating: 5 Previous rating: 4 Empowerment

Justification of rating

Household mentoring has enabled members of poor households to gain self-esteem, worth and confidence. Mentoring expands the capacities of individuals to develop direction for the future and regain positions/respect in society. The training of farmer groups in farming as a business, training of group leaders in group governance issues builds their leadership and management abilities. The CBNRM activities strengthens community’s ability to decide on environmental issues, the training of PMTCs in community procurement and the fact that they manage community bank accounts builds their management capacities. The training of local Artisans gives them technical skills to manage O&M of renewable energy sites as businesses. The training of Roads User Committees and Committees of market platforms provides organisational and managerial capacities. The availability of mentors, community based facilitators and agricultural extension facilitators in communities, expands community technical capacities.

Agreed by CPM and PAT.

Main issues

Going forward, the project will need to streamline the sustainability of these organisational and individual capacities through continued coaching, supervision and monitoring and integration of these actors in other development activities. Regarding training of FGs, the project has tended to apply a uniform package yet, these groups are at different stages.

13/38 Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Sustainability and Scaling up

future training needs PMU 03/2019

Develop a group capacity assessment tool to determine future training needs and to decide when each group can move from being a FG to an agri-business group

Quality of Beneficiary Participation Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

Entry into villages starts with participatory rural appraisal exercises including transect walks, community resource mapping and poverty ranking which leads to selection of households to be mentored, farmer groups and issues for CBRNM plan. CBRNM planning and identification of sites for markets and community access roads involves community meetings, consultations, dialoguing and decision making. Beneficiaries have selected enterprises to engage in. Through the voucher system they have selected and bought the inputs they want, selected meeting and training days/dates and willingly participated in the ongoing project activities.

Good participation of communities in component A would justify a 5. However, the fact that there are no proper records that communities provided consent for the roads calls for a 4. The mission recommended actions to redress the issue, and hopefully beneficiary participation will be increased to 5 at the next mission.

Main issues

The project will however need to put in place participatory monitoring mechanisms to enable beneficiaries to monitor and give feedback on project implementation.

Responsiveness of Service Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5 Providers

Justification of rating

All service providers, DLGs, DFAs, UNMA, and NARO's ZARDIs are doing a commendable job. Existence of Household Mentors, Community Based Facilitators and Agricultural Extension Officers at the community level makes them accessible to the communities. These front –line workers are of high quality and further training provided to them like in areas of gender mainstreaming, mentoring approach and Girls methodology provides them with multiple skills to offer quality services to communities. Of particular note are the household mentors who have done a great job in changing the mind- sets of the household members they have mentored.

Main issues

DLGs however need to improve on timeliness as some, in a few have been slow to implement project activities. The performance of the Contracts Committee, in MoLG has been wanting as project procurements are delayed even when submitted in time.

Environment and Natural Resource Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4 Management

Justification of rating

Good effort has gone into sustainable natural resource management through various interventions, particularly the CBNRMPs, RETs as well as the SLM practices being tested by WOCAT. So far, 216 plans have been developed and 191 financed. Institutional RETs are being promoted in the form of energy saving cook stoves, solar PV systems and biogas. WOCAT, through Uganda Land Care, continues to complement the project's work in SLM, and have identified and documented 80 SLM technologies for scale up. Further, CARs are incorporating social forestry and rural roads water harvesting into their designs and implementation. With regards to CBNRMPs, there is need to systematically monitor their outcomes, diversify investment options, and to promote viable enterprises as a sustainability mechanism.

PRELNOR is doing a lot on NRM, with the development of NRM plans (424 out of an MTR target of 300); rainwater harvesting; efficient cook stoves, etc. This rating can hopefully be upgraded to 5 at the next mission if evidence on the outcomes of these activities is made available.

14/38 Main issues

A total of 216 CBNRMPs have been developed and 191 (96% of annual target) of these financed. The second batch of 200 plans are being developed. The project intends to regularly monitor and report on the implementation of CBNRM plans through District Local Governments and DFAs. PMU should clearly define the monitoring parameters (such as survival rate of seedlings) and develop a data collection checklist or tool, as well as build the capacity of the local government and DFAs to undertake proper monitoring and reporting on changes and trends.

Field visits showed that most CBNRMPs mainly focused on tree planting or establishment of woodlots. Teak was the most promoted tree species due to its ability to tolerate drought conditions. There is need to expand and diversify the activities promoted in CBNRMPs to include additional interventions such as cook stoves, water harvesting, etc. PMU should explore the possibility of supporting viable enterprises (e.g. fabrication of cook stoves, shea butter commercialisation, tree nurseries etc.) out of the various CBRMPs, as for income generation and sustainability. To reinforce learning and household uptake, the PMU is encouraged to integrate sustainable NRM into HH methodologies such as the vision journey. CBNRMPs have their own incentives, benefit sharing and governance mechanisms for community or group based resources. This is positive. Nevertheless, challenges such as stray animals and bush fires, remain, thus the need for continued mitigation actions as proposed in the CBNRMPs.

To date, 42 RETs, including 1 biogas plant, 15 solar PV systems and 26 energy saving cook stoves have been installed in public institutions. The first batch of 2000 cook stoves are expected to be delivered to vulnerable households by December 2018. The project has sensitised and trained 84 institutional beneficiaries and 50 local artisans on the construction, use and maintenance of installed cook stoves. In collaboration with the Ministry of Energy, the project has also linked beneficiaries to certified technical experts and suppliers of spare parts. Beneficiaries reported that RETs have led to a reduction of fuelwood use by 50-60%, thus reducing pressure on woodlots and communal tree cover. Efficiency gains have contributed to reductions in half the cooking time and costs, as well as better health due to minimised indoor pollution during cooking. Solar PV beneficiaries reported better class attendance by pupils, improved security, and better health care. A data collection tool has been prepared to collect fuel consumption data for institutions. The M&E team should expand this tool to cover household level energy use data such as fuel consumption, socioeconomic benefits and other health related outcomes.

The World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), through their local partners, Uganda Land Care, continues to complement the project's work in SLM, and have identified and documented 80 SLM technologies for scale up. A training of trainers in the DESIRE methodology was carried out to facilitate the identification and prioritization of SLM technologies that are suitable for beneficiaries.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Sustainability and Scaling up

Explore development of viable enterprises from successful PMU, Environment 01/2019 CBRMPs, as a sustainability mechanism and Climate Officer

Diversify interventions PMU, Environment 01/2019 and Climate Officer Diversify interventions promoted in CBRMPs beyond tree planting, based on community preferences in their submitted plans

data collection and monitoring tool Environment and 08/2019 Climate Officer and Develop a data collection and monitoring tool or checklist and train M&E officer district local governments and extension official to collect data on the outcomes of CBRMPs

Exit Strategy Rating: 4

Justification of rating

Now that mid term has passed, it is important that PRELNOR develops an exit strategy that clearly identifies who and how will take responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of each of the project's results, and what processes need to be put in place by PRELNOR before completion. In particular, in order to sustain results for the most vulnerable beneficiaries it seems important that PRELNOR increases efforts to include the mentored vulnerable households in farmer groups.

Potential for Scaling-up Rating: 4

15/38 Justification of rating

PRELNOR has put in place several interesting innovations that are highlighted in the section above. As noted in the report, It would be worthwhile to track results, capture lessons and scale them up in similar investments. However, according to the rating guidelines, a 5 requires that government or other development partners have already shown concrete interest in scaling up these interventions, and that the project is consistently gathering and documenting evidence to support scaling up. Since this does not seem to have happened yet, a 4 is more appropriate for the time being. c. Project Management

Quality of Project Management Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

Project management is moderately satisfactory. Staffing is now full with 2 full-time engineers and 2 accounts staff having joined since July 2018. Implementation of the 2018/19 AWPB is however is behind schedule with budget performance at 14%, five months into the year. The bulk of the allocation is however for infrastructure and about 70% of the rehabilitation works for first batch of 614 km of community access roads, is expected to be complete by the end of the year.

Given serious delays in component B and the inefficiencies noted in the report, this rating is actually between a 4 and a 3 and would need to be downgraded at the next mission if the issues are not redressed.

Main issues

Coordination and linkages among components and processes, still need to be improved at both the PMU and DLG levels. In some few districts, there's 'personalisation' of project resources including vehicles by the PSOs, while in others, these vehicles have been taken over by senior District Officials. The mission has been informed that the PMU and PS MoLG, are handling these cases.

Management of operating costs and advances are areas where the Project Coordinator needs to take personal interest and address them. Actions to be taken on this are indicated under Fiduciary aspects.

Knowledge Management Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The programme has inbuilt knowledge sharing and communication strategy. The project publishes newspaper articles. Lessons learnt are captured during monthly, quarterly review meetings and routine field technical backstopping of partners and front-line implementers. Quarterly review meetings have been useful in solving implementation, coordination and communication challenges. Knowledge management can improve by putting in place clear guidelines to document lessons learnt and focusing more on knowledge translation, packaging and learning from stakeholder engagements.

KM activities would need to focus more on the innovations.

Main issues

The regular review meeting in districts however, do not enhance quality and timely reporting as expected despite the fact that PMU staff have attended and endeavoured to standardise the agenda for these meetings. As was observed in the last mission, there are a variety of lessons which are not documented because there are no clear guidelines for documenting these lessons and yet project implementers seem not to be conversant with developing lessons from implementation

Value for Money Rating: 3 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The project’s cost of activities are in line with the planned costs. Where minor cost differences have occurred they have been a result of market dynamics and are not a constraint to implementation.

The PMU needs to better manage the efficiency of its operations given that it had spent 64% of its funds on operating costs. The recommendation to include a section on Value for Money in the Annual Project Report to which all component leads will contribute is an interesting approach, and it would be interesting to see whether this will help increasing the

16/38 PMU's focus on VfM and redress inefficiencies noted in the Project management section.

Main issues

As the project is pre-MTR, cost efficiency analysis has been used. The analysis shows there is cost efficiency although for now, this has mostly been for pre-investment interventions as the major investments under this project; roads and market infrastructure have not been undertaken. The cost of operations has been high compared to the cost of investments under the project. Actions to be taken are indicated under Financial Management and Execution.

Coherence between AWPB and Rating: 3 Previous rating: 3 Implementation

Justification of rating

The coherence between the AWPB and implementation for the 2018/19 financial year is moderately unsatisfactory, so far, at 14%, in five months. While civil works for the first batch of access roads were envisaged to begin in December 2018, the target start-time has now been revised to February 2019. The major drivers of expenditure are related to procurement, which has generally delayed.

With AWPB financial execution at 37% two months before the end of the fiscal year, and considerable delays in component B, a 3 would seem to be more suitable. According to the guidelines, about 70% of project activities should conform to AWPB for a rating of 4.

AWPB Inputs and Outputs Review and Implementation Progress

The 2018/19 AWPB was, as at 30 November, 2018 executed at UGX 5.66 billion representing 14% of UGX 40.49 billion approved budget. Civil works category that were allocated UGX 8.66 billion (21% of annual budget) is spent at 1%. As evaluation of bids for the first batch of roads is almost completed, at least 70% of the rehabilitation/ construction works of 614km will be completed by end of the financial year, which will somehow improve performance under civil works. Identification of the next batches of 2000 Households for mentoring and 600 FGs was still on-going at the time of the mission.

The project has had financial management challenges in the past until recently, when a new Financial Controller was recruited. The PMU took time to finalise the AWPB as there had been several mis-postings among categories and significant reversal and to be made before processing WAs. These, in addition to delays in procurement largely by MoLG's contract committee, have negatively affected the pace of implementation. Actions to address these issues are indicated under Financial Management and Execution

Performance of M&E System Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

An M&E plan has been developed detailing the theory of change, project log frame, M&E framework, data flow diagrams and reporting guidelines that require implementers to report on what was planned, what was achieved, cumulative progress, key challenges, lessons learnt and plans for next quarter. The PMET Database has been updated to capture key deliverables. PMU has harnessed the existing data sets to develop baseline figures of project indicators. An annual outcome survey is currently being undertaken to capture data on immediate outcomes of project interventions especially those associate with mentoring and production. Regular monitoring and supervision is undertaken by actors at different levels of the project. District Local Governments and Sub counties interact with front-line implementers regularly.

It looks like there are outcomes from project activities, but these are not reported yet, so it is good to see outcome surveys among the agreed actions. The project could consider using the AOS methodology piloted by APR, there are good and clear guidelines that can be useful. The section on effectiveness mentions changes made to the ASAP indicators. Has this been discussed with ECG? (generally we are not allowed to make changes to ASAP indicators given that these indicators are used to report to DFID). Delays by RIA are a problem that occurred in other projects in the region as well and PAT will follow up with them to see how we can avoid this in the future.

M&E System Review

The quality and timeliness of reporting needs to be improved by: standardising the agenda of quarterly meeting; having reporting templates coherent to project outputs/outcomes and indicators; tagging replenishments of funds to DLGs and partners to quality physical performance reports; and ensuring that data is periodically collected, entered into the data base and reports being generated on time. These reports can improve implementation through taking necessary strategic actions timely.

17/38 Requirements of Social, Rating: 3 Previous rating: 5 Environmental and Climate Assessment Procedures (SECAP)

Justification of rating

At the design phase, an environment and social review note (ESRN) for PRELNOR was developed in line with IFAD's environmental and social procedures, and the project assigned a category B status. The ESRN identified potential environmental and social impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The project has made impressive strides towards mitigating risks. The ESIAs developed for the CARs are very detailed and have clear risk mitigation actions, as well as ESMPs to guide implementation and monitoring. Various project interventions are mitigating risks and these include, CBNRMPs, dissemination of weather and climate information, drought and disease tolerant crop varieties, and post- harvest handling. The PMU should monitor the implementation of ESMPs to ensure compliance and risk mitigation.

Agreed by CPM and PAT.

SECAP Review

An ESRN was prepared at the design phase of the project, and it comprehensively articulated the potential environmental and social risks as well as mitigation actions. Various project interventions are mitigating risks and these include, CBNRMPs, dissemination of weather and climate information, drought and disease tolerant crop varieties, and post- harvest loss management through improved handling. A climate and weather information dissemination strategy has been developed to systematically empower farmers in their decision making on cropping patterns based on climate and weather information. At the design stage, the project's risk levels were considered minor, largely due to construction of community rural access roads (CARs). The design of the CARs embeds environment and social impact assessments as well as the development of environment and social management plans (ESMPs) to guide risk mitigation and monitoring. The ESMPs provide details on mitigation actions, monitoring requirements, responsible entities and timelines. Thus, the PMU should work closely with the implementing partners and service providers to ensure that the ESMPs are implemented and that progress is periodically monitored.

Furthermore, a review of the CBNRMPs revealed that communities are aware of their environmental and social challenges (such as drought, bush fires, deforestation , social conflicts etc.), and have inbuilt cultural and social mechanisms to mitigate them. For instance, some communities have bylaws to enforce and mitigate actions to deal with challenges associated with stray animals in the villages. The plans also have a section on gender screening, where communities bring out the involvement of men and women in identification of interventions, and implementation. This is indeed commendable. In spite of this, bush fires and deforestation (particularly of indigenous trees) remain widespread challenges in the project area, even with the introduction of tree planting within CBNRMPs. PMU in collaboration with district local government need to pay more attention to this and explore remedial measures in addition to the CBNRMPs. d. Financial Management & Execution

Disbursement by financier

Type Name Current Disbursed Actual Amount Amount Rate

Domestic Financing breakdown Beneficiaries $1,494,000

National Government $9,290,000

Acceptable Disbursement Rate Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The project is in its fourth year (MTR) of implementation and its loan disbursement rate is 25% while the ASAP grant is 33% disbursed. Compared to disbursement of a project with the same disbursement profile, the rate of disbursement is considered moderately unsatisfactory. The Project has managed to reach a commitment level of USD 14.9 million mainly under the category of works. This is, in spite of the time lost at the start of the project in fully constituting the PMU and finalising various memorandum of understanding with implementing partners. However, when WAs in the pipeline and firm commitments are included, the disbursement rate increases to 61% (IFAD) and 39% (ASAP grant).

Main issues

Although no expenditure category is overdrawn by MTR, the category for operating costs is at 64% (as at 30 April 2019)

18/38 leaving a balance of about USD 1.6 million for the remaining period. The minimum amount that is needed without factoring in any price adjustments is USD 3.26 million. Therefore, some reallocation of funds across expenditure categories is required. Overall, the project staff should improve on cost control. While the ratio of recurrent costs to total costs stands at 30% at the moment, this is largely due to the fact that disbursements for roads and markets have not yet started although most of the project management arrangements are in place. For the future, there is need to put in place some budget controls so that no expenditure can be incurred unless there is balance funds in the respective budget line. PRELNOR is a government project, DSA rates must be aligned to those of mainstream Government rates for the future.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Financial Management & Execution

Management of operating costs PC/FC 12/2018

Manage operations with principle of economy, fielding only the required cadre of staff by skill and numbers and coordinating movements to reduce costs on per-diem and fuel

Align DSA PC/FC

Align DSA related rates of PRELNOR to Government of Uganda approved Rates.

Strengthen the budget controls PC/FC

Strengthen the budget controls (and overall cost control). No expenditure should be incurred unless it has provision and balance in the approved budget

Fiduciary aspects

Quality of Financial Management Rating: 4 Previous rating: 4

Justification of rating

The PMU has a dedicated strong and professionally qualified finance team. The software is capable of handling project accounting needs but is not being fully used. The amount in the SoEs submitted to IFAD do not match the accounts in the Pastel system. Therefore there is discrepancy between IFAD and PMU records. The quality of financial management is moderately satisfactory. The current financial system is not fully programmed and integrated into the M&E system to track the cost of each output. Budget controls are not strong in terms of accounting system being able to stop payment that is not in the approved budget or that has run out of funds. Committed funds for a specific contract or purpose are not encumbered which could lead to over committing project funds in some categories.

Main issues

Budget and expenditure controls must be better managed in the post-MTR period. This includes encumbering funds at the point of entering a commitment. SOEs submitted to IFAD must necessarily be sourced from the accounting system. There should not be incidents where cumulative expenditure as per IFAD system cannot be reconciled to the project financial reports/ accounting system. The roll-on of IFMS is delayed but has not affected project implementation. However, project management reported significant delays in the processing of withdrawal applications ever since the use of IFAD Client Portal system (ICP) was launched.

19/38 Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Financial Management & Execution

Filing of activity reports FC 12/2018

Supporting documents to all justifications should be complete with activities and dates indicated on requests, registration forms, payment forms and reports absence of which should render an accountability incomplete

Acquittal of advances PC/FC 12/2018

Working advances should be accounted for within one month after completion of an activity. Working advances should not be advanced to staff prior to justification of due advances previously extended

Solve withdraw application delay MFPED & IFAD Delays in the processing of withdrawal applications submitted through the IFAD Client Portal system (ICP) should be rectified.

Follow up on a double payment PC

PMU should follow up the refund of the double payment made to the AWS contractor from ASAP grant

Reconcile SOEs FC

SOE submitted to IFAD must be necessarily sourced and fully reconciled to the accounting system. The existing discrepancy of about USD 110,000 on the IFAD loan should be fully reconciled.

Improve budget control Finance team

Improve budget controls including encumbering funds at the point of entering a commitment

Quality and Timeliness of Audit Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5

Justification of rating

The audit report is well prepared and compliant with IFAD requirements

Main issues The report was received with a slight delay; the ML was not included in the report and received later in february. Apart from the delay in submission, the audit report is well prepared incompliance with acceptable standards and informative, especially with regard to the gaps in internal controls and review of expenditures. The report contains a detailed analysis of GoU funds which were used for non-project related activities. This analysis is considered to be a good practice. The ML does not include the follow up on previous year recommendations. This aspect shall be imporved in future audits.

Counterparts Funds Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5

Justification of rating

GoU has been providing required funds to meet taxes and duties on a timely basis and has since inception financed (USD 0.5 million) 5% of the allocated USD 9.29 million at design. If an estimate of the office space provided for PMU is factored in another USD 50,000 can be credited to GoU cumulatively increasing the contribution to 6%. Counterpart financing is considered satisfactory because these apparent low amounts are not because GoU has not met its commitment but rather the tax element in transactions is still low because works have not yet started disbursing

Main issues

20/38 With the guidance provided by the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) in terms of how to deal with VAT in donor aided projects like PRELNOR, no cash flow will be involved but rather paper clearance processes will be tracked. With a significant amount already commitment for Batch A roads, VAT alone to be covered under this arrangement will amount to UGX 8.2 billion (USD 2.2 million). The VAT circular guidance provided by the PS/ST, MFPED regarding how to deal with VAT on donor aided projects including PRELNOR must be fully explained to contractors especially those under works for avoidance of any doubts as the PMU had expressed.

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Financial Management & Execution

Collect and report realized beneficiary contribution PC/FC/M&E Specialist and component leads. Using guidance provided in the PIM, collect and report beneficiary contribution being realized during implementation

Train contractors on VAT treatment PC/FC/Procurement Officer Train all contractors especially those who works on the treatment of VAT for donor aided projects such as PRELNOR.

Compliance with Loan Covenants Rating: 5 Previous rating: 5

Justification of rating

The Project is being implemented in compliance with the financing agreement. Outstanding items from the previous missions were absence of a fully delegated project contracts committee, the set-up of accounting software which has been implemented and the set- up of the M&E system is completed but baseline survey is yet to be completed. Delays in the finalisation of the baseline survey has been attributed to incomplete processes of SKD's RIA that took over the responsibility.

Main issues

A summary of compliance status is shown at appendix 3.

Procurement

Procurement Rating: 3 Previous rating: 3

Justification of rating

Procurement continues to be a constraint to implementation due to delays in approval processes, including a requirement to have all procurements above UGX 200 handled by the MoLG PDU and Contracts Committee. The right procurement procedures are however adhered to.

The procurement consultant delivered a very good quality technical report which candidly lays out all weaknesses identified at mid term together with mitigating strategies to address them. The required actions are quite numerous and will unlikely succeed unless extremely close supervision and monitoring of the actions is ensured by the country team. Among the major concerns are non-compliance with both IFAD and national regulations, inadequate contract management, incomplete/incorrect bidding documentation and difficulties in document retrieval (meaning lack of evidence for many procedures). Post review of 10% of all contracts, as required under the Manual showed major shortcomings in the procedures relating to smaller value procurement.

Procurement Review

The Procurement Officer has developed a contract register and contract monitoring forms that have been updated. It is however noted that procurement continues to be a constraint to implementation due to delays in approval processes, including a requirement to have all procurements above UGX 200 handled by the MoLG PDU and Contracts Committee. The requirement to have bigger contracts handled at the MoLG Headquarters is not only time consuming but is also costly as officers have to move between PMU in Gulu and MoLG Headquarters throughout the entire procurement cycle. Besides, the UGX 200 million threshold is a contravention of financing agreement covenant that requires establishment of a Project Contracts Committee, based in Gulu, with fully delegated powers.

21/38 The agreed action to sort this challenge is the same as above on Loan covenants.

22/38 F. Relevance

Relevance Rating: 5

Justification of rating

Agreed by CPM and PAT.

23/38 G. Lessons Learned

Deforestation, community action

PRELNOR 2017 report: The report mentions interestingly that groups the mission interacted with expressed a good understanding of deforestation and how that interacted with climate change and impacted upon their lives in a negative a manner. CBNRM maps that were shared clearly showed that the community had highlighted their natural assets and were developing local bylaws to protect them. One group the mission met with has already instituted a rule where an individual needs to show that they have planted five trees before the community will consider letting them cut down a mature tree. H. Agreed Actions

Agreed Action Responsibility Agreed Date

Overview and Project Progress

On-farm trials ZARDIs 07/2018

Follow the mother and baby trial methodology as it should be and refine the on-farm adaptation trials and demonstrations

Participatory approaches ZARDIs 08/2018

Finalise the participatory approaches manual, including criteria to be used by the EAFs to evaluate the trials

First batch of 208 CBNRM PMU 08/2018

Fund first batch of 208 CBNRM plans through direct transfers

Link mentored households CDS / Agronomist 10/2018

Link mentored households to farmers groups to benefit from extension services

Seed production ZARDIs 10/2018

Develop a realist seed roadmaps of target crops for 2018/19 to 21/22 to guide seed production planning and align early generation seed production with quality seed multiplication

Agribusiness Agribusiness 12/2018 specialist Support FGs in forming marketing committees in the governance structure and give them the necessary skills in collective marketing and resource mobilisation.

Quality assurance ZARDIs 12/2018

Establish a quality assurance system to guarantee the quality of foundation seed distributed to farmers (field inspection, seed sampling and testing, labelling and bagging)

Capacity of MSPs ABS 12/2018

Constituting and building capacity of four MSPs for the four remaining satellite markets of Opit, Porogali 2, Lokole, and Pabbo

24/38 Collaboration PMU / IFAD 12/2018

Exploring opportunities for collaboration with NU-TEC on AMIS

PMU urgently follows-up on the 2-WT bidding process PMU 12/2018

Now and until finalised

NARO PMU 01/2019

Engage with NARO to apply the ISSD's LSB model with identified groups.

Develop business plan for provision of mechanisation services PMU 01/2019

Decide if ZARDIs continue to use the mother-baby trial approach PMU 01/2019 or not.

Develop seed map to inform programme activities in 2019 and PMU 01/2019 beyond

Procurement of Contractors for the construction of 614km of PEs/PO 01/2019 CARs under Batch A

Procurement of Consultants for the design of 3 bulk & 8 satellite PEs 01/2019 markets

Formation and training of RMCs for Batch B &C CARs PEs 01/2019

Land titles ABS 02/2019

Engaging with LGs to secure land titles for identified market sites

If needed, guide the ZARDIs on how to implement mother-baby PMU 02/2019 trials.

Seed farm ZARDIs 06/2019

Establish a seed farm with a full-time seed production officer and provide a low-cost irrigation system to secure seed production

VSLAs PMU 12/2019

Encourage mentored households to join VSLAs

Farmer groups Agribusiness 12/2019 specialist Link farmer groups to current commodity value chain actors

Conduct exchange visits and farmer fields in at least each DLG/DFAs parish each season

During each season

Improve pre-season procurement process to ensure timely PMU establishment of demonstration and research plots.

25/38 Development Effectiveness participation of the youth CDS 01/2019

Establish the current participation of the youth throughout the programme components in terms of membership and engagement in leadership positions (consolidated at PMU) data on yields Agronomist 03/2019

Consolidate data on yields from NARO trials and demonstration sites to determine the increase in productivity due to use of improved varieties and better agronomic practices

Conduct MTR (and decide on whether to increase on the number IFAD and GoU 05/2019 of FGs and HHs to support per batch) populate all baseline figures, targets and update on performance PMU 06/2019

With the completion of the baseline report and the annual outcome survey and in preparation for forthcoming MTR, PMU should be able to populate all baseline figures, targets and update on performance. gender analysis of the value chains CDS 09/2019

Undertake gender analysis of the value chains of the four selected enterprises and use this information to sensitise farmer groups

Sustainability and Scaling up

Explore development of viable enterprises from successful PMU, Environment 01/2019 CBRMPs, as a sustainability mechanism and Climate Officer

Diversify interventions PMU, Environment 01/2019 and Climate Officer Diversify interventions promoted in CBRMPs beyond tree planting, based on community preferences in their submitted plans future training needs PMU 03/2019

Develop a group capacity assessment tool to determine future training needs and to decide when each group can move from being a FG to an agri-business group data collection and monitoring tool Environment and 08/2019 Climate Officer and Develop a data collection and monitoring tool or checklist and train M&E officer district local governments and extension official to collect data on the outcomes of CBRMPs

Financial Management & Execution

Management of operating costs PC/FC 12/2018

Manage operations with principle of economy, fielding only the required cadre of staff by skill and numbers and coordinating movements to reduce costs on per-diem and fuel

26/38 Filing of activity reports FC 12/2018

Supporting documents to all justifications should be complete with activities and dates indicated on requests, registration forms, payment forms and reports absence of which should render an accountability incomplete

Acquittal of advances PC/FC 12/2018

Working advances should be accounted for within one month after completion of an activity. Working advances should not be advanced to staff prior to justification of due advances previously extended

Align DSA PC/FC

Align DSA related rates of PRELNOR to Government of Uganda approved Rates.

Strengthen the budget controls PC/FC

Strengthen the budget controls (and overall cost control). No expenditure should be incurred unless it has provision and balance in the approved budget

Collect and report realized beneficiary contribution PC/FC/M&E Specialist and Using guidance provided in the PIM, collect and report beneficiary component leads. contribution being realized during implementation

Train contractors on VAT treatment PC/FC/Procurement Officer Train all contractors especially those who works on the treatment of VAT for donor aided projects such as PRELNOR.

Solve withdraw application delay MFPED & IFAD

Delays in the processing of withdrawal applications submitted through the IFAD Client Portal system (ICP) should be rectified.

Follow up on a double payment PC

PMU should follow up the refund of the double payment made to the AWS contractor from ASAP grant

Reconcile SOEs FC

SOE submitted to IFAD must be necessarily sourced and fully reconciled to the accounting system. The existing discrepancy of about USD 110,000 on the IFAD loan should be fully reconciled.

Improve budget control Finance team

Improve budget controls including encumbering funds at the point of entering a commitment

27/38 Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region

Logical Framework

Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Outreach 1.b Estimated corresponding total number of households members PMU Reports Quarterly PMU

Household 0 426 250 852 500 239 525 476 520 55.9 members

1.a Corresponding number of households reached PMU Reports Quarterly PMU

Non-women- 0 46 500 93 000 26 130 51 984 55.9 headed households

Women-headed 0 31 000 62 000 17 420 34 656 55.9 households

Households 0 77 500 155 000 43 550 86 640 55.9

1 Persons receiving services promoted or supported by the project PMU Reports Quarterly PMU

Males 0 204 600 409 200 114 972 228 730 55.9

Females 0 221 650 443 300 124 553 247 790 55.9

Young 0 63 938 127 875 35 929 71 478 55.9

Not Young 0 362 313 724 625 203 596 405 042 55.9

Indigenous people

Total number of 0 426 250 852 500 239 525 476 520 55.9 persons receiving services

Groups receiving project services PMU Reports Quarterly PMU

Groups 0 900 1 800 1 050 1 624 90.2

28/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Project Goal Households with Increased Household Consumption (Food and non-food good) Baseline Economic policies Increased income, food security study/Impact continue to and reduced vulnerability of poor Males 70 emphasize poverty rural households in the project reduction and focus area Females 50 resources on disadvantaged Young 60 northern areas Not young 50 (R/A)

Households 60

Dietary Diversity Index Baseline studyImpact Improvement 60

Households with Improved Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

Households 60

Young 60

Males 70

Not Young 50

Females 50

People supported in coping with the effects of climate change DLG/DFA/ECS Quarterly PMU Reports Males 0 171 600 343 200 114 972 228 730 66.6

Females 0 185 900 371 800 124 553 247 790 66.6

Households 0 357 500 715 000 239 525 476 520 66.6

Development Objective Increase in households with increased share of production volumes sold in the markets Civil unrest in the Increased sustainable area doesbnot production, productivity and reoccur. (R) Limited climate resilience of smallholder local government farmers with increased and and private sector profitable access to domestic and capacity does not export markets. limit field implementation.(A)

29/38 implementation.(A) Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification TheA psrsoujemcpt tions beneficiaries utilize Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility the knowledge and Term Target Result Result Result % skills given during (2018) (2018) (2018) the trainings (A)

Households 70

Women headed 40 households

Non-women 60 headed households

Households reporting an increase in profits

Households 60

Non-women 70 headed households

Women headed 50 households

Outcome 1.2.4 Households reporting an increase in production A Poor farm families have increased resilience through Households 0 60 sustainable use of natural resources and improved Young agricultural productivity Not Young

Women-headed 0 50 households

Non-women- 0 70 headed households

3.2.2 Households reporting adoption of environmentally sustainable and climate-resilient Outcome Annually PMU technologies and practices Survey

Households 60

30/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Young

Not Young

Women-headed households

Non-women- headed households

1.2.2 Households reporting adoption of new/improved inputs, technologies or practices

Households

Young

Not Young

Women-headed households

Non-women- headed households

Household reporting an increase in production (RIMS) Annually PMU

Households 60

Male-headed HH 70

Women-headed 50 HH

Young 60

Not young 50

Households reporting adoption of new/improved inputs, technologies or practices Outcome Annually PMU (RIMS) Survey

31/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Households 60

Non-women- 50 headed HH

Women-headed 70 HH

Young 60

Not young 50

Output Farmer groups graduate from capacity building Project resources at A.1a - Capacity of Farmer village level can Groups to plan and implement Farmer groups 0 810 1 620 574 574 35.4 strengthen group group activities built capacity (A) Farmer groups 0 45 90 32 32 35.6 Suitable agricultural related income Community - based Natural Resource Management plans in place generating activities Plans 0 300 600 207 424 70.7 are available (A)

Output Vulnerable HH have graduated from Mentoring and provided with food security grant HH mentoring can A.1b - Capacity of vulnerable worth USD120 resolve main issues households to identify and solve / constraints (A) their problems strengthened. Households 0 5 000 10 000 2 000 4 000 40

Female headed 0 3 000 6 000 1 200 2 400 40

Male headed 0 2 000 4 000 800 1 600 40

Young 0 750 1 500 0 0 0

Not Young 0 4 250 8 500 0 0 0

Output Land under climate-resilient practices CBNRM Annually AS/ECS/CDS A.2a - Priority crop production Plans/Extension systems are more climate Land area 0 100 000 200 000 92 108 92 108 46.1 Field Monitoring resilient Reports

32/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Farmer groups engaged in climate risk management activities "CBNRM Quarterly DFA/DLG Plans/Extension Groups 0 900 1 800 1 050 1 624 90.2 Field Monitoring Reports; Group members 0 14 040 28 080 0 10 383 37 - female

Group members 0 12 960 25 920 0 5 592 21.6 - male

Group members 0 27 000 54 000 0 15 975 29.6 - total

1.1.4 Persons trained in production practices and/or technologies

Men trained in 0 12 960 25 920 0 5 592 21.6 crop

Women trained 0 14 040 28 080 0 10 383 37 in crop

Young people 0 4 050 8 100 0 0 0 trained in crop

Not young 0 22 950 45 900 0 0 0 people trained in crop

Total persons 0 27 000 54 000 0 15 975 29.6 trained in crop

Poor smallholder household members supported in coping with the effects of climate change

Males 0 171 600 343 200 114 972 228 730 66.6

Females 0 185 900 371 800 124 553 247 790 66.6

Total household 0 357 500 715 000 239 525 476 520 66.6 members

Individuals engaged in NRM and climate risk management activities

33/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Total 0 357 500 715 000 239 525 476 520 66.6

Males 0 171 600 343 200 114 972 228 730 66.6

Females 0 185 900 371 800 124 553 247 790 66.6

Output Community-based Natural Resource Management plans implemented and funded DLG & DFA Quarterly DNRO, DFA A2.b - Natural Resource Reports Coordinators Management initiatives which Plans 0 300 600 26 217 36.2 complement resilient crop production systems implemented Farmer Groups supported with small scale water harvesting facilities Farmer Groups 0 50 100 0 0 0

Institutions and mentored households benefitting from renewable energy technologies

Mentored HH 0 5 000 10 000 2 000 2 000 20

Institutions 0 46 92 0 42 45.7

Output Automatic weather stations installed/rehabilitated Meteorological data A2.c - Agrometrological is available and information routinely collected, AWS 0 3 6 0 0 0 provides reliable updated and disseminated Rehabilitated predictions (A)

AWS Installed 0 8 15 0 0 0

3.1.2 Persons provided with climate information services

Males 0 171 600 343 200 114 972 228 730 66.6

Females 0 185 900 371 800 124 553 247 790 66.6

Young 0 53 625 107 250 35 929 71 478 66.6

Not Young 0 303 875 607 750 203 596 405 042 66.6

Persons 0 357 500 715 000 239 525 476 520 66.6 provided with climate info services

34/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Outcome 2.2.6 Households reporting improved physical access to markets, processing and B. Improved access to efficiently storage facilities operating markets with increased utilization of market information Households 0 80 reporting improved physical access to markets

Size of households

Males

Females

Young

Not Young

Women-headed households

Non-women- headed households

Households reporting improved physical access to processing facilities

Size of households

Males

Females

Young

35/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Not Young

Women-headed households

Non-women- headed households

Households reporting improved physical access to storage facilities

Size of households

Males

Females

Young

Not Young

Women-headed households

Non-women- headed households

Households reporting improved physical access to markets

36/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Households reporting improved physical access to processing facilities

Households reporting improved physical access to storage facilities

Reduced travel cost to the nearest market Outcome Annually PMU Survey Reduction - travel cost

Reduced travel time to the nearest market Outcome Annually PMU Survey Reduction - travel time

Output Functioning Multi Stakeholder Platforms supported MSP concept can B1.a - Market stakeholder address platforms (MSP), market MSPs 0 6 11 4 11 100 stakeholders’ management companies(MMC) issues. (R) LG and and MCSCP formed Market Management Committees operate commercially private sector can negotiate satisfactory arrangement. (A)

37/38 Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Name Baseline Mid- End Annual Cumulative Cumulative Source Frequency Responsibility Term Target Result Result Result % (2018) (2018) (2018)

Output Market-oriented Farmer Groups trained in agribusiness development. Farmer and SME B1.b - Capacity of market- groups have oriented farmer groups and youth FG Members- 0 15 000 30 000 7 887 7 887 26.3 capacity, need and built in improved post-harvest Households willingness to handling (PHH) practices and/or improve business value addition Farmer Groups 0 500 1 000 272 272 27.2 skills. (A) PHH/value add FG Members - 0 2 250 4 500 0 0 0 activities needed Young and profitable FG Members - 0 12 750 25 500 0 0 0 Not Young

Market-oriented Farmer Groups that have developed business plans supported with grants (PHH/Value addition)

FG Members 0 7 500 15 000 0 0 0 Households

Farmer Groups 0 250 500 0 0 0

FG Members - 0 1 125 2 250 0 0 0 Young

FG Members - 0 6 375 12 750 0 0 0 Not Young

Output 2.1.5 Roads constructed, rehabilitated or upgraded Local government B2.a - Existing community has resources to access roads Length of roads 0 775 1 550 0 0 0 maintain upgraded upgraded/rehabilitated or new or new CARs. (R) roads constructed in Rain water harvesting sites from CARs established as pilots by the end of year. CARs complement underserviced areas other PRELNOR Sites 0 5 10 0 0 0 activities. (A)

Output Satellite markets and Bulk markets constructed B2.b - Market structures constructed at selected strategic Bulk markets 0 1 3 0 0 0 sites Satellite markets 0 4 8 0 0 0

38/38 Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 1: Financial: actual financial performance; by financier by component and disbursements by category

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department

PRELNOR MTR

Appendix 1: Financial: actual financial performance by financier; by component and disbursements by category

Table 1A: Financial performance by financier as at 30 April 2019 (USD’000) % Disbursed % Balance after Financier Appraisal Disbursed Committed plus disbursed commitments commitments A B C= B/A% D E=A-B-C F= E/A% IFAD loan 50,200 11,880 24% 12,603 25,718 51% ASAP grant 10,000 3,106 31% 67 6,827 68% Government of Uganda 9,291 490 5% - 8,801 95% Beneficiaries 1,493 628 42% - 865 58% Total 70,984 16,103 23% 12,670 42,211 59%

Execution rates differ slightly between the USD and SDR based tables because of the USD/ SDR currency depreciation since loan/ grant entry into force Table 1B: Financial performance by financier by component cumulative as on 30 April 2019 (USD’000)

IFAD ASAP Beneficiaries GoU TOTAL Balance after Balance after Balance after Component Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % commitments commitments commitments A B C D E=A-B-D F G H I J=F-G-I K L M N O P Q R=N-0-Q S=A+F+K+N T=B+G+L+O A. Rural Livelihoods A1. Community Planning and Capacity Development 3,996 2,444 61% 1,552 ------669 10 1% 659 4,665 2,453 53% A2. Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production System 4,432 2,909 66% 1,523 9,774 2,620 27% 67 7,087 1,321 628 48% 1,423 305 21% 1,118 16,950 6,461 38% Sub Total 8,428 5,353 64% 9,774 2,620 27% 1,321 628 48% 2,092 314 15% 1,778 21,615 8,914 41% B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure - 0% - B1. Improved Market Access Processes 3,152 887 28% 2,265 - - - - 173 - 0% 550 37 7% 513 3,875 924 24% B2. Market Access Infrastructure 32,908 597 2% 12,616 19,694 226 14 6% 212 - - - 6,028 54 1% 2,281 3,694 39,162 665 2% Sub Total 36,060 1,485 4% 226 14 6% 173 - 0% 6,578 91 1% 2,281 4,207 43,037 1,590 4% C. Programme management and oversight 5,712 2,966 52% 16 2,730 - - 0% - - - 620 85 14% 535 6,332 3,051 48% Total 50,200 9,803 20% 12,632 27,765 10,000 2,634 26% 67 7,299 1,494 628 42% 9,290 490 5% 2,281 6,520 70,984 13,555 19% Authorised Allocations- balance on bank accounts 2,014 (2,014) 362 (362) 0% - 2,377 Expenditure not yet allocated to components 62 (62) 110 (110) 0% - Total including balance of Authorised Allocation 50,200 11,880 24% 12,632 25,688 10,000 3,106 31% 67 6,827 1,494 628 42% 9,290 490 5% 2,281 6,520 70,984 15,931 22%

1

Table 1C: IFAD loan disbursements (SDR’000, as at 30 April 2019) IFAD ASAP Beneficiaries GoU TOTAL Balance after Balance after Balance after Component Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % Appraisal Actual % Commitments Appraisal Actual % commitments commitments commitments A B C D E=A-B-D F G H I J=F-G-I K L M N O P Q R=N-0-Q S=A+F+K+N T=B+G+L+O A. Rural Livelihoods A1. Community Planning and Capacity Development 3,996 2,444 61% 1,552 ------669 10 1% 659 4,665 2,453 53% A2. Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production System 4,432 2,909 66% 1,523 9,774 2,620 27% 67 7,087 1,321 628 48% 1,423 305 21% 1,118 16,950 6,461 38% Sub Total 8,428 5,353 64% 9,774 2,620 27% 1,321 628 48% 2,092 314 15% 1,778 21,615 8,914 41% B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure - 0% - B1. Improved Market Access Processes 3,152 887 28% 2,265 - - - - 173 - 0% 550 37 7% 513 3,875 924 24% B2. Market Access Infrastructure 32,908 597 2% 12,616 19,694 226 14 6% 212 - - - 6,028 54 1% 2,281 3,694 39,162 665 2% Sub Total 36,060 1,485 4% 226 14 6% 173 - 0% 6,578 91 1% 2,281 4,207 43,037 1,590 4% C. Programme management and oversight 5,712 2,966 52% 16 2,730 - - 0% - - - 620 85 14% 535 6,332 3,051 48% Total 50,200 9,803 20% 12,632 27,765 10,000 2,634 26% 67 7,299 1,494 628 42% 9,290 490 5% 2,281 6,520 70,984 13,555 19% Authorised Allocations- balance on bank accounts 2,014 (2,014) 362 (362) 0% - 2,377 Expenditure not yet allocated to components 62 (62) 110 (110) 0% - Total including balance of Authorised Allocation 50,200 11,880 24% 12,632 25,688 10,000 3,106 31% 67 6,827 1,494 628 42% 9,290 490 5% 2,281 6,520 70,984 15,931 22%

Figure 1a: IFAD loan disbursement, comparisons between original and revised allocations and actual disbursement (SDR’000) as at 30 April 2019

20 000 18 000 16 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 Original Allocation (SDR'000) - Loan Utilisation (SDR '000)

2

Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 2: Physical progress measured against AWP&B

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

Appendix 2: Physical progress measured against AWP&B Appendix 2: Physical progress measured against AWP&B Financial Year 2018/19 Period: 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 Indicator Unit AWP&B Actual % (AWP&B) Appraisal Cumulative % Target Actual (cumulative) Component A Rural Livelihoods Sub -component A.1 Community Planning and Capacity Development Output A.1.a Capacity of Farmer Groups to plan and implement group activities built. Community Based Natural Resource number 200 208 104% 600 424 71% Management plans in place Farmer groups identified and number 600 626 104% 1,800 1,200 67% supported/strengthened Households (members of Farmer Groups) person 7,200 M / 11,268 M / 104% 26,460 M / 21,600 M / 67% supported/strengthened 10,800 F 7512 F 27,540 F 14,400 F Group action plans developed number 600 600 100% 1,800 1,200 67% Knowledge sharing events conducted in number 100 100 100% 600 200 33% each of the 100 parishes annually % of Farmers groups that graduate from % 100% 0.00% 0% 90% 0% 0% capacity building

6

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

Output A.1.b Capacity of vulnerable households to identify and solve their problems strengthened. Vulnerable Households identified and number 2,000 2,000 100% 10,000 4,000 40% mentored in a phased approach throughout the project period. Vulnerable HH that have graduated from number 2,000 1,800 90% 10,000 1,800 18% Mentoring Vulnerable HH that were provided with number 2,000 2,000 100% 10,000 4,000 40% food security grant worth USD100 Youths that have graduated from person 156 M / 144 231M / 214 148% 588 M / 612 231 M / 214 37% mentoring and have been facilitated to F F F F form or join existing farmer groups and to engage in IGAs (Target 15%) Sub -component A.2 Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production Systems Output A.2.a Priority crop production systems are more climate resilient Households trained in good agronomic number 18,000 0 0% 54,000 17,220 32% practices Households trained in Local Seed number 750 1500 200% 2,250 1,500 67% Business Households trained in Community Seed number 300 300 100% 900 300 33% Production Number of the targeted district that number 9 9 100% 36 18 50% receive technical support from ZARDI Small scale adaptive Research & number 100 100 100% 400 200 50% Development innovations tested in the project parish 2WT pilot demonstrations conducted in number 50 0 0% 50 0 0% each of the project sub counties

7 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

PHH technologies demonstrated in each number 50 0 0% 50 0 0% of the project sub counties ADP technologies demonstrated in each number 75 0 0% 75 0 0% of the project sub counties Farmer groups supported in community number 100 100 100% 300 100 33% based seed multiplication TOTs of DFAs/DLG extension staff trained person 25 M / 27 F 27 M / 25 F 100% 30 M / 20 F 27 M / 25 F 104% in Community seed production Number of Hectares of Land under climate hectares 100,000 92,108 92% 200,000 92,108 46% resilient practices (ASAP) Community groups engaged in climate number 600 600 100% 1,800 1,624 90% risk activities (ASAP) Poor smallholder household members person 239,525 239,525 100% 715,000 476,520 67% supported in coping with the effects of climate change (ASAP) Output A.2.b Natural Resource Management initiatives which complement resilient crop production systems implemented Group natural resource management number 200 0 0% 600 217 36% plans implemented and funded Energy efficient stoves distributed to number 4,000 2,000 50% 10,000 2,000 20% households in the targeted villages Solar units installed for households in the number 20 0 0% 35 15 43% project area Energy efficient stoves distributed to number 30 0 0% 72 27 38% institutions Institutions benefiting from renewable number 50 0 0% 76 42 55% energy technologies Mentored households benefiting from number 4,000 2,000 50% 10,000 2,000 20% Renewable Energy Technologies (RET)

8

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

Output A.2.C Agro -metrological information routinely collected, analyzed and disseminated Automatic weather stations number 21 0 0% 21 0 0% installed/rehabilitated Persons provided with climate information person 114,972 M / 114,972 M / 100% 343,20M / 114,972 M / 59% services (ASAP) 124,553 F 124,553 F 371,800F 124,553 F Component B Market Linkages and Infrastructure Sub -component B.1 Improved Market Access Processes Output B.1.a Effective management systems for satellite and bulk markets established. Functioning Multi stakeholders Platforms number 7 7 100% 11 11 100% supported (RIMS) One functioning sub regional Market number 1 1 100% 1 1 100% Stakeholder Platforms constituted and functional Output B.1.b Capacity of market - oriented farmer groups and youth built in improved post-harvest handling practices and/or value addition. Market-oriented farmer groups trained on number 300 300 100% 1,000 539 54% agribusiness development. Market oriented farmer groups that have number 200 239 120% 500 239 48% developed business plans Sub -component B.2 Market Access Infrastructure Output B.2.a Existing community access roads upgraded or new

9 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019 roads constructed in underserviced areas Rain water harvesting pilot sites mapped number 4 0 0% 10 0 0% Road Construction Committees formed. number 24 0 0% 105 81 77% Implementation and supervision activities Contract value of new and existing rural '000 UGX 36,840,000 54,486,295 148% 93,000,000 54,486,295 59% infrastructure designed with climate resilient features Kilometers of CARs km 606 0 0% 1,550 0 0% constructed/rehabilitated

10 Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 3: Compliance with legal covenants: status of implementation

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

Appendix 3: Compliance with legal covenants: Status of implementation

Progress on the Financing Agreement Covenants Special covenant Implementation Progress Remarks by April, 2019 1. The Lead Project Agency shall submit the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) to the Fund for The PIM has been distributed to all approval prior to its adoption within six months of entry into force of the Agreement implementing partners 2. Details of districts bank accounts shall be formally communicated to and accepted by the Fund, Accomplished All districts have opened up project within six months of entry into force of this Agreement. The Borrower shall not make any specific bank accounts (apart from disbursements to district accounts until a determination has been made, in agreement with the Gulu which is on TSA). Fund, as to the nature of the accounts. 3. The Lead Project Agency shall, within six (6) months of entry into force of the Agreement, Software installed and Accounting software is being used but implement a project accounting software, acceptable to the Fund, which is capable of providing training done there are still mapping/set-up issues an audit trail that tracks expenditure by expense category, project component and financier at all project levels. 4. The terms of reference of the Auditor General shall have been agreed to include special Accomplished Terms of reference have been emphasis on controls at district and village level activities, to ensure complete audit coverage. developed and agreed 5. The Lead Project agency shall be responsible for the internal audit of the project in accordance with appropriate terms of reference, to include the production of at least a semi-annual internal Is being regularly Internal audit unit of MoLG doing report that will be shared with the Fund. undertaken. routine pre-audits and quarterly audits.

6. The Borrower shall ensure that proceeds of the loan and ASAP Trust Grant are free and clear Is being regularly of all taxes (excluding income tax). Any taxes & duties paid by the project shall be reimbursed undertaken. by the Borrower. The said taxes shall not include income tax. 7. The Borrower shall ensure that the PMU develops a Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning System, M&E system set up, but SKD's RIA action on baseline survey compatible with the IFAD Results & Impact Management System within 12 months from the baseline survey is not yet which was expected to be finalised by date of entry into force of the Agreement, thereby allowing for the appropriate determination of done as IFAD (SKD's RIA) 31 July 2018, is up to now not yet the outcomes and impact of the Project Components. A baseline survey shall be undertaken took over the responsibility completed. As SKD took up this within 9 months from the date of entry into force of this Agreement. given that PRELNOR was responsibility, GoU shouldn't be included in the sample for considered to be in breach of the measuring impact under IFAD10 same. 8. The Borrower shall establish within 6 months from the date of entry into force of the agreement Contracts committee set up. However, a Project Contracts Committee, based in Gulu, with fully delegated powers from MoLG, with a Partially accomplished this Committee has only delegated composition acceptable to the Fund and the required authority to undertake procurement powers up to UGX 200 million. The PS review and selection. informed of this breach and he has promised to make a decision by June 30, 2019

11

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4: Technical background analysis

Annex 1: Partnership Building Annex 2: Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production Systems Annex 3: Supply Chain & Logistics Analysis Annex 4: Procurement Review

1

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4 - Annex 1: Partnership-Building

Partnership building is key for successful implementation for PRELNOR due to the different thematic areas, activities and planned outreach expected. Right from the start, PRELNOR managed to mobilize active partnerships with both government and non-state actors. As the main project implementing agency, the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) chairs the Project Policy Committee (PPC), provides overall general direction for project implementation and coordinates with other relevant ministries and agencies. It also takes the lead in formalising partnership arrangements. While the project has done relatively well in formalizing partnership arrangements with several partners, it has been less proactive in developing collaboration with donor initiatives in the same geographic area or the private sector.

Partnership Overview Table

Partner Name Details of partnership

Co -financing partnerships Not applicable

KM, Training and Policy partners World Overview of WOCAT partnered with Uganda Land Care Network (ULN) identify Conservation Approaches and document 34 SLM approaches within the PRELNOR target and Technologies areas for scaling-up. Out of those approaches, Uganda Land Care (WOCAT) has a plan to support the project in demonstrating a number (8-10) relevant SLM approaches and technologies and training farmers to encourage their adoption. Bioversity International Bioversity International delivered training of trainers on improvement of family nutrition to project beneficiaries. This included training to: 200 mentors (50% female); 27 Community Development Officers at subcounty level (16 male/2 female); and 9 Community Development Officers at district level (7 male/2 female). The plan is for this training to be further cascaded, and for the trainers to deliver training to farmer groups and households. Private Sector No concreate partnerships have so far been established with private agencies

Coordination/Implementing Partners District Local MoLG entered in MoUs with the nine DLGs. In each district, the Governments (DLGs) Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for project implementation. A PRELNOR sub-committee of the District Technical Planning Committee assists in coordinating project activities and ensures consistency with the District Development Plan (DDP). So far, performance of these agencies has largely been satisfactory, though there are a few cases that need improvement. In some cases, DLG officials do not fully dedicate their time to PRELNOR activities as they are implementing other projects at the same time. District Farmers' MoLG signed MoUs with two DFAs of Gulu and Adjumani Districts, Associations (DFA) to be PRELNOR's implementation partners. Each of these DFAs also signed an implementation agreement with the respective DLG. The major project activities that DFAs are implementing include: participation in identification of villages, FGs and vulnerable households for project interventions; provision of extension and business development services to FGs; participation in CBNRM planning, together with Local Government partners; support to local

1 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

seed production; and in monitoring and reporting. So far, the performance of the DFAs is commendable. Uganda National The partnership with UNMA has been instrumental in setting the Meteorological Authority grounds for the development of the weather and climate (UNMA) information services. As a results of this partnership: 185 extension workers trained in the interpretation and applications of weather and climate information and agricultural advisories; weather information is directly disseminated to the 574 farmer groups; 4 Radio talk shows are conducted over major local radio stations to disseminate weather and climate information; 15 new automatic weather stations and spares for six Davis automatic weather stations due for rehabilitation have been procured. National Agricultural Through Abi and Ngetta Zonal Agricultural Research and Research Organisation Development Institutes (ZARDIs), NARO committed to facilitate (NARO) adaptive research and production of foundation seed/planting material. Through Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Center (AEATREC), NARO committed to facilitate piloting of agricultural mechanization. Implementation of activities under partnership with AEATREC have been delayed mainly due to delays by MoLG in the procurement of the 2-wheel tractors.

2 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4 - Annex 2: Detailed Report on Sub-component A2 - Priority climate resilient crop production systems 1. Extension provision - In the PRELNOR design the inadequacy of a national extension service was identified as a key constraint to programme implementation. As an alternative approach to government extension, District Farmers Associations (DFA) were identified and assessed to evaluate their capacities, knowledge gaps and capacity building needs. Based on this assessment only Gulu and Adjumani DFA were considered experienced enough to work with PRELNOR. In the other Districts, it was agreed to work with the DLG and strengthen their staff. A total of 90 Agricultural Extension Facilitators (AEFs) were recruited (26 under DFAs and 64 under DLGs). In addition, 200 community based facilitators (CBFs), two per project parish were recruited. 2. As of May 2019 PRELNOR supports 154 Agricultural Extension staff (DLGs and the DFAs; 97 males and 57 females) and 200 community-based facilitators (CBFs; 125 males and 75 females). They are trained in extension approaches, good agricultural practices, supporting local seed production, group dynamics and management, farming as a business, gender action learning amongst others. 3. The Uganda National Farmers' Federation (UNFFE) was contracted in 2018 (after a one year delay) to build capacity of the DFAs. Currently they are providing support in grassroot mobilization of members, leadership and governance, mentoring DFAs, and a progress report of this work has been submitted and is under review by the PMU. 4. There were few field activities conducted in the Season B (August-December) 2017 cropping season, with the main field work starting in Season A (April-July) 2018 season. In the first season 2017/18, 452 out of a target 574 demonstrations were established. In Season B 2018, 55 out of a target 205 demonstrations were established. This number was lower due to delays in procurement of the demonstration inputs and due to the fact that cassava is mainly planted in season A and 250 of the 452 demos of season A were on cassava. Procurement delays still affect the timeliness and efficiency of the field program. 5. Each demonstration field is a one acre plot sub-divided into smaller plots of different treatments. The treatments are varieties and crop management practices. On average each demonstration field hosts four crop varieties and compares recommended agronomic practices with prevailing farmer practices. Farmer learning in these demonstration fields are facilitated by AEFs and CBFs throughout the season. Technical support, field monitoring and follow-up of farmer group activities were conducted by the PMU and DLG/DFA extension personnel. 6. Demonstrations were on cassava (Narocas 1, Nase 14, Nase 19), beans, maize (OPV varieties - Longe 4, 5 and 5D, MM3 and hybrids Longe 7H, 10H) and rice. Initial results from the Season A 2018 found that improved cassava varieties (Narocas 1, Nase 14 and Nase 19) showed very positive attributes (disease-symptoms free, vigorous growth, early tuber formation, tolerance to cassava green mites and well established canopies) compared to the local varieties. Yield data from these cassava demonstration fields are being collected and will be completed when the plants are 12 -18 months old. 7. Maize trials compared open pollinated (OPV) (Longe 5, Longe 5D, Longe 4 and MM3), hybrid (Longe 7H, Longe 10H and Bazooka) and local varieties. In general, (i) OPVs performed better than hybrid and local varieties, with different OPVs performing better in different locations, (ii) maize requires good field management and treatments (including timely planting and correct fertilizer use) for good performance, and (iii) management of fall armyworms remains a key factor in maize production. Some delays in delivery and use of inputs during the demonstrations (e.g. pesticides to control armyworms) undermined the value of the demonstrations. 8. Improved varieties of beans (Nabe 4, Nabe 15, Nabe 16, Nabe 17, and Nabe 19, Naro beans 1, 2, and 3) were compared to local varieties. In all Districts the improved variety performed better, with the performed variety being location specific.

3 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

9. For rice trials the improved Namche series (Namche 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) and the Nerica series (Nerica 1, 4 & 10) were compared to the main local variety, Sindano. Like beans, rice performance varied by District, with the Namche series being more affected by bird damage. 10. Soybeans demonstrations was conducted in Kitgum and Pader Districts where it had been prioritized in the last cropping season. Improved varieties (Maksoy 2N, 3N and 4N) were compared to local varieties. The Maksoy 3N and 4N registered very good performance in the two districts, due to their drought tolerance, early maturity and high yields. 11. A key implementation challenge remains the timeliness of planning, establishing and management of the field demonstrations and adaptive research trials. If a demonstration is done poorly, it is better not to be done at all. As in previous missions it was noted that many demonstrations were implemented late due to delayed procurement of inputs. This adversely affects the quality of the demonstrations and undermines their value in showing improved options to farmers. An innovative approach used for accessing inputs for the Season A and B 2019 was the organisation of input trade fairs. Here the District invites all certified agro-dealers and seed companies, including local seed businesses producing Quality Declared Seeds, to a day when farmers are organised to buy their inputs. The farmer groups and mentored households are given vouchers to buy the inputs they need and they can discuss with the agro-dealers and agree what to buy from each one. To ensure input quality, District Agricultural Officers were present to inspect, take samples and test the inputs being sold. The farmers take the inputs home and the agro-dealers redeem the vouchers with PRELNOR. The team should be congratulated for developing this approach. To further support information exchange it is recommended for PRELNOR to produce a list per District of all certified agro-dealers and seed sellers and to dissminate this to all stakeholders, so people know where to buy their inputs from. 12. Field days and exchange visits – a key recommendation from the last supervision mission were to promote field days and exchange visits to ensure that the wider community, and other communities, can benefit from seeing the demonstrations during the season. A total of 21 farmer field days have so far been conducted in six districts (Adjumani, Gulu, Omoro, Nwoya, Pader and Lamwo). The field days were organized at sub-county level, with farmers across the sub-county assembling at a group demonstration field or adaptive research site. For example, Gulu and Omoro districts had field days on the theme “increased cassava production for food security and increased rural household income ’’, while in Nwoya, the field days were on the value chains of rice, beans, maize and cassava. The key stakeholders that participated in these field days included targeted project farmer group members, famers within the vicinity of the field days, technical officers from within the districts, sub- counties and parishes, and relevant stakeholdes such as, agro inputs dealers, seed company representatives, the media houses, district and sub-county officials. 13. Farmer Group Batch 2 and 3 - The second batch of 626 farmer groups have been identified and are currently undergoing training in group dymanics, group governance and group action planning. Field extension activities for this batch will commence in July 2019, while demonstration establishment will start in season A of 2020. In the original design each batch was to recevie two years of support before new farmer groups were selected. Given the start-up delays, it is recommended that Batch 2 and 3 receive 18 months of support. This would allow Batch 3 to be selected end 2019/early 2020, and to receive 18 months of support before project end. 14. Partnership with NARO for foundation seed production – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs. The production of foundation seed continues at the two ZARDIs. The foundation seed is available for purchase by seed groups interested in producing certified or Quality Declared Seed, and seed sales are growing over time. Details of the areas planted and seed sold is contained in the two ZARDI annual reports. A table of Cumulative records of sale of foundation seeds from the ZARDIs as of 30th April 2019 follows:

4 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Abi ZARDI Seeds Quantity NTR Raised (UGX) Rice (Namche 1,2 3) 78 kg 390,000 Rice (Nerica 4) 1,801kg 7,204,000 Maize (Longe 4 & 5) 1,374kg 4,122,000 Cassava cuttings (Narocas 1) 100 bags 5,500,000 Sub -total 17,216,000

Ngetta ZARDI Beans (Narobean 1, Nabe 19, Nabe 15) 760kg 3,800,000 Maize (Longe 5D) 550kg 1,100,000 Soybeans (Maksoy 3N) 1,754 6,503,000 Groundnuts (Serenut 8 &14) 4,000 kg 2,925,000 Rice (Namche 1,2 & 3) 400 kg 1,200,000 Cassava (Narocas 1) 60 bags 1,800,000 Sesame (sesim 2) 10kg 100,000 Sub -total 17,428,000

15. The income derived from these sales is available to reinvest in future seed production. It is recommended that the ZARDIs develop a seed business plan based on demand and supply on which variety is needed in which season of the year etc, so they can determine if they can exit project support, if the seed business they are entering is profitable, or at least operating on a cost recovery basis. To support this exit strategy it is recommended that the amount for the ZARDIs in the 2019-20 APWB be reduced to reflect a co-pay by the ZARDIs for foundation seed production. Ngetta ZARDI also supported foundation seed production through seven Local Seed Businesses (LSBs). Through these LSBs, a total of 65 acres were planted under different crops. The foundation seeds produced are being accessed on a cost-recovery basis by project seed production groups (LSBs). 16. Partnership with NARO for adaptive research trials – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs. In April 2018 Abi ZARDI and Adjumani DFA established one trial in each of the 12 parishes. Each was one acre, divided into four plots (rice, beans, maize and cassava), host by a farmer group. Alongside these trials, soil and water conservation practices were also demonstrated, where the trenches help to trap run-off water and soil during rainfall. In April 2018 Ngetta ZARDI, Gulu DFA and 6 DLGs established one trial in each of the 88 parishes. In Season B 2018 the same variety demonstrations were repeated to collect a second season’s data and evaluation. For all adaptive research trials, the annual crops have been harvested and the data analysed and reported in the annual report. Due to challenges observed in managing so many trials, the mission recommends that in Season A 2019, the number of trials is reduced to one per sub-county, to ensure better management and support by the ZARDIs. It is also recommended that the adaptive research focuses on technologies and practices rather than variety performance demonstrations. 17. Collecting data towards outcome reporting - Through the crop demonstrations and adaptive trials conducted during the two seasons (2018 A and B) increases in crop yields are being seen. For example, farmers are recording beans yields of 900–1200 kg/ha from Naro beans 1 compared to 400–730 kg/ha from local varieties. Improved cassava varieties (Nase 14, 19 and Narocas 1) are yielding 35-46 tons/ha compared to less than 10 tons/ha from local varieties. Beans yield increased from 631kg/acre to 677kg/acre, maize from 646kg/acre to 765kg/acre and rice from 788kg/acre to 848kg/acre. These yield increments are attributed to the extension services being offered and uptake of improved crop varieties. 18. Development of Local Seed Businesses . Due to protracted contracting challenges, MoLG could not contract ISSD to support PRELNOR as planned at design. To be able to continue with the planned activities, the project is working with NARO staff trained by ISSD in Ngetta and Abi ZARDIs to support local seed production groups. Using the ISSD Uganda manual 'Supporting Local Seed Businesses – a training manual' , a ToT was conducted by the NARO staff in October 2018 for 50 AEF from all 25 project sub-counties in the nine districts plus the agri-business officers of the 2 DFAs. The training was also co-facilitated by two chairpersons of existing and experienced ISSD LSB groups to

5 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019 share their practical experiences. The AEFs have since identified and trained two LSB groups per sub-county. A total of 15 groups have bought foundation seeds of rice, soybeans and groundnuts from Ngetta ZARDI. None of the six LSBs in Adjumani district has so far bought any seed from Abi ZARDI but are being prepared to do so. To avoid expiry of seeds in storage, some of the seeds are being sold out by the ZARDIs to other farmers to raise NTR. The price of the foundation seed is largely determined by the following factors; how new the crop variety is, the demand for the crop/variety at the time of sale and the cost of production. 19. As cassava is such a key food security and income generating crop, PRELNOR has developed a community multiplication approach to supply larger volumes of improved varieties and make them available locally. So far, 100 FGs planted in 2018 A season 427 acres of cassava, of which 418 acres are well established. These fields are being monitored regularly to ensure there are no mixed varieties and diseases problems, and they will be officially inspected by the National Seed Certification Services of the MAAIF through the delegated DAOs during, and at the end of the season to ensure they can be sold as improved varieties when harvested. 20. The seed demand assessment recommended by the November 2017 mission has been conducted and data collected and analysed, and a draft report is in place. The information is being triangulated with what the 50 LSBs are prioritising and being used for planning purposes. A draft seed road map is in place and will be updated annually to ensure demand for foundation seeds can be matched to LSB production, and that the foundation seed needed by these LSBs will be available from the ZARDIs. Agreed action s: (i) PMU completes the seed demand assessment report, and (ii) Finalises seed roadmap to estimate demand from farmer groups' members and use this information to inform the LSBs of quality declared seed demand and to inform the ZARDIs of foundation seed demand. 21. Partnership with NARO - Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Centre (AEATREC ). PRELNOR is developing private service provider model to provide mechanisation services to communities. Host farmer groups were identified in January 2018 and are being trained using the recently developed manuals. The host farmer groups are to operate the machinery, to cover costs for operations, maintenance and repair. To increase awareness of new mechanisation options a range of exchange visits and field demonstrations on the use of mechanisation options to reduce labour costs and drudgery have started and will continue each season. 22. The pilot mechanization activities continues to be delayed due to the procurement of the 2- wheel tractors (2-WT). The re-submission of the tender document with revised and clarified specifications is with IFAD for no-objection. The mission recommends (as per the December 2018 supervision mission) that the PMU/ MoLG urgently follows-up on the 2-WT bidding process. Local fabrication of 2-WT equipment (50 trailers, 50 planters), animal draft power equipment (50 ox- planters, 75 weeders and 75 ox-carts) and processing equipment (27 rice threshers, 23 cassava chippers, 50 maize shellers) has been completed (except for 25 ox-planters) and all equipment is in storage at AEATREC pending delivery of the 2WTs. Delivery of animal draft power equipment and post-harvest handling implements will start in the last week of May and thereafter, hands-on training of the farmers will commence. 23. Partnership with Plant-Wise . A new addition to the programme is the work with MAAIF on supporting the PlantWise Plant Doctor extension approach. Two trainings were conducted in August 2018 and May 2019 for 50 AEFs (12 female and 38 male) and covered three areas of the PlantWise program – (i) Field diagnosis and operations of clinics, (ii) recommendations and the art of advice, and (iii) ICT in plant clinics or e-plant clinics. Two extension personnel have been trained by NARO and CABI PlantWise on the use of the fertilizer optimization tool (FOT) and the training is being out-scaled to other extension personnel and agro inputs dealers (so far 25 Extension personnel have been reached out to with the tool). The tool optimizes fertilizer use through an economic benefits analysis and helps farmers to decide if, and in which type of fertiliser to invest. The costs of the training and provision of materials for the field work were covered by PRELNOR and MAAIF (from other sources) and PlantWise-Uganda. MAAIF subsequently supplied one Plant Doctor kit for each of the nine

6 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Districts. Four plant clinics have been conducted (Gulu 3 and Omoro 1). With two Plant Doctors per sub-County, the number of clinics will increase significantly in the coming seasons.

Agreed action Responsibility Deadline Status Produce and distribute a list of certified agro-dealers and PMU End August 2019 Agreed seed producers Batch 2 and 3 Farmer Groups to receive 18 months of PMU Immediate Agreed support and Batch 3 to be selected early in 2020 Develop a co-financing plan with NARO for foundation PMU Immediate Agreed seed production and reduce their 2019-20 AWPB accordingly Reduce Season A 2019 adaptive research trials to one per PMU Immediate Agreed sub-county, to ensure better management and support by the ZARDIs Change the focus of the adaptive research trials from PMU Immediate Agreed variety to technology and practices demonstrations Follow-up on the 2-WT bidding process PMU Immediate Agreed

7 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

Appendix 4 - Annex 3: Supply Chain & Logistics Analysis

Executive Summary

A mid-term review is essential in assessing the progress of project implementation. It allows for an external outlook into current systems and operations of the project in order to understand what works, challenges that exist, what areas require additional assistance among others. HELP Logistics took part in reviewing the Government of Uganda’s (GoU) ‘Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region’ (PRELNOR). Through financial support from IFAD, this project seeks to ensure that vulnerable households in Northern Uganda can adopt best practices in agriculture and essential life skills as they transition into commercially oriented agriculture. HELP Logistics was able to review the project’s market access component and provided recommendations that should guide the project staff in creation of market linkages, improving coordination in the supply chain and ensuring efficiency gains are attained through best practices in procurement, sourcing and use of collective action.

Background

The need to improve farmer productivity has been coupled with the equally important desirability of effective market linkages. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) due to multiple constraints, lack of smallholder market participation has become a pervasive issue from access to input markets that drive this desired productivity to output markets that incentivize increasing/maintaining farm productivity. These constraints manifest through lack of market information on prices, lack of supporting institutions, high coordination risks and failures among supply chain actors, high transaction costs and credit constraints. Without reining in on these constraints, especially where agriculture is the key economic driver, actors and in most cases vulnerable smallholder farmers get locked out of markets and are ultimately trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty; which leads to rural regions becoming trapped in a similar cycle of underdevelopment.

To counter such scenarios from being the norm, the Government of Uganda (GoU), under a development loan from IFAD Uganda, embarked on the implementation of the ‘Project for Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Regions’ (PRELNOR).This six year project started in 2015 with the aim of improving the welfare of vulnerable households in 9 northern districts of Uganda. This project is designed to accommodate 3 main components which are:

1. Component A. Rural livelihoods: A.1. Community Planning and Capacity Development. 2. Component A. Rural livelihoods: A.2. Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production Systems. 3. Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.1. Improved Market Access Processes. 4. Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.2. Market Access Infrastructure. 5. Component C. Programme Management and Coordination

The focus of Component A is to improve agricultural production and productivity, especially of selected crop enterprises (such as Cassava, Rice, Maize and Beans) and climate resilience of three categories of households. These households are (i) Food insecure households, who do not have enough land or resources to produce enough to cover their food needs; (ii) Food secure households who are still vulnerable to climatic or other shocks to their livelihoods but want to improve their agricultural productivity; and, (iii) Market oriented households with adequate land and some skills which they wish to use to increase their surplus production available for sale.

Once the productivity is attained the project envisaged that farmers will require an outlet for any surplus produce and through these outlets earn an income and achieve welfare gains. It followed that Component B was created to allow for these farmers to be linked to markets. This component focused on trainings and capacity building for farmers to improve their business skills, improvement of infrastructure i.e. roads, and building of new market infrastructure among other various sub- components.

8 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

To that end, IFAD and HELP Logistics collaborated to review the progress and identify any bottlenecks or risks and opportunities for improvement associated with the implementation of this project and specifically on issues regarding commodity supply chains and logistics.

Discussion

1. Market linkages and the supply chains within for PRELNOR

High quality inputs for vulnerable farmers being targeted by the rural livelihoods component of PRELNOR are essential in improving productivity. Through linkages with agro-dealers by respective District Farmer’s Association, research partners and establishment of Local Seed Businesses (vertical integration) by farmer groups for their respective members, these avenues currently serve as critical pathways in increasing farmer’s yields and providing a marketable surplus. Furthermore, this local seed business provides a sustainable source of seeds if implementation remains on track and scaled accordingly.

Remoteness, poor infrastructure, market information asymmetry and bulkiness are exacerbating factors that limit the produce marketing alternatives for smallholder producers in Northern Uganda. In most of the rural areas in this region, produce traders/middlemen, through their agents, serve as the most prominent outlet of produce in the output commodity supply chain; procuring produce directly from farm gates. However, due to this lack of marketing alternatives as presented earlier, middlemen become the price makers leading to instances of asymmetric power dynamics in this supply chain. A situation that appears to minimize the profitability for many farmers. To that end, PRELNOR has been keen in advocating for smallholder farmers to join Farmer Groups once they have undergone a process of mentorship. This urge to collective action is essential in aggregation of harvested commodities as it enables improved bargaining power, access to internalized credit schemes, lower transaction risks failure and economization of transaction costs. Further, PRELNOR has provided trainings and capacity building to these farmer groups to improve their knowledge in collective marketing, risk management and record keeping, among others.

Market Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs) are another integral avenue created by PRELNOR in ensuring market access and participation for smallholder farmers. These platforms constitute: District Local Governments, District Traders Associations, District Farmers Associations, produce traders, transporters, commission agents, Cooperative Societies/SACCOs, loaders, District Chamber of Commerce and Industry, processors/millers, NGOs/CBOs with interest in market linkages activities among others. Some of the actors in these MSPs have already created linkages between private buyers and farmer groups. In one sub-county of Adjumani district, humanitarian organizations have been linked to farmer groups and thus provide reliable outlets for this farmer’s produce. In another sub-county of Gulu, farmer groups were linked to a major agro-processor with the District Farmers Association, although the deal fell through due to the buyer offering an unfavorable payment plan to the farmers.

Direct linkage to agro processors is another marketing chain that is observed as one of the outlets for farmers. This particular chain has been observed in two different forms. First, farmers aggregate their produce; a private processor will then buy this aggregated produce at an agreed price. Second, farmers sell their produce directly to their cooperative which buys it, processes it and sells it off to wholesalers in major cities and towns. Both these avenues, in this particular marketing chain, serve as key market linkages. However, these types of linkages are not common across other farmer groups.

9 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Mid-Term Review Report : - Mission Dates: 5th – 24th May, 2019

1.1 General Review of Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.1. Improved Mark et Access Processes

1. The Commodity Flow Analysis that fed into the project design and served as a criterion for market site selection gives a general idea on several issues regarding marketable volumes in several sites and some operational insights among actors and segments of the supply chain. Nonetheless, it did not capture the current trade processes that are in use and the actors therein. This omission leaves gaps on: (i) The feasibility of these sites as it is uncertain for which segment of this trade flow investments in markets is most appropriate (ii) Uncertainty on who the actual targeted beneficiaries of these markets are.

2. Economic justification should have been made by the PMU team to show why the model of trade flow as suggested in the PRELNOR project design document will serve as a better alternative to what currently exists in terms of value for money for targeted actors. The realization that all these actors are economic beings seeking to satisfy their utility should not be forgotten as any investment into markets that fails to serve this need may not be adopted.

3. The market site selection process was not clear on the targeted supply chain actor’s perception on what market physical infrastructural needs are missing in the current trade flow. Following this, a Willingness To Pay (WTP) study should have been conducted to eventually assist in capturing the detail of investment that should go into these market sites.

4. There needs to be a concerted effort to improve the quality of information sharing within the PMU. This is observed where crucial details such as the market capacity for the proposed markets are very obscure and open to a variety of interpretations. For example, reports from the agribusiness team capture that bulk markets should have a capacity of 50,000MT. To the engineering department of PMU, their interpretation may be misconstrued as this figure can allude to storage capacity within the market, flow through capacity, and finally the time duration is not well specified i.e. 50,000MT per day/week/month/annually.

2. Roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders

Farmer groups are positioned in the supply chain to be the first step of aggregation. This is both in terms of input requirements and produce upon harvesting. Further, these groups will be critical; specifically in terms of their marketing committees finding markets for their produce. Finally, they will be a critical source of information for individual members and provide savings and credit options for farmers.

MSPs have been disaggregated into several key committees. These are: audit committee, marketing committees, policy committee and the executive committee. Roles currently being administered by MSPs are predominantly focused on market site selection. However, their other roles include advocacy among communities on the forthcoming market, oversight on administration of the market, and formation of by-laws and market guidelines for actors.

In the current operational setup, District Farmer’s Association and Local Governments provide agricultural extension services to farmer groups and in some isolated cases they have aided in linking farmer groups to buyers.

It is important to note that the roles of stakeholders in supply chains may be dynamic as operational contexts change, new actors enter the chain, markets widen, new technology is adopted, government interventions occur, and in some cases where merging of roles happen. This means that the resilience of any commodity supply chain in Northern Uganda will be a function inter alia of the adaptability of stakeholders to change and adopt new roles and functions.

3. Potential gaps, bottlenecks and risks relative to the supply chains (Stakeholders Perspective)

10 Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Expanding demand for agricultural produce both domestically and in neighbouring countries offers profitable alternatives to traditional local spot markets for smallholder farmers in Northern Uganda. However, farmers are quick to point out that poor infrastructure, remoteness of their farms, and lack of market intelligence has resulted in high transaction and transportation costs. These high costs essentially lock them out from exploiting these new opportunities. Further, farmers points out that low yields essentially increase per unit transaction and transportation costs.

In the same vein, some farmers express apprehension regarding accessing buyers and general market intelligence with regards to their harvested produce. This is mostly observed among vulnerable mentee households from the first batch who are transitioning into commercially oriented enterprises. Deservedly, these farmers have been looking up to their mentors to the extent of gathering market information from them and providing linkages to buyers. Therefore, these farmers are fearful as to how they will interact with markets without their mentors providing that linkage as they get a new batch of mentees. This is despite most of them having joined farmer groups.

Input and asset acquisition by individual farmers (graduated mentees) and some farmer groups is another key area that farmers believe might pose significant risks to the establishment of their enterprises. Provision of assets such as storage facilities i.e. stores, are a key concern for farmer groups as they expect improved yields due to their adoption of better seed varieties, improved agronomic practices and complimentary post-harvest handling equipment e.g. storage bags. They fear that without such investments, their ability to negotiate and hold commodities as they wait for better prices in the event of market glut is compromised.

As expressed earlier, most farmers and farmer groups rely on produce traders as buyers of their commodity. However, some farmers express frustrations with this linkage as a result of opportunistic behaviors from these traders. Farmers claim that some traders use non-standardized weights when buying produce from them in a bid to pay less. This practice is worrisome for them especially as they currently lack other alternatives to rely on when selling their produce.

All factors held constant; improved input use coupled with best agronomic practices adoption results in better yields. This positive result provides its own challenges where transportation options (fleet capacity of producers or private transporters) are limited. Farmers express their fear that with expected increased in yields they may be unable to use the new markets as they do not own fleets with adequate capacity to transport high tonnage produce.

Stock outs and in some cases inadequate inputs has also been reported by District Farmer’s Association and some farmer groups. This particular concern has been noted to bear negative consequences as farmers will have to bear with delayed planting where stock outs are present or buy inputs such as seeds at a higher cost due to the inadequate supply.

4. Opportunities for improved efficiencies in the supply chain

Within PRELNOR’s operational context, perfectly competitive markets are not a true depiction of actual happenings on the ground. That is, there is high asymmetry in information, in some cases strategic pervasive behavior amongst actors within the commodity supply chain, and different forms of barriers to market access and participation. Nonetheless, the produce supply chains of the key commodities under PRELNOR in Northern Uganda are not complex i.e. they are composed of few intermediaries; hence efficiency gains from collective action such as collective marketing is not that high. However, internal procurement processes of inputs and selling of produce could have several avenues for efficiency gains.

11 Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 4: Technical background analysis

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4: Technical background analysis

Annex 1: Partnership Building Annex 2: Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production Systems Annex 3: Supply Chain & Logistics Analysis

13

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4 - Annex 1: Partnership-Building

Partnership building is key for successful implementation for PRELNOR due to the different thematic areas, activities and planned outreach expected. Right from the start, PRELNOR managed to mobilize active partnerships with both government and non-state actors. As the main project implementing agency, the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) chairs the Project Policy Committee (PPC), provides overall general direction for project implementation and coordinates with other relevant ministries and agencies. It also takes the lead in formalising partnership arrangements. While the project has done relatively well in formalizing partnership arrangements with several partners, it has been less proactive in developing collaboration with donor initiatives in the same geographic area or the private sector.

Partnership Overview Table

Partner Name Details of partnership

Co -financing partnerships Not applicable

KM, Training and Policy partners World Overview of WOCAT partnered with Uganda Land Care Network (ULN) identify Conservation Approaches and document 34 SLM approaches within the PRELNOR target and Technologies areas for scaling-up. Out of those approaches, Uganda Land Care (WOCAT) has a plan to support the project in demonstrating a number (8-10) relevant SLM approaches and technologies and training farmers to encourage their adoption. Bioversity International Bioversity International delivered training of trainers on improvement of family nutrition to project beneficiaries. This included training to: 200 mentors (50% female); 27 Community Development Officers at subcounty level (16 male/2 female); and 9 Community Development Officers at district level (7 male/2 female). The plan is for this training to be further cascaded, and for the trainers to deliver training to farmer groups and households. Private Sector No concreate partnerships have so far been established with private agencies

Coordination/Implementing Partners District Local MoLG entered in MoUs with the nine DLGs. In each district, the Governments (DLGs) Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for project implementation. A PRELNOR sub-committee of the District Technical Planning Committee assists in coordinating project activities and ensures consistency with the District Development Plan (DDP). So far, performance of these agencies has largely been satisfactory, though there are a few cases that need improvement. In some cases, DLG officials do not fully dedicate their time to PRELNOR activities as they are implementing other projects at the same time. District Farmers' MoLG signed MoUs with two DFAs of Gulu and Adjumani Districts, Associations (DFA) to be PRELNOR's implementation partners. Each of these DFAs also signed an implementation agreement with the respective DLG. The major project activities that DFAs are implementing include: participation in identification of villages, FGs and vulnerable households for project interventions; provision of extension and business development services to FGs; participation in CBNRM planning, together with Local Government partners; support to local

14

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

seed production; and in monitoring and reporting. So far, the performance of the DFAs is commendable. Uganda National The partnership with UNMA has been instrumental in setting the Meteorological Authority grounds for the development of the weather and climate (UNMA) information services. As a results of this partnership: 185 extension workers trained in the interpretation and applications of weather and climate information and agricultural advisories; weather information is directly disseminated to the 574 farmer groups; 4 Radio talk shows are conducted over major local radio stations to disseminate weather and climate information; 15 new automatic weather stations and spares for six Davis automatic weather stations due for rehabilitation have been procured. National Agricultural Through Abi and Ngetta Zonal Agricultural Research and Research Organisation Development Institutes (ZARDIs), NARO committed to facilitate (NARO) adaptive research and production of foundation seed/planting material. Through Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Center (AEATREC), NARO committed to facilitate piloting of agricultural mechanization. Implementation of activities under partnership with AEATREC have been delayed mainly due to delays by MoLG in the procurement of the 2-wheel tractors.

15

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4 - Annex 2: Detailed Report on Sub-component A2 - Priority climate resilient crop production systems

1. Extension provision - In the PRELNOR design the inadequacy of a national extension service was identified as a key constraint to programme implementation. As an alternative approach to government extension, District Farmers Associations (DFA) were identified and assessed to evaluate their capacities, knowledge gaps and capacity building needs. Based on this assessment only Gulu and Adjumani DFA were considered experienced enough to work with PRELNOR. In the other Districts, it was agreed to work with the DLG and strengthen their staff. A total of 90 Agricultural Extension Facilitators (AEFs) were recruited (26 under DFAs and 64 under DLGs). In addition, 200 community based facilitators (CBFs), two per project parish were recruited.

2. As of May 2019 PRELNOR supports 154 Agricultural Extension staff (DLGs and the DFAs; 97 males and 57 females) and 200 community-based facilitators (CBFs; 125 males and 75 females). They are trained in extension approaches, good agricultural practices, supporting local seed production, group dynamics and management, farming as a business, gender action learning amongst others.

3. The Uganda National Farmers' Federation (UNFFE) was contracted in 2018 (after a one year delay) to build capacity of the DFAs. Currently they are providing support in grassroot mobilization of members, leadership and governance, mentoring DFAs, and a progress report of this work has been submitted and is under review by the PMU.

4. There were few field activities conducted in the Season B (August-December) 2017 cropping season, with the main field work starting in Season A (April-July) 2018 season. In the first season 2017/18, 452 out of a target 574 demonstrations were established. In Season B 2018, 55 out of a target 205 demonstrations were established. This number was lower due to delays in procurement of the demonstration inputs and due to the fact that cassava is mainly planted in season A and 250 of the 452 demos of season A were on cassava. Procurement delays still affect the timeliness and efficiency of the field program.

5. Each demonstration field is a one acre plot sub-divided into smaller plots of different treatments. The treatments are varieties and crop management practices. On average each demonstration field hosts four crop varieties and compares recommended agronomic practices with prevailing farmer practices. Farmer learning in these demonstration fields are facilitated by AEFs and CBFs throughout the season. Technical support, field monitoring and follow-up of farmer group activities were conducted by the PMU and DLG/DFA extension personnel.

6. Demonstrations were on cassava (Narocas 1, Nase 14, Nase 19), beans, maize (OPV varieties - Longe 4, 5 and 5D, MM3 and hybrids Longe 7H, 10H) and rice. Initial results from the Season A 2018 found that improved cassava varieties (Narocas 1, Nase 14 and Nase 19) showed very positive attributes (disease-symptoms free, vigorous growth, early tuber formation, tolerance to cassava green mites and well established canopies) compared to the local varieties. Yield data from these cassava demonstration fields are being collected and will be completed when the plants are 12 -18 months old.

7. Maize trials compared open pollinated (OPV) (Longe 5, Longe 5D, Longe 4 and MM3), hybrid (Longe 7H, Longe 10H and Bazooka) and local varieties. In general, (i) OPVs performed better than hybrid and local varieties, with different OPVs performing better in different locations, (ii) maize requires good field management and treatments (including timely planting and correct fertilizer use) for good performance, and (iii) management of fall armyworms remains a key factor in maize production. Some delays in delivery and use of inputs during the demonstrations (e.g. pesticides to control armyworms) undermined the value of the demonstrations.

8. Improved varieties of beans (Nabe 4, Nabe 15, Nabe 16, Nabe 17, and Nabe 19, Naro beans 1, 2, and 3) were compared to local varieties. In all Districts the improved variety performed better, with the performed variety being location specific.

16

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

9. For rice trials the improved Namche series (Namche 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) and the Nerica series (Nerica 1, 4 & 10) were compared to the main local variety, Sindano. Like beans, rice performance varied by District, with the Namche series being more affected by bird damage.

10. Soybeans demonstrations was conducted in Kitgum and Pader Districts where it had been prioritized in the last cropping season. Improved varieties (Maksoy 2N, 3N and 4N) were compared to local varieties. The Maksoy 3N and 4N registered very good performance in the two districts, due to their drought tolerance, early maturity and high yields.

11. A key implementation challenge remains the timeliness of planning, establishing and management of the field demonstrations and adaptive research trials. If a demonstration is done poorly, it is better not to be done at all. As in previous missions it was noted that many demonstrations were implemented late due to delayed procurement of inputs. This adversely affects the quality of the demonstrations and undermines their value in showing improved options to farmers. An innovative approach used for accessing inputs for the Season A and B 2019 was the organisation of input trade fairs. Here the District invites all certified agro-dealers and seed companies, including local seed businesses producing Quality Declared Seeds, to a day when farmers are organised to buy their inputs. The farmer groups and mentored households are given vouchers to buy the inputs they need and they can discuss with the agro-dealers and agree what to buy from each one. To ensure input quality, District Agricultural Officers were present to inspect, take samples and test the inputs being sold. The farmers take the inputs home and the agro-dealers redeem the vouchers with PRELNOR. The team should be congratulated for developing this approach. To further support information exchange it is recommended for PRELNOR to produce a list per District of all certified agro-dealers and seed sellers and to dissminate this to all stakeholders, so people know where to buy their inputs from.

12. Field days and exchange visits – a key recommendation from the last supervision mission were to promote field days and exchange visits to ensure that the wider community, and other communities, can benefit from seeing the demonstrations during the season. A total of 21 farmer field days have so far been conducted in six districts (Adjumani, Gulu, Omoro, Nwoya, Pader and Lamwo). The field days were organized at sub-county level, with farmers across the sub-county assembling at a group demonstration field or adaptive research site. For example, Gulu and Omoro districts had field days on the theme “increased cassava production for food security and increased rural household income ’’, while in Nwoya, the field days were on the value chains of rice, beans, maize and cassava. The key stakeholders that participated in these field days included targeted project farmer group members, famers within the vicinity of the field days, technical officers from within the districts, sub- counties and parishes, and relevant stakeholdes such as, agro inputs dealers, seed company representatives, the media houses, district and sub-county officials.

13. Farmer Group Batch 2 and 3 - The second batch of 626 farmer groups have been identified and are currently undergoing training in group dymanics, group governance and group action planning. Field extension activities for this batch will commence in July 2019, while demonstration establishment will start in season A of 2020. In the original design each batch was to recevie two years of support before new farmer groups were selected. Given the start-up delays, it is recommended that Batch 2 and 3 receive 18 months of support. This would allow Batch 3 to be selected end 2019/early 2020, and to receive 18 months of support before project end.

14. Partnership with NARO for foundation seed production – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs. The production of foundation seed continues at the two ZARDIs. The foundation seed is available for purchase by seed groups interested in producing certified or Quality Declared Seed, and seed sales are growing over time. Details of the areas planted and seed sold is contained in the two ZARDI annual reports. A table of Cumulative records of sale of foundation seeds from the ZARDIs as of 30th April 2019 follows:

17

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Abi ZARDI Seeds Quantity NTR Raised (UGX) Rice (Namche 1,2 3) 78 kg 390,000 Rice (Nerica 4) 1,801kg 7,204,000 Maize (Longe 4 & 5) 1,374kg 4,122,000 Cassava cuttings (Narocas 1) 100 bags 5,500,000 Sub -total 17,216,000

Ngetta ZARDI Beans (Narobean 1, Nabe 19, Nabe 15) 760kg 3,800,000 Maize (Longe 5D) 550kg 1,100,000 Soybeans (Maksoy 3N) 1,754 6,503,000 Groundnuts (Serenut 8 &14) 4,000 kg 2,925,000 Rice (Namche 1,2 & 3) 400 kg 1,200,000 Cassava (Narocas 1) 60 bags 1,800,000 Sesame (sesim 2) 10kg 100,000 Sub -total 17,428,000

15. The income derived from these sales is available to reinvest in future seed production. It is recommended that the ZARDIs develop a seed business plan based on demand and supply on which variety is needed in which season of the year etc, so they can determine if they can exit project support, if the seed business they are entering is profitable, or at least operating on a cost recovery basis. To support this exit strategy it is recommended that the amount for the ZARDIs in the 2019-20 APWB be reduced to reflect a co-pay by the ZARDIs for foundation seed production. Ngetta ZARDI also supported foundation seed production through seven Local Seed Businesses (LSBs). Through these LSBs, a total of 65 acres were planted under different crops. The foundation seeds produced are being accessed on a cost-recovery basis by project seed production groups (LSBs).

16. Partnership with NARO for adaptive research trials – Abi and Ngetta ZARDIs. In April 2018 Abi ZARDI and Adjumani DFA established one trial in each of the 12 parishes. Each was one acre, divided into four plots (rice, beans, maize and cassava), host by a farmer group. Alongside these trials, soil and water conservation practices were also demonstrated, where the trenches help to trap run-off water and soil during rainfall. In April 2018 Ngetta ZARDI, Gulu DFA and 6 DLGs established one trial in each of the 88 parishes. In Season B 2018 the same variety demonstrations were repeated to collect a second season’s data and evaluation. For all adaptive research trials, the annual crops have been harvested and the data analysed and reported in the annual report. Due to challenges observed in managing so many trials, the mission recommends that in Season A 2019, the number of trials is reduced to one per sub-county, to ensure better management and support by the ZARDIs. It is also recommended that the adaptive research focuses on technologies and practices rather than variety performance demonstrations.

17. Collecting data towards outcome reporting - Through the crop demonstrations and adaptive trials conducted during the two seasons (2018 A and B) increases in crop yields are being seen. For example, farmers are recording beans yields of 900–1200 kg/ha from Naro beans 1 compared to 400–730 kg/ha from local varieties. Improved cassava varieties (Nase 14, 19 and Narocas 1) are yielding 35-46 tons/ha compared to less than 10 tons/ha from local varieties. Beans yield increased from 631kg/acre to 677kg/acre, maize from 646kg/acre to 765kg/acre and rice from 788kg/acre to 848kg/acre. These yield increments are attributed to the extension services being offered and uptake of improved crop varieties.

18. Development of Local Seed Businesses . Due to protracted contracting challenges, MoLG could not contract ISSD to support PRELNOR as planned at design. To be able to continue with the planned activities, the project is working with NARO staff trained by ISSD in Ngetta and Abi ZARDIs to support local seed production groups. Using the ISSD Uganda manual 'Supporting Local Seed Businesses – a training manual' , a ToT was conducted by the NARO staff in October 2018 for 50 AEF from all 25 project sub-counties in the nine districts plus the agri-business officers of the 2 DFAs. The training was also co-facilitated by two chairpersons of existing and experienced ISSD LSB groups to

18

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018 share their practical experiences. The AEFs have since identified and trained two LSB groups per sub-county. A total of 15 groups have bought foundation seeds of rice, soybeans and groundnuts from Ngetta ZARDI. None of the six LSBs in Adjumani district has so far bought any seed from Abi ZARDI but are being prepared to do so. To avoid expiry of seeds in storage, some of the seeds are being sold out by the ZARDIs to other farmers to raise NTR. The price of the foundation seed is largely determined by the following factors; how new the crop variety is, the demand for the crop/variety at the time of sale and the cost of production.

19. As cassava is such a key food security and income generating crop, PRELNOR has developed a community multiplication approach to supply larger volumes of improved varieties and make them available locally. So far, 100 FGs planted in 2018 A season 427 acres of cassava, of which 418 acres are well established. These fields are being monitored regularly to ensure there are no mixed varieties and diseases problems, and they will be officially inspected by the National Seed Certification Services of the MAAIF through the delegated DAOs during, and at the end of the season to ensure they can be sold as improved varieties when harvested.

20. The seed demand assessment recommended by the November 2017 mission has been conducted and data collected and analysed, and a draft report is in place. The information is being triangulated with what the 50 LSBs are prioritising and being used for planning purposes. A draft seed road map is in place and will be updated annually to ensure demand for foundation seeds can be matched to LSB production, and that the foundation seed needed by these LSBs will be available from the ZARDIs. Agreed action s: (i) PMU completes the seed demand assessment report, and (ii) Finalises seed roadmap to estimate demand from farmer groups' members and use this information to inform the LSBs of quality declared seed demand and to inform the ZARDIs of foundation seed demand.

21. Partnership with NARO - Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Centre (AEATREC ). PRELNOR is developing private service provider model to provide mechanisation services to communities. Host farmer groups were identified in January 2018 and are being trained using the recently developed manuals. The host farmer groups are to operate the machinery, to cover costs for operations, maintenance and repair. To increase awareness of new mechanisation options a range of exchange visits and field demonstrations on the use of mechanisation options to reduce labour costs and drudgery have started and will continue each season.

22. The pilot mechanization activities continues to be delayed due to the procurement of the 2- wheel tractors (2-WT). The re-submission of the tender document with revised and clarified specifications is with IFAD for no-objection. The mission recommends (as per the December 2018 supervision mission) that the PMU/ MoLG urgently follows-up on the 2-WT bidding process. Local fabrication of 2-WT equipment (50 trailers, 50 planters), animal draft power equipment (50 ox- planters, 75 weeders and 75 ox-carts) and processing equipment (27 rice threshers, 23 cassava chippers, 50 maize shellers) has been completed (except for 25 ox-planters) and all equipment is in storage at AEATREC pending delivery of the 2WTs. Delivery of animal draft power equipment and post-harvest handling implements will start in the last week of May and thereafter, hands-on training of the farmers will commence.

23. Partnership with Plant-Wise . A new addition to the programme is the work with MAAIF on supporting the PlantWise Plant Doctor extension approach. Two trainings were conducted in August 2018 and May 2019 for 50 AEFs (12 female and 38 male) and covered three areas of the PlantWise program – (i) Field diagnosis and operations of clinics, (ii) recommendations and the art of advice, and (iii) ICT in plant clinics or e-plant clinics. Two extension personnel have been trained by NARO and CABI PlantWise on the use of the fertilizer optimization tool (FOT) and the training is being out-scaled to other extension personnel and agro inputs dealers (so far 25 Extension personnel have been reached out to with the tool). The tool optimizes fertilizer use through an economic benefits analysis and helps farmers to decide if, and in which type of fertiliser to invest. The costs of the training and provision of materials for the field work were covered by PRELNOR and MAAIF (from other sources) and PlantWise-Uganda. MAAIF subsequently supplied one Plant Doctor kit for each of the nine

19

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Districts. Four plant clinics have been conducted (Gulu 3 and Omoro 1). With two Plant Doctors per sub-County, the number of clinics will increase significantly in the coming seasons.

Agreed action Responsibility Deadline Status Produce and distribute a list of certified agro-dealers and PMU End August 2019 Agreed seed producers Batch 2 and 3 Farmer Groups to receive 18 months of PMU Immediate Agreed support and Batch 3 to be selected early in 2020 Develop a co-financing plan with NARO for foundation PMU Immediate Agreed seed production and reduce their 2019-20 AWPB accordingly Reduce Season A 2019 adaptive research trials to one per PMU Immediate Agreed sub-county, to ensure better management and support by the ZARDIs Change the focus of the adaptive research trials from PMU Immediate Agreed variety to technology and practices demonstrations Follow-up on the 2-WT bidding process PMU Immediate Agreed

20

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 4 - Annex 3: Supply Chain & Logistics Analysis

Executive Summary

A mid-term review is essential in assessing the progress of project implementation. It allows for an external outlook into current systems and operations of the project in order to understand what works, challenges that exist, what areas require additional assistance among others. HELP Logistics took part in reviewing the Government of Uganda’s (GoU) ‘Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region’ (PRELNOR). Through financial support from IFAD, this project seeks to ensure that vulnerable households in Northern Uganda can adopt best practices in agriculture and essential life skills as they transition into commercially oriented agriculture. HELP Logistics was able to review the project’s market access component and provided recommendations that should guide the project staff in creation of market linkages, improving coordination in the supply chain and ensuring efficiency gains are attained through best practices in procurement, sourcing and use of collective action.

Background

The need to improve farmer productivity has been coupled with the equally important desirability of effective market linkages. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) due to multiple constraints, lack of smallholder market participation has become a pervasive issue from access to input markets that drive this desired productivity to output markets that incentivize increasing/maintaining farm productivity. These constraints manifest through lack of market information on prices, lack of supporting institutions, high coordination risks and failures among supply chain actors, high transaction costs and credit constraints. Without reining in on these constraints, especially where agriculture is the key economic driver, actors and in most cases vulnerable smallholder farmers get locked out of markets and are ultimately trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty; which leads to rural regions becoming trapped in a similar cycle of underdevelopment.

To counter such scenarios from being the norm, the Government of Uganda (GoU), under a development loan from IFAD Uganda, embarked on the implementation of the ‘Project for Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Regions’ (PRELNOR).This six year project started in 2015 with the aim of improving the welfare of vulnerable households in 9 northern districts of Uganda. This project is designed to accommodate 3 main components which are:

1. Component A. Rural livelihoods: A.1. Community Planning and Capacity Development. 2. Component A. Rural livelihoods: A.2. Priority Climate Resilient Crop Production Systems. 3. Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.1. Improved Market Access Processes. 4. Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.2. Market Access Infrastructure. 5. Component C. Programme Management and Coordination

The focus of Component A is to improve agricultural production and productivity, especially of selected crop enterprises (such as Cassava, Rice, Maize and Beans) and climate resilience of three categories of households. These households are (i) Food insecure households, who do not have enough land or resources to produce enough to cover their food needs; (ii) Food secure households who are still vulnerable to climatic or other shocks to their livelihoods but want to improve their agricultural productivity; and, (iii) Market oriented households with adequate land and some skills which they wish to use to increase their surplus production available for sale.

Once the productivity is attained the project envisaged that farmers will require an outlet for any surplus produce and through these outlets earn an income and achieve welfare gains. It followed that Component B was created to allow for these farmers to be linked to markets. This component focused on trainings and capacity building for farmers to improve their business skills, improvement of infrastructure i.e. roads, and building of new market infrastructure among other various sub- components.

21

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

To that end, IFAD and HELP Logistics collaborated to review the progress and identify any bottlenecks or risks and opportunities for improvement associated with the implementation of this project and specifically on issues regarding commodity supply chains and logistics.

Discussion

1. Market linkages and the supply chains within for PRELNOR

High quality inputs for vulnerable farmers being targeted by the rural livelihoods component of PRELNOR are essential in improving productivity. Through linkages with agro-dealers by respective District Farmer’s Association, research partners and establishment of Local Seed Businesses (vertical integration) by farmer groups for their respective members, these avenues currently serve as critical pathways in increasing farmer’s yields and providing a marketable surplus. Furthermore, this local seed business provides a sustainable source of seeds if implementation remains on track and scaled accordingly.

Remoteness, poor infrastructure, market information asymmetry and bulkiness are exacerbating factors that limit the produce marketing alternatives for smallholder producers in Northern Uganda. In most of the rural areas in this region, produce traders/middlemen, through their agents, serve as the most prominent outlet of produce in the output commodity supply chain; procuring produce directly from farm gates. However, due to this lack of marketing alternatives as presented earlier, middlemen become the price makers leading to instances of asymmetric power dynamics in this supply chain. A situation that appears to minimize the profitability for many farmers. To that end, PRELNOR has been keen in advocating for smallholder farmers to join Farmer Groups once they have undergone a process of mentorship. This urge to collective action is essential in aggregation of harvested commodities as it enables improved bargaining power, access to internalized credit schemes, lower transaction risks failure and economization of transaction costs. Further, PRELNOR has provided trainings and capacity building to these farmer groups to improve their knowledge in collective marketing, risk management and record keeping, among others.

Market Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs) are another integral avenue created by PRELNOR in ensuring market access and participation for smallholder farmers. These platforms constitute: District Local Governments, District Traders Associations, District Farmers Associations, produce traders, transporters, commission agents, Cooperative Societies/SACCOs, loaders, District Chamber of Commerce and Industry, processors/millers, NGOs/CBOs with interest in market linkages activities among others. Some of the actors in these MSPs have already created linkages between private buyers and farmer groups. In one sub-county of Adjumani district, humanitarian organizations have been linked to farmer groups and thus provide reliable outlets for this farmer’s produce. In another sub-county of Gulu, farmer groups were linked to a major agro-processor with the District Farmers Association, although the deal fell through due to the buyer offering an unfavorable payment plan to the farmers.

Direct linkage to agro processors is another marketing chain that is observed as one of the outlets for farmers. This particular chain has been observed in two different forms. First, farmers aggregate their produce; a private processor will then buy this aggregated produce at an agreed price. Second, farmers sell their produce directly to their cooperative which buys it, processes it and sells it off to wholesalers in major cities and towns. Both these avenues, in this particular marketing chain, serve as key market linkages. However, these types of linkages are not common across other farmer groups.

22

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

1.1 General Review of Component B. Market Linkages and Infrastructure: B.1. Improved Mark et Access Processes

1. The Commodity Flow Analysis that fed into the project design and served as a criterion for market site selection gives a general idea on several issues regarding marketable volumes in several sites and some operational insights among actors and segments of the supply chain. Nonetheless, it did not capture the current trade processes that are in use and the actors therein. This omission leaves gaps on: (i) The feasibility of these sites as it is uncertain for which segment of this trade flow investments in markets is most appropriate (ii) Uncertainty on who the actual targeted beneficiaries of these markets are.

2. Economic justification should have been made by the PMU team to show why the model of trade flow as suggested in the PRELNOR project design document will serve as a better alternative to what currently exists in terms of value for money for targeted actors. The realization that all these actors are economic beings seeking to satisfy their utility should not be forgotten as any investment into markets that fails to serve this need may not be adopted.

3. The market site selection process was not clear on the targeted supply chain actor’s perception on what market physical infrastructural needs are missing in the current trade flow. Following this, a Willingness To Pay (WTP) study should have been conducted to eventually assist in capturing the detail of investment that should go into these market sites.

4. There needs to be a concerted effort to improve the quality of information sharing within the PMU. This is observed where crucial details such as the market capacity for the proposed markets are very obscure and open to a variety of interpretations. For example, reports from the agribusiness team capture that bulk markets should have a capacity of 50,000MT. To the engineering department of PMU, their interpretation may be misconstrued as this figure can allude to storage capacity within the market, flow through capacity, and finally the time duration is not well specified i.e. 50,000MT per day/week/month/annually.

2. Roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders

Farmer groups are positioned in the supply chain to be the first step of aggregation. This is both in terms of input requirements and produce upon harvesting. Further, these groups will be critical; specifically in terms of their marketing committees finding markets for their produce. Finally, they will be a critical source of information for individual members and provide savings and credit options for farmers.

MSPs have been disaggregated into several key committees. These are: audit committee, marketing committees, policy committee and the executive committee. Roles currently being administered by MSPs are predominantly focused on market site selection. However, their other roles include advocacy among communities on the forthcoming market, oversight on administration of the market, and formation of by-laws and market guidelines for actors.

In the current operational setup, District Farmer’s Association and Local Governments provide agricultural extension services to farmer groups and in some isolated cases they have aided in linking farmer groups to buyers.

It is important to note that the roles of stakeholders in supply chains may be dynamic as operational contexts change, new actors enter the chain, markets widen, new technology is adopted, government interventions occur, and in some cases where merging of roles happen. This means that the resilience of any commodity supply chain in Northern Uganda will be a function inter alia of the adaptability of stakeholders to change and adopt new roles and functions.

3. Potential gaps, bottlenecks and risks relative to the supply chains (Stakeholders Perspective)

23

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Expanding demand for agricultural produce both domestically and in neighbouring countries offers profitable alternatives to traditional local spot markets for smallholder farmers in Northern Uganda. However, farmers are quick to point out that poor infrast ructure, remoteness of their farms, and lack of market intelligence has resulted in high transaction and transportation costs. These high costs essentially lock them out from exploiting these new opportunities. Further, farmers points out that low yields essentially increase per unit transaction and transportation costs.

In the same vein, some farmers express apprehension regarding accessing buyers and general market intelligence with regards to their harvested produce. This is mostly observed among vulner able mentee households from the first batch who are transitioning into commercially oriented enterprises. Deservedly, these farmers have been looking up to their mentors to the extent of gathering market information from them and providing linkages to buye rs. Therefore, these farmers are fearful as to how they will interact with markets without their mentors providing that linkage as they get a new batch of mentees. This is despite most of them having joined farmer groups.

Input and asset acquisition by ind ividual farmers (graduated mentees) and some farmer groups is another key area that farmers believe might pose significant risks to the establishment of their enterprises. Provision of assets such as storage facilities i.e. stores, are a key concern for fa groups as they expect improved yields due to their adoption of better seed varieties, improved agronomic practices and complimentary post-harvest handling equipment e.g. storage bags. They fear that without such investments, their ability to negotiate and hold commodities as they wait for better prices in the event of market glut is compromised.

As expressed earlier, most farmers and farmer groups rely on produce traders as buyers of their commodity. However, some farmers express frustrations with this linkage as a result of opportunistic behaviors from these traders. Farmers claim that some traders use non-standardized weights when buying produce from them in a bid to pay less. This practice is worrisome for them especially as they currently lack other alternatives to rely on when selling their produce.

All factors held constant; improved input use coupled with best agronomic practices adoption results in better yields. This positive result provides its own challenges where transportation options (flee capacity of producers or private transporters) are limited. Farmers express their fear that with expected increased in yields they may be unable to use the new markets as they do not own fleets with adequate capacity to transport high tonnage produce.

Stock outs and in some cases inadequate inputs has also been reported by District Farmer’s Association and some farmer groups. This particular concern has been noted to bear negative consequences as farmers will have to bear with delayed planting where stoc k outs are present or buy inputs such as seeds at a higher cost due to the inadequate supply.

4. Opportunities for improved efficiencies in the supply chain

Within PRELNOR’s operational context, perfectly competitive markets are not a true depiction of act ual happenings on the ground. That is, there is high asymmetry in information, in some cases strategic pervasive behavior amongst actors within the commodity supply chain, and different forms of barriers to market access and participation. Nonetheless, the produce supply chains of the key commodities under PRELNOR in Northern Uganda are not complex i.e. they are composed of few intermediaries; hence efficiency gains from collective action such as collective marketing is not that high. However, internal proc urement processes of inputs and selling of produce could have several avenues for efficiency gains.

24

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

To improve on the allocative 1 efficiency of farmer groups when purchasing inputs, marketing committees therein should have proper capacity building on timely strategic sourcing. Through vertical coordination with District Commercial Officers, farmer groups should be provided with contact information on certified agro dealers, to whom they can contact and source for prices for various inputs. These linkages should be well aligned with the forthcoming season planting requirements of farmers to ensure that agro-dealers have adequate stock keeping units (SKUs) of required inputs before the start of the new planting season and prevent stock outs as has been articulated in the previous section. Further, farmers will have better value for money with regards to this form of input procurement.

Timely procurement complemented by thorough market assessment is also a key driver of improved technical efficiency. Farmer Groups through their marketing committees should be encouraged to conduct market assessments several months before a new planting season begins by incorporating a variety of practices such as comparing prices of inputs in Kampala; which are cheaper than in Gulu. By leveraging their economies of scale, they can buy the inputs ‘x’ in Kampala, and sell it to their members at cheaper prices than the prevailing market price in Gulu. Thus, assuming a maximum yield ‘y’ from using input ‘x’, compared to farmers who will buy their inputs in Gulu, farmers who procured from Kampala achieve higher technical efficiency as their input expenditure is less than the comparison farmer yet they both achieve similar yields, all factors held constant.

Ensuring every farmer invests in post-harvest handling (PHH) is another avenue that ensures the attainment of efficiency gains. Through obtaining credit from their groups (if necessary) or liquidating some assets like chickens to buy pesticides for example, farmers should be encouraged to adopt improved forms of post-harvest handling equipment to supplement what they procured from the PRELNOR grants. Further, investing in proper packaging material for their grains is vital to avoid any produce spillage during transit that may reduce prices paid by buyers. Farmers need to be sensitized that by reducing their produce losses through proper packaging and PHH interventions, they are not only maximizing their returns on inputs used, but also reduction in post-harvest losses has efficiency gains from an environmental perspective.

Finally, another source of allocative inefficiency in contractual arrangement (whether formal or informal) exists in actions that were not subject to contractual provisions from the onset. This can be observed where produce traders do not specify the quality or type of commodity that they require hence leaving farmers with a huge margin of discretion that translates to high production risks and transaction costs, e.g. what variety of sorghum to grow. Such concerns should be well addressed in contracts with agro-processors and it should be ensured that the extent of incomplete contracts with regards to missing information is minimal at its best and weighs low on the risk component especially to farmers.

5. Recommendations

Commendable progress has been made separately on each of the first two components A and B of PRELNOR. This is well observed through structures and programs that are designed in improving the resilience of vulnerable households in the former whilst creating marketing platforms and capacity building of farmer groups, amongst others in the latter component. However, a clear gap exists between the articulation and the implementation of pathways that prescribe how beneficiaries transition to access markets and fully participate in them. This is perceived through household mentee insights on their ability to access and participate in markets, the current roles of marketing committees in farmer groups and the functions of MSPs. Additionally, a rather diluted narrative on how linkages with markets will be done that relies on the presence of physical market infrastructure is prevalent.

1 Allocative efficiency refers to how best limited resources are assigned to various competing needs as per what is most beneficial to the recipient’s preferences.

25

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

With no market construction yet to be implemented, the core roles of MSPs with regards to actual linkages to buyers of produce and sellers of inputs are minimal and not well presented by PMU.

The way forward to improve on these two component linkages relies on a normative analysis of this context. That is, what are the essential institutional arrangements that should be in place given the setting under study to ensure that PRELNOR objectives are met? Therefore by building on the structures that are already in place, a critical market arrangement needs to be fostered between marketing committees of farmer groups and market stakeholder platforms. This arrangement can be approached using several methodologies:

1. Coordination of information on projected yields from farmer groups during a planting season to enable MSPs to provide options to interested private sector buyers. To that effect, MSPs through the District Farmer’s Association (DFA) should have a database of farmer groups in their respective districts, their precise locations, contact details of their marketing committees, crops grown and projected yields before harvest and actual yields after harvest. This information will greatly assist produce traders who still remain the biggest outlet of farmer produce in this region by greatly reducing their transaction costs related to searching for producers and any large processor who may be interested in bulk buying.

2. In some cases, MSPs which are inclusive of District Local Governments in their setup can take advantage of government facilities like prisons, schools and others in their areas to link them with farmer groups, which are examples potentially many other opportunities that may exist in their area. The PMU needs to encourage MSPs to leverage not only on their internal diverse composition to link farmers to buyers; but also to leverage on such opportunities within their district environments e.g. Adjumani district which has a high presence of humanitarian organizations should be linked to farmer groups in the area. The PMU should coordinate with the district commercial officer to maintain a list of all agro-processors in their locales, hospitality facilities and any other prospective buyer. This can provide a starting point for most of these farmer groups as they transition into market-oriented agriculture.

3. MSPs should provide a governance and enforcement role in transactions between farmer groups and private traders i.e. ensure no opportunistic behavior arises. E.g. forming of tribunal committees to adjudicate on transaction grievances where relationship-based enforcement mechanisms such as trust do not exist due to the widening of markets.

4. It is important to note that the effectiveness of these arrangements relies on proper coordination not only vertically between farmer groups and MSPs but also horizontally amongst farmers themselves and similarly amongst the various actors within the MSP. This horizontal coordination, especially among farmers, involves ensuring that they are all aware of the existence of marketing committees and market requirements with regards to produce quality to avoid adverse selection problems.

Further, PRELNOR-PMU needs to increase the indicators used to monitor MSPs. With PRELNOR having another 3 years to project completion, the current output indicator that measures functioning of MSPs as the number of MSPs that have been set up for each market creates a blind spot with regards to evaluating the progress of MSPs. Further, this indicator may give a spurious measure of success for output B.1a on effective management systems for satellite and bulk markets established. To remedy this situation, indicators should be directly derived from the MSP roles 2 (further

2 The roles and responsibilities of MSPs need to be reviewed. These roles fail to leverage on the rich composition of diverse stakeholders therein and some members may lack the capacity to implement some of the assigned roles. For example: a. Mobilization of local construction material should not be a role of the MSP but that of the implementing contractor. b. A role such as ‘ Ensure construction works’ makes little sense to what the function of this audit committee is. c. Roles for marketing committees such as ‘ensuring that farmer groups observe market by-laws such as no selling produce at home but in markets’ is completely out of place. On the contrary this committee should gather farmer’s opinions on what incentives need to be put in place to ensure their market participation and work towards meeting them.

26

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

disaggregated into the sub-committees therein). These indicators should be collected based on a panel design seasonally and will be essential in providing guidelines on how well MSPs are operating, provide avenues for cross-learning with other MSPs and relate any need for actions/fixes as deemed appropriate by PMU.

With regards to flow of market information, the need to hire an external service provider for AMIS does not have sufficient justification on its sustainability once the project ends. Nonetheless, as market information is an essential part of reducing production risks and uncertainty, an alternative to a contracted AMIS provider is leveraging on two forms of collective action:

1. High social capital among farmer groups. 2. Leveraging on the MSPs market intelligence.

3. As these two groups both have marketing committees, information on market intelligence can be passed down from the MSPs marketing committees to those of farmer groups in their respective districts. Due to high social capital among farmer groups, it would be feasible to give market information to marketing committees for this to be disseminated to farmers. To this end the structure on how information should be gathered and spread should be factored into training by PMU. I.e. frequency of sharing information, type of information (based on stakeholder needs) and any other factors deemed important by stakeholders especially farmer groups.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to track back on the issue of market site selection; therefore to ensure the technical efficiency of any invested resources in these proposed markets, the insights provided in section 1.1 need to be implemented. This can be done by including these options as part of the design phase of the markets; a process that is about to commence. This information should help them find ways to properly integrate these market sites to the current flow or find a way to make usage of these markets as cheaper and more efficient alternatives to the current operations. Finally, it will provide empirical justification on the nature and type of investment required.

So urce Findings Recommendations Suggested Actions Owner Database The farmer groups are A database of farmer groups The PMU should PMU of farmer in their first season of under PRELNOR needs to coordinate efforts through groups planting having be constituted. This the DFA to list the undergone necessary database (excel format) number of farmer groups agronomic and should be able to capture that are currently in business trainings. the crop(s) grown, specific existence in every district However, the issue of variety, yield estimates, linking them to actual yields and contact markets is not well information of the officials of articulated or these farmer groups. designed. Strategic Farmers under Strategic sourcing of buyers The PMU should PMU sourcing PRELNOR are for produce should begin as approach produce traders of currently planting in soon as possible. PMU who constitute the largest produce this season. However, needs to ensure that group of buyers in the outlets no clear efforts are in sourcing for markets for region and facilitate place with regards to produce does not begin after linkages to farmer groups linking these farmers harvest where prices may be once a database is well to markets in affected by glut. Early established. Further other anticipation of the sourcing of buyers and price partners such as NU-TEC harvest. negotiations will be essential can assist in market in providing farmers with an linkages. immediate buyer. Market In the event of MSPs through the DFA’s With a database of PMU information increased productivity should pass information farmers and the produce gap and widening of regarding the nature of the grown, PMU should

27

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

markets, market market (demand, prices, etc.) coordinate dissemination intelligence needs to to the marketing committees of market intelligence be well communicated to disburse to their members. through MSPs; upstream to farmers. specifically, DFAs with the assisted efforts of produce traders, local governments etc. should pass market information to farmers to make them aware and enable them make informed business decisions. Market site Some critical steps in To economically justify the PMU should coordinate PMU selection choosing the market nature of investments and these efforts through the sites and the nature of integration of these markets service provider of the investments to be put to the trade flow, a markets design team in were not accounted perception study of these for. proposed markets needs to be done among the target beneficiaries and a willingness to pay assessment conducted concurrently that should further assist in identifying the nature of investments to be put in these markets.

28

Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 5: Mission preparation and planning, TORs, schedules, people met

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Appendix 5: Mission preparation and planning, TORs, schedules, people met.

PRELNOR MTR TERMS OF REFERENCE

A. Background 24. The Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) is a seven- year Project that came into force on 5 August 2015. Effective implementation of the project on the ground started in March 2016. The project has a total cost of USD 70.4 million, financed as follows: an IFAD loan of USD 50.2 million; a grant from the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Project (ASAP) of USD 10 million, and USD 10.2 million by Government of Uganda and beneficiaries. Project completion date is 30 September 2022 and disbursement at 20 February 2019 was at 32% and 25% for the ASAP Grant and Loan respectively. 25. PRELNOR was designed with the goal of increasing income, food security and reduced vulnerability of poor rural households in the project area. The Project area is a total of nine districts, comprised of Agago, Amuru, Gulu,Lamwo, Kitgum, Nwoya and Pader in the Acholi sub-region together with the adjoining district of Adjumani. Each project district selected sub-counties on the basis of poverty levels, as well as production and market potential. The number of project villages in each district is based on that district’s share of the total rural poor. 26. PRELNOR’s project development objective is: Increased sustainable production, productivity and climate resilience of small holder farmers with increased and profitable access to domestic and export markets. This is expected to be accomplished through two components - A. Rural Livelihoods and B Market Linkages and Infrastructure. The components are interlinked and are being implemented in close coordination and phased across the Project lifetime. Rural Livelihoods would lead to increased asset base and resilience for poor farm families and youth; Market Linkages and Infrastructure would lead to Farmers with surplus crop production receiving increased prices and profitably thereby selling larger volumes of crop products through expanded access to Ugandan and regional markets. Value chain development and marketing focuses on instituting organised value chains and marketing systems by establishing networks of farmer groups to facilitate marketing of vegetable and dairy products. 27. The purpose of the livelihoods component is to enable a higher proportion of farming households, who are not yet market oriented, to achieve levels of production that enable them to take advantage of the opportunities offered by Component 2. The food insecure households and the climate-vulnerable food secure households jointly account for 2/3 of the 18,000 farmer groups. With the addition of the 10,000 vulnerable households, they cumulatively account for 28,000 households, which is 78% of total beneficiaries. 28. The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) is the implementing agency with a dedicated Project Management Unit (PMU) based in Gulu. Other key stakeholders involved in implementation are: Local Governments; District Farmers' Associations (DFAs); National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) through two of its Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (ZARDIs) and Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Research Centre (AETREC); and Uganda National Meteorological Authority (UNMA).

B. Mission Objective and Scope of the Assignment 29. The key objective of the MTR is to review the performance of the Project over the past three years and restructure, as required, the entire Project Design in conformity with the Government of Uganda (GoU) and IFAD guidelines for implementation of activities within the remaining Project period. While review and assessment will be an important part of the MTR, a forward looking approach will be adopted based on the key lessons learned from the implementation to date. The MTR team will work together with MoLG through the PMU to develop joint proposals for restructuring (if necessary) and implementation of each Project component and for the cross-cutting themes such as gender mainstreaming, poverty targeting, social inclusion, monitoring and evaluation and knowledge management. The MTR will also provide implementation support and guidance to the PMU and partner agencies as appropriate. The output from MTR will be an updated and modified Project Design detailing on how the Project will be implemented during the remaining Project period.

68

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

30. The MTR mission team will have three weeks in the country. A kick off meeting will be organized at the central level before departing to the Project area. Working sessions will be organized with the PMU, located at Gulu, before and after the visit of the MTR team to the Project districts. Before departing Gulu, A pre-wrap up workshop shall be held with the PMU to discuss the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the mission based on the working sessions and the field visit. C. Mission Composition and Timelines 31. The MTR team will comprise: (i) Ms. Maliha Hussein - Team Leader and Project Management Specialist, (ii) Mr. Robert Delve - Agronomist, (iii) Mr. Rami Salman – Environment Consultant, (iv) Mr. Mawira Chitima – Infrastructure Specialist, (v) Ms. Lorina Sthapit – Targeting, Gender and M&E, (vi) Mr. Davis Atugonza - Financial Management Specialist, EFA and Cost Tab Specialist, (vii) Mr. Mohamed Abdel Latif - Procurement Specialist and (viii) Pontian Muhwezi – Country Programme Officer . Ms. Lakshmi Moola, Country Programme Manager will provide overall guidance to the mission. 32. The MTR will be joined by the representatives of relevant government ministries as appropriate. The government team will provide inputs to the mission and will contribute to MTR outputs. 33. The MTR team will assemble in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and leave the country on 24 May 2019. A tentative itinerary is provided under Section F below.

D. Specific Duties and Responsibilities 34. The specific duties and responsibilities of individual mission are as follows:

Mission Leader and Project Management Specialist: Ms. Maliha Hussein 35. The Mission Leader (ML) will be required to provide overall leadership, management and coordination of the mission. In particular, this will involve coordinating all mission activities and report preparation to ensure that all deliverables are met in a timely manner and comply with IFAD’s required formats and quality standard. In particular, the ML will be responsible for: (a) Leading and coordinating all mission activities and the preparation and finalization of related outputs. (b) Prepare a proposal on how the entire Project (including with the Environment Specialist, with respect to the ASAP Grant) is to be restructured (reduction of scope/target/area etc.) to ensure that the Project development objective can be met through a maximization of the resources and delivery of outputs in the remaining time frame. This will be accomplished through a joint collaborative process with the PMU Team for submission to IFAD and the GoU. Any redesign of the Project must comply with IFAD’s requirements and be consistent with IFAD’s strategic priorities. In this respect, the MTR report shall present : the strategic context for future implementation, justification and rationale for any modifications in the Project design, as originally presented and modified as a result of supervision missions during the past years; adjustments to the areas of interventions and to targeting and target groups, if any; a review and adjustment to the Project investment components, activities and their implementation; revisions to Project costs, supported by economic and financial analysis as necessary; organization, management and partnership arrangements; monitoring and evaluation frameworks, risks and mitigation strategies, and strategy for scaling up. (c) During the assignment, assess implementation progress achieved and the extent to which the initial strategy and design has been effective, desired outcomes and impacts have been reached and the investment components have been implemented. (d) Review the design and implementation of each of the investment components to ensure that the interventions under each of the components would be able to attain the proposed impacts, whether the resources allocated to are appropriate, thereby determining what adjustments need to be made, facilitating linkages and complementarity of components. (e) Review the role and delivery of implementing partners and recommend changes, if any;

69

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(f) Simplify and clarify implementation arrangements, eligibility criteria, procedures and determine what adjustments need to be made, if any, to the Project management structure and organization. (g) Review the Project’s support to and adherence to government policies and legislation. (h) Review the Project log frame for adjustments, if any, based on any restructuring that is being recommended. Prepare the revised log frame, including the revised indicators. (i) Any other tasks as requested by the CPM. (j) Report writing responsibilities include: (i) drafting the mission Aide Memoire; (ii) preparation of the MTR Main Report; and (iii) Appendix 1 – Summary of Project status and ratings, Appendix 2- Updated Logical Framework. He will also provide a draft management letter. The main focus and weight of report writing will be on presenting proposals for future implementation and the achievement of the development objective within the remaining time frame rather than in presenting an analysis of past three years. 36. The ML will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 23 days input (19 days in country, 4 days for home based report preparations prior and post mission).

Mission co-leader and Environment Specialist: Mr. Rami Salman 37. The consultant will be responsible for reviewing progress in the areas listed below (in collaboration with the Agronomist and the Infrastructure Specialist) and ensuring a course correction on mainstreaming of environment and climate change mitigation and resilience in the project that is supported through the ASAP grant: (a) Full responsibility for the supervision of Sub-component A.2 Priority climate resilient crop production systems and, with the infrastructure specialist, the climate proofing of the infrastructure investment. He will also: (b) Review overall performance on mainstreaming environment and climate change aspects in project activities that have already commenced, specifically the relevance and coherence of these within the larger investment; (c) Review progress in implementation of the current 2018/19 AWPB; (d) Review performance of the PMU and implementing partners on all activities that are being financed by ASAP; (e) Review the utilisation of renewable energy technologies (RET) established at public institutions in terms of energy efficiency, and assess the adequacy or relevance of the particular RETs selected for each institution; (f) Review status and progress of implementation of Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM)Plans; (g) Work with the Infrastructure Specialist engineer to assess whether roads design and construction/rehabilitation have been sufficiently climate-proofed; (h) In alignment of the changes to the design that might emerge, restructure the ASAP activities for the remaining period of the project; (i) Advise on the changes within the cost tables and EFA with respect to restructuring, if any; (j) Guide the PMU in the preparation of ASAP activities for the next financial year i.e. 2019/20; 38. The Environment Specialist will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 21 days input (19 days in country, 2 days for home based report preparations prior and post mission).

Infrastructure Specialist: Mr. Mawira Chitima

70

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(a) Infrastructures: Review various infrastructures, in collaboration with the Environment Specialist, that have been commissioned by the Project thus far in relation to feasibility as it would meet the development objective, planning, cost norms, quality control, sustainability and impacts; provide suitable recommendations including re-design; (b) Assess the plans for the remaining time frame of the Project, with respect to infrastructure investments and determine their alignment to the achievement of the overall development objective of the Project. (c) Assess the overall performance of the related activities and make a brief evaluation of realized implementation as compared to the expected results and objectives; (d) Review physical and financial progress in number and in percentage against the overall targets and annual targets; (e) Assess the capacity of PMU and Implementing Agencies' staff to conduct Project related activities, with respect to Infrastructure, and recommend specific capacity strengthening needs (if any); (f) Review overall progress in implementing Project activities with respect to infrastructure against AWPB, and agreed actions since the last supervision; (g) Project logframe & PIM: Review and revise the Project logframe and PIM in consultation with team leader and other members of the mission; (h) Contribute in the preparation of the aide memoire and working papers in coordination with the mission leader as per IFAD’s new supervision template; (i) Any other matter as may be assigned by team leader or the Country Programme Manager. 39. The Infrastructure Specialist will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 23 days input. Agronomist: Mr. Robert Delve 40. The Agronomist will work closely with the ML and will be responsible for Component 1 and related sub-components. He will: (a) Assess overall performance of the related component and make a brief evaluation of realized implementation as compared to the expected results and objectives; (b) Review physical and financial progress in number and in percentage against the overall targets and annual targets; (c) Highlight key actions or activities of the period and point out good practices and issues or problems and outline their reasons or causes; (d) Highlight key actions or activities especially in contracting with the private sector and point out good practices and issues or problems and outline their reasons or causes; (e) Highlight the key findings or observations and make practical recommendations for further follow-ups; (f) Based on the progress so far, recommend the restructuring of Component 1 if necessary, for the remaining time frame of the Project; (g) Review overall performance in relation to project targets, and progress on the current 2018/19 AWPB;

(h) Assess performance of the DLGs and DFAs on provision of agricultural extension services; (i) Review progress made by the PMU and NARO's Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Centre (AEATRC), towards piloting mechanisation in the project area, including arrangements to involve the youths; (j) Review progress made by the project on production of foundation seed and or any linkages made between farmers and seed companies; (k) Review the performance of farmers' groups being supported by the project; (l) Provide guidance to the PMU on identification of priorities for the component, for the next financial year. (m) Recommend the revised objectives and log frame indicators based on the restructuring;

71

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(n) Assess the capacity of Project staff in the areas of improving seed quality control and storage system, improved Seed Production, and strengthening seed producer groups and cooperatives and recommend specific capacity strengthening needs (if any); (o) In close collaboration with the M&E/KM and targeting specialist, address the cross- cutting issues such as targeting to the vulnerable groups, women participation, gender sensibility and partnership; (p) Review overall progress in implementing Project component 1 activities against the current AWPB, and agreed actions since the last supervision; (q) Prepare a technical note on the above areas and a relevant section for the Aide Memoire, and submit technical report no later than 2 days after the last day of the field mission; (r) Any other tasks related to the mission as agreed with the Team Leader and/or Country Programme Manager; 41. The Agronomist will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 23 days input.

Targeting, Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) and M&E Specialist: Ms. Lorina Sthapit 42. The Targeting and GESI Specialist will work closely with the Team Leader and will take particular responsibility for: (a) Assess the overall performance of the Project and make a brief evaluation of realized implementation as compared to the expected results and objectives; (b) Reviewing physical and financial progress in number and in percentage against the overall targets and annual targets; (c) Assess coherence between AWPB and implementation; (d) Highlight key actions or activities of the period and point out good practices and issues or problems and outline their reasons or causes; (e) Highlight the key findings or observations and make practical recommendations for further follow-ups; (f) Assess the M&E system and provide recommendations to further strengthen the analytical and M&E capacity of the relevant Project staff; (g) Provide support to the Project in complying timely with the RIMS data; (h) Review GESI strategy, action plan, and implementation guidelines for all activities and recommend specific changes (if any); (i) Assess GESI training curriculum and staff capacity in gender mainstreaming and recommend specific capacity strengthening needs (if any) ; (j) Review grant guidelines to verify that it is GESI responsive so that the vulnerable groups can also benefit from the grant window; (k) Address the cross-cutting issues such as targeting to the vulnerable groups, women participation, gender sensibility and partnership; (l) Review overall progress in implementing Project gender and poverty related activities against AWPB, and agreed actions since the last supervision; (m) Assess knowledge management activities and use of innovation for learning, and recommend specific capacity strengthening needs (if any) (n) Collaborate with team members in charge of operational components to review the Project approach and its efficiency by component; (o) Discuss and examine with team members and the involved implementing agencies the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, and provide advice on any improvement that will enhance the M&E management and knowledge management; (p) Review overall progress in implementing Project M&E and KM activities against AWPB, and agreed actions since the last supervision; (q) Review the updated logical framework (Appendix 2); (r) Review the report tables of physical progress measured against AWP&B, and RIMS indicators (Appendix 4);

72

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(s) Assist the Project in preparing the 2019/20 AWPB based on the recommendations from the MTR; (t) Prepare a technical note on the above areas and a relevant section for the Aide Memoire by the date agreed, and submit technical report no later than 2 days after the last day of the field mission; (u) Any other tasks related to the mission as agreed with the Team Leader and Country Programme Manager. 43. The Targeting, GESI and M&E will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 21 days input (19 days in country, 2 days for home based report preparations prior and post mission).

Financial Management Specialist (FMS); Cost Tabs and EFA: Mr. Davis 44. The Financial Management Specialist (FMS) shall have appropriate “financial assurance” experience, and work undertaken should be in compliance with the IFAD Financial Management Assessment Guidance Note (December 2011). FMS will review the financial management aspects related to the Project and provide practical support and guidance to the Project in following up on recent recommendations. This may entail providing training to Project staff. The Specialist will identify potential problems and/or risks and make concrete suggestions to facilitate future implementation of the Project. 45. Specific tasks and responsibilities will include; (a) Using the IFAD FM Guidance Questionnaire as the basis to collect the relevant information, re-assess the strengths and weaknesses of financial management systems, internal controls and financial reporting systems relating to financial management and financial administration of Project funds in order to ensure that they satisfy IFAD's fiduciary requirements; (b) Do desk review of latest External Audit Report (including specifically the Management letter) to ascertain whether any issues raised by the auditor identify potential fiduciary risks - where relevant follow up on issues arising by meeting on-site with the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG). (c) Meet OAG to discuss issues raised in latest Audit Report (if relevant); (d) Review the most recent quarterly Project progress report; (e) Review Project disbursement and flow of funds from IFAD. Identify any issues in disbursement and fund flow and timely availability of adequate counterpart funds; (f) Examine utilization and status of the Special Account and Project Accounts. Summarize financial progress by expenditure categories and by component in line with the required Aide Memoire formats. Provide support to the appropriate Project staff as required; (g) Review overall financial management system of the Project. Review functioning of the Project's record-keeping and accounting systems, including ensuring that the accounting records are kept updated; (h) Provide guidance to the Project on preparing financial statements and withdrawal applications in line with IFAD procedures and requirements; (i) Review Project expenditure relative to plans in the AWPB and assist the PMU to produce a statement showing component and item-wise expenditure by financial year to date; (j) Review the system for Statement of Expenditures (SOE), including the utilisation of funds and spot checking of the documentation of expenditures claimed under SOE, the need for reallocations and compliance with financial covenants. Provide support and guidance to the Project as required; (k) Review the expenditure process from the District offices in terms of quality, completeness, timeliness and compliance; (l) Review the procurement register, contract logs and review and evaluate the procurement process, Undertake Post Reviews as appropriate; (m) Follow-up issues raised in audit reports. Assist the Project in preparing an audit log to manage and follow up on audit observations; (n) Review the issue of payment of taxes. Review compliance on the payment of taxes; (o) Follow up on implementation of PASTEL software and customization;

73

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(p) Review structure and organisation of financial management and procurement in the project, and where necessary, recommend strengthening of the unit especially financial functions, audit, and procurement of management unit organisation; (q) Identify current risks arising from material deficiencies and propose practical recommendations for improving financial management functions and/or capacity of staff for financial operations needed to mitigate risks. Prepare the current Summary Risk Analysis; (r) Assess the Project ‘s Financial Performance; (s) Reporting: Prepare a technical note on the above areas and a relevant section for the Aide Memoire by the date agreed, and submit technical report no later than 2 days after the last day of the field mission; • The report should cover specifically: • Input to Main body of the aide-memoire: - Section E. Fiduciary Aspects covering : (a) financial management; (b) disbursement; (c) counterpart funds; (d) loan covenants; (e) procurement; (6) external Audit; and the summary Risk Analysis table specifying, as relevant, the agreed actions, responsibilities and dates in respect of fiduciary mitigation actions; • The Project Status Report (aide-memoire appendix 1): covering: (a) Disbursement rates of domestic and co-financing funding sources (Section A. Basic Facts); (b) ratings for section B.1 (Fiduciary Aspects) indicators; (c) description of fiduciary risks and their impact on Project performance under section C.5; (d) follow up action on fiduciary aspects under section D; • Appendix 3 (Financial: Actual financial performance by Financier; Disbursements by Category and by component): Tables 3A, 3B and 3C as well as Appendixes 5, 5A and 5B; • Appendix 4 (Compliance with Loan Covenants: Status of implementation): Assessment of loan covenants in relation to fiduciary aspects; (t) Costab: Review and revise the costab based on changes recommended from the MTR; (u) EFA: Review and revise the EFA based on changes recommended from the MTR'; (v) Investment models: Review and revise various investment models of the Project for economic sustainability; (w) Any other tasks related to the mission as agreed with the Team Leader and Country Programme Manager;

46. The FMS will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 19 days input.

Procurement Specialist: Mr. Mohamed Abdel Latif (a) You will work with the mission team, specifically the co-leader of the mission to assess performance in carrying out procurement. This will be rated in terms of the efficiency and transparency with which it is managed, and its effect on implementation will be indicated. The rating will take into account compliance with the procurement plan and also clearly identify variances in compliance of the Procurement Plan on a). Classification and grouping of the procurement of goods, works, materials, consulting services and services; b). the proposed method of procurement as clearly established in the Legal Agreement or Letter to the Borrower/Recipient; c). the adherence to the IFAD’s prior review requirement. Specific tasks include: (b) Review the procurement plan for efficiency and effectiveness. (c) Review the procurement procedures, documentation, correspondences, contracts and records management of procurement which establishes evidence in support of decisions and actions taken, and provide an audit trail for verification of transparency, accountability and effectiveness (d) Validate and review the management of contracts and disbursements against the contracts (specifically the CBNRM Grants) and highlight any deficiencies in the contract management system of the Project. The quality of the documentation and number and severity of substantiated complaints (if any) should be considered.

74

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

(e) Review the contract register and the contract monitoring forms. Coherence with the procurement plan, within the AWPB is to be specially noted. (f) With the Financial Management Specialist, review the progress of procurement; based on comparisons of the records of IFAD and the project, verify the terms of the contracts awarded and the commitments and disbursements made; and obtain copies of approved contracts not yet submitted to IFAD. (g) Ensure that the Project has the first draft of the procurement plan for 2019/20 prepared based on the recommendations of the MTR; (h) Assess the procurement capacities and training needs and make recommendations to mobilise additional resources for training, capacity building and technical assistance. (i) Draft a brief report summarizing findings, and discuss with the Project Procurement Officer, who will provide input as relevant before sending to ML and CPM to enable completion of the procurement sections of the Mission Aide Memoire. (j) Any other tasks related to the mission as agreed with the Team Leader and CPM; 47. The Procurement Specialist will arrive in Kampala on 5 May 2019 and will depart on 24 May with a total of 19 days input.

Mr. Pontian Muhwezi, Country Programme Officer (CPO) 48. He will be responsible for supporting the Team Leader and the MTR mission team for the overall organization, liaison with government and other partners. Specific tasks include:

(a) Assess progress and identify challenges in the implementation of the project’s KM and communication strategy; (b) Review the effectiveness of the project communications systems in capturing, documenting and sharing knowledge; (c) Support the team leader to review the institutional aspects and implementation arrangements of the project, and provide advice on any improvement that will enhance implementation; (d) Assess the coordination mechanisms between MoLG, PMU, DLGs, DFAs, UNMA and NARO in implementation of the project. (e) Make an update of related on-going projects in the region that may have opportunities for synergies or collaboration with PRELNOR. (f) In collaboration with the Gender Specialist, assess performance of the Household Mentoring activities, including determining whether remaining time to completion is adequate to achieve the project target. (g) Assess activities creating linkages between smallholder farmers and private sector partners for input and produce markets; (h) Together with the Infrastructure Specialist, assess performance of infrastructure management committees (i) Any other tasks related to the mission as agreed with the Team Leader and Country Programme Manager. (j) Contribute to the draft Aide Memoire and overall final MTR report

E. Mission Outputs 49. At the completion of the assignment, the ML will submit a MTR report in accordance with IFAD’s procedures and templates. This will include (i) Aide memoire and MTR Report, (ii) Working papers/technical notes form team members and (iii) a draft management letter.

F. Documents to be provided to MTR 50. PMU will provide the following documents to the MTR team before the start of the mission: a) Cumulative Project Progress Report (up to 30 April 2019) b) Annual Progress Report 2017-2018 c) Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB) 2018-2019 d) Actions against agreed actions from the last supervision/implementation support missions

75

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

e) Updated logical framework, with progress against set indicators (Appendix 2) f) Physical and financial progress versus AWPB, including RIMS indicators (Appendix 4) g) Latest Audit report, Project Financial Statements, detailed Audit Log, summary table on Audit Observations with response to Audit observations h) Actual financial performance by financier; Disbursements by category and by component/Sub-component as most recent trimester (in NPR, in USD) (Appendix S) i) Compliance with loan covenants: Status of implementation (Appendix 6) j) Organisation chart of Project team: PMU, district level/implementing partners and list of current staff and positions at all levels m) Findings in Knowledge management, good practices and learning, if any n) Any other documents such as study reports, assessments relevant to the Project o) Map of Project area

51. IFAD will provide the following documents: a) Detail Design Report including ASAP Grant; b) Project Financing Agreements; c) Previous supervision and implementation support mission reports including technical reports; d) Other related documents.

PRELNOR MTR mission: List of People Met

NAME TITLE CONTACT ADDRESS

Telephone Email Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED)

Molly Apio Finance Officer Ministry of Local Government Benjamin Kumumanya Permanent Secretary Balam Mwijukye Commissioner, Policy & Planning

Project Management Unit Ivan Ebong Project Coordinator 0772666652 [email protected] Komakech Alfred Agronomist 0773435858 [email protected] Reagan Opiro MEA 0782040677 [email protected] Judith Ruko Community 0772615149 [email protected] Development Specialist Cresensia Asekenye M&E Specialist 0757786681 [email protected] Walter Oyuku Procurement Officer 0782098264 [email protected] Christopher Kayonga Financial Controller 0776311783 [email protected] Richard Okedi Agribusiness Specialist 0777773202 [email protected] Godfrey Obura Infrastructure Engineer 0782511892 [email protected] Gilbert Infrastructure Engineer Prossy Akumu Assis Accountant 0772528500 [email protected] Bismarck Olanya Env. & Climate Change 0784051102 [email protected] Specialist Kuluo Patrick PD 0772630694 [email protected]

76

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

m Mwebaze Bosco PD 0776685158 [email protected] Patrick Madira MoLG Driver 0776061622 [email protected] Bamanya Caleb PD 0772590022 [email protected] Akello Hellen Administrator 0772643435 [email protected] Project Accountant 0782563247 [email protected] Komakech Francis Office Assistant 0776099537 Franciskomakech2016@gma il.com Oluka James PD 0783201774 [email protected]

Omoro District NAME SEX TITLE AGENCY CONTACT ADDRESS

Telephone Email Acan Grace F Finance Officer Omoro DLG 0782322951 dwalagrace@gmail. com Oboni Alfonse M PHRO Omoro DLG 0772523806 obonialfonse@yaho o.com Okoyo David M DEO Omoro DLG 0772643302 okellookoya@yahoo .com Acan Florence F SAS Omoro DLG 0772957591 acanflorence@gmail .com Jawoko Perry F Ag. DCAO Omoro DLG 0772335149 [email protected] m Arach Betty F SAS Omoro DLG 0772308950 [email protected] m Obwoya Partrick M Ag.D/E (IPM) Omoro DLG 0773274553 [email protected] o.uk Ouma Samuel M CDO Omoro DLG 0772804640 Atim Molly F AEF Omoro 0784788784 Okumu Obina Bernard M SCO Omoro DLG 0772666713 Okumuobina@gmail .com Omony Kamau M AO Omoro DLG 0777327516 Omonykamau2020 @gmail.com Kibwota Denis M SO Omoro DLG 077590655 [email protected] Ochola Andrew M DNRO Omoro DLG 0779750633 Ochola.andrew@ya hoo.com Opiyo Geoffrey M AEF Omoro DLG 0782847574 jeffopiyoobol@gmail .com Otto Betty F Ag.PIA Omoro DLG 0772666924 Ottobetty39@gmail. com Komakech W Oola M CFO Omoro DLG 0788003281 Komakechwilliamool [email protected] Mecak S. Patrick M DWO Omoro DLG 0772019407 partrickmecak@mec akpartrick.com Lule John Kamau M AEF Omoro 0775151699 Johnkamau291@g mail.com Aisu Daniel M DISO Omoro DLG 0776802283 [email protected] om Ojok Denis Giv M MSF-Gulu DFA Gulu 0783770776 [email protected] m

77

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Canugura Martin Okeny M Fin & Admin Gulu DFA 0782758653 [email protected] Acola Harriet F AEF Omoro 0771621975 Acolaharriet88@g mail.com Lakot Susan F Sec Production Omoro 0781373276 [email protected] om Okello Peter Douglas M District Omoro 0782925451 Douglaspeter55@ya Chairperson hoo.com Susan Akany F RDC Omoro 0794200300 Oyuku Ocan Emmanuel M DCAO Omoro DLG 0772333911 [email protected] m Etura Ambrose M DPP Omoro 0782264683 eturaambrose@gma il.com

78

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Mission Schedule

MTR Schedule 6 - 24 May 2019

Date Start Time Travel from( Place) End Time Place of Activity/ Field visits activity

Sunday Various Places Kampala MTR Mission team arrivals in Kampala 05/05/2019

Monday 8:30 Hrs Hotel in Kampala 9:00 Hrs MoFPED Arrival at Meeting Venue 06/05/2019 Offices Monday 9:00 Hrs MoFPED Offices 13:00 Hrs MoFPED Opening meeting with MoFPED 06/05/2019 Offices Tuesday 7:00 Hrs Hotel in Kampala 12:00 Hrs Gulu Travel to Gulu 07/05/2019

Tuesday 12:00 Hrs Hotel in Gulu (Boma Hotel, Pal 12:30 Hrs Gulu Check in at the Hotel 07/05/2019 Afrique Hotel)

Tuesday 12:30 Hrs Bomah Hotel - Gulu 14:30 Hrs Gulu Lunch 07/05/2019 Tuesday 14:30 Hrs Bomah Hotel-Gulu 17:00 Hrs Bomah Meeting with PMU 07/05/2019 Hotel-Gulu Wed 8:40 Hrs Hotels in Gulu 9:00 Hrs CAO's office Group 1: Visit Gulu District Local Government 08/05/2019 Gulu District Local Government Wednesday 9:00 Hrs CAO's office Gulu District Local 11:00 Hrs CAO's office Courtesy call on District leaders (and Meeting with the Technical 08/05/2019 Government Gulu District implementation team of Gulu District Local Government and Gulu DFA team) Local Government

Wednesday 11:00 Hrs CAO's office Gulu District Local 11:30 Hrs Gulu Bulk Group 1 a: Meet with MSP 08/05/2019 Government Market

1

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Wednesday 11:30 Hrs Gulu Bulk Market 12:30 Hrs Palaro Sub- Group 1a: Travel to Palaro Sub-county 08/05/2019 county

Wednesday 12:30 Hrs Kiteng Village, Olwalo Parish, 14:30 Hrs Kiteng Group 1a: Visit and interact with Alur Magrette, Ojok Wilfred, Hellen Watmon, 08/05/2019 Palaro Sub-county Village, Aboyi Quinto (Mentee Households) Olwalo Parish, Palaro Sub- county Wednesday 14:30 Hrs Kiteng Village, Olwalo Parish, 15:00 Hrs Palaro Sub- Group 1a: site visit to one Community access road 08/05/2019 Palaro Sub-county county

Wednesday 15:00 Hrs Palaro Sub-county 16:00 Hrs Gulu Group 1a: Travel back to Hotel in Gulu 08/05/2019

Wednesday 11:00 Hrs Gulu 11:30 Hrs Paicho Group 1 b:Travel to site 08/05/2019 Sub-county Wednesday 11:30 Hrs Omel B Village, Omel Parish, 12: 00 Hrs Omel B Energy saving cook stoves(CBNRM) 08/05/2019 Paicho Sub-county Village, Omel Parish Wednesday 12: 00 Hrs Omel B Village, Omel Parish, 12:30 Hrs Kalali Tree planting (CBNRM) 08/05/2019 Paicho Sub-county Parish, Lamintoo Village, Paicho Sub-county Wednesday 12:30 Hrs Kalali Parish, Lamintoo Village, 13:00 Hrs Labworomor Group 1 b: Travel to Palaro Sub-county 08/05/2019 Paicho Sub-county Parish, Patwol village, Palaro Sub- county Wednesday 13:00 Hrs Labworomor Parish, Patwol 14:00 Hrs Labworomor Group 1 b: Visit and interact with Can Yela Farmers Group 08/05/2019 village, Palaro Sub-county Parish, Patwol village, Palaro Sub- county

2

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Wednesday 14:00 Hrs Labworomor Parish, Patwol 14:20 Hrs Owalo Group 1 b:Travel to Kiteng Village, Owalo Parish 08/05/2019 village, Palaro Sub-county Parish, Kiteng Village, Palaro Sub- county Wednesday 14:20 Hrs Owalo Parish, Kiteng Village, 15: 20 Hrs Owalo Group 1 b: visit and interact with Rebe Ber Farmers Group 08/05/2019 Palaro Sub-county Parish, Kiteng Village, Palaro Sub- county Wednesday 15: 20 Hrs Owalo Parish, Kiteng Village, 16:20 Hrs Gulu Group 1 b: Travel back to Gulu town 08/05/2019 Palaro Sub-county

Wednesday 8:00 Hrs Hotels in Gulu 8:40 Hrs CAO's office Group 2: Visit Omoro District Local Government 08/05/2019 Omoro District Local Government Wednesday 8:40 Hrs CAO's office Omoro District Local 10:40 Hrs CAO's office Courtesy call on District leaders (and Meeting with the Technical 08/05/2019 Government Omoro implementation team of Omoro District Local Government) District Local Government

Wednesday 10:40 Hrs CAO's office Omoro District Local 10:50 Hrs Latin-nyee Group 2a: Travel to Latin-nyee Village, Edobo Parish 08/05/2019 Government Village, Edobo Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 10:50 Hrs Latin-nyee Village, Edobo 11:50 Hrs Latin-nyee Group 2a: Visit and interact with Dii – Ewinyi Farmers' Group 08/05/2019 Parish, Lalogi Sub-county Village, Edobo Parish, Lalogi Sub- county

3

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Wednesday 11:50 Hrs Latin-nyee Village, Edobo 12:00 Hrs Lugung Group 2a: Move to Lugung Village, Gem Parish 08/05/2019 Parish, Lalogi Sub-county Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 12:00 Hrs Lugung Village, Gem Parish, 13:00 Hrs Lugung Group 2a: Visit and interact with Kica Ber Farmers' Group 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 13:00 Hrs Lugung Village, Gem Parish, 13:30 Hrs Lugung Group 2a: Visit and interact with Okelo Charles Otim-(CBNRM) 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 13:30 Hrs Lugung Village, Gem Parish, 13:40 Hrs Awatlela Group 2a: Move to Awatlela Village, Parwech Parish 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Parwech Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 13:40 Hrs Awatlela Village, Parwech Parish, 14:40 Hrs Awatlela Group 2a: Visit and interact with Yeny kikkomi Farmers' Group 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Parwech Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 14:40 Hrs Awatlela Village, Parwech Parish, 14:40 Hrs tee Store Group 2a: Visit and interact with Among Betty- (CBNRM) 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village Village, Parwech Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 14:40 Hrs tee Store Village Village, Parwech 15:10 Hrs Lukwir Visit Lukwir Primary School (solar PV system)-RETS 08/05/2019 Parish, Lalogi Sub-county Primary School

Wednesday 15:10 Hrs Lukwir Primary School 15:40 Hrs Lalogi SSS Visit Lalogi SSS- (Cook stoves)-RETS 08/05/2019

4

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Wednesday 15:40 Hrs Lalogi SSS 16:30 Hrs Gulu Group 2a: Travel back to Gulu Hotel 08/05/2019

Wednesday 10:40 Hrs CAO's office Omoro District Local 10:50 Hrs Ocim- Group 2b: Travel to Agula-Dino-Malaba Market CAR 08/05/2019 Government Corner

Wednesday 10:50 Hrs Ocim-Corner 11:50 Hrs Ocim- Group 2b: Site visit and interaction in Agula-Dino-Malaba Market CAR 08/05/2019 Corner

Wednesday 11:50 Hrs Ocim-Corner 12:00 Hrs Lugung Group 2b: Travel to Lugung Village, Gem Parish 08/05/2019 Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 12:00 Hrs Lugung Village, Gem Parish, 12:30 Hrs Lugung Group 2b: Visit and interact with Adong Ventorina (Mentee Household) 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county

Wednesday 12:30 Hrs Lugung Village, Gem Parish, 12:40 Hrs Otal Village, Group 2b: Travel to Gem Parish, Otal Village 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 12:40 Hrs Otal Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi 13:10 Hrs Otal Village, Group 2b: Visit Atim Susan(Mentee Household) 08/05/2019 Sub-county Gem Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 13:10 Hrs Otal Village, Gem Parish, Lalogi 13:20 Hrs Ingula Group 2b: Travel to Ingula Village, Lukwir Parish 08/05/2019 Sub-county Village, Lukwir Parish, Lalogi Sub- county Wednesday 13:20 Hrs Ingula Village, Lukwir Parish, 13:50 Hrs Ingula Group 2b: Visit and interact with Akidi Cecilia (Mentee Household) 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county Village, Lukwir Parish, Lalogi Sub- county

5

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Wednesday 13:50 Hrs Ingula Village, Lukwir Parish, 14:50 Hrs Gulu Group 2b: Travels back to Hotel in Gulu 08/05/2019 Lalogi Sub-county

Thursday 8:00 Hrs Hotels in Gulu 9:00 Hrs Amuru Group 1: Visit Amuru District Local Government 09/05/2019 District Local Government at Lamogi Sub-county HQ Thursday 9:00 Hrs Amuru District Local Government 11:00 Hrs Amuru Courtesy call on District leaders (and Meeting with the Technical 09/05/2019 at Lamogi Sub-county HQ District implementation team of Amuru District Local Government) Local Government at Lamogi Sub-county HQ

Thursday 11:00 Hrs Amuru District Local Government 11:20 Hrs Amuru Sub- Group 1a: Travel to Apetoc Landing site 09/05/2019 at Lamogi Sub-county HQ county

Thursday 11:20 Hrs Apetoc Landing site, Amuru Sub- 11:50 Hrs Apetoc Group 1a: Visit and Interaction with Kidimon - Apetoc Landing site CAR 09/05/2019 county Landing site

Thursday 11:50 Hrs Apetoc Landing site, Amuru Sub- 12:20 Hrs Pabo Sub- Group 1a: Travel to Apaa in Pabo Sub-county 09/05/2019 county county

Thursday 12:20 Hrs Apaa Link I, Pabo Sub-county 12:50 Hrs Apaa Link I, Group 1a: Lacmon - Apaa Link I CAR 09/05/2019 Pabo Sub- county Thursday 12:50 Hrs Pabo satellite market 13:20 Hrs Pabo Group 1a: Pabo satellite market MSP 09/05/2019 satellite market Thursday 13:20 Hrs Pabo satellite market 13:30 Hrs Lamogi Group 1a: Travel to Kal Village, Pagoro Parish 09/05/2019 Sub-county

Thursday 13:30 Hrs Kal Village, Pagoro Parish, 14:30 Hrs Kal Village, Group 1a: Visit Luteng Luice and Angom Alice (Mentee Households) 09/05/2019 Lamogi sub-county Pagoro Parish, Lamogi sub-

6

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

county

Thursday 14:30 Hrs Kal Village, Pagoro Parish, Gulu Group 1a: Travel back to Hotel in Gulu 09/05/2019 Lamogi sub-county

Thursday 11:00 Hrs Amuru District Local Government 12:00 Hrs Kal Village, Group 1b: Lwala Ribbe Ber Farmers' Group visit 09/05/2019 at Lamogi Sub-county HQ Pagoro Parish, Lamogi Sub-county Thursday 12:00 Hrs Kal Village, Pagoro Parish, 12:30 Hrs Kal Village, Group 1b: Pagoro Kal Community Tree Planting project (CBNRM) 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Pagoro Parish, Lamogi Sub-county Thursday 12:30 Hrs Kal Village, Pagoro Parish, 12:40 Hrs Opok Group 1b: Travel to Opok Village Giragira Parish 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Village, Giragira Parish, Lamogi Sub-county Thursday 12:40 Hrs Opok Village, Giragira Parish, 13:40 Hrs Opok Group 1b: Visit to Lega Tek VSLA Farmers' Group 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Village, Giragira Parish, Lamogi Sub-county Thursday 13:40 Hrs Opok Village, Giragira Parish, 14:10 Hrs Opok Group 1b:visit to Can Deg Lok Farmers' Group 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Village, Giragira Parish, Lamogi Sub-county Thursday 14:10 Hrs Opok Village, Giragira Parish, 14:40 Hrs Ayila Group 1b: Visit to Ayila Community Tree Planting project (CBNRM) 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Village, Giragira Parish, Lamogi

7

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Sub-county

Thursday 14:40 Hrs Ayila Village, Giragira Parish, 14:40 Hrs Kaladima Group 1b: Travel to Kaladima Prisons Farm 09/05/2019 Lamogi Sub-county Prisons Farm Thursday 14:40 Hrs Kaladima Prisons Farm 15:10 Hrs Kaladima Group 1b: Visit and interaction at Kaladima Prisons Farm (improved cook 09/05/2019 Prisons stove) Farm

Thursday 15:10 Hrs Kaladima Prisons Farm 16:10 Hrs Gulu Group 1b: Travel back to Hotel in Gulu 09/05/2019

Thursday 8:00 Hrs Hotels in Gulu 9:00 Hrs Nwoya Group 2: Visit Nwoya District Local Government 09/05/2019 District Local Government Headquarter at Anaka Thursday 9:00 Hrs Nwoya District Local Government 11:00 Hrs Nwoya Courtesy call on District leaders (and Meeting with the Technical 09/05/2019 Headquarter at Anaka District implementation team of Nwoya District Local Government) Local Government Headquarter at Anaka

Thursday 11:00 Hrs Nwoya District Local Government 11:20 Hrs Alero Sub- Group 2a: Travel to Alero S.S. 09/05/2019 Headquarter at Anaka county

Thursday 11:20 Hrs Alero S.S 11:50 Hrs Alero S.S Group 2a: Visit Alero S.S. (RETS) 09/05/2019 Thursday 11:50 Hrs Alero S.S 12:00 Hrs Lalar Group 2a: Travel to Lalar Community 09/05/2019 Community, Alero

8

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Thursday 12:00 Hrs Lalar Community, Alero 12:30 Hrs Lalar Group 2a: Visit to Lalar Community-CBNRM, (Bee keeping, Animal Traction) 09/05/2019 Community, Alero

Thursday 12:30 Hrs Lalar Community, Alero 12:40 Hrs Okura Group 2a: Travel to Okura Community 09/05/2019 Community, Alero Thursday 12:40 Hrs Okura Community, Alero 13:10 Hrs Okura Group 2a: Visit to Okura Community-CBNRM, (Bee Keeping, Animal 09/05/2019 Community, Traction) Alero

Thursday 13:10 Hrs Okura Community, Alero 13:40 Hrs Lungulu Travel to Lungulu P.S. 09/05/2019 Sub-County Thursday 13:40 Hrs Lungulu Primary School 14:10 Hrs Lungulu Group 2a: Visit Lungulu P.S. (RETS) 09/05/2019 Primary School Thursday 14:10 Hrs Lungulu Primary School 15:10 Hrs Lungulu Group 2a: visit Rwot Omiyo Catholic Youth group-Farmers' Group (Cassava 09/05/2019 Village project) Lebngec Parish, Lungulu Sub-county Thursday 15:10 Hrs Lungulu Village Lebngec Parish, 15:20 Hrs Bajere Group 2a: Travel to Bajere Village, Agucira Parish 09/05/2019 Lungulu Sub-county Village, Agucira Parish, Lungulu Sub-county Thursday 15:20 Hrs Bajere Village, Agucira Parish, 16:20 Hrs Bajere Group 2a: Visit Lango Mak Kwer group Farmers' Group, (Maize project) 09/05/2019 Lungulu Sub-county Village, Agucira Parish, Lungulu Sub-county Thursday 16:20 Hrs Bajere Village, Agucira Parish, 17:30 Hrs Gulu Group 2a:Travel back to hotel in Gulu 09/05/2019 Lungulu Sub-county

9

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Thursday 11:00 Hrs Nwoya District Local Government 11:20 Hrs Alero Sub- Group 2b: Travel to Oyinya 09/05/2019 Headquarter at Anaka county

Thursday 11:20 Hrs Oyinya, Alero Sub-county 11:50 Hrs Oyinya, Group 2b: Visit Oyinya-Daga-Kululela (CAR) 09/05/2019 Alero Sub- county Thursday 11:50 Hrs Oyinya, Alero Sub-county 12:00 Hrs Lebngec Group 2b: Travel to Lebngec village, Bajere Parish 09/05/2019 village, Bajere Parish, Alero Sub- county Thursday 12:00 Hrs Lebngec village, Bajere Parish, 12:30 Hrs Lebngec Group 2b: visit Okello David (Mentee Household) 09/05/2019 Alero Sub-county village, Bajere Parish, Alero Sub- county Thursday 12:30 Hrs Lebngec village, Bajere Parish, 12:40 Hrs Ower Group 2b: Travel to Ower Village, Panokrach Parish 09/05/2019 Alero Sub-county Village, Panokrach Parish, Alero Sub- county Thursday 12:40 Hrs Ower Village, Panokrach Parish, 13:10 Hrs Ower Group 2b: Visit Lawil Margaret (Mentee Household) 09/05/2019 Alero Sub-county Village, Panokrach Parish, Alero Sub- county Thursday 13:10 Hrs Ower Village, Panokrach Parish, 13:40 Hrs Lungulu Group 2b: Travel to Latekodong 09/05/2019 Alero Sub-county Sub-County

Thursday 13:40 Hrs Latekodong, Lungulu sub-county 14:10 Hrs Latekodong, Group 2b: Visit Latekodong-Acwa-Ajubi (CAR) 09/05/2019 Lungulu sub-county Thursday 14:10 Hrs Latekodong, Lungulu sub-county 14:30 Hrs Purongo Group 2b: Tavel to Olwiyo Satellite Market 09/05/2019 Sub-county

10

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Thursday 14:30 Hrs Olwiyo Satellite Market at Olwiyo 15:00 Hrs Olwiyo Group 2b: Olwiyo Satellite Market MSP 09/05/2019 Parish Satellite Market at Olwiyo Parish Thursday 15:00 Hrs Olwiyo Satellite Market at Olwiyo 16:30 Hrs Gulu Group 2b: Travel back to Hotel in Gulu 09/05/2019 Parish

Friday 7:30 Hrs Hotels in Gulu 9:30 Hrs CAO's office Visit Adjumani District Local Government 10/05/2019 Adjumani District Local Government Friday 9:30 Hrs CAO's office Adjumani District 11:30 Hrs CAO's office Courtesy call on District leaders (and Meeting with the Technical 10/05/2019 Local Government Adjumani implementation team of Adjumani District Local Government) District Local Government

Friday 11:30 Hrs CAO's office Adjumani District 12:10 Hrs Itirikua Sub- Group A: Travel to Mungula Secondary School 10/05/2019 Local Government county

Friday 12:10 Hrs Mungula Secondary School 12:30 Hrs Mungula Group A: Mungula Secondary School (improved cook stove)-RETs 10/05/2019 Secondary School Mungula Village, Mungula Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 12:30 Hrs Mungula Secondary School 13:30 Hrs Pakwinya Group A: Visit Amaoyoruku Farmers' Group 10/05/2019 Mungula Village, Mungula Parish, Village, Itirikua Sub-county Mungula Parish, Itirikua sub- county

11

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Friday 13:30 Hrs Pakwinya Village, Mungula 13:50 Hrs Zoka Group A: Travel to Zoka Central Village 10/05/2019 Parish, Itirikua sub-county Central Village, Zoka Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 13:50 Hrs Zoka Central Village, Zoka Parish, 14:20 Hrs Zoka Group A: Visit Zoka Central Bee Keeping Group(CBNRM- Bee keeping, tree 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county Central planting and crop farming) Village, Zoka Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 14:20 Hrs Zoka Central Village, Zoka Parish, 15:20 Hrs Zoka Group A: Visit Amayo Women Farmers Group(Adoptive reach trial-water 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county Central conservation) Village, Zoka Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 15:20 Hrs Zoka Central Village, Zoka Parish, 15:40 Hrs Dzaipi Sub- Group A: Travel to Jurumini Village, Ajugopi Parish 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county county

Friday 15:40 Hrs Jurumini Village, Ajugopi Parish 16:40 Hrs Jurumini Group A: Visit Amaoro Women group Farmer's Group 10/05/2019 Dzaipi Sub-county Village, Ajugopi Parish Dzaipi Sub- county Friday 16:40 Hrs Jurumini Village, Ajugopi Parish 18:30 Hrs Gulu Group A: Travel back to Hotel in Gulu 10/05/2019 Dzaipi Sub-county

Friday 11:30 Hrs CAO's office Adjumani District 12:10 Hrs Itirikua Sub- Group B: Travel to Gbayi 10/05/2019 Local Government county

Friday 12:10 Hrs Gbayi, Zoka Parish, Itirikua Sub- 12:40 Hrs Gbayi, Zoka Group B: Visit Gbayi-Nyabila Community Access Road 10/05/2019 county Parish, Itirikua Sub- county

12

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

Friday 12:40 Hrs Gbayi, Zoka Parish, Itirikua Sub- 13:10 Hrs Nyabila, Group B: Visit Nyabila-Aliwara Community Access Road 10/05/2019 county Mungula Parish Itirikua Sub- county Friday 13:10 Hrs Nyabila, Mungula Parish Itirikua 13:30 Hrs Mungula Group B: Visit Mungula Satellite market MSP 10/05/2019 Sub-county Satellite market Friday 13:30 Hrs Mungula Satellite market 14:00 Hrs Aliwara Group B: Visit Olega Williams(mentee household) 10/05/2019 Village, Mungula Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 14:00 Hrs Aliwara Village, Mungula Parish, 14:10 Hrs Ejunya Group B: Travel to Ejunya Village, Kolididi Parish 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county Village, Kolididi Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 14:10 Hrs Ejunya Village, Kolididi Parish, 14:30 Hrs Ejunya Group B: Visit Anzoo Beatrice(mentee household) 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county Village, Kolididi Parish, Itirikua Sub- county Friday 14:30 Hrs Ejunya Village, Kolididi Parish, 16:30 Hrs Gulu Group B: Travel Back to Hotel in Gulu 10/05/2019 Itirikua Sub-county

Saturday Open Day 11/05/2019 Sunday Open Day 12/05/2019 Monday 8:00 Hrs Gulu 16:00 Nwoya Checking on Community Access Roads 13/05/2019 District

13-17 May Meetings with PMU Teams 2019 Saturday Open Day/ Report Writing by MTR Team

13

Republic of Uganda Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Supervision Mission Report - Mission Dates: 3 – 14 December 2018

18/05/2019 Sunday Open Day/ Report Writing by MTR Team 19/05/2019 Monday 14:00 Hrs Bomah Hotel Gulu 16:00 Hrs Bomah Discussions with the PMU team 19/05/2019 Hotel Gulu

Tuesday 07:00 Hrs Gulu 12:00 Hrs Kampala MTR Team Departs for Kampala 21/05/2019

Wednesday 09:30 Hrs Kampala Kampala Submit Aid Memoir to MOLG/PMU 22/05/2019

Thursday 14:00 Hrs MOLG-Kampala 16:30 Hrs MOLG- Meeting with PS/MoLG 23/05/2019 Kampala

Friday 09:00 Hrs MoFPED-Kampala 13:00 Hrs MoFPED- Wrap up meeting with MoFPED 24/05/2019 Kampala

Friday 13:00 Hrs MTR Team Departs from Kampala 24/05/2019

14

Uganda

Project for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region Mid-term Review

Appendix 6: Procurement

Mission Dates: 05-24 May 2019 Document Date 05/07/2019 Project No. 1100001681 Report No. 5073-UG

East and Southern Africa Division Programme Management Department Appendix 6: Procurement Review

A review was done of the Procurement Management Procedures and Procurement Progress under PRELNOR. The review covered the (i) Structure of the Procurement Unit; (ii) Procurement Plan; (iii) Letter to the Recipient; (iv) Contract Register; (v) Standard Bidding Document; (vi) Procurement Progress; and (vii) The procurement filing system.

Procurement Rating: PRELNOR Procurement is rated as 3 Moderately Unsatisfactory, overall, although there is some progress in the Project’s procurement function, there is still room for improvement. Some of the areas that still need improvement include: a) the delay in completing the procurement processes for consultancy service transactions for more than one year; b) excessive use of less competitive procurement methods; c) the need to ensure that Procurement processes are in compliance with IFAD Procurement Guidelines and National Regulations in what relates to compliance with procurement method in accordance with threshold indicated in the LTB and National Regulations, IFAD prior review requirements, inconsistency with standard procedures for selected procurement method, and the evaluation process.

Procurement processes continues to follow the same approach, envisioned at Project design where the MOLG PDU carries out all large procurement Goods transactions that use ICB, and NCB methods. Other procurement methods are managed at the PMU. For Works transactions, bidding documents: Bidding documents are prepared by the PMU and the districts are fully responsible for carrying out the procurement activities until signing the contracts. According the project design, the recruitment of the consultants regardless the cost estimate is the responsibility of the PMU; however, the MOLG PDU takes it over and carry out all consultancy assignments with cost estimate above UGX 200 Million. Delays at the level of the MOLG PDU in processing large transactions especially Consultancy assignments was not justified. It took more than three months to open the financial proposals after receiving IFAD NO Objection on the Technical Evaluation. Lack of the coordination between the Project Procurement Officer and the MOLG PDU is considered one of the obstacles facing the implementation of the Project. The Project is also responsible for preparing, monitoring, and updating procurement plan (PP). During FY 2018-2019, all procurement transactions that were carried out at the project level included the application of the following procurement methods: (i) Restricted Bidding; (ii) Request of Quotations; and (iii) Micro Procurement.

I. Procurement Planning Process:

The Mission was pleased to observe the following: (i) the coherence of the PP with the AWPB; (ii) the attempt to prepare Annual Procurement Plan was good with adoption of a format that allows sensible procurement planning, (iii) the update of the procurement plan with respect to the actual implementation. However, the mission noted the following areas for improvement:

• Several low-value procurement activities can be grouped together under one tender for purposes of economies of scale. The project has split the Works transactions into 50 small Lots with maximum two Lots to be awarded for each bidder, which discouraged all big firms to apply and resulted awarding the contracts to small contractors who do not have the capacity to carry out the contracts. • Non-compliance with IFAD prior review threshold. Two procurement transactions with cost estimate above IFAD prior review threshold were enrolled and implemented as post review transactions. • The plan includes a raw for the revised schedule while there is no explanation for implementing such revision. Moreover, the revised plan was not communicated to IFAD for NO Objection. • Improper procurement methods for goods and non-consulting services were specified. In several cases, the request for quotations method were applied while it should be implemented through restricted bidding as stipulated by the threshold included in the National Regulations. Moreover, the project adopted framework procurements as one of the approved procurement methods, while it should be considered as contract type and the proper procurement method based on the cost estimate should be applied. • Noncompliance with the threshold for ICB indicated in the LTB. One consultancy assignment with cost estimate USD 324,324 was implemented through National Regulations while the LTB indicated that all services Transactions above USD 250,000 should be tendered through ICB method, • The Plan is not being fully respected in terms of packaging. In several cases, the enrolled transaction was split it into several activities without proper justification. • Several Non-consulting transactions were mistakenly enrolled in the Goods sheet. • The plan should include a summary page with an AWPB reference column. • In several cases especially with Works transactions the cost estimate was inconsistent with the contract value Large. In some cases, the contract value was double and triple the cost estimate. • Some basic data are missing such as the implementation schedule of some transactions, the reference to the approved AWPB, the transaction reference.

During the presence of the mission, the Project has developed the Procurement Plan for the year 2019-2020 with support from the mission to reflect the above-mentioned comments and the Plan will be submitted to IFAD for No Objection. It was agreed that the plan will be periodically updated (at least once each month).

II. Procurement Processes and Procedures.

The Mission observes with great concerns that an inconsistent procurement system is being established in the Project that would not enable procurement process to be carried out effectively and efficiently as follows.

A- Use of Prequalification

The original design assumed that Project will apply Prequalification Process for all Restricted Bidding procurements. It was proposed that the MOLG PDU and contracts committee would develop a PRELNOR specific prequalified list of bidders for use under this method. The prequalified list should be updated every two years and would require the IFAD’s No Objection prior to being used for limited bidding. The Project has not developed any prequalified list of bidders for all procurement categories and in rare cases they utilized the existing list of MOLG. The bidding documents were issued for some bidders usually between 3-5 without any justification for the selection of those bidders which shows clear noncompliance with National regulations and Project Design.

B- Bidding Documents

The Project has adopted the National Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) for the procurement of goods, works and non-consulting services under National Procurement Methods. The National SBDs were found satisfactory and meet the basic requirements. However, in some cases the templates were customized without proper justification. For ICB method, incomplete version of the World Bank SBDs was utilized; moreover, unnecessary customization was mistakenly applied for the World Bank Template. The mission noted the following gaps in the issued documents:

• In several cases, the bidding documents were issued with inadequate technical specifications. This is quite serious as it could lead to poor quality of the delivered goods. • In most of the implemented procurements, the post qualification criteria were missing or inadequate; • In some cases, the technical specifications were tailored for a specific manufacturer which leads to de facto Direct Contracting. • Some requirements were unrealistic such as delivery completion time. For all ICB implemented under the project delivery period was between 4-8 weeks, which was not sufficient for the International Bidders and in all cases the supplier failed to comply with this short period. • For several Consultancy Services, the RFPs were issued for two lots while this is not the practice in the selection of Consultants.

C- Advertisement

As stipulated by the National Regulations; for the application of the restricted bidding; the procuring entity shall—

(a) include all the potential providers on the shortlist; and (b) before issuing the bidding documents, publish a notice of restricted bidding on the website of the Public Procurement Authority.

In all procurement activities using the Restricted Bidding Method, the Project never published this notice and selection of the shortlist was done randomly without identifying any selection criteria.

D- Bid Submission

The project does not maintain a securely tender box, so the received Bids were kept at the Procurement Officer room which does not match the best procurement practices.

E- Public Bid Opening

For procurement methods require public bid opening, the project comply with such procedure. However, the minutes for bid opening was developed using one the Public Procurement Authority forms and filled in hand writing. The minutes were totally unreadable and never sent to the bidders.

F- Evaluation Process

Evaluation Process is on the top of the shortcomings in the procurement cycle within the project, the mission noted the following gaps in the evaluation process:

• While the project established an ad-hock evaluation committee for each transaction, the members were the same persons in most of the implemented transactions. • In several cases, the evaluation committee failed to apply the preliminary examination properly. They eliminated the application of some mandatory requirements and qualified the bidders for the technical and financial evaluation. • In some cases, technical evaluation was carried out inaccurately and Goods with less specifications were accepted. • The procedure for post-qualification was eliminated in most of the project procurements; that includes ICBs, Works transactions implemented by Districts PDU using Open Domestic Bidding and Restricted Bidding for the provision of Goods and Non-consulting Services. According to the project design, Post qualification analysis would be an integral aspect of evaluation to avoid signing of contracts that are bound to fail. • In few cases, point system was used to evaluate Non-consulting Services. • According the Project design, the PMU should undertake a due diligence review and provide comments to the districts on the evaluation report for Works transactions. However, in the 50 Lots that were tendered through districts, such procedure has been never applied. • In several cases, the project received less than three quotations or ended with only one responsive bidder which does not comply with the National Regulations requirements.

G- Contract Award

In all cases, the contracts were awarded to the lowest evaluated bidders; however, due to the failure to apply proper evaluation procedures many suppliers failed to comply with the project requirements.

III. Contract Management and Administration

The purpose of contract management is to ensure that all parties to the contract fully meet their respective obligations as efficiently and effectively as possible, delivering the business and operational outputs required from the contract and providing value for money. However, the PMU failed to apply sound contract management practices, the mission noted the following gaps in the contract management and administration function:

• Performance securities were not securely stored. • The project offered the bidders longer period beyond the deadline stipulated by the ITBs to the provide the performance security. • Excessive use of Bid Securing Declaration instead of Bid Security. • In one case (Provision for Staff Medical Insurance), 100% of the contract value was disbursed in advance without receiving any guarantee. Making advance payments without a security in place represents a significant financial risk to the project and is not recommended. • The procurement transactions utilized Request for Quotations method were concluded with issuing Local Purchase Order which was found insufficient as it did not include the conditions enrolled in the bidding documents. • In several cases, payment was made without issuance of acceptance and inspection report. • For all Works and Consulting Services contracts no progress reports were found. • For sizable transactions such as supply Weather Stations and Motor Cycles contracts were extended twice for an additional period more the original contract period without proper justification for the delay and without applying liquidated for damages on the delayed contract. Moreover, the extension was done without obtaining IFAD NO Objection while the transactions were subject to IFAD prior review.

IV. Review of issues identified in the previous review and aide-mémoire.

The last supervision mission did not make any comments on the project procurement performance except the one related to the requirement to have all procurements above UGX 200 million handled by the MOLG PDU and Contracts Committee.

V. Project’s Procurement Filing System

The mission is pleased to find out that the PMU established a dedicated procurement filling system, including most of the procurement activities. However, it was noted that some important documents are missing that include: (i) newspaper advertisements or UNDB procurement notice; (ii) bidders offers; (iii) progress report; (iv) inspection and acceptance report; (v) site handover report for works transactions; and (vi) payment voucher. Moreover, the procurement files of the sizable transactions were kept at the MOLG PDU and districts without retaining copy at the PMU.

VI. Contract Register:

The mission reviewed the project register of contracts –on sample basis. The template for the register of contracts was found in conformity with IFAD requirement and up to date in terms of contracts awarded in the current year. However, some data were missing or enrolled mistakenly such as: (i) Financier; (ii) Type of procurement; (iii) Contract value, as it includes the VAT while the percentage of IFAD financing remain at 100%; (iv) Reference to approved AWPB and Procurement Plan; (v) Financing category; (vi) status of payment; and (vii) Date of IFAD No Objection.

VII. The Borrower/Recipient’s Procurement Regulatory Framework, System and Practices

No significant changes have been to the National Procurement Regulations since the last amendments that took place on 2014 prior the project effectiveness and was considered in the Project Design Document.

VIII. Assessment of Further Procurement Staff Training Needs

By design, the PRELNOR Procurement Unit is based at the PMU and is resourced with a full time Procurement Officer.

Following the assessment done as part of the current mission, the following was revealed:

• While the efforts of the Project are appreciated and acknowledging the fact that lack of capacity and skilled personnel as a great impediment to conducting sound procurement is the single most important issue. Lack of understanding of key procurement principles is manifested and is also an impediment to conducting sound procurement in the project. • The Mission noted that although some key players in the procurement process were generally aware of the existence of IFAD’s Procurement Guidelines and familiar with the National regulations, few knew the regulations and very few appeared to be conversant with the actual contents and specific procedures of the procurement regulations (both National and IFAD Guidelines). The result is that most procurement is not carried out in accordance with the prescribed regulations. • Inadequate knowledge and skills/experience in contract management.

Based on the above, the mission recommends the following capacity building programmes to be implemented immediately:

• Nominate the PRELNOR procurement officer to attend one of the standard procurement training courses (i.e Introductory Certificate in Public Procurement - Level 2 provided under UNDP/CIPS procurement training and certification Project). • Organize a tailor-made Procurement Training for the Project Procurement staff at the level of the PMU and the Districts as well as other technical persons involved in the procurement process covering the areas of compliance with IFAD Procurement Guidelines, preparation of bidding documents, evaluation processes and contract administration. • Conduct training on FIDIC contracts and contract management to build contract implementation capacity for major works and consultancy contracts.

IX. Key Findings and Conclusions from the PRM Assessment Update

As part of the procurement supervision process, a project’s PRM was developed. Despite the robust country procurement legal and policy framework, the assessment indicated the following risks: (i) capacity constraints leading to – failure to comply with National Procurement Regulations and IFAD Procurement Guidelines; delays in processing procurement, inadequate Technical Specifications, delays in evaluations, review and clearance, weak records keeping and filing; and weakness in ensuring contract management (supervision)/administration (monitoring) during contract implementation to completion resulting into cost overruns; (ii) award of contracts to firms with no capacity; (iii) lack of use of Procurement plans as a planning and management tool, and (iv) perception of lack of competition – weak private sector with limited competition.

Key mitigation measures to address procurement capacity gaps are the following:

• The Project Implementation Manual (PIM) should be revised to include detailed sections on procurement objectives, use of IFAD guidelines, Procurement Plan, thresholds for procurement method and prior review, procurement tasks and responsibilities, strengthening procurement capacity, procurement categories, thresholds and methods, procurement steps, contract management and expenditure reports, publications of awards and debriefing, fraud, corruption, and documentation and filing system. The PIM is considered a live document, expected to be updated from time to time as agreed, to reflect agreed refinements to project procedures. • Provide focused training and hand-holding for capacity building of existing staff of the PMU, MOLG PDU and Districts. • Recruit a proficient procurement specialist (consultant) knowledgeable and experienced in donors funded procurement to support and also offer hand on training to the present team with oversight duties over all PRELNOR procurement activities. • Prepare Procurement Plan for the project using IFAD new template. Continuous updating of Procurement Plan to reflect actual procurement activities. Close monitoring of procurement plans on a monthly basis and closely monitor and exercise quality control on all aspects of the procurement process, including evaluation, selection, award, contract signing and implementation to completion. • Improve contract supervision and monitoring, and application of the conditions of contract through Formation of Contract management and monitoring team, led by the project Coordinator and Focal persons, including the technical and the procurement teams, and beneficiaries (if necessary). Close monitoring to ensure adherence to stipulates of the sections in the respective Contract Documents and to minimize poor performance of service providers. • Recruit consulting firm to support contracts monitoring and supervision activities. Conduct training on FIDIC contracts and contract management to build contract implementation capacity for major works and consultancy contracts. • Regular top management monitoring and follow-up of implementation.

The Project Institutional Risk after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will remain medium but with rating 2.65 instead of 2.05 .

X. Procurement Performance Indicator Rating and Justification

No. Performance Indicator Rating Justification for Rating

1 Procurement Planning 3 The procurement planning exhibits significant Process shortcomings such as: missing some important data, noncompliance with IFAD review and procurement methods.

2 Processes and Procedures 3 Processes and procedures applied exhibit significant from Prequalification to shortcomings such as: lack of the application of Bidding prequalification procedure, improper bidding documents, noncompliance with National Regulations with respect to advertisement for Restricted Bidding and noncompliance with the threshold for ICB indicated in the LTB.

3 Process and Procedures 2 Processes and procedures applied exhibit serious for Evaluation and Contract shortcomings such as: failure to apply post qualification Award procedure, preliminary examination was not conducted correctly, documentation for bid evaluation needs significant improvements, Goods with less specifications were accepted.

4 Contract Management and 2 Processes, procedures and systems for administration, Administration supervision and management of contract exhibit significant lapses and gaps such as: contracts are effectively managed by the technical units in charge, most of the documents related to the contract administration are missing in the procurement files. Absence of standard procedures for inspection and acceptance and lack of the capacity with respect to handling challenges and protests.

5 Record Retention 4 The project’s record retention exhibits some weaknesses such as: missing some important documents i) newspaper advertisements or UNDB procurement notice; (ii) bidders offers; (iii) progress report; (iv) inspection and acceptance report; (v) site handover report for works transactions; and (vi) payment voucher. Moreover, the procurement files of the sizable transactions were kept at the MOLG PDU and districts without retaining copy at the PMU.

Table 1: Key Recommendations on Procurement Actions Responsibility Deadline Status

Adhere to IFAD guidelines with regard to preparation of PMU agreed bidding documents and evaluation procedure.

Transfer responsibility for carrying out procurements PMU & MOLG June 2019 proposed above UGX 200 from the MOLG PDU to the Procurement Unit at the PMU level. Nominate the project procurement officer to attend one of PMU August 2019 agreed the standard procurement training courses.

Recruit a Senior Procurement Specialist (consultant) to be PMU August 2019 agreed stationed at PMU to support the PRELNOR procurement activities with oversight duties over all PRELNOR procurement activities. Continuous update of the procurement plan PMU agreed

Ensure that complete documentation of procurement PMU July 2019 agreed processes is kept on procurement files at the PMU, including all related documents and the records for transactions implemented by other partners

Update the register of contracts to reflect the above- PMU June 2019 agreed mentioned comments. Organize a tailor-made Procurement Training for the PMU October 2019 agreed Project Procurement staff at the level of the PMU and the Districts as well as other technical persons involved in the procurement process covering the areas of compliance with IFAD Procurement Guidelines, preparation of bidding documents, evaluation processes and contract administration. Amend the Project Implementation Manual to incorporate PMU June 2019 agreed the different steps to be followed for the Procurement of different procurement categories. Recruit consulting firm to support the supervision and PMU October 2019 agreed monitoring of road improvement contracts.

Conduct training on FIDIC contracts and contract PMU July 2019 agreed management to build contract implementation capacity for major works and consultancy contracts.

Annex 1: Procurement Post review

As part of the implementation support mission to PRELNOR the Procurement Consultant conducted a Post review to a sample of contracts signed under the Project. Out of the 163 contracts signed since the effectiveness of the project, 19 contacts were reviewed. Summary of the findings as follows:

• Improper evaluation process. • The Procurement files are not complete, as it misses some important documents such as acceptance reports and payment vouchers. • Technical specifications were inadequate. • In several cases, no acceptance and inspection reports were found. • The parallel procurement files at PMU level are not updated. This will make desk review of procurement transactions not possible to be conducted. • Ineffective contract administration. • Delay was noticed in the implementation of contracts.

Findings

1- Contract serial No. 161 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/061 for the “Supply of Laptops, Desktops, Printers and Tablets” signed with M/s Kazinga Channel Office World Ltd on 07th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 44,408,120:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The Request for Quotations (National Shopping) method was used with the application National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. However, unnecessary customizations were made for ITBs section. • The PMU addressed 3 vendors without justification for the selection of those firms as the project did not perform prequalification process to establish roaster of suppliers. • The requested validity period was 3 months which is not suitable for this type of procurement. • The technical specifications were not generic enough and the specifications of some items were tailored for a specific brand. • Preliminary examination was conducted; however, the PMU eliminate the application of some mandatory requirements such as Tax certificate. • The lowest bid was rejected for one of the mandatory requirements despite the fact that some requirements were not applied on other bidders. • The PMU accepted one item (tablet) with less specifications than requested without and justification or clarifications. • It took one month to issue the Local Purchase Order after the evaluation which is not good practice for this type of procurement. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The Purchase Order was found insufficient enough as it missed the conditions enrolled in the bidding documents. • Inspection and acceptance report was uncomplete as it missed all details about the delivered commodities. • Payment voucher, copy of check and certificate of warranty were missing in the procurement file.

2- Contract serial No. 149 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/012 for the “Designing and printing Financial Literacy Handbooks” signed with M/s Century Business Cooperation Ltd on 10th January, 2019 for a total value of UGX 16,460,000:

• The transaction was enrolled in the procurement plan under Goods Category while it should be enrolled under Non-consulting Services. • The Request for Quotations (National Shopping) method was used with the application National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The PMU addressed 3 vendors without justification for the selection of those firms as the project did not perform prequalification process to establish roaster of suppliers. • The requested validity period was 3 months which is not suitable for this type of procurement. • The PMU offered 6 days only for the bidders to submit their quotations. • It took one month to issue the Local Purchase Order after the evaluation which is not good practice for this type of procurement. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The Purchase Order was found insufficient as it missed the conditions enrolled in the bidding documents. • Acceptance and inspection report, Payment voucher and copy of check were missing in the procurement file.

3- Contract serial No. 162 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/015 for “Supply of Household Cook stoves, User Manuals and training vulnerable households” signed with M/s Prime Energy and Environment Savers Ltd (PEES) on 04th April, 2019 for a total value of UGX 178,121,000 VAT inclusive:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The Restricted Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The PMU addressed 4 vendors only without justification for the selection of those firms as the National Regulations requires addressing all firms in the shortlist. Three bids were received. • Minutes of the bid opening was developed using one of the PPA forms and was filled in hand writing but totally unreadable. • Only one bidder was qualified for the financial evaluation. • The procurement file does not include all offers received from the vendors. • The requested items included 2000 stove divided into two categories 1500 with 5-7 Litres and 500 with 7-12 Litres. However, the PMU accepted the bid that offered 2000 stoves with smaller capacity. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • Performance security was not submitted yet while it should be provided within 21 days of awarding as stipulated by the National Regulations. • 100% of the contract value was disbursed in advance against the vendor invoice without obtaining any guarantee. • While the contract completion date is 30 May, 2019 no progress has been made until 18 May 2019. The PMU has not taken any corrective measure that showed weak contract management.

4- Contract serial No. 159 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/NCSVCS/2019-2019/085 for “the Staff Medical Insurance” signed with M/s Prudential Assurance Uganda on 11th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 128,323,250 including local applicable taxes:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The Restricted Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The PMU addressed 4 vendors only without justification for the selection of those firms as the National Regulations requires addressing all firms in the shortlist. Three bids were received. • Minutes of the bid opening was developed using one of the PPA forms and was filled in hand writing but totally unreadable. • The procurement file does not include all offers received from the vendors. • Point system was applied mistakenly for this category of Procurement (Non-consulting services). • Only two firms were eligible for financial evaluation. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • Performance security was not requested from the successful bidder. • 100% of the contract value was disbursed in advance against the vendor invoice without obtaining any guarantee. • The payment voucher and copy of the check were missing in the procurement file.

5- Contract serial No. 14 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/WRKS/2017-18/038 for the “Construction of 26 demonstration institutional cook stoves at selected institutions” signed with Prime Energy and Environment Savers Ltd (PEES) on 20th February, 2018 for a total value of UGX 178,921,158 VAT Inclusive:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The Request for Quotations (National Shopping) method was used with the application National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The PMU addressed 7 vendors without justification for the selection of those firms as the project did not perform prequalification process to establish roaster of suppliers. • Only one bidder was found eligible for financial evaluation, which does not match the good procurement practice as there is no real competition and can be considered as de facto Direct Contracting. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The original contract was for three months and it was extended for additional five months without proper justification or applying liquidated for damages. • Completion report, Payment voucher and copy of check were missing in the procurement file.

6- Contract serial No. 2 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/SUPPLIES/2016-17/052 for “Supply of Motorcycles for DFAs and AEFs” signed with M/s Nile Fishing Company Ltd on 20th October, 2017 for a total value of USD 340,136:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The International Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the World Bank template. However, the bidding documents were found incomplete as some parts were removed from the original template and several editions were made without proper justification. • No evidence was found for the international advertisement through UNDB. • Sever delay was notice in the procurement process for more than year. • 4-8 weeks delivery period was found unrealistic as it would not be suitable for international bidder to supply the requested goods. • Evaluation Report was developed using one of the PPA forms while it should be prepared based on the World Bank template. • The procurement file does not include all offers received from the vendors. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • The contract was extended twice without proper justification or applying the liquidated for damages as stipulated by the Contract Special Conditions. Moreover, the two extensions were not received IFAD NO Objection while the contract was subject to IFAD prior review. • Performance security was released after the delivery while it should be retained until the completion of the warranty period. • Inspection and acceptance report, Payment voucher and copy of check or direct payment were missing in the procurement file.

7- Contract serial No. 82 Ref. MOLG/PLNR/SUPPLY/2016-17/105 for “Supply of Automatic Weather Stations” signed with M/s Davrich Company Ltd on 30th May, 2018 for a total value of UGX 1,059,805,200:

• The transaction was part of the procurement plan. • The International Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the World Bank template. However, the bidding documents were found incomplete as some parts were removed from the original template and several editions were made without proper justification. • Sever delay was notice in the procurement process for more than year. • No evidence was found for the international advertisement through UNDB. • 4-8 weeks delivery period was found unrealistic as it would not be suitable for international bidder to supply the requested goods. • Evaluation Report was developed using one of the PPA forms while it should be prepared based on the World Bank template. • The procurement file does not include all offers received from the vendors. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • The contract was extended twice for additional period exceed the original time without proper justification or applying the liquidated for damages as stipulated by the Contract Special Conditions. Moreover, the two extensions were not received IFAD NO Objection while the contract was subject to IFAD prior review. • As stipulated by the Contract Special Conditions, Performance security will be released after the delivery while it should be retained until the completion of the warranty period. • After one year of the contract signature, the complete sets were not delivered and most important items (sensors) are missing. • Payment voucher and copy of check or direct payment were missing in the procurement file.

8- Contract serial Nos. 102, 104, 106 Ref. PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 2, PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 4, PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 6 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 02 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 04 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 07 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District” signed with M/s Buyela Building Contractors Ltd, M/s Kams Contractors Ltd and M/s Malanyo Uganda Ltd on 07th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 209,127,465, 907,681,466 and 435,067,366 respectively including local applicable taxes:

• The transactions were part of the procurement plan. • The Open Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The three Lots can be grouped together under one tender for purposes of economies of scale. • The newspaper advertisement was not found in the procurement file. • Minutes of the bid opening was developed using one of the PPA forms and was filled in hand writing but totally unreadable. • The procurement file does not include all bids received from the contractors. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The procurement files miss some important documents such as Performance Securities, Site Handover Reports, Work Programmes, payment voucher, copy of checks and Progress Reports.

9- Contract serial Nos. 108, 110, 111 Ref. PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 10, PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 12, PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 13 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 10 Arum Sub County Agago District, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 12 Paimol Sub County, Agago District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 13, Wol Sub County, Agago District” signed with M/s Tem Gumi Co. Ltd, M/s UK General Services Ltd and M/s Brottos (U) Ltd on 07th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 471,483,209, 229,072,063 and 942,290,605 respectively including local applicable taxes:

• The transactions were part of the procurement plan. • The Open Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The newspaper advertisement was not found in the procurement file. • Minutes of the bid opening was developed using one of the PPA forms and was filled in hand writing but totally unreadable. • The procurement file does not include all bids received from the contractors. • Post qualification criteria were inadequate and have not been applied during the evaluation process. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The contract file was incomplete as it missed all appendix sated in the Contract Agreement. • The procurement files miss some important documents such as Performance Securities, Site Handover Reports, Work Programmes, payment voucher, copy of checks and Progress Reports.

10- Contract serial Nos. 113, 115, 117 Ref. PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 15, PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 17, PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 19 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 15 Lamogi Sub County, Amuru District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 17 Lamogi Sub County, Amuru District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 19 Pabbo Sub County, Amuru District” signed with M/s Otada Construction Co. Ltd, M/s Davrich Construction (U) Ltd and M/s Otada Construction Ltd, signed on 07th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 543,551,159, 1,683,297,545 and 1,741,305,645 respectively including local applicable taxes:

• The transactions were part of the procurement plan. • The Open Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The newspaper advertisement was not found in the procurement file. • Minutes of the bid opening was developed using one of the PPA forms and was filled in hand writing but totally unreadable. • The procurement file does not include all bids received from the contractors. • Discrepancies were noticed in the enrolled Post qualification criteria as it did not match the cost estimate for each transaction. Moreover, the evaluation reports did not present the capabilities of each bidder against the required qualifications. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The contract file was incomplete as it missed all appendix sated in the Contract Agreement. • The procurement files miss some important documents such as Performance Securities, Site Handover Reports, Work Programmes, payment voucher, copy of checks and Progress Reports.

11- Contract serial Nos. 120, 122, 124 Ref. PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 22, PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 24, PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 26 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 22, Bungatira Sub County, Gulu District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 24, Palaro Sub County, Gulu District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 26 Palaro Sub County, Gulu District” signed with M/s Namorotot General Enterprises Ltd, M/s AK Estates Ltd and M/s Nambale Enterprises Ltd, signed on 07th March, 2019 for a total value of UGX 522,161,238, 942,657,836 and 1,648,546,244 respectively including local applicable taxes:

• The transactions were part of the procurement plan. • Two Lots can be grouped together under one tender for purposes of economies of scale. • The Open Competitive Bidding method was used with the adoption of the National template which was found sufficient in terms of the ITBs, and contract Conditions. • The newspaper advertisement was not found in the procurement file. • The procurement file does not include all bids received from the contractors. • The mission was pleased to notice that Gulu has properly applied the post qualification procedure. • No provisions regarding the prohibited practises and IFAD's right to audit. • The contract file was incomplete as it missed all appendix sated in the Contract Agreement. • The procurement files miss some important documents such as Performance Securities, Site Handover Reports, Work Programmes, payment voucher, copy of checks and Progress Reports.

Post Review Checklist

# Description Check Remarks

A Procurement Planning (for entire PP)

1 Are there planned dates for all No Some transactions were procurements? enrolled without presenting the planned dates

2 Are the planned dates consistent with the Yes In accordance with National procurement process and methods? Regulations

3 Are the procurement methods consistent with No In some cases, the estimated budget for each procurement? noncompliance with the threshold stipulated by the National Regulations

4 Is the reviewed Procurement Plan an Yes updated one?

5 How many updates of the current No The updated plan has never Procurement Plan were submitted for the been submitted; it was year? updated only during the mission.

6 How many upgrades of the current No No upgrade was made Procurement Plan were submitted for the year?

# Description Check Remarks

1- Contract serial No. 161 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/061 for the “Supply of Laptops, Desktops, Printers and Tablets”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Request for Quotations method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No Only 4 bidders were addressed without competition was achieved? justification for such selection, three of them only were responsive

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request No and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes However, the evaluation committee accepted items with less specifications

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were NA bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes properly?

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the financials/prices were done, is there bidder correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firms were rejected during the for rejections at Financial Evaluation? financial evaluation

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial No Only inadequate Local PO was issued and contractual terms required for a proper without the conditions enrolled in the procurement agreement, as per relevant bidding documents category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of NA reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to No extend

# Description Check Remarks

2- Contract serial No. 149 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/012 for the “Designing and printing Financial Literacy Handbooks”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Request for Quotations method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No Only 3 bidders were addressed competition was achieved? without justification for such selection, three of them only were responsive

5 Is there time provided for bidders to No request and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders No 6 days only were offered to the to prepare quotations, bids and proposals bidders

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were NA bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, NA QBS and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes properly?

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ NA financials/prices were done, is there correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firms were rejected during the for rejections at Financial Evaluation? financial evaluation

13 For consulting services under QCBS, NA were bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest? 14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) NA the scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial No Only inadequate Local PO was and contractual terms required for a issued without the conditions proper procurement agreement, as per enrolled in the bidding documents. relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of NA reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to No extend

# Description Check Remarks

3- Contract serial No. 162 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/SUPPLY/2018-2019/015 for “Supply of Household Cook stoves, User Manuals and training vulnerable households” A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Yes Requisition that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Restricted Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No Only 4 bidders were addressed without competition was achieved? justification for such selection, all of them submitted their offers

5 Is there time provided for bidders to No request and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for Yes bidders to prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable NA All bidders were qualified reasons for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable No Some Bidders who offered different reasons for rejections at Technical specifications were rejected, but the Evaluation? qualified firm also offered one item with less specifications

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were No bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA No firms requested such information explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to NA No one appeal the decision of the submit a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, NA QBS and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes Only one firm was qualified for the financial properly? evaluation, however, the evaluation committee did not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding documents

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the bidder financials/prices were done, is there correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable NA No firms were rejected during the financial reasons for rejections at Financial evaluation Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, NA were bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? NA Were they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum period challenges/protests were received? required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held NA for Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) NA the scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both Yes parties? (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard Yes commercial and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms No One item did not match the requirements of reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to No However, the bidder has not submitted the extend performance security yes.

# Description Check Remarks

4- Contract serial No. 159 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/GULU/NCSVCS/2019-2019/085 for “the Staff Medical Insurance”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Restricted Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No Only 4 bidders were addressed without competition was achieved? justification for such selection, two of them only were responsive

5 Is there time provided for bidders to Yes request and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders No Only 10 days were offered for the to prepare quotations, bids and proposals bidders

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons Yes for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons Yes The Firm that offered less services was for rejections at Technical Evaluation? disqualified

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were NA bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA No one requested explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, NA QBS and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes properly?

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the financials/prices were done, is there bidder correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firms were rejected during the for rejections at Financial Evaluation? financial evaluation

13 For consulting services under QCBS, NA were bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all NA The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) NA the scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of Yes However, the terms of payment were reference, description of services, 100% of the contract value in advance schedule of requirements, technical without receiving any guarantee specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to NA extend

# Description Check Remarks

5- Contract serial No. 14 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/WRKS/2017-18/00038 for the “Construction of 26 demonstration institutional cook stoves at selected institutions” A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Request for Quotations method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No 7 bidders were invited without justification competition was achieved? for such selection, three of them only were responsive

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request No and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons Yes for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were NA bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information? 8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes Only one firm was qualified for the properly? financial evaluation, however, the evaluation committee did not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding document

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ NA financials/prices were done, is there correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firm was rejected for rejections at Financial Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum period challenges/protests were received? required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement) 1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of Yes reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to Yes The original contract was for three months extend and it was extended for additional five months without proper justification or applying liquidated for damages.

# Description Check Remarks

6- Contract serial No. 2 Ref. MOLG/PRELNOR/SUPPLIES/2016-17/0052 for “Supply of Motorcycles for DFAs and AEFs”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes International Competitive Bidding method was used

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No No evidence was found for the competition was achieved? international advertisement through UNDB

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request Yes and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were No bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes However, the evaluation committee did properly? not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding document

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the financials/prices were done, is there bidder correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firms were rejected during the for rejections at Financial Evaluation? financial evaluation

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of Yes reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to Yes The contract was extended twice extend without proper justification or applying the liquidated for damages as stipulated by the Contract Special Conditions. Moreover, the two extensions were not received IFAD NO Objection while the contract was subject to IFAD prior review.

# Description Check Remarks

7- Contract serial No. 82 Ref. MOLG/PLNR/SUPPLY/2016-17/105 for “Supply of Automatic Weather Stations” A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes International Competitive Bidding method was used

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No No evidence was found for the competition was achieved? international advertisement through UNDB

5 Is there time provided for bidders to Yes request and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders Yes to prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA All bidders were qualified for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were No bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information? 8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, NA QBS and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes However, the evaluation committee did properly? not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding document

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the financials/prices were done, is there bidder correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firms were rejected during the for rejections at Financial Evaluation? financial evaluation

13 For consulting services under QCBS, NA were bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) NA the scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement) 1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of Yes reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to Yes The contract was extended twice without extend proper justification or applying the liquidated for damages as stipulated by the Contract Special Conditions. Moreover, the two extensions were not received IFAD NO Objection while the contract was subject to IFAD prior review.

After one year of the contract signature, the complete sets were not delivered and most important items (sensors) are missing.

# Description Check Remarks

8- Contract serial Nos. 102, 104, 106 Ref. PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 2, PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 4, PRELNOR/ADJUMANI/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 6 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 02 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 04 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 07 Dzaipi Sub County, Adjumani District”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Open Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No The newspaper advertisement was competition was achieved? missing in the procurement file

5 Is there time provided for bidders to No request and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline? 6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders Yes 30 days were offered to the bidders to prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons Yes for rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons Yes for rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were No bidders informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient NA explanation as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit NA No one appeal the decision of the a challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, NA QBS and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and Yes However, the evaluation committee properly? did not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding document

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ Yes But it was not communicated to the financials/prices were done, is there bidder correspondence to show that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction? 12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons NA No firm was rejected for rejections at Financial Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, NA were bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all Yes The award done after the minimum challenges/protests were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) NA the scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? Yes (A copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of Yes reference, description of services, schedule of requirements, technical specifications) expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to No extend

# Description Check Remarks

9- Contract serial Nos. 108, 110, 111 Ref. PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 10, PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 12, PRELNOR/AGAGO/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 13 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 10 Arum Sub County Agago District, Adjumani District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 12 Paimol Sub County, Agago District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 13, Wol Sub County, Agago District”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Open Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No The newspaper advertisement competition was achieved? was missing in the procurement file

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request No and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened? 6 For all advertised procurement, were bidders No informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient explanation NA as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit a NA No one appeal the decision of the challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and properly? Yes However, the evaluation committee did not perform post qualification procedure as stipulated by the bidding document

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ financials/prices Yes But it was not communicated to were done, is there correspondence to show the bidder that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for NA No firm was rejected rejections at Financial Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all challenges/protests Yes The award done after the were received? minimum period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services? 4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? (A Yes copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of No The contract file was incomplete reference, description of services, schedule as it missed all appendix sated in of requirements, technical specifications) the Contract Agreement. expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to extend Yes After less than one month from awarding the procuring entity decided to amend the contract to modify the BOQs

# Descript ion Check Remarks

10- Contract serial Nos. 113, 115, 117 Ref. PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 15, PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 17, PRELNOR/AMURU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 19 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 15 Lamogi Sub County, Amuru District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 17 Lamogi Sub County, Amuru District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 19 Pabbo Sub County, Amuru District”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Open Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No The newspaper advertisement was competition was achieved? missing in the procurement file

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request No and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were bidders No informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome?

7 Were the bidders given sufficient explanation NA as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit a NA No one appeal the decision of the challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and properly? Yes However, the evaluation committee improperly applied the post qualification criteria

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ financials/prices Yes But it was not communicated to the were done, is there correspondence to show bidder that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction? 12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for NA No firm was rejected rejections at Financial Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all challenges/protests Yes The award done after the minimum were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? (A Yes copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of No The contract file was incomplete as reference, description of services, schedule it missed all appendix sated in the of requirements, technical specifications) Contract Agreement. expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to extend No

# Description Check Remarks

11- Contract serial Nos. 120, 122, 124 Ref. PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 22, PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 24, PRELNOR/GULU/CAR-BATCH A/LOT 26 for “Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 22, Bungatira Sub County, Gulu District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 24, Palaro Sub County, Gulu District, Rehabilitation of CARs Lot 26 Palaro Sub County, Gulu District”

A Bidding Process (for each procurement)

1 Is the item in the Procurement Plan? Yes

2 Is there a formal Procurement Requisition Yes that initiates the process?

3 Is the Method proposed in the PP used? Yes Open Bidding method was applied

4 Is enough done to demonstrate that No The newspaper advertisement was competition was achieved? missing in the procurement file

5 Is there time provided for bidders to request No and receive clarifications, before the submission deadline?

6 Is there sufficient time allotted for bidders to Yes prepare quotations, bids and proposals

7 Ensure that no late bids were accepted Yes According to the project records no late bid was accepted

B Evaluation Process (for each procurement)

1 Was Preliminary Examination done? Yes However, the evaluation committee mistakenly eliminated some requirements

2 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Preliminary Examination?

3 Was Technical Evaluation done? Yes

4 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for Yes rejections at Technical Evaluation?

5 For QCBS and QBS was a Technical NA Evaluation Report submitted to and no- objected to by IFAD before the Financial Proposal(s) was/were opened?

6 For all advertised procurement, were bidders No informed of the (technical) evaluation outcome? 7 Were the bidders given sufficient explanation NA as to their performance at the (technical) evaluation, if one or more requested this information?

8 Were bidders given enough time to submit a NA No one appeal the decision of the challenge/protest? evaluation committee

9 For consulting services under QCBS, QBS NA and LCS, was there a formal opening of financial proposals?

10 Was Financial evaluation done and properly? Yes It is the only case where post qualification procedure was correctly implemented

11 Were corrections to Bidders’ financials/prices Yes But it was not communicated to the were done, is there correspondence to show bidder that the bidders were (i) notified and (ii) accepted the correction?

12 Are there objective and justifiable reasons for NA No firm was rejected rejections at Financial Evaluation?

13 For consulting services under QCBS, were NA bidders provided the results of the combined evaluation and accorded sufficient time to challenge/protest?

14 Were challenges/protests received? Were NA they handled properly?

C Award and Negotiations (for each procurement)

1 Was award done after all challenges/protests Yes The award done after the minimum were received? period required by the National Regulations after declaration of the successful bidder

2 Ensure that negotiations were not held for NA Goods and Works

3 Ensure that negotiations were held for NA consulting services?

4 Did the negotiations significantly alter (i) the NA scope, (ii) the duration and (ii) the prices?

D Contract, Contract Administration and Management Process (for each procurement)

1 Was the Contract signed by both parties? (A Yes copy must be evident in file)

2 Has the contract the standard commercial Yes and contractual terms required for a proper procurement agreement, as per relevant category and method?

3 Is the procurement requirement (terms of No The contract file was incomplete as reference, description of services, schedule it missed all appendix sated in the of requirements, technical specifications) Contract Agreement. expressed in the contract as consistent with the successful bidder’s bid, evaluation report and negotiated outcome?

4 Was a Contract amendment made to extend No