IFADIFAD Enabling poor rural people to over come poverty

Republic of Uganda Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme

PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Enabling poor rural people to over come poverty

International Fund for Agricultural Development Via Paolo di Dono, 44 00142 Rome, Italy Tel: +39 06 54591 Fax: +39 06 5043463 E-mail: [email protected] www.ifad.org/evaluation

February 2012

Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD

Republic of Uganda

Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme

Project Performance Assessment

February 2012 Report No. 2540-UG Document of the International Fund for Agricultural Development

Photos: Front cover: Katojo Market. Markets built by the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme have created employment for over 5,700 people engaged in different types of activities. Page vi: Land has been allocated to the enterprises and improved agricultural technologies have been adopted, through the project, leading to increased yields of important marketable crops, such as potatoes, pineapple, and bananas. Back cover: Private investors noticed the profitability of the programme’s milk coolers and acquired similar coolers (left); The establishment of savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) helped facilitate farmers’ engagement in productive agricultural enterprises.

@IFAD/Oanh Nguyen

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The designations ―developed‖ and ―developing‖ countries are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process. All rights reserved. © 2012 by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Contents

Currency equivalent ii Abbreviations and acronyms ii Preface iii Executive summary iv I. Background, methodology and process 1 II. The project 2 A. Project context 2 B. Project implementation 6 III. Review of findings by criterion 8 A. Project performance 8 B. Rural poverty impact 14 C. Other performance criteria 19 D. Performance of partners 22 IV. Overall project achievement 24 V. Conclusions and recommendations 25 A. Conclusions 25 B. Recommendations 26

ANNEXES 1. Rating comparison 28 2. Map of the project area 29 3. Basic project data 30 4. Terms of reference 31 5. Definition of the evaluation criteria used by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD 36 6. List of persons met 37 7. References and data sources 39 8. Physical progress of the programme 40 9. Linear logical project scheme 43 10. Statistics on SACCOs supported by AAMP and the Rural Finance Support Programme 44

Currency equivalent

Currency unit = Ugandan Shilling (UGX) US$1.00 = UGX 2,375 (April 2011)

Abbreviations and acronyms

AAMP Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme AfDB African Development Bank CAIIP Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme COSOP country strategic opportunities paper DLSP District Livelihood Support Programme ERR economic rate of return ESA East and Southern Africa Division (IFAD) FRR financial rate of return IOE Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD IPC Inter-ministerial Policy Committee MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries M&E monitoring and evaluation MOLG Ministry of Local Government NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NEMA National Environmental Management Authority PCR project completion report PCRV project completion report validation PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PFT programme facilitation team PMA Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture PMD Programme Management Department (IFAD) PPA project performance assessment SACCO savings and credit cooperative UCSCU Uganda Cooperative Savings and Credit Union UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

ii

Preface

This is the project performance assessment of the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme in the Republic of Uganda. The overall goal of the programme was to increase the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme areas and to modernize agriculture in the targeted districts. According to the assessment, the programme’s support for and training of local farmer groups enabled them to expand their production and become more commercially oriented at a time when they were shifting from subsistence to market-based farming. The programme also improved rural infrastructure, thus facilitating the commercialization of agriculture. Better rural roads improved access to other services, such as input and produce markets and financial services. There were concerns with the sustainability of some of these activities, but these concerns are relatively minor compared with the programme’s achievements. The assessment recommends to reinvigorate the infrastructure management committees as well as ensure the financial sustainability of the savings and credit cooperatives supported by safeguarding their nature as member-based and savings-first institutions.

The assessment was prepared by Oanh Nguyen, lead evaluator, with contributions from Turto Turtiainen (consultant, rural development specialist). Internal peer reviewers from the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD - Ashwani Muthoo, Deputy Director, and Anne-Marie Lambert, Senior Evaluation Officer - provided comments on the draft report. Lucy Ariano, Evaluation Assistant, and Anna Benassi, Administrative Assistant, provided administrative support.

The Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD is grateful to the East and Southern Africa Division and to the Government of the Republic of Uganda for their insightful inputs, comments and support at various stages of the evaluation process.

Luciano Lavizzari Director Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD

iii

Executive summary

1. The Peer Review of IFAD’s Office of Evaluation and Evaluation Function conducted by the Evaluation Cooperation Group in 2010 recommended that the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE) transform its approach to project-level evaluation by undertaking project completion report validations and, on a selective basis, project performance assessments (PPAs). In this regard, the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme (AAMP) in the Republic of Uganda was selected for a PPA in order to help build up evidence for the Uganda country programme evaluation scheduled for 2011-2012. 2. The overall goal of AAMP was to improve the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme area and modernize agriculture in the target districts. Specific objectives were to: (i) increase the involvement of the private sector in support of further commercialization of smallholder agriculture; (ii) strengthen the capacity of economically active farmers to gain better access to rural services (technical, financial and marketing); (iii) ensure the sustainable development and improvement of rural infrastructure; and (iv) enhance public- sector capacity to respond to production needs identified by interest groups and rural communities. AAMP was implemented over a six-year period. The executing agency was the Ministry of Local Government, which implemented the programme in collaboration with district and subcounty governments. 3. AAMP was structured around four components: (i) agricultural commercialization (US$4.1 million); (ii) rural infrastructure development (US$8.7 million); (iii) community mobilization (US$1.2 million); and (iv) programme facilitation (US$2.1 million). Under a parallel financing arrangement with the African Development Bank, funds were spent on a separate component for the construction of feeder roads in the programme area. 4. In general, the programme achieved the results expected because the planning and execution capacity of the districts and subcounties improved, as did the farmers’ ability to obtain better access to services and financing facilities through the savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs). Training and support for local groups enabled farmers to expand production at a time when they were shifting from subsistence to market-oriented farming and their capacity to select enterprises (subprojects) with higher returns increased. Farmers increasingly involved themselves in group marketing to benefit more from their marketable surpluses. The programme was implemented within the time frame originally projected, and its funds were almost fully disbursed. 5. The programme also improved rural infrastructure, thus facilitating the commercialization of agriculture. Better rural roads improved access to other services, such as inputs markets and financial services. Women are now more involved in economic activities and the impact on their empowerment is significant. In addition, districts, subcounties and farmer groups have become involved in sustaining activities initiated by the programme. 6. Although some of the targets set during the early stages of programme implementation were not achieved, the vast majority were met or even exceeded. There is still concern about the viability of some of the savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) supported, the role and sustainability of the infrastructure management committees, and the sustainability of the pass-on system (under which the beneficiaries were expected to pass inputs they received free — such as improved seed and animal progeny — to others in need), but these concerns are relatively minor compared with the programme’s achievements. Some shortcomings in design (such as the lack of targets for monitoring indicators and inadequate planning and financing of the monitoring and evaluation system) were corrected during implementation. Overall, AAMP’s achievements are rated satisfactory.

iv

7. The success of AAMP may be attributed to numerous factors, of which the most important were: (i) flexibility in the design of programme interventions, allowing for quick response to opportunities that arose during implementation; (ii) mainstreaming of activities into government programmes and linkages with decentralization policies, which helped build up capacity and enhance sustainability of benefits after programme completion; and (iii) the involvement of local people in selecting programmes interventions, taking real responsibility for the implementation of these interventions and sustainability over the long term. The high quality of programme management was also an important factor in the success of the programme. 8. The PPA identified a number of broad recommendations related to important issues for future IFAD operations in Uganda: (i) Financing arrangements. Should it not be possible to place all external funds in the same ―basket‖ for monitoring or other reasons, parallel financing, organized under the same coordinating body, might be a relevant and efficient financing solution. (ii) SACCOs. Promoting local SACCOs is a promising approach to creating a financial network to serve the financial needs of Uganda’s rural areas. The financial sustainability and long-term survival of SACCOs will need to be ensured, by safeguarding their nature as member-based and savings-first institutions. Consequently, the Government and support organizations for SACCOs should be careful when choosing the types of financial and technical support they provide. (iii) Infrastructure management committees. These committees should be reinvigorated by means of training and endowing them with the authority and self-esteem to act by themselves, thereby allowing them to be accountable for the infrastructures they have chosen as priorities. Such follow-up would require funding through district and subcounty budgets or, in the medium term, with donor funds or as subcomponents of follow-on projects/programmes. (iv) Indicators and targets for monitoring. Even when there are uncertainties about the types of subprojects to be chosen because of the community-driven development approach, it is important to have targets for indicators, with the caveat that such targets may be modified when clear local preferences emerge.

v

vi

I. Background, methodology and process 1. Background. The Peer Review of IFAD’s Office of Evaluation and Evaluation Function conducted by the Evaluation Cooperation Group in 2010 recommended that the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE) transform its approach to project-level evaluation by undertaking project completion report validations (PCRVs) and, on a selective basis, project performance assessments (PPAs). PCRVs essentially consist of independent desk reviews of project completion reports (PCRs) and other available and relevant project documentation.1 PPAs are undertaken on a selected2 number of projects that have previously undergone a PCRV, and include focused field visits. PPAs are not expected to investigate all activities financed under projects/programmes or to undertake in-depth impact assessments, but rather to fill major information gaps, inconsistencies and analytical weaknesses of PCRs and further validate the explanations, conclusions and lessons presented in PCRs. Another purpose of PPAs is to shed light on selected features of project/programme implementation history not adequately analysed in PCRs, hence contributing to learning and accountability. 2. The Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme (AAMP) in the Republic of Uganda has been selected for PPA in order to help build up an evidence base for the Uganda country programme evaluation to be undertaken by IOE in 2011-2012. 3. Methodology. The PPA relied on the extensive desk review of available documents3 undertaken for preparation of the PCRV. These included the PCR, the impact assessment by the Government, appraisal reports, mid-term review and supervision reports. During the field work, primary data were collected to verify available information and reach an independent assessment of programme performance and impact. Given the time and resources available, no quantitative survey was undertaken. The information gathered was therefore mainly of a qualitative nature and focused on a restricted set of topics identified during the desk review.4 Data collection methods included individual interviews, focus group discussions with members of the former programme facilitation team (PFT)5 and direct observations during visits to programme sites.6

4. The PPA followed key methodological fundamentals stipulated in the IOE Evaluation Manual.7 A six-point rating system8 is applied to all evaluation criteria, as described in annex 5.

5. Process. The PCRV of AAMP was prepared by IOE in February-March 2011 and shared with the East and Southern Africa Division (ESA) of IFAD for comment. The PPA mission9 was undertaken from 10-20 April 2011 in close cooperation with the Government and the IFAD country office. The mission included field visits to AAMP sites, interactions with government authorities, members of the former PFT, beneficiaries and other key informants. At the end of the mission, a wrap-up meeting was held at the Ministry of Local Government (MOLG), the programme implementing agency, to share preliminary findings.

1 The PCRV performs the following functions: (i) independent verification of the analytical quality of the PCR; (ii) independent assessment of project performance and results through desk review (including ratings); (iii) extrapolation of key substantive findings and lessons learned for further synthesis and systematization exercises; 2 The selection criteria for PPA are: (i) major information gaps, inconsistencies, and analytical weaknesses in the PCR found by IOE during the validation process; (ii) innovative project approaches; (iii) need to build up an evidence base for future higher-plane evaluations; (iv) geographical balance; and (v) any disconnect between the ratings contained in the PCR and those generated by IOE during the validation process. 3 See annex 7. 4 The desk review identified the following topics to be focused on by the PPA: efficiency, natural resources and the environment; operations and profitability of the savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs); innovation and scaling up; and programme management. 5 It is important to note that AAMP was completed in 2008. At present, therefore, members of the former PFT are working on other assignments. 6 See annex 6 for a list of persons met during the field visits. 7 www.ifad.org/evaluation/process_methodology/index.htm. 8 6 – highly satisfactory; 5 – satisfactory; 4 – moderately satisfactory; 3 – moderately unsatisfactory; 2 – unsatisfactory; 1 - highly unsatisfactory. 9 The PPA mission consisted of Oanh Nguyen, IOE lead evaluator, and Turto Turtiainen, IOE consultant.

1

6. The draft PPA report was exposed to the IOE internal peer review process for quality assurance and subsequently shared with ESA and the Government for comments before being finalized and published.

Key points  The Peer Review of IFAD’s Office of Evaluation and Evaluation Function recommended that IOE transform its approach to project-level evaluation by undertaking PCRVs and, on a selective basis, PPAs.  AAMP was selected for PPA to build up an evidence base for the Uganda country programme evaluation to be undertaken by IOE in 2011-2012.  The PPA relied on an extensive desk review carried out for preparation of the PCRV. Field visits were made in April 2011. The PPA followed key methodological fundamentals stipulated in the IOE Evaluation Manual.

II. The project A. Project context 7. Country background. After a period of prolonged but intermittent civil conflict (1970-1986), Uganda has emerged as one of the most consistent economic performers in Africa. However, despite its impressive economic progress, Uganda remains a poor country with a GDP per capita of US$392 (2007).10 The Government’s strategy for poverty alleviation and rural development has been transformed over the last decade through the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA). PEAP provided a national planning framework to guide both sector and district plans and the budget process, was accepted by the donor community as the country’s equivalent of a poverty reduction strategy paper, and revised every three years. PEAP 1 covered the period 1997-2000, PEAP 2 covered 2001-2004 and PEAP 3 covered 2005-2008 but was extended for one year to allow for the completion of its successor, the National Development Plan 2010-2015, which continues to classify agriculture as a primary growth sector and major source of income generation.

8. The PMA constituted an advanced rural sectorwide approach, providing a policy framework that sought to eradicate poverty through agricultural transformation. It focused on seven main areas for public expenditure interventions: (i) agricultural research and technology development; (ii) delivery of agricultural advisory services; (iii) agricultural education; (iv) rural financial services; (v) marketing and agroprocessing; (vi) sustainable natural resources use and management; and (vii) supportive physical infrastructure. The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) also developed a five-year agricultural sector plan, the Development Strategy and Investment Plan 2010-2015, which outlined priorities for agricultural development and formed the basis for Uganda’s signature of the Compact for Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, the framework for donor assistance. 9. These strategies have all been implemented under the overall context of Uganda’s decentralization process. An effective system of participatory local government was articulated in the 1995 Constitution and spelt out in a series of policy pronouncements and in the Local Government Act of 1997. The central government provided financial support to the districts, subcounties and parishes through subventions under the Local Government Development Fund, capacity-building grants, the PMA, and through donor-supported interventions. Public services were provided through the districts, counties, subcounties, parishes and villages within an increasingly participatory framework.

10 The Economist Intelligence Unit, Uganda Country Profile.

2

10. Rationale. AAMP was designed to test development approaches matching the objectives of the PMA, all major aspects of which were reflected in the programme (extension services, infrastructural improvements, marketing, rural finance and capacity-building). AAMP’s rationale derived from several factors: (i) while growth played a fundamental role in reducing rural poverty, districts lacked funds for agricultural activities; (ii) the Government was supporting private-sector initiatives and encouraging farmers to take full advantage of economic opportunities: the scope therefore existed for an investment programme that aimed at further commercializing smallholder farming and assisting rural communities to become full market participants and be no longer cash-poor; (iii) key national programmes required support from actions within districts; therefore, area-based interventions represented a mechanism that would provide useful experience for the eventual development of broader programmes in areas where national approaches were still being developed; and (iv) the programme would build roads linking farms and communities to major towns and markets, opening up other income-generating occupations for rural communities, and providing goods and services. 11. Objectives. The overall goal of AAMP was to improve the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme area, and modernize agriculture in the targeted districts. Specific objectives11 were to: (i) increase the involvement of the private sector in support of further commercialization of smallholder agriculture; (ii) strengthen the capacity of economically active farmers to gain better access to rural services (technical, financial and marketing); (iii) ensure the sustainable development and improvement of rural infrastructure; and (iv) enhance public-sector capacity to respond to production needs identified by interest groups and rural communities. AAMP was implemented over a period of six years. The executing agency was MOLG, which implemented the programme in collaboration with district and subcounty governments. 12. Area and target groups. At design, AAMP was targeted to cover 30-40 per cent of rural households in 10 districts12 in south-western Uganda. During implementation, following the division of Kabarole into four districts,13 the number of recorded districts supported at programme completion amounted to 13,14 but the programme area remained the same. These districts were subdivided administratively into 196 rural subcounties and 13 urban councils. The total population of the districts, based on extrapolations from the 1991 census, was about 5.3 million spread over 1.05 million households (about 25 per cent of the national population), of which over 4.7 million persons and 947,000 households (90 per cent) were rural. Rural households averaged five persons, with agriculture as the dominant occupation.

11 Both the appraisal report and the President’s Report written in 2000 used the term “expected outputs”, but these would probably be considered specific objectives in reports written later. In fact, the mid-term review used the term “expected results” and the PCR referred to them as “objectives”. 12 The original 10 implementing districts were: Bundibugyo, Bushenyi, Kabale, Kabarole, Kasese, Kisoro, Mbarara, Ntungamo, Rukungiri, and Sembabule. 13 Kabarole, Kemwenge, Kanungu, Kyenjojo. 14 In October 2005, Mbarara was divided into four districts: Mbarara, Isingiro, Kiruhura and Ibanda. In fact, therefore, the number of programme-supported districts was 16 in all, but this division of Mbarara was not recorded in the PCR.

3

Table 1 Project information

Country: Republic of Uganda Title: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme Approval date: 08 December 1999 Effectiveness date: 20 May 2002 Closing date: 31 December 2008 Total cost: US$30.0 million IFAD loan : US$13.2 million Lending terms: Highly concessional Contribution of Government: US$1.5 million Contribution of beneficiary: US$1.4 million Parallel financing from the African Development Bank (AfDB): US$13.9 million Cooperating institution: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)

13. AAMP covered two major target groups: (i) economically active smallholders in the rural areas wishing to participate in commercial agriculture; and (ii) existing or potential small-scale entrepreneurs and business associations providing services to rural households. Among the target group, women played a major role in crop and livestock production, processing and small enterprise operation. The programme did not target pre-specified activities to particular areas and/or groups of potential beneficiaries. Rather, within certain guidelines, the districts decided how to use the majority of resources available to them, according to the specified eligibility criteria and demands of poor rural people. 14. Components and cost. AAMP was structured around four components: (i) agricultural commercialization, including two subcomponents, namely, an agricultural commercialization fund established by the programme and from which the districts could draw down funds to finance eligible activities, and rural financial services training. This component had a cost of US$4.1 million; (ii) rural infrastructure development: US$8.7 million; (iii) community mobilization: US$1.2 million; and (iv) programme facilitation: US$2.1 million. The parallel financing arrangement with AfDB materialized, and the funds were used for a separate component for the construction of feeder roads. 15. Implementation arrangements. AAMP was supervised at the central level by the Inter-ministerial Policy Committee (IPC), with management and coordination undertaken by a PFT based in Mbarara. The programme facilitator based in Kampala acted as the link between the PFT and MOLG as the executing agency, and also served as secretary to the IPC. The programme support officers were responsible for the supervision of district-level implementation. UNOPS was the cooperating institution. 16. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. The foundation of AAMP’s M&E system and impact assessment was the logical framework prepared by the appraisal team, a series of performance indicators and AAMP’s operational manual. According to the original plans, PFT was to include a government-seconded M&E officer and an AAMP-financed short-term consultant to design a ―simple and effective monitoring system‖. An evaluation of AAMP’s performance and impact was carried out by an independent agency at both mid-term and the end of the programme. 17. The approach to M&E was participatory. The general principles of this approach were as follows: (i) end-user associations and interest groups, supported by service providers, monitored (and reported on) their activities and investment performance; (ii) local councils monitored activities, inputs and outputs in their

4

respective areas; (iii) relevant institutions monitored their support, involvement and capacity-building activities; and (iii) MOLG monitored the overall operations for planning and coordination purposes (i.e. compliance with the set minimum conditions and the performance of the districts and subcounties). 18. Changes during implementation. The first change during implementation (as captured in the first loan amendment in 2004) was the increase in the number of districts in the programme area, from 10 to 13, due to the division of Kabarole into four districts after AAMP started up (see paragraph 12). When Mbarara was divided into four districts in October 2005, the total number of programme-supported districts was in fact 16, but this second division was not captured in any loan amendment. It is important to note that the geographical area remained the same. 19. The second change during implementation (as captured in the second loan amendment in 2006) was the reallocation of programme funds, with a reduction in the agricultural commercialization fund and rural infrastructure fund, and an increase in budget for community mobilization and programme facilitation. The increase of 39.4 per cent in the community mobilization component resulted primarily from the larger number of farmer groups mobilized than anticipated at appraisal. The increase (84.8 per cent) in the funds originally planned for programme facilitation was the result of the change in the programme’s administrative/coordination structure, under which more PSOs,15 subcounty coordinators and paraprofessionals16 were deployed than foreseen at appraisal, and the creation of an M&E unit (as recommended by the first supervision mission in 200317). The 2006 loan amendment noted a number of reasons for this change, including the increased number of districts supported and the fact that, in the parallel cofinancing by AfDB for the rehabilitation of feeder roads, no provision had been made for incremental operating costs associated with the monitoring and inspecting of activities, which had to be financed from the IFAD loan. 20. Another change was that, at design, the programme was to provide, under ―enterprise development support‖ (part of the agricultural commercialization fund), matching grants for technical support to selected interest groups to obtain support from the private sector.18 As recommended by the first supervision mission of June 2003 (and confirmed by following missions), these grants were directed to the financing of eligible group ―enterprises‖ (subprojects) and to establishing a ―revolving fund,‖ also known as the ―pass-on system.‖ The pass-on system was to supply inputs, such as improved seed and animal breeding stock, which the beneficiary groups were required to pay back on the basis of a specific repayment plan. The repaid inputs were then to be passed on to new eligible groups. 21. Another change from the original design related to the subcomponent for rural financial services training. The original plan was to provide training in rural financial services for the purpose of: (i) upgrading the management and business skills of staff of the microfinance intermediaries, including lending groups and associations; and (ii) informing community leaders and district and subcounty staff as to the role and potential of the microfinance intermediaries. The start-up of activities for rural finance was delayed as programme implementers were awaiting the preparation of a new government policy document, the Rural Financial Services Strategy, which was finalized in August 2006 and stipulated that SACCOs, recently introduced in Uganda,19 would be the vehicle through which the Government would support the

15 Appointment of PSOs to all 13 districts instead of three regional PSOs as originally planned. 16 Paraprofessionals were local people specially trained for extension services. Their services were not anticipated at the time of appraisal. 17 The supervision mission of 2003 noted that a short-term consultant had been recruited to design the details of the M&E system (and for computerizing it), but that the programme’s M&E officer was working on only a part-time basis from Kampala. The mission recommended that the M&E activity be strengthened by appointing a full-time person for the M&E officer’s post based in Mbarara and with adequate funding (very few funds were provided in the programme cost tables). 18 The “matching” part by the group was to be 20 per cent. 19 SACCOs represent a cooperative credit and savings concept successfully introduced in Kenya in 1969. They were originally known as Union Credit and Savings Sections, then Union Banking Sections and, in the 1990s, were given the acronym SACCOs (savings and credit cooperatives). The term was then assumed in other East African countries.

5

development of rural financial services. Consequently, AAMP was directed to concentrate on helping establish SACCOs in the programme areas. B. Project implementation 22. Details of the physical progress of AAMP are given in annex 8 of this report. The following paragraphs provide only a brief discussion of the main activities and results achieved. 23. Agricultural commercialization. There were three main types of outputs under this component: (i) technical support to farming enterprises – a range of activities were undertaken, including establishment of on-farm trials and demonstrations, training of farmers in modern farming technologies and training in the logical framework approach; (ii) business development and market linkages, with enterprise development support in the form of a revolving fund, formation and training of marketing associations and support to value addition initiatives; and (iii) rural financial services support, basically including capacity-building for selected SACCOs. 24. A total of 470 on-farm demonstration plots and 1,020 on-farm trials were established (94 per cent of the targets). Trials were used to test crop varieties released by the National Agricultural Research Organization and compare them with local varieties. Successful varieties were then included in on-farm demonstrations. The demonstrations led to a high rate of adoption by various enterprises.20 25. Under the decentralized arrangement, the training of farmers was the responsibility of the subcounty field extension workers. Accordingly, a total of 209 subcounty extension workers (97 per cent of targets) were trained as part of capacity-building for subcounty extension service delivery. All programme-supported groups received several types of training, including technical training pertaining to the chosen enterprises as well as instruction in enterprise development, group dynamics and leadership, business planning and record-keeping. A total of 1,020 farmer groups were also trained in the logical framework approach, which helped farmers to identify their problems, find appropriate solutions and to systematically monitor the benefits accruing. Exchange visits were also organized to develop awareness and skills, and to promote knowledge sharing among farmers and extension workers. 26. Enterprise development support was the driving force behind the programme’s agricultural commercialization efforts. By completion, AAMP had supported 2,788 groups to set up agricultural enterprises, and there were 66,196 beneficiaries of the revolving fund of which 55.3 per cent were women. These groups included 886 groups supported with ―pass-ons‖ recovered from the original groups. Support under the revolving fund took the form of packages standardized according to the types of enterprises involved.21 27. Marketing initiatives promoted by the programme were based on marketing associations. Workshops were organized, and market information was collected and disseminated through radio programmes and on subcounty notice boards. Marketing associations also took advantage of the wide coverage of mobile telephone networks to establish links with supermarkets in Kampala. In collaboration with the Uganda Integrated Programme, AAMP also carried out a study on value addition facilities with potential in the region. A number of enterprises were identified, including the drying of fruit, milling of grain, hulling of rice, processing of honey and dairy produce, and production of Irish potatoes, meat, fruit and vegetables.

20 For example, upland rice in Kabarole, Kanungu and Rukungiri Districts, improved banana management in Ntungamo District, Irish potato growing in Kabale, Kisoro and Mbarara Districts, pineapple growing in Sembabule and Kyenjojo Districts, and adoption of improved goat husbandry in all programme districts. 21 For example, rice farming groups received seed and a spray pump; bee-keeping groups received modern hives as well as tending and harvesting equipment; fish farmers received fish fending materials, etc.

6

28. As mentioned above, AAMP implemented the rural financial services support activities through SACCOs. By programme completion, 35 SACCOs had received support in the form of training22 and equipment23 to enhance their operational capacity (109 per cent of the target). The districts and subcounty commercial officials helped them to prepare business plans, monitoring reports, annual reports, accounts and annual audits. The Uganda Cooperative Savings and Credit Union (UCSCU), financed by another IFAD-supported intervention,24 undertook to supervise and guide the SACCOs under AAMP through monthly visits. 29. Rural infrastructure development. Infrastructure investments eligible under the IFAD loan included the improvement of existing community roads, covered markets, cattle dips, valley dams and storage facilities. The choice of infrastructure schemes was left to the communities themselves, within the menu set out above. The parallel financing from AfDB was for the construction of feeder roads. At completion, the targets set for milk cooler capacity, feeder roads and market structures were exceeded by 8 per cent, 60 per cent and 87.5 per cent, respectively. However, some targets were not met. Only 27 per cent of the target set for cattle dips was achieved because of managerial problems encountered at the district level; therefore AAMP did not move forward to finance these dips, given the lack of sustainability. Eighty-three per cent of the target set for valley dams was achieved, although the target was optimistic and required hydrological design work that was far beyond the capacity of MOLG. With regard to community roads, only 51 per cent of the target was achieved but the problem had to do with programme design rather than its implementation. The road gravelling costs were not included in the cost estimate and this has emerged as a principal lesson learned. 30. Community mobilization. Under this component, support was intended to be delivered in terms of skills development, community mobilization and institutional support. The first was to concentrate on the training of community development staff in mobilizing and working with groups; the second concerned start-up workshops, identification of groups, needs assessment and promotional activities; and the third aimed at improving the outreach of districts through the provision of vehicles. By the end of the programme, the number of start-up workshops organized (both at the district and subcounty levels) had met the targets, and community development officers had been trained and vehicles provided. 31. Project facilitation. AAMP was implemented through existing local government structures at the district and subcounty levels. Key technical staff at these levels received specialized training and their capacity was strengthened. Initially, M&E was carried out by a part-time MOLG official based in Kampala – an arrangement found to be unsatisfactory by the supervision mission of 2003, which recommended a full-time appointment that was eventually made in June 2004. It was not until after the appointment of the full-time officer that a functional M&E system was established, capable of collecting data at the grass-roots level, feeding it into the district and national reporting system, and establishing standardized reporting formats. There was also a substantial increase in programme staff during implementation (see paragraph 19).

22 Training of committee members and new staff. 23 A safe, stationery and other small items. 24 Rural Financial Services Programme.

7

Key points  The Government’s strategy for poverty alleviation and rural development was outlined in the PEAP and PMA.  AAMP was designed to test development approaches that matched the objectives of PMA, all major aspects of which are reflected in the programme.  The overall goal of AAMP was to increase the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme area and modernize agriculture in the districts.  AAMP was structured around four components: (i) agricultural commercialization; (ii) rural infrastructure development; (iii) community mobilization; and (iv) programme facilitation.  Although some early targets were not met, by the end of the programme the vast majority of the targets for each component had been attained or even exceeded.

III. Review of findings by criterion A. Project performance Relevance 32. Generally speaking, it may be said that the programme objectives were relevant in terms of their alignment with government policies for agriculture and rural development, the country strategic opportunities paper (COSOP) for Uganda, and the needs of the rural poor. AAMP was designed to promote increased smallholder participation in the market economy and improve their opportunities for income generation through a number of initiatives related to rural infrastructure development and measures to stimulate the provision of private-sector services to smallholders. This is very much in line with the PEAP and PMA, which called for increased commercialization of agricultural production, and with the Local Government Act of 1997 that emphasized the principles of decentralization and gave considerable responsibility for administration, service provision and investments to elected local councils. 33. AAMP approaches were also in line with the COSOP of 1998, particularly regarding (i) support to demand-driven community and interest-group projects; (ii) connecting farmers to markets and agroprocessors; (iii) promotion and adaptation of known technologies to local conditions as well as focus on cash and tradable food crops; and (iv) livestock production within smallholder farming systems. 34. In the formulation of AAMP, lessons were also drawn from past IFAD projects/programmes, in particular the South-west Region Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, of which AAMP is a follow-on intervention. Main lessons were that: (i) efficient implementation and management should be decentralized to the programme area; (ii) IFAD’s target groups have a strong interest in generating cash income and savings from agriculture; (iii) with a few exceptions, input supply no longer requires support from the Government; (iv) local infrastructure development must respond to community interests and commitment, with a clear understanding reached regarding the provision of adequate resources for road maintenance before roads are rehabilitated; and (v) with limited positive experience gained from agricultural extension activities, there is now a need to develop extension approaches and methods suitable to the country’s changed economic and institutional framework. 35. The PCR noted the relevance of AAMP with respect to its intended development purpose and alignment to the needs of the rural poor. At the time of appraisal, 2.5 million of the country’s smallholder families produced 94 per cent of total agricultural production, constituted 80 per cent of the employed population and

8

supplied virtually all the country’s food. About 80 per cent of households in the programme area depended on agriculture and a substantial proportion of them were poor. Therefore, modernizing smallholder agriculture was expected to increase awareness about alternatives for income generation for targeted households and contribute to poverty reduction. The programme outputs were also relevant. With built-in flexibility, the agricultural enterprises and programme- supported activities were region-specific and, within regions, modelled around the livelihood and economic activities of the local population because the beneficiaries were actively involved in the selection of enterprises or interventions for support. 36. At closing, the relevance of AAMP was still high on the basis of human development and poverty indices. Although the overall rate of people living below the official poverty line in Uganda declined from 56 per cent in 1992 to 31 per cent in 2005 (and 40 per cent in rural areas),25 in 2009 the human development index for Uganda was 0.422, placing it at 143rd among 169 countries measured by the United Nations Development Programme, and the proportion of people living on less than US$1.25 a day was 51 per cent.26 37. The parallel financing arrangement with AfDB for feeder road improvement was also relevant because, with this, IFAD loan funds could be focused on community roads to link farms and communities to towns and markets, often via the feeder roads. 38. The targeting approach of AAMP was explicit in stating that economically active smallholder farmers and existing small-scale entrepreneurs and business associations were the principal target group, as this reflected the nature of the activities to be supported. The President’s Report rightly recognized that ―the beneficiaries are generally economically active smallholders who suffer less from food poverty than from cash/income poverty‖. This is true of all the country: as stated on the IFAD website report on Uganda, smallholder farmers are poor because of weak or non-existent market links, the absence of technology to boost production and lack of access to financial services to establish small enterprises. 39. AAMP was designed to include most of the essential elements of agricultural income generation. However, it differed from the so-called ―multiple component approach‖, which generally has numerous components, subcomponents and activities sometimes aimed at supporting agencies only loosely linked with project/programme goals.27 These types of multiple component interventions rarely involve communities in a serious manner and, unlike AAMP, have seldom mainstreamed activities into governmental programmes. 40. In order to facilitate the assessment of programme design, the PPA evaluation team prepared a linear logical project scheme for AAMP to understand the logic leading to its design (see annex 9). This scheme demonstrates that the various inputs are well linked with the expected intermediate results, which again supported the expected final results. AAMP also took account of the necessary prerequisites for reaching results, that is, decentralized implementation structures and arrangements, and adequate facilitation/coordination arrangements. The scheme further shows that the design is capable of creating improved prospects for continued rural development in programme areas. 41. The President’s Report on AAMP included a logical framework with performance indicators, means of verification and assumptions/risks, but without any targets.28 The rationale for defining indicators for monitoring, but not targets, is a matter of

25 IFAD website report on Uganda www.ruralpovertyportal.org/web/guest/country/home/tags/uganda. 26 United Nations Development Programme international human development indicators: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/UGA.html. These figures are for all Uganda and do not represent only the more peaceful, southern part of the country. 27 Often the reason for including such components or subcomponents was that they were too small to be considered as independent projects. 28 The President’s Report noted that, since the districts would plan activities to be financed by the agricultural commercialization and rural infrastructure funds, targets had not been set. The monitoring indicators would compare programme performance each year with the targets set in the annual work programme and budget prepared by the districts and consolidated by the PFT.

9

debate. The appraisal mission argued that no targets for indicators could be set because the programme was beneficiary-driven, that is, the local populations in the districts and subcounties would determine the types of ―enterprises‖ (subprojects) they wished to establish. The first supervision mission pointed out that it would be very difficult to monitor and manage programme operations and finally evaluate success without targets, and proceeded with a recommendation to establish targets for the different activities to assist in monitoring performance and evaluating programme impacts (a baseline survey was under way at that time). Targets for most of the physical indicators were established following that mission; the remaining targets were established by later supervision missions and the mid-term review. The PPA mission agreed that it was difficult to set fixed targets for some activities such as the agricultural commercialization fund, whereas it would have been possible to agree at least on tentative targets for some other indicators listed in the logframe. Furthermore, as the economic zones and the agricultural potential of the programme areas were known at appraisal, the PPA team was inclined to agree with the first supervision mission that tentative targets could have been set at appraisal for most indicators, or perhaps for all, with the caveat that such targets could be modified when clear local preferences emerged. 42. As mentioned in the previous section, the design of AAMP was modified during implementation to address changes in the context and shortcomings identified (establishing targets for indicators, setting up a functional M&E unit, reallocating programme funds). Overall, the coordination and management arrangements were appropriate for AAMP implementation and fitted well with the Government’s development and decentralization approach, which aimed to integrate donor activities with those seen as government responsibilities. 43. Given all the above, the PPA rating for relevance is 5 (satisfactory), similar to that assigned to this criterion by IFAD’s Programme Management Department (PMD). Effectiveness 44. The overall objective of AAMP was to modernize agriculture in the districts supported. In this regard, among others, four proxy variables for modernizing agriculture, identified as PMA objectives, are improved productivity, increased share of marketed production, participation in the market and gainful employment through the secondary benefits of agricultural modernization. The impact assessment study undertaken at AAMP completion noted that yields of important marketable crops had increased, including bananas (50 per cent), rice (50–180 per cent), and pineapple and Irish potatoes (double or even triple, depending on the districts). Marketable surpluses, calculated as a proportion of total production, increased on average by 12-20 per cent. The impact assessment also noted that only about 40 per cent of farmers sold their produce in the markets before AAMP but that this figure rose to about 60 per cent after the programme. The PCR recognized that the 42 markets built by AAMP have created employment for over 5,700 people engaged in different types of activities, as did the installation of milk coolers. From the above, it may be concluded that, in general, AAMP’s overall objectives were achieved in a satisfactory manner. 45. The following paragraphs discuss achievements related to each specific AAMP objective. It is important to note that, as indicated in chapter II section B, the expected results of AAMP’s interventions were close to the targets and sometimes exceeded them, therefore supporting the above overall positive assessment of the programme’s performance. Details on the activities, indicators and comparisons with the targets may be found in annex 8. 46. Specific objective 1: Increased involvement of the private sector in support of further commercialization of smallholder agriculture. The impact assessment noted that there had been increased private-sector participation in the value chain of supported (and non-supported) enterprises, from input dealers supplying the farmers with seed, fertilizer and pesticides to transporters bringing farm produce to markets. The number of traders of farm produce increased, as did the number and frequency of buyers reaching remote productive areas. The PCR

10

noted that the average number of traders accessing markets had increased by 71.7 per cent on a busy market day and 34.5 per cent on a non-busy one. Linkages were also established with private supermarkets and processors. Examples include the Kabale District Irish potato farmers who have linkages with Shoprite supermarkets in Kampala; Kabarole District upland rice farmers who linked up with the Rwenzori Rice Factory in Fort Portal Town; and Ntungamo District dairy farmers who established market linkages with Birunga dairy processors based in Kisoro. 47. The private sector has also been stimulated to install processing facilities in some districts. For example, the installation of milk coolers in Ntungamo, Sembabule and Ibanda Dstricts has led to increased milk production as a response to increased milk prices. The increase in milk delivered at the collecting centres has in turn stimulated the installation of additional coolers by private milk dealers in order to handle the increased production (in Kiyanja, the capacity of the AAMP milk cooler was 3,000 litres and the private sector followed by installing 12,000-litre capacity milk coolers). The farmer associations have also entered into partnerships with private milk dealers who, in addition to buying the milk were also responsible for the facility’s operation and maintenance. Another example is the installation of a modern rice mill in Kabarole District and several small-scale rice hullers in the Districts of Kanungu and Rukungiri as a result of increased rice production. 48. Specific objective 2: Improved capacity among economically active farmers to gain better access to rural services (technical, marketing and financial). The mobilization, screening and selection of farmer groups was a major AAMP activity. Farmers formed groups and participated in the revolving fund scheme (78 per cent of the targets were achieved) and in on-farm demonstrations and on-farm trials (94 per cent). The programme’s training and support to groups has enabled farmers to increase the scale of operations, expand production and become more commercially oriented. Farmers have shifted from subsistence to market-oriented farming and their capacity to select ―enterprises‖ (subprojects) that give higher returns has improved. More land has been allocated to the enterprises and improved agricultural technologies have been adopted, leading to increased yields of important marketable crops. 49. Following the expansion of production, farmers were increasingly involved in group marketing to generate cash earnings from their marketable surpluses. The collective/bulk selling marketing arrangements gave farmers higher returns. The establishment of SACCOs helped facilitate farmers’ engagement in productive agricultural enterprises as a substantial portion of loans went into agricultural enterprises. Farmer groups and associations were now linked to financial services, especially with regard to potato-, rice- and banana-growing, and in milk-producing areas. However, this started late29 and even though the programme supported more than the planned number of SACCOs, the number of beneficiaries – about 29,000 – was low in relation to the farming population in the programme districts (less than 10 per cent of the families in the programme areas were helped). Moreover, as the average repayment rate of loans was a bare 75 per cent, it is likely that there were several SACCOs with even lower repayment rates and thus early candidates for failure.30 Another challenge is that, as the SACCOs are not yet in position to raise sufficient funds to train their members and staff, they depend on technical assistance in this respect. However, it was noted in the PCR that with the completion of AAMP, most SACCOs have been taken up by the IFAD-financed Rural Financial Services Programme to enable them to continue providing services to the farmers. The section on sustainability will further discuss the performance and potential of these SACCOs, based on updated data as of present, i.e. 2.5 years after AAMP completion.

29 The PCR explained that the delay was due to having to wait for policy guidance from the central government concerning the Rural Financial Services Strategy (approved in August 2006), specifically regarding the microfinance policy framework. 30 The dangers arising from using SACCOs as conduits of outside funds to farmers. The politicization of microfinance, especially after the 2006 presidential elections, made the overall political environment under which SACCOs operated very challenging.

11

50. Specific objective 3: Sustainable development and improvement of rural infrastructure. Various infrastructure schemes (roads, markets, storage facilities, etc.) have been constructed and/or rehabilitated by the programme, thus facilitating the marketing of agricultural produce and other rural economic activities. As mentioned in chapter II section B, some schemes exceeded the targets while others, for various reasons, did not even meet them. Overall, the new roads improved access to the subcounty hinterland and hence much of the marketable produce of farms located in these areas could now be picked up by vans or trucks directly from the farms instead of being wasted because of difficulties in getting it to market. Better rural roads have improved access to other services, such as improved seed, veterinary and extension advisory services, and financial services. They have also led to a reduction in the time needed for collecting water, to the start of matatu services in areas where there are roads, and to subsequent increases in school attendance. 51. Post-harvest handling structures have also been constructed. For example, in Kabale, good Irish potato seed was selected, cleaned and stored for sale in well- constructed structures. Milk cooler facilities were set up in five districts. AAMP also constructed new covered markets, which are much cleaner and more convenient to the stallholders and customers than the old open markets. Attendance at markets has increased by 110.5 per cent on a busy day and 53.5 per cent on a non-busy day.31 The combination of decreased transportation costs and the cutting out of middlemen resulted in a rapid increase in farm-gate prices. 52. In order to ensure the sustainability of these infrastructure schemes, management committees have been formed to operate and maintain them. Training has been provided to the committees on technical and management issues. During programme implementation, the committees were active in their roles, but once programme financing was no longer available many of them became dormant. This is further discussed under the section on sustainability. 53. Specific objective 4: Increased public-sector capacity to perform its role in responding to production needs identified by interest groups and rural communities. Building up the capacity of the public sector was one aspect of AAMP, the aim of which was to enable staff to work with beneficiary groups using analytical approaches and to fulfill a brokerage role with the private sector. Support for capacity-building included technical in-service training for District Production Department staff and subcounty extension workers, agri-business training for community development staff, and funding the operations of the district technology adaptation specialists. The provision of transport enhanced the mobility of community development staff and helped them make and maintain contact with AAMP groups and management committees. 54. Another activity that was not part of the design but was implemented due to demand from beneficiaries, was the identification and training of community agricultural paraprofessionals in each of the 73 subcounties to create local capacity for the provision of basic agricultural extension services. The training was specifically tailored to the key enterprises supported by AAMP in the respective subcounties. The paraprofessionals worked under the supervision of local government extension staff for purposes of quality control. This system was driven by the demand and voluntarism of the farmers, who provided transport and lunches for the paraprofessionals during training sessions. 55. Overall, following the decentralization policies and support provided by AAMP, public-sector response to production needs in the rural communities has improved. Districts and subcounties are also involved in sustaining the activities initiated by the programme. The key issue is how to maintain these improvements in public- sector capacity.

31 PCR, December 2008.

12

56. Given the above analysis, the PPA concurred with the rating of 5 (satisfactory) assigned by PMD to the effectiveness of AAMP. Efficiency 57. Although the programme was approved by IFAD’s Executive Board in December 1999, the loan was signed more than two years later (February 2002) because the Government had first to obtain parliamentary approval. The programme became effective three months later (May 2002). The use of programme funds was relatively slow in the early years because it took time to complete the design and procurement process for rural roads. Programme funds were almost fully utilized and, in reference to the extent to which the programme objectives were achieved, this is a good indicator of resource-use efficiency. It should be noted that the devaluation of the United States dollar (USD) relative to the Special Drawing Right (SDR) has meant that total programme costs in USD terms exceeded the appraisal estimates, without however exceeding the loan amount in SDR (the currency of the loan). 58. Programme finances were also well accounted for during the entire programme period, amd all audits were timely and unqualified, with very few comments or corrections by auditors. The programme was completed according to the original six-year plan, and the total programme management cost (around 12 per cent) was in line with the average in the ESA region. As noted above, an upward revision of the programme facilitation costs was approved in the 2006 loan amendment. The management costs included also the monitoring costs for the AfDB feeder roads subcomponent. 59. Effective programme management greatly enhanced the efficiency of AAMP. The manpower required was underestimated at design but, once that problem was resolved, programme management was excellent and was able to meet its original deadline. The management procedures included almost textbook-like practices: maintaining regular relations with interest agencies and groups; using a participation-based approach to annual planning; staffing the PFT with competent personnel (most were from government agencies, while financial staff were from the private sector); providing adequate leadership through monthly management meetings that took place in the districts once every quarter; requiring thorough periodic monitoring reports; exercising adequate control over achievements; adjusting to the new requirements as the programme proceeded; and providing feedback to, and motivation for, staff. The M&E system, after the modifications and additional financing provided during implementation, performed well and was capable of providing the data necessary for local/national decision-makers and for IFAD to follow the programme’s progress. 60. The appraisal report had avoided presenting estimates of the financial rate of return (FRR) and economic rate of return (ERR) despite having made calculations to assess them, but it concluded that the programme investments were likely to create an ERR of more than 12 per cent.32 Similarly, the PPA mission did not attempt to recalculate the FRR or ERR for the programme investments in detail, partly because (i) the mission’s visit did not allow time for collecting new data on the different types of subprojects; and (ii) the programme offices had closed in 2008. 61. Economic and financial analyses presented in the PCR showed that positive net benefits had been realized from programme-supported interventions. The estimated ERR for the last three years of the programme was 42 per cent and the PCR projected it to be 48 per cent over the next five years (2009-2013). The PCR presentation of the ERR is very informative and allows readers to gain a good understanding of the costs/benefits of the enterprises. The relatively high rate was attributed to the fact that most households adopted better agricultural

32 In addition, the appraisal report estimated that, if the per capita income increased by one percentage point, the ERR would be 18 per cent, and if the annual production per hectare increased by UGX 100,000 (US$69), the ERR would be 46 per cent.

13

technologies, which resulted in higher yields; concurrently, a better rural road network improved farmers’ access to markets, which ensured greater opportunities to sell their produce. 62. However, while the assumptions are moderate and partly based on actual observations by the M&E unit, the methodologies used in computing the ERR do not follow textbook or internationally approved practices, and thus undermine the validity of the results (see PCR section on efficiency and annex VI of the PCR).33 What the PCR did was closer to a financial analysis than an economic one (even then using computation methods that gave faulty results). However, there are strong indications that the programme’s FRR and ERR are positive because of signs of growth in productivity, marketable outputs, use of infrastructure, etc., even though it is impossible to project accurately (on the basis of the PCR data and computations) what the ERR should actually be. 63. The results calculated by the PPA on the profitability of the subprojects were even better than those presented in the PCR. The net present values were very positive for all five subprojects used as examples in the PCR – milk coolers, and smallholder plantations for bananas, potatoes, upland rice and goat-breeding. For all these subprojects, the farmers received subsidies in the form of training, visits to model farmers, advice by farm extension workers paid by AAMP, and good quality seed or goats/goat progenies. The PPA team prepared financial analyses for a period of seven years (using AAMP’s production and cost data, partly updated) to determine the rates of return in the event farmers had to pay all these expenses without assistance. The FRRs were high in all of these test cases, varying from 27 to 210 per cent.34 64. As to the economic returns of all programme investments, for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 60, the PPA mission could not re-work the computations on ERR made by the appraisal mission. However, as the FRR returns for subprojects were high, as the Government’s impact study had shown that 98 percent of farmers reported higher incomes than before the programme and as the official statistics indicated a 15 percent increase in household incomes, the PPA mission was satisfied that the ERR for AAMP was adequate.35 65. The wide variety of beneficiaries – from district and subcounty officers receiving training to farmer groups benefiting from enterprise grants and travellers on roads – makes it difficult to compute meaningful unit costs per beneficiary or other denominators, particularly because of the varied types of farmer enterprises and different road construction conditions. However, as noted in the section on rural poverty impact, by the end of the programme the number of beneficiaries exceeded those indicated at appraisal. 66. The programme succeeded in completing all civil works on time, and no extension of the closing date was needed despite some delays related to procurement for rural roads. For these reasons and in view of the results calculated by the PPA regarding the profitability of the subprojects and substantial increases in farmers’ incomes through programme investments, AAMP’s efficiency is rated as 5 (satisfactory). B. Rural poverty impact 67. The overall goal of the programme was to increase the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme area, and thus reduce poverty in the 13 districts. The programme aimed at improving the livelihoods of 312,500 households

33 For instance, the ERR has been presented on an annual basis for seven years, starting from the year when production data were actually collected. The computations gave the ERR for annual crops, for which the annual costs were higher than revenues, and did so on an annual basis, that is, for each investment year separately. For bananas, no investment costs or recurrent costs were included but the computations were calculated from the time the banana trees reached full maturity. The ERR for the road component and milk coolers included no maintenance costs. 34 Details of the financial rates of return are available in the PPA mission’s working paper. 35 Despite the constraints mentioned above, the PPA mission prepared tentative computations of ERR using data from the Government’s PCR, price data collected during the mission and best estimates (and no shadow pricing), and obtained positive ERRs for 15 to 20-year projection periods.

14

but, by programme completion, the number of households reached was approximately 400,000. These households benefited from investments in the commercialization of agriculture, including access to financial services, rehabilitation of rural roads, and construction of other infrastructures. The main impacts of programme investments are presented in the following paragraphs. 68. Household incomes and assets. The PCR noted that overall, according to official government statistics, a 12.5 per cent reduction in poverty levels and a 15 per cent increase in real household incomes were registered over the lifetime of the programme.36 During the impact assessment study, about 98 per cent and 66 per cent of the farmers interviewed reported that their incomes from farming and non- farming activities respectively had increased. However, the changes experienced by beneficiaries cannot be entirely attributed to AAMP since they have been exposed to interventions by other organizations and to various changes in social, economic and environmental factors. 69. The creation of employment from AAMP activities can be one proxy for assessing its impact on household incomes. According to the PCR, the 42 markets built by AAMP have created employment for over 5,700 people engaged in different types of activities, ranging from owners of small businesses in the markets such as eating places and telephone booths, to casual workers loading trucks and people employed for cleaning and security. The milk coolers have also helped to create employment and hence income for the farmers who produce milk for sale, for the workers hired to transport milk from farms to the coolers and from the coolers to the processing plants, and for workers employed at the coolers. Household income is also generated from opportunities to sell production surpluses on the market or at higher farm gate prices. 70. As for household assets, the PCR reported that increased livestock ownership was the most obvious effect of the programme. For instance, the largest investment in livestock under AAMP was the financing of a UGX 500 million (about US$250,000) scheme for goat stock improvement, which benefited 15,771 persons, 60 per cent of whom were women. This increase in productive assets helped households to generate income that was mainly used for school fees, reinvestments in farming and purchases of food for the households. There is also evidence of an increase in the average number of non-productive assets such as mattresses and blankets in households directly benefiting from the programme. In addition, the quality of housing has improved: dwellings roofed with corrugated iron sheets rather than grass increased from 69.1 per cent in 2001 to 83.1 per cent in 2008. Financial assets also grew. The more than 17,000 members of the programme-supported SACCOs had saved a total of UGX 1.42 billion (about US$700,000) by mid-2008. Given these positive changes, the programme’s impact on household income and assets is rated as 5 (satisfactory). 71. Human and social capital and empowerment. All AAMP activities involved some building of human capital. These activities included training conducted by extension advisers who met with more than 2,700 farmer groups and established subcounty trials and model on-farm demonstration plots in an effort to increase productivity and make farmers more business oriented. The demonstrations were very important learning stations for farmers, inasmuch as they acquired the knowledge and skills needed to adopt the new technologies. The demonstrations were also largely responsible for the high rate of adoption of various crops. Extensive training was also provided to district and subcounty officers to enable them to more efficiently carry out their functions. All programme-supported groups received several types of training as part of the enterprise development support. This included technical training relative to the chosen enterprises as well as in enterprise development, group dynamics, leadership and business planning, and record-keeping.

36 The PCR noted that these figures are based on the Government of Uganda Statistical Abstract of 2008.

15

72. It was noted that, apart from training, AAMP-supported road building activities brought health services closer in terms of the time needed to reach them, and taught road users’ associations the value and skills of road maintenance. It also led to a reduction in the time needed for collecting water, and the matatus had a good impact on school attendance. Sanitary facilities built at the market places taught people the value of hygiene, as did the HIV/AIDS campaigns. The quantities of these and other training efforts are included in annex 8. A significant proportion of loans from SACCOs was used for school fees, allowing more children to enter and stay in school. The impact study also reported better capacity of SACCO members to pay for medical care. 73. With regard to social capital and empowerment, the programme set up a number of associations and groups including, for example, SACCOs, marketing associations, infrastructure management committees and group enterprises. Working in groups allowed members to acquire knowledge and skills, and the groups’ chosen investment priorities were an important means of empowering local people in terms of their own development. Overall, the impact on human and social capital and empowerment is rated as 5 (satisfactory). 74. Food security and agricultural productivity. According to the impact assessment, 90 per cent of the households interviewed reported that food availability had improved considerably during programme implementation. However, as in the case of household incomes, it should be noted that this cannot be entirely attributed to the project. Forty-six per cent of the farmers interviewed reported that they spent part of the additional income to purchase food for their households. The statistics on marketed surpluses also show the increased use of farm production for home consumption: the increases in production exceeded the increases in the percentage of marketed produce. Improved food security was specifically reported among rural farmer groups engaged in banana production, upland rice growing and potato production. As livestock ownership has increased, households now have better access to animal protein in the form of milk and meat. 75. Both the farmers’ views described in the impact assessment and the data collected by the M&E unit of AAMP indicate substantial increases in agricultural productivity. Yield levels improved for both crop (bananas, rice, Irish potatoes and pineapples) and livestock (goats, bulls) enterprises. The increase in yield levels led to increased marketable surpluses of various crops, as may be seen below: Table 2 Change in marketable surplus resulting from AAMP support Enterprise Marketable surplus (as % of total production)

Before AAMP After AAMP

Banana 44 64

Beans 59 76

Pineapple 67 75

Rice 80 88

Irish potato 45 57

Maize 43 67 Source: Impact Assessment Study (2008)

76. The farmers’ shift from subsistence farming to commercial farming occurred at the same time. The impact assessment study noted that households engaging in only subsistence farming fell from 49.8 per cent in 2001 to 25.6 per cent in 2008, and those involved in the sale of crops increased from 27.8 per cent in 2001 to 40.8 per cent in the same year. The proportion of households selling animals rose from 4.0 per cent in 2001 to 11.7 per cent in 2008. It is interesting to note that an impact on agricultural productivity was also observed among non-programme beneficiaries, and in a number of ways. Non-programme beneficiaries have been

16

seen to learn and adopt the best practices from the programme beneficiaries by, for example, adopting improved varieties and breeds, planting in lines and spraying against pest and disease. The programme’s impact on food security and agricultural productivity is therefore rated as 5 (satisfactory). 77. Natural resources and the environment. The PPA mission noted that, in general, AAMP did not give rise to any major environmental concerns and that the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) had overseen the environmental soundness of AAMP investments. Throughout implementation, environmental impact statements were prepared, and potential negative effects and mitigation measures were identified and implemented. As an example, wherever possible, the programme built on existing structures, improving roads within their existing alignment and finding alternative uses for depleted gravel pits. 78. Regarding infrastructure, the mitigating measures required at the time of financing appear to have been adequate. For example, satisfactory latrines have been built at market places, and market associations look after the cleanliness of the stalls and their surroundings.37 79. New feeder and community roads have improved access to areas previously difficult to reach by large truck,38 and the amount of timber harvested and wood materials for charcoal burning has grown in some areas (not all AAMP districts have substantial natural forestry resources). While this activity has brought new income to more remote areas, the depletion of forests will need to be checked and kept within stipulated national and district guidelines. In principle, the regulatory arrangements are adequate: the National Forestry Authority grants licenses for timber harvesting, and district authorities issue permits to transporters. However, the district environmental officers, whose number is sufficient for environmental monitoring and mitigation at the district level, are inadequate to cover the large programme area and handle the increasing number of interventions involved. 80. The PCR acknowledged that a number of environmental concerns remain because of increased use of agricultural chemicals and their potential percolation to the water table. In the view of the PPA mission, agricultural chemicals are still not widely used in Uganda but the application of herbicide and fertilizer in upland rice fields and potato plantations is likely to become more common. This is because farmers are motivated to increase production and the labour requirements for weeding are more costly than for the application of herbicides. Also, herbicides and fungicides are needed to protect against insects and plant diseases. One factor that has impeded increased use of fertilizer is its relatively high cost, which leads farmers to rely more on manure and composted organic materials. 81. At the time of the PCR, global climate change was not seen as a significant problem. However, NEMA, district and subcounty officials interviewed by the PPA team have since acknowledged the effects of climate change in Uganda. Besides unexpected droughts, substantial changes in rain and seasonal patterns have made it difficult for farmers (and their advisers) to decide on the most suitable times for planting crops. 82. Overall, the programme’s impact on natural resources management and the environment is rated as 4 (moderately satisfactory), higher than the original rating of 3 (moderately unsatisfactory) assigned by both PMD and the PCRV. This is due to the PPA mission’s observation of no major shortcomings in implementing the mitigation measures of the environmental assessments prepared for infrastructure schemes, as well as the good supervision of environmental issues carried out by the district environmental officers and NEMA.

37 As a smaller note, the PPA team observed that although the refuse collection areas at the markets could have been tidier, these areas did not create an environmental hazard because all refuse was organic and was periodically transferred to processing centres 38 The Government’s PCR and the impact assessment did not further discuss the environmental impact of the roads

17

83. Institutions and policies. While the PCR does not claim that it changed any government policies, the programme generally supported the policies for poverty reduction, agricultural commercialization, decentralization of public administration and services, and changes in the approach to rural finance. With regard to strengthening decentralization, the programme was implemented through existing local government structures at the district and subcounty levels. Key technical staff at these levels received specialized training with programme funds. Specifically, capacity-building was strengthened in three key areas: (i) development planning; (ii) financial management and internal audit; and (iii) civil works and community- based services. 84. As far as financial institutions are concerned, 35 SACCOs had been established by completion in the AAMP districts (compared with the target of 32). The PCR and impact assessment highlighted the various benefits that SACCOs provide. The PPA team concurs with these findings, which have been discussed in other sections of the report. In addition, a further benefit of SACCOs – sometimes overlooked – is that the poorest members of the population can also join a SACCO and benefit from its services, provided they can invest in one share (equivalent to US$4-9, depending on the bye-laws of the SACCO concerned). However, as mentioned under the section on effectiveness, at programme completion, the number of beneficiaries (around 29,000 households) was low in relation to the farming population in the programme districts, and could not have affected income generation and poverty reduction to any great extent. But based on observations from the PPA team 2.5 years after project completion, progress has been promising in this respect. This will be further discussed in the section on sustainability. 85. The other main institutions established with AAMP support are the infrastructure management committees, formed for all types of infrastructures constructed or improved by the programme (including markets, whose use is increasing), and farmer groups which were the basis for delivering support to enterprises (subprojects established by farmer groups) rather than to individual farmers. 86. The PFT of AAMP has been the principal motivator behind a policy change relative to community access roads in Uganda, although the PCR did not specifically articulate this point. The learning gained from AAMP implementation has led to a change in the standards for community access roads, which previously were simply compacted and graded, and lasted less than 2-3 years owing to heavy rainfall throughout the country (1,500-2,000 mm). As a result of such learning, community access roads now have two layers of gravel with compacted soil in between the layers and then grading, thus improving them to all-weather standards, reducing maintenance costs and ensuring sustainability. IFAD’s two other loans to Uganda, for the District Livelihoods Support Programme (DLSP) and for the Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme (CAIIP), have provided additional funding to implement this learning in the construction of new community access roads. 87. AAMP had a major influence on MAAIF’s new paper: ―Development Strategy and Investment Plan‖. AAMP’s impact was also evident in the AfDB’s new agricultural strategy,39 which, according to the AfDB staff interviewed, was partly based on AAMP’s experience and placed major emphasis on rural roads, agricultural infrastructure investments and renewable natural resources management. Given all the above, the programme’s impact on institutions and policies is rated as 5 (satisfactory). This is higher than the rating of 4 (moderately satisfactory) given by PMD for impact on institutions and services, on the basis of AAMP’s successful promotion of the decentralization policy, its capacity-building activities that contribute to good performance of both the implementation agencies and the large number of interest groups, marketing associations, infrastructure management committees and SACCOs that it helped to set up.

39 AfDB: Agricultural Sector Strategy 2010-2014, January 2010

18

88. In sum, based on data in the impact assessment and PCR, as well as information collected during the field visit, the PPA rates the overall rural poverty impact of AAMP as 5 (satisfactory), given the benefits that have accrued to the target groups in terms of markets, income and assets, human and social capital and empowerment, institutions as well as food security and agricultural productivity. C. Other performance criteria 89. Sustainability. The PCR considers the issue of sustainability from several standpoints: political, social, community ownership, institutional, economic and financial. In political terms, the Government has placed the commercialization of agriculture at the forefront of its strategies for prosperity and for poverty eradication, and is unlikely to change them in that respect. The programme’s group-based approach is believed to have created social capital, as have the pass- on scheme and the paraprofessionals who are village-based model farmers trained by the programme. 90. Most programme activities, ranging from building infrastructure to agricultural enterprises, were identified by the communities themselves by means of a participatory process, thus helping ensure a sense of ownership among local populations. Improved skills among local governments and the Government’s promotion of private-sector input suppliers and cooperatives, along with public- sector support of other up- and downstream activities of the value chains, are expected to improve institutional sustainability. As an exit strategy to ensure continuity of service delivery to farmer groups, all AAMP-supported groups are being taken over by the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). As for the financial sustainability of the programme’s subprojects, the PCR emphasizes how important new market places and community and feeder roads are to obtaining higher prices for farm produce. There is also evidence of learning for better sustainability regarding the community access roads (see paragraph 86). 91. The PCR recognized the challenges of maintaining the roads and other infrastructure financed by the programme. Maintenance of programme-financed infrastructure depends on the commitment and competence of voluntary management committees. In this regard, the PCR noted that these committees are faced with a lack of recognition within the decentralization framework, which severely limits their mandates. On a related aspect, with changes in government policy (i.e. the move to privatizing the management of markets, milk coolers and collection of market dues), the committees have less of a role and now focus mainly on informing local government authorities when a tenderer does not perform up to expectations, and act as a link between the vendors/farmers, tenderers and the local governments. 92. Road maintenance by local governments is subject to the availability of funds. The impact assessment study noted that some subcounties (e.g. Kitagata in Bushenyi District) were in the process of formulating bye-laws for maintaining the community roads established using Burungi bwansi, whichR means participation of local people. However, as recognized in the PCR, overall, road maintenance was still a challenge because there were inadequate funds for this purpose following the abolition of graduated tax. In this regard, a dedicated road fund has now been established, jointly funded by the central government, the Poverty Action Fund, districts and subcounties, locally-collected revenues and development partners. 93. The revolving fund or pass-on system under which the beneficiaries were expected to pay back inputs (e.g. seed and progeny of donated animals) for distribution to new beneficiaries, seemed promising and the project authorities expected the system to become a genuine revolving fund, continuing far beyond the programme period. However, in practice, only 866 groups of the 2,788 supported were willing and able to return the benefits they had received. The beneficiaries’ interest in continuing the system beyond the first or second round of ―repayment‖ seemed to have waned, first among the animal owners and gradually also among others. The reasons are not quite clear, but it is possible that a more formalized system,

19

including more uniform methods for keeping records and attaining commitments, would be required for long-term sustainability of this aspect of the programme. 94. In order to be viable and to facilitate employment of high quality staff, the SACCOs must have sufficient savings and loans (and later, other financial services); but in order to attain that level, they must also have relatively high memberships. The UCSCU, the national unions of SACCOs, has estimated that at least 350 members are needed before a SACCO can employ its first staff member, but this estimate is based on the income level of the general population. The membership of rural SACCOs should, in fact, be substantially higher, probably at least double, and for two reasons: (i) the level of poverty among farm families suggests that more members are necessary to support a staff member; and (ii) as operations increase, the staff must also increase – in both number and level of education – and its support thus becomes more expensive. 95. At the beginning of 2011, that is, 2.5 years after the completion of AAMP, the total number of members in AAMP-supported SACCOs had grown significantly (from around 17,000 when AAMP completed to 25,000). Even though some AAMP- supported SACCOs still had memberships of less than 500, the present average membership of these SACCOs is 750. Much larger membership numbers are possible because, in most subcounties, there are no other financial institutions other than the SACCOs.40 96. The 2011 statistics collected by UCSCU show that most SACCOs have portfolios with manageable overdue loan rates and methods to enforce repayment (e.g. taking delinquents to court). However, there are concerns regarding SACCOs with low repayment rates and thus lower profitability. The problem of overdue loans is accentuated by the fact that external funds have found their way into the lending programmes of some SACCOs; this phenomenon is probably a major reason for the low repayment rates and profitability, as observed by the last IFAD/UNOPS supervision mission in 2008.41 SACCOs are member-based institutions whose integrity is based on safeguarding members’ savings. Experience in Uganda and many other countries has too often shown that using cooperatives as conduits for funds endangers their integrity, because the members often see external funds as grants that need not be repaid.42 Caution in this respect does not mean, however, that small start-up funds could not be provided to new SACCOs, but more extensive use of them for transmitting donor or governmental funds (often for political reasons) should be avoided. 97. Given the above, sustainability is rated as 4 (moderately satisfactory). 98. Innovation and scaling up. The PCR and supervision reports described several innovative features of the programme, such as the bottom-up participatory approach, flexible selection of ―enterprises‖ (subprojects), on-farm demonstrations and trials, revolving funds (or pass-on system), community-based paraprofessionals,43 group-based learning and infrastructure management committees. In the view of the PPA team, some of these approaches are to be considered more as best practices than as innovations. For instance, the on-farm demonstrations were common in previous training and visit projects. Similarly, group learning and the bottom-up selection process were in use before AAMP.

40 The two SACCOs visited by the PPA had memberships of 621 and 488, respectively. The smaller and newer one was located in a very modest rented room that could hardly be called a financial institution. However, encouragingly, both were able to show a small annual profit, carry out simple book-keeping, maintain records and safeguard members’ savings. And both had been audited. 41 The 2008 supervision report correctly stated: “External funds will not help a weak SACCO to become strong. In fact, wholesale lenders risk doing more harm than good when they lend to SACCOs with weak management, ineffective governance, or poorly performing portfolios. External credit changes the orientation of weak SACCOs from savings-led to being simple mechanisms for disbursing external funds, resulting in deterioration of their loan portfolio… Strong SACCOs tend to retain their savings orientation when receiving external loans.” 42 The most recent example, and a very large-scale one, is the crisis in the Indian microcredit industry. 43 AAMP identified and trained two men and two women from each of the 73 subcounties under the programme to create local, inexpensive capacity of model farmers and agricultural advisers.

20

These did not pose any particular risk for programme implementation because they had been tried earlier, even in Uganda. 99. On the other hand, several of the approaches were indeed innovations and new (at least in Uganda) at the time of programme design, and thus represented more risky endeavours. They included such ideas as the flexible selection of ―enterprises‖, the revolving fund, community-based paraprofessionals and infrastructure management committees. Because some of these practices were not mentioned in the appraisal report and many were ready for replication and scaling up in other programmes, they showed a high level of initiative on the part of the Government, the programme leadership, and the supervision and financing agencies. 100. With regard to scaling up, some innovations have been already scaled up all over the country. These include the zoning approach (in which subprojects are promoted according to the potential of the agroecological zones) and the revolving funds. Both ideas are being replicated by NAADS. As mentioned above, the learning concerning the community access roads has been replicated in DLSP and CAIIP, as was the setting up of infrastructure management committees in those interventions. The repercussions of AAMP’s success are even greater: as mentioned in the section on impact on institutions and policies, AfDB has used the model as a basis for modifying its agricultural sector strategy, and it plans to finance projects in other countries based on approaches used by AAMP. These projects include community and feeder roads as well as production and processing infrastructures. 101. Other developments and activities were perhaps hoped for but not explicitly mentioned at the time of appraisal. Some infrastructure investments, such as agricultural markets, produce stores and milk cooling facilities, when placed in appropriate locations (for instance, at a crossroads), soon attracted other businesses, shops and private investors and formed a basis for economic mini- centres. Private investors noticed the profitability of AAMP milk coolers and acquired similar coolers, competing for milk sellers with the farmers’ associations and ensuring competitive prices for farmers. Another phenomenon, hoped for at appraisal, was that other economic groups found ways of copying subprojects financed by AAMP. This included groups that were unable to obtain AAMP financing of their enterprises as well as groups in subcounties not covered by AAMP. 102. To sum up, given the nature of many of the innovations and the achievements in terms of scaling up, overall, innovation and scaling up is rated as 5 (satisfactory). 103. Gender equality and women’s empowerment. The appraisal report stated that ―women’s groups will be made aware of the opportunities available for increased income generation, other economic opportunities as well as for enhanced food security and nutrition.‖ However, it did not contain any special promotional activities for women and set no targets in this respect, both of which were corrected during implementation. According to the PCR, with AAMP-promoted gender sensitization, women were much more involved and benefited substantially from its activities, almost achieving the very ambitious objectives set at mid term. 104. Overall, the programme had a significant positive impact on women. The following paragraphs provide a more detailed assessment of AAMP’s achievement against the three corporate gender objectives contained in the IFAD’s Gender Plan of Action 2003. These are to (i) expand women’s access to and control over fundamental assets – capital, land, knowledge and technologies; (ii) strengthen women’s agencies – their decision-making role in community affairs and representation in local institutions; and (iii) improve women’s well-being and ease their workloads by facilitating access to basic rural services and infrastructure. 105. With regard to the first corporate gender objective, women and youth constituted a considerable proportion of the members of targeted economic interest groups. That being the case, women had a strong influence on AAMP-supported activities. For example, 55 per cent of the group membership was made up of women, the majority of whom were engaged in growing Irish potatoes and bananas, and

21

rearing goats. In the case of goat production, 60 per cent of the beneficiaries were women. As much as 47 per cent of the services under the programme and 40 per cent of the SACCO loans were extended to women, against the target of 50 per cent in both cases. Over 75 per cent of the vegetable and fruit stall operators in markets rehabilitated or constructed under the programme are women. Fifty per cent of the paraprofessionals selected were women. The women reportedly benefited from AAMP training that reduced their dependence on their husbands for basic needs, and increased their responsibilities in their homes and communities. Furthermore, men were positive regarding the increased economic empowerment of women because, unlike before, they were sharing household and community responsibilities. According to the impact assessment study, women members of SACCOs testified that access to financial services had enabled them to manage money and have greater control over resources and access to knowledge, which led to them having a greater voice in family matters accompanied by growth in self- esteem and self-confidence. In this way, the programme was responsive to balancing the traditional gender roles within the target communities in line with Millennium Development Goal No. 3.44 106. With regard to the second corporate gender objective, the satisfactory degree to which women were empowered and played more a decision-making role is demonstrated by the fact that they were represented in leadership positions in all subprojects, maintenance committees and SACCOs. The impact assessment noted that a number of AAMP-supported groups were dominated by women, some of whom were executive members of their respective group committees. For example, executive positions in the Bivamuntuyo pineapple growing group in Sembabule District were dominated by women. 107. Concerning the third corporate gender objective, AAMP-supported activities have contributed to improving women’s well-being and easing their workloads. Enhanced rural infrastructure helped reduce the time spent on travel for domestic tasks (i.e. collecting water and firewood, trips to the grinding mill to produce flour for domestic consumption and to local markets, etc.). The impact assessment also noted that in mountainous areas, such as Nyakitunda in Isingiro District, the stretcher ambulance had been replaced by motorcycles to transport pregnant women and the sick, as a result of improved operability of the roads. 108. In view of the programme’s overall positive impact on women, gender equality and women’s empowerment is assessed as 5 (satisfactory), higher than the rating of 4 (moderately satisfactory) assigned by PMD. D. Performance of partners 109. IFAD. The Fund’s innovative programme design was praised by the PCR inasmuch as it was found to be within the framework of the Government’s strategy of poverty eradication and the PMA. The design process was participatory, and aimed at promoting ownership by the Government. IFAD also sought to incorporate lessons from AAMP’s predecessor, the Southwest Region Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, and provided support needed to implement the programme, particularly delivering the agreed funds in a timely manner and showing flexibility when some aspects of programme design needed to be modified and funds reallocated. Together with the Government, IFAD took prompt action to ensure the timely implementation of the recommendations of supervision and implementation support missions. 110. IFAD has also been active in forging effective partnerships and maintaining coordination among key partners to ensure the achievement of programme objectives, including the replication and scaling up of pro-poor innovations. Practical arrangements and procedures of AAMP, its pass-on system and community mobilization approaches are being replicated by other government programmes such as NAADS and CAIIP. In addition, IFAD established a country office in Kampala in 2006, which participated in some supervision missions during

44 PCR Section 3.4 on gender considerations, supported by observations and interviews recorded in the impact assessments.

22

AAMP’s last two years of implementation. The establishment of the country programme management team in 2008 enhanced knowledge-sharing and networking among all IFAD-funded projects/programmes in the country. 111. On the other hand, IFAD bears responsibility for some of the original design shortcomings, such as (i) inadequate planning and financing of the M&E system (one short-term consultant for planning the system and a part-time employee were not enough to ensure that M&E could be carried out in a programme covering 13 districts, 73 subcounties and some 3,000 subprojects); and (ii) underestimation of the number of extension agents needed to implement the programme. Omitting the cost of gravel from the design of community roads was another shortcoming.45 112. Every effort was made to address these shortcomings, however, following the recommendations of supervision missions and the Government’s requests for modifications. And, as mentioned earlier, improvements were facilitated by IFAD’s flexibility. Considering IFAD’s overall performance during programme implementation, the rating given is 5 (satisfactory). 113. Government. The PCR noted that the IPC provided effective policy guidance as well as a platform for sharing experience and exchanging ideas among the ministries involved. District and subcounty officials particularly appreciated the interactions with IPC during field missions, which also served as a source of information to high-level policy organs about programme implementation. The Permanent Secretary of MOLG provided guidance and overall support to the programme team throughout implementation and served as a useful link to other government programmes. The location of the PFT within MOLG also enhanced the dissemination of knowledge and key experiences about the programme. 114. The last project status report noted that the PFT, composed of a team situated in Kampala and a field office in Mbarara thereby accounting for a staff of about 15 professionals plus support staff, was extremely efficient and knowledgeable. Although the programme had very wide coverage, it was implemented through government systems for decentralization while the PFT took initiatives for initiating and coordinating many activities. It also set up an excellent computerized financial control system (see the comments on project accounting, auditing and management under the section on efficiency). 115. Through its actions, including financial contributions, policy support and effective approval of recommendations and follow-up, the Government confirmed its high- level of ownership of the programme. Government and beneficiary contributions were mainly in the form of settlement of duties and taxes on procured items, and cash and in-kind contributions for rural infrastructure and subprojects. In line with the original design, local governments and benefiting communities were required to put up 20 per cent of the value of infrastructure investments; although this percentage was later changed to 10 per cent, it was difficult for some district authorities to meet these requirements. As of the last supervision mission in June 2008, contributions from Ugandan sources were 79 per cent of the agreed amounts. Overall, the Government’s performance is rated as 5 (satisfactory). 116. Cooperating institution. At the start of the programme, UNOPS was designated as the cooperating institution in charge of loan administration and supervision. The PCR noted that UNOPS conducted all six planned supervision missions in a timely and effective manner and that the missions visited all AAMP-supported districts during their stays in the country. The recommendations led to improved programme performance and were appreciated by the beneficiaries, IPC and programme staff. The PCR specifically commended UNOPS for encouraging training in the logical framework approach both in the districts and among subprojects, establishment of the M&E section, conversion of matching grants into a revolving

45 It should be noted that, at the time, the standards of community access roads in Uganda (as established by the Ministry of Works and Transport) were such that gravel would be used only on a few very bad spots. However, lessons have been learned, policies have changed and community access roads are now being built to better standards.

23

fund, and timely disbursement of programme funds (all withdrawal applications were honoured in time). 117. The team leader and most of the specialists remained the same for all supervision missions, thus providing stability for the missions’ work and recommendations. A review of some supervision reports showed that they were informative and thorough, ranging from 55 to 70 pages, and containing detailed and practical recommendations and follow-up lists for each programme activity. As for the rating of programme activities, the mission’s recommendations were appropriate based on the situation prevailing at the time of the visits: the 2003 mission pointed out minor-to-moderate problems in nearly all categories, whereas the 2008 mission was satisfied with the outcomes and outputs in general, noting only minor shortcomings in M&E and physical outputs. Overall, UNOPS performance is given a rating of 5 (satisfactory) on the basis of its systematic approach, good quality of the supervision mission reports, and continuity of UNOPS staff in administrative and supervisory tasks. 118. Cofinancier. AfDB provided funds for feeder road development in the programme area under a parallel financing arrangement, which helped to expand the rural road network thereby linking farms to markets. This parallel programme was scheduled to close a year later than AAMP. The target to improve 700.6 km of feeder roads was exceeded by 60 per cent. The PCR evaluates AfDB’s performance in AAMP as satisfactory, which the PPA mission concurs with.

Key points  The relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the programme are rated as satisfactory on the basis of its alignment to government and IFAD strategies as well as the needs of the rural poor, the level of achievements of its objectives within the time span and budget, and high profitability of the enterprises it supported.  The rural poverty impact is also rated as satisfactory given the benefits that have accrued to the target groups in terms of income and assets, food security and agricultural productivity, human and social capital and empowerment, as well as institutions, policies and markets.  Sustainability is rated as moderately satisfactory. The level of ownership by the local population and the financial sustainability of the programme’s subprojects are high, but there are still challenges with regard to sustainability of the infrastructure management committees and the pass-on system. Some programme innovations (the zoning approach, revolving funds and learning with regard to the community access roads) have been scaled up all over the country, justifying a satisfactory rating for this criterion. On the basis of the overall positive impact of the programme on women, gender equality and women’s empowerment is assessed as satisfactory.  The performance of IFAD, the Government, UNOPS and AfDB are all rated as satisfactory. IFAD was praised for its innovative design and flexibility in supporting the implementation of the programme when modifications were needed. The Government played an active role and showed a high level of programme ownership. UNOPS supervision was good, with a systematic approach and continuity of staff in the administrative and supervisory tasks.

IV. Overall project achievement 119. Overall, despite differences from the targets set during programme implementation (none were set at appraisal), the PPA’s rating of AAMP’s overall achievement is ―satisfactory‖. Annex 1 gives a summary of the ratings, including a comparison of ratings as per PCR and PPA. The PMD ratings have been upgraded in three instances: (i) impact on institutions and policies; (ii) impact on natural resources and the environment; and (iii) gender equality and women’s empowerment. The rationale for such upgrading has been explained in the corresponding sections.

24

V. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 120. The overall goal of AAMP was to increase the incomes and food security of poor rural households in the programme areas and to modernize agriculture in the targeted districts. At the end of the programme, the farmers’ incomes and food security had increased. The planning and execution capacity of the districts and subcounties had also improved, as had the farmers’ ability to gain more access to services and financing facilities. The programme’s support for and training of local farmer groups enabled them to expand their production and become more commercially oriented at a time when they were shifting from subsistence to market-oriented farming, and their capacity to select enterprises (subprojects) with higher returns had increased. The farmers increasingly involved themselves in group marketing in order to benefit more from marketable surpluses. 121. The programme also improved rural infrastructure, thus facilitating the commercialization of agriculture. Better rural roads improved access to other services, such as input and produce markets and financial services. Women are now more involved in economic activities, and the impact of their empowerment is significant. In addition, districts, subcounties and farmer groups have become involved in sustaining activities initiated by the programme. 122. The parallel financing arrangement with AfDB was a relevant and effective choice because it allowed IFAD loan funds to be focused on community roads to link farms and communities to major towns and markets, often via the feeder roads, which were the focus of AfDB’s financing (see paragraph 37). 123. Rural financial services support was implemented through SACCOs. Although the programme supported more SACCOs than originally foreseen, the number of beneficiaries was limited. There is still some concern about the viability of a number of SACCOs with low repayment rates and thus lower profitability (see paragraphs 49, 84 and 96). 124. The maintenance of programme-supported infrastructure presents a challenge. Although the infrastructure management or maintenance committees were active during implementation, once programme financing was no longer available many of them became dormant (in the case of roads, where subcounties have taken over maintenance) or more limited in terms of their role (in the case of the milk cooler associations, where the milk processing dairies or bidders now take care of maintenance and other functions) (see paragraphs 52, 91-92). 125. While a number of early targets were not met (only 27 per cent of the target for cattle dips was achieved and 48 per cent of that for community roads), the vast majority were attained or even surpassed. The few concerns expressed earlier are relatively minor in relation to the programme’s achievements. Some shortcomings at design (such as the lack of targets for monitoring the performance of indicators, inadequate planning and financing for the M&E system, etc.) were corrected during implementation (see paragraphs 41-42). 126. The success of AAMP may be attributed to a number of favourable factors, the most important of which are as follows: 127. Flexibility in the design of programme interventions. Flexibility allowed for quick response to opportunities that arose during implementation. For instance, AAMP staff numbers were substantially increased soon after programme start-up and the original idea of allowing communities to select their own priority investments was replaced by the concept of tailoring programme interventions to accommodate the climate and cultural systems in respective districts. 128. Mainstreaming of programme activities and linking with decentralization policies. It was important for government programmes to work through existing administrative structures to build up capacity and enhance the sustainability of benefits after programme completion.

25

129. Involvement of local people in their own development. If they are to take real responsibility for interventions and for their sustainability over the long term, target communities must be involved in selecting programme interventions and in planning their implementation. 130. Another important element was the quality of programme management. The PFT was competent and its management methods and procedures were effective and motivational. And as it turned out, AAMP was an effective training ground for good management practices, and its key persons were well placed in the government structure after completion of the programme. B. Recommendations 131. This section gives a number of broad recommendations on important issues for future IFAD operations in Uganda. 132. Financing arrangements. AAMP provided a lesson concerning the cofinancing arrangements (see paragraph 122). Both community roads (financed by IFAD) and feeder roads (financed by AfDB) were crucial for farmers’ produce to reach markets, and although these components were complementary they were sufficiently distinct to allow implementation and disbursement recording through the parallel financing arrangement. Thus, if it is not possible to place all external funds in the same ―basket‖ for monitoring or other reasons, parallel financing, organized under the same coordinating body, may be a relevant and efficient financing solution. 133. SACCOs are a promising approach to creating a financial network to serve Uganda’s rural areas. However, their financial sustainability and long-term survival will need to be ensured (see paragraph 123) and, for that purpose, their nature as member-based and savings-first institutions should be safeguarded. This calls for a degree of caution when trying to increase their outreach, especially when expanding their lending operations by inserting external funds into the system. The SACCOs’ membership and clientele will need to increase to a level that allows them to operate economically and become important financiers in the areas where few other financial institutions usually exist. But this expansion should happen in a controlled manner, ensuing that no harm is done to the institutions’ viability and taking care not to inject excessive amounts of external funds into the lending portfolio. 134. Much depends on how the Government or donors decide to promote these financial cooperatives. External interventions in the form of financial or technical assistance for organizational development generally include a subsidy element. Subsidies in any form tend to distort market conditions and competition. However, because market forces do not always support equitable development, particularly in poor rural areas, external support is sometimes needed to get things going. 135. The Government and support organizations for SACCOs (UCSCU, Microfinance Support Centre and others) should be careful when selecting the types of financial and technical support they will provide. Support with long-term benefits in terms of outreach and sustainability of financial cooperatives will not necessarily be addressed directly to the cooperatives themselves but to the development of an enabling environment that will facilitate their growth, performance and integrity. Targeted subsidies, also called financial support, may be warranted if they are transparent, of a specified quantity, explicitly entered into government budgets, fiscally sustainable and economically justified. Furthermore, the interventions should not subsidize the ultimate clients but should be aimed at building up the human and operational capacity of SACCOs or supporting institutions (e.g. supervisory authorities), as in the case of training and other business development services. Appropriate financial support may even include partial payment of expenditures (a safe, office furniture and stationery) and operating costs (such as

26

supporting supervision and audit costs) over the medium term if this is necessary to achieve outreach objectives related to poverty reduction.46 136. Activating infrastructure management committees. Infrastructure management or maintenance committees will need to be activated (see paragraph 124) to ensure sustainability of the infrastructure supported. In order to enhance local people’s sense of responsibility – in the spirit of the paradigm that they are largely responsible for their own development – these committees should be reinvigorated by continuous training, allowing them to be accountable for the infrastructures they have chosen as priorities and endowing them with the authority (and self-esteem) to act on their own. Such follow-up would require funding through district and subcounty budgets or (in the medium term) through donor funds or as subcomponents of follow-on projects/programmes. 137. Defining indicators and targets for monitoring (see paragraph 125). The AAMP appraisal mission argued that no targets for indicators could be set because the programme was to be beneficiary-driven – that is, local populations in the districts and subcounties were to determine the types of enterprises (subprojects) they wished to establish. However, the first supervision mission established targets for different activities under the programme although a number of them were subsequently modified. The AAMP appraisal mission was right to note the uncertainties involved, but given that appraisal missions are staffed by competent experts who are specialists in the types of activities planned under AAMP, are familiar with conditions in different agroeconomic zones, and are aware of the most suitable agricultural activities for those zones, appraisal missions are probably in better position to suggest tentative targets for most indicators, or perhaps for all, with the caveat that such targets can be modified when clear local preferences emerge.

46 For more on the appropriate role of government and donors in promoting financial cooperatives and expanding outreach, see IFAD: Decision Tools in Rural Finance, 2002; IFAD: Rural Finance Policy, 2004. And World Bank: Providing Financial Services in Rural Areas; A Fresh Look at Financial Cooperatives, 2007.

27 Annex 1

Rating comparisona Net rating disconnect Criterion PMD ratingb PPA rating PPA-PMD

Project performance

Relevance Design Relevance 5 5 5 0

Effectiveness 5 5 0

Efficiency 5 5 0

Project performancec 5 5 0

Rural poverty impact

Physical assets Financial assets (a) Household income and assets 5 5 5 0

Social capital and Human assets empowerment (b) Human and social capital and empowerment 5 5 5 0

Agricultural Food security productivity (c) Food security and agricultural productivity 5 5 5 0

(d) Natural resources and the environment and climate change 3 4 +1

Institutions and services Markets (e) Institutions and policies 4 5 5 +0.5

Overall rural poverty impactd 5 5 0

Other performance criteria

Sustainability 4 4 0

Innovation and scaling up 5 5 0

Gender equality and women’s empowerment 4 5 +1

Overall project achievemente 5 5 0

Performance of partners

(a) IFAD 5 5 0

(b) Government 5 5 0

(c) Cooperating institution 5 5 0

Average net disconnect +0.15 a Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory. b The PCR does not contain ratings. These are assigned by PMD. c Arithmetic average of ratings for relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. d This is not an average of ratings of individual impact domains. e This is not an average of ratings of individual evaluation criteria. Ratings of partners’ performance are not included in the overall project achievement assessment.

28 Annex 2 Map of the project area

29 Annex 3 Basic project data

Approval Actual (US$ m) (US$ m) Region East and Southern Africa Total project costs 30.0 30.4

Country Uganda IFAD loan and % of total 13.2 44.0% 13.6 44.7%

Loan number 516-UG Borrower 1.5 5.0% 1.5 4.9%

Cofinancier 1: AfDB Type of project under parallel financing (sub-sector) Rural development arrangement 13.9 46.3% 13.9 45.7%

Lending termsa Highly concessional Cofinancier 2

Date of approval 08 Dec 1999 Cofinancier 3

Date of loan signature 15 Feb 2002 Cofinancier 4

Date of effectiveness 20 May 2002 From beneficiaries 1.4 4.7% 1.4 4.6%

Two amendments Loan (10 March 2004; amendments 9 February 2006) From other sources:

399 363 Number of beneficiaries households Loan closure (if appropriate, specify if 312 500 (direct and extensions 0 direct or indirect) households indirect)

Marian Bradley (current Country CPM), Joseph Yayock, programme Fumiko Nakai, managers Miriam Okong’o Cooperating institution UNOPS

Ides de Willebois (current), Regional Gary Howe, director(s) Joseph Yayock (interim) Loan closing date 31 Dec 2008 31 Dec 2008 Project completion report reviewer Oanh Nguyen Mid-term review 30 June 2005

Project completion IFAD loan disbursement report quality Andrew Brubaker at project completion control panel Fabrizio Felloni (%) 95.8%

a There are four types of lending terms: (i) special loans on highly concessional terms, free of interest but bearing a service charge of three fourths of one per cent (0.75%) per annum and having a maturity period of 40 years, including a grace period of 10 years; (ii) loans on hardened terms bearing a service charge of three fourths of one per cent (0.75%) per annum and having a maturity period of 20 years, including a grace period of 10 years; (iii) loans on intermediate terms with a rate of interest per annum equivalent to 50% of the variable reference interest rate, and a maturity period of 20 years, including a grace period of 5 years; (iv) loans on ordinary terms with a rate of interest per annum equivalent to one hundred per cent (100%) of the variable reference interest rate, and a maturity period of 15 to eighteen 18 years, including a grace period of 3 years. Source: President’s Report, PCR, Project and Programme Management System, Loans and Grants System (January 2011)

30 Annex 4 Terms of reference I. Background 1. The 2010 Peer Review of IFAD’s Office of Evaluation and Evaluation Function conducted by the Evaluation Cooperation Group recommended the Office of Evaluation to change its approach to project evaluations by conducting Project Completion Report Validation (PCRV) and a limited number of Project Performance Assessments (PPA). The PPA is a more concise form of project-level evaluation which supersedes the traditional IOE project evaluation. In general, PPAs will be based on the findings from PCRV, further desk review and interviews at headquarters, and a field visit to the concerned country. 2. The PPAs are to be conducted on a sample of projects that have already been exposed to a project completion report validation. The projects will be selected taking into consideration the following criteria: (i) synergies with forthcoming or ongoing high-level evaluations (CPEs or CLEs); (ii) major information gaps in the project completion report; (iii) novel project approaches; and (iv) geographic balance. 3. The Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme (AAMP), Uganda, has been selected for PPA, which would contribute to the Uganda CPE which is being conducted by IOE in 2011-2012. 4. Project description. AAMP was approved by IFAD Executive Board in December 2009, came into effectiveness in May 2002 and closed in December 2008. The project has a total cost of US$30.4 million, jointly funded by an IFAD loan of US$13.6 million (44.7% of the total cost), AfDB under parallel financing arrangement of US$13.9 million (45.7%), counterpart funding of the Government of Uganda US$1.5 million (4.9%), and contributions from beneficiaries US$1.4 million (4.6%). At design, it was targeted to cover 30-40% of rural households in 10 districts1 in south-western Uganda. However, according to the project completion report (PCR), the programme targeted 35% of rural households in 13 districts.2 The increase in the number of districts from 10 to 13 was due to the division of Kabarole into 3 new districts. These districts were subdivided administratively into 196 rural sub counties and 13 urban councils. The total population in these districts, based on extrapolations from the 1991 census, was about 5.3 million persons in 1.05 million households (about a quarter of the national population), of which over 4.7 million persons and 947 000 households (90%) were rural. Rural households averaged five persons, with agriculture as the dominant occupation. 5. Rationale of the intervention. The rationale for the programme derived from several factors: (i) growth played a fundamental role in reducing rural poverty, however, districts lacked funds for agricultural activities; (ii) Government was supporting private-sector initiatives and encouraging farmers to take full advantage of economic opportunities: the scope therefore existed for an investment programme that aimed to further commercialize smallholder farming and assist rural communities in becoming full market participants and to cease being cash- poor; (iii) key national programmes required support from actions within districts, therefore area-based interventions represented a mechanism that would provide useful experience for the eventual development of broader programmes in areas where national approaches were still being developed; and (iv) this programme would build roads linking farms and communities to major towns and markets, opening up other income-generating occupations for rural communities and the provision of goods and services.

1 The ten implementing districts are: Bundibugyo, Bushenyi, Kabale, Kabarole, Kasese, Kisoro, Mbarara, Ntungamo, Rukungiri, and Sembabule. 2 The other three districts listed in the project completion report are: Kemwenge, Kanungu, Kyenjojo.

31 Annex 4

6. Objective of the intervention. The overall goal of the programme was increased incomes and food security among poor rural households in the programme area, with the objective of modernizing agriculture in the districts. The expected outputs3 were as follows: (i) increased involvement of the private sector in support of the further commercialization of smallholder agriculture; (ii) improved capacity among economically active farmers to organize themselves to gain better access to rural services (technical, financial and marketing); (iii) sustainable development and improvement of rural infrastructure; and (iv) increased public sector capacity to perform its role in responding to production needs identified by interest groups and rural communities. The programme was to be implemented over a six year period with the Ministry of Local Government as the implementing agency, in collaboration with district local governments. 7. Project target population. The programme had two major target groups: (i) economically active smallholders living in the rural areas who wished to participate in commercial agriculture; and (ii) existing or potential small-scale entrepreneurs and business associations who provided services to rural households. Among the target group, women played a major role in crop and livestock production, processing and small enterprise operation. The programme did not target pre-specified activities to particular areas and/or groups of potential beneficiaries. Rather, the districts decided, within certain guidelines, how to use the majority of resources available to them, according to the specified eligibility criteria, and the demands of poor rural people themselves. 8. Project components and cost. The programme had four components: (i) agricultural commercialization, including two sub-components namely agricultural commercialization fund which the programme established and from which the districts could draw down funds to finance eligible activities and rural financial services training. This component has a cost of 4.1 million USD; (ii) rural infrastructure development: 8.7 million USD; (iii) community mobilization: 1.2 million USD; and (iv) programme facilitation: 2.1 million USD. The parallel financing arrangement with AfDB was materialized and the funds were spent on a separate component which is the construction of feeder roads. Programme financing plan and actual by component

Percentage Cumulative Original plan Revised plan change after expenditure Component (million USD) (million USD) revision (million USD) Percentage

Agricultural commercialization 4.1 3.2 -20.9 2.7 83.9

Rural infrastructure 8.6 7.3 -15.9 7.3 100.6

Community mobilization 1.2 1.7 39.4 1.5 86.1

Programme facilitation 2.1 3.8 84.8 4.0 103.6

Feeder roads-ADB 14.9 - 12.7 85.1

Initial deposit 94.5

Total 16.0 30.9 28.2 91.2 Source: PCR (2008)

II. Methodology 9. Objectives. The main objectives of the PPA are to assess the performance and results of the project based on the findings from the PCRV and the country mission. Due to the time and budget limits, the PPA would not investigate the full spectrum of project activities and achievements, rather to gather additional evidence only on

3 Both the appraisal report and the president’s report used the terms: “expected outputs”, but these could be considered specific objectives.

32 Annex 4

the major information gaps of the PCR and the issues deserving further investigation in the context of the Uganda CPE. 10. Evaluation criteria. The PPA would follow the evaluation criteria outlined in the Evaluation Manual of IFAD (2009) and the newly added evaluation criteria (2010),4 and the IOE Guidelines for PCRV and PPA (Jan 2011). These include: project performance (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency), rural poverty impact (households income and assets, human and social capital and empowerment, food security and agricultural productivity, natural resources and environment, and institutions and policies), gender equality and women’s empowerment, sustainability, innovation, replication and scaling up, overall project achievement and performance of partners (IFAD, Government, UNOPS as cooperating institution, AfDB as co-financier). However, given the limited resources (staff and non-staff) for a PPA, the scope of the assessment will be selective and the emphasis given to each criterion will depend on the PCRV assessment as well as on emerging findings during the PPA process. As of present, findings from the PCRV suggest the PPA to focus on efficiency, natural resources and environment, operations and profitability of SACCOs, innovation and scaling up, and project management. Besides, the PPA will also put emphasis on further emerging issues during the PPA process. 11. Data collection. The initial findings would be retrieved from the PCRV. During the PPA mission, additional primary and secondary data will be collected to reach an independent assessment of the performance and results. Data collection methods will mostly include qualitative participatory techniques. The methods deployed will be individual and group interviews, focus-group discussions with beneficiaries, and direct observation. Questionnaire-based surveys are not applicable, because short duration of the mission would not allow the generation of an adequate sample size. The PPA will also make use – where applicable – of the additional data available through the project M&E system. Triangulation will be applied to verity findings emerging from different information sources. 12. Participation. In compliance with the Evaluation Policy but taking into consideration the different nature of the PPA compared to full-fledged evaluations, the main stakeholders of the AAMP will be involved throughout the evaluation to ensure that the key concerns of the stakeholders are taken into account in the PPA process, and the evaluators fully understand the context in which the project was implemented, the opportunities and the constraints faced by the implementing organizations. Regular cooperation and communication will be established with the IFAD Eastern and Southern Africa Division (ESA) and Government of Uganda. Formal and informal opportunities will be explored for discussing findings, recommendations and lessons during the process. III. Processes 13. The overall processes of the PPA include five (5) phases: desk work (PCRV) phase, country work phase, drafting report and peer review phase, reviews by ESA and government phase, and the final phase of communication and dissemination. 14. Desk work phase. The PCRV would derive the initial findings and the key issues to be investigated in the PPA. The first draft PCRV is now available. The draft has been peer reviewed within IOE by Mr. Fabrizio Fellon, Senior Evaluation Officer, and Mr. Andrew Brubaker, Evaluation Officer. The PCRV, after having been shared with ESA for comments, has now been finalized. 15. Country work phase. The PPA mission is scheduled from 11-20 April 2011. The mission would interact with Government, other partners, project staff, and project clients (beneficiaries). At the end of the PPA mission, a short wrap-up session will be held in the country to summarise the preliminary findings and the key strategic and operational issues.

4 Gender, climate change, and scaling up.

33 Annex 4

16. Drafting report and peer review. At the conclusion of the field visit, a draft PPA report will be prepared and subject to IOE internal peer review for quality assurance. 17. External review by ESA and Government of Uganda. The PPA report will be then shared with ESA and thereafter the Government for comments. Upon receipt of Government’s comments, IOE will finalise the report. 18. Communication and dissemination. The final report would be disseminated to stakeholders in the country and in IFAD, and the key deliverables of the PPA would post on the evaluation website of IFAD. Flow of the Process of the PPA of the Uganda AAMP

A. PPA B. Drafting C. First IOE TORs mission PPA report peer

review

D. Second E. Send to F. Review G. Revision IOE peer ESA for by and audit review comments ESA trail

I. Review by H. Send to J. Finalization Government Government

IV. Key issues for investigation 19. Based on the findings from the PCRV, the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme apparently was a quite successful project, with nearly all expected results achieved and in some cases even exceeded. Strong emphasis on ensuring sustainability by the project implementers—and supported by the supervising and financing agencies—is likely to ensure that the populations in the target districts or even elsewhere will continue to benefit from the project’s approaches and practices. The main concerns regarding the programme performance are the low rating of the natural resources and environmental issues (moderately unsatisfactory) and the uncertainties about the repayment rates and profitability of the SACCOs. As mentioned in paragraph 10, for the PPA, a few issues are identified for in-depth investigation and the findings from the investigations would contribute to the Uganda CPE. Below are the proposed issues for further investigated, which may subject to change during the PPA process with new findings emerging. Efficiency – profitability of the enterprises (sub-projects) 20. Economic and financial analysis presented in the PCR showed that positive net benefits had been realized from the programme supported interventions. The estimated economic rate of return (ERR) for the last three years of the programme was 42% and the PCR projected it to be 48% in the next five years (2009-2013). The presentation of the PCR on the ERR is very informative and allows the readers to get a good understanding of the costs/benefits of the enterprises. However, while the assumptions are moderate and based on actual observations by the M&E unit, the methodologies used in computing the ERR do not follow textbook or internationally approved practices, and thus undermining the validity of the results. The PPA will try to look further into this issue to have more clarity on the uncertainties and shortcomings just mentioned. Natural resources and environment 21. The PCR acknowledged that besides the infrastructural development just mentioned, some environmental concerns remain because of the increasing use of

34 Annex 4

agricultural chemicals and their potential percolation to the water table. For the time being, use of agricultural chemicals is still modest, but the use of herbicide and fertilizer in upland rice gardens is likely to increase because farmers were motivated to increase production and because the labour requirements for rice weeding are more costly compared to the application of herbicide. Another problem is that the new feeder and community roads have improved the access to areas that used to be difficult for large trucks to reach, and the amount of timber harvested has grown. While this activity has brought new income to more remote areas, the depletion of forests needs to be checked and kept within stipulated national and district guidelines. However, the district environmental officers responsible for environmental monitoring and mitigation at the district level have inadequate resources to cover the large area and all interventions in their districts. The PPA will look further into this issue. Institutions – The operations and profitability of SACCOs 22. The original programme concept for supporting rural finance was to provide training in rural financial services to staff of microfinance institutions, including lending groups and associations. However, because there were other sources to support microfinance institutions and few of them were interested in going outside commercial centres, AAMP was directed to concentrate on helping establish SACCOs in the project areas. By project completion, 35 SACCOs had been established in the AAMP districts (compared with the target of 32). However, as indicated in the impact assessment study, the sustainability of SACCOs is precarious. Given the importance of rural finance issue in the whole country portfolio, the PPA will look more into this issue. Project management 23. The last Project Status Report noted that the Programme Facilitation Team, composed of a headquarters team situated in Kampala and a field office together having a staff of about 15 professionals plus support staff was extremely efficient and knowledgeable. Although the programme had very wide coverage, it was implemented through government systems for decentralization while the Programme Facilitation Team took the initiative for initiating and coordinating many activities as well as having put in place excellent computerized financial control systems. Since this could be a very good example and lesson for the whole portfolio, the PPA will look more into this issue. Other issues 24. In addition to the above mentioned issues, the PPA would also devote attention to other selected issues which merit further verification and/or enquiry, including: (i) innovation, replication and scaling up and (ii) gender equality and empowerment. Other issues emerging from the PPA process will also be included. V. The PPA team 25. Under the supervision of Mr. Andrew Brubaker, Evaluation Officer (IOE) and lead evaluator of the CPE Uganda, Ms. Oanh Nguyen, Evaluation Research Analyst (IOE), was appointed as lead evaluator for this PPA exercise, and who is responsible for delivering the PCRV and the PPA reports. Ms. Nguyen would be assisted by one senior consultant, Mr. Turto Turtiainen, rural development specialist, who would contribute to the draft PPA report with a write up on the findings and recommendations on efficiency, SACCOs, project management, innovation and scaling up and natural resources and management, etc.

35 Annex 5 Definition of the evaluation criteria used by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD

Criteria Definitiona Project performance Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, institutional priorities and partner and donor policies. It also entails an assessment of project design in achieving its objectives. Effectiveness The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. Efficiency A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted into results. Rural poverty impactb Impact is defined as the changes that have occurred or are expected to occur in the lives of the rural poor (whether positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended) as a result of development interventions.  Household income and Household income provides a means of assessing the flow of economic assets benefits accruing to an individual or group, whereas assets relate to a stock of accumulated items of economic value.  Human and social capital Human and social capital and empowerment include an assessment of the and empowerment changes that have occurred in the empowerment of individuals, the quality of grassroots organizations and institutions, and the poor’s individual and collective capacity.  Food security and Changes in food security relate to availability, access to food and stability of agricultural productivity access, whereas changes in agricultural productivity are measured in terms of yields.  Natural resources and the The focus on natural resources and the environment involves assessing the environment and climate extent to which a project contributes to changes in the protection, change rehabilitation or depletion of natural resources and the environment as well as in mitigating the negative impact of climate change or promoting adaptation measures.  Institutions and policies The criterion relating to institutions and policies is designed to assess changes in the quality and performance of institutions, policies and the regulatory framework that influence the lives of the poor. Other performance criteria  Sustainability The likely continuation of net benefits from a development intervention beyond the phase of external funding support. It also includes an assessment of the likelihood that actual and anticipated results will be resilient to risks beyond the project’s life.  Promotion of pro-poor The extent to which IFAD development interventions have: (i) introduced innovation and scaling up innovative approaches to rural poverty reduction; and (ii) the extent to which these interventions have been (or are likely to be) scaled up by government authorities, donor organizations, the private sector and other agencies.  Gender equality and Relevance of design in terms of gender equality and women’s empowerment. women’s empowerment Level of resources of the project dedicated to these dimensions. Changes promoted by the project at the household level (workload, nutrition status, women’s influence on decision making). Adoption of gender-disaggregated indicators for monitoring, analysis of data and use of findings to correct project implementation and to disseminate lessons learned. Overall project achievement This provides an overarching assessment of the project, drawing upon the analysis made under the various evaluation criteria cited above. Performance of partners  IFAD This criterion assesses the contribution of partners to project design,  Government execution, monitoring and reporting, supervision and implementation support, and evaluation. The performance of each partner will be assessed on  Cooperating institution an individual basis with a view to the partner’s expected role and  NGO/community-based responsibility in the project life cycle. organization a These definitions have been taken from the OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management and from the IOE Evaluation Manual. b It is important to underline that the IFAD Evaluation Manual also deals with the “lack of intervention”. That is, no specific intervention may have been foreseen or intended with respect to one or more of the five impact domains. In spite of this, if positive or negative changes are detected and can be attributed in whole or in part to the project, a rating should be assigned to the particular impact domain. On the other hand, if no changes are detected and no intervention was foreseen or intended, then no rating (or the mention “not applicable”) is assigned.

36 Annex 6 List of persons met A. In Kampala Mr. Keith J. Muhakanizi, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Mr. John Kashaka Muhanguzi, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government Mr. Benjamin Kumumanya, Under Secretary, Finance and Administration, Office of the Prime Ministry (former Programme Facilitator of AAMP) Mr. Pontian Muhwezi, IFAD Country Programme Officer Mr. Yasin K. Sendaula, Assistant Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government, National Programme Facilitator of the Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme (CAIIP) Dr. Sam Mugasi, Programme Facilitator of the District Livelihoods Support Programme, former M&E officer of AAMP Mr. Sam Sakwa, Financial Controller of CAIIP – Ministry of Local Government, former Financial Controller of AAMP Dr. John Mbadhwe, Infrastructure Adviser for CAIIP, Ministry of Works and Transport Mr. Wilson Kabanda, CEO, Uganda Cooperative Savings and Credit Union Mr. Joab Baryayaka, M&E officer, Uganda Cooperative Savings and Credit Union Mr. Andrew Byamugisha, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, former Agricultural Adviser to AAMP Mr. Asaph Nuwagira, Agriculture and Rural Development Specialist, African Development Bank Mr. Waiswa Ayazika Arnold, Director, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance, National Environment Management Authority Mr. Alex Winyi Kiiza, Environmental Impact Assessment Officer, National Environment Management Authority Dr. Francis Byekwaso, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, National Aricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Secretariat Mr. Yusuf Kiwala, Planning and Monitoring Officer, NAADS Secretariat Mr. Colin Agabalinda, Operations Manager, Rural Financial Services Programme Mr. Denis Magezi, Infrastructure Engineer, CAIIP Mr. Kenneth Ssenyange, Accountant, CAIIP B. Field visits Mr. Deo Karusigarira, Chairperson, Katojo Market Management Committee Mr. Byanyamuhanga J, Vice Chairperson, Katojo Market Management Committee Mr. Kajubi Benoni, Committee member, Katojo Market Management Committee Ms. Baryaruha Rose, Committee member, Katojo Market Management Committee Ms. Margaret Tibahungwa, AAMP former Programme Support Officer, Mbarara District Mr. Tibugyenda Wilson, Chief Administrative Officer, Mbarara District Mr. Kayumbu William, District Community Development Officer, Mbarara District Mr. Asingwire Valerian, Road Inspector, Mbarara District Ms. Byamugabe Beatrice, District Production Coordinator, Mbarara District Mr. Kagaaju Gershorm, Agricultural officer, Ntungamo District

37 Annex 6

Mr. Godfrey Kagina, Chairman of the Omungyenyi Milk Cooler Management Committee Ms. Atwiine Esther, Subcounty coordinator, Nyabihoko subcounty, Ntungamo District Mr. Kusasira Ramonic, Treasurer, Nyabihoko SACCO, Ntungamo District Mr. Muhumuza Asaph, Chairman of the loan committee, Nyabihoko SACCO, Ntungamo District Mr. Abbas Iga, Board member, Nyabihoko SACCO, Ntungamo District Mr. Becungura Ephraim, Chairman, Nyabihoko SACCO, Ntungamo District Mr. Kayise, Chief Administrative Officer, Ntungamo District Mr. Kiiza Fideric, Deputy Chief Administrative Office, Ntungamo District Dr. Nuwagaba, District Production Coordinator, Ntungamo District Mr. Byaruhanga Remigio K, Agriculture officer, Sembabule District Mr. Muwanga Kutaaya, Internal Security Officer, Sembabule District Mr. Ndugu Kamara Bayeeye, Resident District Commissioner, Sembabule District Mr. Galabuzi Denis, District Engineer, Sembabule District Ms. Nakalungi Sarah, Chief Administrative Officer, Sembabule District Mr. Murangira Levius, Subcounty Chief Administrative Officer, Lugusulu subcounty, Sembabule District Mr. Rwahlampola Bonns, Chairman of the milk cooler association, Sembabule District Mr Karangura Matia, Vice chairman of the milk cooler association, Sembabule District Mr. Tayebwa Kaginah Yosam, Manager of SACCO, Sembabule District Mr. Banawana Tandenes Johnson, Accountant of SACCO, Sembabule District Mr. Kafiro, Chairperson, Kawangire Pineapple Marketing group, Sembabule District

38 Annex 7 References and data sources African Development Bank: Feeder Roads Component of the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Appraisal Report, May 2000. African Development Bank: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. PCR, July 2009 African Development Bank: Agricultural Sector Strategy 2010-2014. January 2010 Government of Uganda (J. Mugisha, J. Beijuka and V. Male): Impact Assessment of the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme, August 2008. Government of Uganda (Ministry of Local Government): Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme 2002-2008, PCR, December 2008. Government of Uganda/IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Internal Mid-Term Progress Review, July 2005. Government of Uganda/IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Mid- Term Review Report, March 2006. Government of Uganda/Mbarara District Local Government: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme, Completion Report for Greater Mbarara District. June 2008 IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Appraisal Report, Volume I (main report). December 1999. IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Appraisal Report, Volume II (working papers), December 1999 IFAD: Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of Uganda for the Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. December 8-9, 1999 IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme — Project Loan Agreement. February 15, 2002. IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme — Amendment to Loan Agreement. 10 March, 2004. IFAD: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme — Amendment to the Programme Loan Agreement. February 9, 2006. IFAD: Evaluation Manual — Methodology and Processes. April 2009. IFAD: Guidelines for Project Completion Report Validation. January 2011. UNOPS: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Supervision Report, July 2003. UNOPS: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Supervision Report, May 2005. UNOPS: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Supervision Report, June 2006. UNOPS: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme. Supervision Report, May 2008.

39 Annex 8 Physical progress of the programme

Programme Achievement Activity Unit Target Actual (%)

AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION COMPONENT Provide revolving fund for eligible groups No. of groups supported 3 650 2 788 78.2

People supported with revolving funds No. of persons 71 200 66 197 92.9

Establishment of on-farm demonstration plots No. of demo plots 500 470 94.0

Establish on-farm trials No. trial plots 1 080 1 020 94.4

Establish on- station trials No. of home station trials 72 41 56

Training of subcounty field extension workers No. FEWs trained 216 209 96.7

Exchange visits for technology adaptation No. of exchange visits 278 225 80.9 specialists

Participate in national agricultural shows and No. of farmers participating 18 18 100 competitions

Carry out feasibility studies on value- addition No. of studies conducted 6 6 100 enterprises

Train subcounty staff in logical framework No. of staff trained 146 146 100

Train selected beneficiary groups in logical No. of farmers groups trained 1 780 1 020 57 framework

Conduct agricultural research training No. of TAS trained 13 13 100 workshop for staff and technology adaptation specialists (TAS)

Conduct training of trainers for subcounty No. of trainers trained 73 73 100 coordinators

Train paraprofessional and equip them with No. of paraprofessionals 0 292 + skills to be able to offer technical support to trained groups.*

Build up capacity of SACCOS for better No. of groups formed 32 35 109 delivery of services

Facilitate extension staff to support SACCOs No. of sensitization meetings 128 118 80.8 and mobilize for savings

Facilitate implementation of the exit strategy No. of meetings held 146 146 100 by all implementers

Persons trained in record keeping No. of persons 53 400 37 380 70

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT

Training of district engineers No. of training workshops 6 5 83.3

Carry out socio-economic surveys for No. of studies 4 4 100 infrastructures

Carry out environmental impact studies for all No. of studies 4 4 100 infrastructures.

Train small contractors No. of contractors trained 480 430 89.5

Train road inspectors No. of inspectors 104 98 94.2

Rehabilitate community roads Km 2 000 1,011 50.6

No. of roads 200 113 56.5

Feeder roads rehabilitated Km 700.6 1,121 160.0

No. of roads 54 75 138.9

Construct valley tanks/dams No. of valley tanks/dams 6 5 83.3

Procure milk storage facilities No. of milk coolers 12 7 58.3

40 Annex 8

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT (continued)

Capacity of milk coolers Litres 36 000 39,000 108.3

Renovate dip tanks No. of functional dip tanks 15 4 26.7

Rehabilitate water channel* No. of functional channels 0 2

Improve market No. of markets 42 42 100.0

Build market structures No. of markets structures 64 120 187.5

Build produce stores* No. of produce stores 0 3 +

Build maize cribs* No. of maize cribs 0 7 +

Construct potato stores* No. of potato stores 0 6 +

Construct pineapples sheds* No. of pineapple sheds 0 1 +

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION COMPONENT

Conduct district start-up workshops No. of workshops 13 13 100

Subcounty start-up workshops No. of workshops 73 73 100

Organize community meetings to ensure No. of meetings 292 315 107 meaningful participation and establishment of management systems for the improved rural infrastructure

Support subcounties to develop workplans No. of workplans 438 438 100

Hold meetings to assist communities and No. of meetings 292 212 72.6 interest groups to identify investment priorities

Identify music, dance and drama groups to No. of groups 146 146 100 disseminate appropriate information to communities.

Production of promotional materials, radio No. of radio programmes 156 219 140. programmes, and newsletters

Organize exchange visits/study tours for No. 436 350 80.3 farmers

Train community development officers No. of workshops 13 13 100 (CDOs)

Training of extension workers (FWES) No. FEWs trained 292 292 100

Organize information exchange seminars for No. of exchange visits 26 13 50 CDOs

Conduct community meetings to identify No. of meetings held 616 600 97.4 priority rural infrastructure investments

Establish O&M systems for rural infrastructure No. of meetings held 292 292 100 investments

Form rural infrastructure management No. of committees formed 308 208 100 committees

Train rural infrastructure management No. of committees trained 308 108 100 committees

Form marketing associations No. formed 146 146 100

Train marketing associations No. rrained 146 146 100

Drama presentations No. of drama presentations 850 539 63.4

Radio programmes aired No. of radio programmes 312 219 70.2

HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns* No. of awareness campaigns 0 46 +

41 Annex 8

PROGRAMME FACILITATION COMPONENT

Procurement of transport facilities No. of vehicles 22 22 100

No. of motorcycles 39 39

No. of bicycles 351 351

Identify and contract a consultant to design No. 1 1 100 and document financial systems and control procedures

Identify and contract a consultant to design No. 1 1 100. and document an M&E system.

Attend regional workshop organized by IFAD No. of workshops 6 6 100 for managers of IFAD-funded projects.

Project management course in Turin, Italy No. 1 1 100

M&E skills training seminar provided No. of staff trained 16 16 100

Carry out a comprehensive baseline survey. No. of studies 1 1 100

Carry out district and subcounty assessment No. of assessments 13 13 100 of compliance with minimum conditions and performance measures.

Conduct monthly PFT management meetings No. 48 36 75

Conduct PFT-district quarterly review No. 12 20 50 meetings

Prepare and submit annual progress reports No. of reports 6 6 100

Hire consultant to carry out mid–term review No. of reports 1 1 100

Facilitate and coordinate supervision by IPC No. of meetings 12 6 50

Prepare and submit semi-annual progress No. of reports 6 6 100 reports

Carry out independent annual audit No. 6 6 100

Facilitate and coordinate UNOPS supervision No. of missions 6 6 100 missions

*Activities were not part of programme design but were implemented as a result of beneficiary demand.

42

Annex 9 Annex

43

Annex 10 Annex Statistics on SACCOs supported by AAMP and the Rural Finance Support Programme

1. SACCOs established before AAMP mid term

District Subcounty SACCO name Membership Share capital Savings Loans PAR %* OSS %**

Mbarara Ndaija Ndaija Peoples’ SACCO 692 12 530 000 30 987,250 34 020 000 8 150

Ishongororo Nyatsimbo-Ishongororo Ibanda subcounty SACCO 539 48 004 000 163 061 250 164 350 800 8.5 187

Ibanda Katensani SACCO 964 76 666 650 40 006 095 164 843 617 8.7 158

Kirurura Sanga Sanga SACCO 516 10 320 000 4 718 300 19 753 517 45 37

Kirurura Karungi SACCO 591 14 973 000 16 550 000 20 555 000 - -

Isingiro Kabuyanda Agr, SACCO 895 27 762 600 78 336 500 146 130 500 1 149

Nyakitunda Farmers’

Isingiro SACCO 737 4 950 000 3 195 000 5 380 000 - - 44

Ngungamo Rukoni Burebero SACCO 742 44 623 500 43 855 524 51 979 498 16 112

Kamwenge Kamwenge subcounty Businge SACCO 1,015 34 885 000 41 397 272 132 108 596 2 83

Kamwenge Kichence Kichence SACCO 772 17 215 000 31 208 675 80 778 456 4 112

Bundibigyo Rwebisengo Rwebisengo SACCO 734 39 857 800 141 893 000 113 941 400 30 185

Kyenjojo Kyegegwa Peoples’ SACCO 419 6 996 000 11 401 088 34 600 650 26 115

Kitagata Financial Services Bushenyi Kitagata SACCO 2,917 348 215 500 479 687 891 856 243 417 12 120

Rukungiri Ruhinda Rwenshaka SACCO 1602 109 788 900 174 906 800 423 363 960 14 166

Kisoro Busanza Duterimbere 396 7 573 000 12 423 050 21 108 275

Source: UCSCU Statistical Unit * Portfolio at risk (over dues more than one day). ** Operational self-sufficiency (ratio of revenues over expenses).

2. SACCOs established after AAMP mid-term*** 10 Annex

District Subcounty SACCO name Membership Share capital Savings Loans PAR %* OSS %**

Bushenyi Kadshenshero Kajunju Abahambani SACCO 406 38 489 744 49 417 231 94 472 566

Karungu Karungu SACCO 539 12 720 000 11 813 928 25 725 771

Mbarara Biharwe Biharwe Farmers SACCO 822 24 600 000 92 743 800 99 495 000 30 223

Ntungamo Nyabihoko Nyabihoko SACCO 600 45 768 200 27 880 730 50 251 700 6 142

Kabarole Buhesi Kabbicai SACCO 340 8 100 000 11 360 000 9 760 000 15

Rwimi Rwimi SACCO 923 20 437 000 53 124 787 72 175 950 64 242

Busoro Busoro SACCO 332 3 330 000 9 700 000

Kasese Mukynyu Mukynyu SACCO 342 12 680 500 5 156 750 14 675 900

Rukoki Tweyambe SACCO 602 19 564 300 13 459 000 24 453 000 4 74

Kyenjojo Butiti Miranga SACCO 559 11 472 000 19 790 100 71 700 100 17

45 Kabale Bufundi Kacerere SACCO 946 19 000 000 41 597 565 28 096 750 76

Butanda Butanda SACCO 414 8 788 000 22 826 000 44 401 777 44 360

Kanungu Kihihi Kabuna Community SACCO 306 8 500 000 5 563 600 7 482 000 21 53

Ruyeyo Rutenga Community SACCO 463 22 755 500 7 483 493 37 137 374

Kisoro Nyakabande Nyakabande Farmers SACCO 554 13 960 000 14 693 950 38 075 000

Buhunga Kihanga SACCO 339 13 519 350 25 314 320 28 436 953

Bwambara Bikurungu SACCO 1,326 72 243 500 124 964 900 218 872 250

Sembabule Sembabule T/s Sembabule SACCO 1,697 67 740 000 103 198 481 3.2 148.5

Source: UCSCU Statistical Unit *** Some of these SACCOs may have been actually established before AAMP undertook their support.

IFADIFAD Enabling poor rural people to over come poverty

Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme

PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Enabling poor rural people to over come poverty

International Fund for Agricultural Development Via Paolo di Dono, 44 00142 Rome, Italy Tel: +39 06 54591 Fax: +39 06 5043463 E-mail: [email protected] www.ifad.org/evaluation

February 2012