Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES 
Project (October 1, 2020- September 30, 2025)
Program: Food for Progress Agreement Number: FCC-617-2020/004-00; CFDA 
NO. 10.606 Food for Progress 
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2021 
Project Duration: [5 YEARS] 
Implemented by: Catholic Relief Services (CRS), TechnoServe (TNS), 
Frontier Co-op, Purdue University, and the Sustainable Vanilla 
Initiative (SVI)
Evaluation Authored by: 
www.impactassociates.co.ug
Evaluation Team Leaders: 
Chris B. KYERERE
Florence Byamukama KABUGO
Paschal NYABUNTU
Felix WAMONO
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States 
Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by 
contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
iii
Table of contents
Table of contents iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xii
SECTION A: SURVEY CONTEXT AND DESIGN 1
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Background and Purpose 1
1.2 Evaluation Plan and Objectives 3
1.3 Report Outlay 4
CHAPTER TWO: BASELINE DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 5
2.1 Survey Design 5
2.2 Survey Execution and Methodology 7
2.2.1 Literature review 7
2.2.2 Training of data collection team 8
2.2.3 Field deployment in the context of Corona Virus Disease (COVID) 9
2.2.4 Sampling and data collection methods 9
2.2.5 Survey response rates 11
2.2.6 Data Quality Control 11
2.2.7 Coordination modalities 11
2.3 Data Analysis and Reporting 11
2.3.1 Data Analysis 11
2.3.2 Reporting 12
2.4 Survey Limitations and Mitigation Measures 12
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS 14
3.0 Baseline Evaluation Questions and Implications 14
3.1 Project Relevance 14
3.2 Theory of Change and Assumptions 21
3.3 Project Implementation 24
3.4 Sustainability and Impact 26
3.4.1 Exit strategy to address sustainability Issues 28
SECTION B: FINDINGS 30
CHAPTER FOUR: INCREASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY 30
4.1 Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources (IR 1.1) 30
4.1.1 Competency 1: Land restoration and climate-risk management planning 31
4.1.2 NRM Competency 2: Conservation and regenerative agriculture 40
4.1.3 NRM Competency 3: Integrated soil fertility management 45
4.1.4 NRM Competency 4: Efficient water resources management 52
4.1.5 NRM Competency 5: Continuous learning and innovation 60
4.2 Use of Agricultural Techniques and Technologies (IR 1.2) 65
4.2.1 Vanilla farmers surveyed 65
4.2.2 Land tenure and costs 65
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
iv
4.2.3 Land preparation 66
4.2.4 Vanilla planting 67
4.2.5 Vanilla vines management practices 70
4.2.6 Vanilla harvesting 73
4.2.7 Green vanilla yield 74
4.2.8 Adoption of improved agronomic practices 75
4.2.9 Challenges faced by vanilla farmers 75
4.3 Farm Operational and Financial Management (IR 1.3) 76
4.3.1 Effective Financial Management 77
4.3.2 Saving for a purpose 77
4.3.3 Borrow wisely 79
4.3.4 Security of vanilla gardens/fields 83
4.4 Enhanced Mixed Cropping (IR 1.5) 83
4.4.1 Trees and permanent crops planting 83
4.4.2 Alternative crops 86
CHAPTER FIVE: EXPANDED TRADE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 87
5.1 Value Added to Post-Production (IR 2.1) 87
5.1.1 Post-harvest handling losses 87
5.1.2 Actions taken to ensure quality during and after harvesting 87
5.1.3 SMEs using traceability systems 89
5.1.4 SMEs practices to meet export quality standards 89
5.1.5 Post-production processing or handling practices 90
5.2 Access to Markets (IR 2.2) 90
5.2.1 Using vanilla market information to inform production decisions 90
5.2.2 Vanilla buyers and volume sold 91
5.2.3 Sale price of green vanilla and cost of selling 93
5.2.4 Value of vanilla sold by farms and firms 94
5.2.5 Vanilla quality determination 95
5.2.6 Mapping of the vanilla value chain actors 95
5.2.7 Quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations in vanilla supply chain 96
5.2.8 International and national vanilla production and market trends 98
5.3 Transaction Efficiency at Farm Level (IR 2.3) 100
5.3.1 Gross margin 100
5.3.2 Marketing competencies 100
5.4 Policy and Regulatory Framework 108
5.4.1 Overview of Uganda’s Agriculture Policy and Regulatory Framework 108
5.4.2 Policy and regulatory framework of vanilla supply chain in Uganda 110
5.4.3 Local Ordinances and other administrative measures 111
5.4.4 Constraints to implementing effective regulation at district level 113
5.5 Vanilla Standards Guidelines and Brand Development 113
5.5.1 Industry self- regulation mechanisms 114
5.5.2 Community-level surveillance committees to enforce vanilla ordinances 115
5.6 Cross-Cutting Issues 115
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
v
5.6.1 Gender Equity and Equality 115
5.6.2 Child Protection 118
5.6.3 Household expenditure 119
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 120
6.1 Conclusions 120
6.2 Recommendations 123
APPENDICES 129
Appendix 1: The Vines Project Performance Indicators Table 130
Appendix II: Vines Project Results Framework 134
Appendix III: Data collection tools 136
Appendix IV: Vines Project Baseline Evaluation Terms of Reference 183
REFERENCES 208
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
vi
List of Tables
Table 1:Sampled districts and number of respondents by district..........................................................6
Table 2: Key informant categories at different levels..............................................................................7
Table 3: Sampled districts and number of respondents by district.......................................................32
Table 4: Soil protection practices ..........................................................................................................43
Table 5: Practices in combining diverse crops and/or trees..................................................................44
Table 6: Methods of identifying nutrient/fertilizer needs of vanilla and other crops...........................47
Table 7: Measures to meet the nutrient/fertilizer needs of vanilla and other crops............................49
Table 8: Practices to ensure water moves slowly off slopes.................................................................56
Table 9: Workdays and expenditure on improving water infiltration and slowing down water ..........57
Table 10: Practices used in capturing and storing water for multiple purposes...................................58
Table 11: Irrigation practices and expenditure......................................................................................59
Table 12: Actions taken to address identified problems and/or opportunities....................................63
Table 13: Land ownership by gender, region and level of production..................................................66
Table 14: Vanilla field characteristics....................................................................................................66
Table 15: Land preparation by gender, region and level of production................................................67
Table 16: Farmers who planted and number of vines planted .............................................................68
Table 17: Vanilla vines planted, area; type and cost of labor................................................................68
Table 18: Number of vines purchased, unit price (USD and transport cost (USD)................................69
Table 19: Actions taken in preparation for planting the vines..............................................................70
Table 20: Practices applied to manage vanilla vines and tutors/support trees....................................71
Table 21: Vanilla management agronomic practices.............................................................................72
Table 22: Pests and disease control practices.......................................................................................73
Table 23: Harvesting period during for main and fly harvests ..............................................................73
Table 24: Vanilla harvested and loss to thefts by harvest period .........................................................74
Table 25: Challenges faced by vanilla farmers by harvest period .........................................................76
Table 26: Financial management practices ...........................................................................................77
Table 27: Savings practices....................................................................................................................78
Table 28: Decision-maker on choice to borrow from different sources of financing............................81
Table 29: Decision-maker on how to use the money/item borrowed ..................................................82
Table 30: Basis for selecting trees/permanent crops............................................................................84
Table 31: Practices used in planting trees/permanent crops in vanilla fields.......................................85
Table 32: Family and hired labor workdays for planting trees or permanent crops.............................86
Table 33: Alternative crops to vanilla ....................................................................................................86
Table 34: Actions taken to ensure the quality of vanilla during and after the harvest.........................88
Table 35: Reason for choice of buyer ....................................................................................................92
Table 36: Inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations...................................................................................97
Table 37: Leading importers of formal Ugandan vanilla by country (2015-2020)...............................100
Table 38: Vanilla gross margins per hectare........................................................................................100
Table 39: Actions taken to identify and prioritize markets.................................................................103
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
vii
Table 40: Actions taken to plan for collective marketing ....................................................................106
Table 41: Contribution to implementation of collective marketing plan............................................107
Table 42: Actions taken to evaluate the results of the last two harvests ...........................................107
Table 43: Fruits and Vegetables interception rates.............................................................................109
Table 44: Link between the National Agricultural Policy and the Vanilla Industry .............................110
Table 45: List of community level farmer groups by region & district ................................................115
Table 46: Household status on selected A-WEAI indicators................................................................116
Table 47: Gender issues that affect vanilla production.......................................................................116
Table 48: The vines project indicators table........................................................................................130
Table 49:Vines Project Participants.....................................................................................................190
Table 50: Baseline Assessment Questions...........................................................................................191
Table 51: Data Sources, Methods, Collection Tools and Indicators For The Baseline Assessment.....192
Table 53: Sample Size By Collection Tool And For Subsequent Vanilla Producers’ Cohorts...............196
Table 54: Baseline Assessment Key Activities, Schedule, And Deliverables........................................197
Table 55: Proposals Evaluation Criteria ...............................................................................................202
Table 56: Payment Terms....................................................................................................................206
Table 57: List Of Annexes.....................................................................................................................206
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of respondents (vanilla farmers) for the VINES Project Baseline Survey xi
Figure 2: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the natural resources management competencies 
and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 31
Figure 3: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the land restoration and climate-risk management 
planning competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 33
Figure 4: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of three key 
behaviors for the land restoration and climate-risk management planning competency related to 
the selection of crops and practices at baseline (2021, N=413) 35
Figure 5: Percentage of Vanilla Farmers who demonstrated the standards for the behavioral evidence 
related to climate-risk management, baseline (2021, N=413) 36
Figure 6:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of two key 
behaviors for the land restoration and climate-risk management planning competency related to 
land use planning and evaluation of results to learn and adapt, baseline (2021, N=413) 39
Figure7: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the conservation and regenerative agriculture 
competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 40
Figure 8: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior minimizes soil erosion and disturbance of the conservation and regenerative competency, 
baseline (2021, N=413) 41
Figure 9: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior minimizes soil erosion and disturbance of the conservation and regenerative competency, 
disaggregated by region, sex and production level, baseline (2021, N=413 42
Figure 10: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior maintains permanent soil coverage of the conservation and regenerative competency at 
baseline (2021, N=413) 42
Figure 11: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior maintains permanent soil coverage of the conservation and regenerative competency at 
baseline (2021, N=413) 44
Figure 12:Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the integrated soil fertility management 
competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 45
Figure 13:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior “Evaluates soil condition and nutrients to assess soil nutrition limitations based on crop 
needs” competency at baseline (2021, N=413) 46
Figure 14:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior “Evaluates soil condition and nutrients to assess soil nutrition limitations based on crop 
needs” competency, baseline (2021, N=413) 48
Figure 15: Usage of inorganic fertilizers 50
Figure 16: Usage of inorganic fertilizers by region, gender and level of production 50
Figure 17: Average cost of inorganic fertilizers and transport (USD) 51
Figure 18:Workdays of family and hired labor used to apply inorganic fertilizers 52
Figure 19: Daily expenditure on hired labor used to apply inorganic fertilizers (USD) 52
Figure 20: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the efficient water resources management 
competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 53
Figure 21: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior captures rainwater in the soil where it falls competency at baseline (2021, N=413) 54
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
ix
Figure 22:Water infiltration and slowing water down 54
Figure 23: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior ensures water moves slowly off slopes competency at baseline (2021, N=413) 55
Figure 24: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior Builds and maintains water reservoirs, and selects irrigation methods based on their 
efficiency and accessibility competency at baseline (2021, N=413) 58
Figure 25: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the continuous learning and innovation competency 
and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413) 60
Figure 26:Problems and opportunities identification 61
Figure 27: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior “Identifies, analyzes and prioritizes problems or opportunities” competency at baseline 
(2021, N=413) 61
Figure 28: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior Identifies and tests solutions to address problems or opportunities competency, baseline 
(2021, N=413) 62
Figure 29: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide evidence of the 
behavior “Implements those solutions that work, and shares them within and beyond the 
community” competency at baseline (2021, N=413) 63
Figure 30: Green vanilla yield by harvest season 75
Figure 31: Source of financial services 78
Figure 32: Ability to borrow/take a cash or in-kind loan from a financial institution 79
Figure 33: Borrowing cash/in-kind from a formal financial institution 80
Figure 34: Kind of fence used to protect vanilla field from thefts 83
Figure 35: Vanilla market information usage to inform production decisions 91
Figure 36: Extent of agreement on price between farmer and buyer 93
Figure 37: Modes of payment used by vanilla buyers 94
Figure 38: Factors considered to determine vanilla quality 95
Figure 39: Curing vanilla at RFCU in Kasese 96
Figure 40: Measurement of quality and inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations 98
Figure 41: Trends of Uganda's Formal Vanilla Exports by Volume and Value 99
Figure 42: Agricultural Marketing Competencies of vanilla farmer 102
Figure 43: Prioritization of crops based on identified and evaluated market opportunities 102
Figure 44: FO membership and collective marketing by region 104
Figure 45: FO membership and collective marketing by gender 104
Figure 46: FO membership and collective marketing by level of production 105
Figure 47. Vanilla value chain and project partners’ roles 188
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
x
List of Acronyms
Acronym
AO Agricultural Officer
BOU Bank of Uganda
CAO Chief Administrative Officer
CDO Community Development Officer
COVID Corona Virus Disease
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DAO District Agricultural Officer
DCO District Commercial Officer
DPMO District Production and Marketing Officer
EU European Union
FFPr Food For Progress
FFV Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
FO Farmer Organization
GoU Government of Uganda
GPS Global Positioning System
KII Key Informant Interview
IGAs Income Generating Activities
LC Local Council
LG Local Government
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
MTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
RA Research Assistant
RDC Resident District Commissioner
RFCU Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union
SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization or Society
SILC Savings and Internal Lending Communities
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
SPS Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SVI Sustainable Vanilla Initiative
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
TNS TechnoServe
TOC Theory of Change
UGA Uganda
UGX Uganda Shillings
USD United States Dollars
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VANEX Uganda Vanilla Exporters Association
VIEF Vanilla Innovation and Expansion Fund 
VSA Visual Soil Assessment
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xi
Figure 1: Distribution of respondents (vanilla farmers) for the VINES Project 
Baseline Survey
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Vines Project (VINES), a five-year (2021-2025), United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress (FFPr) project, is implemented by 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS), TechnoServe (TNS), Frontier Co-op, Purdue 
University, and the Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) to make Uganda the 
world’s next leading supplier of high-quality vanilla. VINES goal is to increase 
and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by improving the productivity 
of vanilla-based agroforestry systems with 16,200 farmers (Strategic Objective 
1); to enhance vanilla quality and compliance with food safety standards with 
30 vanilla processing firms and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing 
international demand.
To achieve the project goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results, CRS 
has established a Consortium of public and private partners, including leading 
international vanilla buyers such as Frontier Co-op, Virginia Dare, Ben & 
Jerry’s, and Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) to upgrade the Ugandan 
vanilla, and establish it as a sustainable and solid foundation for consistent 
supply of significant volumes of high-quality vanilla. This consortium of 
market leaders and experts will be linked to 30 high potential Ugandan vanilla 
processing companies, organized as the Uganda Vanilla Exporters Association 
(VANEX).
CRS commissioned a survey to collect baseline data for the VINES project, in 
order to establish and verify initial baseline values for the full set of 
performance indicators as the starting comparison point for measuring 
progress against performance indicators, provide relevant and current 
contextual information, and to identify opportunities to adjust the project 
design, monitoring plan and targets, before project implementation starts, as 
needed. 
The survey assessed Intermediate/foundation results’ indicators under 
strategic objectives:
(i) Increased agricultural productivity; and 
(ii) (ii) Expanded trade of Agricultural products; to serve as a guide for 
setting project targets, project implementation; and 
(iii) As a basis against which the level of attainment of the targets will be 
compared during annual progress reviews, mid-term and end-line
evaluations. 
The survey was conducted in 12 vanilla producing districts (5 and 7 districts 
in the Central and Western regions of Uganda, respectively). Baseline data was 
collected from a total of 581 respondents, of whom 419 vanilla producers 
responded to the Vanilla Producers’ On-Farm Survey (Tool 1); and 162
responded to the Vanilla Producers’ Household Survey (Tool 2). In addition, 
a total of forty-one (41) Key informants (KIs) were interviewed; 4 at the national 
level; 19 at district level; and 18 at sub-county level. Finally, the survey 
utilized secondary sources to inform baseline data on policy and contextual 
variables.
KEY FINDINGS
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xiii
1) Basic farmer characteristics: A total of 419 farmers were interviewed 
of whom 19% were from the Central region and 81% from the Western 
region. About 85% of all vanilla farmers are male compared to 15% 
female. The mean size of household land under vanilla production was 
0.47 hectares and the majority (97.6%) of the farmers owned their land. 
2) Vanilla production, yield and household Incomes: At the farm level, 
a total of 99,576 vines were reported to be under production in both 
seasons with an average yield of 0.22kgs/vine which is considered to be 
quite low. The average yield per vine was 169 gm in the main harvests 
and 96 gm in the fly harvests. The total production of green vanilla was 
26,374 kg during the base year (2020/2021). However, the estimated 
volume lost to thefts in the garden was 4,314 kg (20% of the harvest) of 
which 2,741 kg (18% of the harvest) was in the main harvest; while 
1,573 kg (23% of the harvest) was in the fly harvest. The average daily 
per capita expenditure (proxy for income) was USD 2.43 per day which 
is slightly higher than the national average of USD 2.24 per day. 
3) Land restoration and climate-risk management planning: Only 
3.5% of farmers had reached a functional level of land restoration and 
climate risk management. The majority (80%) of the farmers had a basic
level of competency in planning for land restoration and climate-risk 
management, with only 2% at advanced level. There were no major 
differences in competencies between men and women or between 
regions. The main source of meteorological information was the Uganda 
National Meteorological Authority (UNMA) with radios, extension 
workers, mobile phones and peer farmers as the most common channels 
for accessing such information. Almost all vanilla farming communities 
attested to experiencing negative effects of climate change with 
implications on production, productivity and quality of vanilla, and 
consequently, the livelihood of households. Use of some essential 
information attained, for example through soil testing, was very low,
partly due to limited access to facilities and services. 
4) Access to Vanilla market information to inform production 
decisions: Most farmers (64%) accessed and utilized market 
information to inform production decisions. The main sources of market 
information were middlemen, radios and extension workers. Generally, 
there was a big information gap for vanilla farmers to access information 
on market prices, access to markets and competition. This gap was 
exploited by middlemen who became a source of information at the 
disadvantage of the farmers. 
5) Water resource management: The majority (85%) of vanilla farmers 
had a basic level of competency in efficient water resource management. 
Although 75.1% of the farmers applied basic methods (like mulching) to 
keep moisture in the soil, less than half (47%) of all vanilla farmers 
implemented practices that ensured slowing down water off the slope;
and only 29% of the farmers adopted practices to capture and store 
water. Most farmers relied on rainwater despite the already 
acknowledged effects of climate change like prolonged droughts and 
6) unreliable rain patterns which, if not mitigated against, could result into 
a significant risk to attaining production targets of the VINES project. 
7) Irrigation practices: Only 16% of vanilla farmers built and 
maintained water reservoirs and selected irrigation methods based on 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xiv
their efficiency and accessibility; and practiced some kind of irrigation 
on their vanilla fields (mainly using rudimentary irrigation/manual 
methods such as use of labor and cans). Generally, farmers practice 
mainly mulching to conserve water. Sprinkler, micro and drip types of 
irrigation, which are recommended because of their efficiency and 
effectiveness, were not practiced. 
8) Integrated soil fertility management: Majority (91%) of the farmers 
had a basic level of competency in integrated soil fertility management. 
The use and adoption of integrated soil fertility management practices 
was very low among vanilla farmers, with only 25% of the farmers 
adopting measures/practices to identify and improve nutrient needs of 
vanilla and other crops in their fields. A large proportion of farmers 
(56%) who use fertilizers, reported use of organic fertilizers. Most 
farmers had no requisite knowledge of appropriate techniques/practices 
in fertilizer preparation and application. 
9) Adoption of improved agronomic practices: Most farmers (89%) 
reported to have adopted improved agronomic practices. In terms of 
harvesting practices, however, over half of the farmers reported losing 
6.3% of the volume produced due to poor post-harvest handling 
practices.
10) Farm operational and financial management Practices: Only 
19.8 % of the farmers had adopted the different financial management 
practices assessed. For example, only 8.5% of the farmers prepared a 
weekly budget; while 13.1% planned a budget; 13.9% identified times 
during the year when they will need loans; and only 14.1% Identified 
unnecessary expenses that could be avoided, and the money saved. 
11) Many of the farmers (61%) accessed financing for their 
agricultural activities. Available sources for financial services majorly 
used by vanilla farmers were Savings and Credit Cooperative 
Organizations or Societies (SACCOs) and mobile money. While there was 
a strong urge by farmers to borrow wisely for investment in vanilla 
related productive activities, loan funds available were limited with an 
average of USD 421 per borrower. Informal savings and loan schemes 
were the most common choice for credit (for 70% of the responses); 
followed by formal financial institutions (67%); and formal savings and 
loans schemes (62%). Women as compared to men, are the most 
disadvantaged at household level with regard to accessing credit and 
decisions to borrow. These trends are likely to impact negatively on 
vanilla production if not addressed.
12) Value-addition and post-production handling: post-harvest
handling losses significantly affect vanilla farmers and are 
disproportionately higher among female farmers. Only 31.6% of the 
vanilla farmers assessed, took actions to ensure good quality vanilla 
during post-harvest. Only two (2) processing firms observed the best 
practices to meet the export quality standards in the previous year 
(2020). The problems of post-harvest losses and poor-quality vanilla if 
not addressed will significantly undermine Uganda’s vanilla production 
and competitiveness in international markets.
13) Market access and payment modalities: A large proportion of 
farmers (33.5%) sold vanilla to other buyers (mainly individual 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xv
middlemen/traders) rather than selling directly to the main 
aggregators/exporters. About 19.8% sold to UVAN Ltd, 20.4% to ESCO 
Uganda Ltd and 11% to RFCU. In terms of volumes, a larger proportion 
of the vanilla farmers (27%) sold the largest volume of vanilla to “Other 
buyers/ Middlemen'' compared to 16% to UVAN Ltd, 14% to ESCO 
Uganda Ltd, and to RCFU (8%). It was reported that prices offered by 
middlemen (others), was the main incentive for farmers choosing to deal 
consistently with the same buyer every season. This practice is partly 
attributed to market information gaps between the buyers and sellers 
which tends to disadvantage the farmers, hence calling for urgent 
remedial measures. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of farmers received their 
payment for green vanilla in cash with minimum use of non-cash 
methods. The average price was USD 9 per kg of green vanilla. Premium 
prices were offered to farmers depending on the quality of vanilla. 
Interventions that seek to continually improve earnings of farmers 
would be good incentives for farmers to adopt the desired best practices. 
14) Quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations: Based on 
assessment of the level and quality of inclusiveness within the four 
vanilla business models evaluated, both buyers and sellers scored 
moderately (55% of the maximum average scores) on the 6 key elements 
used to measure this indicator. The quality of inclusiveness was,
however, lower for sellers (average score of 41%) compared to the buyers 
(70%). Such big gaps in the relationship between buyers and sellers in 
the vanilla supply chain, if not addressed, could significantly undermine 
productivity at farm level, efforts to deepen markets, incomes and 
enterprise profitability and the attainment of the overall objectives of the 
VINES project. 
15) Vanilla production and market trends: The vanilla industry 
has one of the world’s most volatile markets with huge price swings,
making trade in world markets very unpredictable. Uganda has 
remained number 8 among the top 10 world vanilla producing countries 
in 2019 and 2020. Uganda’s exports, however, are on a downward trend 
and quality problems if not addressed could undermine the potential of 
vanilla becoming a major export earner for the country. 
16) Marketing competencies and opportunities: Vanilla producers 
in Uganda have not reached a functional level in agricultural marketing 
hence at the basic level. There is a need to build capacity of both buyers 
and sellers in the vanilla sector along all the four interrelated 
competencies assessed: Market Opportunities Prioritization, Effective 
Business Planning, Successful Business Implementation, and Periodic 
Business Performance Review competencies
17) Farmer organization membership and collective marketing: 
Most (57%) of the vanilla farmers were members of a farmer organization 
(FO). The participation of women was much higher compared to that of 
men. While the FOs could be good and effective channels to deliver 
services to promote vanilla farmers along the project objectives, these 
organizations are weak and need support to build the requisite 
capacities. 
18) Policy and Regulatory Framework for Vanilla in Uganda:
Uganda does not have a vanilla specific policy or regulatory framework 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xvi
for vanilla production and trade. While the National Agricultural Policy 
(NAP) 2013, provides a policy framework for agricultural commodities in 
general, under which vanilla falls, this presents a challenge in efforts to 
grow and transform the vanilla industry. Furthermore, for many years,
there has been almost zero funding Government to support the sector. 
In addition, organizations for sector actors (VANEX – buyers and farmer 
organizations - producers) are generally weak at both national and 
district/community levels. There is need to take initiatives and support 
interventions to enable effective regulation of production and trade in 
vanilla in Uganda. This should also include support to ensure 
enforcement of administrative measures by Government and district 
local governments. 
19) Gender equity and equality: Using A-WEAI indicators and 
other selected but related indicators, it was reported that there was a 
fair performance in terms of gender equity and equality at household 
level. Cases of gender-based violence were, however, reported and 
corroborated by the community leaders, and this could significantly 
undermine vanilla production in their localities.
20) Child protection, labor and school attendance: Increasing use 
of child labor in vanilla production was reported, with cases of 
hazardous child labor identified too, calling for urgent remedial 
interventions to eradicate this vice in the vanilla industry. Most of the 
households (99%) reported children of compulsory school-going age, 
regularly attending school prior to the lockdown. However, during the 
survey period, the country was under strict COVID-19 prevention 
measures with schools compelled to close.
21) Household expenditure: The average daily GDP per capita for 
vanilla farmers in Uganda was USD 2.43, which is slightly higher than 
the national average of USD 2.24 per day1for the year 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
1) Vanilla production and yield: Vanilla farming is dominated by 
smallholder males, while production and yields are still quite low at the 
farm level, and the average yield of 0.221kgs/vine is consistent with the 
0.24kgs/vine projected at project design. 
2) Land restoration, water resource, soil fertility and climate-risk 
management: Climate change effects are a reality; however, available 
weather forecasts have not been utilized by vanilla farmers to make
decisions on adoption of mitigation practices. Adoption is also 
constrained by limited access and a high cost for technologies; as well 
as limited knowledge and skills.
3) Extension services: Coverage and intensity were low; adoption of 
improved agronomic practices was quite low, contributing to low 
production and productivity; and poor-quality beans. Financial literacy 
levels were also low and access to financial services is poor, which limits 
the level of investments.
1
SOURCE: World Bank Website; GDP per capita (current USD) - Uganda | Data (worldbank.org)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project
 Nov.2021
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES 
Project
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xvii
4) Farmer organization membership and collective marketing: 
Vanilla farmers’ organizations are weak as reflected by the low 
participation (23%) in collective marketing. The participation of women 
was much higher compared to men. 
5) Post-harvest handling; value addition and market linkages:
Adoption of poor post-harvest handling practices leads to high losses 
due to poor quality; and hence, low product standards. This invariably 
translates into limited competitiveness in international markets and low 
incomes. However, vanilla farmers have access to local markets, though 
with limited choice of buyers as a result of variability in quality, 
reliability and sources of market information. Poor relations between 
sellers and buyers in the value chain also contribute to low incomes for 
farmers, and could undermine production and productivity at farm 
level.
6) Marketing competencies: The capacity of both buyers and sellers in 
the vanilla sector in relation to Market Opportunities Prioritization, 
Effective Business Planning, Successful Business Implementation, and 
Periodic Business Performance Review Competencies is low. Generally, 
the quality and reliability, as well as source of market information,
varied widely.
7) Supply chain development: There are weak linkages between the 
supply chain actors. Only a few vanilla farmers (less than 20%) were 
aware of buyers’ preferences. 
8) Policy and regulatory framework for vanilla in Uganda: Operations 
in vanilla production and marketing are constrained by a lack of a
relevant and specific policy or regulatory framework at national and 
community levels.
9) Gender equity and equality: There are mixed feelings on gender 
equity and equality at household and community levels.
10) Child protection, labor and school attendance: Although 
currently 99% of school-going age children are in school, there is a high 
risk of increased child labor due to increasing household poverty,
coupled with increased scarcity of labor in the vanilla producing areas.
11) Household expenditure: The welfare of vanilla farmers is better 
than that of the average Ugandan as shown by the average daily GDP
per capita of USD 2.43 and USD 2.24 respectively, for the year 2020. 
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) To improve production, productivity, quality and marketable volumes of 
vanilla, the project should design capacity development for improved 
access to and adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies; vanilla￾specific agronomic practices; post-harvest management and quality control 
knowledge, skills and practices; and farming as a business. 
2) Increase farmer access to financial resources, with an emphasis on internal 
savings, in order to build a capital base for investment in productivity￾enhancing technologies, practices and services.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
xviii
3) Improve access to market information services for timely and quality 
market information through market studies, collating, packaging and 
disseminating information. This calls for harmonization with current 
Government frameworks and programmes as well as other development 
initiatives.
4) Support supply chain development through formation of, 
operationalization and development of platforms where key stakeholders in 
the vanilla value chain will provide an avenue for networking and 
partnership development for information exchange and market linkages. 
5) Farmer institutional development involving farmer mobilization, 
sensitization, organization and strengthening should be a continuous 
process. Farmer institutions should include community level farmers’ 
groups which aggregate at sub-county, district or regional levels, and an 
apex body at the national level.
6) Provide technical support for formulation and enforcement of an effective 
policy and regulatory framework for production and trade in vanilla in 
Uganda, at both national and community levels. Development and enacting 
of such laws, ordinances and byelaws should be followed by instruments 
and infrastructure for enforcement. 
7) The project should promote the application of the Gender Transformative 
Approach (GTA) to improve participation of women in the project activities. 
8) The VINES project should develop and implement an effective 
communication and stakeholder engagement strategy to support the 
different pillars of the project. 
9) Measures to ensure child protection and minimization of all forms of child 
labor such as ordinances, byelaws and sensitization should be instituted 
with the involvement of communities and leadership at all levels.
10) The VINES project should review the project design documents and address 
recommendations resulting from analysis of baseline questions and their 
implications regarding project relevancy, implementation and 
sustainability. Some of the proposed measures are immediate while other 
can be addressed during mid-term review.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
1
SECTION A: SURVEY CONTEXT AND DESIGN
 This section of the report gives the contextual background of the VINES 
project, its goals and objectives, and the theory of change (ToC) as defined in 
the project monitoring plan (PMP). It describes the approach, design and 
execution of the survey. It also provides a summary of the report layout. 
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and Purpose
The Vines Project (VINES), a five-year (2021-2025), USD 13 million, United 
States Department of Agriculture Food for Progress (USDA FFPr) project, is 
implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), TechnoServe (TNS), Frontier 
Co-op, Purdue University, and the Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) aimed 
at making Uganda the world’s next leading supplier of high-quality vanilla. 
VINES goal is to increase and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by 
improving the productivity of vanilla-based agroforestry systems with 16,200 
farmers (Strategic Objective 1); and to enhance vanilla quality and compliance 
with food safety standards with 30 vanilla processing firms (Strategic Objective 
2); and to expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international 
demand.
The VINES project aims to double average vanilla yields from 0.24 to 0.50 
kg/vine, increase average farm production from 65kg to 150kg, improve 
vanilla quality and safety, deepen market linkages by creating a branding and 
marketing strategy for Ugandan vanilla that will generate the essential 
“market pull” to enable Uganda increase annual exports of cured vanilla from 
50 metric tonnes to 350+ metric tonnes. This will directly transform the lives 
of 16,200 farmers, 356 self-employed service and input providers, and 480 
processors’ employees; and will generate 16,176 new on-farm seasonal and 
permanent processing jobs to reach 32,856 vanilla stakeholders; providing 
international buyers with a new origin that will help to stabilize the extreme 
price volatility that has plagued the global market for this unique spice.
The VINES Project Theory of Change (ToC): The overall theory of change 
postulates that IF (1) Vanilla farmers sustainably increase their production by 
planting more vanilla, a access sustainable advisory services that enable 
farmers to use appropriate inputs, apply climate smart agroforestry systems 
to raise productivity per vine and diversify their income using mixed-cropping 
systems that restores land and mitigates climate risks, THEN vanilla farmers 
will sustainably increase productivity while managing risk (Results 
Framework #1, Component 1); and IF (2) vanilla farmers can protect mature 
beans, a limit the risk of theft, build effective business relationships with 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
2
processors, who procure mature beans, based on quality premiums, and 
vanilla processors can use traceable supply chains, and certified processing 
methods, that provide high vanillin content cured vanilla that is compliant 
with modern international food safety regulations; THEN a safe, clean and 
pure vanilla supply will be offered to international markets (Results 
Framework #2, Component 2); and IF (3) Industry institutions can deliver 
critical services such as capacity building and financial services to vanilla 
market actors, create a common value proposition for the sector, articulated 
through a national brand, processors build long-lasting relationships with 
international buyers in high value markets; THEN vanilla supply chain actors 
will strengthen market conditions (Results Framework #2, Component 3); 
and IF (4) Government of Uganda (GoU) regulates trading practices that 
protect farmers from theft, safeguards working conditions, especially for 
children, and enforces harvesting dates to promote quality (Foundational 
Results); THEN the supply of high-quality vanilla will be increased, vanilla 
quality will be enhanced for compliance with food safety standards, and the 
global trade of vanilla will be expanded to meet growing international demand.
The VINES project implementation strategy: The VINES project 
implementation strategy is comprised of two self-reinforcing approaches: (1) 
targeted interventions with high potential processors focused on 
addressing challenges of production, food safety, and market linkages; and (2) 
sector-wide interventions that seek to support the broader set of actors, and 
address key issues such as industry consolidation, better handling practices, 
and strengthening the policy environment. These approaches will be 
interwoven throughout six project activities, ensuring targeted production 
interventions are paired with comprehensive sector level trainings and reform. 
Targeted processor supply chain approach: Typically, vanilla supply chains 
in Uganda are managed by “anchor” vanilla processing companies, each of 
whom support a discreet supply chain (Figure 3). The anchor processors buy 
green vanilla from local traders and hundreds of farmers. The processors then 
cure the vanilla and sell to their international partners, who support exports/ 
imports of cured vanilla to overseas markets such as the US. The international 
partners undertake further value-addition of the vanilla and market a range 
of vanilla products, including foods, flavors, drinks, and cosmetics to the 
American food industry and to millions of customers worldwide.
Sector-wide support approach: VINES will also provide sector-wide technical 
assistance to a broader set of vanilla stakeholders. This approach will focus 
on critical pre-competitive areas such as (1) increasing access to quality 
inputs; (2) building the capacity of extension agents and micro-entrepreneurs; 
(3) sector coordination through VANEX; (4) brand building to increase long￾term customer demand; and (5) strengthening Government policy to support 
sector discipline, security, and growth.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
3
To achieve the project goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results, CRS 
has established a consortium of public and private partners, including leading 
international vanilla buyers such as Frontier Co-op, Virginia Dare SVI to 
upgrade the Uganda vanilla industry and establish it as a sustainable and 
solid foundation for consistent supply of significant volumes of high-quality 
vanilla. 
This consortium of market leaders and experts will be linked to high-potential 
Ugandan vanilla processing companies and the Ugandan Vanilla Exporters 
Association (VANEX), to build their capacity and strengthen market linkages. 
CRS and VANEX have established strong working relationships with the 
Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry 
and Fisheries (MAAIF), and will continue to build on these relationships to 
complement VINES activities to revitalize vanilla growing in existing areas and 
support its production in new areas. 
1.2 Evaluation Plan and Objectives 
The VINES project Evaluation Plan (EP) aims to contribute to project 
performance by ensuring the achievement of the project results, strategic 
objectives, and goal. The plan is guided by the USDA Monitoring and 
Evaluation (M&E) Policy, including the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
section 1499.12 that apply to the US Department of Agriculture, and 
specifically the Food for Progress (FFPr) Program, and is compliant with the 
International Food Assistance Division (IFAD) Monitoring and Evaluation 
Policy; it also follows CRS Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and 
Learning (MEAL) Policies and Procedures (MPPs) that reflect good practices for 
gender-responsive MEAL and the integration of accountability and learning 
into this process.
The project’s evaluation process involves three phases: A baseline assessment, 
a midterm, and a final evaluation. CRS therefor commissioned IMPACT 
Associates an independent consulting firm to lead the VINES project baseline 
assessment to assess and report on the situation before the beginning of 
project implementation.
The objectives of the baseline survey were to:
i. Establish and verify initial baseline values for the full set of performance 
indicators as the starting comparison point for measuring progress over 
the life of the project;
ii. Provide relevant and current contextual information to ensure the validity 
of the critical assumptions stated in the project Theory of Change (TOC) 
for interpretation of midterm and final evaluation findings; and
iii. Identify, as appropriate, opportunities to adjust the project design, 
monitoring plan and targets before project implementation starts.
In addition, the baseline assessment sought to respond to the evaluation 
criteria and specific questions. 
The survey conducted a pre-program (implementation) measurement of the 
status of the vanilla farms and their performance, including production, 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
4
processing and marketing practices. The survey assessed Intermediate 
foundation results’ indicators under the project strategic objectives as follows: 
(i) Increased agricultural productivity; and 
(ii) Expanded trade of agricultural products; to serve as a guide for setting 
the project targets, project implementation, and as a basis against 
which the level of attainment of the targets will be compared during 
annual reviews, midline and endline evaluations. 
1.3 Report Outlay
The report is presented in two sections, with six chapters that describe the 
process and results of the Vines project baseline survey. Section A containing 
two chapters presents the Survey context and design and Section B containing 
three chapters presents survey findings. Chapter 1 introduces the baseline 
survey with a background to the Project, objectives of the survey and the 
report outlay. Chapter 2 presents the survey methodology, which comprises 
of the survey design, data analysis and survey limitations. Chapters 3 
presents analysis of baseline questions, Chapter 5 and 6 present the findings 
and discussion of the results, conclusions and recommendations arising from 
the results of the survey.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
5
CHAPTER TWO: BASELINE DESIGN, METHODS 
AND LIMITATIONS
2.1 Survey Design
2.1.1 Survey scope and coverage
The survey area comprised the vanilla-growing districts in different regions of 
the country (i.e., Central and Western regions) categorized as high and 
medium producing districts. Five districts were sampled from the Central 
region while seven were sampled from the Western region. 
2.1.2 Sample computation and allocation
A. Selection of vanilla farmers at household level
Baseline data was collected from a total of 419 vanilla producers who 
responded to the Vanilla Producers’ On-Farm Survey (Tool 1); and 162 of them 
also responded to the Vanilla Producers’ Household Survey (Tool 2). Vanilla 
farmers were sampled from the targeted 12 vanilla producing districts (7 high 
producing districts and 5 medium producing districts) from vanilla farmer lists 
provided by private sector partners, using fractional interval systematic 
sampling, to ensure that farmers were represented in the sample by their 
rough proportions in the underlying population, while ensuring that they had 
equal probabilities of selection into the sample, thus eliminating the need to 
use sample weights at the analysis stage (Table 1).
The total sample size needed for Tools 1 and 2 was calculated using equation 
(2) in McConnell and Vera-Hernandez (2015) for continuous samples, using 
the standard 80% power and 5% significance level. The sample size for Tool 1 
fulfilled the requirements of the special survey that will be conducted to 
address the selected learning questions. As the special survey sought to detect 
statistical differences of volumes sold per farmer between supply chains; to 
detect a difference of 34 kg (10% of the final evaluation target of 335 kg 
increase in green vanilla production for each of the project’s 16,200 farmers) 
in FFPr Standard Indicator #19, at least 123 farmers were surveyed using a 
standard deviation of 93 kg/ farmer from RFCU and ESCO Uganda Ltd 
records. Given that there are 3 supply chains, the recommended sample size 
was 123*3 = 369 producers. This estimated sample size was more than 
adequate to detect changes in all project indicators collected by Tool 1 for the 
performance evaluation between baseline survey and end-line evaluation. 
This sample size of 369 was increased by 20%, giving a total of 444 vanilla 
producers to be surveyed at baseline. This accounted for data that could 
become unusable due to error or attrition, and for vanilla producers who were 
sampled and dropped out during the life of the project, given that the 
evaluation approach requires panel data.
As Tool 2 does not feed into the special survey, the sample size for it was 
determined from the largest sample needed to detect a statistical change 
among the 4 indicators calculated using data collected from it. Thus, to detect 
a difference from USD 1.50 to USD 2.80 in daily, per capita expenditures, 123 
producer households were surveyed. This assumed a standard deviation of 
USD 3.87 (Zereyesus et al. 2017). The sample of respondents for each tool was 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
6
divided proportionately to the respective total sample size of the districts. The 
specific vanilla farmers selected for Tool 2 were sampled from the list of 
sampled farmers using the systematic sampling technique with a random 
start. The Consultant received sampled locations and vanilla farmers from 
CRS.
Table 1:Sampled districts and number of respondents by district
No. OF RESPONDENTS
Response rate 
per region 
(%)
Tool 1 Tool 2 Totals
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
CENTRAL
Buikwe 30 41 12 10 42 51
Bukomansim
bi 10 11 4 2 14 13
Luweero 7 6 3 3 10 9
Mukono 7 6 3 2 10 8
Rakai 18 21 7 7 25 28
Total –
Central 72 85 29 24 101 109 108%
WESTERN
Bundibugyo 175 153 67 70 242 223
Bunyangabu 18 19 7 4 25 23
Ibanda 11 12 4 5 15 17
Kasese 76 67 29 24 105 91
Mbarara 12 13 5 7 17 20
Ntoroko 14 10 5 6 19 16
Rubirizi 66 60 25 22 91 82
Total –
Western 372 334 142 138 514 472 91.8%
TOTAL 444 419 171 162 615 581 94.0%
B. Selection of SME survey respondents 
There were ten (10) supply chain partners and participating processing firms 
selected as SME respondents. Out of the 10 SMEs that responded to the SME 
survey, four (4) of them also responded to the link methodology scorecard tool. 
These were the processors that had been selected for the first round of the 
Vanilla Innovation and Expansion Fund (VIIEF). 
C. Selection of key informants (KIs)
The consultant identified key informants (KIs) at national, district, sub-county 
and community levels. A total of forty-one (41) KIs were interviewed; 4 at the 
national level; 19 at district level and 18 at sub-county level. At national level, 
they included representation from Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
7
and Fisheries (MAAIF), National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), CRS 
and TNS. At district, sub-county and parish levels, the key informants 
included political and technical leaders, as well as relevant private sector 
actors (like private extension service providers) as shown in Table 2. Key 
informants (KIs) were drawn from the national level and the surveyed districts.
Table 2: Key informant categories at different levels
Level of 
Engagement
 
Organization/Agency
 Key Informants
National MAAIF Senior Agricultural officer/Beverage 
Crops 
CRS + Partners CRS 
TNS
NAADS Technical Services Manager
Private Extension 
Service Providers 
Private Extension Worker
District Technical team Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
District Production and Marketing 
Officer (DPMO)
District Agricultural Officer (DAO)
Political leadership Local Council (LC) V Chairperson
Secretary for Production
Financial institutions Commercial Bank
Micro-Finance Institution
Sub-county Technical team Sub-county Chief
Agricultural Officer
Political leadership LC III Chairperson
Councilor (1)
2.2 Survey Execution and Methodology
2.2.1 Literature review
Key documents related to CRS, the Vines Project, vanilla farming, processing 
and trade were reviewed, and major issues summarized. The documents 
included, but were not limited to: project design documents, relevant 
Government of Uganda policy documents: National Agricultural Policy; 
Uganda National Agricultural Extension Policy; Uganda National Agricultural 
Extension Strategy; project technical and financial progress reports (Quarterly 
& Annual); review reports; and technical and financial audit reports. This was 
in addition to project documents; Vines Project proposal; Vines Project -
Results Framework; Vines project - Performance Indicators; CRS UGA VINES 
FFPr Evaluation Plan; CRS UGA VINES FFPr Performance Monitoring Plan; 
USDA-FAS Food Assistance Evaluation Policy; CRS Checklist for Reviewing 
USDA Evaluation Reports; and CRS MEAL Guidance under COVID-19. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
8
2.2.2 Training of data collection team
An experienced field team of 28 Research Assistants (RAs) and 4 Field 
Supervisors were selected from the resource pool available to the consultant. 
The recruitment process of RAs primarily targeted qualified individuals 
residing in/near the sampled districts, who were fluent in the local languages. 
The selected field team was trained in Kampala in a central event that took 
five days of training (Pictures 1-3) and one day of field practice. They also 
served as the final user testing for the data collection tools. During the 
training, the RAs became familiar with the survey objectives and focus, and 
gained technical knowledge on vanilla farming, processing and marketing, as 
well as on agroforestry systems’ production practices. They were also trained 
in data collection techniques and in the use of the digital data collection tools. 
Emphasis was put on research ethics, accuracy, completeness and the 
importance of enhancing participatory approaches in data collection. Field 
tests for all data collection tools were conducted in Wakiso District, which is 
a vanilla-growing district outside the sampled districts. 
Picture 1: Conducting Training of Research Assistants in 
Kampala
A pretest of the draft tools and their application was conducted in Kakiri Sub￾County, Wakiso District (which was outside the sampled district). The data 
collection tools were refined based on the experiences and lessons from the 
pre-testing.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
9
Picture 2: Pre-test meeting of the 
research team in Kakiri, Wakiso 
District
Picture 3: Conducting an 
interview with a vanilla farmer 
during pre-test in Kakiri, Wakiso 
District
2.2.3 Field deployment in the context of Corona Virus Disease (COVID)
The baseline survey was conducted during a period when Uganda was still 
under a health threat of COVID-19. To effectively manage the challenges 
presented by COVID, the consultant in consultation with CRS developed 
standard operating procedures to minimize related risks to field personnel, 
respondents and communities in the survey area. Using the CRS Guidance on 
MEAL in the Context of COVID-19 (Version 2 - June 10, 2020), the necessary 
safety measures were put in place to ensure successful implementation of the 
survey. All the enumerators were tested for COVID-19 prior to deployment. All 
field staff were provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits and 
sanitizers. In addition to the above guidelines, continuous risk assessment 
was undertaken, and measures implemented to ensure compliance with 
guidelines and directives by the Government of Uganda through the Ministry 
of Health. The field staff training also included a session on COVID-19 
prevention measures and a PPE pack was provided to all participants for use 
while training and during fieldwork.
2.2.4 Sampling and data collection methods 
The survey employed both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. 
The quantitative methods were mainly used to estimate baseline benchmarks 
of performance indicators, while the qualitative methods were employed to 
elaborate and explain quantitative findings and describe the current project 
implementation context. Data was collected through various methods using 
different tools. The consultant reviewed and customized the data collection 
tools which were approved by the Client before use. The following approaches 
and tools were used:
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
10
i. Vanilla producers’ on-farm survey: A total of 419 vanilla producers 
were interviewed using a vanilla producers’ on-farm survey tool (Tool 1).
The tool evaluated the indicators related to vanilla producers’ 
competencies, production, yield, production costs, sales and profit.
ii. Vanilla producers’ household survey: A total of 162 vanilla farming 
households were interviewed using a vanilla producers’ household survey 
tool (Tool 2). This tool was designed to collect data for the indicators 
related to vanilla farmers’ household consumption expenditures as a 
proxy for income, gender equity and equality by using the Abbreviated 
Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (A-WEIA), and child labor in 
vanilla production. 
The vanilla producers on-farm survey and household survey tools were 
uploaded on the CommCare mobile platform, leveraging digital systems to 
improve speed, efficiency and accuracy, and to reduce loss of information. 
iii. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) survey: The SMEs were 
interviewed independently to ensure privacy. The consultant engaged 
with ten project private partners to present the security management and 
security protocols that were used for ensuring that their sensitive 
business information will be protected. This was essential to gain their 
confidence to share the needed data to evaluate the baseline indicators 
that depend on data collected from them. An interview guide (Tool 4) and 
a form (Form 1) to review participating processing firms’ business records 
were also used. 
iv. Link Methodology Scorecard: The Link Methodology Scorecard is 
designed to assess value chain actors’ relations and enable the program 
to evaluate the quality and inclusiveness of buyer-seller trading relations. 
This scorecard was developed through facilitated group discussions and 
semi-structured interviews with supply chain actors. A tool was 
administered to the identified respondents (Tool 5). Four companies were 
interviewed, including:
a. Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union (RFCU) - a cooperative union with 
more than 1,200 vanilla farmers;
b. Gourmet Gardens (GG) - vanilla processing firm;
c. Enimiro Uganda - vanilla processing firm; and
d. Touton S.A. – a coffee exporter that is expanding its business to include 
vanilla
v. Context and policy analysis: This comprised Key Informant/In-depth 
Interviews (KIIs) with 41 key informants (KIs) using a KII guide/checklist 
(Tool 6). 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
11
vi. Digital voice recorders, photographs and note-taking during 
interviews. 
vii. GIS mapping: Modern GPS devices with inbuilt compasses and cameras 
were used at each vanilla establishment to capture GPS coordinates and 
digital photographs. 
2.2.5 Survey response rates 
Table 1 shows response rates, where of the 444 vanilla farming households 
targeted, 419 were responsive and were interviewed, which yielded a response 
rate of 94%. The survey findings in the subsequent sections are therefore 
based on 419 farming households.
2.2.6 Data Quality Control
The following quality assurance measures to enhance accuracy and reliability 
of the findings were applied.
i. Training and orientation of the field team to acquaint them with data 
collection tools through theory, testing and field practice.
ii. Use of a dedicated coordinator to ensure effective planning and 
coordination with CRS and MAAIF, relevant district and sub-county LG 
staff and communities. 
iii. Deployment of an experienced multi-disciplinary team with the required 
competencies and proven experience in undertaking studies and related 
consultancies.
iv. Ethical considerations: Due care was taken to ensure that informed 
consent was obtained from all respondents before interviews were 
conducted as well as assurance of confidentiality. The consent was 
recorded as a pre-requisite before conducting the interview.
2.2.7 Coordination modalities
To ensure effective field supervision and smooth coordination, the consultant 
deployed the whole field team to undertake data collection at the same time. 
The field team constituted field supervisors to guide and supervise the RAs. 
The field supervisors ensured effective coordination with CRS, relevant district 
and sub-county Local Government (LG) staff and communities. In addition to 
quality assurance, the consultant ensured that the necessary appointments 
with the relevant respondents were made, allowing for time for preparations. 
2.3 Data Analysis and Reporting
2.3.1 Data Analysis
The quantitative data captured in the questionnaires was analyzed using 
STATA computer packages to meet the objectives of the survey. Qualitative 
data was analyzed with the aid of NVIVO statistical package. Data was 
disaggregated as indicated in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
12
resulting tables included standard errors and 95% confidence intervals of the 
indicator estimates, and basic statistical analysis of indicator values by: 
1) Level of production and experience: 
a. High-producing farmers (>50 kg),
b. Upcoming farmers (≤50 kg), and 
c. New farmers that are expected to join the project during the project 
implementation years 2-4 in subsequent cohorts2 (3 strata);
2) Type of supply chain: (i) Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union (RFCU), (ii) 
ESCO, (iii) UVAN; and
3) Geography: High producing districts and medium producing districts (2 
strata). During data collection it was, however, found out that a larger 
portion of buyers could not identify the supply chain they fell under, plus 
lack of cooperation from some of the main buyers as earlier mentioned. To 
avoid distortions in the findings, therefore, during analysis, disaggregation 
was not done based on supply chains. 
2.3.2 Reporting
The following applied to observations, findings and remarks in the report:
i. The reference point for the baseline survey was the period of the last two 
harvests (Fly: December 2020/January 2021 and Main: June/July 2021). 
The results are, therefore, reported for the same period. 
ii. The exchange rate used for reporting is 1 USD = UGX 3,661 (Source: BOU 
Av. Exchange rate 2020).
2.4 Survey Limitations and Mitigation Measures
Although the survey was largely successful, it had some limitations and 
measures taken to address them and they include: 
i. COVID – 19 pandemic limitations: While the survey was ongoing, the 
COVID-19 pandemic was raging in the country. This attracted stringent 
control measures including restrictions on 
ii. movement and social distancing, among others. These measures called 
for halting the exercise for about six weeks, which translated into loss 
of time and required additional funds to accommodate GoU restrictions 
on travel and coordination.
iii. Design of data collection forms in Commcare App: In our opinion,
the design of the forms was not user-friendly, because it designs had no 
option for editing the responses in the field, which could have helped 
the field supervisors to correct any errors in the field, before submission. 
As a result, a lot of time was spent on data cleaning. 
iv. Sampling: By the time the survey started, there was attrition among 
farmers in the predetermined sample. For example, some of selected 
2
Farmers who fall in this stratum will not be included in the baseline as they will only start joining the project in year 2 of 
project implementation, but at the VINES project level, the sample of these farmers will be added to the baseline sample as 
they join the project.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
13
farmers had abandoned vanilla production while others could not be 
traced because names of respondents were misspelt or incorrect, and 
phone numbers were wrong or inaccessible. To address this anomaly, 
the missing names were replaced with other names on the lists of 
farmers provided by the client, which led to delays in identifying and 
locating respondents. These challenges could be attributed to possible 
errors in the databases provided by processors. 
v. Unavailability of respondents: Because of delays due to COVID, data 
collection extended into the rainy season. As a result, farmer 
mobilization became difficult because many were engaged in preparing 
their gardens and were, therefore, not readily available for interviews. 
vi. Mistrust and low level of cooperation from participating SMEs: 
Vanilla processors control their data very closely. As a result, most 
SMEs were not willing to fully disclose information regarding volumes of 
vanilla bought, processed or exported, buyers and export values. This 
was partly attributed to mistrust among the actors in the absence of a 
strong national sector association to unite and coordinate actors. Apart 
from RFCU, most actors declined to respond or gave incomplete 
information, considering it confidential. Questions were clarified and 
follow-up to confirm the data and information was made. It is 
recommended that with continued engagement with the private sector 
players (SMEs), the VINES project should be able to gradually gain the 
confidence of all actors and update the project indicator table. 
vii. Poor records: Most farmers in Uganda do not keep records and,
therefore, in many cases, survey data relied mainly on individual 
memory, which may not be reliable for estimates based on respondents’ 
recall in their responses to questions related to production, incomes, 
expenditures on labor, inputs, and workdays of labor for different 
practices (i.e. pruning, mulching, harvesting). Accessibility: The rainy 
season rendered some roads impassable, making it difficult to access 
the respondents, especially in hilly areas of Kasese and Bundibugyo 
districts. 
viii. Non-responsive respondents: while the survey design targeted 30 
SMEs, the client availed a list of 23 SMEs from which only 10 were 
responsive. In addition, apart from RFCU, all other identified SMEs did 
not respond to questions on sales and export values. Also, as a result of 
this constraint, baseline data on indicators 25, 26, 27 and 28 that relate 
to SMEs was not collected and, in many cases, what was given was 
found incomplete and/or unreliable. Hence, the consultants opted to 
use secondary data where available. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
14
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS
The baseline evaluation design as elaborated in the Terms of Reference (ToRs) 
presented a number of baseline questions to be evaluated as part of the 
baseline assessment. Informed by the baseline survey findings, in this section 
the evaluation team presents an analysis of the evaluation questions, and the 
implications of the findings against a set criteria and recommended actions.
3.0 Baseline Evaluation Questions and Implications 
The baseline questions were categorized into 3 evaluation criteria areas: 
(a) Project relevance;
(b) Project implementation; and 
(c) Sustainability and Impact. 
Based on the baseline findings, the consultant made a technical evaluation on 
each of the above three areas hereof presented below:
3.1 Project Relevance
The Baseline assessment attempted to examine the relevance of the VINES 
project, looking at the extent to which the VINES project design addresses 
the needs of Uganda’s vanilla sector and those of the different actors 
involved in the value chain. The following design elements were, therefore,
assessed: problem analysis; theory of change and assumptions; and project 
strategic design.
1. Problem Analysis: at the project design, challenges of the sector were 
identified, and needs determined. The major challenges were categorized 
into four (4) areas and these included: 
i. Productivity and Risk Management 
Main needs identified at project design stage and to be addressed by 
the project were: (a) improving farm security to avert thefts; (b) 
overcoming low farm production and productivity (from 65kg to 130kg 
and at least 0.5 kg per vine per year); (c) addressing boom and bust 
cycles with modern advisory services (d) improving farm planning and 
management knowledge and skills; (e) improving soil and water shade 
management; (f) promoting resilience through diversified agroforestry 
production systems; (g) strengthening farmers’ financial and business 
skills (h) improving access to vines for planting (and other inputs); (i) 
expanding access to resources for women involved in vanilla production; 
and (j) reducing the risks of child labor in the vanilla sector.
Needs identified during the baseline study: The baseline findings 
generally affirmed the prevalence of the needs in Uganda’s vanilla sector 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
15
identified at project design. In addition, farmers identified the need for: 
(a) timely access to quality planting materials; (b) acquisition of 
knowledge and skills in vanilla-specific agronomic practices; (c) access 
to financial services; (d) gender equity and equality; (e) and 
opportunities for youth. 
Project activities designed to address the needs: The design of the 
VINES project is relevant to the sector needs based on evidence. Project 
activities including: capacity building through FLCs, promoting 
improved agriculture techniques and technologies, strengthening 
MSMEs across the vanilla supply chain (especially input suppliers, 
youth and women), promoting provision of extension services via 
processor-linked extension agents, improving farm management 
(financial services and operations) across the supply chain, and 
promoting SILCs with measures for sustainability are all quite relevant 
in addressing the identified needs. In addition, the project design 
introduced the Gender Transformative Approach (GTA) which is
intended to improve participation of women in the project activities,
hence address the gender gaps.
The study, however, design neither conducted a detailed value chain 
analysis of the vanilla sector, nor did it conduct a mapping of the related 
sectors/sub-sectors (e.g., bananas, coffee or cocoa promoted for 
diversification). As such, not all actors in the vanilla value chain were 
assessed to capture their characteristics, functions, challenges and 
needs to inform the design. Similarly, under this baseline, there was no 
broad interface with support service providers such as agro-input 
dealers; nor a comprehensive mapping of other actors involved in 
different functions in the value chain (e.g., middlemen, transporters, 
facilitators etc.). The LINK methodology, which could have captured a 
detailed sector value chain analysis was, however, only applied to map 
out selected elements of the sector; and relations between buyers and 
sellers within selected business models3.
Potential modifications: The following suggestions are intended to
modify the project activities with a view of making them more receptive 
to the identified needs.
a) Vanilla value chain Analysis and Mapping of Related Sectors:
A detailed value chain analysis and mapping of vanilla value chain 
and related sectors (coffee, bananas, PSPs) should be designed and 
3 By design the Link methodology applies 4 tools: 1) Value Chain Mapping, 2) Business Model Canvas, 3) The New 
Business Model Principles, and 4) The Prototype Cycle. At design and baseline, however, neither was 
comprehensive mapping of actors done, nor was analysis of the related sectors undertaken. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
16
carried out prior to mid-term evaluation. The mapping of related 
sectors as part of this exercise is justified by the fact that strategic 
design of the VINES intervention is partly premised on production 
diversity at farmer level, leveraging on complimentary sectors and 
systems (e.g., coffee traceability and the extension service system). 
b) Use of FLCs to deliver extension services as a methodology is a 
pragmatic measure responsive to the serious vanilla-specific 
extension need; vanilla not being a national priority crop is neglected 
and underserved. The model is, however, silent on use of 
demonstration of practices, yet it is one of the recommended 
methodologies in Uganda’s agricultural extension service reforms 
(under the Single Spine System). Baseline data indicated that this 
strategy would be appropriate and effective for smallholder farmers 
who dominate vanilla production in Uganda, hence a need to review 
project design activities related to capacity building to include vanilla 
farming field demonstrations. 
c) Harmonization with government frameworks: Extension services 
for SHFs remain a public good, albeit under-resourced. The project 
design relies heavily on private service providers working through the 
private sector (vanilla processors). FLCs by design were placed 
principally as dependent on the private sector (processors). The 
projects should be cognizant of the current extension services 
framework. FLCs should be closely linked to the Public Extension 
System for sustainability; with a focal person at the LG level and a 
desk officer at MAAIF. 
d) Mapping of processors; The VINES project design is targeting 
specific pre-selected processors which may be misleading; suitability 
and willingness to partner on the project are both dynamic factors. 
Lessons from the baseline showed that VINES undertook a 
preliminary mapping of processors through the first round of the 
Vanilla Innovation and Expansion Fund. Based on this, the project 
on boarded three processors, none of which were identified during 
the proposal development stage. It is, therefore, recommended that 
an activity to take stock of available processors, assessing them for 
suitability and willingness to participate in the project, should be 
considered at mid-term review.
e) Extension services curriculum: In the project’s activities, farmers 
services were segmented according to the range in production levels 
of different vanilla farmers in Uganda.
Categorizing extension services by segments of farmers however, 
assumes that the higher the level of production the more technically 
competent the farmer; yet baseline data found no evidence of this. 
According to available data, each segment of farmers needs all 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
17
categories of extension services, that is: Agronomic skills; building 
their social cohesion; and business and financial skills. Farmers in 
all categories would therefore, benefit from the entire training 
curriculum. The extension services curriculum should be uniform
to serve all categories of farmers. 
f) Supplementary source of livelihoods: Since the crop takes 3 years 
to start bearing fruit, promoting annual crops would generate income 
and ensure sustained livelihoods for the target farmers in the first 
three years. Coffee is good for mixed farming, but not suitable for 
improving income streams for the short and medium terms. Baseline 
findings identified an array of annual crops such as maize (between 
vanilla and banana/coffee rows), beans, and matooke, which are a 
good fit for mixing with the vanilla crop. In addition, other high value 
annual crops such tomatoes and cabbages could be planted in the 
boundaries of vanilla growing fields. These would all serve as 
alternative sources of income in the interim as vanilla farmers wait 
on the vanilla crop. In addition, integration of SILC/VSLAs (common 
to communities) would also add value as it offers vanilla farmers an 
opportunity to access finance, but also prospects of setting up 
independent IGAs as income supplements.
g) Gender equity and youth participation: The baseline revealed that 
there are fewer women or youth proprietors of MSMEs than men. Key 
limitations for effective participation of youth and women (MSMEs) 
in the vanilla sector were identified at the baseline stage, which 
include: Decision-making and control of household incomes 
limitations, GBV, imbalances in gender labor relations and access to 
and ownership of land. In addition, there were some A-WEAI 
indicators which at baseline level were low (group membership and 
access to credit), hence the need to revisit the design to ensure 
support reaches these marginalized groups. 
Possible solutions to these challenges are:
i. Introducing a “Youth vanilla growing program,” especially for 
college graduates to attract them into vanilla growing as a 
business. The program should have a package of incentives,
such as term loans recovery through deductions from each 
youth’s sales every year. This approach worked very well with 
smallholder tea growers in the 1960s/1970s
ii. Introduce, for the women and the youth, other low-cost non￾land using IGAs, such as rearing indigenous chicken, which, 
if well managed, can generate substantial incomes through 
sale of local eggs, whose prices are generally higher than eggs 
from exotic chicken;
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
18
iii. Introduce a program for promoting arts and crafts, especially 
for girls and women. The items should be of good design and 
well crafted.
2. Promote safe, clean and pure vanilla 
The main needs identified at project design stage and to be addressed by 
the VINES project were; (a) protecting vanilla beans against premature 
harvesting; (b) improving post-harvest quality (c) ensuring compliance with 
international food safety standards; and (d) integrating traceability systems to 
improve food safety. These interventions shall be done with the involvement of 
processors and exporters to enable them to articulate the challenges they find 
with Ugandan vanilla in curing and on export markets.
Needs identified during the baseline study: The baseline findings generally 
affirmed the prevalence of the above needs regarding vanilla quality (safe, 
clean and pure vanilla) identified at project design. In relation to improving 
the post-harvest quality of vanilla, farmers reported the need for extension 
services to impart knowledge and skills required to achieve quality products. 
Furthermore, post-harvest management of vanilla was of significant interest 
to processors, and as such, related interventions ought to involve processors. 
Project activities designed to address the needs: The project design seeks 
to addresses vanilla theft which most farmers identified as the leading 
challenge to vanilla production in Uganda. Theft is also considered by 
processors as a major factor that undermines the quality of vanilla. VINEs 
project has devised a number of strategic interventions (FR 2.4.2) to address 
this constraint and they include: (i) improving policy and regulatory 
framework both at central and local government levels; (ii) creating community 
surveillance committees; and (iii) increasing government resource allocation 
to the vanilla sector.
Required modifications: While the strategies to address the concern about 
vanilla quality are relevant, it was noted that most of the proposed measures 
are likely to face major implementation challenges such as: 
a) Long delays in the legislative process is a limitation, which is likely 
to negatively affect the attainment of the desired goal of enactment and 
enforcement of ordinances at LG level. By developing and implementing 
an elaborate communication and stakeholder engagement strategy, 
VINES project should be able to enlist support and cooperation across 
the board, which will minimize possible delays in the legislative
processes. The strategy shall target LGs’ political and technical leaders, 
community leaders and influencers, vanilla farmers and the general 
community, promote VINES projects in general and advocate for 
support of decision-makers. 
b) Investment in security of the vanilla gardens: It is envisaged that 
farmers shall be supported to invest in security (IR 1.2.3). While this 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
19
could be attained in the short to medium terms, absence of a strong 
regulatory framework could only pile further costs on farmers hence 
undermining profitability of the enterprises. This will translate into a 
disincentive for further investment in the enterprise. It is proposed that 
the VINES project could adopt, promote and strengthen a community 
surveillance model that according to survey findings, has been tested 
and proved potentially effective in some vanilla growing districts. Such 
initiatives by the project to strengthen the model could include training 
of Local Defence Units (LDUs)/Community Policing Units in every 
vanilla-growing parish, and initially providing the necessary tools and 
financial resources with a gradual sustainable existing plan.
c) Enforcement of ordinances: Creation of community surveillance 
committees was considered a good measure to address some safety and 
quality related concerns. However, based on evidence from the baseline 
study, this was not found effective without support for enforcement of 
the enacted laws and ordinances. It is recommended, therefore, that 
LGs be supported with capacity building for enforcement as a 
supplementary measure for ensuring safe, clean and pure vanilla. With 
strong collaboration with the private sector (through VANEX), such 
support could include; provision of appropriate training and 
tools/equipment; and implementation of communication and 
awareness/ education campaigns to enhance compliance and 
enforcement of regulations. VINES should consider partnering with 
LGs (at district and sub-county levels) in areas where vanilla is grown; 
engage with councilors at each level and design ways of enforcing the 
ordinances.
3. Strengthen market conditions
The main needs identified at project design stage were: (a) Improving 
farmer organization (especially small holder farmers) to realize the full 
economic benefits of negotiating sales of bulk produce; (b) strengthening direct 
trade business models to secure vanilla markets; (c) promoting third-party 
certification to increase returns to farmers and differentiate production; (d) 
Institutional Support, especially to MAAIF) in order to enhance development 
of relevant policies and regulations to enhance implementation of vanilla 
quality improvement measures, and address the menace of vanilla thefts.
Needs identified during the baseline study: The baseline findings generally 
affirmed the prevalence of the above needs identified at project design. 
Farmers further emphasized the need to promote collective access to markets 
and to minimize possible exploitation by middlemen. 
Project activities designed to address the needs included: (i) promoting 
savings and internal lending communities (SILCs); (ii) improving vanilla post￾harvest, processing and packaging at farm and processor/exporter levels); (iii) 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
20
supporting MSMEs with emphasis on women and youth micro-entrepreneurs; 
(iv) improving market information services through Farmer-Buyer Information 
Exchange Platforms. 
Required modifications: Generally, the sector needs regarding strengthening 
market conditions identified in the VINES project design were relevant to the 
related challenges. There were, however, some design elements that could be 
revisited. They include:
a) Value-addition infrastructure: In addition to capacity building to 
impart knowledge and skills to improve post-harvest processing (PHH) 
and packaging, community infrastructure for PHH is required. This 
should include strengthening farmer societies/ cooperatives with skills 
and technology to undertake some PHH as value-addition functions. 
Such interventions would enable the farmers to earn more income 
arising from value-addition. 
b) Intensive Farmer Institutional Development: Deliberate efforts to 
strengthen the capacity of farmer organizations at different levels to 
effectively participate in the entire value chain will be paramount. FID 
is a continuous process that requires continued engagement of several 
stakeholders in the value chain at both community and LG levels. The 
project design was, however, not elaborated in regard to skills transfer 
and strengthening farmer organisations, to be able carry-on core 
support services especially under RI 3.1 and 3.2; and for continuity 
beyond the project life.
c) Partnership development and collaboration: The problem analysis 
appreciates that the sector organizations like VANEX were weak 
requiring intervention for organizational and institutional capacity 
building by the project. In addition, the project design intends to engage 
and support Government in creating an enabling regulatory framework 
for the vanilla sector. The planned project strategies and activities 
(Activity 6) as well as the results framework (Result framework # 4) are 
rather silent on establishing partnerships and collaborations with other 
relevant/ influential private sector organizations (like PSFU) to lobby 
and advocate for necessary policy and regulatory reforms for an 
enabling environment for the vanilla sector. 
d) Market information services: Whereas promotion of Farmer-Buyer 
Information Exchange Platforms was planned for, it is not very clear 
how the project will get involved. It is important to identify the key 
players and clearly spell out their roles for effective platforms. For 
sustainability, the VINES project should collaborate with VANEX and 
take a centre role in the creation of district/regional platforms to 
coordinate market information. By localizing such services, the project 
will enable involvement of LG and local service providers, and ease 
information exchange through use of local languages. At the project 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
21
operational level, such interventions should be integrated/ harmonized 
with the proposed communication and stakeholder engagement 
strategy. 
e) Research-extension interface: VINES project by design shall support 
vanilla research in collaboration with MAAIF (Activity 6.3), a strategy 
which some experts assert needs to link research to extension services 
as a key pillar for successful implementation of agricultural extension 
services (EPRC 2016)4. The FLCs under the Vines Project by design were 
placed principally dependent on the private sector (processors) which is 
again consistent with a pillar in the single spine extension system 
promoted by Government. It was noted, however, thatthere were no 
specific activities mentioned in the VINES results framework to 
demonstrate strategies that link research to extension service delivery. 
It is proposed, therefore, that implementation modalities of the FLCs be 
revisited to capture research-extension linkages and should be closely 
linked to the public extension system for sustainability; with a focal 
person at the LG level and a desk officer at MAAIF. We note, however, 
that for the success of such measures, it is assumed that Government 
shall enhance capacity of MAAIF to continually undertake the necessary 
vanilla research; and LGs to provide extension services. 
f) Implementation arrangements with the mother ministry: It 
was observed that the project design documents state the modalities to 
coordinate and implement some of VINES project activities with the 
Directorate of Crop Resources (MAAIF), but with no mention of
mechanisms/ specific activities to engage the Directorate of Agricultural 
Extension Services (DAES) which could undermine the smooth 
implementation and sustainability of the VINES’ extension 
interventions. Some of the activities could include but not limited to:
training of DAES personnel, developing vanilla extension manual and 
simplified guidelines for service providers, and joint training of 
extension service providers; as well as joint monitoring and reviews of 
related interventions. It is recommended, therefore, that VINES project 
review activities regarding capacity building should emphasize capacity 
strengthening for the DAES. Promotion of an improved policy and
regulatory framework (Activity 6), based on evidence, may also 
contribute to addressing the above concerns. 
3.2 Theory of Change and Assumptions
The overall theory of change is well elaborated under the VINES project results 
framework. The results framework (RF) is structured into four (4) main 
components namely:
4
EPRC 2016: Uganda’s Agricultural Extension Systems: How appropriate is the Single Spine Structure? Research Report No. 16. 
by Mildred Barungi, Madina Guloba and Annet Adong - Economic Policy and Research Centre (EPRC)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
22
Result Stream 1: Farmers will sustainably increase productivity while 
managing risk (Component 1);
Result Stream 2: Promote safe, clean and pure vanilla supply offered to 
International Markets (Component 2)
Result Stream 3: Strengthen market conditions (Component 3)
Results Stream 4: Strengthen the policy environment (Foundational 
results)
Each of result frameworks was premised on a number of logical assumptions 
based on the evaluators’ analysis, issues of significant interest were noted in 
relation to assumption for components 1 and 4 as summarized below5:
Result Stream 1: Farmers will sustainably increase productivity while 
managing risk (Component 1)
The Logical assumptions under this result stream are:
i. That farmers with access to dedicated advisory services and inputs will 
implement best practices for vanilla-based agroforestry systems, and 
raise their productivity, and that fee-for-service agents and micro￾entrepreneurs will be sustainable beyond the project;
ii. That the use of FLCs, is an active approach to adult learning, more 
effective in terms of farmers adopting technologies, compared with 
demonstration sites where learning was passive;
iii. That Savings and Internal Loans Communities (SILC) provide crucial 
financial capabilities that allows farmers to save, reinvest in their farming 
businesses and responsibly access loans, while building social cohesion 
for collective marketing. SILC also empowers women socially, financially 
and business wise so that they can earn more from their farms; and
iv. That farmers who diversify their crops gain through multiple income 
streams if the price of one product, such as coffee, falls due to market 
shocks, they can rely on other products. Multiple income streams make 
them more resilient than farmers who are reliant on incomes from one 
crop.
COMMENTS
a) Interventions to enhance access to financial services through SILCs is a 
tested model in Uganda and CRS has significant experience 
implementing similar programs in the country with significant success. 
Baseline findings showed that SACCOs were the most common source 
of credit for 38% of vanilla farmers in Uganda. Various studies on 
performance of SILCs in Uganda (most referred to as SACCOs), however, 
identified governance and institutional weaknesses as major concerns 
5 The logical assumptions are summarized and, in some cases, paraphrased by the evaluators. 
Result streams /Assumptions where there was no significant comment have are omitted. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
23
that undermine their performance and long-term survival (IFAD 2012)6. 
The assumptions related to implementation of the SILC model under the 
VINES project are silent regarding this risk. Consequently, the project 
implementation plan and strategic activities to implement the SILC 
model indicate that over 1,030 farmer groups shall be formed for 
purposes of delivering financial services to farmers and micro￾entrepreneurs.
b) Planned interventions and activities under Activity 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 
rather focused on capacity building of the farmers and PSPs but 
provided no specific activities to support governance and institutional 
strengthening of SILCs. It is recommended, therefore, that the 
assumption be reviewed to address risks related to weak governance 
and institutional sustainability.
Results Stream 4: Strengthen the policy environment (Foundational 
results)
The logical assumption under this results stream was; that if support is 
provided to the GoU and MAAIF to develop policies and a legal framework to 
improve discipline in the trade of vanilla, this will be implemented by the GoU 
and local authorities, aimed at improving vanilla quality.
COMMENT: 
a) Evidence from the baseline survey identified numerous constraints to 
implementing effective regulations at local government (4.4.4) and 
central government levels for industry regulation (4.5.1). Among the 
major drawbacks mentioned by KIIs interviewed was bureaucracy in the
legislation processes for policies and ratification of ordinances for LGs. 
This kind of situation affects most sectors and programs by Government 
and development partners in Uganda. The above assumption was, 
however, rather silent on this matter, yet it could present a significant 
risk to the successful implementation of the project necessitating 
review.
b) Lessons from other strategic sectors in Uganda where private sector 
plays leading roles, collaborations/partnerships and membership to 
strong apex organizations has delivered results regarding causing 
necessary policy reforms and regulations. In Uganda such influential 
organizations include: Private Sector Foundation of Uganda (PSFU) and 
Uganda Manufacturers Association. 
Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) is Uganda’s apex body for the 
private sector, founded in 1995 with over 200 business associations, corporate 
bodies and the major public sector agencies that support private sector 
growth. The key mandate of PSFU includes: 
(a) Research and advocacy on policy issues that affect private enterprise;
6 IFAD 2012: Area-Based Agricultural Modernization Programme Project Performance 
Assessment. February 2012 Report No. 2540-UG Document of the International Fund for 
Agricultural Development.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
24
(b) Maintain institutionalized dialogue with Government on behalf of the 
private sector in Uganda; 
(c) Review of business legislation and regulation to make it more efficient for 
private sector operations; and 
(d) Business development support for SMEs i.e., product development, 
standards improvement, market access, technology acquisition and 
application, skills training. 
It is, therefore, recommended that VINES project reviews strategies under 
Results Framework # 4, to include activities geared at enhancing partnerships 
and collaborations with other organizations in Uganda engaged in advocacy to 
strengthen and help drive the project’s enabling policy and regulatory 
environment workstream. 
3.3 Project Implementation
Risks or challenges that may impact delivery of the project goal, strategic 
objectives and intermediate results were identified and are well-articulated in 
the project documents. In addition, some actions were taken to mitigate 
against these risks or challenges:
B1: Risks or challenges that may impact delivery of the project goal, 
strategic objectives and intermediate results and mitigation actions
A number of risks and challenges were identified at design stage and indeed,
the VINES project design incorporated strategies to mitigate the effects of 
delivery of project goals, objectives and intended results. Based on the 
baseline findings, however, some additional risks were identified requiring
specific mitigation as below:
Risk 1: Bureaucratic delays in legislation and regulations undermine 
efforts to create an enabling policy and regulatory framework for the 
vanilla sector
Based on evidence from the survey, there were significant delays in enacting 
ordinances at local government level and where this was done, the necessary 
ratification by the central government was reportedly difficult to attain by most 
LGs assessed. In addition, due to various institutional and capacity 
weaknesses, the legislative and policy development process in Government is 
very slow, which could undermine efforts to create an enabling environment 
(national vanilla law and ordinances at LG). 
Proposed mitigation measures:
i. The existing laws should suffice for the effective implementation of the 
VINES project hence no need to pursue the national vanilla law but 
rather focus on strengthening institutions in regulation and 
compliance, especially at LG level, as earlier discussed. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
25
ii. Develop and implement a robust communication & stakeholder 
engagement strategy for the VINES project. The communication 
strategy shall enable intensive sensitization, stakeholder engagements 
(sectoral, central government and LG levels, communities etc.) with 
simplified plan of operations and activities; share targets, clarify roles, 
share experiences etc. 
iii. Establish partnerships and collaborations with influential private 
sector apex organizations (e.g., PSFU) to enhance advocacy on policy 
and regulatory reforms.
Risk 2: Organizational and institutional weaknesses of 
SILCs/SACCOs could undermine the implementation and sustainability of 
interventions to enhance financial services. SACCOs lack a specific focus on 
the needs of women and youth, leading to potential negative effects on these 
vulnerable groups, and significant negative effects on women and youths 
engaged in vanilla value chain. This baseline, however, did not undertake in￾depth diagnosis of institutional capacity of the participating/ potential 
SACCOs as such specific institutional weaknesses are not presented. 
Proposed mitigation measures
i. The VINES project should undertake a rapid institutional capacity 
assessment of participating and potential SILCs to inform 
strategies to address the above risk. 
ii. Integration of women and youth in the SILC model and linkages 
should be emphasized as a means to strengthen model 
sustainability. Specific activities for capacity building of SILCs aimed 
at their long-term survival and financial services products targeted for 
women and youth should be developed and added in the result 
framework (under Activity 5). 
Risk 3: Rampant vanilla price fluctuations amidst some weaknesses 
in the project diversification strategy could undermine the resilience of 
the vanilla sector
While various strategies and activities were proposed to address this challenge 
under RF 3, the strategies did not articulate clearly the modalities for 
strengthening vanilla farmer groups at different levels, and diversification 
strategies for resilience at farmers’ level were not grounded on a detailed 
mapping of the related value chains. 
Proposed mitigation measures
i. Strengthening of farmer organizations and their involvement in 
implementation be emphasized. Through related stakeholder 
engagements, innovative ideas and solutions would be generated and 
nurtured to enhance resilience of the vanilla sector. 
ii. Mapping of some of the major related value chains to be supported 
under the VINES project, especially those identified and verified from 
baseline data; such as coffee, bananas, beans and other annual crops.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
26
Planned interventions that are likely to be the most critical and/or 
effective in achieving the programme’s intermediate results and 
strategic objectives
Activity 1: All considered critical
Activity 2.2: Planting material propagation and distribution. Based on 
baseline findings, most vanilla farmers highlighted limited access to quality 
planting materials; other farm inputs, planting materials for tutor and shade 
trees; and manure as a major hindrance to growth. 
Activity 5: Capacity building of SILCs for long-term sustainability and 
delivery of services that target women and youth
Activity 6.1 Drafting of the national vanilla law as recommended earlier 
(under Risk 1); this result intervention should be revisited, possibly dropped 
and replaced with more practical interventions. 
B3: Project interventions with potential negative impacts or unintended 
consequences
Intervention: Increase the scale and density of vanilla plantations.
Negative impacts or unintended consequences 
Farmers may abandon other crops including food production to focus on 
vanilla as a cash crop, which may result in a food insecurity threat. The project 
should work with LGs and extension workers to consistently promote crop 
diversity and other measures that promote food security.
Intervention: Harvesting Ripe Vanilla 
Negative impacts or unintended consequences 
a) Farmers may choose to adopt the harvest season dates promoted (by 
Government and sector organizations), which could be disruptive to 
farmers whose vanilla flowered and matured earlier than the stated 
harvest date, and who could also be adversely affected by complying 
with the harvest date and lose income. This could also motivate farmers 
to harvest unready vanilla to gain from the seasonal ready market,
hence compromise the quality of vanilla. Intensive and continuous 
education and training of farmers about the importance of timeliness in 
activities will go a long way in minimizing this risk.
b) Good quality and good prices due to the above interventions could cause 
an unintended increase in thefts and GBV at farmer level.
3.4 Sustainability and Impact
Sustainability relates to whether the positive outcomes of the project at 
purpose level are likely to continue after external funding by CRS ends; and 
also, whether it’s longer-term impact on the wider development process can
also be sustained at the level of the sector, region or country. In a wider sense, 
sustainability looks at socio-economic, technical and cross cutting issues of 
gender equity, and the environment. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
27
Exit strategies
1. FLCs should be managed by the private sector with linkages public sector 
programs for continuity and sustainability;
2. Projects should deliberately promote inclusion of targeted beneficiaries 
with other Government programs (at national and LG levels) e.g. Youth 
empowerment programs, the parish model and financial 
intermediaries/institutions, hence linking project beneficiaries to new 
networks for sustainability; 
3. Project activities should be geared more towards supporting farmers and 
local MSMEs rather than being primarily targeting the processors and 
buyers. While there is need for more support to farmers as enterprises, 
emphasizing this would appear as a key departure from the current project 
design, hence proposed for further assessment at mid-term review. 
However, the project should consider improving access to financial services 
for the farmers. This will enable them to access productivity-enhancing 
technologies and practices; 
4. Build strong farmers’ institutions (at national and district levels) with 
capacity to engage in the market; and 
5. Support enactment of laws, ordinances and bye-laws and enforcement 
mechanisms to regulate the activities in the vanilla sub-sector
Potential barriers to sustained gains
1. Weak sector regulations and low capacity for enforcement;
2. Weak farmer institutions;
3. Low financial capacity of SMEs for investment in the enterprise; and 
4. Unpredictable weather conditions.
COMMENTS
a) Use of modern information communication and technology (ICT) 
solutions has recently been recognized among the main facilitators for 
economic prosperity and project implementation and sustainability. ICT 
offers a range of fundamental and methodological contributions that 
empower sustainability through various tools and more generic 
b) models7. With the introduction of ICT, traditional agriculture in India 
has been reformed and transformed “…contributing to significant 
improvements in agricultural productivity and sustainability. 
Empowering farmers with the right information at the right time and 
place is essential for improving the efficiency and viability of small and 
marginal holdings"8. The demand and growing uptake of ICT 
innovations in Uganda’s agricultural sector has been documented 
7Darine Ameyed 2018: How ICT an Accelerate Implementation of the Sustainable Development 
Goals: Engineering for Change, November 2018. 
8 Singh S, Ahlawat S, Sanwal S. 2017: Role of ICT in Agriculture: Policy Implications. Orient. 
J. Comp.Sci.andTechnol;10(3). Available from: http://www.computerscijournal.org/?p=6704 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
28
indicating great potential in contributing to agricultural development 
(UCC/RCDF 2019)9. 
c) This baseline survey, however, by design, did not assess in detail 
stakeholders’ information needs and the ICT status of the vanilla sector 
in general. It is proposed, therefore, that the scope of the 
communication and stakeholder strategy be broadened to capture this 
important missing link or be addressed at mid-term review.
d) Based on the above, some of the recommended strategies for ICT 
integration frameworks for agriculture in Uganda, which have been 
found relevant/potentially applicable to the VINES project include: The 
establishment of an extension service providers ICT platform, delivering 
agricultural digital content through free media slots (e.g. national radio 
programs by Government, local FM radios, community radios); and 
integrating ICT in various business processes along the vanilla value 
chain. 
e) ICT has many roles to perform for agricultural development starting 
from a decision support system to farmers, to market access and 
trading; and in enhancing empowerment of communities as 
summarized in BOX 110.
3.4.1 Exit strategy to address sustainability Issues
Exit strategy refers to the mechanism put in place by VINES to ensure that its 
services will be continued when the project funding comes to an end. The 
consultant examined sustainability of the VINES project along the following 
areas: 
A. Ownership of objectives and achievements
For project objectives and achievements to be sustainable, the beneficiaries 
should own the outcomes of the project. This has a relationship with the 
consultations at project inception through the project continuum, so that 
beneficiaries see project as their own. Issues of concern are: Entry points and 
participation of beneficiaries, as well as liaising with other development 
partners, NGOs, farmer intermediary organizations (cooperatives and 
associations) and local governments involved in Uganda’s vanilla industry. 
Their participation and understanding of CRS interventions are important for 
the continuation of project activities. Under the decentralization structure, 
government development programmes, especially in the agriculture sector, are 
implemented at sub-county level. 
9 UCC-RCDF: State Of Information Communications Technology (Ict) For Agricultural 
Innovations In Uganda 2019. Researchers: Prof. Jude T. Lubega and Dr. Drake Patrick 
Mirembe on behalf of Rural Communications Development Fund (RCDF), Uganda 
Communication Commission (UCC).
10 Singh S., Ahlawat S., Sanwal S. 2017: Adapted and paraphrased by the evaluators.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
29
COMMENTS: 
a) Baseline findings showed that CRS was engaging and working with LGs 
during project inception and design. The depth of engagement however 
seemed to be limited to top political and technical leaders at district 
level. There was no evidence that community leaders (at sub-county 
level or below) were involved. 
b) By design, the FLCs model seeks to promote the primary beneficiaries 
and communities (through the decentralized local governments) with 
farmers taking lead on FLC activities; the FLCs are hosted, and farmer￾owned. In addition, FLCs are aimed at enhancing skills in good 
agronomic practices and testing innovations by farmers for replication 
in their own farms, which should enhance project sustainability. 
B. Policy support and regulatory framework for the vanilla Industry 
One of CRS’s interventions is to support a policy and regulatory framework. 
Overall, the Uganda has a conducive policy and legal framework for the 
agricultural sector. However, the vanilla sector has not been prioritized by 
Government as a cash crop. As discussed earlier this presented significant 
bottleneck in project implementation and sustainability in the absence of
Government support and a conducive policy and regulatory framework for the 
vanilla sector in Uganda.
C Financial sustainability
This refers to the financial ability of the programme beneficiaries to afford the 
products or services after the CRS project comes to an end. Farmers continue 
to need support in various areas (such as in extension, market linkages, and 
in building capacity of farmer organizations). The VINES project design has in 
our opinion put in place effective measure by design to ensure financial 
sustainability (subject to assumption). With project interventions targeting to 
support private processors and SMEs, it was envisaged (assumed) that the 
private sector shall attract investments and resources to sustain growth in the 
sector and enable farmers to adopt fee-for service modalities to access 
services. In addition, while working with Government to develop a robust
vanilla policy, it is also envisaged that public resources shall in the medium 
and long terms be injected in the sector to ensure sustainability. 
D. Technological sustainability
Technological sustainability refers to the sustainability of the technologies, 
methods, tools and knowledge used under CRS implementation, and their 
continuation after the programme ends. The project has embedded 
continuous capacity building through FLC and local private service providers 
for sustainability. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
30
SECTION B: FINDINGS
This section provides the findings of the baseline status based on analysis of 
data collected using the various survey tools. Findings are organized by 
strategic objectives and intermediate results. In addition, several analysis 
tables, figures and matrices summarizing findings on specific indicators are 
attached as annexes. Finally, a Performance Indicator Table provides the 
projected baseline values, the actual values (findings), the standard error and 
confidence level for each indicator of PMP assessed in this survey (See 
Appendix I).
CHAPTER FOUR: INCREASE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources (IR 1.1)
VINES aims at contributing towards land restoration by focusing on improving the 
quality of land and water resources on vanilla fields through:
1) The application of selected natural resource management (NRM) practices that 
have proved their effectiveness in restoring land; and 
2) The selection of crops and practices based on climate information, to 
contribute to climate change mitigation to a possible extent, and to support 
farmers to adapt to climate change. 
This section is organized around the five (5) NRM competencies that the project aims 
to strengthen among participating vanilla farmers: 
1) Planning for land restoration and climate-risk management;
2) Conservation and regenerative agriculture;
3) Integrated soil fertility management;
4) Efficient management of water resources; and 
5) Continuous learning and innovation. 
Given its importance, a more detailed analysis is conducted on the standards for the 
three behavioral evidence areas in the Planning for Land Restoration and Climate-risk 
Management competency that focuses on the long-term, medium-term and short￾term decisions that farmers need to make, based on different types of climate 
information (Gottret et. al, 2020). 
The above analysis provides the baseline snapshot on the practices and technologies 
that vanilla farmers are already using to promote climate-risk reduction and/or 
natural resources management, and the number of hectares that are already under 
these practices.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
31
Overall, the majority (87%) of the vanilla farmers had achieved the basic level of 
competency showing a deficiency. Eight percent were in the developing phase, while 
only 5% had reached the functional and advanced phases (Figure 2).
4.1.1 Competency 1: Land restoration and climate-risk management 
planning
Indicator 19. Number of farmers who have reached at least a functional level of "land 
restoration and climate-risk management" and of "vanilla-based agroforestry 
management” competencies as a result of USDA assistance (baseline value = 59)
This competency relates to the capacity of farmers for selecting crops and 
practices to restore their land and manage climate risks, and includes five 
behaviors: 
1) Uses soil analysis or assessment data to plan land use and select 
practices; 
2) Uses historical climate information trends, and climate forecasts to 
select crops and practices; 
3) Selects crops based on nutritional needs and market information; 
4) Plans land use based on crops and practices selected; and 
5) Evaluates results to learn and adapt practices. Each of these key 
behaviors includes a list of related behavioral evidence that an 
individual must display to demonstrate that they have mastered the 
competency. 
Figure 2: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the natural resources 
management competencies and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
32
These key behaviors are used to define the targets for capacity building, and 
the behavioral evidence to assess the competency. Based on whether farmers 
in the sample demonstrated the behavioral evidence for the five key behaviors 
of the Land Restoration and Climate-Risk Management competency, the 
competency level for each behavior was calculated by taking an average of the 
values for each behavior11, and the overall level for the competency by taking 
an average of the level for each of the five key behaviors. Using the calculated 
average for each member in the sample, respondents were classified in four 
competency levels as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Sampled districts and number of respondents by district
Competency 
level
Range Description
Basic 0 - <40% Demonstrates less than 40% of the behavioral 
evidence and needs intensive training.
Developing 40 - <60% Demonstrates at least 40% but less than 60% of the 
behavioral evidence and needs further focused 
training and reinforcement.
Functional 60 - <75% Demonstrates at least 60% but less than 75% of the 
behavioral evidence and can successfully do their job 
or run their business.
Advanced 75 – 100% Demonstrates at least 75% of the behavioral 
evidence, serving as a role model to others.
Findings showed that 3.6% (59 farmers) of the farmers assessed were 
functionally competent in regard to Land restoration and climate risk 
management planning competency (3.4% functionally competent and 
advanced 0.24%).
The results show a deficiency in this competency as only 4% of the farmers 
have achieved a functional or advanced level of the competency (Figure 3). 
However, when this is disaggregated by key behavior, important differences 
can be observed. The behavior with the highest percentage (73%) of farmers 
who are at a functional or advanced level is behavior 3 (selects crops based on 
nutritional needs and market information), followed by behavior 1 (uses soil 
analysis/assessment to select crops and practices) with 15%. The behaviors 
with the lowest percentage of farmers who are at a functional or advanced level 
are behavior 2 (uses climate information to select crops and practices) with 6%, 
and behavior 5 (evaluates results to learn and adapt practices) with 4%.
11 A value of 1 was given for “yes” and a value of 0 for “no” 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
33
Regionally, more farmers (21%) in the Central region had reached a functional 
or advanced level of land restoration and climate risk management planning 
competencies compared to only 4% from Western Region. 
A detailed analysis on the extent to which vanilla producers implemented each 
of the different actions that demonstrate their competency level by each of the 
five key behaviors for this competency is presented in the following sections. 
Behaviors 1-3: Criteria to select crops to integrate in vanilla fields and 
cropping practices
The competency model includes three behaviors related to the criteria used to 
select crops to integrate in their vanilla fields and their cropping practices 
(behaviors 1-3 in Figure 3 above. The percentage of vanilla farmers interviewed
that demonstrates each of the behavioral evidence related to these three 
behaviors is presented in Figure 3 below. The first five items (in cream) relate 
to the: 
(i) Suitability of the soil using soil analysis or visual soil assessment data; 
(ii) Production potential of their vanilla field; and
(iii) Function in the production system. 
Results show that at baseline, the majority of the farmers were not practicing 
most of the recommended behaviors to select crops to integrate in their vanilla 
fields, except one that involves selecting crops based on the production 
potential of their vanilla fields, which is practiced by 41% of the farmers. 
Figure 3: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the land restoration and 
climate-risk management planning competency and by behavior at baseline 
(2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
34
The next three behavioral evidence (in green) relate to the use of climate 
information to select crops and practices, showing that more vanilla farmers 
(25%) are using weather forecasts to make medium-term decisions related to 
the cropping cycles, while only 15% are adjusting their decisions in the short￾term based on daily or weekly weather forecasts; and even less (7%) are 
making long-term decisions based on historical climate trends. 
The other two behavioral evidence (in pink) relate to the selection of crops 
based on the importance of crops to household nutrition; and market demand, 
showing that fulfilling household nutritional needs is the most important 
criteria (60% of vanilla farmers), followed by market demand (42% of vanilla 
farmers). The results also showed that overall, 8% of the farmers did not 
demonstrate any of these behaviors while selecting crops to integrate in their 
vanilla fields and cropping practices.
Overall, the most important factor in selecting crops to integrate with vanilla 
was the potential contribution to household nutrition, followed by market 
demand, production potential of the field and quality of the soil in the field 
(Figure 4). About 60% of the farmers in both Western and Central regions, 
female and male; and in both levels of production, considered the nutritional 
value of the crops to determine what to integrate with vanilla. The nutritive 
value of the crop ranked highest overall (60%), across regions, in all genders 
and across areas of both high and medium levels of production. Forty-one 
percent (41%) of the farmers considered the market demand; 41% the 
production potential of the field, and 15% the nature of the soil. The least 
considered factor across all the categories was the climate changes with 7%
In the Western and Central regions, 17.4% and 8.4% respectively considered 
the quality of soil. In addition, 14.8% of females and 15.7% of males; and 
17.3% and 5.2% in areas of high and medium levels of production, respectively 
considered the quality of soil in selecting crops to integrate with vanilla. 
Production potential was considered by more farmers in the Western region 
(41%) than in the Central region (37.4%); more females (44.3%) than males 
(39.6%) and more farmers in areas of high (41.2%) as compared to the medium 
(34.5%) levels of production.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
35
Figure 4: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of three key behaviors for the land restoration and climate-risk 
management planning competency related to the selection of crops and 
practices at baseline (2021, N=413)
On the other hand, market demand was considered by more farmers in the 
Central (47%) than in the Western region (40.4%); more males (42.7%) than 
females (36.1%); and more in areas of medium (48.3%) than in high (40.7%) 
levels of production.
Standards for Behavior 3: Planning to manage climate risk 
Indicator 39. Number of Farmers Who Access Climate Information for Decision￾Making (Baseline Value = 1083 Farmers)
Climate risk management requires farmers to access, interpret, analyze and 
make long, medium and short-term decisions related to which crops and/or 
varieties to plan and what practices to implement, this being the basis for 
climate-smart agriculture (CSA). To adopt CSA, farmers need climate-risk 
management behaviors described in the behavioral evidence 6-8 in Figure 4
above (Gottret et. al, 2020). 
Behavioral evidence 6 refers to the long-term strategic decisions that farmers 
need to make and that have influence beyond one or several crop cycles such 
as selecting or changing perennial crops and/or varieties that require an 
initial investment of financial resources, and take time to start production, as 
well as selecting planting areas and designing intercropping systems. Figure 
4 shows that 7% of the interviewed vanilla producers are accessing historical 
climate information and using it to assess climate variability and trends to 
make these long-term decisions (see standards 6.1-6.5 in grey). Findings 
showed that total number of farmers who accessed climate information for 
decision-making was 1083 farmers.
Behavioral evidence 7 refers to the medium-term decisions that farmers make 
related to the harvest season, and can be related to the selection and 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
36
scheduling of management practices, or the selection of annual or short-cycle 
crops or varieties of these crops to integrate in their vanilla fields. These 
decisions require the analysis of seasonal or sub-seasonal forecasts to 
understand the probability of occurrence of abnormal or extreme events 
during the harvest season. The findings in Figure 5 (standards 7.1-7.3 in 
yellow) show that 42% of farmers identified the moments across the year when 
different activities are carried out on the vanilla fields (seasonal calendar) and 
related them to the climate to understand how it affects production. On the 
other hand, only 18% considered the probability of occurrence of abnormal or 
extreme events in deciding whether to plant crops, which crops to plant 
and/or when to plant them; and 14% considered the probability of occurrence 
of abnormal or extreme weather events to select practices for the management 
of their vanilla fields. 
Behavioral evidence 8 refers to the short-term decisions that farmers need to 
make once the harvest season has started and the annual or short-cycle crops 
have been planted to respond to daily or weekly weather forecasts or alerts.
This may imply an adjustment in the timing of planned activities or 
adjustments to management practices. Findings in Figure 4 above relate to 
this behavioral evidence (standards 8.1-8.4 in green) show that only 15% of 
vanilla farmers are reviewing their decisions based on updated weather 
forecasts and alerts, or even their own local climate indicators; and only 19% 
and 20%, respectively, are adjusting their practices and monitoring the 
Figure 5: Percentage of Vanilla Farmers who demonstrated the standards for 
the behavioral evidence related to climate-risk management, baseline (2021, 
N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
37
development of their crops based on these forecasts. Moreover, only 5% are 
reflecting on the results achieved to learn and make decisions for the next 
harvest season. 
Overall, 19% of the farmers used daily or weekly weather forecasts, local 
weather indicators or weather alerts to adjust their cropping practices. In the 
central and western regions, 50% and 30.4% used weather information, 
respectively. More male (43%) farmers used weather information compared to 
female (33%) farmers. More farmers used weather information in medium 
(35.1%) areas of production compared to high (30%) areas of production. 
Considerations for using daily or weekly weather forecasts, local weather 
indicators or weather alerts to inform these decisions
To use daily or weekly weather forecasts, local weather indicators or weather 
alerts to inform these decisions, 43.7% of the farmers reviewed decisions made 
before starting the harvest season based on local climate indicators, updated 
weather forecasts, and weather alerts; 56.3% adjusted practices during the 
harvest season, if necessary; and 57.8% monitored the development of crops, 
considering weather forecasts and weather warnings.
Interviews with district and political leaders in the districts pointed out the 
same trend. They indicated that most farmers in their localities accessed 
meteorological information. They further reported that the main source of 
weather information was the Uganda National Meteorological Authority 
(UNMA) and the main channels of communication to farmers were radios, 
extension workers, mobile phones and fellow farmers as well, as articulated 
by a sub-county leader in Kasese district:
“…. through a district program, the Senior Agricultural Officer receives the 
weather forecast from UNMA and shares with us on our social media page; 
then we share with farmers. We can also go on radio and talk about it.” 
Agricultural Officer - Buhuhira Sub-county.
In addition, generally, leaders concurred that farmers do find the 
meteorological information provided useful but with a few undertones about 
unreliability of the information:
“Yes, they do; but sometimes because of the erratic behavior of weather, they 
sometimes miss seasons.” CAO - Kasese District.
“Some of them take it to be useful, but others sometimes do not because of 
increasing climate change issues which sometimes contradict the forecasts. 
DAO - Bunyangabo District.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
38
Awareness about effects of climate change on vanilla production
Findings from interviews from the political and technical leaders in the 
surveyed districts indicated that there were a number of vanilla production 
related problems attributed to climate change effects; these largely focus on 
negative effects on production and productivity, increase in diseases and 
pests, and poor quality of vanilla. (See a summary extract of the mentioned 
effects in Box 1 below). 
Some of the voices of the leaders in the vanilla producing districts expressed 
well the observed / perceived climate change effects on vanilla production:
“High prevalence rates of pests and diseases due to unpredictable weather and 
drying of some vanilla plants” DAO - Rubirizi District.
“Climate change, especially long droughts affect the quality of the crop. Yes, it 
affects all produce and could be responsible for the fungal disease that is lately 
affecting vanilla in some areas” CAO - Kasese District.
“It has led to the invasion of some pests. I think that pests are caused by the 
heavy rains we are getting between June-October. These pests attack the 
flowers. There is also flooding of the lowlands and landslides on the slopes 
which sweep away the gardens” Private Extension Worker - Bundibugyo 
District.
Behaviors 4-5: Land use planning and evaluation of results to learn and 
adapt
Once farmers have made strategic decisions on the crops to introduce in their 
vanilla fields and their cropping practices, the need to plan for the use of their 
land, optimizing the available space and securing access to water. They also 
need to source the needed inputs, especially quality seeds or seedlings of the 
selected crops or trees, and assign the needed resources to plant the selected 
crops and implement selected practices. Findings presented in Figure 5 relate 
to the behavior of land use based on crops and practices selected (behavioral 
evidence 11-15 in yellow) show that 49% of farmers planned their land use 
based on the selected crops, optimizing the available space, followed by 29% 
who also consider access to water when planning the use of their land. On the 
other hand, less farmers are sourcing quality seeds or seedlings to plant the 
selected crops or trees (14%); assigning resources to establish them (10%);
and implementing selected practices (12%). As a result, 70% are in the “basic” 
level and 18% are in the “developing” level, with only 12% who are at a 
“functional” or “advanced” level (see Figure 4 above).
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
39
More than half of the farmers considered optimization of space in the Central 
region (51%) compared to less than half of farmers in the Western region 
(48.2%). About 51% of the female and 48.3% of male farmers considered 
optimizing space. A smaller (48.2%) proportion of farmers in areas of high level 
of production considered optimization of space compared to 51.7% farmers in 
areas of medium level of production. Similarly, more males than females 
considered access to water (29.2% v. 27.9%) and the quality of soil (18.3% v 
14.8%) in planning for land usage in vanilla fields. Access to water was 
considered by 37.9% and 27.6% of the farmers in areas of medium and high 
levels of production, respectively.
The survey results showed that 15.1% of vanilla farmers were guided by soil 
quality in selecting cropping practices, overall. Findings also show that 12.5% 
of the farmers assigned resources including land, labor and agro-inputs to 
implement the selected practices. There was a significant difference between 
the proportion of male (13.5%) and female (6.6%) farmers; and farmers in 
areas of high (11.1%) and medium (20.7%) levels of production who assigned 
resources to implement selected practices. Overall, about 28.5% of the farmers 
reported that they did not consider the quality of soil in planning land use or 
selecting cropping practices; did not consider access to water or optimizing 
space in planning land use; and did not assign any resources in implementing 
the selected practices.
The fifth behavior for this competency is that farmers evaluate their ability to 
learn and adapt which involves keeping records, assessing relevant outcomes 
such as production, sales and net income, and making decisions for their next
Figure 6:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of two key behaviors for the land restoration and climate-risk 
management planning competency related to land use planning and 
evaluation of results to learn and adapt, baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
40
harvest season based on these outcomes. In addition, they need to assess the 
positive and negative impact of their practices in the environment and take 
action to mitigate negative impacts. Findings presented in Figure 6 related to 
the behavior evaluates results to learn and adapt practices (behavioral 
evidence 16-22 in light blue) show that less than a quarter of farmers are 
keeping records of the volume of crops harvested (23%) and of their expenses 
(22%); and less are using these records to assess their production and sales 
(15%); net income (12%), and their impacts (negative and positive) on the 
environment. Furthermore, very few farmers are making decisions and acting 
based on their findings. As a result, 83% of farmers are at a “basic” level for 
this competency, 14% at a “developing” level, and only 5% have reached a 
“functional” or “advanced’ level (see Figure 5 above).
4.1.2 NRM Competency 2: Conservation and regenerative agriculture
The percentage of farmers who have achieved the different levels of the three 
behaviors for the conservation and regenerative agriculture competency, and 
of the overall competency are presented in Figure 7. The results show that two 
thirds of vanilla farmers have a “basic” level of this competency, and additional 
24% a “developing” level of the competency, and only 11% have achieved a 
functional or advanced level of the competency. When this is disaggregated by 
behavior, it can be observed that more farmers demonstrate the behavior of 
minimizing soil erosion and disturbance, and significantly less on the other 
two behaviors. 
Behavior 1: Minimizes soil erosion and disturbance
Figure7: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the conservation and 
regenerative agriculture competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, 
N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
41
The first behavior of the conservation and regenerative agriculture competency 
refers to using land preparation, weeding and planting methods that minimize 
soil erosion and disturbance. Findings related to the behavioral evidence for 
this behavior (1-3) show that overall, 59% of vanilla farmers are using weeding 
options that minimize soil disturbance, 47% land preparation methods that 
minimize soil disturbance, and 31% direct planting and seeding techniques 
(Figure 8). However, there are still 21% who are not showing any of the 
behavioral evidence to demonstrate this behavior.
Figure 9 shows that across the regions, for female and male farmers and in 
both levels of production, using weeding options that minimize soil 
disturbance was the most common practice. Land preparation methods that 
minimize soil disturbance were more commonly used in Central than in 
Western. Female farmers used direct planting and seeding techniques more 
than male farmers. 
Figure 8: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of the behavior minimizes soil erosion and disturbance of the 
conservation and regenerative competency, baseline (2021, N=413)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Overall Western Central Female Male High Medium
Percentage
Regions, Gender, Level of production
Soil preparation for planting new crops and weed management
Used land preparation methods that minimize soil disturbance
Used weeding options that minimize soil disturbance
Used direct planting and seeding techniques
None of the above
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
42
Behavior 2: Maintains permanent soil coverage
The second behavior of the conservation and regenerative agriculture 
competency refers to maintaining permanent soil coverage by avoiding 
burning crop residues, keeping the soil permanently covered with mulch, crop 
residues, live plants or other materials, and/or planting and managing cover 
crops. Findings related to the behavioral evidence for this competence (4-11) 
show that keeping the soil permanently covered with mulch, crop residue, live 
plants, or other materials is practiced by most vanilla farmers (77%), followed 
by 32% avoiding burning crop residue, pruning residues or leaf litter (Figure 
10). On the other hand, establishing and maintaining cover crops is practiced 
by less than 20% of vanilla farmers. In addition, 14% of the farmers did not 
demonstrate any evidence for the behavior. 
Figure 10: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior maintains permanent soil coverage of the 
conservation and regenerative competency at baseline (2021, N=413)
While twice as many males (52%) as females (26%) avoided burning crop 
residue, pruning residues or leaf litter; more females (33% and 10%) than 
males (26% and 6%) selected cover crops and/or green manures based on the 
production system; and saved seed from their cover crops or green manure to 
plant in the next season, respectively, as shown in Table 4. 
Figure 9: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of the behavior minimizes soil erosion and disturbance of the 
conservation and regenerative competency, disaggregated by region, sex and 
production level, baseline (2021, N=413
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
43
Table 4: Soil protection practices
Soil protection 
practices
Overall
N = 
413
Region Gender Level of 
production
Western Central Female Male High Medium
Avoided burning crop 
residue, pruning 
residues or leaf litter
32.1 32.9 28.9 26.2 52.0 33.7 22.4
Kept the soil 
permanently covered 
with mulch, crop 
residue, live plants, or 
other materials
77.2 74.3 89.2 70.5 78.4 76.9 79.3
Selected cover crops 
and/or green manures 
based on the 
production system
27.3 26.4 31.3 32.8 26.4 26.7 31.0
Selected cover crops 
and/or green manures 
based on the agro 
ecological zone
11.5 9.0 21.7 11.5 11.5 11.1 13.8
Established selected 
cover crops or green 
manures
16.1 14.7 21.7 14.8 16.3 16.2 15.5
Managed cover crops or 
green manure
17.5 16.8 20.5 14.8 18.0 17.8 15.5
Saved seed from their 
cover crops or green 
manure to plant in the 
next season
6.7 4.2 16.9 9.8 6.2 6.1 10.3
Used saved cover crops 
or green manure seed 
for new plantings
5.8 4.2 12.1 9.8 5.1 5.0 10.3
None of the above 13.7 16.8 1.2 21.3 12.4 13.7 13.8
Behavior 3: Manages diversified production systems
The third behavior of the conservation and regenerative agriculture competency 
refers to managing diversified production systems by establishing crop 
rotation systems, implementing intercropping practices, integrating and 
managing permanent crops and trees, and/or managing natural regeneration 
(Figure 11). Findings related to the behavioral evidence for this behavior (12-
17) show that the behavioral evidence that is demonstrated by more farmers 
relate to the integration of permanent crops and trees (41%), followed by the 
implementation of intercropping practices using species with complementary 
growth habits (35 and 36%, respectively). Fewer vanilla farmers are 
establishing crop rotation systems (26%); and fewer are managing dispersed 
trees (10%) and natural regeneration (12%). In addition, 18% are not 
demonstrating any of the behavioral evidence for this behavior.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
44
Figure 11: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior maintains permanent soil coverage of the 
conservation and regenerative competency at baseline (2021, N=413)
Female farmers commonly practiced establishing a crop rotation system on 
their land, implementing intercropping practices on their plots of land, 
integrating permanent crops and trees on their land and managing dispersed 
trees on their land more than the male counterparts (Table 5). Selecting 
species with complementary growth habits for intercropping; implementing 
intercropping practices on their plots of land; integrating permanent crops and 
trees in their land, and managing dispersed trees on their land were more 
common in areas of medium level of production than in the high production 
areas.
Table 5: Practices in combining diverse crops and/or trees
Practices applied to 
combine diverse crops 
and/or trees
Overall
N = 
745
Region Gender Level of 
production
Western Central F M High Medi
um
Established a crop rotation 
system on their land 26 23 39 31 25 25 35
A. Selected species 
with complementary 
growth habits for 
intercropping
36 36 35 36 36 36 36
B. Implemented 
intercropping practices on 
their plots of land
35 33 43 36 35 34 45
C. Integrated 
permanent crops and trees 
in their land
41 40 47 49 40 40 47
D. Managed dispersed 
trees on their land 13 11 21 18 12 12 17
E. Managed natural 
regeneration 10 8 15 5 10 10 5
F. None of the above 19 22 4 21 18 20 10
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
45
4.1.3 NRM Competency 3: Integrated soil fertility management
The percentage of farmers who have achieved the different levels of the three 
behaviors for the integrated soil fertility management competency, and of the 
overall competency are presented in Figure 12. The results show that 91% of 
vanilla farmers have a “basic” level of this competency, and additional 6% a 
“developing” level of the competency, and only 3% have achieved a functional 
or advanced level of the competency. When this is disaggregated by behavior, 
it can be observed that more farmers demonstrate the behavior of assessing 
soil nutrition limitations based on crop needs, and significantly less the other 
two behaviors.
Figure 12:Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the integrated soil fertility 
management competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413)
Behavior 1 and 2: Evaluates soil condition and nutrients to assess soil 
nutrition limitations based on crop needs
In order to identify the nutrient/fertilizer needs of vanilla and other crops in 
the vanilla fields, farmers used different methods. Figure 12 shows that 
overall, 31% identified soil nutrition limitations based on crop nutrition needs; 
15% evaluated the condition of their soil condition using the visual soil 
assessment (VSA) method; 9% interpreted the results of the visual soil 
assessment and/or the soil analysis; 8% made crop nutrition decisions based 
on interpretation of soil analysis and/or VSA results; and 7% conducted soil 
sampling following the protocol established by the field or extension agent. 
However, 53% of the farmers did not use any of these methods.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
46
Figure 13:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior “Evaluates soil condition and nutrients to 
assess soil nutrition limitations based on crop needs” competency at baseline 
(2021, N=413)
Table 6 further shows that all the methods, except interpreting the results of 
the visual soil assessment and/or the soil analysis, were practiced by more 
farmers in Western than in Central region. More female farmers (16%, 8%, 
12%) reported that they evaluated their soil condition using the visual soil 
assessment (VSA) method; conducted soil sampling following the protocol 
established by the field or extension agent and interpreted the results of the 
visual soil assessment and/or the soil analysis more than male farmers (15%, 
7%, 10%), respectively. Identifying soil nutrition limitations based on crop 
nutrition needs, making crop nutrition decisions based on interpretation of 
soil analysis and/or VSA results, and conducting soil sampling following the 
protocol established by the field or extension agent, were practiced more in 
the medium production areas than in the high production areas.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
47
Table 6: Methods of identifying nutrient/fertilizer needs of vanilla and other 
crops
Methods Region Gender Level of 
production
Western 
(n = 
334)
Central
(n = 83)
Female
(n = 61)
Male
(n = 
356)
High
(n = 359)
Medium 
(n = 58)
1. Evaluated the 
condition of their 
soil condition 
using the visual 
soil assessment 
(VSA) method
13.8 21.7 16.4 15.2 15.6 13.8
2. Conducted soil 
sampling following 
the protocol 
established by the 
field or extension 
agent
7.2 8.4 8.2 7.3 7.0 10.3
3. Interpreted the 
results of the 
visual soil 
assessment and/or 
the soil analysis
10.2 8.4 11.5 9.6 10.0 8.6
4. Identified soil 
nutrition 
limitations based 
on crop nutrition 
needs
28.4 39.8 23.0 32.0 29.5 37.9
5. Made crop 
nutrition decisions 
based on 
interpretation of 
soil analysis 
and/or VSA results
5.7 19.3 6.6 8.7 7.5 13.8
6. None of the 
above
57.0 32.5 60.7 52.5 55.4 43.1
The results in Table 6 show that 37.9%, 13.8% and 10.3% were in areas of 
medium production level as compared to 30%, 16% and 7% respectively, in 
areas of high level of production.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
48
Behavior 3: Addresses crop nutrition needs by applying the right 
products, at the right dose, at the right place and time
Several measures were used to meet the nutrient/fertilizer needs of both 
vanilla and other crops, based on the identified crop needs. These ranged from
applying specific inputs to using specific practices. Figure 14 shows the 
measures used to meet the nutrient/fertilizer needs. Most farmers (56%) 
applied organic fertilizers; inorganic fertilizers were used by only 4% while a 
combination of both was used by 4% of the vanilla farmers. Practices such as 
application of the right dose of selected products, application of selected 
products in the right place according to the crop, the nutrients applied and 
plot slope; and application of selected products at the right time, were 
observed by 9%, 14% and 15% of the farmers, respectively.
Figure 14:Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior “Evaluates soil condition and nutrients to 
assess soil nutrition limitations based on crop needs” competency, baseline 
(2021, N=413)
Table 7 shows that all identified practices are applied by a higher proportion 
of farmers in the Central region than in the Western region. Use of organic 
fertilizers was more popular than inorganic fertilizers across regions, gender 
and production levels. Application of both organic and inorganic fertilizers was 
more commonly done by males (57% and 4%) than females (49% and 2%). 
Selection and application of selected products to correct soil acidity was the 
least used measure.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
49
Table 7: Measures to meet the nutrient/fertilizer needs of vanilla and other 
crops
Measures to meet 
the 
nutrient/fertilizer 
needs
Region Gender Production level
Western 
(n = 
334)
Central
(n = 83)
Female
(n = 61)
Male
(n = 
356)
High
(n = 
359)
Medium 
(n = 58)
6. Applied organic 
fertilizers
50.0 79.5 49.2 57.2 53.2 72.4
7. Applied inorganic 
fertilizers
1.2 14.4 1.6 4.2 3.1 8.6
8. Combined organic 
and inorganic 
fertilizers
2.7 10.8 1.6 4.8 3.3 10.3
9. Applied the right 
dose of the selected 
products
7.5 16.9 13.1 8.7 7.8 19.0
10. Applied selected 
products in the right 
place according to 
the crop, the 
nutrients applied 
and plot slope
10.8 24.1 8.2 14.3 12.5 19.0
11. Applied selected 
products at the right 
time
12.0 26.5 16.4 14.6 14.2 19.0
12. Selected and 
applied selected 
products to correct 
soil acidity
0.9 4.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
None of the above 44.0 10.8 49.2 35.4 39.6 24.1
A. Usage of inorganic fertilizers in vanilla fields
More farmers used inorganic fertilizers in the Central region (9.6%) than in 
the Western region (1%). Male vanilla farmers (3%) used inorganic fertilizers 
more than their female (2%) counterparts. In the high production areas, 3% of 
the farmers used inorganic fertilizers compared to 4% in the medium
production areas (Fig 15).
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
50
Figure 15: Usage of inorganic fertilizers
B. Expenditure on inorganic fertilizers and transport costs
The cost of inorganic fertilizers was on average USD 6.8 with a standard 
deviation of USD 12 (Fig 16). The average cost was more than double in the 
Central region (USD 8.2) than in Western region (USD 3.1), similar to the cost 
of transporting the fertilizer.
Figure 16: Usage of inorganic fertilizers by region, gender and level of 
production
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
51
Male vanilla farmers spent more than the female farmers (USD 4.1), while 
areas of medium production level spent USD 18.4, which was four times as 
much as was spent in areas of high production (USD 
4.2). The transport cost was reported to be higher in high production areas 
compared to medium production areas. The standard deviation of the cost of 
inorganic fertilizers was USD 12, and that of transporting fertilizers was USD 
6, overall.
C. Workdays of family and hired labor used to apply inorganic 
fertilizers in vanilla fields
Vanilla farmers used more family labor than hired labor to apply inorganic 
fertilizers as shown in Fig 17. The mean number of days of family labor used, 
overall, was 8 compared to 0.2 days of hired labor. In the Western region, the 
farmers did not hire any labor to apply inorganic fertilizers. In the Central 
region, the farmers used 10.3 days of family labor on average to apply 
inorganic fertilizers. Male vanilla farmers (8.6) used more family labor days 
than the female farmers (2.0). The latter did not use any hired labor. 
The results further show that the high production areas used eight times the 
family labor of what the medium production areas used, yet they did not hire 
any labor to apply inorganic fertilizers. The standard deviation of the workdays 
of family labor was higher in the Central region, for male farmers and in high 
production areas.
Overall West Central Female Male High Med
Mean - cost of inorganic fertilisers 6.8 3.1 8.2 4.1 7.0 4.2 18.4
Mean - cost of transport 2.5 0.8 3.1 - 2.8 2.8 1.4
 -
 2.0
 4.0
 6.0
 8.0
 10.0
 12.0
 14.0
 16.0
 18.0
 20.0
USD
Region, Gender, Production level
Cost of inorganic fertilizers and transport (USD)
Figure 17: Average cost of inorganic fertilizers and transport 
(USD)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
52
D. Expenditure on hired labor (USD.)
The overall daily rate of hired labor was USD 0.2, similar to that in the Central 
region and for male vanilla farmers. The medium production areas incurred 
USD 1.0 daily on average as shown in Fig 19.
E. Organic manure/Compost application
The survey results showed that 63% of the 413 farmers applied organic 
manure/compost to their vanilla fields. It cost USD 10 on average with a 
standard deviation of USD 48.6.
4.1.4 NRM Competency 4: Efficient water resources management
The percentage of farmers who have achieved the different levels of the three 
behaviors for the efficient water resources management competency, and of 
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Overall West Central Female Male High Med
USD
Daily expenditure on hired labor (USD)
8.0
2.0
10.3
2.0
8.6
9.6
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Overall
Western
Central
Female
Male
High
Medium
Workdays
Labor for applying fertilisers
Hired labour Family labour
Figure 18:Workdays of family and hired labor used to apply inorganic 
fertilizers
Figure 19: Daily expenditure on hired labor used to apply 
inorganic fertilizers (USD)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
53
the overall competency are presented in Figure 20. The results show that 85% 
of vanilla farmers have a “basic” level of this competency, and additional 7% a 
“developing” level of the competency, and only 8% have achieved a functional 
or advanced level of the competency. When this is disaggregated by behavior, 
it can be observed that more farmers demonstrate the behavior of building 
and maintaining water reservoirs for irrigation, and significantly less the other 
two behaviors.
Behavior 1: Captures rainwater in the soil where it falls
Fig 21 shows that the majority (75%) of farmers kept the soil permanently 
covered with mulch, crop residues, living plants or other materials to keep 
moisture in the soil. About 30% of the farmers captured rainwater in the soil 
where it fell in structures such as zai holes/pits, half-moons/demi-lunes, box 
ridges while 20% broke hardened layers of soil to improve soil structure to 
increase water infiltration. Some farmers (17%) did not practice any of these 
measures.
Mulching the soil was practiced by almost all the farmers (95%) in the Central 
region as compared to 70% in the Western region. Very few females and males 
(about 20%) broke hardened soil layers to improve water infiltration.
Figure 20: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the efficient water 
resources management competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, 
N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
54
A. Practices to improve water infiltration and slowing down water 
The survey results showed that more farmers implemented practices that 
ensured slowing down water off the slope (47%) than for improving water 
infiltration (41%). Fig 22 shows that more farmers implemented both practices 
in the Central than in the Western region. Female farmers practiced the former 
(48%) more than the later (38%). Forty-five percent (45%) and forty (40%) 
percent of the farmers improved infiltration of water; while 53% and 47% 
ensured water was slowed down on the slopes in medium and high production 
areas, respectively. 
Figure 22:Water infiltration and slowing water down
Figure 21: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of the behavior captures rainwater in the soil where it falls competency 
at baseline (2021, N=413)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Overall WesternCentral Female Male High Medium
47 45
57
48 47 47
53
Percentage
Efficient water resources management practices 
Improve water infiltration Ensure water moves slowly
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
55
Behavior 2: Ensures water moves slowly off slopes 
Several practices were implemented to ensure that water moves slowly off the 
slopes in vanilla fields. Figure 23 shows the practices, which were 
implemented. The most common practice was building contour trenches along 
the slope (with or without infiltration pits) practiced by 40% of the farmers. 
This was followed by protecting contour trenches with vegetative cover, live 
barriers, or other materials (23%); planting vegetative cover or live barriers 
along the contour (18%); diverting runoff water to farmland and gardens 
during the rainy season (15%); planting crops in rows that are perpendicular 
to the slope (13%); and covering steep hillsides with trees or plants with strong 
roots (13%), in that order.
Building contours and protecting them was practiced more by females (42.6% 
and 23%) than by males (4.7% and 22.8%). For all the practices, there were 
more farmers implementing them in medium production areas than in the 
high production areas (Table 8).
Figure 23: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior ensures water moves slowly off slopes 
competency at baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
56
Table 8: Practices to ensure water moves slowly off slopes
Practices to slow down 
water
Region Gender Level of 
production
Western Central Female Male High Medium
Built contour trenches 
along the slope (with or 
without infiltration pits)
37.7 54.2 42.6 40.7 40.7 43.1
Planted vegetative cover or 
live barriers along the 
contour
16.5 22.9 16.4 18.0 17.8 17.2
Protected contour 
trenches with vegetative 
cover, live barriers, or 
other materials
18.3 41.0 23.0 22.8 21.5 31.0
Covered steep hillsides 
with trees or plants with 
strong roots
10.8 21.7 11.5 13.2 12.3 17.2
Planted crops in rows that 
are perpendicular to the 
slope
12.9 18.1 11.5 14.3 13.1 19.0
Diverted runoff water to 
farmland and gardens 
during the rainy season
12.9 21.7 14.8 14.6 13.9 19.0
None of the above 47.0 31.1 43.3 43.7 44.9 36.2
B. Expenditure on practices to improve water infiltration and slowing 
down water 
Implementation of practices for water infiltration and slowing down water off 
the slopes were mainly carried out by the family. Overall, the mean workdays 
for families were 12.5 and 11.2 days for the two practices, respectively,
compared to 4.8 and 4.3 days of hired labor (Table 9). 
For both practices, male vanilla farmers used more family labor than the 
female counterparts. More family labor was used by the farmers in high
production areas than those in medium production areas for both practices. 
The daily expenditure on hired labor was not significantly different, ranging 
from USD 0.7 and USD 1.1.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
57
Table 9: Workdays and expenditure on improving water infiltration and 
slowing down water
Practice Overall
N = 
356 
Region Gender Level of 
production
Western Central Female Male High Medium
Work days - Water infiltration practices
Mean - family 
labor infiltration 
(n = 171)
12.5 12.9 11.5 7.6 13.3 13.0 10.1
Mean - hired 
labor infiltration 
(n = 171)
4.8 4.5 5.9 5.6 4.7 4.2 8.3
Work days - Practices to slow down water
Mean - family 
labor (n = 198)
11.2 11.2 11.1 7.8 11.8 11.6 9.0
Mean - hired 
labor (n = 198)
4.3 3.8 5.9 4.1 4.4 3.5 8.8
Daily expenditure 
Mean cost -
Water 
infiltration 
practices (USD.)
0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.1
Mean cost -
Practices to slow 
down water 
(USD.)
0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.1
Behavior 3: Builds and maintains water reservoirs, and selects irrigation 
methods based on their efficiency and accessibility
Farmers used several practices to capture and store water. They also used the 
water for multiple purposes. The practices included building water reservoirs 
to capture and store excess runoff; protecting water reservoirs to reduce 
runoff; protecting water reservoirs to prevent contamination; and maintaining 
water reservoirs. Farmers also took measures to prevent mosquitoes from 
multiplying in water reservoirs; made joint decisions with their 
spouse/partner on the use of stored water; and selected irrigation methods 
based on their efficiency and accessibility. All these practices were adopted by 
less than 15% of the farmers, overall, as shown in Figure 24. The majority 
(71%) of the farmers did not practice any of them.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
58
Building water reservoirs (25.3%) was the most common practice in Central 
while protecting water reservoirs (10.2%) was common in the Western region 
(Table 10). Farmers in both high and medium production areas mostly built 
water reservoirs for capturing and storing water.
Table 10: Practices used in capturing and storing water for multiple purposes
Practices Overal
l
N = 
417
Region Gender Production 
level
Wester
n
Centra
l
Femal
e
Mal
e
Hig
h
Mediu
m
1. Built water 
reservoirs to 
capture and store 
excess runoff
12.2 9.0 25.3 11.5 12.4 11.4 17.2
2. Protected 
water reservoirs to 
reduce runoff
9.8 10.2 8.4 14.8 9.0 9.8 10.3
3. Protected 
water reservoirs to 
prevent 
contamination
7.9 8.1 7.2 13.1 7.0 7.8 8.6
4. Maintained 
water reservoirs 10.8 9.3 16.9 13.1 10.4 10.9 10.3
5. Took 
measures to 
prevent 
mosquitoes from 
multiplying in 
water reservoirs
4.8 5.1 3.6 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.2
Figure 24: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that provide 
evidence of the behavior Builds and maintains water reservoirs, and selects 
irrigation methods based on their efficiency and accessibility competency at 
baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
59
Practices Overal
l
N = 
417
Region Gender Production 
level
Wester
n
Centra
l
Femal
e
Mal
e
Hig
h
Mediu
m
6. Make joint 
decisions with 
theirspouse/partn
er on the use of 
stored water
6.7 5.7 10.8 8.2 6.5 6.7 6.9
7. Selected 
irrigation methods 
based on their 
efficiency and 
accessibility
3.6 3.3 4.8 6.6 3.1 2.5 10.3
8. None of the 
above 71.0 75.5 53.0 70.5 71.1 72.1 63.8
C. Irrigation of vanilla fields
Table 11 shows that 84% of the vanilla farmers did not practice any kind of 
irrigation on their vanilla fields. More farmers in the Central region (27%) 
irrigated than in the Western region (13%). Female (19%) farmers irrigated 
more than the male (15%) farmers; and medium (38%) production areas 
irrigated more than the high (12%) production areas.
Table 11: Irrigation practices and expenditure
Overall
N = 417
Region Gender Production level
Western
n = 335
Central
n = 83
Female
n = 61 
Male
n = 356
High
n 
=359
Medium
n = 58
Irrigated (% 
farmers) 
15.8 13.2 26.5 19.7 15.2 12.3 37.9
% of vanilla 
field 
irrigated
(N=587.7 
acres)
17.6 5.9 11.7 2.7 14.9 8.5 9.1
Expenditure 
on irrigation 
(USD.)
20.1 9.9 33.1 13.1 21.9 18.4 22.8
In terms of acreage, 17.6% of the land under vanilla was irrigated. The Central 
region had the highest percentage of the vanilla field under irrigation (11.7%) 
compared to 5.9% in Western region. Although more female farmers reported 
to be irrigating their vanilla fields more than the male farmers, the proportion 
of their vanilla field irrigated (2.7%) was lower than that of male farmers 
(14.9%). This could be attributed to the small size of vanilla fields owned by 
women compared to men.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
60
4.1.5 NRM Competency 5: Continuous learning and innovation
The percentage of farmers who have achieved the different levels of the three 
behaviors for the continuous learning and innovation competency, and of the 
overall competency are presented in Figure 25. The results show that 90% of 
vanilla farmers have a “basic” level of this competency, and additional 5% a 
“developing” level of the competency, and only 5% have achieved a functional 
or advanced level of the competency. When this is disaggregated by behavior, 
it can be observed that more farmers demonstrate the behavior of 
implementing and sharing solutions that work, and significantly less the other 
two behaviors. 
Figure 25: Percentage of vanilla farmers by level of the continuous learning 
and innovation competency and by behavior at baseline (2021, N=413)
Fig 26 shows that 79% of the vanilla farmers faced problems in relation to 
vanilla production activities and/or the management of the vanilla fields; 41% 
identified new opportunities in relation to vanilla production activities and/or 
the management of vanilla fields; and 42% tried out new things to address 
identified problems or opportunities. In all groups of respondents, the 
proportion of farmers who identified new opportunities was about half of that 
which had faced problems.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
61
Behavior 1: Identifies, analyzes and prioritizes problems or opportunities
Several actions were taken to address problems faced and to exploit the 
opportunities identified by the farmers. Figure 27 shows different actions. 
About 30% of the farmers identified problems and opportunities for innovation 
while 21% analyzed them and 14% prioritized problems and/or opportunities 
for innovation.
Figure 26:Problems and opportunities identification
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Overall WesternCentral Female Male High Medium
Percentage
Problems and new opportunities identified
Faced problems Identified new opportunities Tried new things
Figure 27: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior “Identifies, analyzes and prioritizes problems 
or opportunities” competency at baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
62
Behavior 2: Identifies and tests solutions to address problems or 
opportunities
Twenty eight percent (28%) of the farmers accessed information, including
local knowledge, to identify solutions or innovations; 10% established trials to
compare identified solutions with traditional practices; and 12% selected the 
most appropriate solutions that address identified problems or opportunities. 
The majority (64%) did not display any of these behaviors (Fig 28)
Behavior 3: Implements those solutions that work, and shares them 
within and beyond the community
To implement solutions that work and sharing them within and beyond the 
community, 18% of the farmers shared their results and learning with their 
neighbors and others in their community; while 13% shared their results and 
learning beyond their community. The majority (74%), however, did not share 
solutions that work (Figure 29).
Figure 28: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior Identifies and tests solutions to address 
problems or opportunities competency, baseline (2021, N=413)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
63
Figure 29: Percentage of vanilla farmers who demonstrated actions that 
provide evidence of the behavior “Implements those solutions that work, and 
shares them within and beyond the community” competency at baseline (2021, 
N=413)
Generally, more farmers in the Central region displayed the three behaviors 
as compared to those in the Western region.
Table 12: Actions taken to address identified problems and/or opportunities
Actions taken
Overa
ll
%
Region Gender Level of 
production
Wester
n
Centra
l
Femal
e
Male High Mediu
m
1. Identified 
problems 
and 
opportunitie
s for 
innovation
29.5 28.4 33.7 26.2 30.1 30.4 24.1
2. Analyzed 
problems 
and 
opportunitie
s for 
innovation
20.6 18.3 30.1 24.6 19.9 20.1 24.1
3. Prioritized 
problems 
and/or 
opportunitie
s for 
innovation
13.7 12.6 18.1 11.5 14.0 13.7 13.8
4. Accessed 
information, 
including 
local 
knowledge, 
27.3 24.9 37.4 16.4 29.2 26.2 34.5
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
64
Actions taken
Overa
ll
%
Region Gender Level of 
production
Wester
n
Centra
l
Femal
e
Male High Mediu
m
to identify 
solutions or 
innovations
5. Established 
trials to 
compare 
identified 
solutions 
with 
traditional 
practices
9.6 6.6 21.7 6.6 10.1 8.6 15.5
6. Recorded 
observations 
from 
comparison
s between 
identified 
solutions 
and 
traditional 
practices
6.7 3.6 19.3 3.3 7.3 6.1 10.3
7. Evaluated 
the results 
of these 
comparison
s to make 
decisions
6.5 4.5 14.5 4.9 6.7 6.1 8.6
8. Selected the 
most 
appropriate 
solutions 
that address 
identified 
problems or 
opportunitie
s
11.5 8.7 22.9 14.8 11.0 10.0 20.7
9. Tested the 
selected 
solutions on 
a small area 
of their land
7.2 5.1 15.7 8.2 7.0 6.4 12.1
10. Applied 
tested 
solutions 
6.5 2.4 22.9 8.2 6.2 4.5 19.0
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
65
Actions taken
Overa
ll
%
Region Gender Level of 
production
Wester
n
Centra
l
Femal
e
Male High Mediu
m
that worked 
well to a 
larger area 
of their land
11. Shared 
their results 
and learning 
with their 
neighbors 
and others 
in their 
community
18.2 16.5 25.3 14.8 18.8 17.6 22.4
12. Shared 
their results 
and learning 
beyond their 
community
13.2 10.5 24.1 14.8 12.9 12.5 17.2
4.2 Use of Agricultural Techniques and Technologies (IR 1.2)
4.2.1 Vanilla farmers surveyed
A total of four hundred seventeen (417) vanilla farmers were surveyed, the 
majority (86%) of whom were male. They were distributed in 12 districts as 
shown in Table 1. 
4.2.2 Land tenure and costs 
A. Land ownership 
Of the surveyed vanilla farmers, 98% owned all the land on which they planted 
vanilla. Although the rest did not own all the land, the survey results showed 
that none of the farmers rented land for vanilla farming. The rest of the farmers 
either used family land or accessed it free of charge according to traditional 
land ownership and rights systems as explained by key informants. There 
were no major differences in land ownership between males and females, level 
of production and by region as indicated in Table 13.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
66
Table 13: Land ownership by gender, region and level of production
Ownership of all land under vanilla % of vanilla 
farmers
Overall 97.6
By gender Female 98.2
Male 97.5
By region Western 97.5
Central 97.6
By level of production High 98.8
Medium 97.3
B. Vanilla field characteristics
Vanilla field characteristics are shown in Table 14. The size of the vanilla field 
was reported to be an average 0.47 Ha and a standard deviation of 297,026 
Ha. The number of vanilla vines planted on the field varied from 1 to 40,000 
with an average of 436 vines. While the average number of vines under 
production was 207. The maximum was reported as 25,000 vines. There were 
vanilla fields that were less than a year old while the average was 6 years.
Table 14: Vanilla field characteristics
Characteristic Mean Std. Dev
Vanilla field size (Ha) 0.47 297,026
Vanilla vines in the field (No.) 436 1,878
Vanilla vines under production (No.) 207 1,162
Age of vanilla field (Years) 5.7 23.0
4.2.3 Land preparation
Of the 413 vanilla farmers surveyed, 59% prepared land for planting vanilla 
vines. This section presents findings on the amount of labor used in land 
preparation and the cost of labor hired in land preparations as summarized 
in Table 15 below.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
67
Table 15: Land preparation by gender, region and level of production
Category Disaggregation Land preparation for vanilla planting
Workdays of 
family members
(n = 242)
Workdays of 
hired labor
(n = 242)
Average 
payment to 
hired labor per 
day (USD.)
Mean Std. 
Dev
Mean Std. 
Dev
Mean Std. Dev
Overall (N 
= 413)
34.2 61.8 8.6 24.3 0.83 1.71
Gender Female 30.1 68.5 2.6 5.0 1.06 3.07
Male 34.8 61.0 9.4 25.7 0.79 1.43
Region Western 36.0 68.0 7.3 21.2 0.78 1.73
Central 30.1 43.9 11.6 30.6 0.93 1.67
Level of 
production
High 35.5 63.2 7.2 20.5 0.79 1.72
Medium 27.0 53.4 16.6 38.8 1.05 1.70
A. Labor used in preparing land for planting
Vanilla farmers used both family members and hired labor in preparing land 
for vanilla planting. Table 15 shows that overall, some farmers did not use 
family labor or hired labor while the maximum number of workdays was 360 
and 200 with an average of 34.2 and 8.6, respectively. Across all categories, 
family members were engaged more than hired labor. Female vanilla farmers 
used 300 workdays of family members compared to only 15 workdays of hired 
labor. The same trend was followed for male farmers, across regions and 
across levels of production. 
B. Cost of land preparation for planting 
The cost of preparing land for planting using hired labor varied widely with a 
mean of USD 0.83 and standard deviation of USD 1.71. Female farmers (USD 
1.06) spent more than what the male farmers spent (USD 0.79) per workday. 
At regional level, farmers in Central spent more (USD 0.93) than those in 
Western (USD 0.78). Areas of high level of production spent less (USD 0.79) 
than those in medium level of production as shown in Table 15. 
4.2.4 Vanilla planting 
A. Farmers who planted vines
Table 16 shows that, of the surveyed 413 vanilla farmers, 52% planted new 
vanilla vines during the reporting period. Of these the majority (88.4%) were 
male farmers. In the Western region, 65.1% planted vines and in the area of 
high level or production, 82.3% of the vanilla farmers planted vines during 
that period. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
68
Table 16: Farmers who planted and number of vines planted
Gender Region Level of 
production
No. % F M Western Central High Medium
Number 
(Farmers) 
215 52.0 11.6 88.4 65.1 34.9 82.3 17.7
Number (Vines)-
Mean
194 74 209 112 345 215 93
Std dev (Vines) 1,365 92 1,451 167 2,302 1,503 113
B. Vines planted
Farmers planted a varied number of vanilla vines with a mean of 194. Male 
(209) vanilla farmers planted about thrice the number for females (74). 
Farmers in the Central region planted an average of 345 compared to 112 in 
the Western region (Table 16). Areas of high (215) production had more than 
double the number in medium (93) areas of production.
C. Area planted and cost of labor
The area planted was on average 0.5 Ha and standard deviation of 4.1 Ha. 
Table 17 shows that most farmers used family labor as reflected by the 
number of workdays (365) of family labor compared to 90 workdays of hired 
labor. The average cost of hired labor was reported to be USD 0.39 per 
workday. 
Table 17: Vanilla vines planted, area; type and cost of labor
Variable Values
Mean Std. Dev
Area planted with these vines (Ha) 0.5 4.1
Workdays of family labor used in planting vines (No.) 15.5 43.0
Workdays of hired used in planting the vines (No.) 2.8 11.8
Cost of hired labor (USD per workday) 0.39 1.04
D. Number of vines purchased
The number of vines purchased varied between 50 and 362 with a mean of 
212. The mean number of vines purchased was 50 for females and 237 for 
males. In Western region, the mean number of vines purchased was 113 and 
362 in the Central region (Table 18). The mean number of vines purchased 
was lower in the medium (97) production areas than in high (248) production 
areas. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
69
Table 18: Number of vines purchased, unit price (USD and transport cost (USD)
Category Disaggregation Number of 
vanilla vines 
purchased
Price paid 
per vine 
(USD)
Transport cost 
(USD)
Mean Std. 
Dev
Mean Std. 
Dev
Mean Std. 
Dev
Overall 212 1,028 0.72 0.58 5.43 10.83
By gender Female 50 57 0.49 0.27 2.16 5.20
Male 237 1,106 0.76 0.60 5.95 11.42
By region Western 113 145 0.56 0.51 4.01 6.60
Central 362 1,631 0.97 0.59 7.61 15.08
By level of 
production
High 248 1,181 0.58 0.50 4.89 7.97
Medium 97 106 1.15 0.58 7.08 17.03
NOTE: There was a slight disparity between the mean number of vines planted 
in D above (194) and the mean number of vines purchased (212). This is 
largely because the number of farmers who planted was higher including 
farmers who never bought vines but acquired them from their gardens or free 
from friends; compared to those who purchased vines, hence affecting 
computation of averages. 
E. Source and price of vanilla vine
The majority (98%) of vanilla farmers bought vanilla vines from fellow farmers 
while only 1% accessed them from the processors. The average cost of a vine 
was reported to be USD 0.72. The average price paid by females was USD 0.49
lower than that paid by males (USD 0.76). Table 18 shows that the price per 
vine was USD 0.56 in Western compared to USD 0.97 in Central region. The 
price was lower in areas of high (USD 0.58) level of production than in areas 
of medium (USD 1.15) level of production.
The above findings were closely related with qualitative data collected from the 
district technical and political leaders interviewed. Generally, the leaders 
confirmed that while farmers could access planting materials for vanilla, their 
availability was limited. For example, for farmers within the operational scope 
of RFCU, there were reports attesting to availability, supply reliability and 
quality as summarized by key informant:
On the other hand, leaders in many districts cited limitations for farmers to 
access vanilla planting materials as being: limited in supply due to seasonality 
of materials; regulatory restrictions limiting transportation of planting 
materials; and high prices. 
F. Transport costs
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
70
Table 18 shows the cost incurred in transporting vanilla vines, disaggregated 
by gender, region and level of production. Transporting vanilla vines cost the 
farmers on average USD 5.43, with a standard deviation of USD 10.83. The 
results also, showed that farmers in medium level of production areas 
incurred higher costs (USD 7.08) as compared to the farmers in high level of 
production areas who incurred USD 4.89 on average. Farmers in the Central 
region incurred a higher transport cost (USD 7.61) compared to USD 4.01 
spent by farmers in the Western region. The variations are attributed to 
volumes purchased, means of transport, distances covered and other factors 
such as condition of the roads depending on the climatic season.
4.2.5 Vanilla vines management practices
Evaluation of farmer competencies in vanilla vines management practices 
focused on the following 5 practices namely: 
a) preparation for planting vines;
b) management of vanilla vines and tutors;
c) Vanilla training, pruning, looping, shade tree pruning, weeding, and 
mulching; 
d) Pollination; and
e) Pests and Disease control.
A. Preparation for planting vanilla vines
To prepare for planting vines, farmers carried out different activities and 
implemented varied practices. These included:
a) Selecting a suitable site for planting with fertile soils (21%);
b) Selecting well drained soils that prevent waterlogging (12%);
c) Sourcing tutors/support trees, matching tutor purchases with vine 
purchases (18%); and 
d) Preparing land for the tutors (18%), among others. 
Table 19: Actions taken in preparation for planting the vines
Actions/Practices % of 
farmers
1. Selected a suitable site for planting, with fertile soils 20.9
2. Selected well drained soils that prevent waterlogging 11.6
3. Sourced tutors/support trees, matching tutor purchases with 
vine purchases 
18.0
4. Prepared land for tutor/support tree planting 18.2
5. Planted tutors/support trees 4-5 months before planting the 
vanilla vines to ensure that they reach the needed thickness (5 cm) 
and height (about 6 ft) to allow proper growth of the vine
8.4
6. Sourced quality and disease-free vines of a length over 1 meter
from mother gardens 
9.1
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
71
7. Prepared mulch and organic manure to restore soil and water and 
support the planted vines 
12.1
None of the above 1.5
Some farmers prepared mulch and organic manure to restore soil and water, 
and support the planted vines, yet some (1.5%) did not perform any of the 
identified practices. Table 19 shows the different practices and actions.
A. Management of vanilla vines and tutors/support trees
Mulching vanilla fields with dry grass and other materials dominated the 
practices carried out when managing vanilla vines and tutors/support trees 
as reported by 71% farmers, followed by training vines firmly (64%), and 
conducting hand weeding to ensure minimal soil disturbance (57%). Table 20
shows other practices associated with application of manure, pollination, 
pruning and looping. However, only less than 3% of the farmers did not apply 
for any of these practices.
Table 20: Practices applied to manage vanilla vines and tutors/support trees
 Practices % of 
farmers
1. Mulched the vanilla field with dry grass, crop residues and 
leaf litter towards the end of the rainy season; and pruned vines 
to maintain a maximum of 8 loops, removing old, diseased, 
weak, and damaged vines 
71.2
2. Trained vines firmly on the tutors/support trees, to facilitate 
looping, pollination and harvesting 
63.9
3. Conducted hand weeding ensuring minimal soil disturbance 56.7
4. Pruned the tutors/support trees to regulate the amount of 
shade and sun 
37.2
5. Looped vines at two feet from the tutor during the rainy 
season 
31.7
6. Covered looping area with a combination of soil and mulch 31.0
7. Produced organic manure using kitchen refuse/waste, crop 
residues and animal droppings 
26.2
8. Applied organic manure/compost to the soil around the vine 
and intercrops during the rainy season 
23.7
9. Pollinated 10-12 flowers per cluster 20.1
10. Limited the number of vanilla clusters to 10-20 per vine 
depending on soil and water conditions 
11.4
11. Limited the number of beans per cluster to 8-12 for avoiding 
excessive bearing and stressing of the plant and increasein 
bean size 
9.0
12. Used vermiculture (growing of earthworms) to produce high 
quality compost 
2.2
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
72
 Practices % of 
farmers
13. None of the above 2.2
C. Vanilla trimming, pruning, looping, shade tree pruning, weeding, and 
mulching
Of the 413 farmers, 89% trained, looped, pruned vanilla and shade trees, 
weeded and mulched their vanilla fields. Table 21 shows that they used an 
average of 25.3 workdays of family labor and 5.1 workdays of hired labor for 
which the cost was USD 0.53 per workday. Pollination of vanilla flowers was 
done by 86.4% of the farmers using 54.9 workdays of family labor and 14.3 
workdays of hired labor, which cost them USD 2.48.
D. Vanilla pollination
Table 21 shows that most commonly (72%), more respondents reported that 
adult men above 30 years of age are the ones who pollinate vanilla. This 
dominance of men in undertaking pollination is a reflection of gender 
imbalances in the ownership and access to land, hence fewer women owning 
vanilla gardens (see a detailed presentation of gender equality and inequality 
issues in 4.1.4) In all categories, more males pollinated than their female 
counterparts. While more male children (10%) than female children (4%) 
pollinated.
Table 21: Vanilla management agronomic practices
Agronomic practice % of farmers (n = 413) Pay for hired 
labor per 
workday (USD)
Yes Family 
workdays
Hired 
workdays
a) Farmers who trim, prune, or 
loop your vines, prune your 
shade trees, mulch or weed 
Vanilla fields.
89.4 25.3 5.1 0.53
b) Farmers that pollinate 
vanilla flowers.
86.4 54.9 14.3 2.48
c) Household member that 
usually pollinates:
d) Adult men (30+ years) 72.4
e) Adult women (30+ years) 23.1
f) Young male adults (18-29) 23.7
g) Young female adults (18-29) 6.5
h) Male children 9.6
i) Female children 3.7
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
73
E. Pests and disease control
Pests and disease control was done by 59% of the farmers who used a number 
of practices. Table 22 shows that use of cultural practices to control pests and 
diseases was most common, reported by 40% of the farmers. Monitoring the 
fields to identify the presence of diseases, scouting the fields and ensuring 
timely weeding were the most common practices. The results show that these 
were practiced by 39%, 28% and 26%, respectively. Thirty-one percent (31%) 
of the farmers did not use any of the practices.
Table 22: Pests and disease control practices
Practices % of farmers
n = 245
1. Used cultural practices (hand picking, destroying 
pests where possible) 
40.0
2. Monitored the vanilla fields to identify the presence of 
diseases 
39.2
3. Scouted the vanilla fields for pests such as slugs, 
snails, and caterpillars 
27.6
4. Ensured timely weeding as part of the pest and 
disease control method 
25.7
5. Ensured timely pruning of vines, tutors/support 
trees, and shade trees as part of the pest and diseases 
control methods 
21.3
6. Prevented vanilla diseases by using clean and good 
quality vines 
17.9
7. Prevented vanilla diseases by avoiding waterlogging 9.4
8. Used botanical pesticides whenever possible 8.0
9. Applied pesticides only if pest and disease thresholds 
have been reached 
4.6
10. None of the above 31.0
4.2.6 Vanilla harvesting 
The harvesting period for the main harvest was April 2021 to September 2021. 
During the harvest, the majority (59%) of farmers harvested their vanilla in 
July 2021; 32% in June and the minority (3.7%) in May 2021. In the fly 
harvest, 42% of the farmers harvested their vanilla in December 2020; 30% in 
January 2021 and 17.9% in September 2020 (Table 23). Both harvests lasted
six calendar months with the fourth month being the busiest.
Table 23: Harvesting period during for main and fly harvests
Main (n = 349) Fly (n = 333)
Period % of farmers Period % of farmers
April 2021 5.0 September 2020 17.9
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
74
Main (n = 349) Fly (n = 333)
Period % of farmers Period % of farmers
May 2021 3.7 October 2020 10.2
June 2021 32.3 November 2020 10.6
July 2021 58.7 December 2020 42.0
August 2021 8.0 January 2021 30.3
September 2021 8.7 February 2021 10.6
4.2.7 Green vanilla yield
Indicator 1. Yield of Targeted Agricultural Commodities among Program 
Participants with USDA Assistance (Baseline Value = 0.221kg/Vine)
The number of vines under production was reported to be 99,576 and it was 
assumed to be uniform for both seasons. The total volume of vanilla harvested 
was 22,060 kg, with 15,273 kg in the main harvest and 6,787 kg in the fly 
season as shown in Table 24. The survey results showed that some vanilla 
was lost in the garden due to thefts. This was estimated to be 4,313 kg with 
2,741 kg and 1,573 kg in the main and fly harvests, respectively.
Table 24: Vanilla harvested and loss to thefts by harvest period
Harvest seasons Total Main Fly
Vines under production 99,576 99,576 99,576
Vanilla harvested (kg) 15,273 6,787 22,060
Vanilla lost due to thefts (kg)-
estimated
2,741 1,573 4,313
Sum of harvested and lost (kg) 18,014 8,360 26,374
Yield - less lost (gm/vine) 153.4 68.2 221.5
Yield - including lost (gm/vine) 169.2 95.7 264.9
% Vanilla lost (Estimated) 18% 23% 20%
The yield of green vanilla was 221.5 gm/vine, however, when vanilla lost due 
to thefts is considered, the production per vine increases to 264.9 gm/vine.
The yield in the main harvest season was 153.4 gm/vine while that of the fly 
harvest season was 68.1 gm/vine as shown in Figure 30. The estimated 
amount of vanilla lost due to thefts was estimated at 43.1 gm/vine, which 
contributed to the reduction in yield per vine from 264gm/vine to 
221.5gm/vine.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
75
Figure 30: Green vanilla yield by harvest season
4.2.8 Adoption of improved agronomic practices
Indicator 10. Number of Hectares under Improved Management Practices or 
Technologies that Promote Improved Climate Risk Reduction and/or Natural 
Resources Management with USDA Assistance (Baseline Value = 2830)
Vanilla farmers adopted a number of recommended agronomic practices. The 
number of individuals in the agriculture system who reported to have applied 
improved management practices or technologies were 461 comprising 88%. 
The practices were applied to 608 Ha equivalent to 56% of the acreage under 
vanilla. The baseline value was computed as 2830Ha. 
4.2.9 Challenges faced by vanilla farmers
Vanilla farmers faced several challenges as listed in Table 25. The top 11 
challenges were common and equally important in both main and fly harvest 
periods. Vanilla theft ranked highest in both periods with 80% and 76% 
mentioning it as the most important challenge, followed by pests and diseases, 
which attack the crop.
Other challenges that ranked high were no pollination, flower abortion, 
unpredictable or erratic rainfall and drought. Others were lack of markets, low 
prices, fluctuation of both markets and prices; and high labor costs.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
76
Table 25: Challenges faced by vanilla farmers by harvest period
Challenges
Main Fly
% of 
farmers
Rank % of 
farmers
Rank
Vanilla theft 80.3 1 76.0 1
Pest and diseases 62.3 2 55.6 2
No pollination 61.3 3 24.0 6
Flower abortion 59.7 4 53.8 3
Unpredictable or erratic 
rainfall
43.0 5 20.7 7
Drought 24.7 6 13.5 10
Lack of markets 23.3 7 17.9 8
Low prices 21.0 8 51.3 4
Price or market fluctuations 19.7 9 35.3 5
High labor costs 18.3 10 13.8 9
Illness 11.0 11 9.1 11
Accident 6.7 12 1.5 17
Death of a family member 6.7 13 2.6 14
Indebtedness 6.0 14 2.6 15
Limited access to inputs 6.0 15 3.6 13
Limited access to vanilla￾specific extension services
1.7 16 4.4 12
Floods 1.7 17 2.6 16
None of the above 0.7 2.6
4.3 Farm Operational and Financial Management (IR 1.3)
Indicator 20. Number of Farmers who have Reached at Least a Functional Level of 
Financial and Marketing Competencies as a Result of USDA Assistance (Baseline Value = 
44)
This indicator evaluates the number of vanilla producers who have achieved 
at least a functional level of financial competencies reflected in:
1) Effective Financial Management: Managing finances to meet cash 
needs and save by identifying cash flows throughout the year, 
establishing financial goals, prioritizing expenses and following a 
budget;
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
77
Saving for a Purpose: Saving to achieve a set purpose by making and 
following a savings plan and setting aside surplus income to establish a 
fund to cover costs should an emergency arise; and
2) Borrowing wisely: Borrowing responsibly to meet cash needs by 
accessing loans based on repayment capacity, using loans for the 
intended purpose, and timely loan repayment
Findings showed that 44 vanilla producers achieved at least a functional level 
of Financial and Marketing competencies
4.3.1 Effective Financial Management
A. Management of finances
Farmers took on different ways of managing their finances. On average, only 
20% of the farmers had adopted the different financial management practices 
assessed. The main ones shown in Table 26 included establishing financial 
goals, which was reported by 32% of the farmers, followed by identifying cash 
flows throughout the year (29%), prioritizing expenses (23%), registering 
incomes and expenses throughout the year (22%) and identifying times during 
the year when they could save (22%).
Table 26: Financial management practices
Practices % of 
farmers
1. Established their financial goals 32.1
2. Identified their cash flow throughout the year 29.4
3. Prioritized expenses 23.4
4. Registered their income and expenses throughout the year 22.1
5. Identified times during the year when they could save 21.9
6. Identified unnecessary expenses that could be avoided, and 
the money saved
14.1
7. Identified times during the year when they will need loans 13.9
8. Followed their planned budget 13.1
9. Prepared a weekly budget 8.5
10. None of the above 33.1
4.3.2 Saving for a purpose
This section presents findings on the baseline status of two farmer practices 
regarding saving for a purpose: 
A. Savings practices
Among the practices observed by farmers while saving incomes, were setting 
a purpose for saving (51.3%), identifying a place to save (37%), specifying the 
amount to save (34%) and saving the planned amount (29%). Other practices 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
78
included specifying the frequency of saving, saving more when there was a 
surplus, saving regularly and establishing an emergency fund. About 20% of 
the farmers, however, reported that they were not practicing any of these as 
shown in. Table 27 below
Table 27: Savings practices
Practice % of farmers
1. Set a purpose for saving 51.3
2. Identified a place to save 37.0
3. Specified the amount to be saved 34.8
4. Saved the amount planned 29.0
5. Specified the frequency of their savings 19.7
6. Saved more when there is an income surplus 16.1
7. Saved regularly at the planned frequency 15.3
8. Established an emergency fund 8.3
9. None of the above 19.7
B. Source of financial services
The main sources of financial services were cited as banks, mobile money and 
Savings, Credit and Cooperative Organizations or Societies (SACCOS). The 
results in Fig 31 show that SACCOs were the most common source reported 
by 38% of the farmers, followed by mobile money by 26% and banks by 19%. 
Other sources, which were not specified, were used by 17% of the vanilla 
farmers.
Figure 31: Source of financial services
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
79
4.3.3 Borrow wisely
Indicator 16. Number of Individuals Accessing Agriculture-Related Financing as a 
Result of USDA Assistance (Baseline Value = 61)
Findings showed that 61 farmers (14.8%) reported that they accessed 
financing for their agriculture activities from formal financial institutions. The 
average amounts accessed in the Central region were USD 338.8 (standard 
deviation of USD 321.1) and USD 491.1 in the Western region (standard 
deviation of USD 706), with an overall average of USD 421.2 (standard 
deviation of USD 564). 
A. Ability of household members to take a loan or borrow cash/in-kind 
Fig 32 shows the ability of farmers and other household members to access 
cash/in-kind borrowing from different sources of financing. The financial 
institutions included formal financial institutions; formal and informal 
savings; loan schemes; and friends, relatives as well as other individual money 
lenders. Of the 307 respondents, more than 60% of farmers reported that their 
households were able to borrow from all the financial institutions. 
Informal savings and loans schemes were the most common choice reported 
by 70%, followed by formal financial institutions (67%), formal savings and 
loans schemes (62%); while friends and individual money lenders reported by 
60%. Thirty-four percent of the farmers reported that none of the household 
members was able to borrow from formal savings and loans schemes; 33% 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Formal financial
institution
Formal savings and
loans schemes
Informal saving and
loan schemes
Friends, relatives of
other individual money
lenders
% farmers
Source of financing
Ability to borrow or take cash/in-kind loan
Yes No May be
Figure 32: Ability to borrow/take a cash or in-kind loan from a 
financial institution
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
80
could not borrow from friends and individual money lenders; and 28% could 
not borrow from formal financial institutions. 
B. Borrowing by household members 
The survey results showed that some household members had borrowed cash 
or in-kind or both from different financial institutions. Fig 33 shows that all 
the 307 households and members had accessed in-kind loans from formal 
financial institutions and from friends, relatives and individual money lenders. 
On the other hand, in all the households, members had accessed a 
combination of cash and in-kind borrowing from formal and informal savings 
and loans schemes.
More than 95% of the farmers reported that household members had borrowed 
cash from all the financial institutions; 99% had borrowed both cash and 98% 
in-kind from formal financial institutions and friends, relatives and individual 
money lenders. A substantial proportion of households had not borrowed,
while less than 40% said they did not know if any household member had 
borrowed.
C. Decision-making on borrowing
Decision-makers on whether to borrow or not included the respondent (a 
female respondent), spouse, other household members and non-household 
members. The results showed the decision could be made by any of the 
individuals or by a combination of them. Table 28 shows that in all the 
households, the decision to borrow from a formal financial institution was 
most of the time made by the spouse and another household member. This 
combination did not make decisions on borrowing from any other source.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Formal financial institution
Formal savings and loans schemes
Informal saving and loan schemes
Friends, relatives of other individual money
lenders
% farmers
Source of financing
Cash/in-kind borrowing
Do not know No Yes, cash & in-kind Yes, in-kind Yes, cash
Figure 33: Borrowing cash/in-kind from a formal financial 
institution
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
81
In all households, spouses made decisions on borrowing from informal savings 
and loans schemes as well as from friends, relatives and individual money 
lenders, but did not make a decision to borrow from formal savings and loans 
schemes. Female respondents made decisions on borrowing from all sources 
in more than 68 - 74% of the households. 
Table 28: Decision-maker on choice to borrow from different sources of 
financing
Household member
Formal 
financial 
institution 
(%)
Formal 
savings 
& loan 
schemes 
(%)
Informal 
saving 
and loan 
schemes 
(%)
Friends, 
relatives 
of other 
individual 
money 
lenders 
(%)
Self 68.4 73.9 69.4 73.6
Spouse 99.7 0.0 100.0 100.0
Self and spouse 94.1 94.5 92.8 96.4
Another household 
member
60.6 67.8 60.6 63.5
Self and other household 
members
69.1 74.9 70.0 74.6
Self, spouse and other 
household members
95.8 96.1 94.5 97.1
Another household 
member and non￾household members 
0.0 0.0 60.9 0.0
Spouse and other 
household members
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Self, another household 
member and non￾household members
74.5 75.2 0.0 0.0
Self, spouse, another 
household member and 
other non-household 
members
97.4 94.8 0.0 0.0
Female respondents and the spouse made decisions to borrow from all the 
sources in more than 92% of the households. Another household member and 
non-household member were reported to make decisions on borrowing from 
Informal savings and loan schemes only, in 61% of the households.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
82
D. Decision on the usage of the borrowed money or item
Decisions on how to use the borrowed money or item from all the sources were 
most made by spouses. In all the households, spouses made decisions on what 
to do with the money or item borrowed from all the sources except from 
informal saving and loan schemes for which they made the decision in almost 
all (99.7%) the households (Table 29).
Table 29: Decision-maker on how to use the money/item borrowed
Household member
Formal 
financial 
institution
Formal 
savings 
and 
loans 
schemes
Informal 
savings 
and loan 
schemes
Friends, 
relatives 
or other 
individual 
money 
lenders
Self 72.6 74.9 68.4 71.7
Spouse 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0
Self and spouse 94.5 94.1 94.1 96.4
Another household 
member
62.5 67.8 60.6 63.2
Self and other household 
member
73.3 76.2 69.1 73.6
Self, spouse and other 
household member
96.1 0.0 95.8 72.0
Another household 
member and non￾household member 
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spouse and other 
household member
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Self, another household 
member and non -
household member
0.0 0.0 74.5 96.7
Self, spouse, another 
household member and 
other non-household 
member
0.0 0.0 97.4 0.0
Decisions on what to do with what was borrowed from informal savings and 
loan schemes were made by the spouse and other household members, and 
respondent, spouse, household member and non-household member. The 
combination of another household member and non-household member did 
not make decisions on money or items borrowed from any source in any 
household.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
83
4.3.4 Security of vanilla gardens/fields
A. Security costs
Security costs to safeguard vanilla fields were incurred by 205 farmers 
equivalent to 50%. The average number of workdays of family labor used for 
guarding the vanilla fields was 106 compared to 69 workdays (2.3 months) of
hired labor. The average cost incurred on hired labor for security was USD 
132.6 per month.
B. Type of fence
Different types of fences were constructed to protect vanilla fields from thefts 
as shown in Fig 34. The most common type was a live fence reported by 70% 
farmers; followed by barbed wire which was used by 34%. Other types of 
fences, which were used by a minority (less than 10%) included razor wire 
fence, wall fence and other types that were not identified. The average cost of 
constructing a fence was USD 84.5 (standard deviation USD 119).
Figure 34: Kind of fence used to protect vanilla field from thefts
4.4 Enhanced Mixed Cropping (IR 1.5)
4.4.1 Trees and permanent crops planting
Overall, one hundred forty-three farmers (34.6%) planted trees or permanent 
crops in their vanilla fields during the last two harvests. Of these farmers, 
69.2% selected multi-purpose trees/crops based on the production and 
potential of the land; while 63.6% selected trees/crops based on their function 
in the production system; and 23.8% reflected on observed changes in climate 
over time (Table 30). 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
84
Table 30: Basis for selecting trees/permanent crops
Factors considered % of 
farmers
n = 328
1. Selected multipurpose trees/crops (food, fodder, timber, 
income…) based on the production potential of the land 69.2
2. Selected trees/crops based on their function in the 
production system (soil fertility improvement, biomass 
production, shade, tutoring…) 
63.6
3. Reflected on observed changes in climate over time 23.8
4. Used their understanding of historical climate variability 
and trends to decide on what trees or permanent crops to 
plant and/or remove 
20.8
5. Compared information on historical climate variability and 
trends with observed climate changes over time 18.2
6. Used their understanding of historical climate variability 
and trends to make investment decisions in their vanilla fields 18.2
7. Accessed historical climate information to understand its 
variability and trends 14.7
8. None of the above 1.4
Some farmers used their understanding of historical climate variability and 
trends to decide what trees or permanent crops to plant and/or remove (21%); 
while 15% accessed historical climate information to understand its variability 
and trends; and less than 2% did not consider any of the listed factors.
A. Planting of trees or permanent crops in vanilla fields
Farmers observed different practices when planting trees/permanent crops in 
vanilla fields. Table 31 shows practices including observing the rain 
permanently, the quality of seeds/seedlings and recommended agronomic 
practices. Overall, all the practices were implemented by less than 50% of the 
farmers. Planting during the rainy season to improve survival rates and to 
ensure growth was practiced by 48%; while 45% planted temporary/fast￾growing shade crops (banana, plantain…) to provide shade as trees grow; 41% 
sourced quality seed or seedlings of selected trees/crops; 14% applied 
recommended spacing for trees along the boundary; and 22% planted short￾term shade trees that mature within 10 years. About 3% of the farmers did 
not implement any of the identified practices. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
85
Table 31: Practices used in planting trees/permanent crops in vanilla fields
Practices % of farmers
n= 366
1. Planted selected trees/crops during the rainy season to 
improve survival rates and ensure growth 
47.6
2. Planted temporary/fast growing shade crops (banana, 
plantain…) to provide shade as trees grow 
44.8
3. Sourced quality seed or seedlings of selected trees/crops 41.3
4. Applied recommended spacing of trees along the 
boundary, 5m-8m apart 
14.0
5. Assigned resources (inputs, labor, land) to establish the 
selected crops/trees 
28.7
6. Planted short-term shade trees that mature within 10 
years 
22.4
7. Planted long-term trees that take more than 20 years to 
mature, ensuring sustainability 
21.0
8. Applied recommended spacing of trees inside the farm, 
12m-15m inside the farm 
18.9
9. Pruned established trees/permanent crops to ensure 
30-50% shade during the rainy season, and 50%-70% 
shade during the dry season 
14.7
10. None of the above 2.8
B. Purchase of planting materials to plant the trees
Of the farmers who planted trees or permanent crops only 7% farmers 
purchased planting materials in the form of seeds or seedlings at an average 
price of USD 1.12.
C. Labor used in planting trees or permanent crops
The number of workdays of family members and hired labor varied. Family 
members worked more on planting trees than hired labor as evidenced by the 
mean number of workdays of 9 for family members and 0.8 for hired labor. 
Table 32 shows that the female farmers used more family members workdays 
(11.2) and hired labor workdays (2.4) than male farmers.
Farmers in the Western region used more (10.3) family members workdays 
and less hired labor workdays (0.6) for planting trees or permanent crops than 
in the Central region. Similarly, farmers in areas of high level of production 
used more family members workdays (10.4); and less hired labor workdays 
(0.6), for planting trees or permanent crops than farmers in areas of medium 
level of production.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
86
Table 32: Family and hired labor workdays for planting trees or permanent 
crops
Category Disaggregation Workdays 
of family 
members -
Mean
Workdays 
of hired 
labor -
Mean
Daily rate 
of hired 
labor (USD)
– Mean 
Overall 9.0 0.8 0.51
By gender Female 11.2 2.4 0.59
Male 8.7 0.6 0.50
By region Western 10.3 0.6 0.70
Central 7.4 1.0 0.27
By level of 
production
High 10.4 0.6 0.55
Medium 4.0 1.4 0.02
D. Cost of hired labor (USD) by gender, region and level of production
The cost of hired labor per workday was on average USD 0.51 overall. The 
average cost for female farmers was USD 0.59 and USD 0.50 for male farmers 
(Table 31). The cost of hired labor was considerably low in the Central region 
with an average of USD 0.27 compared to USD 0.70 per workday in the 
Western region. The results also show that the average cost of hired labor was 
higher in the areas of high level of production (USD 0.55) compared to areas 
of medium level of production (USD 0.02).
4.4.2 Alternative crops
Vanilla farmers are involved in a multitude of other crops to varying extents. 
The most important crops besides vanilla across both Western and Central 
regions were matooke, coffee, cocoa, bananas, avocado, cassava and fruits 
(jackfruit and mangoes). Matooke, coffee and bananas were the most common 
in the Western region; and bananas and coffee in the Central region (Table 
33).
Table 33: Alternative crops to vanilla
Crop 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice Overall 
score
Matooke 40.0 31.7 9.8 2.5 84.0
Coffee 31.0 12.5 4.7 1.2 49.4
Cocoa 22.1 6.4 1.7 1.5 31.7
Bananas 3.2 12.8 11.3 4.2 31.5
Avocado 0.7 3.7 6.6 7.1 18.1
Cassava 0.0 3.0 6.6 1.5 11.1
Jackfruit 0.0 2.0 3.9 3.7 9.6
Mangoes 0.3 0.3 4.7 3.2 8.5
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
87
CHAPTER FIVE: EXPANDED TRADE OF 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
This section presents the findings on the status of trade in agricultural 
products and vanilla in particular. The baseline assessment examined the 
status following three key elements of the result areas of the VINES project, 
namely:
a) Value addition to Post-production Agricultural Products;
b) Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural Products; and 
c) Transaction Efficiency. 
In order to clearly appreciate the status of the vanilla supply chain, the survey 
undertook mapping of value chain actors, examined their business models, 
mapping of external influences on the vanilla value chain, quality of 
inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations in the vanilla supply chain, as well as
international and national vanilla market trends
5.1 Value Added to Post-Production (IR 2.1)
The survey examined the capacity of all processing firms participating in the 
project in meeting buyers’ quality standards and/or food safety standards 
along the supply chain. To determine their capacity, the survey measured the 
practices along the following post-production competencies:
a) Actions taken to ensure quality during and after harvesting;
b) SMEs using Traceability systems;
c) SMEs practices to meet export quality standards; and
d) Post-production processing or handling practices.
The baseline survey findings are presented in the sections below. 
5.1.1 Post-harvest handling losses 
This indicator measures the percentage of the equivalent cured vanilla,
harvested by vanilla producers, who supply participating vanilla processing 
firms that preserve the vanilla quality after post-harvest handling, curing and 
storing, until it is ready to be shipped from the warehouse.
Findings showed that for the three hundred farmers whose vanilla plants were 
under production, overall, a total of 1,397.5 kg of vanilla was lost as a result 
of poor post-handling practices. This represented approximately 6.3 % of the 
total volume of vanilla produced by farmers in the last two harvesting seasons. 
The average loss was 3.2kg per farmer with a standard deviation of 11kg. 
Further analysis showed that female farmers experienced higher post-harvest 
losses at 3.8kg per farmer compared to 3.2kg for male farmers. A total of 975kg 
were lost during the main harvest compared to 423kg for fly harvest.
5.1.2 Actions taken to ensure quality during and after harvesting
Findings showed that only 32% of the vanilla farmers assessed took actions 
to ensure good quality of vanilla during and after harvest. The range of actions 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
88
taken as shown in Table 34. Timely harvesting of the beans, 8-9 months after 
pollination, in order to ensure high vanillin content, was the most common 
action. It was practiced by 74% of farmers in the main harvest and 69% in the 
fly harvest. This was followed by harvesting beans before they split or mold,
practiced by 40% and 48% of farmers in the main and fly harvests, 
respectively.
Table 34: Actions taken to ensure the quality of vanilla during and after the 
harvest
Actions % of farmers 
Main
(n = 349)
Fly
(n = 333)
1. Harvested vanilla beans 8-9 months after 
pollination to achieve higher vanillin content. 
74.3 68.5
2. Harvested vanilla beans before they split or 
mold. 
39.7 47.5
3. Synchronized harvests with designated 
Ministry of Agriculture trading windows 
(harvest dates) to enhance sales of mature 
vanilla with high vanillin content. 
17.0 11.7
4. Harvested selected and individual mature 
vanilla beans from a cluster rather than 
harvesting the whole cluster. 
37.0 32.1
5. Used clean collection bags to reduce bean 
exposure to contaminants and contact with 
soil. 
38.7 31.8
6. Minimized vanilla beans damage during 
harvesting by ensuring bags are not overfilled 
or stacked. 
21.7 21.5
7. Stored vanilla beans in dry, cool conditions for 
less than 12 hours prior to collection. 
18.0 15.0
8. Identified vanilla buyers prior to harvest for 
minimizing risk. 
37.0 32.5
9. Coordinated beans collection with buyers to 
ensure that the vanilla beans maintain their 
quality during post-harvest. 
13.3 11.0
10. None of the above 6.0 7.7
Average for all 31.6%
Other common practices in both harvest seasons were harvesting selected and 
individual mature vanilla beans from a cluster rather than harvesting the 
whole cluster; using clean collection bags to reduce beans exposure to 
contaminants and contact with soil; and identifying vanilla buyers prior to 
harvest to minimize risk. These were practiced by 37%, 38.7% and 37% of 
farmers in the main harvest; and 32%, 32% and 33% of farmers in the fly 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
89
harvest. Of all the farmers who harvested vanilla, 6% and 7.7% of the farmers 
did not practice any of the listed actions in the main and fly harvests, 
respectively. This variation in the harvest practices between main and fly 
harvests could be attributed to awareness and information gaps among 
farmers, hence an important issue to be followed up by the VINES project and 
relevant Government agencies. 
5.1.3 SMEs using traceability systems
Indicator 30. Number of Exporters, Aggregators, Traders, Processors, Farmer 
Organizations who use Traceability Systems (Baseline Value = 2 SMEs)
The survey examined the extent to which firms involved in vanilla export 
implemented traceability systems. This indicator measures the number of 
post-production supply chain actors (aggregators, farmer organizations, 
processors and exporters) who input information in established digital 
traceability systems, and/or who access information from traceability systems 
for making informed production, post-harvest management, processing 
and/or export decisions. Findings showed that two) firms, namely: Amfri 
Farms and Enimiro, implemented traceability systems. While firms like 
Touton, which will begin curing vanilla in the December/January season, 
mentioned that they implemented some form of traceability in their coffee 
sourcing; it was found that they had no digitized tracking system, hence did 
not satisfy the requirements under this indicator.
5.1.4 SMEs practices to meet export quality standards
Indicator 31. Number of Processors who Implemented Practices to Meet Export 
Quality Standards for Vanilla (Baseline Value = 2 SMEs)
This indicator measures the total number of processors who have applied 
improved management practices and/or technologies to meet export quality 
standards for vanilla. To determine this, the survey assessed processors along 
the following six (6) improved standards: 
1. Analysis of hazard points (HACCP) along the supply chain; 
2. Upgrading: Implementation of upgrading plans to meet major food safety 
regulations;
3. Testing undertaken by accredited and audited laboratories;
4. Traceability systems; 
5. Direct trading arrangements; and 
6. Certification for accessing specialized and high value markets that provide 
price premiums.
Firms that implemented at least the first three practices above, were 
considered to meet this indicator.
Findings showed that only two (2) processors implemented all the practices to 
meet export quality standards in the previous year 2020, namely: Timex (U) 
Ltd and Amfri Farms.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
90
5.1.5 Post-production processing or handling practices 
Indicator 32. Number of Processors who Implemented at Least 2 Improved Vanilla 
Post-Production, Processing or Handling Practices (Baseline Value = 6 SMEs)
Under this indicator, the survey assessed processors along eight (8) improved 
practices in vanilla post-production, processing or handling practices aimed 
at improving vanilla processing efficiency (conversion rate from green to cured 
vanilla), achieving higher vanillin content, and differentiating beans for their 
end markets. These include bean blanching, grading, fermentation, drying, 
slow dehydration, curing dry vanilla, storage, vacuum packaging and bulk 
packaging. Six (6) of the SMEs were implementing recommended storage 
practices, including use of paper or boxes, and bundling them into clusters of 
20-50 pods for sale, keeping the storage materials clean, and allowing for 
aeration to retain quality until shipping to international buyers. Other 
practices include vacuum packing, done by Gourmet Gardens; and bulk 
packaging done by Nilavan. 
5.2 Access to Markets (IR 2.2) 
The survey assessed access to markets and related agricultural marketing 
competencies of farmers and all processing firms participating in the project. 
To determine their capacity, the survey measured the practices along the 
following criteria:
a) Using vanilla market information to inform production decisions;
b) Vanilla buyers and volume sold (including choice of buyer);
c) Sale price of green vanilla and costs of selling (including payment 
modalities and a premium);
d) Value of vanilla sold by farms and firms;
e) Vanilla quality determination; and
f) Mapping of the supply chains and the different business models
The baseline survey findings are presented in the sections below. 
5.2.1 Using vanilla market information to inform production decisions
Indicator 40: Number of Farmers and Firms who Access Market Information for 
Decision-Making (Baseline Value = 2286 Farmers)
Of the 417 respondents, 63.6% reported using vanilla market information to 
inform their production decisions. Figure 35 shows that majority of the vanilla 
farmers used market information to inform their production decisions. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
91
In the Central region, 71% of vanilla farmers compared to 61.7% in the 
Western region, used market information to inform their production decisions. 
About 64% and 62% male and female vanilla farmers, respectively, used 
market information to inform their production decisions. More farmers (69%) 
in medium-producing areas used market information to inform their 
production decisions than those in high-producing areas (62.7%).
Findings from key informants confirmed the fact that generally vanilla farmers 
in all districts had access to market information, especially about national / 
local market prices and harvesting dates but with limited access to 
international market price information. Key informants reported that farmers 
received synthesized market information in terms of market prices, quality 
requirements and sources of agro-inputs. It was further reported that there 
are gaps in the market information.
5.2.2 Vanilla buyers and volume sold 
Indicator 3: Volume of Commodities Sold by Farms and Firms Receiving USDA 
Assistance (Baseline Value For Green= 905mt)
The average volume of green vanilla sold per farmer was 38.1kg with a 
standard deviation of 76.6 kg for 406 farmers. There were numerous vanilla 
buyers taking varied volumes of green beans. The biggest proportion of 
farmers (27%) who responded to this question, however, reported that they 
sold their produce through middlemen/other (see 4.2.2A) and did not deal
directly with any of the four major buyers/exporters12. The survey results 
showed that of the 406 farmers, 46.8% usually sell to the same buyers every 
12 It is likely that even if there could be representatives of the four main buyers, they probably did not share 
information with farmers on which SME they represented or traded with. 
56.0
58.0
60.0
62.0
64.0
66.0
68.0
70.0
72.0
Overall Western Central Female Male High Medium
63.6
61.7
71.1
62.3
63.8
62.7
69.0
Percentage 
Region, gender and level of production
Usage of market information 
Figure 35: Vanilla market information usage to inform production decisions
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
92
harvest season, which could be attributed to market information gaps between 
the buyers (traders) and sellers (farmers). The average volume sold to the 
largest buyer was 85.6 kg of green vanilla with a standard deviation of 31.6 
kg. About 29% of the farmers reported that their main buyer offered to buy 
their vanilla during the next harvest. 
A. Choice of buyer
Out of the 406 farmers that responded to questions about to whom they sold 
the vanilla, 26% mentioned other buyers (mainly individual middlemen/
traders) rather than the ones listed in the VINES project database. About 13% 
reported that they sold to UVAN Ltd and ESCO Uganda Ltd, and 7% sold to 
RFCU. Likewise, findings showed that the majority of farmers (27%) sold the 
largest volume of vanilla to “Other buyers'' followed by UVAN Ltd (16%), ESCO 
Uganda Ltd (14%) and RCFU (8%).
B. Reason for choice of buyer
Farmers gave varied reasons for the choice of buyers for their vanilla as shown 
in Table 35. Some of the reasons were price-related while others were related 
to incentives. The most important reason was the price offered as reported by 
52% of the farmers, followed by a long-term relationship established (35%), 
distance to selling place (31%) and training or technical assistance provided 
(15%). 
Table 35: Reason for choice of buyer
Reason % of farmers
1. Price offered 51.8
2. Long-term relationship established 35.1
3. Distance to selling place 30.8
4. Other incentives (assumes some costs) 28.8
5. Provided training or technical assistance 15.1
6. Quality requirements 12.4
7. Payment terms and modalities 11.0
8. Quantity requirements 8.7
9. Lack of alternative buyers 7.7
10. Gave a price premium/bonus 6.0
11. Paid for transportation costs 5.4
12. Provided complementary services (harvesting, 
transportation…)
3.7
13. Guaranteed the price paid in advance 3.3
14. Gave interest free loan 2.7
15. Gave tokens (calendars, t-shirts) 1.0
16. Guaranteed the volume bought in advance 0.3
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
93
Less than 10% of the farmers gave reasons including: lack of an alternative 
buyer (8%); buyers offered a premium (6%); met the transport costs (5%); and 
provided complementary services such as harvesting (4%). About 3% of the 
farmers chose buyers who gave them interest-free loans or guaranteed the 
price in advance; while 1% chose the buyer for the tokens they offered.
5.2.3 Sale price of green vanilla and cost of selling
Indicator 23. Farm Gate Price Paid to Producers for Green Vanilla (Baseline Value = 9 
USD/Kg)
The average sale price for green vanilla was USD 9/kg with a standard error 
of 0.3, the price was agreed upon between farmers and buyers to varying 
extents as shown in Figure 36. The selling price in fry was USD 10/kg and 
USD 8/kg in the main season. About 60% of the farmers reported that they 
agreed upon the price with all their buyers; 95% agreed upon the price with 
their main buyer; while all the farmers said they agreed upon the price with 
some of the buyers.
Some farmers reported that they transport their vanilla harvest to the selling 
point while others sell at the vanilla field. About 29% of the farmers 
transported their vanilla to the selling point at an average cost of USD 2.6 
(UShs 9.519) (Standard deviation USD 7.7). It took the farmers 3.8 hours 
(Standard deviation 8 hours), on average, to transport their vanilla harvest to 
the selling point.
A. Payment modality
Different buyers used different modes of payment for the vanilla bought. The 
modes included cash, deposit on a bank account, using a cheque and through 
mobile money. Fig 37 shows that the majority (97%) of buyers paid for vanilla 
using cash transactions. Deposits on bank accounts were made by 3% of the 
60%
95%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Yes, all buyers
Yes, main buyer
Yes, some buyers
% of farmers
Agreement on price by farmer and buyer
Figure 36: Extent of agreement on price between farmer and buyer
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
94
buyers while payment by cheque and by mobile money were made by 2% of 
the buyers in each case.
Figure 37: Modes of payment used by vanilla buyers
B. Price premiums
Indicator 21. Number of Farmers Receiving Price Premiums for Vanilla Quality and/or 
Certification (Baseline Value = 44)
This indicator evaluates the number of vanilla producers who report having 
received price premiums for vanilla quality and/or certification. According to 
the data from the on-farm survey, findings showed that only 3.4% of all 
respondents whose farms were in production during the last two vanilla 
harvest seasons had been offered premium prices by buyers based on vanilla 
quality and/or certification. This was extrapolated to only 44 farmers who 
received premium prices for vanilla. 
Very few farmers reported that they received premium prices for quality, 
volume of vanilla offered and loyalty to the buyer. For good quality, 2% of the 
farmers received a premium of USD 1.2/kg (0.3% received a premium price 
based on the volume offered and for being loyal to the buyer. On the other 
hand, 4% of the farmers had their price reduced to USD 6.2/kg and standard 
deviation USD 7.7/kg due to poor quality of the vanilla.
5.2.4 Value of vanilla sold by farms and firms
Indicator 2: Value of Annual Sales of Farms and Firms Receiving USDA Assistance 
(Baseline Value for Green = USD 2.13 Million)
Survey results showed that the total value of the green vanilla sold by farmers 
in the base year (2020/2021) was USD 2.13 million. The lower figures in the 
value of green vanilla may explain the declining trends in Uganda’s vanilla 
exports over years as explained later in Figure 41 below. The oversupply in 
the global vanilla market in 2020 contributed to the drop in farmgate price. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
95
5.2.5 Vanilla quality determination
The survey assessed criteria and practices commonly used by vanilla buyers 
to determine the quality of green vanilla. Survey results in Figure 38 show that 
buyers used multiple methods, and the length of vanilla beans was reported 
as the most prominent by 81% of the farmers; followed by time of harvest 
(62%); and physical appearance of vanilla beans by 57%. None of the farmers 
had the quality of their vanilla determined using vanillin content (0%). 
Figure 38: Factors considered to determine vanilla quality
5.2.6 Mapping of the vanilla value chain actors 
The survey undertook a mapping of vanilla value chain actors to examine their 
relationships. This was also intended to give a wider understanding of their 
different business models. Data collected through the mapping of the key 
supply chain actors was used to develop a business model canvas for each. 
Data was collected using the Link Methodology Scorecard, which was 
administered to all the key value chain actors.
In the project design for the VINES project, the Link Methodology Scorecard
was to be administered to the three (3) supply chain actors (UVAN, ESCO and 
RFCU). However, because of the challenges experienced in engaging UVAN and 
ESCO on the project, the project, considered the Vanilla Innovation and 
Expansion Fund (VIEF) partners ideal for learning. The tool was therefore 
administered to four (4) key VINES’ partners, namely: Rwenzori Farmers’
Cooperative Union (RFCU) – not a VIEF recipient, Gourmet Gardens Ltd, 
Enimiro Uganda (SMC Ltd) and Touton S.A. Uganda Ltd.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
96
A. Mapping of key external influences 
The survey examined some of the external influences along the 6 (six) vanilla 
supply chain functions undertaken by the actors namely: Input and service 
providers, farmers, marketing, processors, commercialization and consumers. 
Four main external influences were identified, namely: economic forces; 
political, legal and regulatory; and social and environmental factors.
B. Business models of key vanilla value chain actors
Based on the data generated using the Link Methodology Scorecard, a business 
model canvas was developed for each of the 4 supply chain actors. Each 
business model canvas plots the direct and indirect actors, their roles, product 
flow and information, relationships between actors, product characteristics 
and commercial figures (prices, volumes and returns). 
5.2.7 Quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations in vanilla supply 
chain 
Indicator 29: Quality and Inclusiveness of Buyer-Seller Relations (Baseline Value: 
Buyers = 70%; Sellers = 41%)
This indicator measures linkages among direct supply chain actors by 
evaluating the application of six (6) guiding principles namely: 
1) Supply-chain wide collaboration: Establishes shared goals for 
collaboration, recognizing and valuing interdependence among supply￾chain actors.
2) Effective market linkages: Achieves producer and buyer goals by 
creating and delivering social and commercial value along the supply 
chain.
Figure 39: Curing vanilla at RFCU in 
Kasese
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
97
3) Fair and transparent governance: Establishes and implements clear 
and consistent quality standards, buying and selling commitments, and 
equitable processes of risk management.
4) Equitable access to services: Allows producers to access services 
(financial, technical and operational), providing incentives to invest in 
upgrading production based on market needs.
5) Inclusive innovation: Promotes innovation in products, services and 
processes, providing the means to remain competitive in dynamic 
markets.
6) Measurement of outcomes: Establishes a monitoring process to assess 
the health of trading relationships, and reducing the risk that minor 
problems will destroy the business.
The Link Methodology Scorecard was used to assess the value chain actors’ 
relationships in Uganda’s vanilla sector. For purposes of this survey, the 
methodology was used to measure the quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller
relations. Analysis of findings indicate that, on a scale of 0-6 (not applicable 
to strongly agree) for each of the above indicator principles, generally, the 
quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations was fair. This was evidenced
by the fact that neither of the value chain actors attained above the average 
score of 3 (Table 36).
Table 36: Inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations
PRINCIPLE Buyer 
scores
Seller scores
Chain-wide collaboration 4 3
Effective market linkages 4 3
Fair and transparent governance 3 2
Equitable access to services 4 2
Inclusive innovation 3 1
Measurement of outcomes 4 1
Percentage of maximum scores (30): 70% 41%
Findings on the status of the linkages among direct supply chain actors 
(buyers & sellers) on each of the six (6) guiding principles is summarized in 
Table 36. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
98
Findings showed that the buyers relative to the sellers (who included farmer 
respondents), scored better on each of the six (6) principles assessed as 
summarized in the web diagram (Fig 40). The buyers attained relatively higher 
scores, attaining 70% of maximum total scores, compared to 41% for sellers. 
Using a simple average of the two scores above, findings showed that 
generally, the supply chain actors altogether (buyers and sellers) attained 55% 
of the maximum average scores (17) along the 6 principles accessed using the 
Link methodology. This indicates that there exist significant gaps that need to 
be addressed to increase the level of inclusiveness in the buyer-seller relations. 
The low score of the sellers largely reflects the wide knowledge and information 
gap between buyers (traders) and sellers (farmers), which largely 
disadvantaged the farmers. Such gaps in the relations between buyers and 
sellers in the vanilla supply chain, if not addressed, could significantly 
undermine productivity at farm level, efforts to deepen markets, negatively 
impact incomes and enterprise profitability, as well as the attainment of the 
overall objectives of the VINES project. 
5.2.8 International and national vanilla production and market trends
The survey examined the current status of markets for agricultural products, 
the market trends (domestic, regional and international).
A. Uganda vanilla exports
An analysis of Uganda’s formal vanilla export figures shows a downward trend, 
from 8.2 tonnes of cured beans in 2013 to 2.7 tonnes in 2019. Fig 41 shows 
an analysis of Uganda’s vanilla export performance and price changes for the 
period 2013-2019.
Figure 40: Measurement of quality and inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
99
Data Source: UBOS Statistical Abstract 2
From Figure 41, the analysis indicates a downward trend in Uganda’s formal 
vanilla exports over the past seven years. Implications of this trend to 
commercial actors (farmers, traders and processors); and support actors 
(development partners and MAAIF) are to establish the causes of the 
downward trend and address them. It will be important for VINES and its 
partner VANEX, working with MAAIF and other Government agencies, to 
address issues related to inadequate reporting and data collection that seem 
to plague the sector.
While volumes of formal exports have declined, the trend in the value of 
exports has largely remained constant because of a surge in prices of vanilla 
as indicated in Table 35, especially during 2017 and 2018. While formal 
export volumes fell from 8.2 tonnes in 2013 to 2.7 tons in 2019, the computed 
price rose from USD 73/kg to USD 213/kg over the same period, and to USD
217/kg in 2019.
A. Lead importers of Ugandan vanilla
There are six (6) consistent importers of Ugandan Vanilla as shown in Table 
37, ITC data also indicates some countries, which act as “one – off 
importers,” such as Canada, South Africa, and Qatar, which import once in 
a year, but do not show a come-back. This is hard to explain from trade data,
but is indicative of possible market developments for Ugandan vanilla in these 
countries.
Figure 41: Trends of Uganda's Formal Vanilla Exports by Volume and Value
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
100
Table 37: Leading importers of formal Ugandan vanilla by country (2015-2020)
Importers 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Exported quantity (Tons)
World 28 32 22 30 15
Germany 3 2 3 3 6
United States of 
America
4 21 7 15 6
India 5 1 1 1
United Kingdom 5 1 0 1 1
France 6 2 6 4 0
Source: ITC 2020
5.3 Transaction Efficiency at Farm Level (IR 2.3)
5.3.1 Gross margin
Indicator 13: Farmer’s Gross Margin Per Hectare Obtained with USDA Assistance
(Baseline Value = USD 332.8)
The indicator measured the difference between the total value of all products 
from the vanilla-based agroforestry system and all cash expenses incurred, 
divided by the total number of units of production. 
The survey computed the gross margin at the farm level based on field data. 
Findings showed that the estimated gross margin per hectare was USD 332.8,
with gross margin per production unit (VINE) of USD 0.20 as summarized in 
Table 38.
Table 38: Vanilla gross margins per hectare
UGX USD
Equivalent
Gross margin per hectare 1,218,381 332.8
Gross margin per production unit 736.3 0.20
The gross margin of USD 332.8 per hectare is low compared to the projected 
value. Possible factors that contribute to this low gross margin are the low 
value of most of the other crops produced by vanilla farmers; high production 
costs; and low productivity. Most of the other crops are food crops consumed 
at family level.
5.3.2 Marketing competencies
The survey evaluated the status of agricultural marketing competencies13
among vanilla producers. The four (4) interrelated competencies below were 
13 A competency is the set of attitudes, knowledge and skills that enable people to carry out an activity effectively 
and based on values. How a person demonstrates a competency requires not only that he or she possesses the 
knowledge, but also that he or she has: 1) the interest and attitude to perform the practice (desire to do), 2) the 
necessary skills to implement the practice (power to do), 3) the commitment to implement the practice with quality 
(do it well), and 4) a set of values that motivates the implementation of the practice (internationalization of the 
behavior change).
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
101
assessed to evaluate the number of vanilla producers that have achieved at 
least a functional level of marketing competency as follows: 
a) Market Opportunities Prioritization Competency: Prioritizing 
market opportunities to select crops and/or livestock products by 
interacting with diverse buyers in order to identify their needs and 
requirements, assessing market risk, and engaging with other farmers 
to evaluate identified opportunities;
b) Effective Business Planning Competency: Engaging with other 
farmers to plan for collective marketing by understanding the 
functioning of the value chain, identifying constraints and/or 
opportunities, developing a collective business vision and a plan for 
achieving it;
c) Successful Business Implementation Competency: Committing to 
the success of the business plan by implementing practices needed to 
meet buyers’ requirements, commercializing the agreed volume of 
produce, complying with agreements made with buyers, and keeping 
records; and
d) Periodic Business Performance Review Competency: Evaluating 
individual and group outcomes to identify areas for improvement and 
growth, by calculating production costs, sales and income, assessing 
profits from the whole production system and commercialization, and 
revising the business plan as needed.
Based on the data collected from vanilla producers, the overall competency 
level was calculated by taking a simple average of the values given for each of 
the behavioral evidence for each competency above. Using the calculated rate 
for each vanilla producer, respondents were classified in four levels of 
competency as follows: (a) Basic: (0 - <40%), (b) In Development: (40 - <60%) 
(c) Functionally Competent: (60 - <75%) and (d) Fully Competent: (75 – 100%).
Findings showed that vanilla producers in Uganda have not reached a 
functional level in agricultural marketing competencies having an overall 
score of 14% at the basic level (0 - <40%). Further analysis along each of the 
four agricultural marketing competencies showed a low level of functionality 
at 25% for the Market Opportunities Prioritization competency; followed by 
15% for the Periodic Business Performance Review competency; 10% for the 
Successful Business Implementation competency; and 6% for the Effective 
Business Planning competency as summarized in Figure 42.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
102
A. Market Opportunities Prioritization Competency 
A small majority of farmers prioritized their crops based on identified and 
evaluated market opportunities as seen in Fig 43. Fifty-two percent (52%) of 
the farmers reported that they considered, identified and evaluated market 
opportunities to priorities in selecting their crops. 
Figure 43: Prioritization of crops based on identified and evaluated market 
opportunities
Identifying and prioritizing market opportunities
Table 39 shows the actions taken by farmers to identify and prioritize market 
opportunities to inform crop selection. Whereas farmers undertook several 
actions, the most common one was identifying products that buyers want to 
buy, which was cited by 38% of the farmers. 
a) Market 
Opportunities 
Prioritization …
b) Effective Business 
c) Successful Business … Planning …
Periodic Business 
Performance Review …
Overall Average:, 
14%
Functional level of Vanilla Producers in 
Agricultural Marketing Competencies
Figure 42: Agricultural Marketing Competencies of vanilla farmer
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
103
Table 39: Actions taken to identify and prioritize markets
Actions % of 
farmers
1. Identified products that buyers want to buy 38.0
2. Interacted with a diverse group of potential buyers 25.8
3. Described buyers’ requirements for prioritized products (e.g., 
quantity, quality…)
13.9
4. Described buying conditions for prioritized markets (e.g., 
pricing, form, and timing of payment…)
11.4
5. Evaluated how long it will take to start getting an income 
from identified products and/or markets
11.2
6. Engaged with other farmers to identify opportunities for 
collective marketing
10.5
7. Assessed family labor needed to access identified market 
opportunities 
10.2
8. Assessed input needed to access identified market 
opportunities 
9.0
9. Engaged in the prioritization of market opportunities with 
other farmers 
7.8
10. Assessed the level of risk of different market opportunities 7.3
11. Contributed to the evaluation of market opportunities 
with other farmers 
7.3
About 26% of farmers interacted with a diverse group of potential buyers;
13.9% described buyers’ requirements for prioritized products; 11.4% 
described buying conditions for prioritized markets; and 11.2% evaluated how 
long it will take to start getting an income from identified products and/or 
markets. Less than 8% of the farmers engaged in the prioritization of market 
opportunities with other farmers.
B. Effective Business Planning Competency
In order to assess the status of business planning competencies of vanilla 
producers, the survey examined the level of farmers’ engagement in a number 
of behavioral evidence/practices; engagement with other farmers to plan for 
collective marketing by understanding the functioning of the value chain, 
identifying constraints and/or opportunities, developing a collective business 
vision and a plan for achieving it. 
Farmer organization membership and collective marketing 
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the farmers surveyed were members of a farmer 
organization (FO). There was no difference between regions, though the results 
(Figure 44) showed that 58% of the farmers in high-production areas belonged
to FOs while in medium production areas, it was 52%. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
104
More female (62%) farmers belonged to a FO than male farmers (56%) as 
shown in Figure 45. Findings showed that overall, the vanilla producers 
assessed attained a score of 6.4%, hence categorized as having a basic 
competency level regarding the Collective Marketing competency. More female 
(62%) farmers belonged to a FO as compared to the male farmers (56%) as 
shown in Figure 45.
FO engagement in collective marketing was reported by 33%, though only 23% 
of the farmers said they sold some or all their vanilla through a FO (Figure 
46). More female (38%) vanilla farmers sold their vanilla through a FO as 
compared to the male (32%) farmers.
Figure 45: FO membership and collective marketing by gender
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FO membership FO engaged in collective
marketing
Sold some or all your
vanilla through
organization
%age of farmers
Farmer organization and collective marketing by region
Overall Western Central
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FO membership FO engaged in collective
marketing
Sold some or all your
vanilla through
organization
%ag of farmers
Farmer organization and collective marketing by gender
Overall Female Male
Figure 44: FO membership and collective marketing by region
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
105
A. Successful Business Implementation Competency
The survey assessed vanilla producers’ level in relation to successful business 
implementation competency. To determine this, the survey measured 
producers’ status across the following three main evidence areas: 
i. Collective Marketing;
ii. Planning for Collective Marketing; and
iii. Contribution to the implementation of the collective marketing plan.
Planning for collective marketing with other farmers
Very few farmers took actions to plan for collective marketing with other 
farmers as shown in Table 40. The most common action was contributing to 
the farmer organization’s business vision cited by 11% of farmers. This was 
followed by engaging in the design of production, postharvest and marketing 
plans (8.3%); describing the functions of the actors engaged in prioritized 
value chains (7.5%); estimating the profitability of engaging with prioritized 
markets (7.3%); and contributing to the analysis of bottlenecks for engaging 
with prioritized markets (6.8%). However, 9.3% of the farmers did not take any 
of the listed actions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FO membership FO engaged in collective
marketing
Sold some or all your vanilla
through organization
5ag of farmers
Farmer organization and collective marketing by level of production
Overall High Medium
Figure 46: FO membership and collective marketing by level of 
production
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
106
Table 40: Actions taken to plan for collective marketing
Behavioral Evidence % of 
farmers
(n = 134)
1. Described the functions of the actors engaged in prioritized 
value chains
7.5
2. Contributed to the analysis of bottlenecks for engaging with 
prioritized markets
6.8
3. Contributed to the analysis of constraints for engaging 
women and youth with prioritized markets 
6.1
4. Contributed to the analysis of opportunities for engaging 
women and youth with prioritized markets
5.1
5. Engaged in the design of production, postharvest and 
marketing plans 
8.3
6. Assessed the risk of implementing different production, 
postharvest and marketing activities 
5.4
7. Engaged in the design of actions to mitigate or manage 
identified risks 
4.6
8. Estimated the financing needs to engage with prioritized 
markets
6.3
9. Sought finance needed to engage with prioritized markets 4.6
10. Estimated the profitability of engaging with prioritized 
markets
7.3
11. Contributed to the farmer organization’s business vision 11.0
12. Contributed to the farmer organization’s assessment of 
potential business relations and partnerships
5.8
13. Provided inputs for the preparation of the business plan 3.9
None of the above 9.3
Contribution to the implementation of the collective marketing plan
Findings showed that overall, the vanilla producers assessed got a score of 
9.7% hence categorized as having basic competency level. Table 41 shows the 
different ways that farmers contributed to implementation of collective 
marketing plans. Eleven (11%) of the farmers agreed to the terms of the 
contracts with buyers or committed to complying with agreements made with 
buyers. Ten percent (10%) sold the agreed volume of produce through the 
farmer organization; followed by 9.3% who planned their production, post￾harvest and marketing activities based on the farmer organization’s business 
plan; and those who planned their finances based on the farmer organization 
business plan; or implemented practices needed to meet buyers’
requirements. It was reported that 1% of the farmers did not take any of the 
listed actions.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
107
Table 41: Contribution to implementation of collective marketing plan
Contribution % of 
farmer
s
1. Planned their production, postharvest and marketing 
activities based on the farmer organization’s business plan 
9.3
2. Planned their finances based on the farmer organization 
business plan 
9.3
3. Implemented practices needed to meet buyers’ requirements 9.3
4. Agreed to the terms of the contracts with buyers 11.4
5. Sold the agreed volume of produce through the farmer 
organization 
10.0
6. Committed to complying with agreements made with buyers 11.0
7. Kept records on their production, costs, sales, and profits 8.0
8. None of the above 1.0
D. Periodic Business Performance Review Competency
Findings showed that overall, the vanilla producers assessed attained a score 
of 15% hence categorized as having a basic competency level regarding 
competencies in periodic business performance review. Detailed analysis 
regarding the practices taken to evaluate the results of the last two vanilla 
harvests showed the same trend. 
Evaluation of the results of the last two vanilla harvesting seasons
Evaluation of results of vanilla farming in the last two years was carried out 
on by less than 30% farmers. The most common actions were: a) calculating 
production costs (25.6%); b) evaluating production, productivity, and product 
quality (24.3%); c) included family labor in the production cost calculation 
(17.8%); and evaluating revenue and profit from their production system 
(17.8%). Table 42 further shows that 10.7% identified opportunities to improve 
results in the next marketing cycle; while 44.2% did not evaluate the results.
Table 42: Actions taken to evaluate the results of the last two harvests
Behavior % of 
farmers
Calculated their production costs 25.6
Evaluated their production, productivity, and product quality 24.3
Included family labor in the calculation of their production 
costs 
17.8
Evaluated their income and profit from their production 
system 
17.8
Evaluated the total value of sales from their production system 16.6
Identified opportunities to improve results in the next 
production season 
13.1
Identified opportunities to improve results in the next 
marketing cycle
10.7
Contributed to the evaluation of the farmer organization sales, 
income, and profit 
7.5
Identified opportunities to improve results for women and 
youth
7.1
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
108
Behavior % of 
farmers
Contributed to the revision of the farmer organization 
collective marketing plan
6.8
None of the above 44.2
5.4 Policy and Regulatory Framework 
5.4.1 Overview of Uganda’s Agriculture Policy and Regulatory Framework
In 1990, the USAID funded Export Policy Analysis and Development Unit 
(EPADU), with additional funding from the Norwegian Fund for Women, 
supported women vanilla growers and provided TA to vanilla growers in 
Mukono district, thus revitalizing the vanilla industry in Uganda. That effort 
came to an end at the end of 1994. This investment was followed by the 
USAID-funded Uganda’s Investment in Developing Export Agriculture (IDEA) 
Project, which supported the early expansion of Uganda’s vanilla sector. 
A. Agriculture Policy
A predictable and stable regulatory framework enhances investment in 
agriculture and accelerates commercialization. Uganda, unfortunately, has a 
weak regulatory framework. Uganda’s regulatory environment for 
agribusiness development has been ranked by Enabling the Business of 
Agriculture (EBA) as number 32 out of 62 countries, suggesting that a number 
of improvements have to be made to improve Uganda’s regulatory 
environment.
The Agricultural Chemicals Board (ACB) in charge of registering and 
regulating the quality of agrochemicals, including fertilisers, is under￾resourced to effectively carry out tests on agrochemicals found on the 
Ugandan market. This leads to high levels of adulteration of agro input 
chemicals, in addition to deterring entry of high-quality input dealers. 
Inefficiencies in regulation also apply to seeds in terms of the seed regulatory 
framework, seed registration, and seed quality control.
Uganda got a new plant protection law (Plant Protection and Health Act) that 
entered into force in 2016, replacing the outdated one of 1962. Strong plant 
protection frameworks protect crops from pests and diseases by regulating the 
processes and practices to which agricultural products may be subjected 
during production, processing and trade. This means that the country has a 
new law that allows responsible government institutions and departments 
under MAAIF to regulate cross-border agricultural trade more effectively. 
Effective laws are important in negotiating access to foreign markets for 
farmers, and to issue valid and reliable phytosanitary certificates for exports. 
Producers and exporters rely on the guarantees of phytosanitary certificates 
to show that their products comply with the plant health requirements in 
destination markets. The new law streamlines imports of plant-based 
products by allowing officials to target border inspections and controls, and
facilitates trade with other countries. In addition, a MAAIF department is 
designated to conduct pest surveillance in the country, and carry out pest risk 
analysis. Its pest risk analysis (PRA) for imports of plant products are, 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
109
however, not publicly available, for example, online or in hard copies to the 
public. Publishing of PRA reports creates transparency in the phytosanitary 
policy environment, since PRA reports would provide a basis for phytosanitary 
legislation. 
A. The National Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Policy
MAAIF has drafted a National SPS Policy and presented it for stakeholder 
validation in June 2018. The policy is aimed “to protect human, animal and 
plant life or health, promote trade and strengthen national, regional and 
international cooperation through implementing science-based Sanitary and 
Phyto-Sanitary measures14.” 
The draft SPS policy points out the challenges faced by Uganda in complying 
with SPS requirements including:
i. Inadequate regulatory infrastructure such as laboratories and 
quarantine facilities;
ii. Inadequate funding of SPS related activities;
iii. Inadequate coverage and scope of extension services;
iv. Weak risk assessment systems;
v. Weak conformity assessment and enforcement mechanisms
vi. Inadequate scientific and technical expertise;
vii. Inadequate production, processing and distribution infrastructure; 
and
viii. Low public awareness of SPS requirements.
The draft policy targets the above challenges and seeks to create a conducive 
legal and regulatory framework. The policy also seeks to institute measures to 
enhance compliance to international best practices; protect human life, food 
safety, border control and internal quarantine systems; as well as strengthen 
skills and capacity building along the value chain, while increasing access to 
national, regional and international markets among others. 
Uganda’s SPS challenges in external markets are confirmed by high 
interception levels of fresh fruits and vegetables (FFVs) on the EU market as 
indicated in Table 43.
Table 43: Fruits and Vegetables interception rates
Period No of interceptions for FFVs
June 2016 – May 2017 86
June 2017 – May 2018 120
June 2018 – January 2019 101
Conclusively, with a negative reputation of interceptions on the EU market, it 
is essential that the vanilla industry strictly observes SPS requirements to 
avoid facing similar interceptions. 
14 MAAIF: “Draft National Sanitary and Phytosanitary Policy,” 2016, p. 13
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
110
5.4.2 Policy and regulatory framework of vanilla supply chain in Uganda 
This survey attempted to determine the baseline status regarding policies, 
regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages 
of development (under Indicator 39 of the VINES project PMP). This section 
reports on the key findings generated, especially through secondary data and 
KIIs.
Uganda does not have a vanilla specific policy or regulatory framework. The 
National Agricultural Policy (NAP 2013) however, provides a policy framework 
for agricultural commodities under which vanilla falls. Table 44 shows 
strategies of the NAP’s objective 2 and how they relate to the vanilla industry.
Table 44: Link between the National Agricultural Policy and the Vanilla 
Industry
NAP strategy under objective 2 Relevancy to the Vanilla Industry
i. Generating, demonstrating and 
disseminating appropriate, safe, 
and cost-effective agricultural 
technologies and research services 
to enhance production and 
increase quality of products 
through access to high quality 
agricultural technology, 
agribusiness and advisory services 
for all categories of farmers.
i. Uganda’s vanilla industry should 
aim at promoting cost effective 
technologies and production of 
high-quality vanilla under market 
driven advisory services.
ii. From the link methodology, some 
of the lead firms along the vanilla 
value chains are this component of 
the NAP.
ii. Promoting the growth of a vibrant 
private sector-led agricultural 
input supply system that is 
responsive to farmer and sector 
needs.
iii. Quality inputs is a prerequisite for 
the success of the vanilla industry 
to enable farmers produce high 
quality vanilla.
iii. Strengthening the certification and 
regulatory system to guarantee the 
quality of agriculture inputs at all 
levels.
iv. The country lacks voluntary 
regulatory mechanisms in the 
inputs sector and products, and 
CRS could initiate voluntary 
regulation among actors of the 
vanilla value chains.
Findings from the different stakeholders indicate that the current policy 
framework is generally weak and may have negative implications for the 
development of the sector. According to the Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan 
(ASSP) 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal 
Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), vanilla export values were projected to grow 
from USD 2.56 million (baseline 2014) to generating over USD 5.3 million by 
the year 2019/2020, which was much higher than several other crops like 
bananas, soyabeans, groundnuts etc. Vanilla is not currently listed among 
the priority crops in the strategy, which limits GoU’s ability to make any 
meaningful interventions in the sector. As the Commissioner Crop Production 
(MAAIF) rightly put it:
“Vanilla is a crop which was left to the private sector. Government just 
supports all farmers who engage in priority crops and horticulture, including 
vanilla, which is a spice.” Commissioner Crop Production (MAAIF) 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
111
This was equally affirmed by the National Agricultural Advisory Services 
(NAADS) Secretariat:
“Vanilla is not among the crops prioritized by NAADs because MAAIF, which 
formulates Government agricultural policies, has not included it in the 
national priority export commodities. Vanilla was left to the private sector and,
therefore, NAADS has no activities aimed at supporting the vanilla value 
chain” (KII- Head of Agri-business and Technical Services) 
The absence of a policy to regulate activities and actors in the vanilla value 
chain, has had implication on the development and performance of the vanilla 
sector, which among others include:
i. Production bottlenecks which threaten Uganda’s capacity to increase 
production and productivity. There is limited access to vanilla 
production-specific extension services and quality agro-inputs. In the 
absence of laws and regulations, rampant thefts at farm level have 
become a major disincentive for vanilla production. 
ii. Market access and commercial viability are weakened: While Uganda is 
increasingly being recognized internationally among the major 
producers and exporters, its potential is mainly undermined by quality 
assurance challenges largely due to a weak regulatory framework. Key 
drivers of poor quality include harvesting of premature beans and 
improper harvesting, post-harvest handling and processing. In addition, 
there is no coordination of value chain actors, as well as causing 
unhealthy competition and tension among actors. The effects of this 
regulatory gap, and its implications on market access, is increasingly a 
concern of Government.
iii. Informal marketing through unregulated middlemen has undermined 
both export product quality, value and incomes of farmers by buying 
pre-mature vanilla beans plus increase in thefts which erodes the 
commercial viability of vanilla.
iv. Low investments and Sustainability: Without a well-defined policy 
framework, Government has not committed any funds to the vanilla 
industry. In turn, this unfortunately rendered the vanilla sector to be 
depicted as quite risky and unattractive for investment. As a result, 
vanilla farmers and other market actors cannot access appropriate 
credit to finance their activities as profitable agribusiness.
5.4.3 Local Ordinances and other administrative measures
The survey attempted to identify and document the regulatory and 
administrative measures taken in Uganda to mitigate against the implications
on the weak policy and regulatory framework for the vanilla value chain. 
Findings showed that in order to protect crop quality and boost production at 
both national and district levels, some district local governments have taken 
some measures within the existing national legal framework, as follows: 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
112
A. National Level administrative controls
Despite the absence of a sector specific policy and regulatory framework, 
survey findings indicated that government has taken a number of measures 
to address the issue of quality and predictability, include:
i. Vanilla harvest date(s): Government, through MAAIF and in 
conjunction with VANEX and CRS, has since 2020 started setting and 
announcing the national harvest day(s) in consultation with industry 
stakeholders to promote quality and processing of vanilla.
ii. Provision of Extension service to promote good agronomic 
practices: The services are delivered through the national agriculture 
extension service framework though not specifically targeting vanilla 
industry. (as discussed earlier, NAADS has not prioritized the vanilla 
value chain for support) 
iii. Carry out monitoring and inspection for quality assurance: 
Through the existing national agriculture quality monitoring 
frameworks, Government is undertaking supervision of vanilla industry 
actors; Vanilla sellers and processors. 
iv. Carry out on ground demonstration gardens: Government has 
initiated and funded the setting up of a vanilla demonstration garden in 
Kazo District (2021).
B. By-laws and Administrative measures at local government level
i. Restrictions on movement of planting materials: Only 3 (27%) out 
of the 11 political leaders’ interviews (DLGs and LCIII level) reported 
existence of by-laws to restrict movement of planting materials. 
Contrary to the political leaders however, the majority of the technical 
district leaders interviewed (60%) reported absence of restrictions to 
movement of planting materials. The leaders mainly contended that the 
national trade policies promote free movement of goods and services 
with no regard to the unique challenges of the vanilla value chain. 
ii. Guiding Vanilla processing and marketing/trade: Forty five percent 
(45%) of the 11 political leaders interviewed at local government levels 
reported that they had adopted some measure to regulate processing 
and trade in vanilla. 
CASE 1: Measures taken in Ntoroko District: Ntoroko Local District 
Government and Local Government Council levels I to III, have taken 
measures to regulate vanilla processing and trade. The measures in this 
district were found more comprehensive with the following outstanding 
elements: 
a) By-laws passed at the sub-county level for vanilla production and 
marketing;
b) Ordinance was passed at the district;
c) Introduced licence from the LC1 chairman for farmers without 
which, no farmer can sell vanilla in specific sub-counties (Nombe, 
Karugutu Sub- County, and Karugutu Town Council);
d) All farmers only to sell at the collection centre gazetted by the 
district;
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
113
e) Farmer to sell only on designated dates announced on radio and 
displayed on notice boards; and 
f) The dates of sale are gazette d and set by the Commissioner of 
Agriculture (MAAIF).
iii. Enforcement Measures for Compliance: 7 (64%) out of the 11 political 
leaders’ interviews (DLGs and LCIII level) reported that there were some 
modalities to enforce compliance to local by-laws and central 
government directives. Enforcement officers included: local council 
chairpersons, police, extension workers, farmer organisations/groups 
and community guards. 
Most technical leaders reported that enforcement was not effective due to 
various factors, namely: 
a) Weak by-laws (most of were which not yet ratified by either district 
councils or Office of the Attorney-General);
b) Lack of awareness among farmers, enforcement officers and local 
leaders; and 
c) Very weak and ineffective punishments for offenders as one of the local 
government leaders well expressed.
5.4.4 Constraints to implementing effective regulation at district level
The district leadership interviewed during the survey raised a number of 
factors that had curtailed their capacity to successfully institute ordinances 
to regulate vanilla production, processing and trade in their districts and these 
include:
a) Bureaucracy within the Government systems: There is laxity of 
authorities in following up on initiatives for vanilla bills at different 
levels (sub-county to district headquarters)
b) Lack of awareness about vanilla by political leaders and communities 
(considered a new crop, not given priority as a cash commodity); COVID￾19 lockdown derailed or delayed processes of institution regulatory 
frameworks; 
c) Understaffing at the districts and local governments: Lack of adequate 
staff to host and facilitate meetings to formulate regulations; and
d) Absence of strong farmer organizations: Farmers are not coordinated 
nor empowered to demand or participate in shaping the necessary bye 
laws.
5.5 Vanilla Standards Guidelines and Brand Development
Uganda has a National Vanilla Standard, US ISO 5565-1 (First Edition 2009-
09 -04.) It covers vanilla pods, cut vanilla, vanilla in bulk and vanilla powder. 
The standard, regulated by UNBS, covers the following specifications; vanilla 
pods categorization (in 4 different categories); and vanillin content and 
moisture content. Findings indicated that only one SME (RFCU) had adopted 
these vanilla standards regulated nationally (as one of the quality assurance 
guidelines), while all other key supply chain actors adopted different 
standards and certifications from different agencies largely dependent on 
consumer market regulations.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
114
5.5.1 Industry self- regulation mechanisms
A number of vanilla industry organizations have, over the years, emerged at 
different levels to create some form of self-regulation. These organizations take 
the form of farmer organizations (associations and cooperatives), traders’ and 
exporters’ associations. These formations have largely emerged to fill the gap 
in the absence of effective Government regulation and support for the 
development of the vanilla industry in Uganda. Some of the leading sector 
organizations include:
a) The Association of Vanilla Exporters of Uganda Limited (VANEX):
VANEX is a membership organization constituted by vanilla buyers and 
exporters in 2003, and incorporated in Uganda in June 2005, as a company 
limited by guarantee. The goal of VANEX is to pool the resources of its 
members and to harmonize and coordinate their efforts and activities in the 
best interest of the vanilla export industry in Uganda. VANEX is generally 
recognized as a pivotal platform for sector actors, and contributes to the effort 
to create an enabling environment for sustainable vanilla production and 
trade with a view of making Uganda a reliable global source of high-quality 
natural vanilla. Over the years, however, VANEX’s influence in the industry 
weakened and became dormant until its re-launch in 2015 with the support 
of partners like CRS to start industry engagements to address issues of 
improving the regulatory policy environment for vanilla. VANEX remains a 
private sector organization and platform which, when strengthened, has the 
potential to make significant contributions especially in influencing trade and 
the public policy environment for vanilla in Uganda.
b) Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union (RFCU): RFCU is a farmer 
organization that converted from the Mubuku Farmers Association to a 
cooperative union in 2014, to enhance its capacity to deliver services to its 
members. Through technical support and training of partners like Ndali Estate
(a processor and trader) it obtained Fairtrade certification and facilitated 
vanilla exports to Ben & Jerry’s and other buyers. RFCU is still a 
maturingorganization; its membership has grown to over 3,200 and has the 
potential of becoming a formidable actor in developing farmers to produce high 
quality vanilla, access and compete in the international market. (See more 
details in 4.2 above).
C) Farmer groups at Community Level: Survey findings show that 
numerous farmer organizations have emerged at the community level in most 
of the Vanilla growing districts of Uganda: These organizations may take the 
form of, farmer groups at village level, cooperatives and associations. Seven 
(7) vanilla farmer groups were reported in the districts of: Rubirizi, 
Bunyangabo and Bundibugyo (Western region) and Luwero-Katikamu sub￾county (Central Region) as shown in Table 45. The scope of commodities 
promoted by several community level organizations often extend beyond 
vanilla to include coffee and cocoa.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
115
Table 45: List of community level farmer groups by region & district
Region District Name
Western Rubirizi 1. Katanda Vanilla farmers’ Association
Kasese 2. Rwimi Rwenzori Association, 
3. Upper Rwenzori Vanilla Farmers’ Association
Bundibugy
o
4. Abanya Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union
5. Bundibugyo NILLAVA Co-operative Society
6. Semliki Farmers’ Co-operative Union
Central Rakai 7. Kiyovu Farmers’ Co-operative
5.5.2 Community-level surveillance committees to enforce vanilla 
ordinances
Indicator 36: Number of Active Community-Level Surveillance Committees to Enforce 
Vanilla Ordinances (Baseline Value = 0)
This baseline survey examined the existence of active community-level 
surveillance committees to enforce vanilla ordinances (Indicator 36 in the 
PMP). Findings showed that at the District Local Government (DLG) level, the 
political leadership there was zero community-level surveillance committees 
reported. On the other hand, only 5(46%) districts out of 12 district technical 
leaders surveyed reported the existence of an active community-level 
surveillance committees to enforce vanilla ordinances. The districts included: 
Rubirizi, Ibanda, Bundibugyo, Buikwe and Rakai.
5.6 Cross-Cutting Issues 
For purposes of this survey, two main cross-cutting issues were assessed 
among the vanilla producing households: (a) Gender equity and equality; and 
(b) Child protection. 
5.6.1 Gender Equity and Equality
Indicator 44: Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index – Percent 
Improvement over the Baseline Value in the Indicator on Control over use of Income 
(Baseline Value = 74)
The survey employed the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture 
Index (A-WEAI) to measure the empowerment, agency and inclusion of women 
in Uganda’s vanilla sector. The survey collected data under the following six 
(6) indicators: 
1) Input in productive decisions;
2) Ownership of assets;
3) Access to and decisions on credit;
4) Control over use of income);
5) Workload; and
6) Group membership.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
116
Findings showed that on the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in 
Agriculture Index (A-WEAI) to measure the empowerment, agency and 
inclusion of women in Uganda’s vanilla sector, the score was 74.
Survey findings on each of the above A-WEAI indicators plus other selected 
related indicators are summarized in Table 46. 
Table 46: Household status on selected A-WEAI indicators
Indicators Freq. (n=307) % of Respondents
Input in productive decisions 306 99.7%
Ownership of assets 307 100%
Access to and decisions on 
credit
279 90.88
Group membership 261 85.02
Control over use of income
Workload 287 93.49
Findings showed that almost all respondents (99.7%) reported that women 
participated and provided input in productive decisions of the household. 
Furthermore, findings showed that all the respondents (100%) reported that 
women owned household productive assets or capital. Findings also showed 
that the majority of the households (91%) reported that women had access to 
credit. In addition, 85% of the respondents reported that women were 
members of farmer organizations and over 93% reported that the workload 
undertaken in the last 24 hours was adequate/normal. 
At community level, however, the above findings did not fully agree with data 
from KIIs with district leaders who identified gender related issues that affect 
vanilla production in their localities. During analysis, these influencing issues 
at household and community level were grouped into five (5) categories 
namely: 
a) Decision-making and control of household incomes; 
b) Equality and empowerment; 
c) Gender Based Violence (GBV); 
d) Gender household labor relations; and
e) Access to and Ownership of Land. 
The findings are summarized in Table 47.
Table 47: Gender issues that affect vanilla production
CATEGORY EMERGING GENDER ISSUES
1) Decision￾making and 
control of 
household 
incomes 
i. Some husbands work with their families but still 
control the selling of Vanilla and hide the money from 
the family. (DAO- Mukono);
ii. Most of the women work with their husbands in vanilla 
production. It is a family crop, but men control the 
finances (SAS – Butenga, Bukomansimbi);
iii. The decision when to harvest and where to sell, and 
custodian of income, is generally made by men; and
iv. Unfair/unequal sharing of dividends/incomes at 
household level. 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
117
CATEGORY EMERGING GENDER ISSUES
2) Equality and 
empowerment 
3) (Positive 
behavioral 
change at 
household 
level) 
i. Vanilla can be grown by both men and women. (Sub-c 
ountyAO- Buhuhira Kasese); and
ii. Some women are in vanilla production in their 
households.
4) Gender Based 
Violence (GBV)
i. Gender Based Violence has been reported in some 
areas due to inequality in income distribution (DAO￾Mukono);
ii. Broken marriages because of money wrangles between 
wife and husband especially in the harvesting periods. 
(AO- Lwanda Sub-County Rakai); 
iii. It has contributed to domestic violence in some 
households that have failed to define the general roles 
in production (Rwimi Town Council-Town Clerk);
iv. When husbands (men) sell vanilla, they get a boom and 
they engage in extra-marital affairs with younger 
women. The family starves thereafter. (CAO- Rakai)
5) Gender labor 
relations 
(Household roles 
and tasks are 
allocated 
according to 
gender)
i. Vanilla is a male-dominated enterprise with very few 
women owning vanilla fields. Those who own have very 
few plants;
ii. Men dominate vanilla farming and marketing;
iii. Men entirely own the land in Bundibugyo;
iv. Women participate from planting to harvesting, but are 
not given opportunities to sell; and
v. Men leave all the work to women. (Rwimi TC-Town 
Clerk)
6) Access to and 
Ownership of 
Land
(Socio-cultural 
biases that 
influence 
access to and 
ownership of 
land based on 
gender)
i. There is a challenge with land ownership, 89% of the 
vanilla gardens are owned by men. (Extension Worker￾Bundibugyo);
ii. Women and Youth have no right over land (SAO￾Ibanda);
iii. Traditionally most of the land is owned by men so they 
dictate what is to be grown on the land; sometimes 
women grow vanilla, but when it gets to marketing, it 
becomes for the man. (DAO- Bunyangabu);
iv. Women and youth have no right over land;
v. Women don’t have access to ownership of land; women 
don’t control farm-family income even when they 
provide labor. The youth are not involved in farming. 
(CAO- Kasese)
vi. Land ownership (Many land wrangles happening in the 
area. 
vii. Many women lack or have inadequate control over land 
and household resources due to: 
a) Women culturally do not have control over land;
while access at the same time is a problem; and
b) They have to seek permission to grow vanilla 
(decision is by the husband).
1) Skill gaps i. Most women still lack knowledge about the vanilla 
industry (production, processing and trading) hence 
require a lot of capacity building.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
118
5.6.2 Child Protection
Indicator 45: Percentage (%) of Livelihood Service Participant hhs with at Least one 
Child Engaged in Child Labor: 
(a) Percentage of Livelihood Service Participant hhs with at Least one Child 
Engaged in Child Labor (Baseline Value = 12.3%)
(b) Percentage of Livelihood Service Participant hhs with at Least one Child 
Engaged in Hazardous Child Labor (Baseline Value = 9.8%) 
This survey examined child protection issues by assessing the child labor 
status of all children in households engaged in vanilla production. Data was 
collected to measure the percentage of livelihood service participant 
households with at least one child engaged in general child labor and 
hazardous child labor. 
A. Child Labor
Agricultural activities that involve child labor are not prohibited at national 
and international level and this is in line with the following laws and policies 
of Uganda:
i. Chapter Four of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 
provides for the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights 
and freedoms; 
ii. Vision 2040 clearly articulates the importance of social protection in 
addressing risks and vulnerabilities by age, social class, gender, climate 
disaster exposure and cultural norms; and
iii. The Children Act (Cap. 59) as amended gives a legal framework for the 
rights and duties of parents, protection of children’s rights, and 
protection from harmful customary practices and harmful employment.
Findings showed that only 12% of the children in households of the 
respondents, were engaged in vanilla production. Findings also showed that 
some of the tasks done by children in vanilla production include; land 
preparation, planting, weeding, manure application, mulching, pollination, 
harvesting and to provide security/guarding vanilla gardens. This practice 
was affirmed by respondents to key informant interviews at the district and 
local government levels, as well articulated by a respondent in Buikwe 
districts, thus:
“Yes, children do work in vanilla gardens. The work includes; planting, 
weeding, manure application; while some provide security to vanilla gardens, 
pollination and general management of vanilla gardens.” Assistant Agriculture 
Officer - Ngogwe Sub-county 
The prevalence of child labor in vanilla production according to local 
government leaders is on the increase and the communities tend to attribute 
this to cultural perception and increased household poverty, forcing parents 
to encourage or engage children in child labor as expressed by some 
respondents during the key informant interviews:
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
119
“With high poverty levels in households, you find that some families have no 
other alternative but to engage their children in manual jobs; there are 
cultural practices that conflict with the national laws and do not take into 
account that children are not supposed to be involved in labor” CAO – Kasese 
District.
Some of the drivers for increased child labor identified by the district and local 
government leaders, interviewed include:
a) Scarcity of labor (especially during the fertilization period);
b) Household poverty - “… most farmers are poor thus resort to cheap child 
labor” SAO- Ibanda District. “… Vulnerability and the need to meet 
some household basic needs like sending children to school, and 
meeting medical bills for the parents.” Rwimi Town Clerk – Bunyangabo 
Districts 
c) High level s of illiteracy and increasing school dropouts; 
d) Domestic violence, divorces in families and teenage pregnancy; and
e) Lack of awareness and knowledge of the laws that prohibit child labor.
B. Hazardous Child Labor
Findings showed that about 10% of the respondent households reported that 
a child got involved in an accident or became ill because of agricultural tasks, 
of which 4.5% were female and 5.3% male. This is considered hazardous child 
labor calling for necessary remedial interventions to eradicate the 
phenomenon in the vanilla industry.
C. Children Regularly Attending School
Indicator 46: Percentage (%) of Livelihood Service Participant Hhs with all Children 
of Compulsory School Age Regularly Attending School (Baseline Value = 98.57%)
In regard to the children in the vanilla producing households attending school 
regularly, 99% of the respondents affirmed this. Note, however, that the survey 
was conducted during a period when the country was still under strict COVID￾19 prevention measures and schools were still closed. It was not, therefore, 
easy to verify this assertion that almost all children in the household regularly 
attend school. 
5.6.3 Household expenditure
Indicator 5: Daily Per Capita Expenditures (As A Proxy for Income) in USDA-Assisted 
Areas (Baseline Value = USD 2.43)
The household survey collected data for the indicators related to vanilla 
farmers’ household consumption expenditures as a proxy for income. Findings 
showed that the average daily per capita for vanilla farmers in Uganda was 
2.43 USD, which is slightly higher than the national average of USD 2.24 per 
day15for the year 2020. 
15SOURCE: World Bank Website; GDP per capita (current USD) - Uganda | Data (worldbank.org)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
120
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents key conclusions made based on the survey findings. 
6.1 Conclusions
A number of conclusions were deduced from the analysis of baseline data 
collected and are presented here below:
1) Vanilla production and yield: at the farm level, almost 100,000 vines 
were reported to be under production with an average yield of 
0.22kgs/vine. This is considered to be quite low but is consistent with 
the 0.25kgs/vine projected in the proposal. 
2) Land restoration and climate-risk management: The majority 
(84.9%) of farmers had attained only basic level of competency in 
planning for land restoration. While 50% of farmers utilized weather 
forecasts from the national meteorological information agency, very few 
took decisions to adopt climate change mitigation practices. It was 
evident from interviews with farmers that vanilla producing 
communities were experiencing climate change effects that if not 
addressed will significantly impact production, productivity and the 
quality of vanilla; ultimately household livelihoods. Use of some 
essential information obtained, for example, through soil testing, was 
very low partly due to limited availability of services. 
3) Access to reliable vanilla market information for production 
decisions: Most farmers indicated that they accessed and utilized 
market information to inform production decisions; however, the quality 
of the information was highly variable. Apart from the farmers in RFCU’s
catchment areas who received reliable information from the Union or 
their cooperatives, farmers in other vanilla producing areas received 
information from traders and other middlemen, which disadvantaged 
farmers. 
4) Water resource management: Most farmers use basic agronomic 
practices such as mulching to retain soil moisture, but fewer farmers 
(less than half), implemented practices that slowed water run-off from 
vanilla fields. Similarly, most farmers did not utilize practices to capture 
and store water and as a result rely on rainwater. As noted in the 
conclusions above, weak adoption of climate change/ land restoration 
practices among farmers puts, Uganda’s vanilla farmers at risk as the 
impacts of climate change becomes more apparent. 
5) Irrigation practices: Uptake of irrigation practices was generally very 
low with only 16% of vanilla producers practicing irrigation on their 
vanilla fields. Farmers reported limitations to uptake of irrigation 
practices partly due to limited access and high costs of improved 
irrigation technologies. 
6) Integrated soil fertility management: Use and adoption of practices 
towards integrated soil fertility management were very low among 
vanilla farmers. More than half of the farmers did not take 
measures/practices to identify and improve nutrient needs of vanilla 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
121
and other crops in their fields. While more than half of farmers reported 
use of organic fertilisers, they had no requisite knowledge of appropriate 
techniques/practices in fertilizer preparation and application. 
7) Land ownership and field characteristics: Most vanilla farmers are 
smallholders, and most fields are owned by men due to prevalent gender 
inequalities on account of socio-cultural contradictions that still exist 
in many communities of Uganda.
8) Adoption of improved agronomic practices: While majority of farmers 
reported to have adopted improved agronomic practices, less than half 
of the total acreage under vanilla was under such practice. In terms of 
harvesting practices over half of the farmers reported high post-harvest 
losses and rampant theft prior to harvest with mean of 24kg for the 
main season, the 22kg for the fly season. Theft of vanilla was the leading 
challenge faced by farmers, followed by pests and diseases, as well as 
several other poor agronomy practice related problems. To safeguard the 
vanilla industry, urgent interventions required to increase production 
in Uganda, should address the problem of thefts among other key 
challenges.
9) Farm operations and financial management practices: While most 
of the vanilla farmers had access to agriculture financing, overall, only 
19.8% of the farmers had adopted the different financial management 
practices assessed. Most Vanilla farmers manifested weak financial 
management practices. The survey revealed that saving practices were 
particularly weak. Access to financial services by vanilla farmers is 
generally low with SACCOs and mobile money as the most used 
services. While there was an appetite among farmers to borrow wisely 
for investment in vanilla related production activities, loan funds 
available were limited. Females compared to males, are most 
disadvantaged at the household level regarding accessing credit and 
decisions to borrow. These trends are likely to impact negatively on 
vanilla production if not addressed. 
10) Farming as a business: The fact that only 7.3% of farmers 
assessed their costs/profit, it is clear from the surveys that farmers do 
not treat vanilla farming as a business. Only a few farmers evaluated 
results of the previous season when making decisions about the 
following season. 
11) Value-addition and post-harvest handling: post-harvest
handling losses significantly affect vanilla farmers and 
disproportionately impact female farmers. Most of the farmers did not 
practice the recommended measures to ensure quality during harvest. 
The survey was unable to determine the root cause of the loss, e.g.,
whether it was from loss as a result of a time lapse between harvest and 
delivery to the aggregation center or loss as a result of rejection at the 
aggregation center because the vanilla did not meet quality parameters. 
Regardless, the problems of post-harvest loss and poor quality, if not 
addressed, will seriously undermine Uganda’s vanilla production and 
competitiveness in international markets.
12) Market access and payment modalities: Majority of vanilla 
farmers reported that they received market information from middlemen
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
122
and that the price they were offered was the main reason for choosing 
to deal with the same buyer every season (47%). This behavior is likely 
to work largely in favor of the traders to the detriment of farmers, and 
is a reflection of market information gaps between the buyers (traders) 
and sellers (farmers), calling for remedial interventions. Most of the 
payments to farmers for green vanilla were made in cash with minimum 
use of non-cash methods. The average price was USD 8 per kilogram of 
green vanilla. Premium prices tied to either quality or certification status 
were rare, with 0.3% of farmers receiving premiums. Interventions that 
seek to reward and incentivize quality should strengthen relationships 
between farmers and traders, and accelerate adoption of best practices. 
13) Quality of inclusiveness of buyer-seller relations: generally, 
both buyers and sellers in all the four business models evaluated scored 
low on the six (6) key elements used to measure the strength of these 
relationships. Sellers’ (41%) scores were lower compared to those of 
buyers (70%). If the big gaps that exist currently in the relations between 
buyers and sellers in the vanilla supply chain are not addressed, it could 
significantly undermine productivity at farm level. VINES project should 
develop and implement deliberate measures to deepen markets, 
strengthen relationships (especially targeting sellers) and increase 
incomes/profitability to enhance achievement of project objectives. 
14) Vanilla production and market trends: The global vanilla 
market is currently in a state of oversupply as new plantings from the 
most recent boom period come into production. This situation would 
ordinarily have resulted in a market collapse. Fortunately, this has not 
happened because of Government’s intervention in Madagascar, the 
world’s largest vanilla producing country (75% of global supply in 2021). 
The government in Madagascar continues to impose a minimum export 
price of USD 250/kg for vanilla which has benefited farmers and 
processors (and those from other smaller origins) because it has kept 
prices much higher than they would be if the market were left to do its 
work. Uganda’s formal exports appear to be on a downward trend, which 
is at odds with conversations with industry players. Nevertheless, the
quality problems if not addressed could undermine the potential of 
vanilla becoming a major export earner for the country. 
15) Marketing competencies and opportunities: The survey 
revealed that Ugandan vanilla farmers only achieved a basic level of 
competency across all four competency measures. There is a clear need 
to build capacity of both buyers and sellers in the vanilla sector along 
all four interrelated competencies assessed: Market Opportunities 
Prioritization, Effective Business Planning, Successful Business 
Implementation, and Periodic Business Performance Review 
competencies.
16) Farmer organization membership and collective marketing: 
57% of vanilla farmers were members of a farmer organization (FO). 
However, only a few (23%) participated in collective marketing. The 
participation of women was much higher compared to males. While the 
FOs could be good and effective channels to deliver services to promote 
vanilla farmers aligned with project objectives, these organizations are 
weak and need support to build their requisite capacities.
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
123
17) Supply chain development: There are weak linkages between 
the supply chain actors. Only a few vanilla farmers (less than 20%) were 
aware of buyers’ preferences. 
18) Policy and Regulatory Framework for Vanilla in Uganda:
Uganda does not have a vanilla specific policy or regulatory framework 
for production and trade. While the National Agricultural Policy (NAP 
2013), provides a policy framework for agricultural commodities in 
general under which vanilla falls, this presents a challenge to efforts to 
grow and transform the vanilla industry. Furthermore, for many years 
there has been almost zero-funding from Government to support the 
sector. In addition, sector-level organizations such as VANEX – buyers 
and farmer organizations - producers are generally weak at both 
national and district/ community level. There is a need to take 
initiatives and support interventions to enable effective regulation of 
production and trade in vanilla in Uganda. This should also include 
support to ensure enforcement of administrative measures by 
government and district local governments. 
19) Gender equity and equality: Using A-WEAI indicators plus 
other related indicators, it was reported that there was a fair 
performance in terms of gender equity and equality at household level. 
Cases of gender-based violence were however, reported and 
corroborated by the community leaders and this could significantly 
undermine vanilla production in their localities.
20) Child protection, labor and school attendance: It was noted 
in interviews that child labor was increasing in vanilla production areas. 
This included reported cases of hazardous child labor. While most of the 
households (99%) reported that children of compulsory school age 
regularly attended school this finding could not be easily verified.
21) Household expenditure: The average daily per capita for vanilla 
farmers in Uganda was 2.43 USD which is slightly higher than the 
national average of USD 2.24 per day16for the year 2020. 
6.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations were made based on the findings and 
conclusions: 
1) The need for capacity development was envisaged both at project design 
and during the baseline study. Several capacity development needs were 
identified at both stages, and these are categorised as:
a) Improved access to and adoption of productivity-enhancing 
technologies to improve land productivity (vanilla yields) and 
income of the farmers;
b) Vanilla-specific agronomic practices, including land and water 
resource management, and, agroforestry. These practices will 
contribute to overcoming low vanilla yields and increase 
production and productivity; reducing the rampant boom and 
bust cycles of production; and contribute to improving soil, water 
16SOURCE: World Bank Website; GDP per capita (current USD) - Uganda | Data (worldbank.org)
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
124
and land resources management. Importantly, this would 
improve farmers’ incomes;
c) Post-harvest management and quality control knowledge, skills 
and practices to improve marketability of vanilla through 
improved quality; and
d) Farming as a business: Financial and business skills will 
contribute to improved technical and financial efficiency, which 
in turn will increase income and profitability of the enterprise. 
2) Increase farmer access to financial resources, with an emphasis on
internal savings, in order to build a capital base, especially with 
SACCOs that will provide capital for investment in productivity -
enhancing technologies, practices and services. Farmers’ savings at 
household level should be linked to formal financial services for access 
to a bigger resource envelope as well as financial literacy. This is 
envisaged to provide a wider capital base for farmers and subsequently 
improve incomes for the farmers
3) Efforts to provide effective and efficient market information services to 
improve access to market information among the traders and farmers 
should be developed and implemented. Such interventions should 
target both traders and farmers; and they include but are not limited to:
carrying out market studies to generate the information; collating 
packaging and disseminating information timely; improving access to 
tools and equipment which aid information sharing use of multiple 
channels such as radios and phones; which are very common modes;
as well as engaging public extension agents in information 
dissemination; should be promoted. This calls for harmonization with 
current Government frameworks and programmes, as well as other 
development initiatives.
4) Support supply chain development that enables farmers and other 
supply chain actors to link up effectively and efficiently through 
information exchange and access to markets. Support to formation of, 
operationalization and development of platforms where key 
stakeholders in the vanilla value chain will provide an avenue for 
networking and partnership development for information exchange and 
market linkages. A detailed value chain analysis and mapping of vanilla 
value chain actors will form the basis for identifying the key actors to 
participate in the platforms.
5) Farmer institutional development involving farmer mobilization, 
sensitization and organization is a continuous process. Formation and 
strengthening of farmer organizations allows for collective access to 
services across the value chain. Bulking of demand for agro-inputs and 
extension services; bulking of produce; access to processing facilities 
and collective marketing of vanilla to improve market access and farmer 
income will be achieved with farmer organization and institutional 
development. Farmer institutions should include community level 
farmers’ groups which aggregate at sub-county, district or regional 
levels, and an apex body at the national level.
6) There is a need to take steps to support the process of formulating an 
effective policy and regulatory framework for production and trade in 
vanilla in Uganda. Technical support through capacity development for 
the key stakeholders in the process is key. This should also include
support to ensure enforcement of administrative measures by 
Baseline Evaluation of the CRS Uganda VINES Project Nov 2021
125
government and district local governments (including passing relevant 
by-laws and ordinances). Development and enactment of such laws, 
ordinances and bye-laws should be followed by instruments and 
infrastructure for enforcement.
7) Efforts should be made to promote gender equity and equality in the 
vanilla industry. Such efforts should seek to address drivers of gender 
inequalities not only at household level but also at community level. 
These initiatives should also seek to eliminate gender-based violence 
(GBV), which is a common phenomenon in vanilla growing families. In 
addition, interventions to involve women and youth in vanilla value 
chain activities, which could be off-farm, should be promoted.
8) The project should develop and implement an effective communication 
and stakeholder engagement strategy to support the different pillars of 
the project. The strategy should take into consideration the key public 
and private sector players in the vanilla sub-sector, including service 
providers, implementers, managers and policy makers.
9) There is an urgent need for measures to ensure child protection and 
eliminate all forms of child labor in vanilla production. This issue is top￾of-mind among global buyers. This will require the VINES project to 
analyze and quantify the problem and then work with community 
leaders and other stakeholders to educate and increase awareness 
among farmers and other important constituencies. Ordinances and 
bye-laws to minimize/eliminate child labour should be enacted and 
enforced by the respective communities. 
10) The VINES project should review the project design documents 
and address the recommendations resulting from analysis of baseline 
questions and their implications regarding project relevancy, 
implementation and sustainability. Some of the proposed measures 
require immediate action while others could be addressed during the
mid-term review.
129
APPENDICES
130
Appendix 1: The Vines Project Performance Indicators Table
 
Table 48: The vines project indicators table
GOAL: to increase and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by improving productivity with 16,000 farmers, enhancing 
quality and compliance with food safety standards, and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international demand.
# Performance Indicator and 
disaggregates
Type Standard /
Custom 
Baseline 
(proposal)
Actual Baseline Standard 
Error 
(SE)
Confidence 
Interval (CI)
1 Yield of targeted agricultural 
commodities among program 
participants with USD.A Assistance0f
i
Outcome Standard #1 0.24 kg/vine 0.221Kg/Vine
2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance 
Outcome Standard 
#18 
5.6 million US 
Dollars 
Green (2.13 
million US 
Dollars)
Cured (2.61 
million US 
Dollars)
3 Volume of commodities sold by farms 
and firms receiving USDA assistance 
Outcome Standard 
#19 
66 MT of cured 
vanilla 
Green (905 MT)
5 Daily per capita expenditures (as a 
proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 
Outcome FTF 
#EG.3-a 
1.50 US 
Dollars 
2.43 US Dollars 0.583 (1.29, 3.57)
10 Number of hectares under improved 
management practices or technologies 
that promote improved climate risk 
reduction and/or natural resources 
management with USDA assistance 
Outcome Standard #2 0 hectares 2830.5 
Hectares
262 (2319,3344)
11 Number of hectares under improved 
management practices or technologies 
with USDA assistance 
Outcome Standard #3 0 hectares 
12 Number of individuals in the agriculture 
system who have applied improved 
management practices or technologies 
with USDA assistance 
Outcome Standard #4 0 individuals 
13 Farmer’s gross margin per hectare 
obtained with USG assistance 
Outcome FTF 
#EG.3-6, -7, 
-8 
1,000 US 
Dollars /ha 
332.8 US 
Dollars/ ha 
16 Number of individuals accessing 
agriculture-related financing as a result 
of USDA assistance 
Output Standard #5 0 individuals 61
131
GOAL: to increase and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by improving productivity with 16,000 farmers, enhancing 
quality and compliance with food safety standards, and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international demand.
19 
Number of farmers who have reached at 
least a functional level of "land 
restoration and climate-risk 
management" and of "vanilla-based 
agroforestry management” 
competencies as a result of USDA 
assistance 
Outcome Custom 1,620 
individuals
59 14.8 (29,88)
20 Number of farmers who have reached at 
least a functional level of financial and 
marketing competencies as a result of 
USDA assistance 
 
Outcome Custom 806 
individuals
Overall, 44
Financial 
Competency 44
Market 
Competencies 
73
8.87
8.87
11.28
(25.79, 
60.45)
(25.79, 11)
(25.79, 
60.45)
(50,95)
(49.97, 
95.108)
21 Number of farmers receiving price 
premiums for vanilla quality and/or 
certification 
Outcome Custom 1,300 
individuals
44 12 (22,68) (22, 
68)
23 Farm gate price paid to producers for 
green vanilla 
Outcome Custom 10 US Dollars/ 
kg
Average = 9 US 
Dollar/kg
Main= 8 US 
Dollar/kg
Fly= 10 US 
Dollar/Kg
0.300
0.247
0.358
(8.41,9.59)
(7.52,8.48)
(9.30,10.70)
24 Cured Vanilla Uganda export price FOB Outcome Custom 90 US Dollars/ 
kg
25 Volume of vanilla shipped to 
international markets 
Outcome Custom 66 MT Missing data17
26 Volume of vanilla shipped that is 
rejected for not meeting quality or food 
safety standards 
Outcome Custom 6 MT No available 
data
17 This information is missing due to SMEs declining to provide some information they considered confidential or lack of cooperation 
with the research team partly attributed to existing mistrust among private sector actors coupled by absence of strong sector 
association that could unify the actors at the time of the study. 
132
GOAL: to increase and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by improving productivity with 16,000 farmers, enhancing 
quality and compliance with food safety standards, and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international demand.
27 Percentage of the volume of vanilla 
harvested that preserves its quality 
through post-harvest handling, curing 
and storage 
Outcome Custom 80 Percent No available 
data
28 Number of international buyers 
purchasing vanilla from Uganda 
Outcome Custom 25 buyers Missing data18
29 Quality and inclusiveness of buyer￾seller relations1F
ii
Outcome Custom Score=25 of a 
maximum of 
100
Producers= 41%
Buyers=70%
30 Number of Exporters, Aggregators, 
Traders, Processors, Farmer 
Organizations Who Use Traceability 
Systems
Outcome Custom 0
organizations 
2 (Amfri Farms 
and Enimiro)
31 Number of processors who implemented 
practices to meet export quality 
standards for vanilla 
Outcome Custom 3 processors 2 (Timex, Amfri 
farm)
32 Number of processors who implemented 
at least 2 improved vanilla post￾productions, processing, or handling 
practices 
Outcome Custom 3 processors 6
35 Value of agriculture-related financing 
accessed as a result of USDA assistance 
Output Standard #8 0 thousand US 
Dollars 
0
36 Number of Active Community-Level 
Surveillance Committees to Enforce 
Vanilla Ordinances 
Outcome Custom 0 Community 
Surveillance 
Committees 
0
37 Number of vanilla ordinances enforced Outcome Custom 0 ordinances 1
38 Number of policies, regulations and/or 
administrative procedures in each of the 
following stages of development as a 
result of USDA assistance 
Output / 
Outcome 
Standard 
#17 
0 ordinances 
39 Number of farmers who access climate 
information for decision-making 
Outcome Custom 0 individuals 1083 74.5 (939,1229)
18 This information is missing due to SMEs declining to provide some information they considered confidential or lack of cooperation 
with the research team partly attributed to existing mistrust among private sector actors coupled by absence of strong sector
association that could unify the actors at the time of the study. 
133
GOAL: to increase and improve the supply of high-quality vanilla by improving productivity with 16,000 farmers, enhancing 
quality and compliance with food safety standards, and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international demand.
40 Number of farmers and firms who 
access market information for decision￾making 
Output Custom 0 individuals 2286 Farmers 86.2 (2120,2455)
44 Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in 
Agriculture Index – Percent 
improvement over the baseline value in 
the indicator on control over use of 
income 
Outcome FTF - EG.3-f 0% 74 2.5 (69.4,79.2)
45 Percentage (%) of livelihood service 
participant HHs with at least one child 
engaged in child labor: 
a. Percentage of livelihood service 
participant HHs with at least one child 
engaged in child labor 
b. Percentage of livelihood service 
participant HHs with at least one child 
engaged in hazardous child labor 
Outcome USDOL 
/OCFT 
POH1, 
POH2, 
POH3 
% Of
participant 
children 
a.30% 
b.15% 
12.3% (65/530)
9.8% (52/530)
1.4%
1.3%
(9.4%,.15.1
%)
(7.3%, 
12.3%) 
46 Percentage (%) of livelihood service 
participant HHs with all children of 
compulsory school age regularly 
attending school 
Outcome USDOL 
/OCFT 
POH4 
50% of 
participant 
children 
98.57% 
(483/530)
1.2% (88.7%, 
93.6%)
134
Appendix II: Vines Project Results Framework 
Project Level Framework #1
CRS/Uganda, FAS FY20 Food for Progress 
1 
135
Project Level Framework #2
136
Appendix III: Data collection tools
TOOL 1: VANILLA PRODUCERS’ SURVEY – ALL MODULES FOR BASELINE ASSESSMENT
LABEL TYPE VALUES
MODULE I: INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT
Interviewer Name: Text
Date:
Data is collected as part of Select  Baseline [modules I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII]
 2021 Main Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and 
V - pre-harvest during growing season]
 2021 Main Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV - after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2021 Fly Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and V 
- during growing season]
 2021 Fly Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV - after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2022 Main Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and 
V - during growing season]
 2022 Main Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV - after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2022 Fly Season Pre-Season Monitoring [module I, II, III and V 
- during growing season]
 2022 Fly Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV- after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 Midterm [modules I, , VI, and VII]
 2023 Main Season Pre-harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and 
V - during growing season]
 2023 Main Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV- after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2023 Fly Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and V 
- during growing season]
 2023 Fly Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV- after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2024 Main Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and 
V - during growing season]
 2024 Main Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV- after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 2024 Fly Season Pre-Harvest Monitoring [module I, II, III and V 
- during growing season]
137
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 2024 Fly Season Post-Harvest Monitoring [module I, IV - after 
harvest and sale (by phone?)]
 Endline [modules I, VI, and VII]
Vanilla Producer ID
• Greetings, my name is ___________, I am working for ______________ who is conducting a farmer survey for the “VINES” 
project that CRS and Technoserve is starting to implement with support from the US Department of Agriculture to enhance 
vanilla farming and business over the next few years. 
• You have already been registered as a VINES project participant and the objective of this visit is to learn more about your 
vanilla production system by interviewing you while we visit your vanilla fields.
• This information will be very important to plan for the different project activities and ensure that available resources are 
allocated in a way that address your needs and priorities as a vanilla farmer. 
• Since the project is just starting its implementation, this is the first time we are visiting you, and we would like to visit your 
vanilla fields; this visit will take approximately 3 hours.
I.1 Do you have the time now to visit your 
vanilla fields and to participate in this 
interview?
Select  Yes
 No
I.2 Can we comeback? Or do you prefer 
not to participate?
Select  Please come back
 Prefer not to participate
• The information collected from you will be combined with information collected from other vanilla producers who will be 
participating in the project, and we will not disclose your name and what you have told us to others.
• By accepting to participate in this interview, you hereby consent to the collection, sharing, processing and use of your 
personal data as required for the implementation of the “VINES” project.
I.3 Do we have your consent? Select  Yes
 No
1.4 Are you a VINES direct project 
participant? 
Select  Yes
 No
1.5 Who is the main buyer for your 
vanilla?
Select  Gourmet Gardens Ltd
 Enimiro
 Touton
 UVAN Ltd
 ESCO Uganda Ltd
 RFCU
 Trader/Local Buyer
138
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 None of the above
• Thanks a lot for agreeing to participate and for your consent.
• We ask you to be honest as there are no right or wrong answers, and your experience as a vanilla producer is unique. 
• You should not hesitate to let me know if you do not understand a question, I will be more than happy to explain.
• If you don’t want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time.
MODULE IIA: VANILLA FIELD REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION
• We will now walk to your vanilla field(s), delimit them as the interview will focus on these fields, and will take a measurement 
of your fields area.
II.1.1 Vanilla field 1 area Number Acres:
II.1.2 GPS Location Vanilla field 1 Number Coordinates:
II.1.3 Number of vines in vanilla field 1 Number Number of vines:
II.1.4 Number of vanilla vines under 
production in vanilla field 1
Number Number of vines:
II.1.5 How old is this vanilla field (1)? Number Years:
II.1.6 What are the other cash and food 
crops grown in this vanilla field (1)?
Select  Amaranth/Dodo 
 Avocado 
 Bananas (desert type)
 Beans 
 Black pepper 
 Cabbage 
 Carrots 
 Cashew 
 Cassava 
 Citrus (Lemon and Oranges)
 Cocoa 
 Coffee 
 Cowpeas 
 Eggplant 
 Ginger 
 Groundnuts 
 Guava 
 Honey/Beehives 
 Irish Potato 
139
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Jackfruit 
 Macadamia 
 Maize
 Mango 
 Matooke (cooking type)
 Paw Paw 
 Pigeon peas 
 Pineapples 
 Pumpkin
 Rice 
 Sesame 
 Sorghum
 Soursop (Ekitaferi)
 Soybeans 
 Sugar Cane 
 Sweet potato 
 Tomato
 Turmeric 
 Yam 
 Other (please specify): ________________________
II.1.7 Which are the most important 
other crops grown in your vanilla fields? 
(select the four most important).
MSelect 
limited to 
only 4 choices
Exact same list as above once revised and finalized.
II.1.7.1 Alternative Crop #1 Select First crop selected in Q. II.1.6
II.1.7.2 Alternative Crop #2 Select Second crop selected in Q. V.2
II.1.7.3 Alternative Crop #3 Select Third crop selected in Q. V.2
II.1.7.4 Alternative Crop #4 Select Fourth crop selected in Q. V.2
II.1.8 Number of coffee trees in the 
vanilla field (1)
Number Number of coffee plants:
II.1.9 Number of coffee trees under 
production in the vanilla field (1) 
Number Number of coffee plants:
II.1.10 Number of cocoa trees in the 
vanilla field (1)
Number Number of coffee plants:
II.1.11 Number of cocoa trees under 
production in the vanilla field (1) 
Number Number of coffee plants:
II.1.12 Number of matooke (cooking type) 
plants in the vanilla field (1)
Number Number of matooke (cooking type) plants:
140
LABEL TYPE VALUES
II.1.13 Number of matooke (cooking type) 
plants under production in the vanilla 
field (1) 
Number Number of matooke (cooking type) plants
II.1.14 Number of banana (desert type) 
plants in the vanilla field (1)
Number Number of banana (desert type) plants:
II.1.15 Number of banana plants (desert 
type) under production in the vanilla 
field (1) 
Number Number of banana (desert type) plants:
Same questions asked for Vanilla Field 1 Information
Same questions asked for Vanilla Field 1 Information
Same questions asked for Vanilla Field 1 Information
MODULE IIB: VANILLA PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND COSTS
• The following questions refer to the practices you implemented in your vanilla plots during the last two harvests (Fly: August 
2020-January 2021 and Main: February-July 2021) 
II.5 Land tenure and costs
II.5.1 Do you own all the land where you 
planted vanilla?
Select  Yes
 No
II.5.2 What percentage of this land do 
you own?
Number Percentage:
II.5.3 What was the annual rental 
charges?
Number  Ugandan shillings
II.6.1 Did you prepare land for planting 
vanilla during the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.6.2 How many workdays of family 
labor was used in preparing the land 
during the last two harvests?
Number Workdays
II.6.3 How many workdays of hired labor 
were used in preparing the land during 
the last two harvests?
Number Workdays
II.6.4 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor during the last two 
harvests?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday
II.7.1 Did you plant vanilla vines during 
the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.7.2 What did you do in preparation for 
planting the vines?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
 Selected a suitable site for planting, with fertile soils.
 Selected well drained soils that prevent waterlogging.
 Sourced tutors/support trees, matching tutor purchases with 
vine purchases.
141
LABEL TYPE VALUES
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing
 Prepared land for tutor/support tree planting.
 Planted tutors/support trees 4-5 months before planting the 
vanilla vines for ensuring that they reach the needed thickness 
(5 cm) and height (about 6 ft) to allow proper growth of the vine.
 Sourced quality and disease-free vines of a length over 1 m from 
mother gardens.
 Prepared mulch and organic manure to restore soil and water 
and support the planted vines.
 None of the above.
II.7.3 What did you consider when 
planting the vines and how did you do it?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Established 320-400 vines per acre, taking into consideration 
soil and water conditions.
 Planted vines at a spacing of 3x3 m and 30 cm depth for 
optimum plant growth. 
 Planted vines during the rainy season.
 Ensured that vines are well-covered with mulch.
 Applied organic manure around the vine at about 30 cm away 
from the plant.
 Trained the plant on the tutor and allow tendrils to establish 
around the tutor for a solid anchor of the vine.
 None of the above
II.7.4 How many vanilla vines did you 
plant?
Number Vines:
II.7.5 In what area did you plant these 
vines?
Number Acres: 
II.7.6 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use in planting vines?
Number Workdays
II.7.7 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use in planting the vines?
Number Workdays
II.7.8 How much did you pay for the 
hired labor?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday
II.7.9 Did you buy the vanilla vines? Select  Yes
 No
II.7.10 From whom did you buy the 
vines?
MSelect  Another farmer
 Farmer organization
 Processors
 Other (specify) ________________________
II.7.11 Number of vines purchased Number Vines
142
LABEL TYPE VALUES
II.7.12 Price paid per vine Number Ugandan shillings/vine
II.7.13 How much did you pay to 
transport the vines to your vanilla fields?
Number Ugandan shillings
II.8 Trees and permanent crops planting
II.8.1 Did you plant trees or permanent 
crops in your vanilla fields during the 
last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.8.2 What did you consider when 
selecting which trees or permanent crops 
to plant in your vanilla fields?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Selected multipurpose trees/crops (food, fodder, timber, 
income…) based on the production potential of the land.
 Selected trees/crops based on their function in the production 
system (soil fertility improvement, biomass production, shade, 
tutoring…).
 Reflected on observed changes in climate over time.
 Accessed historical climate information to understand its 
variability and trends.
 Compared information on historical climate variability and 
trends with observed climate changes over time.
 Used their understanding of historical climate variability and 
trends to decide what trees or permanent crops to plant and/or 
remove.
 Used their understanding of historical climate variability and 
trends to make investment decisions in their vanilla fields.
 None of the above
II.8.3 What did you do to plant trees or 
permanent crops in your vanilla fields?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Assigned resources (inputs, labor, land) to establish the selected 
crops/trees.
 Sourced quality seed or seedlings of selected trees/crops.
 Planted selected trees/crops during the rainy season to improve 
survival rates and ensure growth.
 Planted temporary/fast growing shade crops (banana, 
plantain…) to provide shade as trees grow.
 Planted short-term shade trees that mature within 10 years.
 Planted longer-term trees that take more than 20 years to 
mature, ensuring sustainability.
 Applied recommended spacing of trees inside the farm, 12m￾15m inside the farm.
 Applied recommended spacing of trees along the boundary, 5m￾8m apart.
143
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Pruned established trees/permanent crops to ensure 30-50% 
shade during the rainy season, and 50-70% shade during the 
dry season.
 None of the above
II.8.4 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use in planting the trees?
Number Workdays
II.8.5 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use in planting the trees?
Number Workdays
II.8.6 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor during the last two 
harvests?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday
II.8.7 Did you purchase the planting 
materials to plant the trees?
Select  Yes
 No
II.8.8 How much did you pay for these 
planting materials?
Number Ugandan shillings:
II.8.9 How much did you pay to transport 
these planting materials to your vanilla 
fields?
Number Ugandan shillings
II.9 Vanilla vines management practices (shade tree pruning, vines pruning, training, and looping; mulching; pollinization; 
preparing and applying organic manure/compost)
II.9.1 What practices did you applied to 
manage your vanilla vines and 
tutors/support trees?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing
 Trained vines firmly on the tutors/support trees, to facilitate 
looping, pollination and harvesting.
 Conducted hand weeding ensuring minimal soil disturbance
 Mulched the vanilla field with dry grass, crop residues and leaf 
litter towards the end of the rainy season.
 Pruned vines to maintain a maximum of 8 loops, removing old, 
diseased, weak, and damaged vines.
 Pruned the tutors/support trees to regulate the amount of shade 
and sun.
 Produced organic manure using kitchen refuse/waste, crop 
residues and animal droppings.
 Used vermiculture (growing of earthworms) to produce high 
quality compost.
 Applied organic manure/compost to the soil around the vine and 
intercrops during the rainy season.
 Limited the number of vanilla clusters to 10-20 per vine 
depending on soil and water conditions.
144
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Limited the number of beans per cluster to 8-12 for avoiding 
excessive bearing and stressing of the plant and increase bean 
size.
 Pollinated 10-12 flowers per cluster.
 Looped vines at two feet from the tutor during the rainy season.
 Covered looping area with a combination of soil and mulch.
 None of the above
Vanilla training, pruning, looping, shade tree pruning, weeding, and mulching
II.9.2 Did you train, prune, or loop your 
vines, prune your shade trees, mulch or 
weed your vanilla fields during the last 
two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.3 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to perform these 
activities?
Number Workdays
II.9.4 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to perform these activities?
Number Workdays
II.9.5 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor to perform these 
activities during the last two harvests?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday
Pollination
II.9.6 Did you pollinate vanilla flowers 
during the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.7 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to pollinate vanilla 
flowers?
Number  Workdays
II.9.8 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to pollinate vanilla flowers?
Number  Workdays
II.9.9 How much did you pay on average 
during the last two harvests for the hired 
labor?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
II.9.10 Who usually pollinates vanilla in 
your fields?
MSelect  Adult men (30+ years)
 Adult women (30+ years)
 Young male adults (18-29)
 Young female adults (18-29)
 Male children
 Female children
145
LABEL TYPE VALUES
Organic manure/compost application and control of pests or diseases, 
II.9.11 Did you apply organic 
manure/compost to your vanilla fields 
during the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.12 How much did you pay for 
producing/buying organic 
manure/compost and transporting it for 
your vanilla fields?
Number  Ugandan shillings
II.9.13 Did any pest or disease affect your 
vanilla plants (before you harvested) 
during the last two harvest seasons?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.14 What have you done to prevent 
and/or control pests and diseases in 
your vanilla fields?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Prevented vanilla diseases by using clean and good quality vines.
 Prevented vanilla diseases by avoiding waterlogging.
 Monitored the vanilla fields to identify the presence of diseases.
 Scouted the vanilla fields for pests such as slugs, snails, and 
caterpillars.
 Used cultural practices (hand picking, destroying pests where 
possible.
 Ensured timely weeding as part of pest and disease control 
method.
 Ensured timely pruning of vines, tutors/support trees, and 
shade trees as part of the pest and diseases control methods.
 Applied pesticides only if pest and disease thresholds have been 
reached.
 Used botanical pesticides whenever possible.
 None of the above
II.9.15 Did you monitor pests and/or 
diseases in your vanilla fields during the 
last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.16 Did you control pests and/or 
diseases in your vanilla fields during the 
last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.17 How much did you spend buying 
the inputs to control pests and/or 
diseases in your vanilla fields?
Number  Ugandan shillings
II.9.18 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to control pests and/or 
diseases in your vanilla fields?
Number  Workdays
146
LABEL TYPE VALUES
II.9.19 How many workdays of hired 
labor did you use to control pests and/or 
diseases?
Number  Workdays
II.9.20 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor during the last two 
harvests to perform these activities?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
Planning for climate risk-management for the harvest season and during the harvest season
II.9.21 Did you use seasonal weather 
forecasts on climate variability 
throughout the harvest season to select 
your vanilla cropping practices, and/or 
the timing to implement them while 
planning your activities for the last two 
harvests?
Select  Yes
 No 
II.9.22 What have you done to consider 
seasonal weather forecasts on climate 
variability throughout the year to inform 
these decisions?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
requires 
probing.
 Identified the moments across the year when different activities 
are carried out on the vanilla fields (seasonal calendar) and 
related them to the climate to understand how it affects 
production.
 Considered the probability of occurrence of abnormal or 
extreme events in deciding whether to plant crops, which crops 
to plant and/or when to plant them.
 Considered the probability of occurrence of abnormal or 
extreme weather events to select practices for the management 
of their vanilla fields.
 None of the above
II.9.23 Did you use daily or weekly 
weather forecasts, local weather 
indicators or weather alerts to adjust 
your cropping practices during the last 
two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
II.9.24 What have you done to consider 
daily or weekly weather forecasts, local 
weather indicators or weather alerts to 
inform these decisions?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
with MSelect
 Reviewed decisions made before starting the harvest season 
based on local climate indicators, updated weather forecasts, 
and weather alerts.
 Adjusted practices during the harvest season if necessary.
 Monitored the development of crops, considering weather 
forecasts and weather warnings.
 Reflected on the results achieved with the use of climate 
information to make decisions for the next harvest season.
147
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 None of the above.
MODULE III: NRM AND CLIMATE-RISK MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES 
• The following questions refer to the actions you took during the last two harvests (Fly: August-January 2020 and Main: 
February-July 2021) to restore and protect your natural resources. 
III.1 Planning for Land Restoration and Climate-Risk Management Competency
III.1.1 Did you use vanilla market 
information to inform your production 
decisions?
Select  Yes
 No
III.1.2 What did you consider when 
selecting crops to integrate in your 
vanilla field(s)?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Used soil analysis or visual soil assessment to select crops
 Selected crops based on the production potential of their vanilla 
fields.
 Selected crops that are important for their household nutrition.
 Selected crops that have market demand.
 None of the above
III.1.3 What did you consider when 
planning for the use of land in your 
vanilla field(s) and for selecting cropping 
practices?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Used soil analysis/visual soil assessment to select planting 
areas.
 Used soil analysis/visual soil assessment to select cropping 
practices.
 Planned the use of their land based on the selected crops, 
optimizing the available space.
 Planned the use of their land based on access to water.
 Assigned resources (inputs, labor, land…) to implement selected 
practices.
 None of the above
III.2 Conservation and Regenerative Agriculture Competency
III.2.1 How did you prepare the soil for 
planting new crops in your vanilla fields 
and how did you manage weeds?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Used land preparation methods that minimize soil disturbance.
 Used weeding option that minimize soil disturbance.
 Used direct planting and seeding techniques.
 None of the above.
148
LABEL TYPE VALUES
III.2.2 What have you done to protect the 
soil in your vanilla fields?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Avoided burning crop residue, pruning residues or leaf litter.
 Kept the soil permanently covered with mulch, crop residue, live 
plants, or other materials.
 Selected cover crops and/or green manures based on the 
production system.
 Selected cover crops and/or green manures based on the 
agroecological zone.
 Established selected cover crops or green manures.
 Managed cover crops or green manure.
 Saved seed from their cover crops or green manure to plant in 
the next season.
 Used saved cover crops or green manure seed for new plantings.
 None of the above
III.2.3 What did you do to combine 
diverse crops and/or trees in your vanilla 
fields?
MSelect 
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Established a crop rotation system on their land.
 Selected species with complementary growth habits for 
intercropping.
 Implemented intercropping practices on their plots of land.
 Integrated permanent crops and trees in their land.
 Managed dispersed trees on their land.
 Managed natural regeneration.
 None of the above
III.3 Integrated Soil Fertility Management Competency
III.3.1 How did you identify the 
nutrient/fertilizer needs of your vanilla 
and the other crops in your vanilla 
fields?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Evaluated the condition of their soil condition using the visual 
soil assessment (VSA) method.
 Conducted soil sampling following the protocol established by 
the field or extension agent.
 Interpreted the results of the visual soil assessment and/or the 
soil analysis.
 Identified soil nutrition limitations based on crop nutrition 
needs.
 Made crop nutrition decisions based on interpretation of soil 
analysis and/or VSA results.
 None of the above
III.3.2 What did you do to meet the 
nutrient/fertilizer needs of your vanilla 
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
 Applied organic fertilizers to meet their crops’ nutritional needs.
149
LABEL TYPE VALUES
and the other crops in your vanilla 
fields?
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Applied inorganic fertilizers to meet their crops’ nutritional 
needs.
 Combined organic and inorganic sources to meet their crops’ 
nutritional needs.
 Applied the right dose of the selected products based on 
identified crop needs.
 Applied selected products in the right place according to the 
crop, the nutrients applied and plot slope.
 Applied selected products at the right time based on crops 
needs.
 Selected and applied selected products to correct soil acidity if 
needed.
 None of the above
Fertilization costs
III.3.3 Did you apply inorganic fertilizers 
in your vanilla fields?
Select  Yes
 No
III.3.4 How much did you pay for 
inorganic fertilizers?
Number Ugandan shillings
III.3.5 How much did you pay to 
transport the fertilizers to your vanilla 
fields?
Number Ugandan shillings
III.3.6 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to apply fertilizers in 
your vanilla fields?
Number Workdays:
III.3.7 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to apply fertilizers in your 
vanilla fields?
Number Workdays:
III.3.8 How much did you pay for the 
hired labor?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday:
III.4 Efficient Water Resources Management Competency
III.4.1 What did you do to keep moisture 
in your soil?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
 Captured rainwater in the soil where it falls (e.g., zai holes/pits, 
half-moons/demi-lunes, box ridges)
 Kept the soil permanently covered with mulch, crop residue, 
living plants or other materials.
 Broke hardened layers of soil to improve soil structure to 
increase water infiltration.
 None of the above
150
LABEL TYPE VALUES
question, and 
probing.
Costs of implementing water infiltration practices
III.4.2 Did you implement practices to 
improve water infiltration (shallow pits, 
bunds, rock / green cover lines, swales) 
in your vanilla fields during the last two 
harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
III.4.3 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use during the last two 
harvests to implement water infiltration 
practices in your vanilla fields?
Number  Workdays
III.4.4 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use during the last two harvests 
to implement water infiltration practices 
in your vanilla fields?
Number  Workdays
III.4.5 How much did you pay on average 
during the last two harvests for the hired 
labor?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
Costs of practices for slowing water off the slopes
III.4.6 Did you implement practices to 
ensure that water moves slowly off slopes 
in your vanilla fields during the last two 
harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
III.4.7 What did you do to ensure that 
water moves slowly off the slopes in your 
fields?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Built contour trenches along the slope (with or without 
infiltration pits).
 Planted vegetative cover or live barriers along the contour.
 Protected contour trenches with vegetative cover, live barriers, 
or other materials.
 Covered steep hillsides with trees or plants with strong roots.
 Planted crops in rows that are perpendicular to the slope.
 Diverted runoff water to farmland and gardens during the rainy 
season.
 None of the above
III.4.8 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to implement practices 
for slowing water runoff in your vanilla 
fields?
Number  Workdays
151
LABEL TYPE VALUES
III.4.9 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to implement practices for 
slowing water runoff in your vanilla 
fields?
Number  Workdays
III.4.10 How much did you pay for the 
hired labor?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
Costs of practices for capturing, storing and using water for multiple purposes
III.4.11 Did you implement practices to 
capture, store, and use water for 
multiple purposes during the last two 
harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
III.4.12 What did you do to capture, 
store, and use water for multiple 
purposes?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Built water reservoirs to capture and store excess runoff.
 Protected water reservoirs to reduce runoff.
 Protected water reservoirs to prevent contamination.
 Maintained water reservoirs.
 Took measures to prevent mosquitoes from multiplying in water 
reservoirs. 
 Make joint decisions with their spouse/partner on the use of 
stored water.
 Selected irrigation methods based on their efficiency and 
accessibility.
 None of the above
III.4.13 Did you irrigate your vanilla plots 
during the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
III.4.14 What proportion of your vanilla 
fields did you irrigate?
Number Percentage:
III.4.15 How much did you spend on 
harvesting water and/or irrigating your 
vanilla fields?
Number Ugandan shillings
III.5 Continuous Learning and Innovation Competency
III.5.1 Did you face any problems in 
relation to your vanilla production 
activities and/or the management of 
your vanilla fields?
Select  Yes
 No
III.5.1 Did you identified new 
opportunities in relation to your vanilla 
Select  Yes
 No
152
LABEL TYPE VALUES
production activities and/or the 
management of your vanilla fields?
III.5.2 Did you try new things to address 
identified problems or opportunities?
Select  Yes
 No
III.5.3 What did you do to address 
identified problems and/or opportunities 
in your vanilla fields?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Identified problems and opportunities for innovation.
 Analyzed problems and opportunities for innovation.
 Prioritized problems and/or opportunities for innovation.
 Accessed information, including local knowledge, to identify 
solutions or innovations.
 Established trials to compare identified solutions with 
traditional practices.
 Recorded observations from comparisons between identified 
solutions and traditional practices.
 Evaluated the results of these comparisons to make decisions.
 Selected the most appropriate solutions that address identified 
problems or opportunities.
 Tested the selected solutions on a small area of their land.
 Applied tested solutions that worked well to a larger area of their 
land.
 Shared their results and learning with their neighbors and 
others in their community.
 Shared their results and learning beyond their community.
 None of the above
MODULE IV: VANILLA PRODUCTION AND VALUE OF SALES
Vanilla Producer ID
• The following questions refer to the actions you took during the last two harvests (Fly: August-January 2020 and Main: 
February-July 2021) to restore and protect your natural resources. 
IV.1 Main harvest season (February-July 2021).
IV.1.0 Did you harvest your vanilla 
during the Main harvest season 
(February-July 2021?
Select  Yes
 No
Security costs
IV.1.1 Did you guard your vanilla fields 
from theft?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.2 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use for guarding your 
vanilla fields?
Number  Workdays
153
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.1.3 How many months did you hire 
labor to guard your vanilla fields from 
theft?
Number  Months
IV.1.4 How much did you pay to hire 
labor for guarding your vanilla fields?
Number  Ugandan shillings/month
IV.1.5 Did you construct a fence to 
protect your vanilla fields from theft?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.6 What kind of fence did you use? MSelect  Live fence
 Barbed wire fence
 Razor wire fence
 Wall fence
 Other (please specify)
IV.1.7 Was the fence an effective 
measure to prevent theft in your vanilla 
fields?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.8 How much did the fence cost? Number Ugandan shillings:
Harvest and postharvest practices
IV.1.9 When did you pollinate your 
vanilla vines for the Main harvest 
(February-July 2021)?
MSelect  July 2020
 August 2020
 September 2020
 October 2020
 November 2020
 December 2020
IV.1.10 When did you harvest your 
vanilla during the Main harvest?
MSelect  April 2021
 May 2021
 June 2021
 July 2021
 August 2021
 September 2021
IV.1.11 What actions did you take to 
ensure the quality of your vanilla during 
and after the harvest? 
MSelect 
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Harvested vanilla beans 8-9 months after pollination to achieve 
higher vanillin content.
 Harvested vanilla beans before they split or mold.
 Synchronized harvests with designated Ministry of Agriculture 
trading windows (harvest dates) to enhance sales of mature 
vanilla with high vanillin content.
154
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Harvested selected and individual mature vanilla beans from a 
cluster rather than harvesting the whole cluster.
 Used clean collection bags to reduce beans exposure to 
contaminants and contact with soil.
 Minimized vanilla beans damage during harvesting by ensuring 
bags are not overfilled or stacked.
 Stored vanilla beans in dry, cool conditions for less than 12 
hours prior to collection.
 Identified vanilla buyers prior to harvest for minimizing risk.
 Coordinated beans collection with buyers to ensure that the 
vanilla beans maintain their quality during post-harvest.
 None of the above 
Vanilla harvest
IV.1.13 What challenges did you face 
during the Main harvest?
MSelect  Vanilla theft
 Pest and diseases
 No pollination
 Flower abortion
 Unpredictable or erratic rainfall
 Drought
 Flood
 Lack of markets
 Low prices
 Price or market fluctuations
 High labor costs
 Illness
 Accident
 Death of a family member
 Indebtedness
 Limited access to inputs
 Limited access to vanilla-specific extension services
 Other (please specify) ________
 None
IV.1.14 Volume of vanilla lost due to theft Number Kg:
IV.1.12 Volume of vanilla harvested 
during the Main harvest (February-July 
2021).
Number Kg:
155
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.1.15 Volume of vanilla lost due to 
post-harvest handling
Number Kg:
Vanilla sales
IV.1.16 Volume of vanilla sold Number Kg:
IV.1.17 To whom did you sell your vanilla 
(mark all that apply)?
MSelect  Agri Exim/ Varun Bhassin
 Amfri Farms/ Nazzim Shivji/Lilian Anguparu
 Coetzee Organic (U) Ltd/ Gordon Wood Jones
 Delicate Vanilla & Cocoa Ltd
 DSTA Uganda Ltd
 Esco Uganda Ltd
 Essence of Africa Ltd
 Gourmet Gardens Ltd/ Clemens Fehr
 Harvest Trading Company Ltd
 Jaysem Investments Ltd/ Sematimba Sulta
 NEI Natural Extracts Industries Ltd
 Nillavan Ltd/Ritah Young
 Ndali Estate Ltd/ Lulu Sturdy 
 Olam company
 Origin Products - Trading as Enimiro Ltd/ David Wright
 Pearl of Africa Natural Spice Exporter/ Mansoor Nadir
 Savvy Saucy Spicy Trading Co. Ltd
 Taimex (U) Ltd/ Tamale Ismail/Tamale Musoke
 Tambisa Uganda Limited/ Tamale Isa
 Touton
 Uganet Rwenzori
 Uvan Ltd/ Aga Sekalala Snr
 Vanaroma Ltd/ Mary Kiddu
 Vita Plus Ltd/Kenneth Shaka
 Bwera Farmers Cooperative
 Kasanze Vanilla Growers Cooperative
 Mubuku vanilla farmers’ Association
 Mughete Vanilla Farmers Cooperative
 Ntale Farmers Cooperative
 Organic Farmers Cooperative
 RFCU- Rwenzori Farmers Corporative Union
156
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Other buyer (please specify): _____________________________
IV.1.18 Do you usually sell to the same 
buyers every harvesting season?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.19 To whom of these buyers did you 
sell the largest volume of vanilla? (select 
only one)
Select  Agri Exim/ Varun Bhassin
 Amfri Farms/ Nazzim Shivji/Lilian Anguparu
 Coetzee Organic (U) Ltd/ Gordon Wood Jones
 Delicate Vanilla & Cocoa Ltd
 DSTA Uganda Ltd
 Esco Uganda Ltd
 Essence of Africa Ltd
 Gourmet Gardens Ltd/ Clemens Fehr
 Harvest Trading Company Ltd
 Jaysem Investments Ltd/ Sematimba Sulta
 NEI Natural Extracts Industries Ltd
 Nillavan Ltd/Ritah Young
 Ndali Estate Ltd/ Lulu Sturdy 
 Olam company
 Origin Products - Trading as Enimiro Ltd/ David Wright
 Pearl of Africa Natural Spice Exporter/ Mansoor Nadir
 Savvy Saucy Spicy Trading Co. Ltd
 Taimex (U) Ltd/ Tamale Ismail/Tamale Musoke
 Tambisa Uganda Limited/ Tamale Isa
 Touton
 Uganet Rwenzori
 Uvan Ltd/ Aga Sekalala Snr
 Vanaroma Ltd/ Mary Kiddu
 Vita Plus Ltd/Kenneth Shaka
 Bwera Farmers Cooperative
 Kasanze Vanilla Growers Cooperative
 Mubuku vanilla farmers’ Association
 Mughete Vanilla Farmers Cooperative
 Ntale Farmers Cooperative
 Organic Farmers Cooperative
 RFCU- Rwenzori Farmers Corporative Union
 Other buyer (please specify) ______________________________
157
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.1.20 What proportion of your vanilla 
did you sell to number one buyer?
Number Percentage: 
IV.1.21 Why did you choose to sell to 
them? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Price offered
 Distance to selling place
 Long-term relationship established
 Quality requirements
 Quantity requirements
 Payment terms and modalities
 Provided complementary services (harvesting, transportation…)
 Provided training or technical assistance
 Provided inputs (vines, compost…)
 Gave interest free loan
 Paid for transportation costs
 Guaranteed the price paid in advance
 Guaranteed the volume bought in advance
 Gave a price premium/bonus
 Gave tokens (calendars, t-shirts...)
 Other incentives (assumes some costs…)
 Lack of alternative buyers
 Other (please specify) ____________________________
IV.1.22 Average sale price for green 
vanilla 
Number Uganda Shillings/kg
IV.1.23 Was the price agreed upon 
beforehand with the buyer?
Select  Yes, with the main buyer
 Yes, with all buyers
 Yes, with some buyers
 No
IV.1.24 How did you get paid for your 
vanilla?
MSelect  Cash
 Bank account
 Check
 Mobile money account
 Other (please specify)
IV.1.25 Did the buyer offer you a price 
premium for the quality of your vanilla?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.26 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number Ugandan shillings/kg
158
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.1.27 Did the buyer reduce the price 
paid for your vanilla because of low 
quality?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.28 How much was the price 
deduction?
Number Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.1.29 How was the vanilla quality 
determined?
MSelect  Vanillin content
 Harvest time
 Physical appearance of the beans
 Length of the beans
 Other (please specify)
IV.1.30 Did the buyer offer you a price 
premium for the volume of vanilla sold?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.31 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.1.32 Did the main buyer offer you a 
price premium for loyalty?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.33 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.1.34 Did the main buyer offer to buy 
your vanilla during the next harvest?
Select  Yes
 No
Transport costs
IV.1.35 Did you have to transport your 
vanilla harvest from your fields for selling 
it?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.1.36 How much did you pay to 
transport your vanilla from the field to 
the selling place?
Number Ugandan shillings
IV.1.37 How many hours did it take to 
bring your produce to the selling place?
Number Hours: 
Evaluation of the vanilla production system
IV.1.38 What did you do to evaluate the 
profitability and sustainability of your 
vanilla production and to improve it?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Kept records of the volume of crops harvested.
 Kept records of all expenses incurred, including family labor.
 Assessed total value of production and sales from their 
production system during the cropping season.
 Assessed the net income from their production system during 
the cropping season.
159
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Made production, financial and commercialization decisions 
based on the results achieved.
 Assessed the positive and negative impacts of their production 
system practices on the environment.
 Took actions to reduce or mitigate any negative impacts of their 
production system practices.
 None of the above
IV.2 Fly harvest season (August 2020-January 2021)
The following questions refer to the Fly harvest season from August 2020 to January 2021
IV.2.0 Did you 
harvest your vanilla 
during the fly 
harvest season 
(August 2020 to 
January 2021)?
Select  Yes
 No
Security costs
IV.2.1 Did you guard your vanilla fields 
from theft?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.2 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use for guarding your 
vanilla fields?
Number  Workdays
IV.2.3 How many months did you hire 
labor to guard your vanilla fields from 
theft?
Number  Months
IV.2.4 How much did you pay to hire 
labor for guarding your vanilla fields?
Number  Ugandan shillings/month
IV.2.5 Did you construct a fence to 
protect your vanilla fields from theft?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.6 What kind of fence did you use? MSelect  Live fence
 Barbed wire fence
 Razor wire fence
 Wall fence
 Other (please specify)
IV.2.7 Was the fence an effective 
measure to prevent theft in your vanilla 
fields?
Select  Yes
 No
160
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.2.8 How much did the fence cost? Number Ugandan shillings:
IV.2.9 When did you pollinate your 
vanilla vines for the Fly harvest (August 
2020 to January 2021)?
MSelect  December 2019
 January 2020
 February 2020 2020
 March 2020
 April 2020
 May 2020

IV.2.10 When did you harvest your 
vanilla during the Fly harvest?
MSelect  September 2020
 October 2020
 November 2020
 December 2020
 January 2021
 February 2021
IV.2.11 What actions did you take to 
ensure the quality of your vanilla during 
and after the harvest? 
MSelect 
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Harvested vanilla beans 8-9 months after pollination to achieve 
higher vanillin content.
 Harvested vanilla beans before they split or mold.
 Synchronized harvests with designated Ministry of Agriculture 
trading windows (harvest dates) to enhance sales of mature 
vanilla with high vanillin content.
 Harvested selected and individual mature vanilla beans from a 
cluster rather than harvesting the whole cluster.
 Used clean collection bags to reduce beans exposure to 
contaminants and contact with soil.
 Minimized vanilla beans damage during harvesting by ensuring 
bags are not overfilled or stacked.
 Stored vanilla beans in dry, cool conditions for less than 12 
hours prior to collection.
 Identified vanilla buyers prior to harvest for minimizing risk.
 Coordinated beans collection with buyers to ensures that the 
vanilla beans maintain their quality during post-harvest.
 None of the above 
Vanilla harvest
IV.2.12 What challenges did you face 
during the Fly harvest?
MSelect  Vanilla theft
 Pest and diseases
 No pollination
161
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Flower abortion
 Unpredictable or erratic rainfall
 Drought
 Flood
 Lack of markets
 Low prices
 Price or market fluctuations
 High labor costs
 Illness
 Accident
 Death of a family member
 Indebtedness
 Limited access to inputs
 Limited access to vanilla-specific extension services
 Other (please specify) ________
 None
IV.2.14 Volume of vanilla lost due to theft Number Kg:
IV.2.12 Volume of vanilla harvested 
during the Fly harvest (August 2020-
January 2021).
Number Kg:
IV.2.15 Volume of vanilla lost due to 
post-harvest handling
Number Kg:
Vanilla sales
IV.2.16 Volume of vanilla sold Number Kg:
IV.2.17 To whom did you sell your vanilla 
(mark all that apply)?
MSelect  Agri Exim/ Varun Bhassin
 Amfri Farms/ Nazzim Shivji/Lilian Anguparu
 Coetzee Organic (U) Ltd/ Gordon Wood Jones
 Delicate Vanilla & Cocoa Ltd
 DSTA Uganda Ltd
 Esco Uganda Ltd
 Essence of Africa Ltd
 Gourmet Gardens Ltd/ Clemens Fehr
 Harvest Trading Company Ltd
 Jaysem Investments Ltd/ Sematimba Sulta
 NEI Natural Extracts Industries Ltd
 Nillavan Ltd/Ritah Young
162
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Ndali Estate Ltd/ Lulu Sturdy 
 Olam company
 Origin Products - Trading as Enimiro Ltd/ David Wright
 Pearl of Africa Natural Spice Exporter/ Mansoor Nadir
 Savvy Saucy Spicy Trading Co. Ltd
 Taimex (U) Ltd/ Tamale Ismail/Tamale Musoke
 Tambisa Uganda Limited/ Tamale Isa
 Touton
 Uganet Rwenzori
 Uvan Ltd/ Aga Sekalala Snr
 Vanaroma Ltd/ Mary Kiddu
 Vita Plus Ltd/Kenneth Shaka
 Bwera Farmers Cooperative
 Kasanze Vanilla Growers Cooperative
 Mubuku vanilla farmers’ Association
 Mughete Vanilla Farmers Cooperative
 Ntale Farmers Cooperative
 Organic Farmers Cooperative
 RFCU- Rwenzori Farmers Corporative Union
 Another buyer (please specify) ______________________________
IV.2.18 Do you usually sell to the same 
buyers every harvesting season?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.19 To whom of these buyers did you 
sell the largest volume of vanilla? (select 
only one)
Select  Agri Exim/ Varun Bhassin
 Amfri Farms/ Nazzim Shivji/Lilian Anguparu
 Coetzee Organic (U) Ltd/ Gordon Wood Jones
 Delicate Vanilla & Cocoa Ltd
 DSTA Uganda Ltd
 Esco Uganda Ltd
 Essence of Africa Ltd
 Gourmet Gardens Ltd/ Clemens Fehr
 Harvest Trading Company Ltd
 Jaysem Investments Ltd/ Sematimba Sulta
 NEI Natural Extracts Industries Ltd
 Nillavan Ltd/Ritah Young
 Ndali Estate Ltd/ Lulu Sturdy 
163
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Olam company
 Origin Products - Trading as Enimiro Ltd/ David Wright
 Pearl of Africa Natural Spice Exporter/ Mansoor Nadir
 Savvy Saucy Spicy Trading Co. Ltd
 Taimex (U) Ltd/ Tamale Ismail/Tamale Musoke
 Tambisa Uganda Limited/ Tamale Isa
 Touton
 Uganet Rwenzori
 Uvan Ltd/ Aga Sekalala Snr
 Vanaroma Ltd/ Mary Kiddu
 Vita Plus Ltd/Kenneth Shaka
 Bwera Farmers Cooperative
 Kasanze Vanilla Growers Cooperative
 Mubuku vanilla farmers’ Association
 Mughete Vanilla Farmers Cooperative
 Ntale Farmers Cooperative
 Organic Farmers Cooperative
 RFCU- Rwenzori Farmers Corporative Union
 Other buyer (please specify) ______________________________
IV.2.20 What proportion of your vanilla 
did you sell to number one buyer?
Number Percentage: 
IV.2.21 Why did you choose to sell to 
them? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Price offered
 Distance to selling place
 Long-term relationship established
 Quality requirements
 Quantity requirements
 Payment terms and modalities
 Provided complementary services (harvesting, transportation…)
 Provided training or technical assistance
 Provided inputs (vines, compost…)
 Gave interest free loan
 Paid for transportation costs
 Guaranteed the price paid in advance
 Guaranteed the volume bought in advance
 Gave a price premium/bonus
164
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Gave tokens (calendars, t-shirts…)
 Other incentives (assumes some costs…)
 Lack of alternative buyers
 Other (please specify) ____________________________
IV.2.22 Average sale price for green 
vanilla 
Number Ugandan Shillings/kg
IV.2.23 Was the price agreed upon 
beforehand with the buyer?
Select  Yes, the main buyer
 Yes, with all buyers
 Yes, with some buyers
 No
IV.2.24 How did you get paid for your 
vanilla?
MSelect  Cash
 Bank account
 Check
 Mobile money account
 Other (please specify)
IV.2.25 Did the buyer offer you a price 
premium for the quality of your vanilla?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.26 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number  Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.2.27 Did the buyer reduced the price 
paid for your vanilla because of low 
quality?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.28 How much was the price 
deduction?
Number  Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.2.29 How was the vanilla quality 
determined?
MSelect  Vanillin content
 Harvest time
 Physical appearance of the beans
 Length of the beans
 Other (please specify)
IV.2.30 Did the buyer offer you a price 
premium for the volume of vanilla sold?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.31 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number  Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.2.32 Did the main buyer offer you a 
price incentive for loyalty?
Select  Yes
 No
165
LABEL TYPE VALUES
IV.2.33 How much was the price 
premium you received?
Number  Ugandan shillings/kg
IV.2.34 Did the buyer offer to buy your 
vanilla during the next harvest?
Select  Yes
 No
Transport costs
IV.2.35 Did you have to transport your 
vanilla harvest from your fields for selling 
it?
Select  Yes
 No
IV.2.36 How much did you pay to 
transport your vanilla from the field to 
the selling place?
Number  Ugandan shillings
IV.2.37 How many hours did it take to 
bring your produce to the selling place?
Number Time: 
Evaluation of the vanilla production system
IV.2.38 What did you do to evaluate the 
profitability and sustainability of your 
vanilla production and to improve it?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Kept records of the volume of crops harvested.
 Kept records of all expenses incurred, including family labor.
 Assessed total value of production and sales from their 
production system during the cropping season.
 Assessed the net income from their production system during 
the cropping season.
 Made production, financial and commercialization decisions 
based on the results achieved.
 Assessed the positive and negative impacts of their production 
system practices on the environment.
 Took actions to reduce or mitigate any negative impacts of their 
production system practices.
 None of the above
MODULE V: OTHER IMPORTANT CROPS IN THE VANILLA-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEM 
• The following questions refer to the additional costs you incurred and the additional income from the other main crops in 
your vanilla fields during the last two harvests (Fly: August-January 2020 and Main: February-July 2021). 
V4. Alternative Crop #1: Production costs, production, and sales
Planting costs - Alternative Crop #1
V4.1 Did you plant/establish this crop 
during the last two vanilla harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
V4.2 Did you purchase seed or planting 
materials?
Select  Yes
 No
166
LABEL TYPE VALUES
V4.3 How much did you pay for the seed 
or planting materials?
Number Ugandan shillings
V4.4 How many workdays of family labor 
did you use in planting this crop?
Number Workdays
V4.5 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use in planting this crop?
Number Workdays
V4.6 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor?
Number Ugandan shillings/workday
Cost for controlling pests and diseases - Alternative Crop #1
V4.7 Did you monitor and/or control 
pests or diseases that affect this crop 
during the last two harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
V4.8 How much did you spend on 
products to control pests or diseases for 
this crop?
Number  Ugandan shillings
V4.9 How many workdays of family labor
did you use to monitor and control pest 
or diseases for this crop?
Number  Workdays
V4.10 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to monitor and control pest 
or diseases for this crop?
Number  Workdays
V4.11 How much did you pay on average 
for the hired labor?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
Harvesting costs - Alternative Crop #1
V4.12 Did you harvest this crop during 
the last two vanilla harvests?
Select  Yes
 No
V4.13 How many workdays of family 
labor did you use to harvest this crop?
Number  Workdays
V4.14 How many workdays of hired labor 
did you use to harvest this crop?
Number  Workdays
V4.15 How much did you pay for the 
hired labor?
Number  Ugandan shillings/workday
Transport costs - Alternative Crop #1
V4.16 Did you transport your harvest to 
the selling point?
Select  Yes
 No
V4.17 How much did you pay to 
transport your crop from the field to the 
selling place?
Number Ugandan shillings
167
LABEL TYPE VALUES
Production and Value of Sales - Alternative Crop #1
V4.20 Volume of alternative crop #1 
consumed
Number Units:
V4.21 If you have consumed part or all 
the production, at what price could you 
have purchased the product in your 
community?
Number Ugandan shillings/unit
V4.18 How much did you get from the 
sale of this crop during the last year?
Number Ugandan shillings
V5. Alternative Crop #2: Production costs, production, and sales (questions the same for Alternative Crop #1)
V6. Alternative Crop #3: Production costs, production, and sales (questions the same for Alternative Crop #1)
V7. Alternative Crop #1: Production costs, production, and sales (questions the same for Alternative Crop #1)
MODULE VI: FINANCIAL COMPETENCIES ASSESSMENT
• The following questions refer to the actions you took during the last two harvests (Fly: August-January 2021 and Main: 
February-July 2021) to manage your finances, save, and take loans
VI.1 Effective Financial Management Competency
VI.1.1 What did you do to manage your 
finances?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Registered their income and expenses throughout the year.
 Identified their cash flow throughout the year.
 Identified times during the year when they could save.
 Identified times during the year when they will need loans.
 Established their financial goals.
 Identified unnecessary expenses that could be avoided, and the 
money saved.
 Prioritized expenses.
 Prepared a weekly budget.
 Followed their planned budget.
 None of the above
VI.2 Saving for a Purpose Competency
VI.2.1 What did you do to save during 
last two vanilla harvests?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Set a purpose for saving.
 Specified the amount to be saved.
 Specified the frequency of their savings.
 Identified a place to save.
 Saved the amount planned.
 Saved regularly at the planned frequency.
 Saved more when there is an income surplus.
 Established an emergency fund.
168
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 None of the above
 Not applicable
VI.2.2 Which of these financial services 
did you access? (select all that apply)
MSelect  A bank account
 Mobile money
 SACCO
 Other (please specify)
VI.3 Borrow Wisely Competency
VI.3.1 What did you consider before 
accessing loans and what did you do to 
access and manage them?
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing, with 
MSelect 
responses
 Identified their borrowing needs.
 Evaluated available borrowing options.
 Assessed their capacity to repay loans.
 Applied for needed loans.
 Used the loans for their intended purpose.
 Repaid the loans on time
 None of the above
 Not applicable
VI.3.2 Did you access financing for your 
agriculture activities from formal 
financial institutions? 
Select  Yes
 No
VI3.3 How much did you accessed 
during your last two harvests (Main and 
Fly)?
Number  Ugandan shillings
MODULE VII: AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMPETENCIES ASSESSMENT
• The following questions refer to the actions you took during the last two harvests (Fly: August-January 2021 and Main: 
February-July 2021) to sell your crops
VII.1 Market Opportunities Prioritization Competency
VII.1.1 Did you prioritize crops based on 
identified and evaluated market 
opportunities?
Select  Yes
 No
VII.1.2 What did you do to identify and 
prioritize market opportunities?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Interacted with a diverse group of potential buyers.
 Identified products that buyers want to buy.
 Described buyers’ requirements for prioritized products (e.g., 
quantity, quality…).
 Described buying conditions for prioritized markets (e.g., 
pricing, form, and timing of payment…).
 Assessed family labor needed to access identified market 
opportunities.
169
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Assessed input needed to access identified market 
opportunities.
 Assessed opportunity cost of engaging in identified market 
opportunities.
 Evaluated how long it will take to start getting an income from 
identified products and/or markets.
 Assessed the level of risk of different market opportunities.
 Engaged with other farmers to identify opportunities for 
collective marketing.
 Contributed to the evaluation of market opportunities with other 
farmers.
 Engaged in the prioritization of market opportunities with other 
farmers.
 None of the above
VII.2 Effective Business Planning Competency
VII.2.1 Are you a member of a farmer 
organization?
Select  Yes
 No
VII.2.2 Does your farmer organization 
engage in collective marketing?
Select  Yes
 No
VII.2.3 Did you sell some or all your 
vanilla through your farmer 
organization?
Select  Yes
 No
VII.2.4 What percentage of your vanilla 
harvest did you sell through your farmer 
organization?
Number Percentage: 
VII.2.5 What did you do to plan for 
collective marketing with other farmers?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Described the functions of the actors engaged in prioritized 
value chains.
 Contributed to the analysis of bottlenecks for engaging with 
prioritized markets.
 Contributed to the analysis of constraints for engaging women 
and youth with prioritized markets.
 Contributed to the analysis of opportunities for engaging women 
and youth with prioritized markets.
 Engaged in the design of production, postharvest and marketing 
plans.
 Assessed the risk of implementing different production, 
postharvest and marketing activities.
170
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Engaged in the design of actions to mitigate or manage identified 
risks.
 Estimated the financing needs to engage with prioritized 
markets.
 Sought finance needed to engage with prioritized markets.
 Estimated the profitability of engaging with prioritized markets.
 Contributed to the farmer organization’s business vision
 Contributed to the farmer organization’s assessment of potential 
business relations and partnerships.
 Provided inputs for the preparation of the business plan.
 None of the above
VII.3 Successful Business Implementation Competency
VII.3.1 How did you contribute to the 
implementation of the collective 
marketing plan?
MSelect 
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Planned their production, postharvest and marketing activities 
based on the farmer organization’s business plan.
 Planned their finances based on the farmer organization 
business plan.
 Implemented practices needed to meet buyers’ requirements.
 Agreed to the terms of the contracts with buyers.
 Sold the agreed volume of produce through the farmer 
organization.
 Committed to complying with agreements made with buyers.
 Kept records on their production, costs, sales, and profits.
 None of the above
VII.4 Periodic Business Performance Review Competency
VII.4.1 What did you do to evaluate the 
results of the last two vanilla harvests?
MSelect
Semi￾structure 
interview type 
question, 
open-ended 
question, and 
probing.
 Evaluated their production, productivity, and product quality.
 Calculated their production costs.
 Included family labor in the calculation of their production 
costs.
 Evaluated the total value of sales from their production system.
 Evaluated their income and profit from their production system.
 Contributes to the evaluation of the farmer organization sales, 
income, and profit.
 Identified opportunities to improve results in the next 
production season.
171
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Identified opportunities to improve results in the next marketing 
cycle.
 Identified opportunities to improve results for women and 
youth.
 Contributed to the revision of the farmer organization collective 
marketing plan
 None of the above
THANK-YOU AND CLOSURE
• Thank you for participating in this initiative! 
• We appreciate very much the time you took to show me your vanilla fields and for sharing how you are implementing the 
different practices and the results you are having. 
Tool 2: VANILLA PRODUCERS’ HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
172
LABEL TYPE VALUES
MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT
Interviewer Name: Text
Date Date
Data is collected as part of: Select  Baseline
 Midterm 
 Endline
• Greetings, my name is ___________, I am working for ______________ who is conducting a household survey for the “VINES” 
project that CRS and Technoserve is starting to implement with support from the US Department of Agriculture to enhance 
vanilla farming and business over the next few years. 
• You have already been registered as a VINES project participant and the objectives of this interview are to: 
1. Better understand women role in agricultural, and specifically vanilla, production, other income generation activities, 
and decision-making.
2. Evaluate if vanilla producers are achieving or not a living income, which means a decent income to provide for 
household needs.
• This information will be very important to plan for the different project activities and ensure that they address the different 
needs and priorities of vanilla producers’ households. 
• The information collected from you will be combined with information from other vanilla producers’ households who will 
be participating in the project, and we will not disclose your name and what you have told us to others. 
• Understanding that your information will not be shared, by accepting to participate in this interview, you hereby consent 
to the collection, sharing, processing and use of your personal data as required for the implementation of the “VINES” 
project. 
1.1 Do we have your consent?
Select  Yes
 No
• We would greatly appreciate it if you would be able and willing to share with us not more than one hour for this interview.
• We ask you to be honest as there are not right or wrong answers, and your experience as a vanilla producer is unique. 
• You should not hesitate to say you do not understand a question, or if you don’t want to answer, just let me know and I 
will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time. 
S1. Does the vanilla farmer have a spouse or 
another person who makes decisions in the 
household?
 Yes
 No
173
LABEL TYPE VALUES
S2. Who is being interviewed?  Primary respondent (vanilla farmer registered in the project)
 Secondary respondent (spouse)
1.1 Vanilla Producer ID
Primary respondent
ID
1.2 First name of Secondary respondent Text
1.3 Surname (family name) of Secondary 
respondent
Text
1.4 Age of respondent: Int
1.5 Gender of respondent: Select  Male
 Female
 Does not respond
MODULE II (A-WEAI G2): ROLE IN HOUSEHOLD DECISION MAKING AROUND PRODUCTION AND INCOME GENERATION
2.1 Did you participate in the following 
activities in the past 12 months?
MSelect  Food crop farming (crops grown primarily for household food 
consumption)
 Cash crop farming (crops grown primarily for sale in the market 
BUT NOT VANILLA)
 Vanilla production and marketing
 Livestock farming
 Poultry farming
 Apiculture (bee keeping)Non-farm economic activities (running 
a small business, self-employment, buy-and-sell)
 Wage and salary employment (work paid for in cash or in-kind)
 Fish and fishpond culture
2.1.1 Food crop farming (crops grown primarily for household food consumption)
2.1.1.1 When decisions are made regarding 
food crop farming, who is it that normally 
takes the decision? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.1.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about food crop farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.1.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding food crop 
farming if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
174
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 To a high extent
2.1.1.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from food crop farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.2 Cash crop farming (crops grown primarily for sale in the market)
2.1.2.1 When decisions are made regarding 
cash crop farming, who is it that normally 
takes the decision? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.2.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about cash crop farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.2.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding cash crop 
farming if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
2.1.2.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from cash crop farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.3 Vanilla production and marketing (land preparation, planting, weeding, pruning, pollination, shade management, paste 
and disease management, soil and water management, harvesting, and selling vanilla)
2.1.3.1 When decisions are made regarding 
vanilla production and marketing, who is it 
that normally takes the decision? (select all 
that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.3.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about vanilla production 
and marketing?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.3.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding vanilla 
production and marketing if you want(ed) 
to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
175
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 To a high extent
2.1.3.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from vanilla production and 
marketing?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.4 Livestock farming
2.1.4.1 When decisions are made regarding 
livestock farming, who is it that normally 
takes the decision? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.4.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about livestock farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.4.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding livestock 
farming if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
2.1.4.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from livestock farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.5 Poultry farming
2.1.5.1 When decisions are made regarding 
Poultry farming, who is it that normally 
takes the decision? (select all that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.5.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about Poultry farming.
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.5.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding Poultry 
farming, if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
176
LABEL TYPE VALUES
2.1.5.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from Poultry farming?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.6 Apiculture (bee keeping)
2.1.6.1 When decisions are made regarding 
apiculture (bee keeping), who is it that 
normally takes the decision? (select all that 
apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.6.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about apiculture (bee 
keeping),
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.6.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding apiculture 
(bee keeping), if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
2.1.6.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from apiculture (bee keeping)?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.7 Non-farm economic activities (running a small business, self-employment, buy-and-sell)
2.1.7.1 When decisions are made regarding 
non-farm economic activities, who is it that 
normally takes the decision? (select all that 
apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.7.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about non-farm economic 
activities?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.7.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding non-farm 
economic activities if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
177
LABEL TYPE VALUES
2.1.7.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from non-farm economic 
activities?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.8 Wage and salary employment (work paid for in cash or in-kind, including both agriculture and other wage work)
2.1.8.1 When decisions are made regarding 
wage and salary employment, who is it that 
normally takes the decision? (select all that 
apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.8.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about wage and salary 
employment?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.8.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding wage and 
salary employment if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
2.1.8.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from wage and salary 
employment?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.9 Fishing or fishpond culture
2.1.9.1 When decisions are made regarding 
fishing or fishpond culture, who is it that 
normally takes the decision? (select all that 
apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.9.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about fishing or fishpond 
culture?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.9.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding fishing or 
fishpond culture if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
178
LABEL TYPE VALUES
2.1.9.4 How much input did you have in 
making decisions on the use of income 
generated from fishing or fishpond culture?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.10 Major household expenditures (land, housing, transportation, children schooling)
2.1.10.1 When decisions are made regarding 
major household expenditures, who is it 
that normally takes the decision? (select all 
that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Other non HH member
2.1.10.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about major household 
expenditures?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.10.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding major 
household expenditures if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
2.1.11 Minor household expenditures (food for daily consumption or other household needs)
2.1.11.1 When decisions are made regarding 
minor household expenditures, who is it 
that normally takes the decision? (select all 
that apply)
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non HH member
2.1.11.2 How much input did you have in 
making decisions about minor household 
expenditures?
Select  No input or input in few decisions
 Input into some decisions
 Input into most or all decisions
 No decision made
2.1.11.3 To what extent do you feel you can 
make your decisions regarding minor 
household expenditures if you want(ed) to?
Select  Not at all
 Small extent
 Medium extent
 To a high extent
MODULE III (A-WEAI G3(A)): ACCESS TO PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL
3.1 Does anyone in your household 
currently have any of the following items?
MSelect  Agricultural land (pieces/plots)
 Large animals (oxen, cattle, goats and pigs)
 Small animals and birds (chicken, ducks, rabbits)
 Fish pond, fish stock, fishing equipment)
179
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Farm tools (hand tools, animal-drawn plough…)
 Mechanized farm equipment (tractor-plough, power tiller, 
treadle pump…)
 Non-farm business equipment
 Large assets (house, car, motorcycle, bicycle…)
 Furniture (sofa sets, wooden foldable chairs, wooden forms…)
 Television
 Radio
 Small assets (, kitchen utensils, cookware…)
 Cell phone
 Other land not used for agricultural purposes (pieces, plots, 
residential or commercial land)
3.2 Do you own any of the agriculture land? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.3 Do you own any of the large animals? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.4 Do you own any of the small animals? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.5 Do you own the fishpond, fish stock or 
fishing equipment?
Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.6 Do you own any of the farm tools? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.7 Do you own any of the mechanized farm 
equipment?
Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.8 Do you own any of the non-farm 
business equipment?
Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.9 Do you own any of the large assets? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
180
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 No
3.10 Do you own the furniture? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.11 Do you own the television? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.12 Do you own the radio? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.13 Do you own any of the small assets? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.14 Do you own the cell phone? Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
3.15 Do you own any of the other land not 
used for agricultural purposes?
Select  Yes, solely
 Yes, jointly
 No
MODULE IV (A-WEAI G3(B)): ACCESS TO CREDIT
4.1 Formal financial institutions (banks, microfinance institutions)
4.1.1 Would you or anyone in your 
household be able to take a loan or borrow 
cash/in-kind from a formal financial 
institution if you/they wanted to?
Select  Yes
 No
 Maybe
4.1.2 Has anyone in your household taken 
any loans or borrowed cash/in-kind from a 
formal financial institution in the past 12 
months? 
Select  Yes, cash
 Yes, in-kind
 Yes, cash and in-kind
 No
 Don’t know
4.1.3 Who made the decision to borrow from 
a formal financial institution?
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non-HH member
181
LABEL TYPE VALUES
4.1.4 Who made the decision about what to 
do with the money / item borrowed from a 
formal financial institution most of the time?
MSelect
 Self  Spouse  Other HH member  Non-HH member
4.2 Informal saving and loan schemes (merry go, tontines, funeral societies)
4.2.1 Would you or anyone in your 
household be able to take a loan or borrow 
cash/in
-kind from an informal saving and 
loan schemes if you/they wanted to?
Select
 Yes  No  Maybe
4.2.2 Has anyone in your household taken 
any loans or borrowed cash/in
-kind from an 
informal saving and loan schemes in the 
past 12 months? 
Select
 Yes, cash  Yes, in-kind  Yes, cash and in
-kind
 No  Don’t know
4.2.3 Who made the decision to borrow from 
an informal saving and loan schemes?
MSelect
 Self  Spouse  Other HH member  Non-HH member
4.2.4 Who made the decision about what to 
do with the money / item borrowed from an 
informal saving and loan schemes most of 
the time?
MSelect
 Self  Spouse  Other HH member  Non-HH member
4.3 Friend, relatives, or other individual money lenders
4.3.1 Would you or anyone in your 
household be able to take a loan or borrow 
cash/in
-kind from friends, relatives of other 
individual money lenders if you wanted to?
Select
 Yes  No  Maybe
4.3.2 Has anyone in your household taken 
any loans or borrowed cash/in
-kind from 
friends, relatives of other individual money 
lenders in the past 12 months? 
Select
 Yes, cash  Yes, in-kind  Yes, cash and in
-kind
 No  Don’t know
4.3.3 Who made the decision to borrow from 
friends, relatives of other individual money 
lenders?
MSelect
 Self  Spouse  Other HH member
182
LABEL TYPE VALUES
 Non-HH member
4.3.4 Who made the decision about what to 
do with the money / item borrowed from 
friends, relatives of other individual money 
lenders most of the time?
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non-HH member
4.4 Formal saving and loans groups (VSLAs, SILC, SACCOs)
4.4.1 Would you or anyone in your 
household be able to take a loan or borrow 
cash/in-kind from a formal savings and 
loans group if you wanted to?
Select  Yes
 No
 Maybe
4.4.2 Has anyone in your household taken 
any loans or borrowed cash/in-kind from a 
formal savings and loans group in the past 
12 months? 
Select  Yes, cash
 Yes, in-kind
 Yes, cash and in-kind
 No
 Don’t know
4.4.3 Who made the decision to borrow from 
a formal savings and loans group?
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non-HH member
4.4.4 Who made the decision about what to 
do with the money / item borrowed from a 
formal savings and loans group most of the 
time?
MSelect  Self
 Spouse
 Other HH member
 Non-HH member
MODULE V (A-WEAI G4): TIME ALLOCATION
183
Appendix IV: Vines Project Baseline Evaluation Terms of Reference
USDA UGANDA VINES PROJECT
Award Dates: October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2025
Strategic goal: Make Uganda the world’s next leading supplier of high￾quality vanilla
Estimated Funding: US$ 13 Million
Implementing Organizations: Catholic Relief Services in consortium 
with TechnoServe, Frontier Co-op, Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) 
and Purdue University
Target: 16,200 vanilla farmers, 15,820 jobs and 836 MSMEs 
Zone of Intervention: Central and Western Regions of Uganda
Donor Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Food for 
Progress (USDA FFPr)
©2020 Catholic Relief Services. All Rights Reserved. 20MK-212332M
This document is protected by copyright and cannot be completely or partially 
reproduced in whole without authorization. Please contact chris.donohue@crs.org for 
authorization. Any “fair use” under US rights law must contain the appropriate reference 
to Catholic Relief Services.
In accordance with 2 CRF 200.315 Intangible Property, USDA has the right to: (1) Obtain, 
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the data produced under a Federal award; and (2) 
Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal 
purposes.
Abbreviations
184
AEA American Evaluation Association
CoP Chief of Party
CRS Catholic Relief Services
EP evaluation plan
FFPr Food for Progress
FO foundational result
FSMA Food Safety Modernization Act
HAACPHazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
IR intermediate result
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MEAL monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning
PII personal identifiable information
PMP performance monitoring plan
PPE personal protection equipment
NGO non-governmental organization
NRM natural resources management
SME small and medium enterprise
SO strategic objective
SoW scope of work
SVI Sustainable Vanilla Initiative
TNS TechnoServe
TOC theory of change
ToR terms of reference
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VANEXUgandan Vanilla Exporters Association
1. Background
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is an international non-governmental 
organization (NGO) supporting relief and development work in over 100 
185
countries around the world. CRS carries out the commitment of the Bishops 
of the United States to assist the poor and vulnerable overseas. CRS’ Catholic 
identity is at the heart of our mission and operations, serving people on the 
basis of need, regardless of creed, ethnicity or nationality. CRS works through 
local church and non-church partners to implement its programs.
CRS has worked in Uganda since 1965, initially providing emergency 
assistance to Sudanese refugees living in the north. Over the years, CRS has 
expanded its programming to also address development needs in Western, 
Central, and Eastern Uganda. CRS' projects in Uganda currently include food 
and nutrition security, resilience, agriculture and livelihoods, health, 
microfinance, OVC, peacebuilding, youth, emergency and COVID-19 
responses. CRS Uganda implements its programs through partnerships with 
local organizations, including the Catholic Church, other faith-based 
organizations and community entities for maximum impact and 
sustainability. CRS Uganda employs around 190 staff and has its main office 
in Kampala, with sub-offices in Moroto, Yumbe, and Hoima.
2. VINES Project Information
VINES, a five year (2021-2025), $13 million, USDA FFPr project, is being 
implemented by CRS, TechnoServe (TNS), Frontier Co-op, Purdue University, and 
the Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) to make Uganda the world’s next leading 
supplier of high-quality vanilla. VINES goal is to increase and improve the supply 
of high-quality vanilla by improving the productivity of vanilla-based agroforestry 
systems with 16,200 farmers (Strategic Objective 1); and to enhance vanilla 
quality and compliance with food safety standards with 30 vanilla processing 
firms, and expand global trade in vanilla to meet growing international demand 
(Strategic Objective 2). 
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Table 1 describes the project Intermediate Results (IRs) and Foundational Results 
(FRs). The project Results Framework is included in Annex 1.
STRATEGIC 
OBJECTIVES
INTERMEDIATE / FOUNDATIONAL RESULTS
SO1: Increased 
Agricultural 
Productivity
1.1: Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources
1.2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques 
and Technologies
1.3: Improved Farm Management (Operations, 
Financial)
1.5: Enhanced Mixed-Cropping in Agroforestry Systems
SO2: Expanded 
Trade of 
Agricultural 
Products (Domestic, 
2.1: Increased Value Added to Post-Production 
Agricultural Products
2.2: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural 
Products
2.3: Improved Transaction Efficiency
186
Implementing partners and roles
To achieve the project goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results, CRS 
has established a Consortium of public and private partners, including leading 
international vanilla buyers such as Frontier Co-op, Virginia Dare, Ben & Jerry’s, 
and Sustainable Vanilla Initiative (SVI) to upgrade the Ugandan vanilla industry 
and establish it as a sustainable and solid foundation for consistent supply of 
significant volumes of high-quality vanilla.
This consortium of market leaders and experts will be linked to 30 high potential 
Ugandan vanilla processing companies, organized as the Ugandan Vanilla 
Exporters Association (VANEX). CRS and VANEX have established strong 
working relationships with the GoU and the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal 
Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), and will continue to build on these relationships 
to complement VINES activities to revitalize the vanilla sector. 
The VINES project aims to double average vanilla yields from 0.25 to 0.50 
kg/vine, increase average farm production from 65kg to 150kg, improve vanilla 
quality and safety, deepen market linkages and by creating a new brand for 
Ugandan vanilla, will generate the essential “market pull” to enable Uganda to 
increase vanilla exports from 50 MT to 350+ MT. This will directly transform the 
lives of 16,200 farmers, 356 self-employed service and input providers, 480 
processors' employees, and will generate 15,820 new on-farm seasonal and 
permanent processing jobs to reach 32,856 vanilla stakeholders; providing 
international buyers with a new origin that will help to stabilize the extreme price 
volatility that has plagued the global market for this unique spice.
CRS is the technical and management lead, providing technical leadership in 
farm productivity, access to vines for expanding vanilla production, building 
extension for mixed-crop agroforestry systems, savings-led finance, farmer 
relations with buyers, impact investment and work with SVI on policy 
implementation. 
Regional, and 
International)
Foundational 
results
1.4.1 / 2.4.1: Increased Capacity of Government 
Institutions
1.4.2 / 2.4.2: Improved Policy and Regulatory 
Framework
1.4.3 / 2.4.3: Increased Access to Improved Market and 
Climate Information
1.4.4: Improved Capacity of Key Groups in the 
Agriculture Production Sector / 2.4.4: Improved 
Capacity of Key Organizations in the Trade Sector
1.4.5 / 2.4.5: Increased Leverage of Private-Sector 
Resources
187
Frontier Co-op will lead in food safety, product quality, handling, storage, 
curing, packaging, compliance with FSMA/HAACP, certifications, traceability, 
and branding.
TNS will lead in market analysis, business planning, farmer business capacity 
building, microentrepreneur training, input supply and business relationship 
management. 
Purdue University is the program’s learning partner and will conduct research 
to examine the effectiveness of different business models on retention of good 
market relationships with farmers, and on the return on investment to processors 
that invest in quality and food safety compliance. 
Theory of change
The overall VINES Theory of Change (TOC) postulates that IF (1) vanilla farmers 
sustainably increase their production by planting more vanilla, and access 
sustainable advisory services that enable farmers to use appropriate inputs, 
apply climate smart agroforestry systems to raise productivity per vine and 
diversify their income using mixed-cropping systems that restores land and 
mitigates climate risks, THEN vanilla farmers will sustainably increase 
productivity while managing risk (Results Framework #1, Component 1); and 
IF (2) vanilla farmers can protect mature beans, and limit the risk of theft, and 
build effective business relations with processors, who procure mature beans, 
based on quality premiums, and that vanilla processors use traceable supply 
chains, and certified processing methods, that provides high vanillin content 
cured vanilla that is compliant with modern international food safety regulations; 
THEN a safe, clean and pure vanilla supply will be offered to international 
markets (Results Framework #2, Component 2); and 
IF (3) industry institutions can deliver critical services such as capacity building 
and financial services to vanilla market actors, and create a common value 
proposition for the sector, articulated through a national brand, and processors 
build long lasting relationships with international buyers in high value markets; 
THEN vanilla supply chain actors will strengthen market conditions (Results 
Framework #2, Component 3); and 
IF (4) the Government of Uganda (GoU) regulates trading practices that protects 
farmers from theft, safeguards working conditions especially for children and 
enforces harvesting dates to promote quality (Foundational Results); THEN the 
supply of high-quality vanilla will be increased, vanilla quality will be enhanced 
for compliance with food safety standards, and the global trade of vanilla will 
be expanded to meet growing international demand.
Strategy
The VINES project strategy is comprised of two self-reinforcing approaches: (1) 
targeted interventions with high potential processors focused on addressing 
188
challenges with production, food safety, and market linkages, and (2) sector-wide 
interventions that seek to support the broader set of actors and address key 
issues such as industry consolidation, better handling practices, and 
strengthening the policy environment. These approaches will be interwoven 
throughout six project activities, ensuring targeted production interventions are 
paired with comprehensive sector level trainings and reform.
Targeted processor supply chain approach
Typically, vanilla supply chains in Uganda are managed by “anchor” vanilla 
processing companies who each support a discreet supply chain (Figure 1). The 
anchor processors buy green vanilla from local traders and hundreds/thousands 
of farmers. The processors then cure the vanilla and sell to international buyers 
who supply in markets such as the US. International buyers undertake further 
value addition of the vanilla and market a range of vanilla products, including 
extracts, flavors, foods, drinks, and cosmetics to the American food industry and 
onwards to millions of customers.
Figure 47. Vanilla value chain and project partners’ roles
To ensure sustainable market linkages, VINES will support upgrading of high 
potential processors and their business partnerships, which will grow during and 
after the project. For rapid start-up, the project will commence supply chain 
upgrading with three leading processors. These processors, already linked with 
major US buyers, have established buyer/seller relationships with roughly 8,500 
farmers. This work will start with a rigorous supply chain analysis to prioritize 
critical constraints and develop upgrading plans from farm to market. Tailored 
technical assistance along the chain will be provided from the VINES consortium 
to address bottlenecks. CRS and TNS will strengthen or build dedicated extension 
teams and input suppliers that will link the target processors with 16,200 
189
segmented farmers: 3,350 high producers, 9,150 upcoming farmers, and 3,700 
new farmers. Based on the learning with the first three supply chains, targeted 
supply chain upgrading will be expanded to other processors, using a Vanilla 
Innovation and Expansion Fund. Starting in year two, other VANEX processor 
members will be able to apply to the Fund to support their supply chain 
upgrading plans and access tailored technical assistance. The fund will support 
cohorts of three processors per year (Figure 4) who are linked “upstream” to at 
least another 7,700 farmers and linked “downstream” to a range of international 
buyers, such as those working through SVI. The four cohorts will reach 12 
processors and up to 16,200 farmers.
Sector-wide approach
VINES will also provide sector-wide technical assistance to a broader set of vanilla 
stakeholders. This approach will focus on critical pre-competitive areas such as 
(1) increasing access to quality inputs; (2) building the capacity of extension 
agents and microentrepreneurs; (3) sector coordination through VANEX; (4) 
brand building to increase long-term customer demand; and (5) strengthening 
government policy to support sector discipline, security, and growth. Sector
wide training will support extensions teams, and micro-entrepreneurs who will 
be linked to vanilla processors. The extension teams will in turn build the 
capacity of farmers using fee-for-services that offer new skills to help farmers 
boost production, improve quality, and build market competitiveness.
Geographic regions and target project participants
Processors buy vanilla from more than 50 districts. However, the highest 
concentration of vanilla production is in High Production districts and Medium 
Production districts as shown in Table 2, where the targeted processor supply 
chain approach will be implemented. The different type and number of project 
participants and shown in Table 3.
CATEGORY TARGET DISTRICTS FOR VANILLA INTERVENTIONS
High production 
districts
Budibugyo, Kasese, Bunyangabo, Rubirzi, Ibanda, Mukono 
and Buikwe.
Medium production 
districts
Ntoroko, Kagadi, Kabarole, Kyenjojo, Mbarara, Sheema, 
Bushenyi, Luweero, Gomba, Kayunga, Rakai, Masaka, 
Lwengo, Kalungu, Bukomansimbi and Mityana.
Nationwide Coverage All vanilla farmers, input suppliers, and processors will 
benefit from sector-wide activities such as improved quality, 
brand development improved policy.
190
Table 49:Vines Project Participants
3. Purpose and Scope of the Assessment
The VINES project Evaluation Plan (EP) aims to contribute to project performance 
by ensuring the achievement of the project results, strategic objectives, and goal. 
The plan is guided by USDA Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Policy, including 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1499.12 that apply for US 
Department of Agriculture and specifically the Food for Progress (FFPr) Program, 
and is compliant with the International Food Assistance Division (IFAD) 
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy; and it also follows CRS Monitoring, Evaluation, 
Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Policies and Procedures (MPPs) that reflect 
good practices for gender-responsive MEAL and the integration of accountability 
and learning into this process.
The project’s evaluation process involves three phases: a baseline assessment, a 
midterm, and a final evaluation. CRS is seeking an independent consulting firm 
to lead the VINES project baseline assessment to assess and report on the 
INTERVENTION STRATEGIES 
/ ACTIVITIES
TYPE OF PROJECT 
PARTICIPANT
NUMBER OF 
PARTICIPANTS 
1. Targeted supply chain 
upgrading
Cohort 1 - Initial 3 supply 
chains:
1) UVAN Ltd
2) ESCO Uganda Ltd
3) Rwenzori Farmers Cooperative 
Union
High-producing farmers 2,150
Upcoming farmers 4,650
New farmers 1,700
9 New supply chains: Vanilla 
Innovation and Expansion Fund 
forecast farmers (2nd, 3rd and 4th
cohort farmers)
High-producing farmers 1,200
Upcoming farmers 4,500
New farmers 2,000
Total directly participating 
farmers
16,200
2. Specific sector-wide 
training courses
Youth micro-entrepreneurs 245
Extension agents 75
Private service providers (SILC) 36
Processors’ employees 480
Total directly participating off-farm supply chain actors 836
3. Savings and Internal Loans Communities (SILC) (layered)
Total directly participating 
farmers SILC members / farmers (16,000)
4. Sector-wide brand building, policy and regulatory framework development
Total impacted directly Farmers and supply chain 
actors 17,036
191
situation before the beginning of project implementation. These terms of 
reference (ToR) outline the conditions, responsibilities, and tasks that the 
independent consulting firm, in Uganda, will undertake to conduct the baseline 
assessment has the following three specific objectives:
To establish and verify initial baseline values for the full set of performance 
indicators (see Annex 2) as the starting comparison point for measuring 
progress against performance indicators.
To provide relevant and current contextual information to ensure the validity of 
the critical assumptions stated in the project TOC for interpretation of midterm 
and final evaluation findings.
To identify opportunities to adjust the project design, monitoring plan and targets 
before project implementation starts, as needed.
In addition, the baseline assessment will respond to the evaluation criteria and 
specific questions contained in Table 50.
Table 50: Baseline Assessment Questions
The external evaluator should be very familiar with the project’s results 
framework (Annex 1), the performance indicators table (Annex 2), the evaluation 
plan (Annex 3), and the performance monitoring plan (PMP – Annex 4), USDA 
CRITERIA QUESTION
Project 
relevance
To what extent does the project design address the needs of the 
Uganda’s vanilla sector and those of the different actors involved 
in the value chain, with a special focus on female and male vanilla 
producers, private service providers, and youth 
microentrepreneurs?
What adjustments to project design should the project consider for 
addressing the needs of the sector more effectively, and those of 
the different participants, to enhance project relevance and ensure 
responsiveness to critical constraints?
Project 
implementation
Are there any risks or challenges that may impact delivery of the 
project goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results, and 
what actions can the project take to mitigate these risks or 
challenges from the outset?
Which planned interventions are likely to be the most critical and/or 
effective in achieving the program’s intermediate results and 
strategic objectives?
Are there any potential negative impacts or unintended 
consequences of specific interventions that the project should 
consider, and how might they be addressed or mitigated?
Sustainability 
and Impact
Which priority project activities will require clear roadmaps and 
exist strategies from the outset to ensure sustainability?
Are there specific constraints or barriers the project should be 
mindful of that could limit project participants and the sector from 
sustaining gains?
192
M&E Evaluation Policy (Annex 5), USDA/FAS Food Assistance Evaluation Policy, 
section 508 (Annex 6). All evaluation reports will be reviewed in line with CRS 
checklist for reviewing USDA evaluation reports (Annex 7). In addition, the 
consultant must follow CRS MEAL Guidance under Covid-19 (Annex 8).
4. Approach and Methodology
The independent consultancy firm will assess the specific performance non-zero 
value indicators (Annex 2) from the data sources, and by applying the data 
collection methods and collection tools specified in Table 51, following the 
VINES Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP – Annex 4). USDA will review and 
approve the evaluation report according to The Time Frame Specified in Their 
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. 
Table 51: Data Sources, Methods, Collection Tools and Indicators For The 
Baseline Assessment
DATA 
SOURCES
METHODS COLLECTION 
TOOLS
INDICATORS
Sample of 
vanilla 
producers 
who will 
start 
participating 
in Year 1
On-farm 
survey for 
profitability 
assessment 
Tool 1, 
Modules 1.1A 
and 1.1B 
designed in 
CommCare 
forms
#1. Yield of targeted agricultural 
commodities among program 
participants with USDA assistance
#2. Value of annual sales of farms and 
firms receiving USDA assistance
#3. Volume of commodities sold by 
farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance
#10. Number of hectares under 
improved management practices or 
technologies that promote improved 
climate risk reduction and/or natural 
resources management with USDA 
assistance
#11. Number of hectares under 
improved management practices or 
technologies with USDA assistance
#12. Number of individuals in the 
agriculture system who have applied 
improved management practices or 
technologies with USDA assistance
#13. Farmer’s gross margin per hectare 
obtained with USG assistance
#16. Number of individuals accessing 
agriculture-related financing as a result 
of USDA assistance
#23. Farmgate price paid to producers 
for green vanilla
193
#35. Value of agriculture-related 
financing accessed as a result of USDA 
assistance
#39. Number of farmers who access 
climate information for decision￾making
#40. Number of farmers and firms who 
access market information for decision￾making
Sample of 
vanilla 
producers 
who will 
start 
participating 
in Year 1
On-farm 
semi￾structured 
interview 
documented 
in Multiple￾choice 
questions
Tool 1, 
Module 1.2 
designed in 
CommCare 
forms
#19. Number of farmers who have 
reached at least a functional level of 
"land restoration and climate-risk 
management" and of "vanilla-based 
agroforestry management” 
competencies as a result of USDA 
assistance
#20. Number of farmers who have 
reached at least a functional level of 
financial and marketing competencies 
as a result of USDA assistance
DATA 
SOURCES
METHODS COLLECTION 
TOOLS
Indicators
Sample of 
vanilla 
producer 
households 
who will 
start 
participating 
in Year 1
Household 
survey
Tool 2, 
Modules 2.1 
and 2.2 
designed in 
CommCare 
forms
#5. Daily per capita expenditures (as a 
proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas
#44. Abbreviated women's 
empowerment in agriculture index
#45. Percentage (%) of livelihood service 
participant HHs with at least one child 
engaged in child labor
#46. Percentage (%) of livelihood service 
participant HHs with all children of 
compulsory school age regularly 
attending school
Processing 
firms who 
will start 
participating 
in Year 1
SME survey Tool 4: SME 
Survey 
Questionnaire
#21. Number of farmers receiving price 
premiums for vanilla quality and/or 
certification
#24. Cured vanilla Uganda export price 
FOB
#25. Volume of vanilla shipped to 
international markets
#26. Volume of vanilla shipped that is 
rejected for not meeting quality or food 
safety standards
#27. Percentage of the volume of vanilla 
harvested that preserves its quality 
through post-harvest handling, curing 
and storage
194
The proposed data collection methods will require primary data collection from 
the different specified sources as well as the collection of secondary baseline data 
for context variables that include: 1) international and national vanilla prices, 2) 
Madagascar vanilla production trends and prices to account for market risk, 3) 
historic climate trends and seasonal climate data to account for productivity risk; 
4) Uganda agriculture and trade policy framework and strategy, and agriculture 
ordinances to account for the policy environment in which VINES will be 
implemented; and 5) child labor practices in Uganda.
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY CRS
CRS will provide the independent consultancy firm with collection tools 1, 2 and 
5, which are explained below. The consultant will review, and revise them as 
needed, in coordination with CRS. Once these tools are revised and finalized, CRS 
will provide the data collection forms in the CommCare mobile platform, 
leveraging digital systems to improve speed, efficiency and accuracy, and to 
reduce loss of information
#28. Number of international buyers 
purchasing vanilla from Uganda
#31. Number of processors who 
implemented practices to meet export 
quality standards for vanilla
#32. Number of processors who 
implemented at least 2 improved vanilla 
post-production, processing or 
handling practices
#35. Value of agriculture-related 
financing accessed as a result of USDA 
assistance
#40. Number of farmers and firms who 
access market information for decision￾making
Supply 
chain actors
Supply 
chain actors’ 
workshops 
and key 
informant 
interviews: 
LINK 
methodology
Tool 5: 
Scorecard 
design in a 
CommCare 
form
#29. Quality and inclusiveness of 
buyer-seller relations
Key 
informants 
and 
secondary 
information
Context and 
policy 
analysis
Tool 6: Paper￾based tools
#37. Number of vanilla ordinances 
enforced
#38. Number of policies, regulations 
and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA 
assistance
195
TOOL 1: VANILLA PRODUCERS’ ON-FARM SURVEY
This survey is designed using tested questionnaires that will be adjusted to 
collect the data needed to evaluate the indicators related to vanilla producers’ 
competencies, production, productivity, production costs, sales and profit, and
will include two modules:
MODULE 1.1: Production-system-based profitability assessment
MODULE 1.2: Competencies’ assessment interviews
TOOL 2: VANILLA PRODUCERS’ HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
This survey is designed to collect data for the indicators related to vanilla farmers’ 
household consumption expenditures as a proxy for income, and gender-based 
dynamics to evaluate women empowerment in agriculture as well as child labor, 
and will include two modules:
MODULE 2.1: Abbreviated daily per capita expenditures
MODULE 2.2: Abbreviated women empowerment in agriculture index (Malapit, 
2015)
TOOL 5: LINK METHODOLOGY SCORECARD
The Link Methodology Scorecard is intended to assess value chain actors’ 
relations and will enable the program to evaluate the quality and inclusiveness 
of buyer-seller trading relations within new business models. This methodology 
is based on facilitated group discussion and semi-structured interview with 
supply chain actors. More information on the Link Methodology can be found in 
Lundy et. al, 2012. This will require to conduct: 
At least 30 semi-structured interviews with different supply chain actors, 10 for 
each of the supply chains: i) Uganda Vanilla Growers Association (UVAN) direct￾buyer relationship, ii) Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union (RFCU) farmer 
cooperative model, and (iii) ESCO’s dual product buying model.
Three workshops with different supply chain actors, one for each of the above 
supply chains.
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS THAT WILL DESIGNED BY THE CONSULTANCY 
FIRM
The independent consultancy firm will be responsible for designing the 
following tools, which will be reviewed, and revised as needed, by CRS and TNS:
TOOL 4: SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (SME) SURVEY 
196
The SME survey will involve the use of interview guides, and a form to review 
participating processing firms’ business records. The survey will be designed 
and conducted in consultation with TNS and will be conducted with the three 
supply chain partners (UVAN, RFU and ESCO) who are both vanilla processing 
and export firms. The consultant will need to engage with these three project 
private partners to present the security management and security protocols 
that will be used for ensuring that their sensitive business information will be 
protected. This will be essential to gain their confidence to share the needed 
data to evaluate the baseline indicators that depend on data collected from 
them.
TOOL 6: CONTEXT AND POLICY ANALYSIS 
This will involve the needed tools to collect secondary baseline data on contextual 
variables, and to conduct semi-structured interviews with key informants. This 
will involve a maximum of 15 semi-structure interviews with key informants at 
the national, regional, and local levels.
SAMPLING STRATEGY AND SAMPLE SIZE
Baseline data will be collected form a total of 613 vanilla producers, of which 443 
will respond to the vanilla producers’ on-farm survey (Tool 1) and 170 to the 
vanilla producers’ household survey (Tool 2) a shown in Table 53. Vanilla
producers will be sampled from the targeted 15 vanilla producing districts (7 high 
producing districts and 8 medium producing district) from vanilla producer 
listings provided by the private sector partners for each supply chain using 
fractional interval systematic sampling to ensure that farmers are represented in 
the sample by their rough proportions in the underlying population, while 
ensuring that they have equal probabilities of selection into the sample thus 
eliminating the need to use sample weights at the analysis stage.
Table 52: Sample Size By Collection Tool And For Subsequent Vanilla Producers’ 
Cohorts
The total sample size needed for Tools 1 and 2 was calculated using equation (2) 
in McConnell and Vera-Hernandez (2015) for continuous samples, using the
standard 80% power and 5% significance level. The sample size for Tool 1 will 
fulfill the requirements of the special studies that will be conducted to address 
the selected learning questions. As the special study seeks to detect statistical 
differences volumes sold per farmer between supply chains; to detect a difference 
of 34 kg (10% of the final evaluation target of 335 kg increase in green vanilla 
COLLECTION TOOL SAMPLE SIZE
Tool 1: Vanilla producers’ on-farm survey 443
Tool 2: Vanilla producers’ household survey 170
TOTAL SAMPLE 613
197
production for each of the project’s 16,200 farmers) in FFPr Standard Indicator 
#19, at least 123 farmers need to be surveyed using a standard deviation of 93 
kg/ farmer from RFCU and ESCO Uganda Ltd. records. Given that there are 3 
supply chains, the recommended sample size is 123*3 = 369 producers. This 
estimated sample size is more than adequate to detect changes in all project 
indicators collected by Tool 1 for the performance evaluation between baseline 
study and endline evaluation. 
As Tool 2 does not feed into the special study, the sample size for it is determined 
from the largest sample needed to detect a statistical change among the 4 
indicators collected by it (see Table 2). Thus, to detect a difference from $1.50 to 
$2.80 in daily, per capita expenditures, 141 producer households should be 
surveyed. This assumes a standard deviation of $3.87 (Zereyesus et al. 2017).
This sample size (369 + 141 = 510) is increased by 20%, giving a total of 613 
vanilla producers to be surveyed at baseline. This will account for data that 
becomes unusable due to error or attrition, and to account for vanilla producers 
who are sampled and may drop out during the life of the project given that the 
evaluation approach requires panel data. 
5. Ethical Considerations
The consultancy firm conducting the baseline assessment must maintain the 
integrity of the data collection and analysis process while adhering to USDA 
policies and procedures on evaluations, and committing to respect and enforce 
CRS research and evaluation ethical requirements for service providers in 
accordance with current MEAL Policies and Procedures. 
For this purpose, the consultancy firm must:
Follow the American Evaluation Association (AEA) Guiding Principles for 
Evaluators http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
Dependent upon participants in the evaluation, specify steps that will be taken 
to ensure informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of minors. Please 
refer to CRS’ Protection Policy and Guidelines for Interviews for more 
information on this topic. 
Specify steps taken to safeguard data collected and data management procedures 
to be used in the evaluation. 
Follow maximum security protocols, established by CRS, for informants, and 
other vulnerable people to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and ensure 
compliance with these protocols.
6. Timeline and Deliverables
The baseline assessment will be conducted during the period of March 1 – May 
14, 2021 (11 weeks) and is expected to follow the timeline outlined in Table 54,
linking each activity with a deliverable. 
Table 53: Baseline Assessment Key Activities, Schedule, And Deliverables
198
DATE KEY ACTIVITY DELIVERABLE
March 
8-12, 
2021
1. Prepare a detailed 
Scope of Work (SoW) 
for the baseline 
assessment.
An inception SoW detailing how the baseline 
assessment will be conducted, including a detailed 
work plan; and a description on how data will be 
collected, data quality assured, and how data 
collected will be managed, analyzed, and 
communicated.
March 
15-19
2. Review, customize 
and develop the 
collection tools in 
coordination with 
CRS.
Data collection tools revised and completed for data 
collection.
March 
22-
April 2
3. Test and finalize the 
data collection tools.
Data collection tools ready for data collection.
March 
22-
April 2
4. Prepare for data 
collection and train 
data collectors.
Detailed data collection plan and instructions 
manual for data collectors.
April 
5-April 
23, 
2021
5. Collect baseline 
data.
Cleaned datasets of the collected data in digital 
form (Excel and SPSS/Stata/R) that follow CRS 
data management and security protocols, ready for 
data analysis.
Note: The Vines agroforestry team will be running 
early trainings on vine tutor planting in select 
geographies during the data collection phase. It is 
imperative that the consultant share its data 
collection schedule and coordinate with the Vines 
team, communicating when data collection in a 
specific district/region is fully complete. The Vines 
team will wait for confirmation before starting 
training to ensure that there is no contamination.
April 
26-
May 7, 
2021
6. Analyze baseline 
data and facilitate 
collective 
interpretation with 
project stakeholders.
Draft summary of baseline findings in a PPT 
presentation to the project team, key members of 
CRS, consortium partners, and USDA.
May 
10-14, 
2021
7. Prepare the first 
draft of the baseline 
report.
First draft of the baseline report for internal CRS 
and consortium partners’ review.
May 
17-21, 
2021
8. CRS and partners 
review the baseline 
report.
CRS and partners documented feedback on the 
first draft of the baseline report
May 
24-28, 
2021
9. Address CRS and 
partners feedback 
received and 
complete the final 
draft of the baseline 
report.
Final draft of baseline report that incorporates 
feedback/comments from CRS and consortium 
partners’ internal review, submitted to USDA for 
review.
May 
24-28, 
2021
10. Finalize the 
PowerPoint 
Final summary of baseline findings in PPT for 
presentation to the project team, key members of 
199
summary of baseline 
findings.
CRS, consortium partners private sector partners, 
USDA, GoU and other key project stakeholders.
May 
31-
June 
4, 
2021
11. Prepare a 
standalone baseline 
brief describing the 
key findings, and 
relevant 
recommendations.
A 2-3-page standalone brief describing the 
evaluation design, key findings, and other relevant 
considerations. It will serve to inform any 
interested stakeholders of the midterm evaluation, 
and should be written in language easy to 
understand by non-evaluators and with 
appropriate graphics and tables.
May 
31-
June 
4, 
2021
12. Prepare the 
datasets with the 
collected data and 
document them. 
Comprehensive set of all final datasets (cleaned and 
validated) in Excel and SPSS/Stata/R for each 
collection tool, with corresponding documentation 
with coding, and corresponding data tabulation 
and analysis.
DATE KEY ACTIVITY DELIVERABLE
May 
31-
June 
4, 
2021
13.USDA reviews the 
final draft of the 
baseline report.
USDA documented feedback on the final draft of 
the baseline report.
June 
7-11, 
2021
14.Address USDA 
feedback received 
and finalize the 
baseline report.
Final baseline report that addresses USDA 
feedback submitted to USDA for approval.
June 
7-11, 
2021
15.USDA reviews the 
final draft of the 2-3-
page standalone 
brief.
USDA documented feedback on the draft of 2-3-
page standalone brief.
June 
14-
18, 
2021
16.Address USDA 
feedback and 
finalize the 2-3-page 
standalone brief.
Final 2-3-page standalone brief that addresses
USDA feedback submitted to USDA for approval.
Submitted datasets with the collected data must:
Be accompanied by their respective codebook/data dictionary. 
Be saved in open-source file versions (.txt, .csv, .doc, etc.) if the consultant 
provides dta, .do, .sps, or .sav files
Include an identifier file that links respondent Personal Identifiable Information 
(PII) with ID numbers in the data file(s)
Include deidentified transcripts of selected interviews and focus groups and/or 
data files of coded sections of text from semi-structured interviews and focus 
group discussion.
Data analysis needs to be disaggregated as indicated in the PMP (Annex 4), and 
resulting tables need to include standard errors and 95% confidence intervals of 
the indicator estimates, and basic statistical analysis of indicator values by: 1) 
200
by level of production and experience: high-producing farmers (>50 kg), 
upcoming farmers (≤50 kg) and new farmers that will join the project during 
project implementation years 2-4 in subsequent cohorts19 (3 strata); 2) by type 
of supply chain: Uganda Vanilla Growers Association (UVAN) direct-buyer 
relationship, Rwenzori Farmers’ Cooperative Union (RFCU) farmer cooperative 
model and ESCO’s dual product buying model (3 strata); and 3) by geography: 
high producing districts and medium producing districts - (2 strata). 
The final report should include the following sections:
Executive summary (including brief introduction of program evaluated, key 
evaluation questions, findings, and conclusions)
Background
Baseline assessment design including assumptions and limitations
Methodology
Findings with visual aids and graphs
Conclusions, lessons learned and effective practices (if any)
Recommendations (should be clear, concise, relevant, specific and practical, 
following directly from findings and conclusions established in report)
Annex with a publishable SoW of the baseline assessment. The SoW will be 
redacted to exclude information proprietary to CRS, and any personal 
identifiable information (PII), if applicable.
Annex with final data collection tools and instructions for data collectors
Annex with description of team members’ qualifications
Annex with additional methodological discussion/ robustness checks as needed
Annex with updated Indicators Performance Table (Annex 2)
The final report needs to be:
Free of typos or grammatical errors, should not contain any factual errors or 
inaccuracies, citations need to be properly used.
Free of personally identifiable information (PII) and proprietary information that 
directly or indirectly identifies an individual, and compliant with USDA/FAS 
Food Assistance Evaluation Policy, section 508 https://section508.gov/create 
(Annex 5).
A polished document, formatted and ready for publication. 
19 Farmers who fall in this stratum will not be included in the baseline as they will only start joining the project in 
year 2 of project implementation, but a sample of these farmers will be added to the baseline sample as they join 
the project.
201
In addition, final reports should not allow for the identification of individual 
communities. Any list of communities provided should be included as in the 
report annex, so that it can be easily removed before submitting to USDA for 
external sharing.
As per USDA/FAS Food Assistance Evaluation Policy, all final evaluation reports 
will be made publicly available. The consultant shall submit a soft copy in PDF 
and Word format together with 3 color hard cover bound copies.
The consultancy agreement will contain a clear data rights clause, and the 
consultancy firm should obtain permission from CRS before sharing the final 
evaluation report with any external party, including posting it to their 
organization’s website.
7. External Consultancy Firm Qualifications and Selection
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANCY FIRM
Consultancy firms interested in applying for this consultancy need to comply 
with the following minimum requirements:
A minimum of five years of experience in conducting evaluations of international 
agricultural development projects, with preferred experience in evaluating 
USDA or USG agricultural projects especially in Uganda.
Experience in evaluating agriculture and livelihoods projects.
A gender balance team of consultants and data collectors.
A team leader with a PhD or master’s degree in (Agricultural) Economics, 
Agribusiness, or other socio-economic sciences with:
−At least 10 years of experience in value chain development, rural 
entrepreneurial development, inclusive businesses, and producer 
organization strengthening.
− Strong analytical skills to reach to concrete and useful findings and 
recommendations.
− Strong English writing and oral communication skills.
− Knowledge of IRB requirements and ethical considerations when working 
on sensitive topics such as gender relations, child labor, and private sector 
relationships. 
A team with demonstrated experience and capacity to:
− Design and implement evaluation studies, including sampling, design of 
data collection tools for both quantitative and qualitative methods with 
necessary level of technical rigor.
− Manage human resources and logistics for managing large and complex 
data collection processes using different methods (surveys, semi-structure 
interviews and focus discussion) in a short period of time, and for designing 
and facilitating workshops.
202
− Use digital tool, ideally CommCare and PowerBi, for data collection, data 
quality assurance and reporting
− Conduct quantitative and qualitative data analysis with large amount of 
data including descriptive and inferential statistics.
− Conduct gender and culture-sensitive data collection processes in the 
Uganda context.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
Interested consultancy firms should submit: 1) a technical proposal and budget 
for conducting this baseline assessment in no more than 20 pages; 2) reference 
letters for similar/related assignments undertaken in the last 5 years; 3) CVs of 
the team leader and all relevant team members; and 4) A sample of similar work 
undertaken by the consultancy firm.
Technical proposals should include/specify the following:
A description of the firm’s expertise and list of relevant evaluations/baseline
surveys undertaken in the last 5 years (maximum 2 pages).
The consultant's understanding of the Terms of Reference, suitability of proposed 
evaluation design and corresponding delivery timeline (maximum 2 pages). 
A description of the selected methods and corresponding collection tools that will 
be used (maximum 4 pages). 
A detailed data analysis and reporting plan (maximum 2 pages)
A detailed implementation plan with all the activities that will be undertaken to 
fulfill the evaluation’s purpose, scope and objectives (4 pages).
The evaluation team composition (maximum 1 page) 
A detailed budget with explanatory notes (maximum 5 pages). 
The criteria for the evaluation of the consultancy firms’ proposals received and 
the score that will be given to each of these criteria is presented in Table 7.
Interested consultancy firms that meet the requirements should submit their 
technical and financial proposal to the Human Resource Office at 
ug_recruitment@crs.org with a copy to justus.atwijukire@crs.org no later than 
March 18, 2021, 5:00 PM East Africa Time.
Table 54: Proposals Evaluation Criteria
203
8. Evaluation Management and Coordination
This consultancy will be managed by the project Chief of Party (CoP) and the 
MEAL Manager who will be the focal points of communication with the 
consultancy firm. CRS Human Resources Department at the Kampala Office will 
be responsible for contracting the selected consultancy firm after a thorough and 
competitive bidding process.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES
The detailed roles and responsibilities of CRS and its Consortium partners for 
the effective implementation of this consultancy, and those of the contracted 
consultancy firm are outlined below.
CRS AND TNS
CRS and Consortium partner staff will support hired consultancy firm by 
providing the following:
All key project documents that are included as Annexes to this ToR: ANNEX 1: 
Project Results Framework; ANNEX 2: Performance Indicators Table; ANNEX 3: 
Evaluation Plan (EP); ANNEX 4: Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP); ANNEX 5: 
USDA’s Food Assistance Indicators and Definitions and Monitoring and 
Evaluation Policy: ANNEX 6: CRS checklist for reviewing USDA evaluation 
reports; and ANNEX 7: CRS MEAL Guidance under Covid-19.
The following data collection tools: Tool 1: On-farm vanilla producers’ survey, 
including Module 1.1 and 1.2; Tool 2: Vanilla producers’ household survey, 
including Module 2.1 and 2.2; and Tool 5: Link methodology scorecard in Word 
and CommCare.
A database of registered vanilla farmers and households that were randomly 
selected to conduct the on-farm vanilla survey and the vanilla producers’ 
household survey, including a breakdown of sampled vanilla farmers per 
district and subcounty.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORE
Consultant's understanding of the ToR, suitability of proposed evaluation 
design and corresponding delivery timeline.
30%
Proposed data management, analysis and reporting plan. 10%
Previous experience in the evaluation of international agricultural 
development projects, with preferred experience in evaluating USDA or 
other USG agricultural projects, preferably in Uganda. 
20%
Qualifications and relevant experience of the team lead. 10%
Relevant experience and expertise of other team members and degree to 
which they complement the qualifications and experience of the team lead.
10%
Evaluation budget for personnel, direct and indirect costs, and alignment 
with the proposed plan.
20%
TOTAL SCORE 100%
204
A database with relevant contacts for the implementation of the baseline 
assessment: project consortia partners, private sector partners, and GoU 
organizations.
Tablets for digital data collection using CommCare.
Personal protection equipment (PPE) for all data collectors and the coordination 
team.
CRS MEAL staff will support the consultancy firm team to:
Field test the collection tools with the consultancy firm.
Train data collectors for ensuring the proper application of the data collection 
tools for data quality assurance.
Organize the agreed-upon meetings and workshops necessary for planning and 
implementing the consultancy, and for sharing and facilitating the collective 
interpretation of the study findings.
In addition, the CRS MEAL team will provide:
Agreed logistic support for conducting the baseline assessment 
Overall supervision for the quality implementation of the baseline assessment.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
To make sure that the baseline data collected is consistent and responds to the 
stated objectives of the special study that will be conducted by Purdue University 
and the proposed method, the research lead has reviewed the Performance 
Monitoring Plan (PMP), the Evaluation Plan (EP), including the sampling strategy 
and sample size, and this ToR. In addition, for the implementation of the baseline 
study, Purdue University will:
Review and contribute to improve the data collection tools designed.
Apply for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and ensure their approval.
CONSULTANCY FIRM
Conduct all the activities specified in the timeline and deliverable section (Table 
5) and submit the 11 deliverables as specified in the timeline.
Design the following collection tools: Tool 4: Small and medium enterprises (SME) 
survey and Tool 6: Context and policy analysis.
Lead the field test all the collection tools previously to the training of data 
collectors, and as part of the training of the data collectors.
Recruit and hire a team of data collectors to apply each of the data collection 
tools specified in Table 3 with the needed expertise to ensure the quality of the 
data collected. Data collector for the on-farm survey of vanilla producers must 
have technical knowledge and experience in agriculture production and 
marketing.
205
Provide data collectors with all needed data collection tools with their respective 
instruction manuals, and data collection materials.
Train, support and supervise data collectors, including periodic check-ins during 
data collection.
Data collection and data quality assurance.
Data analysis and reporting.
Report preparation and presentation of findings.
DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The consulting agreement will be valid for three months (March-May) from the 
signature of the contract and will be implemented during a period of thirteen 
weeks from March 5-May 28, 2021. The contract will also include provisions for 
the selected consultancy firm to also be contracted for conducting the midterm 
evaluation (March-May 2023) and the final evaluation (March-May 2025). The 
contract with the selected consultancy firm for conducting the midterm and final 
evaluations will be contingent on performance at the baseline assessment and 
midterm evaluation, respectively; and will need the consultancy firm to prepare 
specific SoWs for these evaluations that address the midterm and final evaluation 
ToR that will be prepared by the project, and approved by USDA.
The outbreak of Covid-19 in March 2020 has caused disruptions in the social, 
economic, technological, institutional realms of life in Uganda. The country 
tightly controlled response to the Covid-19 pandemic especially the total 
lockdown, night curfew and closed borders in the first few months of the outbreak 
seems to have had a more positive outcome by reducing the rates of infection. 
However, while the measures have succeeded in containing the outbreak, they 
have also caused significant damage to the economy and access to services. With 
the government easing of the local down, community infections have slightly 
increased. This is likely to affect program implementation. To mitigate this, all 
activities will have to be implemented in line with the Ministry of Health 
guidelines and standard operating procedures and protocols. CRS and the 
consultancy firm will continuously monitor this evolving and changing situation, 
making any necessary adjustments to this ToR by mutual agreement.
The consultancy firm will submit three invoices after completion of the 
deliverables specified in Table 8 and for the specified proportion of the payment. 
Payments will be processed after completion of the following four action steps:
1. Submission of the deliverable by the consultancy firm;
2. Submission of an invoice specific to the submitted deliverables by the 
consultancy firm;
3. Approval of each deliverable by the VINES project Chief of Party (CoP); and
206
4. Approval of each invoice by CRS-Uganda.
Table 55: Payment Terms
9. Annexes
The annexes listed in Table 57 are attached as separate documents.
Table 56: List Of Annexes
PAYMENT DELIVERABLES PROPORTION OF PAYMENT
1 1. An inception SoW detailing how the baseline assessment will 
be conducted, including a detailed work plan, and how 
collected data will be managed, analyzed, and communicated.
40%
2 2. Data collection tools ready for data collection. 30%
3. Detailed data collection plan and instructions manual for data 
collectors.
4. Cleaned datasets of the collected data in digital form (Excel 
and SPSS/Stata/R) that follow CRS data management and 
security protocols, ready for data analysis.
5. Draft Power Point summary of baseline findings with a 
presentation to the project team, key members of CRS, and 
consortium partners.
6. Final draft of the baseline report.
3 7. CRS and partners documented feedback on the Final draft of 
the baseline report
30%
8. Final baseline report submitted to USDA for approval that 
incorporates feedback/comments as appropriate. 
9. Final Power Point summary of baseline findings with a 
presentation to the project team, key members of CRS, 
consortium partners, private sector partners, USDA, GoU and 
other key project stakeholders.
10.Two to three-page standalone brief report of the baseline 
assessment findings and recommendations.
11.Comprehensive set of all final datasets (cleaned and validated) 
in Excel and SPSS/Stata/R for each collection tool, with 
corresponding documentation with coding, and corresponding 
data tabulation and analysis.
TOTAL 100%
207
# CONTENT
1 Project results framework (graph and narrative)
2 Performance Indicators Table
3 Evaluation Plan (EP)
4 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
5 USDA Monitoring and Evaluation Policy
6 USDA/FAS Food Assistance Evaluation Policy, section 508
7 CRS Checklist for Reviewing USDA Evaluation Reports
8 CRS MEAL Guidance under Covid-19
9 List of Vanilla Sampled Districts-Sub-counties for Baseline
208
REFERENCES
Lundy M, Amrein A, Hurtado JJ, Becx G, Zamierowski N, Rodriguez F and Mosquera 
EE. 2014. LINK methodology: A participatory guide to business models that link 
smallholders to markets. Version 2.0. CIAT Publication No. 380, ISBN 978-958-694-114-
3 (PDF). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/49606 CIAT: Cali, Colombia. 171 p. 
Malapit H, Kovarik C, Sproule K, Meinzen-Dick R, and Quisumbing A. 2015. 
Instructional guide on the abbreviated women’s empowerment in agriculture index (A￾WEAI). https://www.ifpri.org/publication/instructional-guide-abbreviated-womens￾empowerment-agriculture-index-weai p74.
McConnell B and Vera-Hernandez, M. 2015. Going beyond simple sample size 
calculations: a practitioner's guide. Institute for Fiscal Studies. IFS Working Paper 
W15/17. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7848 Institute for Fiscal Studies: 
London, UK. p56.
Zereyesus, Yacob A. Weldensie, T. Embaye, Tsiboe, Francis, Amanor-Boadu, Vincent. 
2017 Implications of Non-Farm Work to Vulnerability to Food Poverty-Recent Evidence 
From Northern Ghana, World Development, Volume 91, Pages 113-124, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.015.