RURAL ECONOMY AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION 
(REAP)
PALENGA AND BOBI IDP CAMPS-GULU DISTRICT 
FINAL REPORT FOR THE EVALUATION OF REAP I 
AND BASELINE OF REAP II
OCTOBER 2004
CENTRE
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 2 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................2
LIST OF GRAPHS………………………………………………………………………..4
LIST OF GRAPHS………………………………………………………………………..5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................7
1.0. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................12
1.1 A summmary of activities by development agencies in Palenga and Bobi...........12
Assistance through Education..........................................................................................13
Agricultural production and marketing, and environmental protection........................13
Provision of food...............................................................................................................14
Health and Sanitation.......................................................................................................14
1.2. Objectives of the study ...............................................................................................14
2.0. METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................15
2.1. Description of the study..............................................................................................15
2.2. Sampling method ........................................................................................................15
2.3. Source of data .............................................................................................................16
Table A I: Indicators of REAP I project for Palenga IDP camp .......................................17
3.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: EVALUATION OF REAP I...........................18
3.1 Land Tenure ...........................................................................................................18
3.2 Characteristics of the farming system....................................................................18
3.3 Farm practices and crops grown............................................................................19
3.4 Crop production and productivity of households ..................................................20
Explaining production and productivity results obtained at evaluation.........................21
Explaining performance of non-prioritized target crops................................................22
Production and productivity of non prioritized target crops...........................................22
3.5 Income generating activities..................................................................................24
Trend of income generating activities..............................................................................24
Household incomes from target crops .............................................................................25
Graph 1: Mean output sold by target crop for baseline and FY 2003 ...............................26
Investment of Income .......................................................................................................26
3.6 Post harvest handling practices..............................................................................27
Drying and storage facilities.............................................................................................27
Value addition activities....................................................................................................28
3.7 Marketing and marketing outlets...........................................................................29
Mode of transporting produce to the market...................................................................30
Market information sources.............................................................................................31
3.8 Dietary diversity ....................................................................................................31
3.9 Farmer organizations .............................................................................................33
Table AII: Indicators for REAP II Baseline in Bobi and Palenga for FY 2004 ................34
4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE SURVEY OF REAP II..........35
4.1 Characteristics of the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) camp at Bobi............35
4.2 Household characteristics......................................................................................36
4.3 Characteristics of the farming system....................................................................37
Awareness and practice of improved agronomic practices.............................................38
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 3 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4.4 Production and productivity ..................................................................................38
4.5 Income and income generating activities..............................................................40
4.6 Value addition activities ........................................................................................41
4.7 Marketing information and market outlets............................................................42
Sources of market information.........................................................................................42
Uses of market information..............................................................................................42
Market outlets...................................................................................................................43
Mode of transport..............................................................................................................44
4.8 Dietary Diversity ...................................................................................................44
4.9 Farmer organizations .............................................................................................46
Average number of members per group ............................................................................46
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................48
Conclusions from the Evaluation of REAP I..................................................................48
Conclusions from the Baseline survey of REAP II in Bobi and Palenga......................52
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................55
APPENDIX I: FOOD CONSUMPTION IN PALENGA AND BOBI.............................57
APPENDIX II: REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS HELD IN PALENGA 
IDP CAMP.........................................................................................................................57
APPENDIX II: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION HELD IN BOBI- MINAKULU..........63
APPENDIX III: WOMEN’S AGRO-FORESTRY GROUP IN BOBI CAMP.................65
APPENDIX IV: DISCUSSION WITH PROJECT STAFF MAIN POINTS....................66
APPENDIX VI ..................................................................................................................67
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 4 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Mean output sold by target crop for baseline and FY 2003 ...............................26
Graph 2: Consumption of household by food group .........................................................32
Graph 3: IDP camp settlements in Bobi Sub County by percentage population...............35
Graph 4: Baseline percentage consumption and sources of food groups..........................45
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 5 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
LIST OF TABLES
Table A I: Indicators of REAP I project for Palenga IDP camp .......................................17
Table 3.1: Percentage of awareness and practice of agronomic practices.........................19
Table 3.2: Output and yield for baseline (2003) and FY 2004..........................................20
Table 3.3: Output and yield for baseline (2003) and FY 2004..........................................23
3.5 Income generating activities..................................................................................24
Table 3.4: Trend of Income generating activities welfare in Palenga by percentage ........24
Table 3.5: Mean output produced (MT), sold and incomes from target crops..................25
Table 3.6: Investments of income generated .....................................................................27
Table 3.7: Post harvest handling activities (by percentage) in Palenga IDP camp ...........28
Table 3.8: Market outlets (by percentage) for the baseline and evaluation......................29
Table 3.9: Means transport costs Ushs/kg/km...................................................................30
Table 3.10: Sources of market information by percentage ................................................31
Table 4.1: Household characteristics by percentage ..........................................................36
Table 4.2: Improved agronomic practices .........................................................................37
Table 4.3: Indicators of production and productivity........................................................38
Table 4.4: Indicators of production and productivity........................................................39
Table 4.5: Income generation by percentage .....................................................................40
Table 4.6: Crop income generation...................................................................................40
Table 4.7: Investments from income generated by percentage .........................................41
Table 4.8: Post harvest handling practices by percentage .................................................41
Table 4.9: Market information sources by percentage ......................................................42
Table 4.10: Uses of market information by percentage .....................................................43
Table 4.11: Type of market outlet used by percentage ......................................................43
Table 4.12: Frequently transport modes and the unit transport cost..................................44
Table 4.13: Farmer association characteristics by percentage ...........................................46
Table 4.14: Farmer group organizations by activities.......................................................46
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 6 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperation Development International/ Volunteers for
Overseas Cooperative Assistance
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DAO District Agricultural Officer
DDS Dietary Diversity Score
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons
MT Metric Tonne
Ha Hectares
NGOs Non Governmental Organisations
PHH Post Harvest handling
REAP I Rural Economy and Agricultural Production economy (first phase)
REAP II Rural Economy and Agricultural Production economy (second phase)
Ushs Uganda Shillings
WFP World Food Program
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 7 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACDI/VOCA Uganda designed the REAP project to prepare the people in the internally
displaced peoples’ (IDPs) camps in Gulu District for eventual re-settlement should the
war come to an end. The goal of the project is to improve livelihoods and food security 
for residents of the two camps through increased agricultural productivity and revitalized 
local rural economy. The project has two components; improvement of agricultural
production and productivity through communal farms and demonstrations on crop
production and agro-forestry, and improvement of access to farmers and of farmers to
markets through the improvement (and construction or rehabilitation) of the feeder road
network.
Implementation of REAP I in Palenga IDP camp in Gulu District began in July 2003 with
the setting up of a communal farm at Atega with 78 IDPs as beneficiaries. Improvement 
of agricultural productivity through communal farms was carried out concurrently with
the road improvement component of the project. Between September and October 2004 
ACDI/VOCA carried out an evaluation survey to determine the changes in project targets 
on; knowledge of improved agronomic practices; recommended traditional agricultural
practices; crop production and productivity, value addition and crop marketing, and
experience with farmer organisations in Palenga IDP camp. A baseline survey was also 
carried out (alongside the evaluation study) for REAP II, which included both Bobi and
Palenga IDP camps, to determine current status of agricultural productivity; practice of
improved and recommended traditional agricultural practices; value addition and
agricultural marketing; farmers organisations and institutions which support these
farmers. 
Survey data was collected using an administered questionnaire as the principle tool of
data collection (based on one-on-one interviews), in which 72 people (35 from Palenga 
and 37 from Bobi) were interviewed. Additional data was drawn from focus group
discussions (5) held with business people in the IDP camps, local leaders, 2 farmers
groups and a women’s agro forestry groups. Further discussions were held with the local 
government agricultural extension officer and REAP project staff and officials from
Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF). 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 8 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
The findings from the evaluation survey highlighted land access as the principle-limiting 
factor to agricultural productivity in the Palenga IDP camp. The evaluation team noted
that while the major component of the REAP project provided access for farmers to land 
through the communal farm for a selected crop they were not adequately covered for all 
their food security and income requirements. Subsequently all the project beneficiaries
sought land outside the project communal farm to grow other crops to supplement the
communal farm crop. The IDPs negotiated with the landlords for extra land and the
terms of the agreements were payment of rent of Ushs 10,000 per season or an equivalent 
amount of crop produce.
The level of awareness and practice of farm management activities generally improved
over the period when REAP I was implemented. However, pest and disease management 
lagged behind the other farm management practices. The evaluation team found that the 
bean leaf miner had attacked some of the bean crop in farmers’ fields visited. Chemical
pesticides especially applied especially before pest and disease attack (specifically for
beans Dithane M45 and Dimethoate) can reduce the economic losses incurred by farmers.
Crop production contributed the most regular source of income mentioned by the IDPs. 
Charcoal trade, small businesses and the sell of local brew were the most common
sources of income at evaluation. The road construction component of the REAP project 
has employed over 600 people in the Palenga – Bobi area and some IDPs have used the 
money earned to pay school fees for their children and to set up businesses. However, 
because of the strict turnover of workers (every three months the old workers are replaced 
by new recruits), even though many of the beneficiaries have been employed at some
stage by the road improvement program of REAP I, few of the REAP beneficiaries
(fewer than at baseline) are still employed in the road construction program.
The crop production and productivity improvement component of the REAP project
provided access to an organized communal farm for the beneficiary IDPs. One crop
agreed between the REAP extension staff and the IDPs was grown, using an improved
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 9 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
seed, fertilizers, in addition to training in proper farm management practices and
supervision of farmers on how to manage their fields. 
The productivity of maize, the crop prioritized under the communal farm for the second
season of 2003 improved from farmers productivity prior to implementation of REAP I,
while the productivity of the other crops, beans, millet, cassava, vegetables and upland
rice, grown entirely on the farmers personal field was lower than at baseline. 
There evaluation team held discussions with IDPs and REAP project staff and found that 
three prominent issues explain the disparities in crop productivity found; the IDPs
continually mentioned the weak land agreements they had with the landlords in the area
and that some of them have been chased away from their plots mid season (even losing
their crop in the process). Previously, in the terms of agreement of between the farmer 
and the landlord, the landlords accepted part of the farmers’ crop or money (Ushs 10,000) 
as rent for the land. In recent times however, the landlords have been asking for more 
money (more than Ushs 10,000) and they refused to accept part of the farmers crop, a 
situation which has denied farmers without this money (at the time its asked for) access
to more land. This was compounded by the fact that many IDPs have constructed semi￾permanent (huts) dwelling units further reducing the little land left within the camp itself.
A second issue that emerged during the discussions was that of the time allocation
between the communal farm and personal fields. Since the farmers grow only one crop 
on the communal farm, it was important to maintain a second field and to allocate
adequate time to this field as well. However, the evaluation team found that the IDPs
spend the early part of the season in the communal farm and very little time was spared 
for their personal fields. This was attributed to the work schedule organized by the
farmers and REAP staff in order to exploit the early planting season, which left them
little time to tend the other fields. However, it was also observed that on returning from
the communal farm the rest of the time was spent in non-farm activities.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 10 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
The evaluation team also found that while the REAP staff provided training and guidance 
on improving farmers crop production practices, production of other crops outside the
communal farm were largely independent of the REAP project. The farmers searched for 
their own seed and planted at their own discretion. Therefore while they planted
improved seed on the communal farm because it was provided, it was more than likely
that they planted traditional seed if they had no source of improved seed for the second or 
third crop and that the other farm management practices were also less strictly followed
in the personal fields. This and the other issues mentioned above may have caused a
decline in the performance of crops like beans, vegetables, cassava, millet and rice and 
created an advantage for the communal farm were maize production improved.
REAP staff should develop a schedule for the communal farm activities that enables IDPs 
to have more time for the other fields they maintain. The REAP staff may also have to 
increase their participation in monitoring, training and supervising these additional
farming activities that REAP beneficiaries are engaged in outside the communal farm. 
There may be a need for REAP to consider meeting additional improved seed and
fertilizers requirements for it beneficiaries (up to at least two other crops grown by
farmers on their personal fields).
Cribs were the most important post harvest technology introduced in Palenga between the 
baseline and evaluation survey. Indeed more farmers acquired knowledge of clean grain, 
so much so that they were more inclined to sort their produce at evaluation than at
baseline and grading, which was practiced to distinguish good quality grains from an
inferior quality has been has lost prominence as the seed sold was largely uniform. 
The most noticeable success of the REAP project was in the area of crop produce
marketing and use of market information. In contrast to the findings of the baseline
survey were the local market was the dominant outlet and source of market information, 
the evaluation survey found that the farmers in Palenga are, at present, more likely to
pursue urban markets or the collective marketing arrangements similar to the one
organized by REAP I (at farm gate) because they can fetch a better price, all produce is 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 11 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
bought at once and they are paid at once. Access to market information was found to 
have risen to 94 percent from 78 percent at the baseline. Furthermore farmers obtained 
most their market information from extension staff, the radio and fellow farmers at the
evaluation and less from local traders (as had been the case at baseline). 
In assessing the findings of the baseline survey of REAP II the survey team found that in 
Bobi the marketing was still largely based on the local market transportation by bicycles 
was the most frequent higher in Bobi than in Palenga. However, record keeping was
much way of reaching the market as opposed to Pickup vehicles, which are now more 
popular in Palenga as farmers travel to urban markets that are farther from the camp. 
Production of millet, beans and groundnuts was higher in Bobi than in Palenga, while
maize production is higher in Palenga because of the earlier intervention. The
community found at Okwii in Bobi was working with in their home area and therefore
had greater access to land (and the communal farm was just starting), although they too 
had been destabilized by the war. The farmers in Bobi also used their bean crop as
payment for schools fees for their children, and the rest as in Palenga was sold or kept for 
home consumption. 
Non-agricultural enterprises contributed only a small fraction of overall economy of the
IDP camps, a situation that can be improved through a set of intervention that not only
emphasize farming as a business (skills) but also emphasize entrepreneurship training for
the farmers and local business people. To attract that section of the community which is 
not directly engaged in agriculture. 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 12 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
1.0. INTRODUCTION
Gulu district has for the last 18 years suffered a high level of insecurity as a result of
activities of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The insecurity forced many
residents of the district into Internally Displaced Persons’ (IDP) camps. It is estimated 
that over 80% of people in Gulu district are in IDP camps. Conditions in these camps are 
poor, as most people are unable to continue with normal farming activities, have no
access to employment opportunities and (IDPs) suffer malnutrition and several other
hardships. Apart from the insecurity in the area, the capacity of local government to
provide basic services is severely limited by lack of resources. Support directed towards 
inadequate food, poor shelter, lack of clean water and inadequate sanitation facilities has 
been the focal point of most international and local NGOs. The residents of the camps 
are largely dependent on aid from several NGOs for their survival. The danger in this is 
that aid dependency and loss of farming capabilities could hinder re-settlement when the 
war comes to an end.
ACDI/VOCA Uganda designed the REAP project to prepare the people in the camp for 
eventual re-settlement should the war come to an end. The REAP project is targeting
more than 10,000 residents of Palenga and Bobi IDP camps in Gulu district. The goal of 
the project is to improve livelihoods and food security for residents of the two camps
through increased agricultural productivity and revitalized local rural economy. 
1.1 A summmary of activities by development agencies in Palenga and Bobi
There are several agencies (Government and NGOs) working towards the improvement
of livelihood of the IDPs in the Palenga and Bobi area. The main forms of intervention
are categorised, for the purpose of this report, as (1) assistance towards education;
payment of school fees, building of school structures and training of adult members of
the IDP camps. (2) Improvement of agricultural production (or productivity) and
marketing. (3) Provision of food and clothes. (4) Health and sanitation assistance, which 
was assistance towards prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, treatment and prevention
of malaria, immunisation, training on maintenance of proper sanitary conditions and
hygiene, and provision of water.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 13 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Assistance through Education
Agency Intervention
SAVE THE CHILDREN They renovated schools and Construct latrines in schools
Pay school fees for IDP children
GUSCO Pays school fees for orphans and also helps households with
building material for building houses
ACCORD Pays for the education of children and takes care of returnees 
and provides capacity building for camp leaders
CRS/CARITAS Provides training camp leaders, religious leaders and
traditional leaders especially those involved in peace missions
CPAR Pay school fees for children
Agricultural production and marketing, and environmental protection
Agencies Interventions
The Government Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) supports
community-based organizations that carryout activities which
lead to the improvement of the welfare of all people in Northern
Uganda. Interventions include women’s livestock projects,
micro-finance projects e.t.c.
Through the District Extension staff Government provides
training in agricultural production and marketing. There are also 
extension staff who help with community mobilization
(Community Development Officers) and other local government
duties handled by the District and Sub county staff. Government 
also funds the Universal Primary Education program
ACDI/VOCA-REAP Improvement of agricultural production and productivity
through communal farms at Atega (Palenga) and Okwii (Bobi),
and demonstrations on crop production and agro-forestry.
Improvement of access to farmers and to markets through the
improvement (construction and rehabilitation) of the feeder road
network.
CPAR Agro-forestry through the planting of moringa and support to
farmers growing pineapples
CPAR has introduced IDPs to fuel saving stoves
HUNGER ALERT HUNGER ALERT provides training in agricultural production
and they also provide seeds for maize and beans crops.
WORLD VISION World Vision trains and provides inputs for tree planting (agro
forestry) and also provides the tree planting plots
WFP WFP encourages tree planting and provides seedlings for
planting
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 14 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Provision of food
Agency Intervention
WFP Provides food to IDPs; 3 kg of beans, 7 kgs of maize flour, 1.7 
litres of cooking oil and 2 kgs of soya flour per person for 3 
months
WORLD VISION Provides some food items from time to time. World Vision
also provides clothes for the IDPs
Health and Sanitation
Agency Intervention
WORLD VISION World Vision provides training and counseling on HIV and AIDS. 
They also provide Toilet slabs for schools.
CPAR Construct boreholes and provide training on hygiene and sanitation
UNICEF Provides Immunization for IDPs and their children. They also
provide daycare services for children aged between 2 and 5 years
Provides water (water points), water is pumped from under ground 
and they pay Ushs 200 per month for fuel for the diesel engine
CARE CARE is carries out HIV/AIDS awareness, latrine construction,
malaria control (smart nets), and road maintenance
AMREF Construct boreholes for the IDPs and carry out training and
sensitization on hygiene
ACTION FAIM Construct boreholes and water wells, and carryout training on
sanitation and hygiene
TASO Assists those who are living with HIV, promote awareness, offer
testing, provide ARVs
ADDRESS Provide training on family planning and reproductive health for the
youth
1.2. Objectives of the study
This study was designed to achieve two objectives;. Firstly to evaluate the activities of
REAP I, specifically changes in project targets on; knowledge of improved agronomic
practices; recommended traditional agricultural practices; crop production and
productivity, value addition and crop marketing, and experience with farmer
organisations in Palenga IDP camp. The second objective was to carry out a baseline
survey for REAP II, which includes both Bobi and Palenga IDP camps, specifically to
determine current status of agricultural productivity; practice of improved and
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 15 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
recommended traditional agricultural practices; value addition and agricultural
marketing; farmers organisations and institutions which support these farmers. 
2.0. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Description of the study
 Three methods were used to collect the information reported, namely a rapid
knowledge, practice and coverage (KPC) survey based on one-on-one interviews
involving 72 people (35 from Palenga and 37 from Bobi), five focused group discussions 
involved 10 – 14 people per group and direct observations both in the field and within the 
camps. Discussions were also held with local government agricultural extension officer
and as well as agricultural extension officers of the REAP project. The study was
accomplished in four main stages: Preparatory stage; literature review; household survey
and focus group discussion and data analysis and report preparation. During the
preparatory stage, The Ssemwanga Centre (TSC) recruited and trained six (6) research
assistants, and designed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was pre-tested at Bobi IDP 
camp and adjustments were made. The household survey, which constituted the main
activity of the study, was conducted over a period of one week. All the research
assistants were fluent in the local language (Luo). 
Data collected from the survey was entered and analysed using SPSS statistical package 
and MS Excel. Descriptive statistics were obtained, presented and discussed. Word
processing was done using MS word. 
2.2. Sampling method
From the two camps, Bobi and Palenga, a random sample of 35 REAP beneficiaries and 
37 listed farmers (future beneficiaries) respectively were selected for one-on-one 
interview. The sampling frame was a list of beneficiaries obtained from ACDI/VOCA
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 16 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
office in Palenga. The sampling method used in both areas was systematic sampling
starting from the first female on the list. 
The members of the focus group discussion (FGD) were not selected randomly. The first 
FGD for Palenga camp comprised of 4 direct beneficiaries; 2 indirect beneficiaries; 2
contact farmers; 2 local businessmen whereas the second FGD in Palenga had local
leaders (Camp leaders; youth leaders; women leaders). In Bobi one FGD comprised
members of women group involved in agro-forestry project. The other FGD from Bobi
had a combination of local leaders, direct beneficiaries and indirect beneficiaries. 
2.3. Source of data
Primary data was collected at household level by administering questionnaire on a one￾on-one basis. Qualitative information were obtained through FGD, field and camp
observations, discussions with the Local Government Agriculture extension staff and the
Agricultural Extension Officers of the REAP project. 
2.4. Data analysis
The data collected from the one-on-one interview was subjected to statistical analysis 
using SPSS statistical package. MS word was used for word processing and the analysis 
results were presented using tables, graphs and text.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 17 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Table A I: Indicators of REAP I project for Palenga IDP camp
Farm management practices Awareness Practice
Baseline FY 2004 Baseline FY 2004
Line planting 100 97 90 100
Recommended spacing 90 97 66 97
Timely planting 96 100 26 60
Soil fertility management 80 97 36 80
Weed management 96 100 100 94
Crop rotation 70 100 80 100
Pest and disease control 76 94 16 23
Planting improved seeds 73 94 26 91
Intercropping 86 100 80 31
Ox-ploughing 66 97 0 17
Use of selected local seeds 66 86 93 43
Principal Income sources Baseline FY 2004 
Crop farming 53 87
Livestock farming 3 6
Casual labor 23 9
Sale of local brew N/a 14
Charcoal burning 10 31
Business 7 17
Dietary Diversity score
DDS 5.0 5.1
Market outlets Baseline FY 2004
Farm gate 18 44
Local market 36 17
Urban market 18 28
Stores managed by other NGOs 9 11
Characteristics Baseline FY 2004
Female headed household 33 14
% of IDPs who own radio 33 46
% of IDPs who own bicycle 47 40
Households keeping records 19 71
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Indicators Maize Beans Cassava Vegetables Millet Rice
Production Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004
% Of farmers 
growing crop
33 60 23 37 27 20 50 26 37 20 3 3
Mean area planted 
per farmer (Ha)
0.57 0.49 0.51 0.28 0.62 0.26 0.23 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.8 0.02
Mean output per 
farmer (MT)
0.54 0.48 0.32 0.18 2.51 0.38 0.24 0.05 0.11 0.11 1.5 0.02
Yield (MT/Ha) 
pure stand
0.97 1.05 0.63 0.67 4.05 1.46 1.04 1 0.34 0.34 1.87 1.2
Yield (MT/Ha) mixed 
stand
0.81 N/a 0.44 N/a 7.6 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
% Of output sold per 
farmer
60 60 66 21 23 N/a 96 32 67 12 33 N/a
Total output (MT) 17.68 27.64 11.03 9.74 15.74 4.89 10.81 1.22 11.1 6.02 2.26 0.06
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 18 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
3.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: EVALUATION OF REAP I 
3.1 Land Tenure
In July 2003, the REAP project in Palenga started with a 200 acre (80 ha) piece of land 
negotiated with landlords in the Palenga area to assist residents of the IDP camps get
access to farm land. Originally 2.5-acre plots (1 hectare) were allocated to 78 farmers. 
However, some households were unable to use the 1 ha entirely so the project allowed 
some more IDPs to join in and the number of farmland beneficiaries grew to 92 farmers. 
On the basis of the information obtained from the one-on-one interviews, it was found
that most farmers felt that the land tenure arrangement in the camps was the most limiting
factor as far as their production and productivity were concerned. The findings of the 
focus group discussions bear the same resonance. While the project farm enabled them
to grow some crops they needed additional land to grow other crops that may not be
prioritized by the project in particular for both food security and additional income (sale). 
Between 1996 and 2001, when the earliest IDPs came to the camp in Palenga, the
landlords allowed the IDPs access to their land, which enabled them to grow some food. 
As the population of the camp increased landlords started renting out land, the present 
rate is Ushs 10,000 per season or an equivalent amount of produce for a plot close to the 
size of an acre. Sometimes the landlords interrupted the IDPs production cycle by
chasing them off the private fields. While admitting to this hostility, the landlords were 
asking for compensation from the project as they argued that the people who were using
their land under the project were receiving inputs (benefits), but the landowners had been
ignored.
3.2 Characteristics of the farming system
The crops traditionally grown in the Palenga IDP camp and the surrounding area are
maize, beans, groundnuts, cassava, millet and vegetables; tomatoes, cabbages, cowpeas
and eggplants. From the interviews, focus group discussions and field observations the
evaluation team found that the farmers (IDPs) had differentiated roles (of importance) for 
the different crops. Millet and beans were largely grown for home consumption (and
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 19 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
they are supplemented by the food donated by the WFP, which is 3 kg of beans, 7 kg of 
maize flour, 1.7 litres of oil and 2 kg of Soya flour per person (IDP) for a period of three 
months). Maize and groundnuts were grown as cash crops. Cassava, maize and millet 
were used to make local brew, which was sold to other members of the camp. When the 
households had an urgent need for money the available crop produce was sold to meet the 
emergency. Vegetables and cassava lie in the middle (both cash and food crops) when a 
bumper harvest was realized most was sold and when the crop harvest was poor little or 
some time no vegetables or cassava were sold.
3.3 Farm practices and crops grown 
Table 3.1: Percentage of awareness and practice of agronomic practices
Practice Awareness Practice
Baseline FY 2004 Baseline FY 2004
Line planting 100 97 90 100
Recommended spacing 90 97 66 97
Timely planting 96 100 26 60
Soil fertility management 80 97 36 80
Weed management 96 100 100 94
Crop rotation 70 100 80 100
Pest and disease control 76 94 16 23
Planting improved seeds 73 94 26 91
Intercropping 86 100 80 31
Ox-plough 66 97 0 17
Use of selected local seeds 66 86 93 43
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Annual crops of groundnuts, maize, millet, cassava and vegetables were still the most
important crops at this evaluation stage as had been at the baseline study. REAP I
introduced ox-ploughs, which were absent at baseline and from this survey 17 percent of
the farmers reported that they used ox-ploughs for their cultivation. However, the
percentage of farmers who have knowledge of using the ox-plough in the Palenga IDP 
camp was much higher at 97 percent up from the 66 percent from a year ago. There was 
an improvement in practice of improved farm management techniques between the
baseline and the evaluation, which may be largely due to training received by the farmers 
from the extension officers. Use of improved seed rose from 26 percent at baseline to 91 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 20 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
percent at evaluation, which was complimented by the reduction in use of local seed from 
93 percent at baseline to 43 percent at the evaluation. Since the interviews concentrated 
on project beneficiaries it would have been expected that all farmers used improved seed, 
which was the case for the project allocated plot of land, and that none used local seed. 
However, the project provided seed only for a prioritized crop and not for the other crops 
grown by the IDPs. Therefore when farmers needed to plant an additional crop they
sought seed from elsewhere and in some cases they ended up using local seed. 
Fertilizers, improved seed and ox-ploughs were got directly from the project (REAP I)
and therefore represent utilization of resources provided. Pest and disease control was
only practiced by one fifth of the farmers a situation that had not changed much between
baseline and the evaluation study. Visits to farmers’ fields revealed that the bean leaf
miner was a major pest for farmers, which may lead to a reduction in present yield of
beans. The farmers’ felt they could not do anything to counter diseases and pest, and
there has been little emphasis on pest or disease control in the project activities perhaps 
because it was not considered a limiting problem before.
3.4 Crop production and productivity of households
Table 3.2: Output and yield for baseline (2003) and FY 2004
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
The table above summarizes the findings on productivity for the Palenga IDP camp under 
the REAP I program. There were 80 beneficiary households in the Palenga IDP camp
Indicators Maize Beans Cassava
Production Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004
% Of farmers growing 
crop
33 60 23 37 27 20
Mean area planted (Ha) 0.57 0.49 0.51 0.28 0.62 0.26
Mean output (MT) 0.54 0.48 0.32 0.18 2.51 0.38
Yield (MT/Ha) pure 
stand
0.97 1.05 0.63 0.67 4.05 1.46
Yield (MT/Ha) mixed 
stand
0.81 N/a 0.44 N/a 7.6 N/a
% Of output sold 60 60 66 21 23 N/a
Total output 17.68 27.64 11.03 9.74 15.74 4.89
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 21 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
(but the number has increased to 94) and from the results of the survey (beneficiaries)
total output of maize increased from 17.68 metric tones (MT) at baseline to 23.03 MT at 
the time of the evaluation study. According to the REAP I project office in Palenga only 
9.5 MT of maize was sold under the collective marketing arrangement, which is 41.2
percent of the farmers’ total output. Since 60 percent of total maize produce was sold 
then 18.8 percent of the output was sold under private arrangements of the farmers and it 
most probably came from the private fields. 
Explaining production and productivity results obtained at evaluation
From discussions held with the IDPs and extension staff the total output of maize may
have been higher than the figures reported by farmers for the following reasons. The
farmers stated that they had started harvesting their field but were stopped by the
extension staff who wanted to establish the exact amount of the output. Even then there 
were some farmers who still sneaked to the fields and stole some combs of maize because 
“they were hungry.” The increased volume of maize grown was due to the increased
percentage of farmers growing maize (from 33 percent to 60 percent) in 2004, which was 
almost double that at baseline. The improved performance of maize was also due to the 
increased availability and utilization of improved seed from 26 percent to 91 percent and
use of fertilizers by 80 percent of the respondent farmers in 2004 from 26 percent at
baseline.
The improved performance in the production of maize however, was not carried over to 
other crops. Even though the number of farmers who grew beans increased the bean crop 
harvested was disappointing largely because of the poor weather experienced. The
survey team found bean leaf borers as mentioned earlier in the demonstration garden of
Mrs. Apoku Christine (a contact farmer) at Palenga1
. From our observations on the
demonstration garden the level of damage was above economic injury levels and could
have had an effect on the yield of beans in Palenga. None of the other crops considered 
in the survey showed an increase similar to maize instead the trend was reversed. The 
 
1
 However, it could not be established how much effect (in quantitative terms) the leaf borer could have had 
on the low yield
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 22 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
percentage of households who grew vegetables fell by half, the percentage of farmers
growing cassava fell by 7 percent, and millet by 17 percent and rice was indifferent.
Explaining performance of non-prioritized target crops
There are several factors that together have contributed to the poor results reported for the 
other target crops (other than maize). Firstly the results were captured from direct
beneficiaries of the project and are largely influenced by project activities and the
situation in the camp itself. The project allowed farmers to plant one target crop on the 
project farm plot therefore the farmers have to find land elsewhere to plant another crop. 
However, there are some limitations on the amount of land, outside the project farm, to 
grow additional crops because landlords have been reported to be increasingly less
willing to lend out land to the IDPs. Even the ones who are lucky to get land from the 
landlords have to either pay money or leave part of their harvest for the landlords. The 
success of the private field therefore depended a lot on the farmers’ negotiation skills and 
ability to convince the landlords of their need for an extra plot of land. Another reason
for the poor performance of the non-prioritized crop was that while the project
beneficiaries got input for the target crop from the project and had extension staff to
supervise their project farm fields, they did not have the similar attention for the other
crops. Managing the project plots took a lot of time away from the farmers and they had 
less time for their private fields. As the extension staff and the farmers concurred, effort 
has shifted towards the project allocated plot away from growing other crops. All these 
factors have cumulatively led to a reduction in production and productivity of the other
crops considered for this survey. 
Production and productivity of non prioritized target crops
While millet and beans are mostly important for food security purposes, the role of
cassava both as a food crop and cash crop has dwindled so has its productivity. Cassava 
has to be grown a period longer than one year, and with the loose land tenure, few
farmers risk growing it in the camps. The figures reported for cassava belonged to the 
few landowners and the camp members who were courageous enough to plant cassava in 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 23 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
the present land tenure situation. Some of the information volunteered by farmers on the 
cassava was based on their home fields in areas that are far from the camp, where they
hardly ever go to harvest the cassava. This therefore skewed the comparisons between
baseline yield and present yield figures. In the baseline study there were some
expectations that upland rice would proliferate among the farmers but the findings at the
evaluation stage show that the position held at baseline was unchanged (only 3 percent of 
the farmers grew rice and it was for domestic consumption). There was very little
interest generated (some farmers refused to consider the possibility of growing rice) when
the evaluation team mentioned rice as an alternative crop. Vegetables are grown in small
land in the camps on average 200 square meters for those who do have the land. 
Unfortunately it would seem that the percentage of farmers growing vegetables halved
and the output was just one quarter of what it was at baseline because there was very little 
space available for growing anything in the camps.
Table 3.3: Output and yield for baseline (2003) and FY 2004
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Indicators Vegetables Millet Rice
Production Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004 Baseline 2004
% Of farmers 
growing crop
50 26 37 20 3 3
Mean area planted 
(Ha)
0.23 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.8 0.02
Mean output (MT) 0.24 0.05 0.11 0.11 1.5 0.02
Yield (MT/Ha) pure 
stand
1.04 1 0.34 0.34 1.87 1.2
Yield (MT/Ha) 
mixed stand
N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
% Output sold 96 32 67 12 33 N/a
Total output 10.81 1.22 11.1 6.02 2.26 0.06
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 24 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
3.5 Income generating activities 
Trend of income generating activities
The baseline study showed few income generating options that had not been adequately
patronized by the IDPs. The evaluation study on the other hand showed what seems to be 
an increased willingness on the part of the people in the camp to participate in several
income-generating activities. Of the respondents interviewed at the evaluation 87 percent 
carried out crop farming (to generate income) as opposed to 53 percent at baseline. 
Table 3.4: Trend of Income generating activities and welfare in Palenga IDP camp by 
percentage
Principal Income sources Baseline FY 2004 
Crop farming 53 87
Livestock farming 3 6
Casual labor 23 9
Sale of local brew N/a 14
Charcoal burning 10 31
Business 7 17
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Charcoal burning was a growing enterprise as it attracted 30 percent of the respondents at 
evaluation thrice the percentage at baseline. As the camp expanded and security
improved more IDPs went out to forests to make charcoal, which they sold to travelers, to 
other camp residents and local businesses. Production and sale of local brew, which was 
categorized under business activities at baseline, grew considerably making up more than
one tenth of income generation activities in the Palenga IDP camp. This was supported 
by findings from the focus group discussion, where the participants stated that
consumption of alcohol was the most regular form of leisure for the IDP inhabitants. 
They further contended that the local brew was very cheap, which made it affordable to 
many people. In this evaluation study therefore the local brew income category was
considered independently as an income generating activity. Small businesses making and
selling pancakes, collecting wild passion fruits and selling in Gulu town, cooking and
selling food, largely dominated by women, have proliferated with many taking advantage 
of the increased NGOs activity and road construction workers in the area some of the
workers are drawn from the camp community itself. The men were mostly engaged in
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 25 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
providing casual labor for road construction1
. Approximately one quarter of the
respondents participated in road construction in the previous year but the proportion of
project beneficiaries who are involved in the casual labor may have fallen because of the 
strict worker turnover policy. The policy is meant to allow more people to have an
opportunity of working with the road construction component of the REAP project. The 
practice allows a causal worker to work for a brief period of three months then they are 
replaced with new recruits. During the brief period of working with the REAP road
construction the workers participate in a savings program, which ensures that they have
some extra income. In one case at Minakulu St. Thomas the money was used to pay
school fees and in Palenga some IDPs used the money to set up small businesses and to 
improve their house with bricks and iron sheets.
Although, participation in crop farming was constrained by poor access to land, late
arrival of seed and non-conducive weather, there was a reasonable amount of food 
privately produced that was kept back for home consumption as people hedged against
the prolonged dry spell and supplemented the food received from WFP.
Household incomes from target crops 
Table 3.5: Mean output produced (MT), sold and incomes from target crops
Output
 (MT)
Percentage sold Gross income 2
Ushs
Crop
FY2004 Baseline FY 2004 Baseline FY2004 Baseline
Percentage change 
in gross income
Maize 0.48 0.54 60 60 95,040 80,000 16
Beans 0.18 0.32 21 66 22,680 126,000 -455
Vegetables 0.05 0.24 32 33 4,800 34,500 -618
Cassava 0.38 2.51 N/a 67 N/a 69,200 N/a
Millet 0.11 0.11 12 96 6,600 24,500 -271
Rice 0.02 1.50 N/a 23 N/a 318,000 N/a
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
 
1
 Road construction up to 600 men have worked although turnover is high, casual labour in construction of 
buildings, hired bicycle transport (boda boda), charcoal burning and firewood, selling passion fruits and 
small businesses selling paraffin.
2 The prices Ushs/kg at evaluation were for maize 330, beans 600, Vegetable (eggplants used as proxy 
measure) 150 and millet 600. 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 26 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
In the first year of the project (REAP I), only maize was promoted and there were gains 
of 16 percent in the gross income earned from the maize. The other crops suffered from 
the land tenure problems people had in the camps, the rise in population of the camp over 
the last year where there were intensive rebel activities meant less and less land available 
to the farmers but perhaps more importantly the time farmers allocated to the project plot, 
away from their fields, especially during the planting season deprived most households of
labor to manage the other crops. Subsequently the output at evaluation was lower
compared to the baseline output as less land was put to productive use.
Graph 1: Mean output sold by target crop for baseline and FY 2003
Mean output produced and sold by target crop
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Maize Beans Vegetables Cassava Millet Rice
Target crops 
Quantity of output (metric tonnes)
FY 2004 ouput sold
FY 2004 output produced
Baseline output sold
Baseline output produced
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Investment of Income
While income drawn from the other target crops reduced, there were signs that the
income obtained from non-crop income sources was being put to uses that would
improve the welfare and livelihood of the income earners. Of all income received during 
the period of REAP I about half of the respondents used it to pay school fees for their 
children, one quarter of the respondents used the income to buy livestock, one third of the 
respondents re-invested the income into farming; buying small pieces of land to grow
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 27 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
other crops, hoes and other farm implements. One fifth of the respondents used the
income to buy either a radio, a bicycle or household items and 6 percent invested it in
business activities or opened up a bank account respectively.
Table 3.6: Investments of income generated2
Investment activities Percentage level of investment
Paid school fees 49
Bought livestock 26
Re-invest in farming activities 32
Opening a bank account 6
Bought radios, bicycles and household utensils 20
Investment in business 6
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
3.6 Post harvest handling practices
Drying and storage facilities
At baseline IDPs kept their maize and beans crop in the field until it was dry, while
cassava and vegetables were sold in the field or eaten fresh. The produce at baseline was 
stored in sacks inside the dwelling units. However, the evaluation team observed that
since then a number of farmers have constructed cribs and the evaluation survey team
found yet more farmers were preparing to set up cribs having received wire mesh and
other materials from the REAP project. The quality of produce obtained and the higher 
price earned with grain stored in the cribs has motivated some farmers to borrow
tarpaulins from friends for drying their produce. The size of the wire mesh is rather large 
and only comb maize can be stored in the crib, as it would be in appropriate to keep other 
produce in the crib. The rest of the produce shelled maize, beans, millet and vegetables 
were stored inside the farmers’ dwelling unit. Some IDPs complained of having little
space after building their hut that even if they were given materials they have no space
left to build a crib. There was no improvement in storage facilities for vegetables
between baseline and evaluation as vegetables were still kept in pots and jerry cans.
 
2
 Investment activities were only mentioned at the Evaluation survey and not in the Baseline survey. The information 
obtained from the focus group discussions and the primary data in the Evaluation were compared to illuminate changes 
in investment over this period.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 28 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Value addition activities
During the baseline study grading was considered to be more important than sorting by a 
ratio of 10:1. At the evaluation sorting was considered by far more important than any
other practice, three quarters of the respondents had sorted their produce compared to 3 
percent who graded. This may have been a response to the present situation in the market 
and the camp. Grading was important at baseline because different households grew
different varieties of the same crop from locally kept varieties Longe 1, e.t.c. The only
way they could differentiate their produce in the market was by arranging it in away that 
would convince buyers that they had better produce. However, with the uniform seed
received from REAP I and other organizations grading would have little effect on the
value of the product if the other post harvest practices like proper drying and storage are 
practiced. Sorting would be the more worthwhile value addition activity because the
producer can differentiate their product based on cleanliness. The sorted produce for
example maize (or an other grain) would then be sold faster then the unsorted lot.
Table 3.7: Post harvest handling activities (by percentage) in Palenga IDP camp
Activities Baseline FY 2004
Grading 33 3
Sorting 3 77
Milling 3 49
Packaging 3 0
Threshing 0 26
Shelling 0 3
Winnowing 0 6
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Farmers were more inclined to mill their own produce (49 percent) by the time of the
evaluation than had been the case at baseline an indication perhaps that they have settled 
down to the life in the camp and they are processing more and more of their food. The 
milling activity partly accounts for the increased percentage of respondents who held
back their millet at evaluation, 84 percent higher than at baseline. There are three other 
post harvest-handling activities that were not reported by the respondents at the time of
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 29 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
the baseline study, but they are practiced according to the findings of this evaluation
these are threshing (26 percent), winnowing (6 percent) and shelling (3 percent).
3.7 Marketing and marketing outlets
Crop produce marketing
At baseline the local market was the most regular market outlet for crop produce
followed by farm gate. Most of the maize grown by REAP I beneficiaries during the
second season of 2003 was sold collectively to Uganda Grain Traders (UGT) through a 
marketing plan organized by REAP I staff. This may account for the growth of the farm 
gate market outlet. The arrangement between UGT, REAP I staff and the beneficiaries of 
REAP I seems to have stimulated attention towards the urban market. Conversation with
farmers showed that the good prices earned from the maize sold had opened their eyes to 
the possibility of earning better prices for their crop produce in urban markets. The
women farmers interviewed were particularly pleased with the collective marketing
arrangement were interest in having a similar arrangement for the other crops. Men were 
less enthusiastic about the collective arrangement because it denied them a chance of
having money in their pocket but appreciated the benefit of having a lump sum payment 
for their produce.
Table 3.8: Market outlets (by percentage) for the baseline and evaluation
Market outlets Baseline FY 2004
Farm gate 18 44
Local market 36 17
Urban market 18 28
Store managed by NGO 9 11
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Many rural communities in Gulu district sell their produce to middlemen from the urban
centers. The most prominent “middle women” are the Awaro. The Awaro have agents 
within the camps, who make contacts for them with local farmers and at the end of the 
season they come in and buy produce from the farmers who have agreed to sell. Many 
interviewees and focus group discussion participants complained about the low prices
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 30 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
they received and being cheated by the measurements used by the Awaro. In most cases 
they sold because they had few market outlet options and they needed the money as well.
Mode of transporting produce to the market
Table 3.9: Means transport costs Ushs/kg/km
Mode of Percentage Costs (Ushs/kg/km)
transport Baseline FY 2004 Baseline FY 2004
Bicycle 52 31 12 12
Pickup 4 20 34 2
Truck 4 3 27 5
Head load 40 20 11 24
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
The bicycle was still the most popular mode of transport from the camp to the different 
centers although only 30 percent, as opposed to 52 percent at baseline, of the respondents 
use bicycles. There has been a growth in the use of pickups, which mirrors the increase 
noted in urban market outlets. It looks like farmers have developed a preference for the 
markets that are far away from them, where they earn higher prices for their produce. 
Contrastingly the cost of pickup and truck transport has dropped to as low as Ushs/kg/km 
2 and Ushs/kg/km 5 from Ushs/kg/km 34 and Ushs/kg/km 27 respectively. This may
have been due to an increase in the volume of commodities transported and the number 
of pickup and truck carriers. The people may have substituted the distance where they
used a bicycle, for example from Palenga to Gulu town, with vehicle transport. It was
considerably cheaper since the pickups and trucks are usually overloaded and therefore 
they can reduce the carriage fee whereas a hired bicycle transporter (boda boda) may not 
be able to reduce his charge. The security in the area, over the last few months, has
improved which may have lured some transporters back. Some times NGOs and business 
people hired pickups and trucks, which also carry farmers’ produce only as an additional
item this means little extra costs would be incurred thus enabling farmers’ benefit from
the lower fare. Head load carriers were the most expensive mode of transport, at the 
evaluation, as they carried little produce over short distances. Consequently, the use of
the head load mode of transport halved between baseline and evaluation from 40 percent 
to 20 percent.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 31 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Market information sources
Table 3.10: Sources of market information by percentage
Market information Baseline FY 2004
Access to market information 78 94
Market information source
Extension agents 0 52
Radio 17 49
Fellow farmers 21 34
Buyers 61 18
Local markets 0 10
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Access to market information improved from 78 percent to 94 percent. This result was 
due to the growing influence of the radio and extension workers. While, many of the
farmers interviewed had multiple sources of market information, one half of them
received information from extension staff and the radio (up from 17 percent at baseline
for the radio). Indeed extension staff and the radio represented the most regular sources 
of market information. Fellow farmers were a popular source of information about the 
market. The popularity of buyers has receded to one-third the level at baseline. The 
major reason for this was the lack of trust in the information provided by traders as many 
farmers felt that the traders cheated them. 
3.8 Dietary diversity
Dietary diversity was defined as the extent to which a diet is varied with respect to
different kinds of foods in it. It is the measure of the quality of diet of a given population 
using a dietary diversity score (DDS). The DDS score obtained from the evaluation
study was 5.1 which is quite similar to the 5.0 score obtained at baseline. As at baseline 
the 24-hour recall was used in the survey. The major food groups considered were
cereals, legumes, root tubers, oils and fats, sugar and honey, meat, milk, eggs, poultry,
vegetables and fish and a miscellaneous category for spices and other additives. As
reported in the baseline survey most of the respondents ate on average one meal per day.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 32 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Graph 2: Consumption of household by food group
Percentage consumption, grown and bought at FY 2004
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
cereals
legumes
root tubers
oil/fats
meat
milk
fruits
sugar/honey
poultry
eggs
vegetables
fish
miscellaneous
Food categories
percentage consumed, grown and bought
bought
own grown 
consumed
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
The DDS score reported at the evaluation showed that in the IDPs’ diet increased
consumption of oil substituted for the disappearance of milk, poultry and eggs in the diet. 
The residents of the camp were given oil as part of the food donated by WFP, accounting 
for the high oil consumption reported. Oil consumption was complimented by an
increased consumption of cereals and legumes mostly millet, maize and beans. 
Consumption of fruits, vegetables and sugar was unchanged from the percentages
obtained at baseline. However, none of the respondents interviewed at the evaluation
took milk, eggs and other poultry products. The reason for this was that they did not
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 33 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
have these products in their homes and it is considered luxurious buying them from
shops. Chicken particularly is reserved for special occasions. The survey team had a
chance to observe this on the eve of Independence Day celebrations 9th October 2004. 
Many of the people interviewed were out in the market buying meat and chicken for this 
occasion. There were very few cattle in the camp as most people slaughtered their
animals so that they do not have to lose them to rebels. However, with the improving
security situation and some farmers having received a heifer and oxen from the REAP
project the DDS score may improve over the next season.
3.9 Farmer organizations
The level of association found during the evaluation survey was based on small farming
groups. On average made up of 4 people (both men and women), they are united by the 
need to help each other out in their plots. At baseline participation in groups was
reported as 25 percent, which was largely based on the groups people had before joining 
the camps. These groups were still mentioned during the evaluation survey and 49
percent of these were reported to have had a constitution, however, none of these groups 
was found to be active in the camp during the evaluation survey although the members of
the now passive associations held a hope that they would rejuvenate them on return to
their homes. The survey team found that 60 percent of the respondents belonged to small 
groups of four people. Sometimes (31 percent of the respondents said) these groups
contributed money, on average the groups in Palenga contributed Ushs 2,200 per year,
towards hiring other people to dig their fields for them. Another form of association was 
based on farming chiefs Rwot Kwere. The Rwot Kwere essentially allowed the
community in the camp to maintain some semblance of the leadership structures they had 
in their home areas. This same system was also used to identify different families on the 
basis of where they came from to join the camp.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 34 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Table AII: Indicators for REAP II Baseline in Bobi and Palenga for FY 2004
Indicators Maize Beans Vegetables Cassava Millet Ground nuts
Production Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga
% Of farmers 
growing crop
27 60 65 37 35 26 60 20 30 20 19 6
Mean area 
planted (Ha)
0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7
Mean output 
(MT)
0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2
Yield (MT/Ha) 
pure stand
0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.3
Yield (MT/Ha) 
mixed stand
0.6 N/a 0.5 N/a 0.6 N/a 0.2 N/a 0.2 N/a 1.0 N/a
% Quantity 
harvested sold
69 60 52 21 32 32 16 32 0 12 34 0
Farm practice Palenga Bobi
Awareness Practice rate Awareness Practice rate
Line planting 100 100 92 73
Recommended spacing 97 97 65 49
Timely planting 100 60 92 65
Soil fertility management 97 80 95 51
Weed management 100 94 97 87
Crop rotation 100 100 87 62
Pest and disease control 94 23 78 16
Planting improved seeds 94 91 81 43
Intercropping 100 31 89 60
Ox-plough 97 17 68 11
Use of selected local seeds 86 43 70 68
Principal Income sources by percentage
Bobi Palenga
Crop farming 92 87
Charcoal burning 36 31
Sale of local brew 27 14
Business 14 17
Casual labor 8 9
Livestock farming 5 6
Characteristics Bobi Palenga
%Female headed household 8 14
% of IDPs who own radio 41 46
% of IDPs who own bicycle 60 40
% Households keeping records 19 71
Market outlets (percentage) Bobi Palenga
Farm gate 8 44
Local market 67 17
Urban market 7 28
Store managed by NGO3
25 11
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
 
3
 There are other NGOs in the camp that promote agricultural production and market and it is these NGOs 
that are being referred to.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 35 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE SURVEY OF REAP II 
4.1 Characteristics of the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) camp at Bobi
The internally displaced peoples camp in Bobi was created just over two years ago and 
the earliest IDPs are reported to have arrived at the camp in July 2002. The population of 
the camp was small until the last influx of IDPs between May and June of this year
(2004), when the number of IDPs rose in the camp considerably (the population of the
camp is reported to have increased by over 500 percent). 
Graph 3: IDP camp settlements in Bobi Sub County by percentage population
50%
25%
25%
Bobi IDP camp
Minakulu St. Thomas Bobi
subcounty
Minakulu (Apac)
 Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
The area of Bobi and the immediate neighboring area have three displaced peoples’ 
settlements. The camp in Bobi, which has approximately one half all the IDPs in Bobi, 
was found to be very crowded. Some of the huts built by the IDPs are barely four feet off 
the ground that adults have to crawl through the entrance. The survey team observed that 
the rain season had compounded the crowded situation in the camps, as dirty water
collected in many places and posed a health risk for the families especially the infants. 
One quarter of the people resided at Minakulu St. Thomas primary school. This second 
group sleeps at the primary school in the open classes and on the school verandah. 
During the day they go back to their homes to their different home tasks and even dig
their gardens and return to the camp in the evening. The difference between this group 
and the one at Bobi is that the Minakulu St. Thomas group has been displaced from their 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 36 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
houses but continue to stay in their home area. The families at Bobi have been displaced 
from far off places. The third settlement is located at Minakulu in Apac district, which
was outside the study area and therefore was not visited by the survey team. The REAP 
II project has started working with the Bobi group located at Minakulu St. Thomas
primary school, the area is specifically called Okwii. However, throughout this report we 
shall, for purposes of clarity, report on it as Bobi. The group at Okwii-Bobi was chosen 
because when REAP II was being structured the number of IDPs in the Bobi camp was 
very small and the surge in the camp population was anticipated. The other consideration 
was that since the people in the area lived in a state of displacement the extension of
REAP I was in part based on communities being able to contribute land as an input, on to 
which the REAP II project would add it support. Bobi sub-county has 4 parishes Paido, 
Palwo (where Okwii is located), Patek and Paidwe. The land in Okwii was chosen for 
project activities as it was relatively safe and it had been offered free of charge. The land 
was demarcated into 150 plots and by the time the evaluation team visited the first crop 
of maize was being planted.
4.2 Household characteristics 
Table 4.1: Household characteristics by percentage
Characteristics Bobi Palenga
Female headed household 8 14
% of IDPs who own radio 41 46
% of IDPs who own bicycle 60 40
Households keeping records 19 71
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
The percentage of female-headed households in both Bobi and Palenga camps was quite 
low at evaluation. The extension staff suggested that this might have been due to lack of 
sufficient confidence ingrained in the rural women however, the survey team could not
ascertain this independently. Ownership of bicycles was higher in Bobi than Palenga, 60 
percent and 40 percent respectively. The farmers in Bobi are farther from the market and 
need the bicycles to transport their produce to the market, while Palenga is relatively
closer to the urban centre and would perhaps have a lower urgency for bicycle transport. 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 37 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
The survey team observed more pick-up vehicles and large trucks plying around the
Palenga area these too provide transport and could reduce the need for bicycles as
compared to Bobi. The level of record keeping was more thrice as high as that found in 
Bobi. The high level of record keeping was largely due to the early intervention under 
REAP I, where farmers had been taught elements of record keeping. The farmers also 
kept records on the food donations they received from WFP and support from other
NGOs working in the area.
4.3 Characteristics of the farming system
Table 4.2: Improved agronomic practices
Farm practice Palenga Bobi
Awareness Practice rate Awareness Practice rate
Line planting 100 100 92 73
Recommended spacing 97 97 65 49
Timely planting 100 60 92 65
Soil fertility management 97 80 95 51
Weed management 100 94 97 87
Crop rotation 100 100 87 62
Pest and disease control 94 23 78 16
Planting improved seeds 94 91 81 43
Intercropping 100 31 89 60
Ox-plough 97 17 68 11
Use of selected local seeds 86 43 70 68
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
The most important crops grown in both Bobi and Palenga are groundnuts, maize beans, 
sweet potatoes, simsim cotton, beans (a small sized bean called bam), sunflower and
millet. In preparing for the cropping season farmers slashed and burned the old crop (or 
vegetation) in the plot to be used. They then cultivate the land and plant depending on
the season. In the first season, usually between March and June, groundnuts, maize,
beans, sweet potatoes and simsim are planted. In the second season cotton, beans (bum), 
sunflower, simsim, millet and groundnuts are usually grown. Millet, beans and sweet
potatoes are grown for food, while groundnuts, simsim, cotton, sunflower and maize are
grown as cash crops. Commercially grown crops are largely selected on the basis of the 
market price that can be fetched from selling the crop produce. Beans were also grown
as part exchange for school fees instead of paying money to the schools. The current
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 38 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
state of war between the LRA rebels and the UPDF has affected the selection of crops. 
Farmers now prefer early maturing crops, as that would not be disrupted by the war. 
Even the cassava that was grown was harvested as early as at 3 months (a very early
stage to harvest any cassava variety in Uganda).
Awareness and practice of improved agronomic practices
The level of awareness and practice of improved agronomic practices in Palenga
improvements based on REAP I. The results of Bobi however are largely based on
traditional practice and previous agricultural extension efforts in the area. The level of
awareness of agronomic practice is high and this may be due to the fact that this was a 
very active farming area before the rebel activities intensified. The level of knowledge
and practice already in existence, if not interrupted by rebel activity offers a good base
for REAP II. While all practices need to be improved, knowledge and practice of line 
planting, timely planting, weed management were well embedded in the community. 
Selection of seed and type of seed planted, pest and disease control, soil fertility
management, and recommended spacing used practices were the most neglected practices 
by the farmers in Bobi. 
4.4 Production and productivity
Table 4.3: Indicators of production and productivity
Indicators Maize Beans Vegetables
Production Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga
% Of farmers growing crop 27 60 65 37 35 26
Mean area planted (Ha) 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1
Mean output (MT) 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
Yield (MT/Ha) pure stand 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0
Yield (MT/Ha) mixed stand 0.6 N/a 0.5 N/a 0.6 N/a
% Quantity harvested sold 69 60 52 21 32 32
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
In Bobi two thirds of the respondents reported having grown beans in contrast to the just 
over one-third in Palenga. This contrasted with maize, which was grown by 60 percent 
of the respondents in Palenga against just 27 percent in Bobi. The importance of beans 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 39 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
in Bobi ranges from paying school dues, sale, to domestic consumption. The farmers in
Bobi sold more of their bean and maize crop harvest than those in Palenga. The
proportions of crop produce sold were higher in Bobi as there were substitutes in
vegetables, cassava, millet and groundnuts. The households in Bobi may be relatively
more food secure than those in Palenga because many of them grew several crops. For 
instance 60 percent of the respondents in Bobi grew cassava as opposed to 20 percent in 
Palenga, 30 percent grow millet in Bobi to 20 percent in Palenga and 19 percent grow
groundnuts in Bobi to the 6 percent in Palenga. This consciousness of food security in
Bobi was reflected in the larger fraction of the cassava and millet crop were kept back for 
home consumption. Productivity of cassava was six times higher in Bobi than in Palenga 
the farmers there keep 84 percent of the cassava crop harvest for home consumption. The 
habit of not selling food was stricter for millet as none of the farmers interviewed had
sold their millet crop harvest. The community in Bobi-Okwii does not receive food aid 
and therefore has to rely on what they produce from their fields.
Table 4.4: Indicators of production and productivity
Production Indicators Cassava Millet Ground nuts
Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga
% Of farmers growing crop 60 20 30 20 19 6
Mean area planted (Ha) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7
Mean output (MT) 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2
Yield (MT/Ha) pure stand 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.3
Yield (MT/Ha) mixed stand 0.2 N/a 0.2 N/a 1.0 N/a
% Quantity harvested sold 16 32 0 12 34 0
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
Further discussions revealed that while the rebels sometimes raid to steal food, they did
not carry away millet in the granaries because it usually not milled (and they prefer a
form, which is faster to prepare for food). The survey team found reports that UPDF
soldiers stole their food especially cassava. The farmers in Bobi revealed that groundnuts 
were the most preferred commercial crop although the insecurity has not enabled them to 
plant their fields. There were cases of farmers who had consistent groundnut production
cycles, which they have been implementing for several seasons in spite of the poor
security situation.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 40 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4.5 Income and income generating activities
Table 4.5: Income generation by percentage
Principal Income sources
Bobi Palenga
Crop farming 92 87
Charcoal burning 36 31
Sale of local brew 27 14
Business 14 17
Casual labor 8 9
Livestock farming 5 6
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
Crop farming was the most regular source of income for the respondents interviewed
followed by the sale of charcoal and the sale of local brew for one third of the
respondents in Bobi and over one quarter of the respondents in Palenga. Livestock was 
not kept in Bobi as it attracted rebels to the area. However, they bought livestock, which 
they kept with their relatives in more secure places like Bweyaale along Kampala – Gulu 
road. Business owners were reported to have moved away as they often became victims 
in rebel raids and sometimes they lost their lives. Sale of charcoal and local brew
provided the only substantive non-agricultural sources of income. 
Table 4.6: Crop income generation 
Indicators of Maize Beans Vegetables Cassava Millet Groundnuts
crop income Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga
% Of growers 27 60 65 37 35 26 60 20 30 20 19 5.7
Output (MT) 0.32 0.48 0.21 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.51 0.38 0.16 0.11 0.65 0.23
% Output sold 69 60 52 21 32 32 16 32 0 12 34 0
Output sold (MT) 0.22 0.28 0.11 0.21 0.03 0.02 0.08 N/a 0 0.07 0.19 N/a
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 41 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Table 4.7: Investments from income generated by percentage
Investment activities Bobi Palenga
Paying school fees 49 49
Buying livestock 51 26
Re-invest in farming activities 24 32
Bought radios, bicycles 27 20
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
In both Bobi and Palenga payment of school fees was the most consistent form of
investment made by the IDPs. Acquisition of livestock was twice as important to the
farmers in Bobi as it was in Palenga and even if they could not keep their cattle with them 
because of the unpredictable security situation many farmers kept their livestock with
farmers in more secure areas, A quarter of the respondents in Bobi and one third of those 
in Palenga re-invest some of their income into agriculture and another a quarter and one 
fifth of the respondents in Bobi and Palenga respectively bought household items, radios
or bicycles.
4.6 Value addition activities
Table 4.8: Post harvest handling practices by percentage
Post harvest practices Bobi Palenga
Sorting 76 77
Milling 31 49
Threshing 22 26
Winnowing 5 6
Grading 3 3
Shelling 3 3
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
Sorting was the most regularly practiced (75 percent of respondents) value addition
activity in both Bobi and Palenga. One-third of the by respondents reported that they had 
milled their produce largely their millet crop (about a third of the population). The
farmers in Bobi were used to selling large volumes of their harvest especially groundnuts, 
beans and maize and sorting was reported by over three quarters of the respondents in
Palenga and Bobi. Threshing of dry crop was reported by one fifth and one quarter of the 
respondents in Bobi and Palenga, an indication that a large proportion of the produce was 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 42 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
harvested fresh and was not threshed. Groundnuts, which could be threshed, are
sometimes sold in husks and this might have contributed to the low practice of threshing. 
Grading in Palenga may be lower especially for maize because it is a fairly uniform
product; the farmers in Bobi generally do less grading their produce since they were able 
to sell fairly large volumes to traders. 
4.7 Marketing information and market outlets
Sources of market information
Table 4.9: Market information sources by percentage
Facility Bobi Palenga
Access 100 94
Fellow farmers 59 34
Radio 49 49
Local markets 30 10
Extension agents 5 52
Buyers 8 18
Source REAP II BASELINE SURVEY (ACDI/VOCA)
All the farmers in Bobi and almost all in Palenga reported that they had access to market 
information. The farming community in Bobi depends on other farmers, the radio and
local market traders for access market information, these are institutional linkages that
have been developed by the locally with little external intervention. In fact extension
staff and buyers were reported to provide less than 10 percent of the market information. 
This contrasts with Palenga where extension staff intervention meant that more than half
of the farmers interviewed relied on extension for market information. Perhaps the most 
outstanding results was the fact that many farmers are inclined to listen to radio for
market information. The radio is an important source of information to farmers who have 
no other direct channels or institutions to provide market information. 
Uses of market information
Having obtained the market information it was important to determine what the farmers
did with the market information. The survey revealed that the farmers were mostly
worried about the price they would earn from their produce. The market information in
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 43 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
both Palenga and Bobi had little influence on their decision to grow certain crops and the 
decision of where to sell. The reason for this could be that the farmers already know
what crops they want to grow and sell developed under the traditional farming system. 
Some farmers reported that they stored their produce for up to four months, in Bobi, if
they can earn a good price, when they thought rebels would not come and steal it. 
Table 4.10: Uses of market information by percentage
Uses of information Bobi Palenga
Decide when to sell 41 29
Decide minimum and acceptable price 38 37
Making decisions to sell fresh or dry 38 31
Decide what to grow 11 20
Decide where to sell produce 14 6
No choice but to sell anyway 3 0
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
Market outlets 
Table 4.11: Type of market outlet used by percentage
Market outlets Bobi Palenga
Farm gate 8 44
Local market 67 17
Urban market 7 28
Store managed by NGO3
25 11
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
Two thirds of the respondents interviewed in Bobi sold their produce in the local market, 
a quarter to stores managed by other NGOs, and 8 percent and 7 percent sold at farm gate 
and in the urban market. While the NGOs do play a part in crop marketing the results 
showed that 75 percent of the choice of market outlets farmers made was on their own. 
Therefore determination of market outlets in Bobi was most likely a development based 
on the local farming system and local traders. The situation in Palenga was quite different 
with farm gate and urban markets being the most important market outlets for farmers 
produce. There has been some intervention to assist farmers with marketing and the 
 
3
 There are other NGOs in the camp that promote agricultural production and market and it is these NGOs 
that are being referred to.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 44 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
trend showed that the farmers were willing to travel to the urban centers to secure a good 
price if they did not get one at farm gate and in the local market.
Mode of transport
Table 4.12: Frequently transport modes and the unit transport cost
Transport modes Percentage Cost Ushs/kg/km
Bobi Palenga Bobi Palenga
Bicycle 78 31 7 12
Head load 8 20 11 24
Pick-up 5 20 2 2
Truck 3 3 N/a 5
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
In Bobi bicycle transport is very dominant as over three quarters of the respondents
reported that they used it. Less than 10 percent of the respondents used the other modes 
of head load, pick-up vehicles and trucks. The farmers in Bobi did most of the crop
marketing on an individual basis, each farmer decided when it was the right time to sell
their produce, while the farmers in Palenga had an opportunity of their produce under a 
collective marketing mechanism (in REAP I). Palenga is approximately 10 km away
from Gulu town, and with the increased number of vehicles moving along the Kampala –
Gulu high way it was reasonable to expect many farmers to transport their produce to
Gulu town. The likelihood of using bicycles and selling in the local market than in the
urban market may also be due to the fact that Bobi (Okwii) on is only 7 km away from 
the local market in Minakulu and perhaps over 30 km away from Gulu town (the nearest 
urban centre). Farmers in Okwii therefore ride their produce on bicycles to Minakulu
trading centre. 
4.8 Dietary Diversity
The dietary diversity score (DDS) of Bobi was 4.4, while the DDS of Palenga was 5.1 for 
this baseline survey 0f REAP II. The difference in the DDS score obtained for Palenga 
and Bobi is largely because of the differences in the consumption of oil and fat products, 
maize and vegetables. The community in Bobi because they can get food from their
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 45 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
gardens eat those the traditional energy and body building foods that are found in most of 
the traditional diets that is roots, legumes and cereals. The community in Palenga on the 
other hand had relatively more food insecurity as a result the vegetables were kept for
home consumption and they anxiously harvested their maize and kept some of it for
home consumption. The IDPs in Palenga were supplemented with oil from WFP, which 
was not the case for the respondents in Bobi (Okwii) who largely had to purchase the oil 
they consumed. 
Graph 4: Baseline percentage consumption and sources of food groups
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
maize
legumes
roots
oil/fats
meat
sugar
milk
fruits
vegetables
poultry
eggs
fish
miscellaneous
Food groups
percentages
bobi bought
bobi self grown
bobi consumption
palenga bought
palenga self grown
palenga consumption
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 46 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4.9 Farmer organizations
Table 4.13: Farmer association characteristics by percentage
Association characteristics (percentage) Palenga Bobi
Whether respondent belongs to active farmer group 60 60
Whether respondent pays membership fee 31 14
Whether farmer group has constitution 49 30
 Average number of members per group 4 4
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
The level of association in both Palenga and Bobi was similar in several aspects for
instance the 60 percent of the respondents said they belonged to groups in both camps. 
The average size of a group is 4 members. This situation is more as a result of the level 
of disruption of the lives of the people found during this baseline study. As in Palenga, 
the people in Bobi also had groups that are not effective because of the low level of
economic activity that binds them together. Instead they have opted for farming groups. 
The farmers in Bobi have been very active in the farming groups, up to 70 percent of the 
respondents belonged to groups against 54 percent in Palenga, and as we found out the 
REAP project has encouraged them to do so since the seed for the season came late in
helping each other out they can do a lot of work quite quickly.
Table 4.14: Farmer group organizations by activities
Group activities Palenga Bobi
Communal cultivation 54 70
Training 46 27
Marketing 29 3
Revolving funds 11 5
Rearing livestock 6 N/a
Charity work N/a 3
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
Apart from grouping to receive training and for communal cultivation, there was hardly
any other form of association to speak of in Bobi. Indeed the only mention of association 
outside training and communal farming was in revolving funds (5 percent), where some
farmers had devised a mechanism of loaning each other money, a marketing (3 percent) 
and charity work (3 percent). One our respondents spoke of a group of women who help 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 47 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
orphans who are too young to take care of themselves. Even though, this was an
interesting finding it was very unique and it was found to be replicated by other farmers 
in the discussions held instead assistance was given to extended family (members). 
There are a few farmers in Bobi who kept livestock on an individual basis but this was 
not found for groups. In Palenga some farmers had received cattle from the REAP
project and they received assistance from colleagues with in the small farming groups. It 
must be noted then that the institution of groups found during the baseline survey were
small loose farming groups that are only bound by a common need of supplementing
each other for field labor and they come together to receive training from extension
officers.
The survey team noted that were large groups linked with NGOs or even those organized 
under REAP I that were mentioned by some IDPs. Many times these were not groups 
that carried out activities together it was instead beneficiaries of a program that were 
characterized on the basis of their benefactor (NGO).
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 48 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions from the Evaluation of REAP I
1. The traditional crops grown in Palenga are maize, beans, cassava, groundnuts,
millet, vegetables (tomatoes, cabbages, cowpeas and eggplant) and simsim.
2. Land was the most limiting factor to agricultural productivity in Palenga. The
project provided some land for one selected crop but the farmers still had to
negotiate with the landlords for extra land. Many times the agreements (the
farmers paid Ushs 10,000 as rent or paid an equivalent amount of their crop
produce) with broke down.
3. The level of awareness and practice of farm management showed a general
improvement at evaluation, although pest and disease management continued to
lag behind the other farm management practices.
4. The crop production and productivity improvement component of the REAP
project provided access, for IDPs, to a communal farm, where one crop agreed 
between the REAP extension staff and the IDPs was grown. The REAP project 
then provided improved seed, fertilizers, and training in proper farm management
practices in addition to supervision of farmers management of their fields. 
5. Crop production and productivity was lopsided with the crop prioritized under the 
communal farm (maize) showing improvements, while the productivity of the
second and third or other crops (beans, cassava, vegetables and upland rice)
grown on the farmers personal field waned. 
6. There evaluation team held discussions with IDPs and REAP project staff and
found that three prominent issues seem to explain the disparities in crop
productivity found; 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 49 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
7. The IDPs continually mentioned the weak land agreements they had with the
landlords in the area and that some of them have been chased away from their
plots mid season. Previously the landlords took part of the farmers’ crop as rent 
for the land hired or money (Ushs 10,000). In recent times the landlords have 
been asking for money and refused to accept part of the farmers crop, a situation
which has denied the farmers without this money (at the time its asked for) access 
to land. The farmers also complained that with many IDPs constructing semi￾permanent (huts) dwelling units there was little land left to plant crops.
8. A second issue that emerged during the discussions was time allocation between
the communal farm and the personal gardens. Since the farmers grow only one
crop on the project farm, it was important to maintain a second field and to
allocate adequate time to this field as well. However, the evaluation team found 
that the IDPs spend the early part of the season in the communal farm and very
little time was spared for their personal fields. 
9. The evaluation team also found that while the REAP staff provided training and
guidance on improving farmers crop production practices, production of other
crops outside the communal farm were largely independent of the REAP project. 
The farmers searched for their own seed and planted at their own discretion. 
Therefore while they planted improved seed on the communal farm because it
was provided, it was more than likely that they planted traditional seed if they had 
no source of improved seed for the second or third crop and that the other farm
management practices were also less strictly followed in the personal fields. This 
and the other issues mentioned above may have caused a decline in the
performance of crops like beans, vegetables, cassava, millet and rice and created 
an advantage for the communal farm were maize production improved.
10. Crop production contributed the most regular source of income mentioned by the 
IDPs. Burning and sell of charcoal, small businesses and the sell of local brew
were the most common sources of income at evaluation.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 50 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
11. The percentage of farmers who sold their crop at baseline was higher than those 
who sold at the evaluation.
12. Cribs were introduced to the IDPs in Palenga in the interval between the baseline 
and evaluation study.
13. Apart from the maize, which was stored in cribs, all the other crops are still stored 
the same way they were stored at baseline. Vegetables are still stored in pots and 
old jerry cans.
14. Practice of sorting, milling and shelling were the most important value addition
activities practiced by three quarters, half and one quarter of the respondents
respectively.
15. The farmers in Palenga at the evaluation chose urban markets and the collective
sale of produce organized by REAP I (at farm gate) over on the local market and 
other NGOs.
16. Pickup and truck vehicles have replaced bicycles and head load as the most
regularly used modes of transport for produce to the market.
17. Nearly all (94 percent) the respondents had access to market information. 
Farmers were more likely to obtain their market information from extension staff,
the radio and fellow farmers at the evaluation over local traders as had been the 
case at baseline.
18. The dietary diversity score was marginally unchanged between baseline and the
evaluation stage.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 51 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
19. Organized farmer groups with registered members and constitutions have been in
active since the farmers moved to the camps. Small farming groups of 4 people 
help each other in the field. The foursome sometimes contributed money and
hired labor.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 52 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Conclusions from the Baseline survey of REAP II in Bobi and Palenga
1. The Project farm was set up in Okwii Bobi Sub County and serves the IDPs
settled at Minakulu St. Thomas primary school. 150 plots had been demarcated 
for the second season of 2004.
2. There are three IDPs groups one settled at Bobi for people who have moved from 
distant areas with in Gulu district and from Kitgum and Apac Districts. The
settlement at Minakulu St. Thomas was made up people mostly from within Bobi 
sub county Palwo Parish.
3. Only 8 and 14 percent of the household were female-headed in Bobi and Palenga 
respectively. Ownership of bicycles was higher in Bobi than in Palenga. 
However, record keeping was much higher in Palenga than in Bobi as a result of 
the early intervention in Palenga.
4. As in Palenga in Bobi the most important crops found are beans, groundnuts,
millet, cassava, maize, sweet potatoes, simsim and sunflower.
5. Fast maturing crop varieties were preferred over late maturing ones because of the 
fear that the late crop might be disrupted by rebel activity in the area.
6. The level of awareness of agronomic farm practices was high in both Bobi and
Palenga. However, soil fertility management, use of improved seed and
recommended spacing was practiced by just about half of the respondents in Bobi, 
while in Palenga nearly all the farmers practiced use of these technologies.
7. The practice of pest and disease management in both Palenga and Bobi was
limited to one fifth or less of the respondents interviewed. Use of ox-ploughing 
technology was being introduced in the area although a farmer in Bobi had oxen
and an ox-plough that he used with a few other farmers.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 53 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
8. Production in Bobi was higher in all crops except maize than in Palenga, although
the yield of vegetables was lower in Bobi than in Palenga. Cassava and millet
were largely kept for domestic production at both sites.
9. The farmers in Bobi as payment for schools dues used the bean crop produce, and 
as was in Palenga some were sold and the rest kept for home consumption 
10. The farmers in Bobi produced and sold several crops, while those in Palenga
produced fewer alternate crops.
11. Crop farming, charcoal burning and sale, sale of local brew and small businesses 
were the dominant income generating activities in both Bobi and Palenga.
12. Over 50 percent of the farmers in Bobi considered buying cattle as a worthwhile 
investment to 26 percent in Palenga. However, both camps agreed equally that
educating their children (49 percent) was a worthy investment.
13. Sorting was the most commonly practiced vale addition activity. Milling and
threshing where also frequently practiced. Grading, shelling and winnowing were
not frequently practiced,
14. Nearly all the farmers in Bobi and Palenga had access to market information. 
Fellow farmers and the radio were the most regular sources of market
information. Extension agents were the most important source of market
information in Palenga, although they were virtually absent in Bobi.
15. The local market was the leading market outlet in Bobi, while selling at farm gate 
was more common in Palenga. The farmers in Palenga were more likely to take 
their produce to the urban market than sell to the local market or other NGOs.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 54 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
16. The bicycle is the dominant mode of transport in Bobi, while in Palenga produce 
transportation is split between use of bicycles, pickup vehicles and head lead.
17. The dietary diversity score of Bobi was lower than that of Palenga as a result of
the traditional diet in Bobi, while the situation in Palenga meant the IDPs ended 
up having a higher DDS score.
18. The farmers were organized to receive training and for communal farming. The
groups were made up of 4 members. Organized groups and associations were
present in the past but have been inactive since rebel activity intensified a few
years ago.
19. The large groups were too few and unknown the majority of farmers and were
based on the NGO that has offered a particular type of support.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 55 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The success of the farm projects in both Bobi and Palenga hinges on the
relationship between the project, project staff, the IDPs and the landlords. At the 
evaluation some of the landlords in Palenga were unhappy with the agreement
they had under REAP I. An evaluation team should be set up to determine the 
likely effects this dissenting group could have on project activities. There may be 
a need to review the memorandum of understanding that ACDI/VOCA-REAP I 
has with the landlords. A reward system could be put in place that recognizes the 
contribution landlords make by allowing their land to be used by the project.
2. The REAP project staff should develop a schedule for the communal farm
activities that enables IDPs to have more time for the other fields they maintain. 
REAP staff may also have to increase their participation in monitoring, training
and supervising the other farming activities of REAP beneficiaries outside the
communal farm. The imp project may consider meeting in adequate supply of
improved seed and fertilizers for at least two other crops grown by farmers on
their personal fields.
3. The evaluation team found the state of the IDP camp at Bobi to be worse than
Palenga and Okwii. While the rationale for locating the farm at Okwii is
understandable. One half of all the IDPs in Bobi will not be catered for. The best 
solution therefore is to find means of establishing yet another farm closer to the
camp at Bobi to cater for the farming requirement of this settlement as well.
4. It was shown that there could indeed be improvements in practice of farm
management technologies if intervention is directed properly. Therefore the poor
performance in pest and disease management in both camps, use of improved
seed and poor record keeping in Bobi can be turned round if effort is directed to 
these particular problems. REAP II has to consider pest and disease control as 
well the findings of Palenga showed that it was a limiting factor for beans at least. 
In the case of the bean leaf miners observed for the bean crop, two inorganic
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 56 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
pesticide alternatives can be used either Dithane M45, 60grams of the chemical
mixed to a 15 litres solution with water, or Dimethoate, 30 millilitres for a 15 litre 
solution with water. (The measurements are got from the standard Dithane M45 
and Dimethoate pesticides sold in Uganda). The pesticide should be applied
when the crop is 3 weeks and 6 weeks old.
5. The low level of non-agricultural enterprise underscored the importance of
agriculture to these communities. The next set of intervention should not only
emphasize farming as a business (skills) but should look at entrepreneurship
training for the farmers and local business people. This will ensure even the
section of the community that is not engaged in agriculture contributes to the
economy of the community.
6. The farmers showed a willingness to pursue means of improving the price they
get from their produce. The loose groupings in the camps cannot enable the
farmers to carryout collective marketing on their own. This finding therefore
presents an opportunity to organize groups and start training and mobilization for 
farming, trainings, produce marketing, savings and credits and other activities.
7. The radio, fellow farmers and extension staff offer the most regular
communication channel for market information that should be further 
strengthened.
8. The IDPs base their meals (diet) on traditional eating habits and the low dietary
diversity was out of norm rather than scarcity especially in Bobi. Although the
absence of milk, eggs, meat and fish in the diet is appreciated. Some of the 
extension training should be devoted to teaching farmers about the importance of
eating a variety of foodstuffs.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 57 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
APPENDIX I: FOOD CONSUMPTION IN PALENGA AND BOBI
Percentage consumption by food groups between baseline and FY 2004
Food 
Groups
Cereals Legumes Roots Oil Meat Milk Fruits Sugar Poultry Eggs Vegetables Fish
FY 2004 91 89 43 89 3 0 19 34 0 0 66 11
Baseline 83 77 53 33 10 7 17 33 7 3 67 17
Source: REAP I EVALUATION SURVEY 2004
Food consumption by percentage for different groups
Food consumption
 by IDP camp Cereals Legumes Roots Oil Meat Sugar Milk Fruits Vegetables Poultry Eggs Fish
Palenga 91 89 43 89 3 34 0 19 66 0 0 11
Bobi 46 100 95 51 0 16 0 19 24 0 0 14
Source REAP II BASELINE (ACDI/VOCA)
APPENDIX II: REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS HELD IN 
PALENGA IDP CAMP
DURATION IN THE CAMP
The biggest group came in 1996 from Koch. 
Some came 6 years ago from Atiang, some had gone to Bweyaale but came back to join the came. 
The last influx came last year from Koro. 
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Seemed to be passing on of information, or helping them to farm there was no participatory 
sessions with farmers. They seem to use more of contact farmers who were their link. These 
were chosen at a later stage after gathering people and telling them about project. They left 
responsibility of choosing beneficiaries to a small administrative group Rwot Kwere (loosely
translated as chief of the hoe) a small unit smaller than LC I. The local leaders were involved in 
local leaders were called to convince the landowners that the land was being used for a genuine 
purpose and not bring foreigners (Zimbabwe). They got 200 acres of land and apportioned **100 
households each household was meant to get 2.5 acres. 
PLANNING THE PROJECT
Planning the farm activities when they were still in homes.
They survey and find out the status of the garden when the grass is healthy, where you find 
beetles, its an indicator that the soil is fertile. 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 58 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
They know seasons, first sorghum cassava, maize, beans (small brown beans) and groundnuts and 
millet and sweet potatoes
Second season crops Simsim, beans (yellow beans), groundnuts and millets, cassava and sweet 
potatoes
 After checking fertility they get the tools and then go to the field to do the cultivation. They plan 
post harvest activities and marketing when the crop is ready field in t and they sure of the harvest. 
Marketing is based on the yelds of the season and is planned after harvesting. The plans for the 
next season depend on the performance of the previous season crop. 
RECORD KEEPING
Before coming to the camp the cultural ways of keeping records. The appearance of the moon 
was indication that they start cultivation. Storage of seed under post harvest handling the seed is 
stored in the kitchen roof or wrapped and placed on a raised pole. 
RECORD KEEPING AT PRESENT 
Only 4/10 of the FGD participant kept records although they acknowledge they know the
importance and the need for record keeping. There were also issues of illiteracy. Some one said 
that it is a bad omen to make estimates of yields or keep records in the tradition. The member of 
the project say it is mandatory to keep a record and those out of the project attach the importance 
to only those who belong to the project. 
When they were in their homes they had their plans. They don’t plan now because of the 
uncertainty of security in the camp. When one wants hire land the normally the charge is 10,000 
per plot, which is less than an acre. A good person can allow you to give them part of your 
harvest.
Choosing seed 
How fast the crops mature (because the land is not theirs), of the different crops and also of the 
seed, esp. millet, profitability, performance of the crop, the season.
GROUPS/ASSOCIATIONS
They have no groups presently but they had groups previously. The groups that exist now are 
based on the NGOs they are affiliated to. *There are also loose groupings (Rwot Kweri) of about 
15 or less people assisting each other in the gardens, ACDI/VOCA encourages these groups. 
They also form groups that enable them to access aid.
NGO What they do
ACDI/VOCA REAP Promotes crop production/ agriculture, employment road for road maintenance
World Vision Tree planting/ agro forestry
Planting plots
Toilet slabs (sanitation)
AIDS/HIV training, food items and counseling
CPAR Drill boreholes
Agro-forestry moringa, pineapples
Hygiene and sanitation (training)
Pay school fees for children
Fuel saving stoves
Save the children They renovated schools
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 59 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Pay school fees 
Construct latrines in schools
UNICEF Immunization
Daycare services (2-5 years)
Provide water (water points), water is pumped from under ground and they 
200/= per month for fuel for the diesel engine.
CARE HIV/AIDS awareness, latrine construction, malaria control (smart nets),
employment road for road maintenance
AMREF Boreholes drill and hygiene
GUSCO Rehabilitation of the returnees from rebel hands, drunkards and counseling
ACTION FAIM Boreholes and water wells, sanitation and hygiene
ACCORD Education of children and take care of returnees, capacity building for camp 
leaders
CRS/CARITAS Training camp leaders, religious leaders and traditional leaders for fostering
peace missions
TASO Assists those who are living with HIV, promote awareness, offer testing,
provide ARVs
ADDRESS Family planning, reproductive health for the youth
WFP Food for work and tree planting
HUNGER ALERT Training on agricultural production, provide seeds
SOIL FERTILITY
Leave land under fallow for atleast a year, they carryout shifting cultivation, to control fires that 
may burn a fallow you dig around a plot (fire gaurds). 
Trees in the garden help keep moisture, the leaves add fertility, the importance of trees in the 
garden. Now they are being cut for charcoals. The problem of deforestation will lead to less 
rainfall in future.
They feel that the introduction of fertilizers was a waste. Those who applied fertilizers got good 
vegetative growth but the yields were not much different from those who did not use the 
fertilizers. The land was quite fertile. 
CROP PRODUCTION
Before coming to the camps they did a lot of intercropping (maize, cassava and groundnuts) but 
after growing pure stand crops in the project the yields were higher yields. And even when they 
go to their homes they will split their field and do pure stands. However for cassava and
groundnuts (cassava and beans) they will go a head with an intercrop because it is easy to weed 
and it also ensure food security. 
LAND TENURE
From 1996 to 2001 the landlords used to give them land for free but when the population
increased landlords started renting out land. Sometimes the landlord chased them away and 
interrupted their production. The landlords are now asking for compensation from the project 
because the people who are using their land under the project are receiving inputs (benefits). 
Some people were stopped from ploughing because the landlords had refused to allow access to 
the land as the arrangement had stopped in March 2004. Some District politicians have also 
supported compensation of landlords. 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 60 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
The landlords stated that they had not got any recognition from the project after them lending out 
land to the project. This has caused some bitterness.
The local leaders state that they discussed with the camp people about the crops to grow but the 
people say they were not consulted. Initially the project had come with cassava, which was 
changed to maize according to the leaders. The crops that are preferable for farmers in the area 
groundnuts and beans and maize. They get the seeds late and therefore the planting season is not 
properly utilized. They do not want being dictated too what seasons to plant some particular 
crops, because they have better knowledge of when the crops do well.
The women were happy with the strategy of selling everything at ago, because selling in parts 
would lead to wasting of proceeds. But the delayed money was problem for the men. 
If the 2.5 acres isn’t sufficient you hire but if it too much you hire some one to cultivate it for 
you.
2001-2004 lands became scare and hiring came in.
POST HARVEST
Tarpaulins they borrow from friends for drying. The cribs are used for project maize not allowed 
for anything else. Even if it were allowed it wouldn’t be suitable for beans or other small grains. 
For the other crops they store in their houses. Those who stay at extreme points bring it to their 
friends near the road to keep for them. They lacked areas to build cribs. 
Vegetables in pots, old jerry cans. The major problem of storing in the house was the pests. The 
polythene on which they put the vegetables encourages mould growth and moisture, rotting of the 
produce.
MARKETING 
The most common marketing system is the Awalo women they take mostly crop produce beans, 
maize, gnuts. The men usually take charcoal. Some farmers are agents for the Awalos. When 
asked why the sell to the agents they think the individual transport costs and market dues make is 
more profitable to sell to agents who can handle these costs. 
 G.nuts, simsim and cassava were mentioned as the most profitable crops when sold. The seed 
for groundnuts is expensive. The contact farmers for the agents get some commicion based on 
the number of people they connect. 
The maize has the advantage it requires less care and it has a high rate of survival.
VALUE ADDITION ACTIVITIES
They keep their crop and sell it after 4 to 5 months as seed then it can fetch a higher price. They 
sell some also in between the storage when they have storage problems.
Mobile units of soldiers, rebels and thieves come and steal their food. The mobile army soldiers 
have been sited as most notorious for stealing stored food.
NUTRITION
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 61 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
Sell some of their food and buy small fish Lacere.
They not allowed to eat any thing from their garden, so they have steal from their field to have 
something when there is no food. Most farmers eat beans on a daily basis, at the least 8 out of 10 
days they eat beans but the other members of the FGD ate beans every day. The only change is 
for the second meal of the day when they eat vegetables. 
 The newcomers do not get donations they buy from the markets. The millet is normally not sold 
its kept for food.
FOOD DONATIONS
3kg of beans, 7kg of maize flour, 1.7 litre oil, 2 kg of soya flour. 
INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES
Sources of income
Women Make pancakes, brew, sell small amount of 
crop produce, food stuffs, fish, 20L jerrycan of malwa (lachoi), 
waragi is 12,000/=, 
Some gather passion fruits, you have be a local person to have 
permission to collect passion fruits
Men Road construction up to 600 men have worked although
turnover is high, casual labour in construction of buildings,
bodaboda, charcoal burning and firewood, and selling,
passionfruits, small businesses (paraffin)
All They do not get assistance from relatives, they instead provide 
support for their relatives who are in a more adverse area where 
they cannot access food. 
BUSINESS TREND
In 2003 the businesses were making profits from selling food to NGOs, but in this year more food 
sellers have entered the market and the number of NGOs have reduced these two factors have led 
to a decline in profits. The insecurity and increased transport costs for traditional wholesale 
businessmen have increased the cost of trading in the area and low purchasing power. Then the 
entry of more competitors selling the same commodity has also reduced profitability. 
PROPERTY THEY HAD BEFORE CAMP LIFE
They had cattle, chicken goats, pigs, granaries, bicycles, hoes etc 
They lost all their livestock; they retained the big saucepans, bicycles, radios
HOW DO MOST SPEND THEIR MONEY?
The men usually prefer to sell food produce in small amount so that they can spend it in drinking, 
however, they feel that they spend a lot of money on drink because it is cheap. Women feel the 
men spend the money on concubines and older women also get money by getting young boys (15 
year old). 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 62 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
THE CHANGES IN THEIR LIFE SINCE THEY CAME TO THE CAMPS
Advantages
Helped them how to budget for their resources and planning their expenditure. They have learnt 
to market their produce. They have received a lot of training in different things from Ngos, 
training on HIV/AIDS, educations, the schools are more accessible, healthcare services are 
nearer, they have increased access to water than they had before. There is more knowledge about 
the use of latrines and personal hygiene has improved. It has saved a lot of people from being 
killed, it has brought about more unity. The women feel they are more empowered now than 
before. They have received exposure to an outside environment, to business opportunities.
Disadvantages
There is widespread HIV/AIDS and other diseases, tuberculosis, malaria. There is a lot of 
defilement of children by soldiers and other people in the camps. There is increased promiscuity 
both in men and women. Reduced interaction of parents and children and there is a lot of 
separation of couples. There are a lot people who have died. They have lost their property and 
field.
RECOMMENDATION
If the project is expanded and more people are employed, it will allow more people things to do 
and they will have less time to develop bad camp life habits. 
NGOs should have a more strict M&E policy to follow up problems in implementation.
They would prefer having participatory planning with VOCA instead of passing through their 
leaders.
GENERAL VIEWS ABOUT THE PROJECT
They think they should have a secondary school, adult education, vocational education, and
increased transparency from REAP staff
Bicycles were given to very few people and that has created divisions among recipients and those 
who didn’t receive (e.g. 4/22).
Local leaders say they last had a consultative meeting with the project people in June 2003.
Late delivery of seed, and very little consideration of their views in the project activities
ACHIEVEMENTS
Many people were able to access land for farming because of their involvement in the project. 
After selling their maize the lump sum amount got helped with fees, buying household items. 
People were kept busy working and there was little idleness.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 63 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
APPENDIX II: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION HELD IN BOBI- MINAKULU 
7
TH/10/2004
There are two camps ¼ are in bobi (Gulu) and ¼ in Minakulu (Apac) and ½ at St. Thomas, 
Minakulu. 
PROBLEMS IN THE CAMPS
Because there are a lot of diseases scabies, Tb, diarhoea, and HIV
In adequate food supply, where they have plots to cultivate. There is a lot of moral degradation in 
the camps that makes them none attractive. Most of them went to the camp or are residing near 
the road in June this year. When the conditions became adverse. 
PLANNING
They slash the fields they normally slash before the rains, burn then cultivate the land and plant 
depending on the season. The 1st season crops are g.nuts, maize beans s. potatoes, some plant a 
simsim that can grow in the ist season. 2nd season crops cotton, beans (bam- smallsize), 
sunflower, simsim, millet, g.nuts.
SEED SELECTION
Profitability esp. cash crops cotton, sunflower, simsim, g.nuts, and beans, beans are also grown to 
supplement school requirements. The war has affected thr selection of crops they now grow early 
maturing crops. E.g. bum beans only yield well in june/july, when this period is disturbed by the 
war. They will not plant it for the season. There is a variety of cassava they are able to eat after 3 
months.
Choice of seed may depend on the importance of crop for food security purposes. 
STORAGE PLANS
Plan depending on the harvest obtained, then apportion produce for school fees(the greatest 
portion), for home consumption and for sale for domestic requirements.
They plant early to prevent squirrels from coming to eat the seed. Most crops(1st season) 1st
week of April should have finished planting. 1st week of October for season latest planting date. 
If the crop doesn’t do well in one season it adjusted by planting earlier in the proceeding season 
in order to improve harvest. The rain patterns are less reliable these days therefore timing early 
planting is not as easy. 
RECORD KEEPING
They usually keep a memory of their activities but do not usually keep written records. There 
some of them have been taught by NGOs on how to keep written records. 
Worldvision: building houses for PLWHA, widows, and old people.
(Others copy from above). CARE isn’t in the area any more.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 64 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
CROP PRODUCTION
Maize Longe 5 (VOCA), they planted maize because the seedbed isn’t fine the next season the 
seedbed will be fine they have been promised groundnuts. Maize is used for opening land and 
yields well in the second season. They will not accept rice. They have been allocated 1 acre 
because of the lateness of the season. The next season they will open more land. The land 
belongs to the community; therefore land is not a big issue at the moment.
VEGETABLE SEED
They don’t keep it for long. (Boo) cowpea seed cannot be stored for more than 2 months they 
only kept seed for the next season only. If not you grow it near a swampy place and only get the 
seed for the season that you want to plant it. 
Eggplant it is sliced in pieces and keep it above the fire place. 
They also buy seed from seed stockists for sunflower, cabbage, tomatoes and eggplants.
LAND TENURE
Land belongs to the community, there are no limitations at the moment. The project sought their 
views and they suggested the place chosen. 
FERTILITY MANAGEMENT
They were given fertilizers, they planted with maize, however, the land has been in fallow for 19 
years they do not see the necessity of fertilizers. 
POST HARVEST HANDLING 
They do not show people where they keep their food. The rebels will come and carry it, so the 
rebels can only carry a little. Some keep their food in Gulu town with relatives. 
They dry on the bare ground and store in polythene bags, vegetables in old jerry cans pots. The 
boo is first boiled and then dried. Eggplant sliced first then stored. 
MARKETING
Awaros, they sell to them to save on transport costs and market dues. There is a free market 
system. The g.nut price is determined by the Awaros. The gnuts are sold in kilograms. Most do 
not sell unshelled gnuts. But when sold it is in cups. They do not do it commonly because they 
get cheated. The Awaros come with their own cups and insist of using them. 
Some times the produce is sold of immediate because they can avoid storage costs and it is easier 
to run from rebels with money. And the collective selling arrangement by VOCA will keep the 
awaros away and they wont be cheated, they have been told about
Value addition 
Shelling, threshing, 
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 65 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
GROUPS
They have well formed groups with a constitution, bank accounts, they pay membership fees, 
they supported by several NGOs (world vision, CRS/ Caritas), they carry out tree planting, 
livestock production, communal farming
NUTRITION
They normally eat cassava and beans. In addition they eat pigeon peas, vegetables, simsim paste, 
s. potatoes, from own fields. 
About 90% of their food is grown and only about 10% is got from the market.
INCOME 
Women group brewing. There is little cassava and maize so the scale is small, casual labour, 
fetching water, weeding in others gardens.
They used to make tablecloth, Fish mongering from Apac, this is no longer ther because it risks 
life. Charcoal burning, brick making, repair radios, bodaboda, selling small fishes. The ones who 
operate businesses are in fear of rebels because the rebels come looking for them and kill them.
FARMING IS THE PRINCIPLE SOURCE OF INCOME. 
Achievements some have bought land near the roadside which is safer. They help relatives in the 
camps with food. They have some relatives in other areas that bring some money for them for 
ploughing, salt and soap. When they looking for food especially during the insecure times they 
go to the nearest garden. 
Vegetables are grown in the swamp during the dry season.
BUSINESS
The businesses are not growing because they are fear of rebels and the good businessmen have 
left and gone to other towns. 
They also suffer a problem of mixed identity, they are considered to be Langis by the Acholis and 
Acholis by Langis they are segregated on this basis when they try to operate businesses.
APPENDIX III: WOMEN’S AGRO-FORESTRY GROUP IN BOBI CAMP
MAIN ISSUES
Started in 2001, they were originally traditional dancers. They came together with the support of 
ACDI/VOCA. The biggest group came 3 years age the latecomers came 4 months ago. The 
camp population is increasing and no one is leaving. They cultivate their land as a individuals. 
They cultivate based on profitability, land availability and indidvidual strength. They plant 
maize, g.nuts, beans. In August 2004. They have prepared the seed bed for the nursery and they 
waiting for the fence for their nursery and to receive seed, they will start.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 66 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
The agroforestry project will mostly include fruit bearing trees and will teach business skills to 
women farmers.
The project has not yet taken off.
APPENDIX IV: DISCUSSION WITH PROJECT STAFF MAIN POINTS
The project has tow major components
The production component 
The road construction component
Under the production component the interventions include
Improvement of production through training, crop production demonstrations and agro-forestry 
and block farming. 
Improvement of agricultural productivity through communal farms currently in Okwii (Bobi) and 
Atega (Palenga)
Improving access to farmers and to markets for farmers through feeder road rehabilitation.
Communal block farms consider households only. In the beginning households In Palenga were 
given 2.5 acres of the 200 acres that was agreed under REAP I with the landlords a memorandum 
of understanding was signed between the landlords in the area and ACDI/VOCA clarifying the 
status of the block farm in Atega.
REAP II mentioned rewarding/ compensation of landlords.
THE MAIZE FOR 2003B 
The project also provided warehousing and collective marketing for farmers maize for the output 
of the second season of 2003.
9.5 MT was collected from farmers and the total revenue from the sale was approximately 3 
million shillings. The highest earnings by a single farmer from the sale of maize was 
Ushs335,000.
The farmers were stopped from selling off their maize to middlemen because the project staff 
wanted to established the amount that had been produced. Initially there had been an intention of 
seed recovery and part of the income from the maize crop was supposed to cover for the cost of 
warehousing. However, all thr income got from the maize was returned to the farmers.
SHORTCOMING OF THE SEASON
The groundnuts seed bought for the season of 2004, were of a poor quality. There were some 
delays in procurement of seed, which led to late planting, including the groundnut seed for 
2004B. The seed procured was of a poor quality, the germination rate was very poor,
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 67 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
WHY OKWII WAS CHOOSEN OVER BOBI
The land selected in Okwii after discussions held with the leaders in four parishes in Bobi 
subcounty. Okwi is located in Palwo parish, the other parishes are Patek, Paidwe and Paido.
Participatory planning meetings were held with farmers before the beginning of the season and 
they indicated their preference for groundnuts as the crop to be grown for the second season.
When they were looking for land for the REAP II block farm the number of people in Bobi camp 
were very few the number of IDPs surged a round May to July of 2004.
In the past when peoples food was stolen the project gave some relief for the affected farmers so 
that they would not starve.
SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT IN LIVELIHOOD
Some farmers have purchased sewing machines, paid school fees for their children about 6 
farmers opened up Bank accounts (for example Acero Consy and Odwoch Patrick). Some 
farmers have bought bicycles (Adong Evelyn).
Some local business people started off selling their food in semi-permanent huts some (2) have 
built themselves permanent structures with an iron sheet roof where they operate their businesses 
from.
There is a savings and credit scheme organized for the road construction workers where 25% of 
their income in retained and given to them in a lump sum at the end of their contract. The idea is 
it would enable carry out some sort of investment.
GENDER NUTRITION AND HEALTH
Agro-forestry project was being initiated for women in Bobi but it had not fully taken off. There 
was some training and selection project site up to this time. It was expected that mostly fruit trees 
would be planted. 
25 (pairs) oxen and 25 heifers were given out to the IDPs in Palenga and it was hoped these 
would contribute to consumption of milk in the camps, after the heifers (then cows) have calved.
Some of the women who have come from the rural areas showed low self confidence and 
preferred to leave decision making to their husbands or just the men in the community. There 
were some special cases also. These had set up businesses and some of them are contact farmers 
such as Christine Aporu.
APPENDIX VI
DISCUSSION WITH MR. OMONA VINCENT OYOO FROM THE PRODUCTION 
DEPARTMENT OF GULU DISTRICT IN CHARGE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION 
STAFF FOR BOBI SUBCOUNTY
PARTICIPATION IN REAP PROJECTACTIVITIES
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 68 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
During the planting season carryout farm training visits for the block farm and farmers private 
fields and advise on the proper agronomic practices such as correct spacing and subsequent 
management of the planted plot.
SEED RECOMMENDED TO PROJECT
Has recommended K132 for beans, Longe 5 for maize, Nase 10 and 12 for cassava, Suparica for 
rice. Also advised for inclusion of groundnuts as target crop. However, the decision of selecting 
seed was carried out independently by project.
The poor quality of groundnut seed may be because the seed producer stored the seed for a 
longtime usually the groundnut seed is stored for 5 to 6 months and then disposed of.
The farm in Okwii doesnto serve the IDPs in the Bobi camp who are in a dire condition.
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PROJECT
There was a lot of famine in Palenga, which seems to have reduced
The provision of equipment for the construction of cribs has handling of crop produce in the 
camp
Provision of oxen and ox ploughs will increase the size of land which is opened up and the heifers 
will provide milk and increase the number of cattle in the area
The life of the people in Palenga is much better than those in Bobi, which is an indication of 
improvement of the welfare of IDPs.
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 69 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
APPENDIX V: QUESTIONNAIRE
Serial No.__________________
ACDI/VOCA REAP PROJECT
BASELINE AND EVALUATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 2004 GULU DISTRICT (PALENGA
AND BOBI CAMPS)
1. Interviewer code
2. Date of 
interview 
3. Time started 
4. Time ended
5. Name of respondent _____________________________________________________ 
1.0 BIO-DATA
101. What is the name of the household head?
102. What is the sex of the household head? 1= M
2= F
103. What is the age of the household head? ________________(years)
2.0 FARM PLANNING PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY
Rank
1= Crop farming
2= Livestock farming
3= Fishing
4= Casual labour
5= Employment
6= Business
201. What is the household’s source of income 
(multiple answers, rank in order of importance)
7= Other (specify)
202. Do you engage in any farming activities now? 1. Yes (Go to 203) 2. No
1= Write down costs of production and expected 
income
2= Secure market
3= Plan the above (1) and (2) but do not write
4= No planning just farm
203 If yes, what activities do you plan for? 
5= Others (specify)
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 70 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
1=Seed availability
2=Crop profitability
3=Amount of that particular crop I have in store
4=Market availability
5=Historical performance of the crop
204. What determines the crops you grow in a 
particular season? (More than one answer is 
possible)
6=Land availability
205. Do you own a bicycle? 1= Yes 2= No
206 Do you own a radio? 1= Yes 2= No
207. Which of the following are you aware of and have practiced in your past and/or current farming 
operations. (Tick where appropriate)
2004A (1st season of year 2004)
Have knowledge of Practice
Farm practice Yes No Yes No
Line planting
Recommended spacing
Timely planting
Soil fertility
Weed management
Crop rotation
Pest and disease control 
Planting improved seed
Intercropping
Ox-ploughing
Use of selected local seeds
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 71 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
208. Output and productivity (Please state the area of land under various crops for the second season of 
2003 and the first season of 2004. Where there was intercropping please show acreage and output for both 
intercropped and pure stand)
2003B season (Second season of 2003)
Acreage planted Kgs planted
Maize Pure stand
Mixed stand
Beans Pure stand
Mixed stand
Rice Pure stand
Mixed stand
Vegetables Pure stand
Mixed stand
Millet Pure stand
Mixed stand
Cassava Pure stand
Mixed stand
2004A (1st season of the year 2004)
Acreage planted Kgs produced
Maize Pure stand
Mixed stand
Beans Pure stand
Mixed stand
Rice Pure stand
Mixed stand
Vegetables Pure stand
Mixed stand
Millet Pure stand
Mixed stand
Cassava Pure stand
Mixed stand
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 72 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
3.0 POST HARVEST HANDLING, TRANSPORT AND MARKETING
Activity Method
1= hand operated 
2=motorised electric
3= motorised fuel
4= other, specify
1= grading
2= sorting
3=milling
4=packaging
301. Indicate the value added activities carried out on 
your farm and the methods used
5=other
302 Do you belong to an active farmer group 1= Yes
cooperative or association? 2= No
303. How many members belong to the group? ________________________
304. Does your group/association have a constitution 1= Yes
(governing laws)? 2= No
305. Do you pay a membership fee? 1= Yes
2= No
306. If yes, how much?
1= Training 
2= Procurement of inputs
3= Marketing 
4= Communal cultivation
5= Savings and credit
6= Revolving
7= Receive free inputs
307. What activities do you carryout as a group?
8= Others (specify)
Individual As a group
1= Farm gate 
2= Local market
3= Urban market
4= Local store
308. Where do you sell your produce? (Tick against 
selling point and indicate whether its sold to the
destination mentioned on an individual basis or 
as a group)
5= Other (specify)
1= Still fresh (specify crop)
2= immediately after drying (specify crop)
3= within two months after drying (specify crop)
309. At what stage do you sell your produce?
4= other (specify)
Mode Rate (Ushs/kg/km)
1= Head load
2= Donkey/oxen
310. If you have to sell away from the farm, what 
mode of transport do you use to deliver the 
produce to the selling point (please fill in the 
table below where appropriate) 3= Pick-up
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 73 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4= Truck
5= Wheel barrow
6= Bicycle
7=Tractor
311. Do you keep and records on your farm activities 1= Yes (Go to 312)
2= No (Go to 313)
1= Fixed capital purchases
2= Input purchases 
3= Field operations
4= Post-harvest operations
5= Marketing activities
6= Output quantities
7= Pest/disease attack
8= Natural disasters
312 If yes, specify the type of information recorded 
(multiple answers are possible, Tick where 
applicable)
9= Other
313. If No, why don’t you keep records? _______________________________________
_______________________________________
314. Do you have access to market information? 1= yes (Go to 315)
2= No (Go to 401)
1= Local market
2= Radio
3= Newspapers
4= Extension agent
5= Group/association contacts
6= Fellow farmers
315. If yes, how do you access market information?
7= Other (specify)
316. What type of information do you access? 1= Price information
2= Market outlets
3= Quality control
4= Other (specify)
1= Decide minimum and acceptable price
2= Decide what to grow
3= Decide when to sell
4= Decide when to plant
5= Decide where to sell
317. How is market information useful to your farming 
activities (Tick where mentioned)
6= Other (specify)
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 74 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
4.0 HOUSEHOLD INCOME FROM TARGET CROPS AND OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
401. Indicate incomes from all household sales of target crops harvested in second season of 2003
Amount stored as 
seed (kgs)
Amount 
consumed (kgs)
Amount sold 
(kgs)
Selling points Unit prices 
(Ushs/kg)
1. Maize
 Fresh
 Dry
 Flour
2. Beans
 Fresh
 Dry
3. Vegetables
4. Upland rice
 Dry
5. Millet
 Dry
 Flour
6. Cassava
 Fresh
 Dry
 Flour
 Cuttings
*Amount consumed also includes output still in store for future consumption, amount already consumed 
and donations to neighbours, social functions etc. Codes for selling points 1= Farm gate 2= Local market 
3= Urban market 4= Local market
402. Indicate the amount of income earned from other economic activities during last year 2003? E.g. Brick 
making, Charcoal burning, Livestock, Poultry, Other crops e.t.c.
Activity Quantities sold (kgs) Unit price (Ushs)
403a. What are the household’s main sources of income currently?
________________________________________________________________________
403b. Do you save part of your income? 1. Yes 2. No
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 75 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
403c. Did you carryout any investments in the last year? 1. Yes 2. No
404. If yes, what were the sources of capital for investment?
Source of capital Investment/ income generating activity 
5 &6 NUTRITION AND DIETARY DIVERSITY
501A. Does your household have a vegetable garden?
_______________________________________________________________________
501B. If yes, when was the vegetable garden established? 
________________________________________________________________________
502. What vegetables do you grow?
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
REAP I EVALUATION AND REAP II BASELINE 76 SSEMWANGA CONSULTING LTD. 
600. (Instructions for question 6.1 – 7.3). Did your household consume any of the following foods and 
what were there sources during the last 24 hours?
Food groups Code Source of food Food groups Code Source of food
Cereals
Millet, maize, 
sorghum. Rice, 
wheat
601
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Legumes
Peas, beans, 
g.nuts, soya, 
pigeon peas
602
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Root/Tuber
Cassava, yams, 
Irish/sweet potatoes
603
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Oil/fat
Sunflower, 
simsim, ghee
604
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Meat
Beef, mutton, bacon, 
liver, pork
605
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Sugar/ Honey 606
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Milk/ milk 
products
607
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Fruits
Water melon, 
pineapple, mango, 
paw paw, guava
608
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Vegetables
Avocado, carrots, 
greens, eggplant, 
tomatoes
609
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Poultry
Chicken, duck, 
guinea fowl
700
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Eggs 701
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated 
Fish 712
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / 
donated 
Miscellaneous 
Spices, salt, curry 
powder
703
1=Yes
2=No
1=self grown
2= bought / donated