Catholic Relief Services/Uganda
Development Assistance Program (DAP)
Final Evaluation
REPORT
21 December 2005
Transfer Authorization Award No. FFP-A-00-02-00006-00
SO2: Increased effectiveness of FFP’s PVO and Mission partners in carrying out Title II
development activities with measurable results related to food security, with a primary focus
on household nutrition and agricultural productivity.
2
Acknowledgement
The external evaluators would like to gratefully acknowledge the support
provided by the staff of CRS Uganda. In particular, we would like to thank
the following persons who provided extensive support to the evaluation team
and ensured that the conclusions reached were grounded in reality.
Michael Tewolde, Northern Area Manager, CRS
Michael Kazooba, Project Officer, DAP, CRS
Patrick Okello, Assistant Project Officer, DAP, CRS
Monica Atube, Assistant Project Officer, DAP, CRS
Simon Mukula, Data Base Manager, DAP, CRS
Stephen Openyi, Caritas Gulu
David Odoch, Church of Uganda
Finally, innumerable other staff of CRS, representatives of the DAP partners,
and a multitude of DAP participants and beneficiaries provided useful
insights, guidance, or logistical support for the evaluation. Our gratitude goes
out to them as well.
Sincerely,
Michael D. DeVries, TANGO International
Peter O. Olupot, Consultant
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. BACKGROUND 4
A. DAP History
B. DAP Operating Environment
C. Evaluation Methodology
III. PROGRAM IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT THE STRATEGIC 7
 OBJECTIVE LEVEL
A. Focus of the Final Evaluation
B. 2002 Baseline Survey
C. Changes in Area Cultivated
D. Net Income Comparisons
E. Targeting Information
F. Impact on Women.
IV. PROGRAM ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT 13
A. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.1 - Agricultural Production
 1. Activity 1.1a Farmer Groups
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and the
Quality of Outputs Produced
 2. Activity 1.1b Access to Land
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
Quality of Outputs
 3. Activity 1.1c Seed/Planting Material
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
 Quality of Outputs
B. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.2 - Community Capacities
 1. Activity 1.2a Community Rehabilitation Plans
a. Overview of Implementation Strategy
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
 Quality of Outputs
 2. Activity 1.2b Valley Dam Rehabilitation
a. Overview of Implementation Strategy
4
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
 Quality of Outputs
C. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.3 - Crop productivity and
Profitability
 1. Activity 1.3a Trials and Demonstrations
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
Quality of Outputs Produced
 2. Activity 1.3b Knowledge Transfer
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
Quality of Outputs Produced
 3. Activity 1.3c Marketing Associations
a. Overview of Implementation process
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
Quality of Outputs Produced
 4. Activity 1.3d Market Analyses and Information Campaigns
a. Overview of Implementation processes
b. Outputs Produced
c. Who has Benefited?
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and
Quality of Outputs Produced
V. PROGRAM PROCESS ASSESSMENT 25
A. Program Management
 1. Overview of the Management of the DAP
 2. Observations Relative to Program Management
Vision and Leadership
Decision-Making
Strategic and Operational Planning
Communications
Program Support
B. Partnership
 1. Overview of Partnerships in the DAP
 2. Observations Relative to Partnerships
C. Program Integration
 1. Overview of Program Integration
Within the DAP
With Other Programs Managed by CRS
With Other Programs Managed by the Implementing Partners
With Other Programs Being Implemented in the Same Sectors as
 the DAP by Other Organizations
5
With National Level Strategies for Acholi Land.
 2. Observations Relative to Integration
D. Financial Management.
 1. Overview of the Financial Management of the DAP
 2. Observations Relative to Financial Management
E. Human Resources Management and Development
 1. Overview of the Human Resources Management and Development in the DAP
 2. Observations Relative to Human Resources Management and Development
F. Commodity Management
 1. Overview of Commodity Management
 2. Observations Relative to Commodity Management
G. Monitoring and Evaluation
 1. Overview of Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring
Evaluation
 2. Observations Relative to Monitoring and Evaluation
Commodity Monitoring
Monitoring for Reporting Purposes
Monitoring for Programmatic Decision-Making
Evaluation
H. Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation
 1. Overview of Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation
 2. Observations Relative to Environmental Monitoring and
 Impact Mitigation
VI. LESSONS LEARNED RELEVANT FOR THE DESIGN 33
 OF THE MULTI-YEAR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (MYAP)
A. Overall Strategy
 1. Analyzing Vulnerability
 2. Targeting the Extremely Vulnerable
 3. Alternative Group Configurations
 4. Use of Food
B. From the Agriculture Experience
 1. Engaging Land Owners in Land Use Planning
 2. Seed Supply Systems
 3. The Soil Fertility Problem
 4. Selection of Target Crops
 5. Capital Mobilization
C. From the Valley Dams Experience
 1. Continue the Valley Dam Component?
 2. "Software" Development
D. From the Marketing Experience
 1. Marketing Entry Point
 2. Market Chain Analysis
 3. Vertical Linkages
E. Process Lessons
 1. Staff Structure
 2. Staff Turnover
 3. Implementing Partnerships
 4. Monitoring and Evaluation
6
 5. Linking Program Activities
 6. Transparency
VI. CONCLUSION 38
A. Overview of Results
B. The Bottomline
ANNEXES
Annex A: Final Evaluation Scope of Work
Annex B: Evaluation Methodological Tools and Schedules
Annex C: Conversions to 2002 Values
TABLES
Table 1. Assessment of Impact Against the Program Strategic Objective 2
Table 2. Assessment of Achievement by Proposed Activities Under 2
Each Intermediate Result
Table 3. Key Dates for the CRS DAP 5
Table 4. Average Area Cultivated by Participating Farmers for Selected Crops 8
Table 5. Average Crop Production (Kgs) per Household for Selected Crops 9
Table 6. Average Amount of Cash Received from the Sale of Selected Crops (Ug Sh) 10
Table 7. Average Expenditures on Agricultural Inputs for Selected Crops (Ug Sh) 10
Table 8. Average Profit from Specific Crops per Household and per Acre 11
Table 9. Proportions of Farmers in Different Classes of Income from Total Sales 11
of Selected Crops
Table 10. Proportion Households by Type of Household, Gender of the 12
 Household Head and Wealth Category
Table 11. Average Area Cultivated for Selected Crops by Type of Household 12
Table 12. Number of Groups and Participating Farmers 14
Table 13. Number of Acres Accessed and Estimated Number of Households Benefiting 15
Table 14. Value of Seed Disbursed Through Seed Fairs/Seed Vouchers 16
Table 15. Summary of Valley Dams Completed, Under Construction and Planned 20
for 2006
Table 16. Marketing Associations Formed 24
Table 17. Projected LOA Cash Expenditure Summary (US$) 29
Table 18. Projected LOA Commodity Summary (MT) 31
Table 19. LOA Commodity Loss Summary through FY 05 Shipments Received (MT) 31
Table 20. Summary Assessment of Achievement on Activities Under 39
 Each Intermediate Result
Table 21. Summary Assessment of Impact Against the Program Strategic Objectives 40
7
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACDI-VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas
Cooperative Association
AER Annual Estimate of Requirements
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ART Ante-Retroviral Treatment
C&F Cargo and Freight
CBO Community-Based Organization
CEF Community Extension Facilitator
CIP International Potato Center
COU Church of Uganda
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CS Cooperating Sponsor
CSR4 Cooperating Sponsor Results Report and Resource Request
DAP Development Assistance Program
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FFP Food for Peace
FFW Food for Work
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FY Fiscal Year
HIV Human Immuno-deficiency Virus
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IDP Internally Displaced Person
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IR Intermediate Result
Kg Kilogram
LOA Life of Activity
LRA Lords Resistance Army
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MOI Market Opportunities Information
MT Metric Ton
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation
MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
NAM Northern Area Manager
NARO National Agricultural Research Organization
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NUSAF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund
PMA Plan for Modernization of Agriculture
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SAARI Serere Agriculture and Animal Research Institute
SO Strategic Objective
TA Transfer Authorization
TAC Technical Adoption Committee
TL Team Leader
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UgSh Uganda Shilling
UPDF Uganda People's Defense Force
WFP World Food Program
WVI World Vision International
DAP Final Evaluation 21 November 2005
1
The FY 2002-2006 Development Assistance Program (DAP)
CRS Uganda
FINAL EVALUATION
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CRS commissioned a final evaluation of its FY 2002-2006 Development Assistance Program
(DAP) in September/October of 2005, twelve months before the completion of the program.
The objectives for the evaluation were two-fold, (1) to assess the overall impact of the
program and (2) to identify lessons learned relevant for a Multi-Year Assistance Program to
be designed to build on the experience of the DAP. This report summarizes the findings of
the evaluation which investigated the impact of the program at the Strategic Objective level,
the outputs produced by the program reflected at the activity level1
, who actually benefited
from the program, the quality of the processes used to produce the outputs, and the major
lessons learned from implementation of the program. The evaluation was conducted by two
external consultants2
 supported by DAP partner and CRS staff over the period September 27
through October 14, 2005.
The FY 2002-2006 DAP has basically three components:
1. An agricultural rehabilitation component designed to re-establish production of
traditional crops (IR 1.1);
2. A community asset rehabilitation component focused on valley dam restoration using
Food for Work (IR 1.2); and
3. An agricultural development component designed to introduce new technologies
associated with traditional crops to expand production with a marketing component
intended to re-establish or strengthen marketing linkages for the production increases
resulting from the program (IR 1.3).
The total value of the program at initiation was projected to be US$ 8,919,554 which
included US$ 5,920,400 for the C&F cost of commodities, US$ 1,801,000 in projected inland
freight costs to be covered from monetization proceeds, US$ 962,614 in Section 202E funds,
and US$ 234,740 in CRS cost-sharing funds. Monetization proceeds were projected to be
US$ 4,483,059 from monetization of 17,500 MT of wheat. In addition to the commodities
requested for monetization, the program also planned to distribute 1,100 MT of corn,
vegetable oil and pulses as direct distribution in food for work (FFW) in the valley dam
component. By the end of the program in September 2006, it is projected that 73% of the
FFW food will have been distributed, 89% of the proposed food for monetization will have
been monetized and 86% of the proposed cash budget spent.
Over its life, the DAP proceeded through a number of implementation phases. The program
was approved to begin October 2, 2001. However, monetization proceeds did not become
available until April 2002, and little field work was undertaken in this initial phase, although
the program was able to begin preparations for start-up. In April 2002, monetization funds
became available and the program began field work. The security situation, however, quickly
began to deteriorate as the effects of the Iron Fist operation in southern Sudan began to be felt
 
1
 The three Intermediate Results in the program were closely analyzed a year ago in the Mid-Term Evaluation
and it was felt by the evaluation team that analysis at the activity level as described in the original project
document would be more useful for assessing the quality of the program and generating lessons learned.
2
 One independent consultant from TANGO International and the recently recruited DAP Team Leader.
2
in northern Uganda.3
 By June of 2002, the security situation had deteriorated to the extent
that the program had to withdraw completely from Pader District and implementation in the
valley dam component had to be suspended. The reduced security continued through early
2004. The situation began to improve in 2004, and activities on the valley dam component as
wells as program implementation in Pader District got underway. A Mid-Term Evaluation
was conducted in July 2004 and the program since then has been working toward
implementing the recommendations from the evaluation.
The tables below summarize the findings relative to impact at the strategic objective level and
performance on the major activities that were proposed for achieving each of the three
Intermediate Results (IRs).
Table 1. Assessment of Impact Against the Program Strategic Objective
Strategic Objective Summary Assessment of Impact
To increase the agricultural income of 20,000
smallholder farm families in Northern Uganda
by reestablishing livelihoods and strengthening
marketing systems.
While the average area cultivated has declined since the
program began due to increased security constraints,
participating households have been able to obtain
increased net income because of increased cash receipts
for all crops. Agriculture production livelihoods have
been re-established within the IDP camp context and
marketing for agricultural production has expanded.
Table 2. Assessment of Achievement by Proposed Activities
Under Each Intermediate Result
Intermediate Result/Proposed
Activities
Summary Assessment of Achievement
Intermediate Result 1.1 Increased agricultural production by 20,000 farm families in
targeted areas by 2006
Findings of the Mid-Term Evaluation conducted in July 2004: Production targets for finger millet,
groundnuts and maize have been consistently surpassed by the DAP. The production targets for sorghum,
rice and beans have not been achieved. Production has been effected by irregular rainfall, the on-going
security constraints and declining soil fertility.
Observations of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.1
Activity 1.1a: Establish 1000 farmer
groups for participation in the program
The DAP has been very successful in establishing cohesive
farmer groups likely to continue after IDP camps are closed
and farmers return to their villages. A total of 1,088 groups
have been formed and are still functional.
Activity 1.1b: Provide access to farm land
for displaced, returning, and relocated farm
families
It is projected4
 that the total acreage made available to
farmers through the lobbying efforts of the DAP will be
more than 10,000 acres for approximately 4,500 households.
Farmer groups were also able to advocate for access to land
themselves, and the DAP can take some credit for this
through the group formation work.
 
3
 The Iron Fist operation targeted LRA camps in south Sudan. In a retaliatory response, the LRA unexpectedly
moved their operations into northern Uganda.
4
 Complete figures on the land made accessible through the lobbying efforts of the DAP in 2005 available at the
time of evaluation needed verification.
3
Intermediate Result/Proposed
Activities Observations on Achievement
Activity 1.1c: Facilitate the availability of
locally produced seed/planting material of
traditional crops to up to 20,000 program
participants
The DAP has made significant seed available through seed
fairs/seed vouchers, seed multiplication activities, seed
loans and direct seed distribution. In the seed fair/voucher
activity alone, 24,282 households (not mutually exclusive)
were able to purchase seed of their choice from vetted seed
vendors valued at a total of UgSh 364,230,000
(approximately US$ 198,800)
Intermediate Result 1.2 Increased capacity for recovery and rehabilitation of 200 communities in
targeted areas by 2006
Findings of the Mid-Term Evaluation conducted in July 2004: At the time of the mid-term evaluation, no
valley dams had yet been completed, although two were under construction. Therefore, there was
basically no achievement against the intermediate result. The security situation in Kitgum District forced
significantly delayed start-up of activities.
Observations of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.2
Activity 1.2a: Development of Community
Rehabilitation Plans in targeted areas
At the time the DAP was approved, CRS was requested to
focus this activity on rehabilitation plans only for the valley
dams. Dam committees have been formed by the DAP for
each dam. Those committees for the two completed dams
are fairly ineffective.
Activity 1.2b: Rehabilitate 15 (revised to 9
following the Mid-Term Evaluation) multi￾purpose community valley dams/tanks
Two dams have been fully completed, however, water
availability from the dam, availability of alternative water
sources in the camps, distance, and relatively low numbers
of livestock have limited the impact of the completed dams.
An additional four dams are under construction and four
addition dams are targeted for FY 2006 for rehabilitation.
Intermediate Result 1.3 Increased crop productivity and profitability for 20,000 farm families by
2006
Findings of the Mid-Term Evaluation conducted in July 2004: Using the assumption that increased
productivity results in increased profit, all crops except rice showed increased profitability from the
baseline. At least 20% of the program participants practice at least three improved techniques, and a total
of 26 marketing associations have been formed.
Observations of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.2
Activity 1.3a: Conduct on-farm and
farmer-managed trials and demonstrations
of promising varieties of improved
traditional Acholi crops
The DAP has tested seven new5
 varieties of groundnuts,
four new varieties of sesame, five new varieties of
sunflower, three new varieties of finger millet, two new
varieties of sorghum, four new varieties of maize, one new
variety of pigeon pea, six new varieties of sweet potato, and
six new varieties of cassava. Tests were designed as yield
comparisons with local varieties. In addition to yield tests,
comparisons of various cultivation techniques for different
crops were also set up. Demonstration plots were also
established to display successful varieties and techniques.
Activity 1.3b: Transfer knowledge and
skills in modern farming techniques to
20,000 farmers through demonstration sites
and field days
Various tours, training events, field days, celebration days,
and cross-visits were organized to facilitate knowledge
transfer.
 
5
 "New" here refers to new to the project area. Sources of new varieties included ICRISAT, Serere, CIP, and
IITA.
4
Intermediate Result/Proposed
Activities Observations on Achievement
Activity 1.3c: Establish progressive
marketing associations directly benefiting
20,000 farm families
A total of 36 marketing associations have been established
in Gulu District benefiting approximately 750 farm families.
Activity 1.3d: Conduct market analyses
and information campaigns targeting
20,000 farm families
A general Market Opportunities Information assessment and
Market Chain Analyses for three crops have been
completed. The DAP has also undertaken orientation and
training activities in preparation for implementing an agro￾enterprise development strategy.
In the judgment of the final evaluation team, the DAP has been a good investment in terms of
having significant impact on vulnerability, livelihoods and food insecurity under the current
circumstances and has established a solid foundation upon which to build.
II. BACKGROUND
A. DAP History
The Title II Development Assistance Program (DAP) being implemented by CRS Uganda
officially began implementation on October 1, 2001, with an expected completion date of
September 30, 2006. The program is composed of three components, (1) an agricultural
component implemented in three districts, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader, through two partners,
Caritas and the Church of Uganda, (2) a valley dam rehabilitation component being
implemented with Caritas in Kitgum District and (3) an agricultural marketing component
being implemented through the two partners in Gulu District. The Strategic Objective for the
program is shown below.
Strategic Objective: To increase the agricultural income of
20,000 smallholder farm families in Northern Uganda by
reestablishing livelihoods and strengthening market systems.
The program has three Intermediate Results and specific activities were proposed under each
of these as shown below.
Intermediate Result 1.1: Increased agricultural production by 20,000 farm families in
targeted areas by 2006.
Activity 1.1a: Establish 1000 farmer groups for participation
Activity 1.1b: Provide access to farm land for displaced, returning and relocating farm
families
Activity 1.1c: Facilitate the availability of locally produced seed/planting material of
traditional crops to up to 20,000 program participants.
Intermediate Result 1.2: Increased capacity for recovery and rehabilitation of 200
communities in targeted areas by 2006.
Activity 1.2a: Development of community rehabilitation plans in targeted areas
Activity 1.2b: Rehabilitate 15 (revised to 9 following the Mid-Term Evaluation) multi￾purpose community valley dams/tanks
Intermediate Result 1.3: Increased crop productivity and profitability for 20,000 farm
families by 2006
Activity 1.3a: Conduct on-farm and farmer-managed trials and demonstrations of
promising varieties of improved traditional Acholi-crops.
5
Activity 1.3b: Transfer knowledge and skills in modern farming techniques to 20,000
farmers through demonstration sites and field days
Activity 1.3c: Establish progressive marketing associations directly benefiting 20,000
farm families
Activity 1.3d: Conduct market analyses and information campaigns targeting 20,000 farm
families.
The total program cost at approval was estimated to reach US$ 8,919,554, including US$
5,920,400 for commodities (C&F)6
, US$ 962.614 from 202e, and cost sharing from CRS of
US$ 234,740. Table 3 lists the key dates in the life of the program.
Table 3. Key Dates for the CRS DAP
Date Submission/Event
April 15, 2001 DAP Proposal Submitted to FFP
August 1, 2001 Call Forward request for the August 3rd cycle submitted to USAID and
FFP
August 7, 2001 CRS authorized by FFP in the Transfer Authorization to call forward
commodities
August 21, 2001 Transfer Authorization received and signed by CRS
October 1, 2001 Official start date as per the Transfer Authorization
March 26 - April 6, 2002 DAP Baseline Survey conducted in Pader and Gulu Districts
April 1, 2002 Actual Implementation commences upon receipt of first monetization
proceeds
May - June 2002 Unexpected deterioration of security in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader
Districts
June 2002 Suspension of activities in Pader District
October, 2003 Decision made to relocate planned activities for Pader District to Kitgum
District because of security constraints
July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation Implemented
October 2004 Resumption of program activities in Pader District
December 15, 2004 Final Mid-Term Evaluation Report Received by CRS
October 29, 2004 Revised targets based on Mid-Term Evaluation Proposed to FFP in FY
2004 CSR4
September 27 -October 14,
2005
Final Evaluation implemented
October 15, 2005 Draft Final Evaluation Report submitted to CRS
November 21, 2005 Finalized Final Evaluation Report submitted to CRS
September 30, 2006 Completion Date for the DAP
This report summarizes the findings of a final evaluation conducted for the program over the
period September 27 through October 14, 2005. Two external consultants were
commissioned to review the program to assess impact and identify lessons learned to inform
the design of another DAP proposal to be submitted to Food for Peace (FFP) for FY 2007.
Annex A contains the Scope of Work for the evaluation. DAP staff from CRS and the
implementing partners provided support for the evaluation.
B. DAP Operating Environment
It is worth making a special note of the extremely difficult operating environment in which
the CRS DAP is being implemented. The on-going war between the UPDF and the LRA has
resulted in the following constraints affecting program implementation.
 
6
 ITSH costs for distributed food were covered from monetization proceeds.
6
D Personal safety risks to program staff and participants7
 and a general feeling of risk and
insecurity.
D The closing down of areas, even entire districts, to access for program activities for
extended periods of up to a year as in the case of Pader District.
D Shifting access even in those areas that are considered open, i.e., areas becoming open to
access and others closing down.
D Military policies that mandate enforced displacement of people into IDP camps and
restrict agricultural activities in some areas to cultivation of low profile crops.
D The need for security escorts and security to position themselves resulting in an effective
work day in the field in many areas from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm.
D Road restrictions effective from 5:00 pm.
The achievements of the program should be understood in the context of this operating
environment in order to give them due consideration.
C. Evaluation Methodology
A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to gather information for
analysis in the final evaluation. A quantitative survey was conducted to replicate the baseline
information at the strategic objective level in order to assess the overall impact of the
program. Some of the key parameters for the quantitative survey are listed below.
∼ The sample frame was disaggregated by type of group ("graduated", "old", "new",
"control") and district (Gulu Caritas, Gulu Church of Uganda, Kitgum Carita, Pader
Caritas)
∼ A sample of 1,121 respondents was targeted
∼ A three-page questionnaire was developed
∼ Enumerators were trained in Gulu on September 30, in Kitgum and Pader on October 2
∼ Data was collected from October 3-7
∼ Data cleansing and entry for 1,096 questionnaires was completed by the end of October
∼ Processing was completed by mid-November.
A couple of points are worth noting. The timing of the Final Evaluation survey does not
coincide with the timing of the baseline survey. The former is being done in October, the
latter was conducted in April. This may have implications on comparing seasonal data
between the two surveys. Farmers in the baseline likely had better recall of the second
season, while farmers in the final evaluation survey will have better recall of the first season
information.
Second, the conditions for farmers at the time of the baseline were different than they are
now during the final evaluation survey. Most farmers now are living in IDP camps and have
more limited access to land resources. During the baseline, many farmers had not yet been
forced to move to protected camps and had access to their own land resources.
Despite these two differences, having baseline information against which to compare is
useful and the analysis has gleaned some usefully information from the comparison as
described in the next section.
 
7
 Many examples of incidents abound. Most recently, the Technical Officer for Caritas Kitgum, Stalin Okot,
was killed by LRA rebels in October shortly after the final evaluation was conducted.
7
Using qualitative methods, the evaluation team also assessed (1) the quantity and quality of
outputs produced as reflected in the activities proposed in the original DAP document, (2) the
quality of the processes used in implementing the program, (3) the beneficiaries of program
interventions and (4) key lessons learned from the program. The following focus group
discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews were conducted by different member sof
the evaluation team.
∼ Graduated participant groups (One FGD per District)
∼ Participant groups selected in 2002/3 (One FGD per District)
∼ Participant groups selected in 2004 (One FGD per District)
∼ Participating women-headed households (One FGD per District)
∼ CEFs (One Key Informant Interview per District )
∼ TACs (One FGD per District)
∼ Valley Dam Committee (One FGD)
∼ Marketing Associations (Five FGDs)
∼ Partner, including Government, field staff (One FGD per district)
∼ Partner management staff (Three key informant Interviews)
∼ CRS DAP Staff (Four Key Informant Interviews, One FGD)
∼ CRS Program Support Staff (Two Key Informant interviews)
A data analysis workshop was held on October 8 to analyze the qualitative data collected and
formulate initial findings and identify information gaps.
Annex B contains documentation describing the approach used in the evaluation, including
descriptions of methodologies, work schedules, tools used, sampling summary, and persons
interviewed.
The next section of the report summarizes the impact of the program at the Strategic
Objective level. Section IV of the report documents the observations of the evaluation team
relative to each of the proposed activities implemented by the program. Section V describes
the observations of the evaluation team relative to the project processes used, including those
for managing the program, for integrating the program internally and externally, for
commodity management, for monitoring and evaluation, and for environmental monitoring
and impact mitigation. Finally, Section VI proposes recommendations for the design of the
next MYAP. In the conclusion provided in the last section of the report, the evaluation team
summarizes the findings.
III. PROGRAM IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT THE STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE LEVEL
A. Focus of the Final Evaluation
The DAP Mid-Term Evaluation conducted in July 2004 gathered data at the Intermediate
Result level for analysis. Given that only a little over a year has passed since this data was
collected, the Final Evaluation team decided that it would be in the best interests of the
objectives of the evaluation to (1) obtain data at the strategic objective level to compare to
information from the baseline survey that was conducted in April 2002 and to (2) obtain data
on the performance of the program relative to the proposed activities under each intermediate
result. The first would enable the team to meet the objective of assessing the impact of the
program. The second would provide information on lessons learned at a practical level for
the design of the MYAP. This section describes the information resulting from a rapid
analysis of quantitative information obtained to replicate the baseline survey that was
conducted in April 2002.
8
B. 2002 Baseline Survey
Baseline data was collected in 2002 at a time when crops were doing well and the context
was just beginning to dissolve into major insecurity. In 2002, right after the baseline survey
was conducted, severe insecurity broke out, and farmers were unable to continue to cultivate
effectively and, in fact, lost a significant portion of their crop in the field. Therefore,
production for most of 2002 was significantly lower than the baseline. The security remained
about the same in 2003 but with shifting areas of conflict, so production continued to be
affected. Late in 2004, the security situation began to improve. However, even up to the
time of the final evaluation, farmers were still confined to IDP camps and restricted to
farming in a protected perimeter around the camps.
The final evaluation is replicating the baseline, but at a time of year different then when the
baseline was conducted. This will have implications on the quality of date. Farmers will be
able to recall information about the first season but without full harvest information and will
have to recall the second season information from last year. During the baseline, the opposite
was true. Second season information was clear and first season information had to be
recalled.
C. Changes in Area Cultivated
Table 4 provides comparative information on area cultivated by district. At the time of the
baseline survey, farmers were beginning to be confined to "protected camps" and access to
land was starting to be constrained. Since then, however, a greater proportion of the
population has become confined to camps and the available land resources around these
camps have been allocated to a greater number of farmers. As a result, the average area
cultivated in major crops has declined significantly. At the time of the baseline survey, for
example, a total of 6.39 acres was cultivated in selected crops on average over the two
seasons. At the time of the final evaluation, this figure had dropped to 4.47 acres.
Table 4. Average Area Cultivated by Participating Farmers for Selected Crops*
Baseline (March/April
2002)
Final Evaluation
District & Partner (October 2005)
Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 2
Caritas, Gulu District 2.52 Acres 1.75 Acres
Church of Uganda, Gulu
District
3.73 Acres 2.27 Acres 3.75 Acres 1.88 Acres
Caritas, Kitgum District Not available Not available 2.29 Acres 1.84 Acres
Caritas, Pader District 4.71 Acres 2.19 Acres 2.76 Acres 1.08 Acres
All Districts 4.14 Acres 2.25 Acres 2.83 Acres 1.64 Acres
Total Area Cultivated, All
Districts, Both Seasons 6.39 Acres 4.47 Acres
*Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
D. Net Income Comparisons
Tables 5 through 9 provide comparative information on production, expenses and net income.
Figures for cash received and expenditures on inputs have been adjusted to 2002 figures
using an average annual inflation rate of 6.5%8
. Annex C contains the conversion table.
Table 5 on the following page compares levels of production for the selected major crops. As
 
8
 Historical estimates of the inflation rates based on consumer prices range from 3.5% to 6.5% per annum. The
larger figure has been used to adjust reported values in 2005 to 2002 values (conversion factor = .814).
9
reported in the previous section, acreage cultivated has declined since the time of the
baseline, so production levels will also have declined. A very rough indicator of yield,
disregarding the composition of production, is shown in the last line of Table 5 which
compares all production from the selected crops against annual area cultivated. The numbers
suggest that output per acre has declined significantly. This is consistent with reports on
declining soil fertility resulting from the intensive cultivation occurring on the limited land
resources around the IDP camps.
Table 5. Average Crop Production (Kgs) per Household for Selected Crops*
Crop Baseline (March/April 2002) Final Evaluation (October 2005)
% of
Farmers
Producing
Average
Annual
Production
(Kgs)
%
Sold
% of
Farmers
Producing
Average
Annual
Production
(Kgs)
%
Sold
Finger Millet 12.6% 426.7 36.1% 52.4% 188.7 35.9%
Groundnuts 18.8% 396.8 65.1% 35.5% 170.7 51.4%
Sorghum 11.4% 476.4 55.4% 12.8% 191.2 32.2%
Maize 13.9% 472.6 75.2% 6.3% 171.5 44.0%
Rice 3.1% 640.6 79.6% 2.3% 206.8 67.9%
Beans 11.0% 375.2 59.6% 5.7% 156.9 42.4%
Cassava 11.4% 339.3** 73.7% 0.5% 258.6 50.6%
Sesame 19.9% 260.3 64.8% 3.3% 112.3 39.5%
Sum of Annual
Production
--- 3,387.9 64.5% --- 1,456.7 60.0%
Average Area
Cultivated
Annually
--- 6.39 Acres --- --- 4.47 Acres ---
Production per
Acre Cultivated --- 530 Kgs. --- --- 326 Kgs. ---
*Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
** Season A only.
Table 5 also provides information on changes in the cropping patterns of farmers. Finger
millet and groundnuts have become more important crops while maize, beans, cassava and
sesame are being produced by fewer farmers than at the time of the baseline. At the time of
the baseline, significant portions of all crops apart from finger millet were sold. That pattern
has changed. While finger millet continues to be a food crop, sorghum and sesame are also
now being produced primarily for consumption. The major cash crops at the time of the
baseline were sesame, groundnuts, maize and cassava, given the number of farmers
producing these crops and the proportions that were sold. At the time of the final evaluation,
groundnuts had become the major cash crop while the importance of sesame, maize and
cassava had all declined. Rice is also predominantly a cash crop, but is grown by relatively
few farmers.
Table 6 on the following page shows the average cash income that farmers are receiving for
the selected major crops. Note that the reported values have been adjusted to 2002 values for
a more valid comparison. The comparison indicates that for all crops, even though
production levels have declined, farmers are getting better prices for the portion of the
production they are selling.
Table 7 on the following page compares average expenditures on agricultural inputs. As with
cash received, the reported figures have been adjusted to 2002 values. Not surprisingly,
10
agricultural production costs have increased in the period since the baseline survey was
conducted. Notable differences are a doubling of land costs, increased use of land
preparation using a tractor, and increased costs of oxen for land preparation.
Table 6. Average Amount of Cash Received from the Sale of Selected Crops (Ug Sh)*
Crop Baseline (March/April 2002) Final Evaluation (October 2005)
Season 1 Season 2 Annual
Total Season 1 Season 2 Annual
Total
Finger Millet 16,851 14,333 31,184 59,442 70,153 129,596
Groundnuts 51,613 45,980 97,593 79,743 88,083 167,826
Sorghum 14,857 10,341 25,198 53,237 76,740 129,977
Maize 23,422 20,901 44,323 36,062 44,904 80,966
Rice 78,151 27,688 105,839 86,490 85,513 172,004
Beans 28,330 18,113 46,443 42,687 53,096 95,784
Cassava 11,480 --- 11,480 66,032 21,663 87,696
Sesame 20,519 20,932 41,451 43,978 81,366 125,344
Total 245,223 158,288 403,511 467,673 521,519 989,192
*Selected Crops are Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
Values have been adjusted to 2002 values
Table 7. Average Expenditures on Agricultural Inputs for Selected Crops (Ug Sh)*
Baseline (March/April 2002) Final Evaluation (October
2005)
Inputs
Season
1
Season
2 Total Season
1
Season
2 Total
Seed 18,446 8,152 26,598 22,589 15,885 38,474
Land Hire or Lease 12,535 7,278 19,813 20,916 15,912 36,828
Tractor 1,625 --- 1,625 43,042 14,252 57,294
Oxen 15,257 8,943 24,200 38,706 26,736 65,442
Land
Preparation
Hired
Labour Included under All Other Costs 22,180 20,940 43,121
Planting 12,421 7,963 20,384 27,205 No
Information 27,205
Weeding 13,926 9,560 23,486 18,776 14,948 33,724
Harvesting 12,066 8,354 20,420 15,283 14,662 30,485
All Other Costs 45,634 26,025 71,659 18,960 9,893 28,854
TOTAL COSTS 131,910 76,275 208,185 228,197 133,229 361,426
*Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
Values have been adjusted to 2002 values
Table 8 on the following page provides a comparison of the average annual profit between
the baseline survey and the final evaluation survey. For consistency in comparing figures, the
same adjustment process as used in the baseline is used here, i.e., the proportion of produce
sold was used to adjust expenditure costs before calculating the average profit. It should be
emphasized that the profit indicated is not the average profit per household. No household
produced all eight of the selected major crops for which the cash proceeds and input
expenditures have been summarized.
11
Table 8. Average Profit from Specific Crops per Household and per Acre
Baseline
(March/April 2002)
Final Evaluation
(October 2005)
Reported Total Sales - All Selected Crops Ug Sh 403,511 Ug Sh 1,214,610
Average Total Sales Adjusted to 2002 Value Ug Sh 403,511 Ug Sh 989.192
Proportion of Production Sold 64.5% 60.0%
Reported Total Production Costs - All Selected
Crops
Ug Sh 208,185 Ug Sh 443,788
Average Total Production Costs Adjusted to
2002 Values Ug Sh 208,185 Ug Sh 361,426
Adjusted Production Costs* Ug Sh 134,279 Ug Sh 216,856
Profit Ug Sh 269,232 Ug Sh 772,336
Average Annual Area Cultivated 6.39 Acres 4.47 Acres
Profit per Acre Ug Sh 42,133 Ug Sh 172,782
*Adjusted Production Costs = Total Cash Costs * Percentage of Crop Sold
Table 9 disaggregates farmers by income classes relative to the average annual sales of
production. The figures have not been adjusted to 2002 values, so the table does not provide
a true comparison. However, the statistics are useful in showing that more households are
able to attain higher levels of income than at the time of the baseline. The table also shows a
greater clustering of households at the bottom of the continuum, which is important
information for the design of future programs.
Table 9. Proportions of Farmers in Different Classes of Income
 from Total Sales of Selected Crops*
Baseline
 (March/April 2002)
Final Evaluation
Sales (UgSh) (October 2005)
Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 2
0-10,000 37.4 % 43.3 % 46.4 % 64.9 %
10,000 - 50,000 46.2 % 45.6 % 16.1 % 11.1 %
50,000 - 100,000 10.2 % 8.4 % 8.5 % 6.7 %
100,000 - 200,000 4.1 % 1.3 % 8.4 % 8.8 %
200,000 - 300,000 1.0 % .7 % 3.1 % 3.6 %
300,000 - 400,000 .2 % .3 % 1.8 % 1.9 %
400,000 - 500,000 .5 % .3 % .9 % .8 %
> 500,000 .3 % 0 % 1.7 % 2.2 %
*Selected Crops are Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
E. Targeting Information
In order to assess the effectiveness of the targeting of the DAP, information was gathered in
the quantitative survey against a rough wealth ranking that used ownership of various assets
12
to determine whether a household was better off than other households. If a household owned
more than one hut, a bicycle, a radio, at least one cow, at least six goats or at least five pigs,
the household was considered "well-off". Given the absence of baseline information, it's not
possible to determine the proportion of those households who are now "well-off" and who
have been made so because of project interventions. Table 10 summarizes the information
obtained from the sample in the survey.
The data seems to indicate that:
o The project is currently working mostly with households that are not well-off, nearly
60% of participants.
o A very high proportion of host households, i.e., those who have not been displaced,
appear to fall in the not well-off category.
o Over 24% of participating households are women-headed households.
Table 10. Proportion of Households by Type of Household,
Gender of the Household Head and Wealth Category
Type of Household Percentage
N(%) "Well-Off" Not "Well￾Off"
Displaced, Household Head Never Abducted 718 (65.5%) 40.1 % 59.9 %
Returnee, Household Head Abducted from a Camp 81 (7.4%) 34.6 % 65.4 %
Returnee, Household Head Abducted from the Home
Village
261 (23.8%) 54.0 % 46.0 %
All Others (Host households) 36 (3.3%) 13.9 % 86.1 %
Female-Headed Households 265 (24.2%) 42.3 % 57.7 %
Non-Participant (Control Group) Households 90 (8.2%) 48.9 % 41.1 %
All Participating Households 1,096 42.2 % 57.8 %
**Report having more than one hut, a bicycle, a radio, at least one cow, at least six goats or at least five pigs.
The quantitative survey conducted for the final evaluation also disaggregated some of the
information by type and location of the participating households. Table 11 summarizes
information on area cultivated for the eight selected major crops by type of household.
Table 11. Average Area Cultivated for Selected Crops* by Type of Household
October 2005 Reported Area
Cultivated
Type of Household
Season 1 Season 2
Community Extension Facilitator (CEF) 1.67 Acres 2.30 Acres
Technology Adoption Committee (TAC) Members 2.11 Acres 2.06 Acres
Gulu Caritas 2.24 Acres 1.42 Acres
Gulu CoU 1.56 Acres 1.54 Acres
Graduated
Farmers
Kitgum Caritas 2.20 Acres 1.86 Acres
Gulu Caritas 3.88 Acres 0.87 Acres
Gulu CoU 1.95 Acres 1.02 Acres
"Old'
Farmers
Kitgum Caritas 3.61 Acres 1.93 Acres
"New"
Farmers
Gulu Caritas 3.36 Acres 2.02 Acres
13
Gulu CoU 1.80 Acres 2.44 Acres
Kitgum Caritas 3.27 Acres 1.84 Acres
Pader Caritas 2.77 Acres 1.08 Acres
Female-Headed Households 3.13 Acres 1.87 Acres
Non-Participating Farmers (Control Group) 1.78 Acres 1.03 Acres
*Selected Crops are Finger Millet, Groundnuts, Sorghum, Maize, Rice, Beans, Cassava, and Sesame
F. Impact on Women.
Given the importance of reaching women in having impact on food and livelihood security, it
is worth highlighting some of the gender dimensions reflected in the DAP. In terms of
participation in the program, 60-65% of participating group members are women, around
80% of seed recipients who have received seed through seed vouchers are women, around
23% of the seed vendors at seed fairs are women, and 70 to 80% of the FFW recipients are
women. Most of these women participants come from households who have male household
heads. As Table 10 above indicates, however, around a quarter of all participating
households are women-headed households, and Table 11 above indicates that these
households have been able to establish agricultural-based livelihoods as reflected in the area
they have been able to cultivate.
IV. PROGRAM ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT
A. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.1 - Agricultural Production
1. Activity 1.1a Farmer Groups
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
Over the life of the DAP, three cycles of farmer groups were formed. The first group of
farmers was selected in October 2002. Approximately 40% of these groups were composed
of farmers that had participated in previous programs with CRS or the partners and had their
own land in order to jump start the DAP. These farmers completed a two-year training cycle
with the program and were graduated in September 2004. At the time, the DAP was
working in Gulu and Kitgum Districts.
The second cycle of farmers were selected in October 2003. These farmers would have
completed a two year training cycle but based on the recommendations of the Mid-Term
Evaluation, it was decided to continue working with these groups for a third year. These
farmers are also all in Gulu and Kitgum Districts
In October 2004 at the beginning of FY 2005, the last group of farmers was selected for
participation in all three districts.
Groups are generally formed by clan, village and common interest, and on average, the group
size is around 20.
Following the Mid-Term Evaluation, it was decided to continue with the same LOA target for
the DAP in terms of the number of farmer groups, but to also plan to work with the groups
for a period of three years rather than two. All remaining groups were selected in 2005.
b. Outputs Produced
14
Table 12 below summarizes the achievements of the DAP relative to the number of farmer
groups formed. As the table indicates the DAP exceeded the targets on the number of groups
and number of participants.
c. Who has Benefited?
Members of the farmer groups formed by the DAP include a fairly wide range of participants,
from poor to at least middle class, young to old, and men and women. Current information
suggests that around 60% to 65% of the group members are women. People who do not have
access to land have generally not been selected for participation unless the program has been
able to facilitate access to land for them. Therefore, households at the lowest of the poverty
spectrum are not included since they may not have the required access to land nor available
labor capacity to be able to effectively undertake farming. Households with elderly or
disabled adult members, for example, were not selected for participation in the DAP. 
Table 12. Number of Groups and Participating Farmers
Registration
Period Districts Descriptive
Term
Number of
Groups
Number
of
Farmers
Current Status
October 2001 Gulu, Pader* 61 1,215 Graduated
October 2002 Gulu, Kitgum "Graduated" 215 4,671 Graduated
October 2003 Gulu, Kitgum "Old" 291 5,782 Have completed
two years
October 2004 Gulu, Kitgum
& Pader "New" 521 10,429 Have completed
one year
TOTAL All Districts 1,088 22,097
LOA Target 1,000 20,000
*The program worked with Pader farmers for two months before the security situation forced the suspension of
program activities. The program resumed working with these farmers in 2004.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and the Quality of Outputs Produced
Most of the groups that have been formed are still functioning. In addition, because of the
way the groups have been formed, they will likely continue to function in some form when
decongestion occurs. The qualitative survey was fairly consistently in reporting that groups
expect to stay together after decongestion.
Benefits within the groups seem to be fairly equitably distributed. Group leaders, for
example, are not benefiting extraordinarily. Members of the Technology Adoption
Committee(s) do receive more intensive technical training. However, the program has been
transparent in discussing this with participants, and they have selected the members of the
TACs, who agree to take on the responsibility to pass on the knowledge they receive from the
program to other group members.
While the DAP has not specifically targeted group empowerment activities, some of the
groups nevertheless have been able to advocate for additional access to land for group
members. In addition, some of the older, graduated groups have started savings and credit
activities in the form of rotating savings and credit associations.
The only weakness in the group formation activities of the DAP that were observed was that
the interests of some members, e.g., youth and perhaps some women, were overshadowed.
Group leaders tend to be older and youth are expected to defer to elders in northern Uganda.
15
Groups composed entirely of youth or women, may likely have somewhat different priorities
than the current groups.
2. Activity 1.1b Access to Land
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
Under this set of activities, the DAP actively lobbied for access to land for participants with
different kinds of landowners, including institutions such as churches or government
departments, as well as private landowners. In some cases, the private landowners became
part of the participant groups. The project negotiated access to land at no charge with the
understanding that the land would be returned to the owner when decongestion occurred.
b. Outputs Produced
Table 13 summarizes the achievements of the DAP relative to the number of acres of land to
which the program successfully facilitated access for program participants.
Table 13. Number of Acres Accessed and Estimated Number
 of Households Benefiting
Period Acreage
Accessed
Estimated Number of
Households Benefiting
FY 2002 750 Acres 684 Households
FY 2003 630 Acres 574 Households
FY 2004 538 Acres 490 Households
FY 2005 12,316 Acres 2,883 Households
FY 2006 --- ---
LOA
TOTAL 2,418 Acres 2,204 Households
LOA
Target 2,500 Acres ---
Following the Mid-Term Evaluation, the target for the number of acres was reduced from
2,000 to 1,650. The DAP will likely exceed either target in any case.
c. Who has Benefited?
The program specifically targeted households that did not have access to land or only had
access to a very limited amount of land, insufficient to support the household. These people
were not at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, however, since they had to have some
household labor capacity to be able to farm.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs
Access to land from institutional sources is fairly secure. However, access to land from
private landowners for participating farmers depends fairly consistently on whether or not the
landowner is a member of the farmer group. If he is a member, then access is fairly reliable.
However, there are indications that if the farmer is not a member of the group, there are
higher levels of suspicion and concern on the part of the landowner that he or she may
eventually lose the land. In addition, the increasing soil infertility has raised concerns among
16
landowners that if they allow the groups to continue cultivating, when decongestion occurs
and the farmers leave, they will leave behind depleted land of low quality. As a result, some
landowners have taken to calling for the land back or otherwise reasserting their ownership of
the land9
.
As Table 13 indicates, there is a declining pattern in the ability of the program to be able to
facilitate access to land. In the early years of the DAP, the institutional land that was
available existed on a larger scale around the camps and it was easier to negotiate access.
Over time, the protective halo around camps has grown, and new land is becoming available
around camps and along roads. However, it is more difficult to negotiate access to this land
from private landowners, especially in light of the points made in the previous paragraph as
well as the perception that farmers should not receive land for free but should pay some sort
of rent or lease fee.
During the time of the mid-term evaluation, there was a growing suspicion that soil fertility
was declining in the land being cultivated around camps. While that was only a suspicion
during the mid-term evaluation, there is a clear consensus now at the time of the final
evaluation that soil fertility is declining.
3. Activity 1.1c Seed/Planting Material
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
A number of different mechanisms were used to make seed or other planting material
available to participating farmers. The largest activity was organizing seed fairs in which
seed vendors and participating farmers were brought together. Participating farmers received
seed vouchers worth UgSh 15,000 (around US$ 8.50) with which they could use to purchase
seed from vendors. The send vendors themselves were registered, and their seed was visually
inspected to ensure that minimum quality standards were met. The vouchers were then
redeemed with CRS by the seed vendors
A second seed activity involved organizing seed multiplication by local farmers of improved
varieties that had been tested by the DAP and selected by farmers in the yield trials. This
activity was used for varieties for which there was limited seed to be made available through
seed fairs.
On a much smaller scale, one of the implementing partners in DAP experimented with
making seed available through seed loans in which farmers were asked to repay three
kilograms for every kilogram received.
b. Outputs Produced
Table 14 summarizes the outputs produced relative to the seed fairs/seed vouchers activity.
Table 14. Value of Seed Disbursed Through Seed Fairs/Seed Vouchers
Fiscal Year Value of Seed
Disbursed
Number of Households
Purchasing Seed with
Vouchers
Percent of Seed
Vendors who
Are Women
FY 2002 US$ 40,561 4,875 19.3%
 
9
 An anecdote heard by the evaluation team was the case where after allowing a farmer group access to his land,
the landowner later planted his own crops on top of the crops already in the field that had been planted by the
group members to reassert his ownership.
17
FY 2003 US$ 61,661 7,816 23.2%
FY 2004 US$ 1,660 200 25.0%
FY 2005 US$ 94,925 11,391 25.0%
FY 2006 --- --- ---
Actual Total LOA US$ 198,807 Not Available* 23.3%
LOA Target US$ 140,000 --- 53%
Information on the levels of seed multiplication implemented by the program in 2002 and
2003 was not adequately documented. However, the following seed multiplication activities
were achieved in FY 2004.
Groundnuts (Serenut 4 or ICGV 12991) - 3,886 households received 8.05 MT of seed
after multiplication
Finger millet (Seremi 2) - 2,534 households received 3.942 MT
Cassava (Six varieties) - 1,029 households received 1,908 bags
Beans (K132) - 1,160 households received 5.25 MT
Sesame (Sesame 2) - 4,396 households received 6.949 MT
Sorghum (Sekedo) - 80 households received 40 kilograms
Maize (Longe 5) - 300 households received 852 kilograms
Sweet potatoes (Five varieties) - 689 households received bundles of cuttings
c. Who has benefited?
The DAP targeted farmers lacking seed as voucher recipients during seed fairs. A pre-seed
fair seed needs assessment was undertaken but it is a committee at the community level that
selected the beneficiaries. Hence, the DAP did not target any particular set of participants
with seed activities, so beneficiaries from these activities generally covered the range of
participants that have been included in the farmer groups. An additional dimension of
beneficiaries from the seed activities is that farmers who sold seed at seed fairs were often
former beneficiaries of seed fairs elsewhere.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs
The seed fairs/seed vouchers set of activities has been instrumental in facilitating the spread
of new varieties of seed, especially for groundnuts, in the project area. The approach has a
number of benefits including:
• Allowing farmers to choose the types of seed that best suit their individual interests
and circumstances.
• Cultivating business linkages that reflect what would be expected to emerge when
normality occurs.
• Exposing farmers to alternative seed sources, giving them a choice, not only of
different varieties but also of different vendors.
• Boosting the local economy with an injection of cash.
The low participation of women vendors in the seed fair activity has been attributed to travel
constraints. Under normal circumstances, women would be able to maintain their roles as
vendors in the market place without significant need to travel. Under the present
circumstances where travel can be severely constrained, women are a bit at risk of losing
their positions in the market place, and the program should continue to monitor this,
especially as normality begins to return.
The seed multiplication activities have also improved the availability of seed, but to a lesser
extent than the seed fairs and with fewer additional benefits.
18
The small pilot seed loans activity has not been very successful. Respondents say that the
amounts of seed made available are small. It would be expected, however, that this activity
would be less popular given the alternative sources of free seed available. In any case, seed
loan approaches have had difficulty maintaining the quality of seed.
Qualitative information from the evaluation provided some evidence that the program may be
cultivating a moderate to low level of seed dependency. When respondents were asked
where they would likely get seed when decongestion occurs, many said from their own
sources or from vendors in the market. Some also said, however, that they expected to
continue to be able to get seed from NGOs like Caritas and CRS. While this is likely to
continue in the near term, developmental relief approaches need to be highly sensitive to
cultivating dependencies like this.
Somewhat related to this in terms of building farmers' capacities to save their own seed, the
availability of reliable and safe seed storage is a problem in the IDP camps where space does
not allow for granaries and the risk of fire deters families from storing seed in huts.
The seed provided through the program was generally provided on time. The only case
consistently cited as untimely was a recent distribution of sweet potato vines.
B. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.2 - Community Capacities (Valley Dams)
1. Activity 1.2a Community Rehabilitation Plans
a. Overview of Implementation Strategy
In the original proposal, the development of community rehabilitation plans was proposed to
address a range of community asset rehabilitation needs, including construction of
community storage sites, construction of soil and water conservation demonstration sites,
rehabilitation of community roads and rehabilitation of valley dams. At the request of
FFP/Washington to scale back the size of the program, however, this activity was modified to
focus specifically on rehabilitation plans associated with the valley dams.
Dam committees composed of 9 people were to be formed around each dam. The community
selected the members of the committee and appointed the chairman, treasurer and secretary.
At least three members of the committee must be women. The dam committees have
developed by-laws to cover their functioning and are responsible for developing
rehabilitation plans for repairing and maintaining the dams.
Training by the project included initial community sensitization, two-day training on dam
management and maintenance, a two-day exit training at the point of turning over the
rehabilitated dam to the committee, and commodity management training for the dam
committee associated with the food-for-work.
b. Outputs Produced
All of the dams that have been completed or are under construction have dam committees
formed around them. The planned sensitization and training has also been provided to each of
them. Long term rehabilitation and management plans for the dams have not been fully
developed, however. The training provided by the program advocated for monthly user fees,
and some revenue has been generated from these. However, bank accounts have not been
opened.
c. Who has Benefited?
19
At the time of the evaluation, there were people who certainly benefited from the water
provided through the valley dams as discussed in the next section. These are indirect
beneficiaries from the rehabilitation plans. At the moment, the only direct beneficiaries from
the rehabilitation plans appear to be the members of the dam committees who are managing
the revenue generated from the dam. Without bank accounts or clear bookkeeping records, it
is difficult to see exactly how these dam committee members are benefiting.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs
The DAP has not given this set of activities sufficient attention. In fact, the Mid-Term
Evaluation made the suggestion that this activity had in fact been dropped from the program
when the decision was made to focus on valley dams. While the activities described in the
next section on valley dam rehabilitation reflect the "hardware" side of the valley dam
intervention, activities under this section should reflect the investments in the "software" side
of the intervention.
The lack of attention on the software side has resulted in two major observations. Dam
Committees do not have sufficient capacities to effectively manage the dam resource, and
Dam Committee members are also not highly motivated to fulfill dam management functions.
Life is difficult for everyone in the IDP camps, and nearly all families have to be strategic in
how they invest their assets to produce their livelihoods. Given the marginal returns on time
and effort managing the valley dam resource, especially during the maintenance periods
when there is no water for distribution, most dam committee members are reluctant to invest
time at the expense of other livelihood activities.
2. Activity 1.2b Valley Dam Rehabilitation
a. Overview of Implementation Strategy
Over the course of decades going back as far as the time when the British controlled Uganda,
dams were constructed across small valleys in order to catch and store water especially in
those areas which faced seasonal water shortages. Over the last couple of decades during the
current conflict, this infrastructure has deteriorated through neglect. The strategy of the DAP
was to rehabilitate these as a source of multiple use water with appropriate technological
design, using food-for-work.
The design of the systems for filtering and dispensing potable and other use water was
developed by a water design consultant. The design basically involves an intake from the
dam channeling water to two outlets. One of these, passing through a sand filter into a sealed
well, provides potable water. The other outlet before filtration goes to a trough from which
water can be used for livestock and other uses.
FFW was to be used for all labor required for rehabilitating the dam structure and installing
the piping and filtration systems. Community contributions included local materials.
Otherwise all imported materials, costs of equipment and labor paid through food-for-work
were provided by the DAP.
Field activities were the responsibility of Caritas Kitgum. Staff from CRS included an
engineer to provide technical advice, and staff to monitor the distribution and use of food in
the food-for-work activities.
b. Outputs Produced
By the time the ending date for the DAP is reached at the end of September 2006, it is
expected that the DAP will have rehabilitated nine valley dams under current plans. Two
20
dams have been fully completed. Four dams are currently in the final stages of reconstruction
and will have been completed by no later than mid-November. The DAP has short-listed six
additional locations for the final year of the program and will select three from this list to
begin reconstruction early in 2006. Table15 lists the dam sites, the nearest IDP camp and the
current status.
The LOA target for valley dams was originally 15, but this was revised after the Mid-Term
Evaluation.
Relative to FFW in FY 2004 and FY 2005, around 120,000 rations of 2 kilograms of maize,
300 grams of pulses and 100 grams of oil has been distributed. Section V.G. below provides
additional information on commodity management. The Recipient Status Reports indicated
that 9,821 recipients have received these commodities. The records, however, do not
eliminate duplication, so the exact number of mutually exclusive beneficiaries from FFW is
difficult to extract form the hard copies unless it is sorted from the database
c. Who has Benefited?
One of the completed dams, Akworo, was successful in distributing water and when water
was available, significant numbers of people from Amide camp used the dam for water.
Records on the numbers or characteristics of the beneficiaries are not available.
The FFW recipients are also significant beneficiaries from this activity. Most of these are
women and because they are self-selected, they tend to be from the lower end of the poverty
continuum, although not from the lowest end since they need to be able-bodied.
Table 15. Summary of Valley Dams Completed, Under
 Construction and Planned for 2006
Dam Name Nearest IDP
Camp (Distance) Current Status
Akworo Amide (1.5 km) Completed, currently not used because of insufficient
water
Lagwal Pajimu (1 km) Completed, currently not used because of insufficient
water
Wato Gali Laboje (4 km) Nearly complete, expected to be finished by mid￾October
Kuluye Padibe Padibe (4 km) Nearly complete, expected to be finished by the end of
October
Palabek Palabek Gem (1.5
km)
Nearly complete, expected to be finished by the end of
October
Lalee Ogili (2 km) Approximately 30% complete, expected to be finished
by mid-November
Cin Kul Lokung (6 km)
Pobu Palabek Kal (4
km)
Ogwarpokai Mucwini (2 km)
Kolomudong Oroin (6 km)
Omiya Anyina About 9km)
Lagwel Padibe (2 km)
The DAP will select four from this short-list for
rehabilitation in 2006.
 d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs
21
The valley dam component of the DAP faced a number of severe obstacles to
implementation. Construction generally needs to be undertaken in northern Uganda primarily
during the dry season from December through March. Although the period from December
2001 through March 2002 was relatively calm, funds were not available to begin the valley
dam component. Then, in the middle of 2002, the security situation rapidly deteriorated
making it virtually impossible to begin activities until early in 2004. Because two years were
lost, the program decided to use heavy equipment from district government to try to make up
the lost time. This equipment, however, has demands on it for other uses, so availability was
not consistent.
Of the two completed dams, one (Akworo) provided water for a period of about ten months.
Water levels now, however, are below the intake, which is cause for concern, since this is the
period in which the dam should be filling. The other completed dam, Lagwal, has not filled
apparently because too much water was being diverted upstream from the dam. The DAP
working with the dam committee has negotiated a solution with water users above the dam to
allow the dam to fill.
Paid wage labor is not common in the IDP camps, and the WFP distributions do not provide
sufficient food and can be irregular, so FFW is a competitive option as a livelihood activity
for some households especially when the ration is tied to work produced. Nevertheless,
initially, the DAP had difficulty organizing FFW labor because of the competition with other
freely distributed food.
Partly in response to the difficulties recruiting FFW labor, the work norm for the ration that
was defined was revised so that it would be possible for those participants who wanted to
invest time to complete more than one task or work norm in a day. Therefore, most FFW
participants actually receive more than one ration in a day. This has not necessarily resulted,
however, in a FFW daily ration exceeding the local market for the daily wage rate. The fact
that people are not flocking to join the FFW would suggest that the current relationship
between the FFW ration and the local market for casual labor is not a problem.
Most of the FFW ration appears to be consumed. There is not much local market for the
commodities provided.
There has been relatively little impact so far from the valley dams because of the distance,
availability of alternative water sources, relatively low numbers of livestock and limited
amounts of water provided by the dams. The six dams completed or underway are located on
average 2 1/3 kilometers from the nearest IDP camp, which means that people do not live
around the dams nor do they go there unless security is available. Water is becoming more
available in camps10, and although people have to pay for it, it is easily accessible and
therefore preferred relative to taking the risk of going far distances to a dam. It is still too
risky to invest in significant numbers of livestock, so dams are also not that useful for
livestock water.
The most complete dam, Akworo, appears to be deteriorating already. Screens over the sand
filter are pulled away. The filter itself is contaminated and the site is becoming overgrown.
The water quality in the dam is fairly poor with invasions of red algae. The technical quality
of the design of the rehabilitation seems suitable although the sand filter will require
 
10 Water available in the IDP camps is roughly estimated at 5 liters per person per day (Source: Environmental
Assessment for DAP Kitgum Valley Dams (Draft), October 2005, CRS Uganda)
22
diligence maintenance. Given the problems with the capacities of the dam committees cited
in the previous section, the hardware investments made by the DAP are at risk of being lost.
Given the probable scarcity of water for people and livestock after decongestion occurs,
valley dam rehabilitation could be a valuable long-term investment if the issue of
management of the dam can be sorted out and the security situation continues to improve.
C. Assessment of Activities Under IR 1.3 - Crop Productivity and Profitability
1. Activity 1.3a Trials and Demonstrations
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
One dimension of increasing crop productivity is the introduction of new technologies and
new techniques. The DAP facilitated the introduction of new technologies for agriculture
through various forms of comparison trials and demonstrations. Most of the trials and
demonstrations were oriented around on-farm variety trials and demonstrations. Some
cultivation techniques were also tested and demonstrated, however, including line planting
versus broadcast, monoculture versus inter-cropping, timeliness and quality of land
preparation, weeding techniques, and different spacing practices. Key characteristics of the
trials and demonstrations implemented were to ensure that they were conducted under farmer
conditions without external inputs with the full participation of farmer groups. Yields
harvested from demonstrations were disseminated to farmers interested in establishing their
own trials.
b. Outputs Produced
Between 15 and 43 demonstrations sites were planned and implemented each season over the
life of the DAP. Trials and demonstrations to compare yields of new varieties with traditional
varieties were organized around the following new varieties:
ICRISAT Groundnut varieties - ICGV 12991 and ICGV 12988
Groundnut varieties obtained from Serere Tour - Serenut-1 Red, Serenut-2 and Obina
Sesame varieties obtained from Serere Tour - Sesame-1, Sesame-2, U4 and Adong
Sunflower varieties obtained from Serere Tour - PAN 7355, PAN 7351, PAN 7371,
Sunfola, and Kolos
Sorghum varieties obtained from Serere Tour - Sekedo and Epuripuri
In 2005, additional trials and demonstrations are planned to test three varieties of rice
including WAB, Narica 3 and Suprica 2 and tilling trials comparing oxplow, tractor and hand
tilling.
c. Who has Benefited?
Members of farmer groups benefited from the trials and demonstrations depending on
proximity to the demonstrations and willingness to observe and test ideas being presented.
Technology Adoption Committee members tended to benefit more from the trials and
demonstrations because of the increased access to technical training which complemented the
trials and demonstrations.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs Produced
The trials of new varieties succeeded in introducing a number of new varieties in the project
area as described in section IV.A.3 above. Farmers reported a preference for learning from
demonstrations as opposed to workshop-based technical training. However, the quality of
23
demonstrations for showing comparisons or highlighting features of new technologies being
displayed was sometimes compromised because the availability of land occasionally forced
the location of the demonstration to be in a less than ideal place for allowing farmers regular
access. Otherwise, however, farmer participation in establishing trials and analyzing results
from demonstrations was very useful.
One lesson that emerged from the DAP is that in terms of having impact on productivity and
net income, farmers did not always adopt the most productive varieties. Crop productivity
was sometimes superceded by other preference factors when farmers selected varieties for
their farms.
2. Activity 1.3b Knowledge Transfer
a. Overview of Implementation Strategies
In order to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from either technical training provided by the
project or from trials and demonstrations, the DAP organized a system in which participants
elected a Technical Adoption Committee (TAC) from among their members. These TAC
members were the focal point for technical training and were responsible for passing their
knowledge on to other farmer participants. TAC members were also responsible for
gathering monitoring information regularly from other participating farmers. To support the
TACs, specialized Community Extension Facilitators were recruited by implementing
partners to organize and interact with the TACs.
Following a participatory needs assessment conducted with participating farmers to
determine priorities, the DAP provided a range of technical training for program staff from
all partners, CEFs and TACs through various mechanisms.
b. Outputs Produced
Technical Adoption Committees were formed and functioning in all farmer groups. Various
training events including study tours and workshop-based training were provided each year in
the program. The main event in 2002 was a study tour to Serere. In FY 2003, the main
events included a three-day Training of Trainers workshop for 21 extension staff on
communication and facilitation skills, training needs assessment, useful training tips, group
dynamics, adult learning principles, PRA tools, administration and management principles.
Also in 2003, 402 TAC members received training on seed bed preparation, soil and water
conservation, improved varieties, weed management, pest and disease management,
vegetable production farming as a business, and marketing. In FY 2004, training was
provided for 10 community extension facilitators and 16 field staff on soil and water
conservation, pests and disease management, post harvest handling, planting and weeding.
Also in 2004, the DAP in collaboration with the district agricultural office trained 1,316 TAC
members on various technical topics.
c. Who has Benefited?
Because of the significant engagement of the TAC members in the knowledge transfer
activities of the DAP, they have benefited most from participation in the project. 
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs Produced
There is strong evidence that the TAC members, especially those in graduated groups, do
provide technical advice. All TAC members collect data on production and yields from
participating farmers and this on-going contact facilitates the transfer of ideas. There is some
24
anecdotal evidence, however, that a few groups rely more on CEFs than on the TACs for
technical advice.
There is evidence that much of the knowledge that farmers have obtained through knowledge
transfer activities will be useful when decongestion occurs.
3. Activity 1.3c Marketing Associations
a. Overview of Implementation process
The DAP strategy had planned to begin implementing the marketing component in the third
year of the program after two years of building farmers’ capacities. In the marketing
component, “graduated” farmer groups who had completed two years of participation were
given training relevant to agricultural marketing, with emphasis on identifying crops to
produce based on potential markets, understanding quality issues, and pricing. After training,
the marketing associations were linked to buyers.
b. Outputs Produced
At the time of the final evaluation, 36 marketing associations had been established in six sub￾counties of Gulu district. Twenty-six of these were formed in 2004 and another ten new
associations were formed in 2005. Table 16 shows the marketing associations formed by each
implementing partner each of the last two years.
Following the Mid-Term Evaluation, the decision was made to reduce the original target for
associations from 100 to 26 and to reform the 26 into 8 large associations. These plans have
been modified somewhat. An additional ten associations were formed since the mid-term and
the DAP will focus on strengthening the 36 associations that have been formed.
Table 16. Marketing Associations Formed
Program
Area - Gulu
District
FY 2004 FY 2005 Total
Caritas 20 - 20
Church of
Uganda
6 10 16
Total 26 10 36
Capacity building training needs assessments were conducted in collaboration with CARE,
and capacity building training to date has focused on record-keeping, group dynamics and
organizational management. A total of 78 members from the marketing associations have
also been trained in CRS's agro-enterprise approach.
c. Who has benefited?
Farm families who are members of marketing associations have benefited from increased
production and income from the sale of produce at good prices. Other farmers who were able
to acquire seeds sold by the marketing associations for planting in their own fields have also
benefited.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs Produced
25
The marketing associations that have been formed vary in their level of development
depending on how long they have been working with the DAP. Most of the 26 associations
formed in 2004 have bank accounts and have developed market linkages. The more recently
formed groups are relatively weak.
Training in record keeping, group dynamics and management has been provided to the
associations by CRS but there is need for further training in financial and organizational
management so as to build their capacities more fully. Few of the associations that have been
formed have really reached the level of being self-sustaining, functioning marketing
associations.
The DAP has facilitated establishing linkages between associations and buyers, especially
national and international organizations, which buy produce, primarily groundnuts, directly
from the associations. Links with private traders are still undeveloped.
CRS is driving the marketing component; the implementing partners, COU and Caritas, are
not participating directly, although they desire to increase their participation.
4. Activity 1.3d Market Analyses and Information Campaigns
a. Overview of Implementation processes
In support of the market association development activities, the DAP planned to undertake a
number of different analyses to be able to understand markets in the north more clearly.
These analyses included those intended to identify marketing opportunities and those for
mapping out marketing channels. Since these analyses were research -oriented and
somewhat independent of implementation activities, CRS took responsibility for completing
the analyses.
b. Outputs Produced
A Market Opportunities Identification (MOI) exercise, an extensive market survey to identify
commodities with market potential in the districts of Gulu, Kitgum and Pader, was carried out
in collaboration with the IITA and Gulu district marketing department. Extension staff of
implementing partners collected market data from their locations using the data collection
forms. The information gathered was analyzed by IITA and is being disseminated to farmers
over radio in a daily radio farmers’ bulletin over MEGA FM in Gulu. One market-chain
analysis was completed for groundnuts providing general market information in each of the
three districts.
c. Who has Benefited?
Primary beneficiaries of this set of research activities have been the marketing associations
and farmers who have benefited from the information broadcast by radio.
d. Observations Relative to Implementation Processes and Quality of Outputs Produced
The two research activities, the MOI and a market-chain analysis, have been useful for
establishing a foundation for future marketing association capacity building and linkage
development. The engagement of IITA and MEGA FM in processing and disseminating
marketing information is useful. Extension workers from partner organizations are still
collecting field data after harvesting seasons and passing it on to IITA for analysis and
dissemination. Many farmers in the three districts including those from neighboring districts
are able to receive the radio broadcasts.
26
The MOI survey, however, which was supposed to identify market opportunities for various
crops in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader, did not identify the specific markets and the conditions to
access those markets. In addition, the MOI study report needs to be made available to all
stakeholders- farmers, partners, national and international organizations and district
administrations.
The current market chain analysis describes various players in the market as well as provides
some useful market information. Market leverage points, market bottlenecks or other market
obstacles, which should be the focus of market interventions, however, have not yet been
clearly defined.
V. PROGRAM PROCESS ASSESSMENT
A. Program Management
1. Overview of the Management of the DAP
Overall responsibility for vision and leadership for the DAP rests with the CRS Northern
Area Manager based in Gulu. This position is also responsible for overseeing all other
programs being implemented in the northern districts. When the DAP was designed, it was
basically the only major program in the north so it made sense at the time for one position to
be responsible for the DAP as well as for the whole program in the north. Since the DAP
began, however, CRS has been successful in developing a number of different other
programs, including an emergency program, an HIV/AIDS project and a community
reconciliation project.
Annual operating plans for the DAP are developed with partners, including setting targets on
outputs and budget. These do not change over the course of the year, however, quarterly
plans are also developed from these, and these plans change to reflect contextual influences
on the program.
The DAP is being implemented through CRS offices in Gulu and Kitgum, as well as through
Caritas offices in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader and the Church of Uganda office in Gulu. The
function of the CRS office in Kitgum is to monitor and provide technical support to the valley
dam component, including FFW, being implemented by Caritas Kitgum. Programmatic
support is provided primarily through the Gulu CRS office.
2. Observations Relative to Program Management
Program management covers a range of activities, including vision and leadership, decision￾making, communications, and program support. The key observations that follow touch on
these dimensions of management. Financial management and human resources management
and development are also key elements of program management, and these are discussed in
later sections.
Vision and Leadership. The DAP has had to face serious constraints to implementation
resulting from the declining security situation that occurred beginning in the middle of 2002,
and the program has been responsive to the need for change. Program management also has
a clear vision for where the program should go.
Decision-Making. While not intended so, decision-making within the program is perceived
to be relatively top-down and unilateral. This is partly a function of the occasional need to
make rapid decisions to produce results in the program.
Strategic and Operational Planning. Operational planning appears to be fairly effective in
developing plans with partners. However, the tendency to hold key information close at the
top sometimes frustrates partners and staff.
27
Regularly monthly coordination meetings happen between partners in Gulu. These meetings
are less regular in Kitgum and Pader.
Communications. Communications within CRS itself are generally okay, although
sometimes the field office is affected by short notice requests from Kampala. Similarly, short
notice on requests made by CRS to implementing partners for participation in events or
information disrupts implementation plans.
Occasionally communications between partners within the program are sometimes not
consistent or transparent enough, either from CRS to partners or vice versa. Communications
in Gulu between partners is better then between Gulu and the partners/offices in Kitgum and
Pader. Distance always has this effect, and programs need to make diligent efforts to ensure
that outlying offices feel fully engaged.
Program Support. Some elements of program support are working very well, especially the
communications systems for radios and internet/email access in Gulu. No significant
problems were observed with regard to transport or vehicles for CRS, however, procurement
of transport equipment for partners is perceived to be slow. From partner perspectives, there
are problems with procurement, but much of this is due to transparency on procurement
status and temporary substitutions of older equipment. All in all, program support is
relatively good in the DAP.
B. Partnership
1. Overview of Partnerships in the DAP
The DAP was not designed as a partnership project in the sense that one of the expected
outputs from the project from both the donor's perspective as well as from the implementing
partners' perspectives was partner capacity building. CRS, however, recognized the value of
working with local partners in terms of being able to expand impact and produce high quality
results. Two implementing partners are currently working with CRS in the DAP. Caritas is
responsible for implementation of the DAP in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader. The Church of
Uganda is responsible for field activities in Gulu with camps distinct from those being served
by Caritas.
The DAP has a number of technical partners, including IITA, CIAT, NARO/SAARI, CARE
and District Government. IITA and CIAT provided technical support in the promotion of the
agro-enterprise development approach within the marketing component of the DAP.
NARO/SAARI has provided technical support in the improved germplasm. CARE has
trained CRS partner staff and some farmers in organizational capacity assessments and group
savings and credit mechanisms. District extension staff have conducted training in
specialized topics, for example, disease and pest control, soil and water conservation, and
vegetable production.
ACDI/VOCA has responsibility for monetizing commodities for all FFP Cooperating
Sponsors, including CRS, in Uganda
2. Observations Relative to Partnerships
While the DAP has not specifically targeted partner capacity building as an output, there has
nevertheless been significant capacity built for implementing partners in the DAP through
training as well as provision of materials and equipment.
Where roles are clearly defined in the program and these roles are consistent with the
customary roles taken by local and international partners in joint projects, the DAP has been
highly effective. For example, in the agricultural components, Caritas and the Church of
28
Uganda clearly have responsibility for field implementation and can use their knowledge of
the local context and access to communities effectively. CRS has responsibility for program
monitoring and evaluation, coordination of technical support and stewardship of financial
resources, and has been effective in fulfilling these functions.
In areas where the roles are less clearly defined, occasional friction has resulted as in both the
marketing and valley dam components. USAID and FFP want to see results, and CRS is
keen to fulfill its commitment to the donor. Often this means, that sometimes CRS has to
overstep the bounds of best practice in working with partners. Partners need to recognize
that this is why sometimes roles get confused. CRS on the other hand needs to be more
transparent with partners in helping them to understand the rules and regulations with which
CRS has to comply with.
C. Program Integration
1. Overview of Program Integration
The sections which follow describe different dimensions of program integration in the DAP.
Within the DAP. The DAP has basically three components relative to the organization of
staffing and implementation. These are the agricultural components (both IR 1.1 and IR 1.3),
the valley dam component (IR 1.2) and the marketing component (IR 1.3). These all operate
somewhat independently. The agricultural components, for example, are being primarily
implemented by Caritas and the COU in all three districts. The valley dam component is
being implemented only in Kitgum District by Caritas but with strong oversight by CRS, and
valley dam activities are independent of the agricultural component. The marketing
component activities are being implemented almost entirely by CRS primarily in Gulu
District.
With Other Programs Managed by CRS. There are three other programs being implemented
by CRS in the north. These are the Emergency Program, Peace and Reconciliation Program
and the HIV/AIDS Program. Integration with the DAP has been focused on joint training
workshops and meetings at the regional level.
With Other Programs Managed by the Implementing Partners. Integration of the DAP with
other programs managed by implementing partners has been focused on capacity
development and technical support. With Caritas, the DAP has provided support to the
Gender Program by helping with training in sustainable agriculture. Technical assistance for
monitoring agricultural activities especially related to seed and input distribution has also
been provided by the DAP to the Relief and Rehabilitation Program. With the COU, the
DAP has provided technical assistance for training in production skills and group dynamics
to other programs.
With Other Programs Being Implemented in the Same Sectors as the DAP by Other
Organizations. The DAP has good working relationships with other programs being
implemented by other organizations. For example, the DAP has worked closely with World
Vision in the marketing component. The marketing associations supported by the DAP have
produced groundnut seeds and cassava cuttings which are then purchased by WVI to supply
to its program beneficiaries. Also, DAP activities implemented by the COU have been
integrated with an FAO program involving distribution of seeds and implements.
With National Level Strategies for Acholi Land. The DAP strategy is highly compatible with
other strategies for the north including the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF),
the National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS), and the Plan for Modernization of
29
Agriculture (PMA) for Acholi Land. There is some evidence that activities being
implemented by the DAP ae being adopted by other organizations, especially the seed fairs
and vouchers and data collection and reporting formats.
2. Observations Relative to Integration
Some degree of integration is happening at all levels within the DAP, which is positive.
However, there are ways to improve the coordination and integration.
Relative to integration among the three components in the DAP, a more strategic integration
may have resulted in expanded impact. For example, more integration between the
agricultural and marketing components could have benefited a larger number of participants,
particularly with expanded engagement of implementing partners in the latter. Similarly, a
strategy in which the valley dam component would be more closely tied to the agriculture and
marketing components would possible have facilitated a longer term strategy for sustaining
impact.
Relative to other programs being implemented by CRS, diligent efforts have been made to
cultivate interaction between the programs through training and workshops at the regional
level. This has not yet translated to activities on the ground, however. The CRS Northern
Area Manager is responsible for both program coordination in the north and managing the
DAP. This dual role may hinder effective integration since the tendency is to focus on the
DAP since, if the DAP is unsuccessful, the NAM will be held responsible. There is less
pressure on achieving effective integration of programs in the north.
Relative to integration within the implementing partners, integration with other programs is
mostly focused where there are common activities.
The DAP has developed good relations/linkages with a number of other organizations, for
example, IITA, CARE, and NARO. These are mostly ad hoc around specific issues and
opportunities. Systematic coordination has not yet involved.
D. Financial Management.
1. Overview of Financial Management in the DAP
Overall budget management for the DAP rests with the NAM in Gulu. Budgets are prepared
annually for CRS and the partners. Partner funds are allocated quarterly against the annual
plans, and cash flow is provided monthly based on monthly financial liquidation reports.
Compilation of financial reports for FFP is done for the Uganda expenses in the CRS
headquarters in Kampala.
2. Observations Relative to Financial Management
Table 17 provides a projected summary of the LOA cash expenditure for the DAP. By the
end of the program, it is estimated that 86% of the approved budget will have been spent.
Table 17. Projected LOA Cash Expenditure Summary (US$)
Cost Center Monetization
Proceeds 202e CRS
Funds Total
CRS Operating Expenses $ 1,820,900 $ 697,820 $ 220,763 $ 2,739,483
DAP Partner Operating (PH)
Expenses $ 1,037,405 - - $ 1,037,405
NICRA @ 27% $ 764,730 $ 112,000 - $ 876,730
ACDI/VOCA (Monetization
Costs) $ 229,372 - - $ 229,372
30
TOTAL Expenses $3,852,407 $ 809,820 $ 220,763 $ 4,882,990
TOTAL Approved Budget $ 4,483,059 $ 962,614 $ 234,740 $ 5,680,413
Percent of Approved Budget
Expected to be Spent by LOA 85.9% 84.1% 94.0% 86.0%
As mentioned, overall budget management is fairly centralized at the top of the program, and
information on the total financial management picture for the program is not widely
disseminated. Partners, as a result, feel that they need more information around which to plan
their annual activities. Since they may not have full information on what is available to the
program, they don't really know if the requests they have made for funds are inside or outside
of the LOA budget. Similarly, staff at lower levels in the program responsible for
implementation planning appear to be not clear on the budget they have available within
which to plan activities.
The partner monthly financial liquidation reports have been problematic, despite extensive
training on financial management and persistent follow-up by program staff.
Monetization cash flows have been satisfactory.
All in all, financial management in the program has been good, despite some of the concerns
raised by partners and staff. These concerns might be less a reflection of problems with
financial management practices and more a function of the relatively less transparency
wi9thin the program, especially describing the rationale behind the way decisions are made.
The bottom-line, however, is that the DAP has done well in managing the financial resources
to get the work done within the operating constraints faced in northern Uganda.
E. Human Resources Management and Development
1. Overview of Human Resources Management and Development in the DAP
Within CRS, the staff structure for implementing the DAP includes:
• The NAM in Gulu for overall management of the DAP
• An Agricultural Team Leader/Agricultural Project Officer and an Assistant
Agricultural Project Officer, both in Gulu, who oversee the agricultural activities
• A Marketing Project Officer and Assistant Project Officer, both in Gulu, who oversee
the marketing activities.
• A Rehabilitation Project Officer, a Civil Engineer, a FFW End Use Checker, and
Commodity Officer, all in Kitgum, who oversee the valley dam rehabilitation and
FFW.
Each of the partners have a senior DAP Coordinator position and a position that oversees
field implementation in addition to the staff required for field implementation.
2. Observations Relative to Human Resources Management and Development
Within CRS, there has been relatively11 high staff turnover. There are relatively few staff
who have been with the DAP since its inception, and most staff have been in place for less
than two years. The turn-over appears to be mainly staff taking advantage of opportunities
elsewhere.
 
11 "Relatively" here has two dimensions. Certainly relative to DAPs in other countries, turnover has been very
high in the CRS DAP. However, it is less clear that the turnover in the CRS DAP is substantially higher then
normal staff turnover in projects implemented in Uganda.
31
The project staff structure has at least two positions with somewhat complicated
responsibilities. The Northern Area Manager, for example, is responsible for providing
vision and leadership to the DAP as the senior staff member directly responsible for DAP
implementation. This position is also responsible, however, for overall programming in the
Northern Region, including ensuring that managers of other programs receive technical and
administrative support as well facilitating cross-fertilization and development of synergies
between programs operating in the north. A second example would be the DAP Agricultural
Team leader who is charged with responsibility for coordinating activities across components
while also being the position directly responsible for the technical quality of the agricultural
components. The agricultural components have as a result seemed to have received special
attention relative to other components.
The DAP has made significant investments in staff development both through technical
training events but also through the acquisition of new skills and knowledge on the job. .The
staff turnover problem might, in fact, be partly a function of CRS producing highly
competent staff.
F. Commodity Management
1. Overview of Commodity Management
Over the life of the DAP, the program received 810 MT of commodities for use in FFW,
including maize, lentils (in FY 2002), split green peas and vegetable oil, and 15,600 MT of
hard red winter wheat for monetization.. The FFW ration was composed of 2 kilograms of
maize, 300 grams of lentils or split green peas, and 100 grams of vegetable oil. Wheat was
the only commodity monetized for CRS by ACDI/VOCA. Table 18 summarizes the actual
and projected commodity allocations over the life of the activity by fiscal year.
2. Observations Relative to Commodity Management
As shown in Table 18, by September 2006, the DAP will have utilized almost 74% of the
planned LOA FFW food resources and over 89% of commodities for monetization. Given
the fact that FFW activities did not begin until FY 2004 due to the security constraints, this
achievement is commendable.
Table 18. Projected LOA Commodity Summary (MT)
Valley Dam FFW Monetization TOTAL
FY 02 220 3,500 3,720
FY 03 --- 3,500 3,500
FY 04 220 3,500 3,720
FY 05 (Projected) 370 3,500 3,870
FY 06 (Projected) --- 1,600 1,600
LOA Projected Disbursements 810 15,600 16,410
Proposed LOA Quantities 1,100 17,500 18,600
Percentage Achieved 73.6% 89.1% 88.2%
Table 19 summarizes commodity losses for both monetized food in the hands of
ACDI/VOAC and food distributed in FFW by CRS in Kitgum. The losses shown are within
industry standards.
Table 19. LOA Commodity Loss Summary through FY 04 Shipments Received -
Monetized Commodities (MT)
32
Fiscal Year Amount
Purchased
Ocean
Losses
Inland
Losses
Amount
Received in
Kampala
Percent
Lost
Monetized Commodities
FY 02 3,500 16.1 .9 3,483 .49%
FY 03 3,501.2 30.1 (3.525) 3,474.6 .76%
FY 04 3,500 16.6 2.5 3,480.9 .55%
FY 05 --- --- --- --- ---
TOTAL through FY 05 10,501.2 62.8 (.13) 10,438.5 .60%
Distributed Commodities
FY 02 220 +0.15 0 220.15 +0.068%
FY 03 0 00 0 0
FY 04 220 1.545 0.25 218.21 0.82%
FY 05 370 0.95 0.056 368.99 0.27%
TOTAL through FY 05 810 2.345 0.306 807.35 0.32%
Monetization cost recovery has been just meeting industry standards. Cost recovery in 2002
was 60.19%, 80.64% in 2003 and 80.60% in 2004.
As mentioned previously, there is a possibility that the value of FFW rations may exceed the
minimum daily wage rate since multiple rations may be disbursed daily depending on the
work tasks completed. However, given that large numbers of participants are not joining the
FFW activities, ii is unlikely that the value of the ration exceeds the minimum wage rate.
G. Monitoring and Evaluation
1. Overview of Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring. Monitoring of implementation relies heavily on development of implementation
plans. CRS has revised the Detailed Implementation Plan for the DAP a number of times
over the life of the program. Annual plans are developed with implementing partners and
these are revised quarterly. CRS staffs are generally responsible for monitoring
implementation. On the frontlines, project participants, especially the TACs, are responsible
for monitoring and recording yields for the farmers they contact.
Evaluation. A baseline survey was conducted in April 2002. A Mid-Term Evaluation was
conducted in July of 2004. This final evaluation is being implemented in October 2005.
2. Observations Relative to Monitoring and Evaluation
The monitoring systems in the DAP generally produce pretty good information for reporting
purposes, although there are some inconsistencies between CSR4s with information reported
one year and not others.
There appears not to be much systematic information gathering for programmatic decision￾making. For example, the program could be obtaining information on the quality seed
disbursed by seed vendors to identify those vendors who habitually provide high quality and
those that do not. Visual inspections at the time seed vendors are registered for seed fairs is
one part of this monitoring system. Other parts could include obtaining information from
seed buyers on their perceptions of the quality of the seed from vendor. Similarly, the
program could be monitoring the diffusion of ideas from demonstration sites or TACs to
determine the characteristics of those that are most effective and those that are least effective.
The program could also be monitoring the self-reliant activities that farmer groups are
33
undertaking on their own and then analyzing these to determine characteristics of successful
groups or to identify groups that can be used as positive deviant models for other groups.
M&E systems that provide information for decision-making enable programs to enhance their
impact by expanding activities that work, modifying those that are having less impact, and
dropping those activities that have minimal impact.
The fact that a baseline exists for the DAP is quite positive. However, given that
circumstances have changed since the baseline survey was conducted, comparisons to 2005
information have to be qualified.
The Mid-Term Evaluation provided the program with useful information at the Intermediate
Result level as well as recommendations for improving the quality of the DAP. The report
was significantly delayed, however.
The timing of the final evaluation is mostly to inform the design of the MYAP. It is a bit
early in the final year of the DAP to fully assess the overall impact of the program. Had the
evaluation been implemented a few months later, information for the CSR4 and the FY 2006
implementation plans would have been available.
H. Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation
1. Overview of Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation
The Initial Environmental Examination in the DAP focused on the impact of the valley dam
activities. Annual environmental status reports were submitted with the CSR4s.
2. Observations Relative to Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation
While the paperwork has been completed for the DAP relative to monitoring environmental
impact, the practice in the field has not fully conformed with the proposed mitigation
measures specified in the IEE. For example, it is not clear that a wetland monitor was
retained, nor an environmental baseline survey conducted, nor regular monitoring of water
quality and dam biodiversity undertaken.
The IEE overlooked other environmental impact now evident after the fact. For example, the
promotion of agricultural productivity on confined land resources has resulted in declining
soil fertility. If not monitored closely, this could result in invasive, noxious weeds or pests.
VI. LESSONS LEARNED RELEVANT FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
MULTI-YEAR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (MYAP)
A. Overall Strategy
While many lessons emerged directly from implementation of the various components of the
DAP, some lessons also emerged relevant for the overall design of food security program.
The most important of these are discussed briefly below.
1. Analyzing Vulnerability
At the time the DAP was designed, the conceptual framework for understanding food
insecurity was oriented around supply of food, access to food and utilization of food. While
these dimensions of food insecurity are still important, the focus has been expanded to
include the concept of vulnerability. Vulnerability is defined as a function of exposure to
risks offset by the coping capacities of those affected. Coping capacities are generally a
function of the assets that households have including not only physical, financial and natural
assets, but also the human assets and social capital, including political capital.
34
For the MYAP, it might be useful to expand the analysis of food security to include
vulnerability analyses to identify the most critical risks and assets to target in order to build
coping capacities. Some of the less obvious risks to examine are losing access to land either
around the camps or in the home villages, the impact of HIV/AIDS, and the declining soil
fertility around the camps.
On the asset side, it is important for the MYAP to specifically target assets that will ensure
food security for vulnerable households now as well as assets that will be be useful later
when decongestion occurs and families return to their villages. With regard to the latter, the
DAP has successful cultivated stronger social capital through the group formation activities
and has built human assets through much of the agricultural training this has been provided.
The MYAP could look for additional investments in building or protecting assets that will be
useful when households return to their home villages.
2. Targeting the Extremely Vulnerable
It is clear from the final evaluation that there are households at the extreme lower end of the
poverty continuum that are not participating in the DAP. These include highly vulnerable
households whose household heads are elderly or disabled or households with limited labor
capacity. In fact, it is appropriate for these households not to have participated in the DAP
because the interventions in the DAP, i.e., land-oriented or labor-based, would not have had
impact on these households. These families, however, are some of the most highly
vulnerable, food insecure households, and the MYAP may want to analyze their
vulnerabilities and identify appropriate interventions targeting them.
3. Alternative Group Configurations
Farmer groups within the DAP have been formed around farmers from the same clan and
village with a common interest. Groups are generally a mixture of both men and women
from a range of age groups. This has certainly been successful and should be continued. In
the interests of exploring additional structures that may enhance impact, however, the MYAP
may want to pilot different ways of organizing groups. Formation of youth groups, for
example, might result in a different set of group priorities related to agriculture. Similarly,
since women are responsible for certain crops, formation of women's groups may also result
in a different set of priorities.
4. Use of Food
It is apparent that the FFW in the DAP is meeting a food security safety net need, and the
MYAP should look for ways to continue making food available for those households for
whom the existing safety nets, i.e., the WFP food distributions, are insufficient or future
safety nets when decongestion occurs are likely to be inadequate. Rehabilitation of valley
dams may become an important intervention later when decongestion occurs and water needs
outside of the IDP camps become more acute. However, until decongestion occurs, the
MYAP may want to investigate other potential uses of food that are more critical now. This
would include using FFW to build other community assets in the camps, for example, schools
and clinics, or it might include other uses related to protecting assets, for example, if saved
seed is being consumed, or supplemental feeding for those extreme poor households with
limited labor capacity.
B. From the Agriculture Experience
A number of lessons emerged from the experience of program implementation associated
with the agricultural components of the program. The most important of these are briefly
discussed below.
35
1. Engaging Land Owners in Land Use Planning
The experience from the DAP clearly shows that where landowners have been engaged as
group members, there are fewer problems with landowners withdrawing access to the land.
Where landowners are not engaged, suspicions arise as to whether landowners may lose their
right to the land or land is withdrawn because the fertility is declining and landowners don't
want to receive highly infertile, relatively useless land when decongestion occurs. The
MYAP should continue to engage landowners in the program and also work with them and
other project participants to develop land use plans. The purpose of these plans will be to
maximize productivity while also ensuring that when the land is returned to the landowner,
the quality of the land will be better than when the program participants began working on
the land. In the DAP, the strategy was to facilitate access to land. In the MYAP the strategy
should now be to make the land more productive within a log term sustainable land use plan.
Ideally, this will result in a win-win arrangement. Program participants will have access to
land (and if done will can result in expanded access as other landowners see the benefits from
making land available) and landowners will see improvements to their land.
When decongestion occurs, the landowner participants may not continue to remain as group
members if the group relocates to a home village that is some distance away. However, there
are obvious benefits to everyone if they are included now as participants under the strategy
outlined above.
2. Seed Supply Systems
The DAP has been quite successful in establishing foundations for making high quality seed
available in the program area. There are some signs, however, that seed dependencies on the
program partners or other non-sustainable suppliers of seed are still evident. In the MYAP,
CRS and her partners should continue expanding the agro-enterprise strategy with a specific
focus on seed sub-sectors. One dimension of this would be to look for ways to integrate the
developing seed supply systems in the project area with the wider systems for supplying seed
in Uganda. Discussions are already underway with some private sector seed suppliers to
become more engaged in the project area. This should be expanded in the MYAP.
Another source of seed for farmers is saved seed from the previous season. There are
examples around the world where simple seed quality interventions focusing on improving
seed selection, preservation and storage, have had impact on improving productivity, and the
MYAP may want to explore these. Given the difficulty of seed/crop storage in the camps, the
MYAP may also have to explore interventions that will allow farmers to effectively store
seed. A focus on farmer-saved seed will not only have impact on the quality of seed, it will
also impress upon program participants that they will have to depend more fully on their own
sources of seeds rather than on seed from NGOs.
3. The Soil Fertility Problem
It is very evident that the promotion of productivity on relatively limited land availability
because of the security situation has put enormous pressure on land resources, and soil
fertility is declining fairly rapidly. When decongestion occurs and land becomes more widely
available, this will become less of a problem. Nevertheless, soil fertility will still be a
problem eventually. As is evident elsewhere, increasing population pressure has reduced the
period for fallowing that used to allow land to recover fertility. The same will happen in
northern Uganda at some point, and the MYAP should take the opportunity now to look at
developing sustainable agricultural practices appropriate for northern Uganda. This may
involve working with farmers on farming practices that increase soil fertility such as
36
manuring, composting and appropriate crop rotation practices. It may also involve engaging
the private sector to provide selected farming inputs to complement these.
4. Selection of Target Crops
In the DAP, the target was to restore and expand production of traditional crops for which the
program has been moderately successful. Given the relative scarcity of land, however, at
least until significant decongestion occurs, the MYAP may want to position itself to be able
to support crops that may emerge as having higher economic value in terms of the
productivity of land. Analysis needs to be undertaken to determine those crops that merit this
focus.
5. Capital Mobilizations
The marketing component of the DAP has already begun exploring ways to expand savings
and credit activities within the marketing associations that have been formed. The final
evaluation team also discovered evidence that some of the older farmer groups have started
forming rotating savings and credit schemes. Capital mobilization in one form or another is
often the glue that holds groups together. If not done well, it may also be the cause of group
dissolution. Since that is the case, the MYAP may want to explore ways to provide basic
principles and capacity building for capital mobilization for all groups formed by the
program.
C. From the Valley Dams Experience
The lessons that emerged from the experience of program implementation associated with the
valley dam component of the DAP are briefly discussed below.
1. Continue the Valley Dam Component?
If decongestion occurs, valley dam rehabilitation will be important as long as investments are
made in both the hardware and software around the dams (see below). However, if
decongestion does not occur, then the impact of the dams may be minimal, until people are
actually living near them and managing the resource effectively. Valley dam rehabilitation
could continue in the MYAP but the strategy should be focused on those dams that are
readily accessible to users of the dam, i.e., within the protected halo around IDP camps.
2. "Software" Development
The final evaluation highlighted the fact that the software side of the valley dam component
was relatively neglected by the project. The point was made very clearly that if the software
side of managing the valley dam infrastructure is not made stringer, the investments made in
the infrastructure itself will be lost. Having community Dam Committees is an appropriate
approach. These committees, however, need to be motivated to fulfill their functions. Given
the current context, almost all households have to focus their resources on generating
livelihoods, and there is not much room for activities, which do not contribute to the
livelihoods of households. Expecting dam committee members to effectively manage the
dams without some sort of returns to their livelihoods will not work. Therefore, the MYAP
should look for appropriate ways for whoever is responsible for managing the dam to be
compensated sufficiently to be motivated to fulfill the management function. When the dams
were originally built, government allocated a staff member to be responsible for managing
the dam. Perhaps the dam committees should do the same and pay a salary for that person
from revenue generated from the dam. This will reduce the demands on the dam committee
while also clearly delegating someone to be responsible who should motivated to manage the
dam.
37
In addition to this structural question, if the valley dam component is continued, more
investments need to be made in capacity building of community members to be able to plan
strategically, develop operational rehabilitation plans, effectively address problems and
capitalize on opportunities around the dam, generate revenue to pay operational costs, and
effectively maintain the dams. The strategy should be to view the dam committee as the
basis for a community-based organization and the project should invest the time and
resources that it takes to build an effect CBO. The farmer groups in the DAP worked with
the project for three years. A similar amount of time is likely to be required to build the
capacities of dam committees.
D. From the Marketing Experience
The lessons that emerged from the experience of program implementation associated with the
marketing component of the DAP are briefly discussed below.
1. Marketing Entry Point
In the DAP, the marketing component was strategically planned to begin in Year 3 after
production increases have been realized from the program. The baseline survey conducted in
April 2002, clearly shoed that farmers were already undertaking significant cultivation in the
project area. The average acreage under cultivation was over 4 acres in the first season and
over 2 acres in the second season. There are opportunities to have impact with marketing
interventions even at the beginning of working with farmer groups with the bit of surplus
already being produced. In addition, a good understanding of markets also influences what
farmers choose to produce as they try to capitalize on perceived market opportunities. As the
MYAP continues working with farmer groups on marketing strategies, the program may want
to begin earlier in the process building farmer capacities to understand markets and helping
them develop marketing strategies.
2. Market Chain Analysis
The market chain analyses done in the DAP describe various players in the market as well as
provides some useful market information. Market leverage points, market bottlenecks or
other obstacles do not clearly emerge from the analysis. These are the targets for market
development strategies. The MYAP may want to expand the market chain analysis to map
out the flows of product up different marketing channels with information along the way
showing quantities and prices. This will facilitate identification of points along the channel
at which farmers may not be benefiting from prices received or obstacles to the flow of
products.
3. Vertical Linkages
Without question, marketing will continue to be a critical focus for the MYAP. The DAP
through the agro-enterprise approach has established a basic foundation with the formation of
marketing associations and completion of some of the market analyses required to formulate
a strategy. As the MYAP continues to implement an agro-enterprise approach, the program
may want to consider strategically focusing on development of vertical linkages between the
local markets in the north and other markets in Uganda and even outside of the country.
Cutting edge private sector development projects work toward facilitating the development of
linkages between producers and export markets. An approach similar to this that builds on
the market analyses that have been done and the group formation work in the DAP could
have significant impact.
E. Process Lessons
38
A number of major lessons have emerged from the experience of the DAP relative to the
processes used in the program. The most important of these are described briefly below.
1. Staff Structure
While giving multiple hats to senior positions in the project, as in for example, the NAM and
the DAP TL, is financially cost effective, there are programmatic costs in terms of effective
implementation, especially in coordination across components or across projects. The
tendency is to focus on the component (agriculture in the case of the DAP TL) or project (the
DAP in the case of the NAM) at the expense of lost opportunities for cross-fertilization and
synergized impact. The MYAP may want to consider a staff structure that clearly allocates a
significant function to a single position. For example, the function of providing overall
vision and leadership for the MYAP should rest with a position that only has this
responsibility. The same principle would be applied for other major functions in the project.
2. Staff Turnover
The DAP has displayed significant staff turnover within the CRS DAP team. The
consequence has been some loss in continuity of the program, costs mainly in terms of time
associated with training new staff, and losses in outputs while new staff become attuned to
their positional responsibilities. Generally, the job market appears to be unstable. In which
case CRS may not be able to do much to change the situation but CRS needs to effectively
establish other contributing factors and address the staff turnover challenge in the MYAP.
3. Implementing Partnerships
As mentioned in the section describing partnership above, the DAP was a results oriented
project in which partner capacity building was not a targeted output. CRS chose to work with
partners to expand impact and produce high quality results, as happened in the agricultural
components. At times, however, the need to produce results at a more rapid pace forced CRS
to overstep the bounds of true partnership with the local partners, as happened in the valley
dam and marketing components. Given the donor's interest, the MYAP will also be results
oriented, and CRS will certainly continue to work with local partners.
In order to capitalize on the benefits that accrue from true partners working together to
achieve results, CRS is encouraged in the MYAP to be more transparent in sharing the
applicable regulations to help the partners appreciate the obligations they face to produce
results, i.e., help the implementing partners to understand budgeting parameters, procurement
policies, and other elements of the policies (22 CFR 226 and 22 CFR Part 211) that guide the
use of Food for Peace resources. The implementing partners on their side, need to recognize
that the pressure to produce results will sometimes dictate behavior required to speed up
implementation in order to meet program obligations.
On a special side note for immediate focus, CRS and the implementing partners should work
together to solve the partner financial liquidation problem, so that systems are in place by the
time the MYAP begins. This reporting problem seems to be the main source of cracks in
partner foundation in the DAP.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
The systems that the DAP has put in place for monitoring and evaluation are effective at
producing information for reporting purposes. There are opportunities, however, for
developing systems that will provide monitoring and evaluation information that can be used
for decision-making to expand activities that have impact and modify or discontinue activities
that do not have satisfactory impact. For example, additional systems can be put in place for
monitoring the quality of the seed that vendors are providing in seed fairs. Systems can be
39
developed for monitoring diffusion of intervention around demonstration sites to determine
the quality of the sites and identifying characteristics of demonstration sites that are highly
effective. Systems can be developed for monitoring the performance of TAC members
toward identifying characteristics of the most effective TACs. Systems can be developed for
comparing the performances of different farmer groups relative to achieving self-reliance so
that information can be used to guide formation of new groups. M&E systems customarily
gather information for reporting purposes. The MYAP may want to expand this to gather
information that can be used to enhance the impact of the program..
5. Linking Program Activities
As the MYAP addresses vulnerability and some of the other suggestions made above, the
need to effectively interface with other programs providing services that the MYAP may not
will be critical. This includes other programs within CRS as well as other programs within
the partners and programs being implemented by other organizations.
6. Transparency
Some of the criticisms voiced by DAP partners and staff at lower levels on financial
management, partner relations and program support, can easily be mitigated by more
transparency. This would apply mostly around information related to donor regulations and
the pressure CRS faces to produce results, but also around information related to the rationale
when decisions are made or parameters within which the program must operate, such as
resource parameters. A bit more transparency on these would enhance partner and staff
relations in the program.
VI. CONCLUSION
A. Overview of Results.
Tables 20 and 21 summarize the findings of the final evaluation of the FY 2002 to FY 2006
DAP relative to performance against activities proposed under the Intermediate Results of the
program and relative to impact at the Strategic Objective level.
Table 20. Summary Assessment of Achievement on Activities
 Under Each Intermediate Result
Intermediate Result/Proposed
Activities
Summary Assessment of Achievement
Intermediate Result 1.1 Increased agricultural production by 20,000 farm families in targeted
areas by 2006
Summary Assessment of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.1
Activity 1.1a: Establish 1000 farmer
groups for participation in the program
Excellent results and a solid foundation upon which to build
Activity 1.1b: Provide access to farm land
for displaced, returning, and relocated farm
families
Targets have been met and surpassed but the impact on
vulnerability and food insecurity is less than anticipated
because of insecure access and declining soil fertility.
Activity 1.1c: Facilitate the availability of
locally produced seed/planting material of
traditional crops to up to 20,000 program
participants
DAP has been highly effective in increasing seed availability
in the current context. The low participation of women,
however, is a concern.
Intermediate Result 1.2 Increased capacity for recovery and rehabilitation of 200 communities in
40
targeted areas by 2006
Summary Assessment of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.2
Activity 1.2a: Development of Community
Rehabilitation Plans in targeted areas
The DAP has not given this activity sufficient attention which
puts the investments made in the rehabilitation of valley dams
at risk.
Activity 1.2b: Rehabilitate 15 (revised to 9
following the Mid-Term Evaluation) multi￾purpose community valley dams/tanks
The valley dam component has not yet had significant impact
on food security or livelihoods, apart from the impact that
FFW has had.
Intermediate Result 1.3 Increased crop productivity and profitability for 20,000 farm families by
2006
Summary Assessment of the Final Evaluation on Proposed Activities under IR 1.2
Activity 1.3a: Conduct on-farm and
farmer-managed trials and demonstrations
of promising varieties of improved
traditional Acholi crops
While there is always room for improvement in the way trials
and demonstrations are designed and monitored, this activity
was successful in introducing new varieties
Activity 1.3b: Transfer knowledge and
skills in modern farming techniques to
20,000 farmers through demonstration sites
and field days
It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the knowledge
transfer activities since most of the focus was on seed.
However, much of the training that has been provided will be
useful when decongestion occurs.
Activity 1.3c: Establish progressive
marketing associations directly benefiting
20,000 farm families
The targets were not achieved in training and the number of
associations formed. However, a good foundation has been
established on which to continue working.
Activity 1.3d: Conduct market analyses
and information campaigns targeting
20,000 farm families
This activity was partially successful; farmers are not yet fully
accessing markets but they have been trained and can make
more informed market decisions on the choice of crops to
grow.
Table 21. Summary Assessment of Impact Against the Program Strategic Objective
Strategic Objective Summary Assessment of Impact
To increase the agricultural income of 20,000
smallholder farm families in Northern Uganda by
reestablishing livelihoods and strengthening
marketing systems.
While the average area cultivated has declined since
the program began due to increased security
constraints, participating households have been able to
obtain increased net income because of increased cash
receipts for all crops. Agriculture production
livelihoods have been re-established within the IDP
camp context and marketing for agricultural
production has expanded.
B. The Bottom line
The CRS DAP in northern Uganda has been operating in an extremely difficult context, yet
there have been some very significant achievements. The formation of farmer groups, the
improved seed access resulting from the seed fairs/seed vouchers activities and the
introductions of a wide range of new varieties of various crops have all been positive outputs
produced by the project. On the negative side, the valley dam component has not yet had
significant impact. Results are just starting to appear from the marketing component. All in
all, however, the DAP has been a good investment in terms of having significant impact on
41
vulnerability, livelihoods and food insecurity under the current circumstances and has
established a solid foundation upon which to build.
42
ANNEXES
Annex A: Final Evaluation Scope of Work
Annex B: Evaluation Methodological Tools and Schedules
Annex C: Conversions to 2002 Values
DAP Final Evaluation 21 November 2005
43
Conversion of Reported Values in
2005 to 2002 Values
Baseline Survey Conducted in March 2002
Inflation rate = 6.5% per annum Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Oct-05
Inflation Factor
Calculation:
1.0 0.939 0.882 0.828 0.814
 CASH RECEIVED
REPORTED ADJUSTED
Season
1
Season
2
Total Season
1
Season
2
Total
Finger Millet
72,988 86,140 159,128 59,442 70,153 129,596
Groundnuts
97,915 108,155 206,070 79,743 88,083 167,826
Sorghum
65,369 94,227 159,596 53,237 76,740 129,977
Maize
44,280 55,137 99,417 36,062 44,904 80,966
Rice
106,200 105,000 211,200 86,490 85,513 172,004
beans
52,415 65,196 117,611 42,687 53,096 95,784
Cassava
81,080 26,600 107,680 66,032 21,663 87,696
Sesame
54,000 99,908 153,908 43,978 81,366 125,344
Total
574,247 640,363 1,214,61 467,673 521,519 989,192
44
0
REPORTED ADJUSTED
Season
1
Season
2
Total Season
1
Season
2
Total
Total Expenditures
280,199 163,589 443,788 228,197 133,229 361,426
Proportion of Production
Sold
60%
INPUT EXPENDITURES
REPORTED ADJUSTED
Season
1
Season
2
Total Season
1
Season
2
Total
Seed
27,737 19,505 47,242 22,589 15,885 38,474
Land Hire or Lease
25,682 19,538 45,220 20,916 15,912 36,828
Land Prep - Tractor
52,850 17,500 70,350 43,042 14,252 57,294
Land Prep - Oxen
47,526 32,829 80,355 38,706 26,736 65,442
Land Prep - Hired
Labour 27,235 25,712 52,947 22,180 20,940 43,121
Planting
33,404
 -
33,404 27,205
 -
27,205
Weeding
23,055 18,354 41,409 18,776 14,948 33,724
Harvesting
19,429 18,003 37,432 15,823 14,662 30,485
45
All Other Costs
23,281 12,148 35,429 18,960 9,893 28,854
TOTAL COSTS
280,199 163,589 443,788 228,197 133,229 361,426