Date. Reporting period Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kampala, Uganda June

Transcription

1 Organisation Date Reporting period Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kampala, Uganda June Activity 2016 Implemented by Result area Rio marker Gender marker Number Name Actual expenditure Name organisation Channel Result area Mitigation/Adaptation Significant/principal 2 Significant/principal Support Fund Food Security various Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Catalist IFDC IFDC ISSD WUR CDI Agri4Skills ICCO TMEA Trademark EA PPP or network PASIC Agri Policy IITA Finance 4 Agriculture Financial Inclusion Financila Access DFCU

2 26961 Milking the Sun Solar Now Create ecologically sustainable food systems Mitigation and adaptation Significant Significant The Inclusive Dairy Enterprise SNV Mitigation and adaptation Significant Significant Skilling Youth for Emloyment in Agrubusine AVSI REACH IFDC ISSD Plus WUR CDI Result Area 1 Result question 1a: To what extent have hunger and malnutrition been reduced? Reduce malnutrition Nationally, almost half (48%) of Ugandans are food energy deficient. In other words their regular diet fails to provide them with the minimum dietary energy requirement. Low dietary diversity remains a key problem especially in rural and Western Uganda. More than 40% of rural Ugandans have low dietary diversity (data 2013). Compared to earlier data, stunting and malnutrition seem to have lowered a bit. At the same time, the consecutive droughts have shown large seasonal and regional differences in Food security levels with the Northern and Northern Eastern Regional as problematic areas. Mid % of the population in Karamoja were food insecure (12% severe) (Source WFP/PMO). Compared to 2015 this was a marginal increase in food insecurity although some districts had shown an improvement. Food available on the market is sourced from neighbouring regions. This has led to an unprecedented increase in staple food prices. Figures on food insecurity and nutritional status in the Northern region are greatly influenced by food assistance programs. Indicator 1: Prevalence of undernourishment Indicator 2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale Indicator 3: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 standard deviation from the median of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age 29% UBOS 2016 Indicator 4: Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or <-2 standard deviation from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age, by type (wasting and overweight) 4% wasted, 1% severely wasted UDHS 2016, large regional differences (upto 10% for Karamoja) Result question 1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? The FS portfolio does not target nutrition directly and project data on malnutrition or undernurished people reached are not available. The exception is the school milk program as part of our dairy improvement program. The food security strategy focusses on increased production and availability of food, increased income from agricultural production. Indirectly this has increased access to food for most people that have been reached directly by objective 2. Indicative for this relationship, are the results of the IFDC Catalist program where in % of farmers reached were food secure compared to 46% at the baseline. Indicator 1: Total number of undernourished people reached (direct) Indicator 1a: Reached number of people with improved food intake (direct) nil children received school milk (52% TIDE internal project monitoring girls) Indicator 1b: Reached number of people with improved access to appropriate food (direct) IFDC Catalist: 74% of reached farmers indicate to be food secure Indicator 1c: Reached number of people whose nutritional situation became more resilient to possible stresses and/or shocks (direct) children received school milk (52% TIDE internal project monitoring girls)

3 Indicator 2 saving/lendng (resilience) Indicator 3 Kitchen gardens Indicator 4 Reached number of people with nutrition related messages (direct) Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 1 Assess achieved results compared to planning: Reasons for result achieved: Reduce malnutrition B. Results achieved as planned. The FS portfolio contributes to reduction of malnutrition through increased food availability, access to food access and food diversity but does not focus on food consumption as such. The exception is our the school milk program that is performing better than expected, reflecting great interest and nutritional awareness of schools and parents. Food availability, access and food diversity contribute to reducing malnutrition but hard data on food consumption are not avaliable. Rating the results achieved as planned is based on the progress in particular with regard to the promotion of a variety of crops, including beans, groundnut, simsim, millet, cowpea, pigeon pea, green grams, cassava, rice and sorghum. Likewise, improved post-harvest storage facilities (especially for potato), food stocks are better managed and seasonal fluctuations of food quantities are reduced which ultimately reduces hunger and malnutrition. Implications for planning: Continue to support productivity enhancing interventions to improve food availability, accessibility and food diversity with particular attention to: improved crop and animal husbandry practices, climate smart agriculture, use of yield enhancing technologies, promotion of food storage facilities to reduce post-harvest losses, market access, investments in public infrastructure such as roads, integration of irrigation and water conservation technologies. Include horticulture under the seed project to enhance the diversity of vegetables and vegetable products. It will contribute directly towards availability, accessibility and diversity of vegetables in the areas of operation and enable households to generate income for food and non-food expenditures. Result Area 2 Result question 2a: To what extent has inclusive and sustainable growth in the agricultural sector been realised? National data for 2016 are not (yet) available. National system of statistics does not seem to be aligned yet with SDG's. Most recent agricultural consensus is from Historically agricultural yield increased beween 1990 and 2010 with 33% while the population nearly doubled. Since 2003 the agricultural sector has not grown by more than 4% in any year. Recent figures mention for 2015/2016 a growth for the agricultural sector of 2.3%. Per capita availability of food remains stagnant. Uganda relies on food import (mostly processed food, wheat, rice)) while at the same time it exports traditional staple food (plantains, sorghum, beans) and cash crops. Projections to 2040 show that agric production per capita is falling fairly quickly while food demand is steadily growing. (source Frederick S Pardee Center for International Futures, 2015, USAID). Indicator 1: Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size Indicator 2: Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status Indicator 3: Marketable surplus of cereal equivalent from rice (1.05), cassava (0.32), Irish potatoes (0.2) and sunflower (1.7) (tons) 547, , ,374 Not available 468, ,493 Indicator 4: Total volume of processed milk traded by the formal sector (mln liters) Not available Not available

4 Result question 2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? Indicator 1: Total number of farmholders reached (male/female; age: % < 35) (direct) 0 80,000 no results in startup year 25,000 ( : 12,750 :12,250) 99,500 ( : 51,740 : 47,760) 124,757 ( : 64,874 59,883) (women 54%, youth 40%) Project monitoring systems 0 480, , , , (40% women) Project monitoring systems. For 2016 only farmers/hh have been considered, instead of HH members as in previous years (multiplyer 6). Indicator 1a: Reached number of farmholders (male/female; age: % < 35) with increased productivity and/or income (direct) Indicator 1b: Reached number of farmholders (male/female; age: % < 35) with improved access to input and/ or output markets (direct) 25,000 ( : 12,750 :12,250) 99,500 ( : 51,740 : 47,760) 124,757 ( : 64,874 59,883) (52% women; 47% youth) 150, , , (55% women) 25,000 ( : 12,750 :12,250) 99,500 ( : 51,740 : 47,760) 124,757 ( : 64,874 59,883) (52% women; 47 % youth)) Project monitoring systems. IFDC saw prodcutiion increases for potato and rice of 200% and 400%. Income increased by doubled to quadrupled. Project monitoring systems. Users of improved seeds increaed their gros income with 250 Eur/year. Project monitoring systems got accees to farm inputs access to milling facilities, 5300 acess to loans Indicator 1c: Reached number of farmholders (male/female; age: % < 35) whose farming enterprise became more resilient to possible stresses and/or shocks (direct) 150, , , ,000 (% tbd) no results in startup year 13,168 (45%) 38,632 (72%) 53, (52% women) 79, , , Project monitoring systems. Feeder road improvement increased marketed volume by 30-40%. Crop when up by 30%. Project monitoring systems. 84% of farmer apply postharvest loss techniques., 237 dairy farmers trained and in waterharvesting, several constructed water dam/tanks crop farmers organised in farmer organisations; buy collectively inputs 9000 market their product collectively (resp 14% and 13% of farmers) members dairy cooperaties. Indicator 2: Additional food produced in mt cereal equivalents ,356 56,000 89, IFDC, WUR Indicator 3: Quantity of milk marketed by UCCCU-linked dairy cooperatives (mln liters) UCCU Indicator 4: Average yield of Irish potato (tons/ha) no results in startup year ,34 12, IFDC Indicator 5: Average yield of rice (tons/ha) no results in startup year 1.8 3,36 5, IFDC Indicator 6: Average yield of cassava (tons/ha) no results in startup year , IFDC Indicator 7: Average yield of sunflower (tons/ha) no results in startup year 1.3 1,57 1, IFDC Indicator 8: Total use of inorganic fertilizers (kg per ha) 7 50 no results in startup year 18 21, IFDC Indicator 9: Daily volume milk produced per cow (liters) no results in startup year UCCCU Indicator 10: Number of jobs for youth (15-35) created in the agricultural sector (of which % female) youth skilling, 200 dairy sector, 1100 start up business youth Indicator 11: Returns per labor day in rice/irish Potato (in UGX and EURO's) UGX / ,33 UGX / ,25-5,60 no results in startup year UGX 4,778 / 4,587 1,41-1,35 UGX 7,662 / 7,662 2,25 UGX / EUR 3,05/2,26 UGX / IFDC/JICA & CIP Indicator 12: Indicator 8: Per unit cost of production of paddy rice / Irish UGX 432 / 450 potato (in UGX/kg and /kg) 0,14 UGX 216 / 225 0,07 no results in startup year UGX 2,520/665 0,72/0,19 UGX 1,260/432 0,37/0,13 UGX 1.026/489 0,28/0.13 EUR 0,34/0,31 IFDC/JICA & CIP Indicator 13: Additional Income (in millions EUROs) 0 EUR 3,2 na Crops: 1 mln Dairy: 1,6 Crops: 16 mln Dairy: 6 mln Crops: 54,6 mln Dairy: 10,8 mln Crops: 57.3 mln Dairy:

5 Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 2 Assess achieved results compared to planning: A. Results achieved better than planned. Reasons for result achieved: Most of the indicators performed better than planned, therefore an overall score of A. The EKN Kampala food security program addresses the needs of Uganda's farmers - youth, women and men - and the emerging markets. It reflects a MASP that clearly identified key areas for interventions and proposed projects that were 'fit to purpose'. The mid-term reviews (MTR) for the projects under the Food security program conducted in 2015 found the projects to be coherent, relevant, effective, efficient and on track. The fact that all projects are implemented by private partners, being ngo of research institution, and not through government channels, provided more garantee for success was also the closing year of three important projects, implying that these projects were at their top of result achievements. Adverse weather conditons including extensive drought periodes, had a downward effect on some crop yields. At the same time farmgate prices were pushed up, compensating partly the lose of income due to lower yields. Linking producers to market offtakers, a key element of the Value chain approach and Aid and Trade policy is increasingly successful. Implications for planning: The basic Food Security Program is still relevant. In 2015 it was decided that the program would concentrate in the southern region of the country which is more suitable for intensification of farming systems and phasing in Dutch trade and investments. However working with the private companies requires sometimes deviation from this geograpical focus. Collaboration with Dutch companies is slowly increasing (potato sector, horticulture, dairy). The results of 2016 reflect the increased impact of climate changes on the program. Several projects explicitly adress this challenge, for instance the seed program in developing more drought resistance and early maturing varieties. However more needs to be done particularly in tackling the problem of increasing water shortage. It will be explored if attention to aspects as water conservation, smart irrigation can be incorporated within the existing and pipeline programs. For the dairy project, a study was conducted in 2016 to identify entrepoints in the value chain to improve climate resilience. 2 new projects were launched at the end of Result Area 3 Create ecologically sustainable food systems Result question 3a: To what extent have ecologically sustainable food systems been created? This is not a key result area of our FS portfolio. Therefore information on this result area is not collected/not available. However, projects indirectly contribute to this result area. For example: IFDC Catalist aims at reducing land degradation, reducing soil fertility decline, improving soil fertility, and water conservation practices. The PASIC project advocates for policies that enhance sustainable intensification of agriculture. ISSD (Seed project) promotes the production of quality local seed varieties that are ecologically adaptable to the local conditions. Indicator 1: Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture Indicator 2: Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium or long term conservation facilities n.a Indicator 3: Proportion of local breeds, classified as being at risk, not-atrisk or unknown level of risk of extinction Result question 3b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? Indicator 1: Total number of hectares of farmland (including pastures and fish ponds) reached (direct) Project monitoring systems Indicator 1a: Reached number of hectares farmland used more ecoefficiently (direct) Project monitoring systems Project monitoring systems Project monitoring systems

6 Indicator 1b: Reached number of hectares farmland that became part of improved NRM (direct) not applicable Indicator 1c: Reached number of hectares farmland with agroecosystems that became more resilient to possible stresses and/or shocks (direct) not applicable Project monitoring systems Project monitoring systems Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 3 Create ecologically sustainable food systems Assess achieved results compared to planning: B. Results achieved as planned. Reasons for result achieved: These indicators are not part of the results frame work of most projects. Data are more or less collected ad hoc. Likewise no planning exits on these indicators. Implications for planning: Data will be collected more structurally, without modifying the existing results frame works.

7 To what extent have general enabling conditions for food and nutrition security (incl. private sector development conditions) been strengthened? report here only the type of results that cannot fit under the three food and nutrtition objectives) The broader picture (please The Embassy supports successfully policies, programs and interventions (such as phyto-regulation and standards enforcement, cross border trade, skills development, infrastructure and access to finance) that stimulate an enabling environment in order to maximize the potential success of the selected value chains. At the same time, the transition from subsistence to commercial farming farming as a business is gaining momentum. Our Best Farmer Competition in partnership with Dutch KLM Airlines, DFCU/Rabobank and New Vision Media group has been very successful in inspiring and attracting the youth back into farming, in showcasing that farming is a profitable business and in promoting bilateral economic cooperation. Every year 13 selected winners fly to the Netherlands to be exposed and linked to the Dutch agro-sector, technology, agro-finance institutions, agro-logistics, and knowledge institutions. Through this competition, the Netherlands Embassy continues to increase its visibility and its position as a strategic partner in Uganda s agricultural transformation agenda. Number of farmers reached/trained with improved technology/skills direct Project monitoring systems Indirect Project monitoring systems Number of knowledge institutions strengthened Direct 29 Project monitoring systems Indirect not applicable Project monitoring systems. 23 Business Vocational Education and Training centres (skilling program); 6 research institutions Number of farmers organisations strengthened Direct 3562 Project monitoring systems. 23 Dairy Cooperatives, 29 Local (farmers) Seed Business, Farmers groups, 125 Saving & Loan groups Indirect not applicable Number of FNS related changes in national policy/laws contribute to 4 Agriculutral Strategic Sector Plan, National Seed Policy, National Fertilizer Policy, National Agricultural Extention Policy not apllicable Indicator 1: Volume of FDI (in mln USD) 894 (2011) (2012) HERITAGE Indicator 2: Average volume (in mln USD) of Dutch FDI and number of Dutch investments UIA + EKN Indicator 3: Value of Uganda's imports from the worlds and Uganda exports to the world (mln USD) Imports: 5630 Exports: 2159 Imports: 6000 Exports: 2920 Imports: 6044 Exports: 2357 Imports: 5818 Exports: 2408 Imports: 6073 Exports: 2261 Imports: 5528 Exports: 2267 Imports: 2609 Exports: 1111 ITC Trademap * Mirror data Indicator 4: Value of Uganda imports from the Netherlands and Uganda Imports: 99 exports to the NL (in mln USD) Exports: 97 Imports: 100 Exports: 100 Imports: 60 Exports: 95 Imports: 108 Exports: 104 Imports: 59 Exports: 89 Imports: 91 Exports: 78 Imports: 64 Exports: 84 CBS Statline Indicator 5: Value of Uganda's exports to the East African Community, DRC and Sudan (S+ N) in mln USD Exports: 1,015 Exports: 1,500 Exports: 1,245 Exports: 1,310 Exports: 1,209 Exports: 1,277 Exports: ITC Trademap *figures for 2016 are not known/public yet Indicator 6: General ranking on the Doing Business index and the 'Trading across border" G: 120 TaB: G: 120 TaB: 159 G: 132 TaB: 164 G: 150 TaB: 161 G: 122 TaB: 128 G: 116 TaB: 141 WB Indicator 7: Average value of FDI linked to programme interventions (mln euros) 0 14m 0 27m 20m 120m EKN Indicator 8: Number of companies with Dutch relations that are registered in Uganda EKN Indicator 9: Reduced time to cross the border - % completion of border not available posts Busia (Kenya), Mutukula (Tanzania) and Mirama Hills (Rwanda) 3 border posts modernized design and assessments land acquisition and tendering B 70%; M 40%; MH 60% B 100%; M 100%; MH 99% B 100%; M 100%; MH 100% TMEA

8 Indicator 10: The value of the agricultural loan portfolio (in UGX / euro's) through banking sector (and % of total) UGX 566 bn (9%) 181mln UGX 900 bn (12%) 288 mln UGX 699bn (11%) 206mln UGX 837bn (11%) 246mln not available UGX 876 bn.mln BoU/MoFED