KARAMOJA ACTION PLAN FOR FOOD SECURITY ( )

Transcription

1 KARAMOJA ACTION PLAN FOR FOOD SECURITY ( ) in Karamoja Agricultural and Production Zones (Karamoja Region) PROGRAMME DOCUMENT Office of the Prime Minister (May 2009)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronym/Abbreviations... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Situational Analysis Purpose of the Programme Overall Objective Specific Objectives; Scope Crop Production Zone (The wet agriculture) Sorghum - Livestock (Cattle) Zone Pastoral Zone Justification for Programme implementation Statistics on the magnitude of the problem Sustainability INTERVENTION PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS Planned Interventions Intervention (1): To increase crop production and productivity Intervention (2): To increase livestock production and Productivity Intervention(3): To increase the functionality of existing water facilities for production (dams and Valley tanks) Intervention (4): To restore and revitalize degraded areas for food production and management of natural resources Intervention (5): To reduce post harvest losses by providing Manyatta level storage (silos) facilities Intervention (6): To improve access to markets and value addition Intervention (7): To strengthen the capacity the various Actors/stakeholders for effective and efficient utilization of resources Intervention (8): To strengthen monitoring of weather and climate in the region Intervention (9): To promote utilization of weather and climate information in all planning processes (or in agricultural production) Intervention(10): To provide health and nutrition support to vulnerable members of community (children and mothers) Intervention Considerations General Analysis of the Internal and External Environment Swot Analysis of Karamoja Region MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN ii

3 3.1 Monitoring Plan Components Monitoring Framework Complete Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) System WORK PLAN Roles and responsibilities Phases of Implementation FINANCE PLAN Finance Plan for Intervention (1) Finance Plan for Intervention (2) Finance Plan for Intervention (3) Finance Plan for Intervention Finance Plan for Intervention Finance Plan for Intervention Finance Plan for Intervention (7) Finance Plan for Intervention (8) Finance Plan for Intervention (9) Finance Plan for Intervention (10) Total Programme Budget = Bn Finance Plan for the Programme Management Unit: Management Budget PROGRAMME STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION Programme Structure and Organization Chart of the Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS) Programme Management, Supervision, and Implementation Staffs of the Programme Management Unit Programme Coordinator Assistant Agronomist Monitoring & Evaluation Officer Accountant Assistant Accountant COLLABORATIONS Partners Analysis and Current Ongoing Interventions RECOMMENDATIONS iii

4 Acronym/Abbreviations ARDC BH CSO GDP KIDDP KRDP MAAIF MTTI NAADS NFA NGO NUSAF OPM PRDP UBOS WFP Agricultural Research Development Centre Borehole Civil Society Organization Gross Domestic Product Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme Karamoja Rehabilitation Development Plan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Ministry of Trade Tourism and Industry National Agricultural Advisory Services National Forest Authority Non Governmental Organization Northern Uganda Social Action Fund Office of the Prime Minister Peace Recovery and Development Programme Uganda Bureau of Statistics World Food Programme iv

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The principle objective of the Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS), to cost about UGX 90 Bn, is to ensure sustainable food security and increased household income in Karamoja region. The Programme is a tool for implementation of the livelihood component of the KIDDP and is also in consonant with the objectives of the PRDP. This should be achieved through increased crop production and productivity, improved livestock production and productivity, increased functionality of existing water for production facilities (dams and valley tanks), improved post harvest handling and storage facilities and improved access to markets. The plan should also support value addition, restoration and revitalization of the degraded environment and strengthening of capacities of the community and stakeholders. The Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS) was initiated to address the chronic food security problems in Karamoja, and to improve on the livelihoods of the community. The government through this plan should support multifaceted sustainable food production activities over a period of five years to enable the Karimojong feed themselves with surplus to markets of neighbouring districts. The plan should make food production community based using appropriate skills, knowledge, production technologies, and infrastructure. It should raise Karimojong household food production and income from recurrent food-shortage scenarios to sustainable self sufficiency and surplus levels. Karamoja Region is characterized by generally low rainfall distribution, reliability and soil fertility. This influences the types of activities and undermines livelihoods in the sub- region. Unlike the rest of the country, with two rainy seasons and two planting seasons, Karamoja has only one rainy season and one planting season. Cyclical droughts and erratic rainfall have affected crop production and pasture for livestock, thereby having a direct negative effect on the livelihoods of the population. The sub-region suffers severe environmental degradation, poverty, poor infrastructure and high prevalence of diseases. With the impending climate change, the variability of rainfall both in amounts and distribution is expected to increase. This calls for more judicious use of weather and climate information. As a result of the on-going disarmament exercise, there is relative peace and security in the subregion. The restoration of peace and security has triggered population movement from the dry pastoral belt of the Northeast & Southeast to the wet green belt of the Northwest and Southwestern in an attempt to re-engage in settled farming. There are three key livelihood zones in Karamoja: (i) the Wet-Agricultural Zone, (ii) the Agro- Pastoral Zone and (iii) the Arid-Pastoral Zone. The livelihood zones are based on climatic conditions. KAPFS identified potentials of each zone in addressing the chronic water and food shortages, eroded livelihood coping capacity and environmental degradation. To improve food security /livelihoods in Karamoja, capacities of local communities should be build through provision of appropriate technologies such as light tractors, improved seeds, de-silting and expansion of existing dams and valley tanks, promotion of windmill and solar driven irrigation systems, promotion of biogas (cow dung) energy use for cooking and lighting, improvement of post-harvest handling and storage of farm products, introduction of hay making and improvement of animal husbandry. The Plan should also support intensive community mobilization to enable the adoption of the v

6 improved technologies, it should support training of indigenous human capacity to provide extension services, development and support at least six model farmers in every parish, it should support 6-9 month scholarships to school leavers to attain agricultural technical knowledge and it should support provision of incentives (hardship allowances) to experts willing to serve in Karamoja. The district local governments and Civil Society Organizations should implement the programme with technical and financial support from central government and development partners. The plan is designed for a five year period 2009/ /14. The preparatory period is on-going running from 1 st March to 30 th June 2009 and first year begins 1st July 2009 and ends 30 th June The Programme should be supported by a Programme Management Unit established in Moroto Town, the regional town of Karamoja. This unit for the start should be responsible for predominantly technical support such as identification, selection and supervision of implementing partners, Programme funds disbursements, capacity building activities, monitoring progress, etc. Core finance and administration functions should remain at the OPM for 18-24months of Programme implementation before shifting to Moroto in order to take care of complex functions such as consultations with stakeholders of policies, funds mobilization, programme review in its early stage, procurement and the general slow bureaucratic procedures common in the public sector. Additionally, this is a huge, expensive and complex Programme that require a bit of time for top administration to experience how it will work before transferring responsibility for ease of follow up. The programmes should be implemented by the Local Governments and Civil Society Organisations with technical direction and supervision of the relevant line Ministries and overall coordination of the Department of Disaster Preparedness and Management Office of the Prime Minister. The programmes should be under the political oversight of the Minister of State for Karamoja Affairs. There should be various levels of collaboration and support from various development partners especially in resource mobilization and monitoring. Government should play the lead role in planning, mobilizing resources, coordination and monitoring all the programme activities. The OPM should be the overall coordinator of the programme. The Local leaders should be expected to mobilize community support. This document presents Karamoja production zones, situational analysis, purpose of Programme, overall and specific objectives, justifications for implementation, sustainability, 10 intervention plans, monitoring and evaluation plan, work plan, finance plan, Programme structure, management and supervision, collaborations, other resources available and conclusion. vi

7 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS) (KAPFS) is a tool for implementation of the livelihood component of the KIDDP. It is also in consonant with the objectives of the PRDP focusing on the rural sector which hosts eighty nine percent (89%) of the population of Uganda and which accounts for 21% (UBOS, 2008) of the GDP. About 92% of the poor live in the rural areas where rain fed agriculture is the main stay. This Programme is an outcome of consultations at both local and national levels, and intensive situational analysis of the food and livelihood zones of Karamoja. The Govermnent, through the Office of the Prime Minister and various stakeholders to whom it is grateful carried out extensive consultations on the way forward in the above respect. An Action Plan on which this Programme document is based was developed for implementation of the Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme (KIDDP). Since 1964 the Karimojong have relied on relief food handouts, year in year out. The state of affairs is expensive, unsustainable, dehumanizing and unacceptable to the people of Karamoja. Initialization of this Programme is expected to address the chronic food security problems of Karamoja and to improve on the livelihoods of the community The Plan should introduce multifaceted sustainable food production activities that shall over a period of five years enable the Karimojong feed themselves with surplus to markets of neighbouring districts to earn disposable incomes, savings and investments. The plan should make food production community based and use appropriate production technologies through provision of the necessary inputs and infrastructure. Government, local and international agencies who participated in the consultation include: the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries, Ministry of Water and Environment, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Uganda Red Cross Society (URCS), Ministry of Education and Sports. Others include: The Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA), USAID / FEWSNET, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Local Governments of Nakapiripirit, Moroto, Kotido, Abim and Kaabong and individuals who carried out field assessments and made contributions at the various levels of discussions and development of the Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS). 7

8 1.1 Background Karamoja Region is located in the northeast of Uganda and lies between longitudes East and latitude 1-4 North. It comprises 5 s: Nakapiripiriti, Moroto, Kotido, Kaabongo and Abim s. The region is bordered by Kenya to the east and Sudan to the north; the internal neighboring districts are Katakwi, Kapchorwa, Kumi, Kitgum, Lira, Pader and Sironko. The sub-subregion covers 27,511sq.km, with a population of 1,017,400 (UBOS 2008 Population Programme). The Karamoja sub-region suffers the highest poverty levels above the national average in the country, with 80% of the total population living below the poverty line (UNDP, Human Development Report Uganda, 2007). The sub-region is semi-arid with the majority of the population leading a pastoral or agro-pastoral lifestyle. 1.2 Situational Analysis Karamoja is chronically food-insecure. It is characterized by generally low rainfall distribution, reliability and soil fertility. This influences the types of activities and determines the livelihoods in the sub- region. The Sub-region has been affected by consecutive years of crop failure and low livestock productivity due to below normal weather conditions. Unlike the rest of the country, with two rainy seasons and two planting seasons, Karamoja has only one rainy season and one planting season. From 2001, the weather patterns (climate variability/changes) have been extreme and intense in the sub region resulting in extended dry spells every second year (2002, 2004, and 2006). It is predicted that climate variability should continue to increase due to climate change (Meteorology Dep t 2009). Unfortunately, for historical reasons, the Karamoja sub-region has the poorest weather and climate observing network. Cyclical droughts and erratic rainfall have affected crop production and pasture for livestock in the sub region, thereby having a direct negative effect on the livelihoods of the population. The extended dry spells exert pressure on water availability in most parts of the sub-region, with average distance to water for livestock at four (4) kilometers. Since 2007, the sub-region s livestock which is an integral element of food security has been decimated by diseases such as peste de petits ruminants (PPR) (goat plague), and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), while staple crops such as sorghum have been hard hit by crop fungus. The sub-region suffers severe environmental degradation, poor infrastructure and high prevalence of diseases such as malaria and diarrhea among children, poor health practices, and poor sanitation conditions. Coupled with high poverty levels, the situation has eroded people s coping capacity, leaving them a precarious vulnerability state. As a result of the on-going disarmament exercise, there is relative stability in the sub-region. This has triggered population movement from the dry pastoral belt of the Northeast & Southeast to the wet green belt of the Northwest and Southwestern in an attempt to re-engage in settled farming. Even the economic refugees returned from the streets of major towns and Kampala City; after a short stay at Kobulin reception centre Moroto, have found their way to the wet belt areas of Nabwal, Lomaratoit, Nakayot and Apeitolim in Moroto and Lokaales, Karinga, Namorotot, Kawach, and Okudud in Nakapiripirit. 8

9 Others places receiving economic returnees include, Lolelia in Kaabong, Loteteleit in Kotido, Obulin, Bar-lecch and Katmangor in Abim. This Plan should develop the Karamoja green belt into the food basket for the entire Karimojong population. 1.3 Purpose of the Programme To raise Karimojong household food production and income from recurrent food-shortage scenarios to sustainable self sufficiency and surplus levels through: i. Improved monitoring and utilization of weather and climate information. ii. Increased numbers of water sources for production and their functionality - community participatory de-silting of existing dams and valley tanks. iii. Improved household level water storage facilities for human consumption. iv. Improved food production techniques using simple technologies such as windmill or solardriven irrigation systems, use of light tractors, improved seeds and fertilizers. v. Improved post harvest grain handling provision of manyatta-level grain silos. vi. Improved energy sources such as bio-gas (cow dung) cooking stoves, vii. Promotion of market oriented production such as production of Eggs, Gum Arabic, Ostrich Ranching, and Aloe Vera. viii. Promotion of retail businesses such as retail shop-merchandise sales, carpenter, masonry, plumbing, mechanics, dressmaking, hair salooning, mobile phone vending. ix. Promotion of crop value addition (in cooperative arrangements) e.g. peanuts into peanut butter and cassava into floor or chips in manyattas. x. Supporting Solar Electrification of schools and some manyattas. 1.4 Overall Objective To ensure sustainable food security and increased household income in Karamoja through increased crop production and productivity, improved livestock production and productivity, increased functionality of existing water for production facilities (dams and valley tanks), improved post harvest handling and storage facilities and improved access to markets Specific Objectives i. To increase crop production and productivity ii. To increase livestock production and productivity iii. To increase the functionality of existing facilities for water production (dams and Valley tanks iv. To provide storage (silos) facilities for community agricultural produce v. To improve access to markets and value addition. vi. To restore and revitalize degraded environment for food production and management of natural resources. vii. To strengthen the capacity the various Actors/stakeholders for effective and efficient utilization of resources. viii. To strengthen monitoring of weather and climate in the region ix. To promote utilization of weather and climate information in all planning and agricultural production). x. To provide health and nutrition support to vulnerable members of community (children and mothers) 9

10 1.5 Scope The Programme should be implemented in the livelihood zones of Karamoja region. There are three key livelihood zones in Karamoja: the Wet-Agricultural Zone, the Agro-Pastoral Zone and the Arid- Pastoral Zone Crop Production Zone (The wet agriculture) It is best for crop production. It runs along the western flank of Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Moroto and Nakapiripirit s. It receives the highest rainfall in the sub-region (800 to 1200 mm p.a.) and has the most fertile soils that can support a wide variety of crop agriculture, however, the majority of the people in the zone still live sedentary livelihood. Karamoja rangelands suitable for commercial agriculture Sorghum - Livestock (Cattle) Zone This Agro-pastoral zone is good for mixed farming. Crop agriculture performs fairly but less in comparison to the western green belt. This zone comprises most of central Kaabong, most of Kotido, central Moroto and central Nakapiripirit and receives an average 500 to 800 mm of rainfall annually (poorly distributed) with relatively high surface temperatures Pastoral Zone The dry pastoral zone is suitable for rearing of livestock; crop agriculture does not perform well in this zone. This zone is found along eastern Karamoja on the border with Kenya, it comprises most of eastern Kaabong, most of Kotido, eastern Moroto and eastern Nakapiripirit and receives relatively low rainfall not exceeding 700 mm annually (poorly distributed) with very high surface temperatures. Most of the areas in this zone tend to suffer erratic rainfall or extended dry conditions, disease and pests, low infrastructure, cattle thefts, bush fires, periodic low water and pasture availability. 1.6 Justification for Programme implementation The major problems in the Karamoja sub-region are chronic water, food shortages, reliance on limited lifeline (basically livestock resources), lack of agricultural skills and culture, inadequate utilization of weather and climate information for agricultural production, and so on. This has led to endemic poverty, diseases and under development in general in all areas. These have encouraged 10

11 movement of persons in search of pasture, water and food. The main causes of endless food shortages are frequent and prolonged droughts, seasonal floods, pests and diseases, shortage of appropriate and improved planting materials, weak advisory/ extension services, and un-coordinated implementation of programmes by different actors in the sub-region. Despite government and partner-protracted interventions, the following problems still persist in Karamoja sub-region: Chronic food insecurity, poor infrastructure, high prevalence of diseases, high poverty levels, and people eroded coping capacity, severe environmental degradation and insecurity. Karamoja region has some of the worst indicators for health, nutrition, education, food security, civil security, and poverty. About 785,804 people (or nearly 80 percent of the region s total population) are food insecure Statistics on the magnitude of the problem Indicator National average Karamoja sub-region (a) Population living below poverty 31% 82% (b) Maternal Mortality Rate (per 100,000 live births)-udhs (c ) Infant Mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)-unicef/who (d) Under 5 Mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) UNICEF/WHO (e) Global Acute Malnutrition(GAM) UNICEF/WFP % 9.5% (f) Access to sanitation facilities (UNICEF 2008) 62% 9% (g) Access to safe water (UNICEF 2008) 63% 30% (h) Literacy rate (UDHS 2006) 67% 11% To reverse this unfortunate and unacceptable situation, there is urgent need for government and development partners to prioritize supporting increase of Karimojong household food production and incomes from recurrent famine scenarios to a sustainable self sufficiency and surplus level. This Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS) component of KIDDP is intended to address the above problems over a period of five years. 1.7 Sustainability The Programme should start as a medium term as planned but made a long term government development programme for the region. Once successfully implemented at the end of the five years, every effort should be made by the central government and all stakeholders to sustain it. The households will be self sustaining in food security at some point in 5-10 years, but public installed facilities such as water pumps, power system, dams, etc should be maintained or replaced using the national development budgets, district revenue or support from a development partner. Additional strategies to sustain the Programme should be made a regional policy until the region is at par in terms of development with the rest of the country. Such strategies should include awarding 6-9 month scholarships to school leavers to acquire agricultural technical skills & qualifications, provision of incentives to experts willing to serve in the region and any other incentives from the point of view of beneficiaries (if affordable) and a providing stakeholder. 11

12 Concerned districts of the region are expected to develop their own policies regarding sustainability based on availability of local resources and competing priority sectors such as education, health, infrastructure etc. The attentions of international development partners have been drawn to this Programme; USAID, UNDP and FAO have been on the forefront of this lot in this Programme. As government, the institutional set up put in place for this Programme together with core development partners mentioned above is here to stay to support a long term programme as long as tangible expected outcomes are being realized as planned. 12

13 2.0 INTERVENTION PLANS AND CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 Planned Interventions Intervention (1): To increase crop production and productivity Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. mobilize the community for increase production and food security ii. Provide agricultural and farm inputs.( light tractors, ox-ploughs, improved seeds and fertilizers); iii. Installation and maintenance of windmill / solar driven irrigation systems getting water from the major dams; iv. Establish five seed multiplication centers in each district; v. Develop Pilot Agric production & settlement schemes (One per district) at the irrigation point; vi. Plan the use of de-gazatted wildlife reserve for agric production & settlement vii. Promote the development of other relevant cash crops suitable for Karamoja (Gum Arabic, Aloe Vera etc); viii. Strengthen one existing Agricultural Research Development Center (ARDC) in the region; ix. Develop small scale irrigation schemes around manyattas using windmill/solar driven boreholes; x. Conduct exposure tours for the farmers; and xi. Strengthen communal farming groups Intervention (2): To increase livestock production and Productivity Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Introduce improved and quality livestock breeds and establish livestock multiplication centers ii. Conduct disease, pests/parasites prevention and control iii. Facilitate community animal health workers iv. Production of fodder (hay and foliage) v. Promote ostrich and camel farming vi. Develop appropriate Pastoralist Policy A typical local heard in Karamoja Intervention(3): To increase the functionality of existing water facilities for production (dams and Valley tanks) Specific activities should include but not limited to: 13

14 i. Assessing the status of Existing dams and valley tanks in the 5 districts ii. Mobilization of community participation in the programme iii. De-silting of valley dams and tanks using equipment and community labor iv. Formation of Community Production Water Source committees v. Construct strategic water reservoirs along streams vi. Provide household water storage facilities vii. Construct Water storage facilities for community (Manyatta) viii. Promote water harvesting techniques (dams, wind, river, gravity, springs, wind mills) Existing water resources in Karamoja Intervention (4): To restore and revitalize degraded areas for food production and management of natural resources Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Mobilize communities on soil and water conservation measures ii. Promote organic farming iii. Promote appropriate energy saving technology (Bio-gas) iv. construct water catchments reservoirs along the rivers for environment restoration conservation v. Promote tree growing vi. Improve water catchments management and conservation vii. Promote agro-forestry to enhance soil and water conservation viii. Encourage eco-tourism Intervention (5): To reduce post harvest losses by providing Manyatta level storage (silos) facilities Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Support procurement and delivery of 150,000 poly-ethylene household level silos (30lts capacity) ii. Support procurement of 6,000 poly ethylene silos two for each Manyatta (30,000 liter capacity) iii. Build community capacity and mechanisms to use the silos iv. Promote improved post-harvest handling technologies v. Construction of large silos at district level. 14

15 2.1.6 Intervention (6): To improve access to markets and value addition Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Support construction of standard food and livestock markets ii. Improve market, communication and transport infrastructure iii. Promotion of agro-processing technologies iv. Link farmers to the market through price, product, place, promotion v. Improve market information availability and accessibility vi. Provide skills on agro-processing vii. Market the natural and cultural heritage of Karamoja viii. Support to establishment of farmers cooperative societies The treacherous road network in Karamoja Intervention (7): To strengthen the capacity the various Actors/stakeholders for effective and efficient utilization of resources Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Strengthen the capacity of Karamoja Affairs Dept ii. Strengthen the capacity of other actors/stakeholder (Local Government, CSOs, and Private sector) iii. Establish coordination/monitoring mechanisms iv. Strengthen and Community disaster preparedness Committees Intervention (8): To strengthen monitoring of weather and climate in the region v. Specific activities should include but not limited to: vi. Install a standard meteorological station at each district head quarters vii. Install at least one rainfall station per sub-county viii. Train local government on manning the stations Intervention (9): To promote utilization of weather and climate information in all planning processes (or in agricultural production) Specific activities should include but not limited to: 15

16 i. enable the department of meteorology to produce weather and climate information specifically for the Karamoja region ii. Develop and promote a dissemination mechanism for the weather and climate information to the region iii. Train and sensitize local government and communities on proper utilization of weather and climate information iv. Carry out regular monitoring to assess impact of utilization of the weather and climate information Intervention (10): To provide health and nutrition support to vulnerable members of community (children and mothers) Specific activities should include but not limited to: i. Provision of emergency food relief to targeted population (970,000), till October 2009; ii. Support 234,000 children under 2, pregnant and lactating women that includes food, deworming tablets, nutrition education, awareness and sensitization on hygiene and sanitation and capacity strengthening of the communities and institutions active in the area (e.g., VHT) iii. Promotion of Community Based Supplementary Feeding Centres in Moroto, Nakapiripirit and Kaabong districts iv. Provide School incentives to attain improved education outcomes as well as a safety net to respond to chronic hunger among school going children (80,000 school children in 2009). Additionally, a number of complementary activities will be implemented (School gardens, woodlots etc). 2.2 Intervention Considerations General Analysis of the Internal and External Environment An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Karamoja region was done and key weaknesses and strengths were identified, which have been taken into consideration when drawing this Programme Document. Likewise, an assessment of the external threats and opportunities was also done and they are all summarized in the table below. These analyses have assisted the planners to assess the risk of the intervention and come out with appropriate strategies and action plan. Table below provides a SWOT analysis of the Karamoja region. The planned interventions should take into consideration the following challenges as seen in the table, which are peculiar with Karamoja: insecurity, poor and underdeveloped social and economic infrastructures, harsh weather conditions, negative attitudes of the targeted community towards change and social and economic transformation, inadequate capacity at local government levels and difficulty in mobilizing the required resources. 16

17 A typical homestead in Karamoja Therefore, to improve food security /livelihoods in Karamoja the following strategies should be adopted: i. Building capacities of local authorities, communities and other stakeholders to undertake sustainable food security interventions. ii. Developing affirmative policy frame work for food security iii. Improvement of indigenous human capacity (awarding scholarship for technical training) iv. Extending incentive mechanism (hardship allowance) to experts posted to Karamoja v. Community mobilization to enable the adoption of improved technologies vi. De-silting of the existing 24 dams and 10 valley tanks. vii. Provision of 150,000 household level human water storage facilities (20 ltr top-open buckets (poly-ethylene fibre brand) also used as garden-home carriers and grain silos) viii. Provision of 6,000 wide low-watering-trumps of 10,000 ltr of poly-ethylene fibre brand. These should be connected to windmill/solar powered borehole nearest to the manyatta intended for watering poultry, baby livestock and serve as human bathing water points ix. Installation 3 windmill / solar driven irrigation systems getting water from the three large dams namely, Kawomeri (Abim), Kailong (Kotido) and Kapus (Moroto/Nakapiripirit). x. Constructing one large dam in each sub county (to be implemented by the Directorate of water development) xi. Constructing small dams in each parish ( to be implemented by the district) xii. Procurement and delivery of 100. light tractors for opening land xiii. Provision of 1,800.tons of assorted improved seeds (Maize, Sorghum, Beans, Simsim) annually for five years xiv.provision of 7,500 tons of fertilizers annually for five years xv. Provision 5,000 manyatta-level grain silos (30,000 ltr, poly-ethylene fibre food brand) xvi.installation of 50,000 bio-gas (cow dung) cooking stoves at household levels in the manyattas xvii.support 5,000 market oriented farmers to produce venture into Gum Arabic, Ostrich Ranching, and Aloe Vera farming xviii.promotion 2,000 retail business oriented persons to enhance retail shop-merchandise sales and other trades such as carpentry, masonry, plumbing, mechanics, dressmaking, hair 17

18 P o li t i c a l E c o n o m salooning, mobile phone vending xix.promotion of crop value addition (in cooperative arrangements) e.g. peanuts into peanut butter and cassava into floor or chips in manyattas xx. Supporting pilot Solar Electrification of 10 secondary schools, 50 primary schools and 500 major Manyattas xxi.installation of at least standard meteorological station at each district head quarters and one rainfall station per sub-county xxii.supporting pilot Solar Electrification of 10 secondary schools, 50 primary schools and 500 major Manyattas xxiii.establish robust disaster prevention, Early Warning System (including contingency planning at various levels). Specific activities should include construction of sand dams, rehabilitation of valley dams, installing automatic weather stations and conduct feasibility studies on the institutionalization of strategic grain reserves xxiv.immunization of livestock xxv.supporting farmers to produce Nerica rice in 1000 acr. of land within the agricultural zone of Karamoja xxvi.supporting households in vegetable growing (food diversification) xxvii.livelihood diversification through training in jewellery making (500 participants) xxviii.provision of irrigation kits to 1000 farmers xxix.provision of emergency food relief to targeted population (970,000), till October 2009; xxx.support 234,000 children under 2, pregnant and lactating women that includes food, deworming tablets, nutrition education, awareness and sensitization on hygiene and sanitation and capacity strengthening of the communities and institutions active in the area (e.g., VHT) xxxi.promotion of Community Based Supplementary Feeding Centres in Moroto, Nakapiripirit and Kaabong districts. xxxii.school incentives to attain improved education outcomes as well as a safety net to respond to chronic hunger among school going children (80,000 school children in 2009). Additionally, a number of complementary activities should be implemented (School gardens, woodlots etc). xxxiii.construction of market collection points (warehouses) equipped with cleaning and drying plants in the green belt of Karamoja xxxiv.construction of market access roads SWOT Analysis of Karamoja Region Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats - Strong Local government -Existence of Private -Insecurity structure interventions (a host of NGOs) -Availability of local partners -Livestock keeping culture -Agrarian culture - Lack of team work among CSOs -Poor coordination amongst partners -Poor infrastructure (electricity, roads etc) 18 -Ongoing Disarmament program -Availability of fertile land -Heavy torrential rains -Unlimited wind and sunshine -Existence of zonal agricultural research and development institute (Nabwin) -Local political differences -Global Financial crisis -Donor conditionality

19 i c S o c i a l T e c h -Communal life styles (manyata) -Low participation of local community -Nomadic life styles -Rigid cultural practices -Existence of Government Public interventions programmes like, (NAADS, NUSAF, PRDP, KRDP) -Tribal raids from neighboring community -Telecommunication network -Absence of Electricity -Sunshine for solar use -Negative Attitude towards change -Tribal stereotypes 19

20 3.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 3.1 Monitoring Plan Components i. Indicators: e.g. no of dams, boreholes, Acreage, quantity and quality of inputs & outputs, level of income, etc ii. Timelines for monitoring: To vary with intervention and activities within. iii. Resources for monitoring: Financial costs should be inclusive of overall Programme budget with a separate line since M&E is an intervention of its own. The monitoring budget should be separated from the evaluation (implemented by an independent consultant) and human resources: Programme, consultants, Local Government officers, beneficiaries, grantees, donor agencies, CSOs and other stakeholders etc. iv. Use of M&E system Outputs to stakeholders: e.g. (i)to improve quantity and quality of inputs, outputs, outcomes, results, M&E systems, etc (ii) To provide information for studies, research, planning at local and national levels, etc v. Dissemination of Programme information To make a complete Monitoring & Evaluation system, tools and procedures to be used should be put in place. Tools should include: PRA, sample surveys, ICTs, databases, and other office equipment etc. A procedure is a path to take to get a task accomplished. 3.2 Monitoring Framework The monitoring framework should be developed from the sample log frames below: Tables each to be separated into two (2) different levels viz a-viz activity output and output impact. 3.3 Complete Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) System The log frames are not complete and may contain some errors, thorough work should proceed from these drafts in consultation with stakeholders and incorporated into a complete M&E system that should be able to manage qualitative and quantitative data and information, to establish negative outcomes of the Programme of existing policies in agricultural, land or other natural resources sectors, customs of the Karimojong people, their characteristics e.g. presence of poverty, laziness, ill health, etc and all other issues that will be raised by stakeholders on the monitoring team for appropriate action(s) to be taken to improve on impact in terms of quality and quantity using both participation monitoring & evaluation and surveys methods at their highest levels appropriately. 20

21 Objective 1 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To increase crop production and productivity -Increase in acreage of land under production -Increase output of crops -Increase in household incomes -Monitoring Reports - Agric Dept Assessment Reports - Disaster Dept/MAAIF Food Security Assessment Reports -Community adopt to new technologies -Community participate in all activities -Local leaders support is granted 1.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Quality and quantity of food at household level increased and sustained. -No of households with sufficient food in a year -No of households depending on food relief DLG Reports NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports - UBOS Household surveys -Good weather -Proper storage of food Activities Time Frame Expected Output Means of Verification 1.1 mobilize the community for increase production and food security 1.2 Provide agricultural and farm inputs.( light tractors, oxploughs, improved seeds and fertilizers) 1.3 Installation and maintenance of windmill / solar driven irrigation systems getting water from the major dams 1.4 Establish five seed multiplication centers in each district. 1.5 Develop Pilot Agric production & settlement schemes (One per district) at the irrigation point 1.6 Plan the use of de-gazatted wildlife reserve for agric production & settlement 1.7 Promote the development of other relevant cash crops suitable for Karamoja (Gum Arabic, Aloe Vera etc) 1.8 Strengthen one existing Agricultural Research Development Center (ARDC) in the region 1.9 Develop small scale irrigation schemes around manyattas using windmill / solar driven boreholes 1.10 Conduct exposure tours for the farmers 1.11 Strengthen communal farming groups Increased awareness & attitude change -No of households supplied with inputs -No of hectares irrigated -No of seed multiplication centers established -Production centers established in all districts -No of households resettled -No of new cash crops introduced -One research center established for the region -Acreage of farm land under irrigation -No of farmers taken for tours -No of communal farming groups strengthened -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports MAAIF Report, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Report, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, 21

22 Objective 2 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To increase livestock production and productivity -Rise in households incomes -Household surveys -Farmers adopt new technologies -Farmers wiling to change -Availability of markets 2.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions -High quality livestock and livestock product -Increased in milk production -Reduction in animals deaths DLG Reports NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports MAAIF Report -Availability of Extension -External raids controlled Activities Time Frame Expected Output Means of Verification No of Multiplication -MAAIF Report, 2.1 Introduce improved and quality livestock breeds and establish livestock multiplication centers. center established Monitoring Reports 2.2 Conduct disease, pests/parasites prevention and control 2.3 Facilitate community animal health workers 2.4 Production of fodder (hay and foliage) 2.5 Promote ostrich and camel farming Develop appropriate Pastoralist Policy No of animals vaccinated/treated -No of workers being facilitated and working -No of households producing fodder -No of Ostriches/Camels being reared -Pastoral Policy approved -MAAIF Report, Monitoring Report -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -MAAIF Report, Monitoring Reports -MAAIF Report, Monitoring Reports 22

23 Objective 3 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To increase the functionality of existing water for production facilities (dams and Valley tanks -Availability of water in dams and valley tanks through out the year -Dept of Water Report -Availability of dams and valley tanks in repairable conditions -Availability of rain 3.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions -All existing 24 dams and 10 valley -Availability of water through tanks in Karamoja functional out the season farmers DLG Reports NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports MWE monitoring reports -Dams/tanks don t silt again -Farmers maintain the dam/tanks Activities Time Frame Expected Outputs Means of Verification 3.1 Assessing the status of the Existing 24 dams and 10 valley tanks in the 5 districts Assess Report -Activity Reports 3.2 Mobilization of community participation in the programme -Increased Awareness of the programme -No of dams/tanks de-silted -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports 3.3 De-silting of the 24 valley dams and 10 tanks using equipment and community labor 3.4 Formation of Community Production Water Source committees 3.5 Construct strategic water reservoirs along streams 3.6 Provide household water storage facilities 3.7 Construct Water storage facilities for community (Manyata) 3.8 Promote water harvesting techniques (dams, wind, river, gravity, springs, wind mills) -No of committee formed -No of water reservoirs constructed -No of Households supplied with water storage facilities -No of community water storage constructed -No of households using water harvesting techniques -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -MAAIF Reports, Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports -Dept of Water Reports, Monitoring Reports -Dept of Water Report, Monitoring Reports 23

24 Objective 4 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To restore and revitalize degraded environment and natural resources. -Serene environment -Availability of productive land -Reduction in erosions and floods -Environment Report -Monitoring Report -Activity Report 4.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Degraded environment and natural resources restored -Increase in land for production -Increase in vegetation coverage -NEMA Annual Report -NFA Annual Report Monitoring Reports -Activity Reports -Community respond positively to the environmental campaigns -Local leaders mobilize community to participate in programmes -Community adopt to new production technology -Community adopt new farming practices -Community respond to tree planting mobilization Activities Time Frame Expected Output Means of Verification 4.1 Mobilize communities on soil and water conservation measures 4.2 Promote organic farming. 4.3 Promote appropriate energy saving technology (Bio-gas) 4.4 construct water catchments reservoirs along the rivers for environment restoration conservation 4.5 Promote tree growing 4.6 Improve water catchments management and conservation 4.7 Promote agro-forestry to enhance soil and water conservation 4.8 Encourage eco-tourism No of H/H practicing water conservation No of H/H practicing Organic farming No of H/H using technologies No of water catchments constructed No of acreage with tree cover No of conservation measures introduced No of H/H practicing agro forestry Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports Monitoring Reports No of tourist sites created Monitoring Reports 24

25 Objective 5 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To improve post-harvest grain 150,000 household silos (30lts) DLG Reports -Availability of land storage (silos) facilities procured distributed 3,000 Manyatta community silos procured and delivered 10 Silos constructed NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports 5.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Food storage facilities available to each household Food security 5.2 Support procurement of 6,000 Manyatta community silos (30,000ltr capacity) DLG Reports NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports MAAIF Reports -Farmers bring food for storage -Farmers organize themselves to use the stores Activities Time Frame Expected Output Means of Verification 5.1 Support procurement of 150,000 poly-ethylene food-brand 30 liter capacity household Silos 150,000 household Silos procured and distributed -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports 6,000 Manyatta community silos of 30,000ltr capacity procured and delivered to manyatta leaders -Activity Reports, Monitoring Reports 5.3 Build community capacity and mechanisms to use the silos -No Communities use the silos -MAAIF Report, Monitoring Reports 25

26 Objective 6 Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions To improve access to markets and value addition. -Availability of markets for produce -Availability of Processing Plants/facilities DLG Reports NUDC Reports DM-TWG Assessment reports -Community access market information -Community adapt new technologies introduced 6.1 Output Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Household income increased. -Improvement in purchasing power of community -Increase in consumption of manufactured goods -Household surveys -UBOS -Activity Reports -Households use the information appropriately -Community respond to modern lifestyles Activities Time Frame Expected Output Means of Verification 6.1 Support construction of standard food and livestock markets 6.2 Improve market, communication and transport infrastructure. 6.3 Promotion of agro-processing and post harvest handling technologies 6.4 Link farmers to the market through price, product, place, promotion 6.5 Construction of market collection points (warehouses) equipped with cleaning and drying plants in the green belt of Karamoja Increase in household incomes -Reduction in post harvest losses -Wider markets created for farmers 6.6 Purchase of marketable surplus produce from farming communities in the green belt of Karamoja 6.7 Construction of market access roads No farmers accessing market information -No of people trained in agro-processing -Household surveys, Monitoring Reports -Household surveys, Monitoring Reports -MTTI Report, Monitoring Reports -Household surveys, Monitoring Reports -Training Report 6.8 Improve market information availability and accessibility -No of markets structures established per sub county - KM of roads constructed to -Activity Report 26