AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND ADF/BD/IF/2012/160 8 October 2012 Prepared by: EARC Original: English

Probable Date of Board Presentation Not Applicable

FOR INFORMATION

MEMORANDUM TO : THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM : Cecilia AKINTOMIDE Secretary General SUBJECT: UGANDA - NATIONAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (NLPIP) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT *

Please find attached the above-mentioned Report. Attach: Cc: The President

* Questions on this document should be referred to:

Mr. G.NEGATU Director EARC Extension 8232 Mr. E. MPYISI Task Manager EARC Extension 8273

SCCD: J.D.M.

1

A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number: P-UG-AA0-019, Loan No. 2100150007005, Grant No. 210015001880

Project Name: National Livestock Productivity Improvement Project (NLPIP)

Country (ies): Uganda

Lending Instrument(s): ADF Loan and Grant Sector : Agriculture Environmental Classification: Category II

Original Commitment Amount: UA 23.74 million ADF(loan), UA 2.796 million (grant)

Amount Cancelled: Amount Disbursed: UA 22,206,094(loan), 2,794,869 (grant)

Percent Disbursed: 93.54% (loan), 99.96% (grant)

Borrower: Government of the Republic of Uganda

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and civil society organizations responsible for implementing project activities.]: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries; National Project Coordination Unit monitors project implementation at national level; District Project Coordinator implements project activities at District, county and sub-county levels. Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, National Forestry Authority, National Animal Genetic Resources Centre

Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical assistance or other resources used in this project]: Government of Uganda - UA 3,170,000; Local governments - UA 1,880,000; Beneficiaries - UA 2,020,000

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com.: N/A

Appraisal Report Cleared: 12 November 1999 Board Approval: December 2002

Restructuring(s): Following the Mid-term review in 2006, a new project coordinator, there was a revision of goods and services focusing on re-allocating additional funds to the rural infrastructure component whose implementation had been seriously affected by price escallation relative to those used at appraisal due to start-up delays.

Original Date Actual Date Difference in months

[Actual-Original]

EFFECTIVENESS 02 June 2003 02 April 2004 10 months

MID-TERM REVIEW March-06 February-07 11 months

CLOSING 31st December 2008 31st December 2010 24 months

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT (PCR)

2

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

All summary ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs 3

Achievement of Outcomes 3

Timeliness 2

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 3

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Supervision 4

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Implementation 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 3

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director N/A Mr. Gabriel Negatu

Sector Director Mr. A. Mtegha, OCDE Mr. Aly Abou-Sabaa

Task Manager Mr. Lawrence Tawah Mr. Edson Mpyisi

PCR Team Leader

Mr. Edson Mpyisi

PCR Team Members Mr. Asaph Nuwagira (UGFO), Mr. Daniel Isooba

(UGFO), Ms. Rose Azuba-Musoke (Consultant)

3

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: -what development challenge the project addresses, -the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, -Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and -ongoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project. Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale. [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The project objectives were to increase livestock productivity and marketing with a subsequent increase in household incomes of participating livestock farmers in Uganda. In line with GoU’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) the key focus was on: (i) developing livestock-related infrastructure; and (ii) developing human and institutional capacity as strategies for the realization of and sustainability of the above objectives. The Government's overall strategy was designed at four levels: (i) to restock and re-distribute cattle within the cattle corridor, and improve the genetic base by introducing improved breeding animals; (ii) improving animal health through the control of vector-borne and epidemic animal diseases and facilitating veterinary regulatory enforcement and reinforcing the capacity of district veterinary laboratories to offer disease diagnostic services; (iii) to improve water access and forage resources for animals through constructing/rehabilitating watering facilities as well as developing through training the capacity of livestock owners in range/pasture development and conservation for dry season feeding through extension and training programs; and (iv) to improve livestock market infrastructure and information systems.The marketing component was aimed at increasing productivity through improved production and off-take to national, regional and international markets in support of GoU's policy of modernizing agriculture, including dissemination of livestock market information, development of livestock and meat standards for purposes of value addition to the products, financing of a livestock census, a range inventory and development of a sound livestock database. Over the past few years, a number of Bank projects in the agriculture sector in Uganda complemented this project and these included the Creation of Sustainable Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Free Areas in East and West Africa (PATTEC) whose objective is the eradication of tsetse flies in the country. Other complementary projects in the sector include the Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project (FIEFOC) and the Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme (CAIIP-1 and 2) which has a component for market construction. According to the Country Portfolio Review Report (CPRR) prepared in 2009, Bank-supported public sector projects in Uganda are generally expected to achieve their development objectives; wehreas some are experiencing slow start-ups, subsequent implementation delays and low disbursement rates. The agriculture sector had rather less than satisfactory ratings with regard to Development Objective (DO = 1.88) and Implementation Progress (IP = 2.43), mainly due to the presence of the two problematic projects in the agriculture portfolio.

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The project objective is to increase household incomes of participating livestock farmers in Uganda through increased livestock productivity and marketing.

2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to achieving the Project Development Objective(s).

1. Livestock genetic resources development - to provide improved and better quality breeding indigenous sires and bucks to livestock farmers in the project area within the cattle corridor; 2. Animal health - improving control of economically important vector-borne and epidemic animal diseases, and enhancing animal health delivery and veterinary regulatory systems; 3. Water supply and forage resources development - to enhance livestock nutrition and

4

provide reliable water access to livestock in the cattle corridor; 4. Livestock market infrastructure and information systems - providing improved market infrastructure and improving market information dissemination as well as enhancing meat standards and value for hides and skins; and 5. Project coordination and management - for effective project implementation and capacity building within the MAAIF and related institutions.

3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

RELEVANT

a) Relevant to the country's development priorities

The project objectives were consistent with the principal development policy documents of: National Poverty Reduction Plan, the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture, the Decentralisation Policy and Vision 2025.

4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected timeframe

Some of the Project targets/indicators are rather ambitious to be achieved within a five year period and with the provided resources.

3

CONSISTENT

c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy

The project is consistent with the then Bank's country strategy paper that identifies agriculture and rural development as a key sector in the country focusing on poverty reduction, growth and equity in order to promote stability and sustainable development.

4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities

The objectives are in full alignment with the Bank's corporate priorities emphasizing rural infrastructure in agricultural development, economc growth and poverty reduction.

4

4. Summarize the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add additional rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes if needed.

COMPONENTS

ACTIVITIES EXPECTED OUTPUTS EXPECTED OUTCOMES INDICATORS TO

BE MEASURED

Component 1: Livestock genetic resources development;

Activity 1.1: Provide 16,900 East African Short Horn Zebu cattle to poor rural livestock farming households in the districts north of lake Kyoga (13). Provide 23,000 local goats to poor rural livestock rearing households in

Output 1.1 (i) livestock re-distributed and ownership increased among poor households within the cattle corridor; (ii) tertiary beneficiaries having received goats in each group. Output 1.2 (i) 580 improved bulls and 667 improved goat bucks

Outcome 1.1: By the end PY5 (i) 25% increase in animal units among the (102,300) farmers that received livestock. Outcome 1.2 National breedings farms have widened indigenous genetic base through increased stocking of breeding bulls and bucks and

1.1 (i) Number of farmers that received either goats or cattle disaggregated by men and women; (ii) number of tertiary beneficiaries that have received

5

29 districts of the cattle corridor. Activity 1.2: Rehabilitate 2 breeding farms and stock them with 2,400 local cattle, 120 Boer goats and 300 Mubende goats. Activity 1.3: Provide extension staff and farmer group’s sensitization and training.

restocked at breeding farms; (ii) rehabilitation works at the breeding farms completed. Output 1.3. (i) Various skill enhancement trainings targeted to improve O&M carried out for MAAIF and Field staff; (ii) extension staff trained in advisory services skills; (iii) farmers trained in good animal husbandry practices.

breeding of cross bred offsprings for distribution to farmers from breeding farms. Outcome 1.3: (i) Farmers' uptake of advocated improved technologies take root on sustainable basis; (ii) capacity of MAAIF staff to operate and manage the project improved.

goats. 1.2 (i) Number of improved bulls and bucks provided; (ii) no of cross bred offsprings bulls and bucks ready for breeding and /or purchased for breeding; (iii) works on rehabilitation of water supply and no of dip tanks constructed /rehabilitated at breeding farms. 1.3 (i) No. of farmers trained; (ii) No. of extension staff, field and MAAIF staff trained in various disciplines.

Component 2: Animal Health

Activity 2.1: Provide 34,000 traps and targets, veterinary supplies and other inputs for tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis control in medium and low challenge areas. Activity 2.2: Rehabilitate animal dips and crushes and provide spray pumps, and acaricides. Activity 2.3: Construct quarantine stations and holding grounds and provide lab equipment and vaccines. Activity 2.4: Support to veterinary and regulatory delivery services of the country.

Output 2.1 (i) Fly traps and insectiscide treated targets distributed to livestock farmers who received cattle (ii) farmers trained to set up and maintain traps and targets. Output 2.2 (i) dips rehabilitated, and crushes constructed for the communities; (iii) spray pumps supplied to farmers. Output 2.3 (i) quarantine stations and holding grounds constructed (ii) Vaccination regimes for LCD, NCD, FMD, brucellosis and ECF successfully effected. Output 2.4 (i) Review of government Veterinary Acts supported; (ii) mobile and fixed animal check points

Outcome 2.1: Reduction in tsetse population. Outcome 2.2: Increased no of farmers accessing the tick borne diseases facilities. Outcome 2.3 Incidence and /or oubreaks of some of the five diseases reduced as a result of vaccination and improved diagnosis. Outcome 2.4: Enhanced delivery of veterinary and regulatory services.

2.1 Number of impregnated traps deployed. 2.2 (i) Number of dips and crushes constructed; (ii) number of pumps distributed. 2.3 (i) Number of labs upgraded, (ii) quarantine stations constructed; (iii) Amount of vaccines provided and number of animals vaccinated. 2.4 (i) No. of laws reviewed; (ii) Number of functional checkpoints established.

6

instituted for regulation of animal movement and disease control.

Component 3: Water supply and forage resources development

Activity 3.1: Construct and/or rehabilitate livestock watering facilities to provide 1,960,000 m3 of water equivalent to 10 dams and 60 valley tanks. Activity 3.2: Provide contract outgrowers with pasture seed grass and legumes for multiplication. Activity 3.3: Rehabilitate degraded rangelands and oversow natural pastures as demonstration sites. Activity 3.4: Sensitize, train and assist livestock farmers in silage making, hay making and dry season utilization of crop residues.

Output 3.1 Increased numbers of dams and valley tanks in the NLPIP areas. Output 3.2 (i) contract outgrowers supported for pasture and legume seed production (ii) capacity of farmers to multiply pasture seeds and legumes enhanced. Output 3.3 (i) natural pastures improved through oversowing (ii) degraded rangelands rehabilitated on a pilot scale. Output 3.4 Farmers supported and have knowledge in haymaking, silage making and dry season supplementary feeding.

Outcome 3.1: (i) Water storage capacity in the water corridor increased; (ii) increased number of farmers accessing water during the dry season. Outcome 3.2: Increased availability of pasture seed to 10 tons/year. Outcomes 3.4: Improved livestock production resulting from better dry season feeding.

3.1 (i) water storage capacity (m3); (ii) no of dams and valley tanks constructed 3.2 (i) number of outgrowers contracts negotiated; (ii) quantity of pasture and legume seeds harvested by farmers. 3.3 (i) Area of natural pasture oversown ii) Area (plot) of degraded range lands rehabilitated. 3.4 (i) Number of farmers trained in dry season feeding (ii) No of farmers supported for dry season feeding.

Component 4: Livestock market infrastructure and information systems

Activity 4.1: Rehabilitate and reconstruct livestock markets and slaughter sheds. Activity 4.2: Provide livestock market information for national

Output 4.1 Livestock markets and slaughter sheds constructed. Output 4.2 Increased media coverage of livestock

Outcome 4.1: Smallholder farmers have access to improved markets with increased buyers offering up to 7.5%

4.1 (i) No. of improved livestock markets rehabilitated/ constructed by project Yr 5; (ii) No. of slaughter facilities constructed 4.2 No. of

7

dissemination. Activity 4.3: Train flayers/skinners to improve quality of hides & skins. Activity 4.4: Develop national livestock and meat standards. Activity 4.5: Carry out a range inventory and livestock census.

market information; Output 4.3 Flayers are trained in modern flaying techniques. Output 4.4 National Livestock and Meat Standards developed. Output 4.5 National livestock census and range inventory carried out

increment. Outcome 4.2: 5% reduction in transaction costs and increased profit margin for 87,000 animal owners.

media broadcasts produced in x No. of districts. 4.3 Number of butchers and flayers trained. 4.4 Livestock and Meat standards developed. 4.5 (i) National census report; (ii) completed rangeland inventory in place.

Component 5: Project Coordination and Management

Activity 5.1: Provide PCU with equipment for effective project supervision/management. Activity 5.2: Train NPCU personnel on management techniques and train field extension staff and farmers on livestock topics. Activity 5.3: Set up and maintain project reporting system.

Output 5.1 (i) PCU established, staffed and equipped; Output 5.2 Field extension staff trained and providing skills to famers. Output 5.3 5 project audits and 20 Quarterly progress reports submitted on time.

Outcome 5.1: Project effectively and efficiently implemented. Outcome 5.2: Efficient project implementation facilitated by timely and comprehensive reporting.

5.1 (i) Equipment supplied under the project; (ii) District project Coordination units established. 5.2 No. of staff trained at Masters' level, No. of extension workers and Technical staff trained, No. of farmers sensitized and trained. 5.3 Number of progress reports and timeliness of reports.

5. For each dimension of the log. Frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. Frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. Frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).

LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT

WORKING SCORE

LOGICAL

a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

The appraisal report includes a project matrix which contains the elements for achieving most of the project development objectives. However, the description of outputs and outcomes is not very precise with outputs framed as outcomes. It should be noted that the log-frames used by the Bank at the time of the appraisal are different from the current log-frames.

3

MEASURABLE

b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

The indicators in the appraisal log-frame are not adequate to measure the desired outcomes. In addition, some of the outcomes cannot be attributed to this project alone and collection of data for some indicators would be difficult/costly.

2

THOROUGH c) States the risks and key assumptions

Risks and key assumptions are clearly stated in the Appraisal report while assumptions and mitigation measures are clearly stated in the log-frame.

4

8

D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS

In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score will be auto-calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES Working Score

Share of Project Costs

in percentage (as stated in

Appraisal Report)

Weighted Score (auto-

calculated) Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

Component 1. (i) 16,900 farmers restocked with East African Short Horn Zebu; (ii) 23,000 goats distributed to poor farming households. (iii) Two government ranches rehabilitated and stocked with 2,400 local cattle, 120 Boer goats and 300 Mubende goats. (iv) Produce 580 improved bulls and 667 improved bucks for farmers.

(i) 16,464 farmers (97% of target) received cattle. (ii) 14,660 goats provided to poor households (64% of target). (iii) Two breeding farms rehabilitated, stocked with 2,400 local cattle, 300 Mubende goats and 120 Boer goats and 300 Mubende goats. (iv) 212 bulls and 129 bucks produced.

3 24 0,72

Component 2. (i) 34,000 traps and targets, veterinary supplies and other inputs for tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis control in medium and low challenge areas provided; (ii) 20 animal dips and 35 crushes rehabilitated, 4,800 spray pumps and start up acaricides provided; (iii) 1 quarantine station and 1 holding ground established, 4 regional laboratories and 1 central veterinary laboratory rehabilitated and re-equipped; (iv) 33 million vaccines and vaccination programs provided; (v) 3 disease free zones within the cattle corridor created and establish permanent check points.

(i) 34,000 traps and targets, veterinary supplies and other inputs for tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis control in medium and low challenge areas provided; (ii) 5 dips and 5 crushes constructed, no spray pumps, 1,600 liters of acaricide provided; (iii) No quarantine station and holding ground established, laboratory equipment provided to 42 districts; (iv) 33 million doses of vaccines provided (v) 18 permanent checkpoints and 10 mobile ones established; (vi) 274 motor bikes provided to the districts.

2 25 0,5

Componet 3. (i) Livestock watering facilities to provide

(i) Livestock watering facilities constructed to provide 2,400,000 4 26 1,04

9

1,960,000 m3 of water by constructing 8 dams and 23 valley tanks; (ii) Provide contract outgrowers with pasture seed grass and legumes for multiplication; (iii) Set up demonstration plots for rehabilitation of 1,500 ha degraded rangelands in 9 districts and 1,000 ha oversown natural pastures in 20 districts.

m3 of water through construction of 8 dams and 2 valley tanks; (ii) 240 farmers provided with pasture seed grass and legumes for multiplication and network of pasture seed growers Association was strengthened; (iii) 1,000 ha of degraded land was rehabilited in 9 districts and 500 ha of land oversown with natural pastures in 10 districts.

Component 4. (i) Rehabilitate/construct 30 livestock markets and construct/rehabilitate 38 slaughter slabs;(ii) Provide livestock marketing information for national dissemination; (iii) Train 1,200 flayers/skinners in 17 Districts to improve hides & skins quality; (iv) Develop national livestock and meat standards.

(i) 20 livestock markets rehabilitated/ constructed and 20 slaughter sheds constructed/rehabilitated;(ii) Updated livestock marketing information disseminated on a weekly basis a period of 4 years in selected districts; (iii) 960 flayers/skinners in 17 districts trained to improve hides & skins quality; (iv) A manual and guidelines for livestock and meat standards developed.

3 11 0,33

Component 5. (i) Professional and field staff trained in various desciplines in the livestock sector; (ii) farmer groups trained in animal husbandry practices; (iii) 5 project audits and 20 quarterly progress reports submitted in time;

(i) 32 MAAIF and field staff trained for Masters Degrees, 286 MAAIF and field staff for specialized technical training and 1094 extension staff trained; (ii) 329 farmer groups trained in animal husbandry practices; (iii) 5 project audits and 20 quarterly reports submitted.

4 5 0,2

OVERAL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores]

3

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 3

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

1. Using available monitoring data assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score will be auto-calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

OUTCOMES Working Score

Expected Actual

10

25% increase in animal ownership among the participating farmers receiving livestock (cattle and goats).

A sample of participating farmers realised 25% increase in livestock ownership and the pass-on programme of livestock to secondary and tertiary beneficiaries is still going on.

3

Increased indigenous genetic base through increased number of breeding bulls and bucks within the selected communities.

Two farms were restocked with breeding livestock (cattle and goats) thereby contributing to the expansion of the genetic base. However, these breeding livestock have not yet been fully distributed to the community as envisioned.

3

Incidence and/or outbreak of 5 key diseases (LSD, FMD, ECF, NC and trypanosomiasis) reduced as a result of vaccination, improved diagnosis and increased access to tick borne diseases facilities.

Although it is not possible to attribute all the reduction in disease incidence entirely to the project, incidences to diseases such as NCD have been reduced. The number of farmers continuing to use the NCD vaccine has increased and is a proxy indicator for the impact of the intervention.

3

Increased number of farmers accessing water for their livestock and for longer periods during the year.

Actual targets for water storage were surpassed and there are more farmers accessing water and for longer periods during the year.

4

Farmers have access to improved livestock markets with increased sales (in numbers and price) of their livestock.

Livestock market activity has improved with more livestock being sold and fetching higher prices with increased livestock security (decreased thefts). Sales going as far as Sudan.

4

Reduced transaction costs and increased profit margin for meat due to improved quality of meat.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that transaction costs for meat sales have decreased and with better quality meat. 3

OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]

3

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 3

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender). One of the key additional outcomes is that the livestock markets (and slaughter-sheds to a lesser extent) have become some of the key revenue earners for the local governments (district, sub-county and parish) providing a steady and stable revenue stream with many counties reporting that the livestock market is the primary revenue earner. The livestock markets have also stimulated a whole commercial industry around them with thriving businesses of sale of clothes, electronics, food, etc. which are very active on market days. Another additional outcome is that the disease control component has introduced farmers to the use of vaccines and this seems to have encouraged a growing private business in this sector with more marketing of vaccines and even the establishment of a local vaccine production facility (for Newcastle disease vaccines). The goat distribution also targeted women and this gives them close to equal rights of access to project resources and opened opportunities for them to enhance their other income generating activities and opportunities. The women farmer groups formed by the project for goat distribution have stimulated the groups to engage in other group activities for the members' benefit such as collective saving schemes and collective marketing of crop produce. The construction of livestock markets, slaughter sheds and the training of butchers and flayers by the project has stimulated the emergence of livestock farmers' associations and butchers' associations to manage the markets and slaughtersheds. The butchers association which benefitted from the slaughter shed located at Migyera in Nakasongola district has acquired additional land and developed a proposal to set up road-side modern meat stalls along the highway to southern Sudan. The infrastructure sites developed by the project have become nucleus sites for other livestock development projects e.g Meat Export project has plans to open up meat producers' cooperative society offices and small meat processing units on the sites located in the proposed meat export zones.

11

3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.

A key risk that was noted was the absence of clear procedures for sustainability of the infrastructure, especially the livestock markets, slaughter-sheds and crushes. Livestock markets and slaughter-sheds provide significant revenues for the local governments (sub-county and district) but there are no clearly conceptualized procedures for ploughing back some of these revenues for their maintenance and upgrading. Discussions with the local governments indicated that there are policies (by MoFPED) governing the use of local revenue that may not allow re-investing the income in the structures. Discussions with MoFPED indicated that it would welcome a request from MAAIF, in collaboration with the local governments, to develop procedures so that a portion/percentage of the revenue received from these facilities is re-invested in the maintenance and upgrade of these facilities.

E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for technical assistance. [200 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The project drew on the lessons of past similar Bank-funded projects and in particular considered lessons from the ADF-financed Dairy Development Project and the World Bank-financed Livestock Services Project which showed good results, especially in terms of the type of management and water investments. A key lesson learned from another ADF-financed project, the Poverty Action Program, is the need for capacity building especially among local government implementers and clients, as well as involvement by both groups in design and implementation. Public-private sector stakeholder consultations informed the design of the project to involve the private sector in the management and maintenance of communal dips and water points through Users Associations and the operation of market facilities and slaughter sheds through private sector lessees. The project followed the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) approach, which calls for the full participation of Districts and Sub-Counties and stresses co-ordination and linkages amongst all stakeholders. The project was also in line with the PMA (Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture), with its emphasis on improving productivity and marketing of agriculture. The project indicated an economic rate of return of 23% which is good. However, evidence indicates that project design over-estimated the local capacity for project management. The first PCU set up assumed that project staff could manage the project in addition to their other duties within the ministry, but this proved to be a problem and the approach was changed later on. 2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS

ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

REALISM

a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.

The project had strong political support and genuine commitment of the Government and the Ministry has implemented previous Bank funded projects successfully. However, the large number of sub-components was a challenge to implement but this was partly addressed at the MTR by the

3

12

elimination and reduction of some sub-components.

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

The project design included adequate risk analysis in the project appraisal report and logframe including assumptions and mitigation measures as well.

4

USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS

c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

The Project used the Bank's procurement procedures in addition to the Ministry's procurement procedures and this resulted in significant delays for the procurement of some items. However, country systems were used for financial management and the project put in place a monitoring system.

2

For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance:

WORKING SCORE

Bank Borrower

CLARITY d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly identified at appraisal and were defined in the Project Apraisal Report.

4 3

PROCUREMENT READINESS

e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.

Some of the implementation documents for specifications, designs and procurement were ready at appraisal time but during project implementation some of the designs for the works had to be changed.

3 3

MONITORING READINESS

f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.

Monitoring indicators were agreed upon before project launch but the monitoring plan was developed during project implementation. However, the execution of the monitoring plan and the selected indicators were not adequate to capture the achievement of the outcomes.

2 2

BASELINE DATA h) Baseline data were available or are were collected during project design.

There was sufficient baseline data but in addition a number of studies including a livestock survey were carried out during project implementation to collect more data.

4 3

13

F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [200 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]

The Project had a very slow start-up and it took 24 months for the loan agreement to achieve disbursement effectiveness. This was mainly due to delayed Parliamentary ratification of the loan agreement and delayed submission of evidence of land title deeds for the construction sites as per the pre-disbursement condition. The planned implementation period of the Project was 5 years but it has actually taken 8 years to complete. Another major factor that delayed implementation was that the designs for the works (slaughter-sheds and markets) were not appropriate and had to be upgraded significantly during implementation resulting in delays and a significant increase in costs. The nature of having many contracts for small amounts spread over many districts also caused implementation delays due to dealing with many contractors and the supervision time required. Due to the lack of experience of the PCU Management at the beginning of the Project, disbursement was only 16.6% by MTR in 2006. The rural infrastructure component work planned for the first 2 years of the Project was undertaken during the last two years of the project extension thus undermining project activities dependent on the infrastructure. Some of the consultants underperformed such as those contracted to design some of the civil works which ended up being re-designed. Bank supervision of the project were regular but often short and at times lacking the requisite expertise to advice on technical matters, e.g. engineering works. The MAAIF provided effective oversight.

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

The project was financed by ADF and GoU with GoU contributing 10% of project costs. By the time of the PCR, the GoU had contributed 75% of its contribution, which is a good achievement compared to other projects. In addition to the PCU staff, monitoring of project activities was carried out by the district level officers who acted as district Project focal points. The project partnered with other government programmes such as NADS to use farmer groups that were developed under the NADS for the restocking component. The project also collaborated with the Uganda Allied Leather Industries Association which conducted the Hides and Skins Improvement trainings. Another component where the Project coordinated with a partner research institute (IITA), was on Market Information Systems under a successful joint initiative called FOODNet. The Project provided the resources and the technical aspects of this initiative (collection, analysis and distribution of market information system) was carried out by IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture).

3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

The project design stipulated that the project was to be implemented within existing GoU mechanisms. Consequently a small (3-person) team of MAAIF staff was appointed as constituting the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). However a full time project accountant was recruited later on (outside the GoU structures) due to lack of adequate staff in the Ministry.

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

TIMELINESS

a) Extent of project adherence to the original closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, score 4

Difference in months between original closing date and actual

The slowness in GoU mechanisms for approving loans (parliamentary ratification) and fulfilling

2

14

between 12.1 to 24, score 3 between 24.1 to 36, score 2 beyond 36.1, score 1

closing date or date of 98% disb. Rate.

loan conditions plus GoU's protracted procurement procedures were responsible to a great extent in delaying project implementation.

24 months

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

The bank complied with environmental safeguards and conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project which was cleared by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and prepared an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) in collaboration with and also cleared by NEMA that includes a number of mitigation measures to minimize and limit possible risks.

4

Fiduciary Requirements

A total of 5 financial audits were carried out in a timely manner and the Bank ensured compliance with procurement and disbursement guidelines.

4

Project Covenants The project covenants were highlighted in the project Appraisal and Mid-Term Review reports and Loan Agreement documents.

4

c) Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions

The Bank conducted eleven field supervisions including a mid-term review to assess progress, identify bottlenecks and provide guidance and the recommendations provided were of great utility to project management. However, some of the supervision missions were rather short and at times the skill mix lacked the requisite expertise to advice on technical matters, e.g. engineering works.

3

d) Bank provided quality management oversight

The Bank was responsive to the needs for the revision of the list for goods and services and of works designs and allowed the re-allocation of funds to the relevant components. The project restructuring that was done at MTR was significant in achieving the project objectives.

4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

The borrower exhibited high degree of commitment to fulfilling requirements for ensuring environmental safeguards and conducted EIAs for all the infrastructure sites and collaborated very closely with the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) which has the mandate of ensuring environmental compliance.

4

Fiduciary Requirements The PCU, especially after recruiting a full-time accountant, has been regular in submitting annual Audit Reports.

3

Project Covenants All loan conditions were fulfilled satisfactorily 3

15

before loan signature even though it took a long time. In addition, the land titles for the infrastructure sites were acquired much later on.

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

The borrower was always responsive and adherent to recommendations of Bank supervision missions and this allowed the project to achieve the project objectives despite a slow start.

4

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

Generally, the PMU collected and used project monitoring findings (especially for outputs) and recommendations; however, the data for outcomes was not adequate.

3

G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY?

Date project reached 98% disb. Rate (or closing date if applicable)

Date PCR was sent to pcr@afdb.org

Difference in months

WORKING SCORE (auto-calculated) if the difference is 6 months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1

is scored

déc-10 mars-11 3 4

2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [100 words maximum] The PCR was produced jointly by the Bank and the Government. Initial discussions were held with the PCU officers (Coordinator, Deputy Coordinator & Accountant), the Executing Agency (MAAIF) and with the relevant line ministries (Water & Environment and Local Government). A joint team of Bank and Government officers undertook a field mission to selected project sites in Masindi, Kiboga, Kyankwanzi and Nakasongola Districts where it met and held discussions with project beneficiaries including farmer households, community groups, district officials (including Chief Administrative Officers, CAOs) and local farmer/trader associations. There was general agreement on the assessment of the PCR findings. The Bank team consisted of the Project Task Manager (agro-economist), UGFO agriculture specialist, UGFO infrastructure specialist and a consultant who is a livestock expert. The Government team consisted of the Project Coordinator (livestock expert), Deputy Project Coordinator (livestock expert) and the district officers. The Report was Peer Reviewed and the comments were received on time. The Peer Reviewers were Jonathan Nyamukapa (Senior Financial Management Specialist), Rogers Lubunga (Principal Irrigation Engineer) and Atia Byll-Cataria (YPP-Social Development Expert).

16

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative] (i) Design & implementation: ensuring flexibility in design and implementation being ready to make requisite adjustments taking into account changing circumstances such as price increases due to delayed strart-up; ensuring adherence to agreed timetables and sequencing of activities to maximise synergy - for example, slaughtersheds should have been constructed before training for skinners and flayers. (ii) Sustainability of infrastructures that generate revenues should be maintained from the revenues that come from these infrastructures. (iii) Ensuring supervision quality requires adequate frequency and duration of missions, proper professional mix (with relevant skills to address key technical and managerial issues), ensure consistent follow-up by the Bank and Borrower of supervision agreements & recommendations. (iv) For countries that require parliamentary ratification for projects, the Executing Agency should ensure that all the required information has been supplied before the proposal is submitted to the Parliamentary committee to avoid having to resubmit a project due to lack of information.

I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

All working scores and ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING

SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs 3

Achievement of outcomes 3

Timeliness 2

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 3

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. 4

Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame.

3

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional strategy 4

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities 4

The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. 3

The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. 2

The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. 4

Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment. 3

Project design includes adequate risk analysis. 4

Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems were based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

2

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. 4

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. 3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during design. 2

Baseline data were available or were collected during design. 4

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 3

Supervision:

Bank complied with:

17

Environmental Safeguards 4

Fiduciary Requirements 4

Project Covenants 4

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions.

3

Bank provided quality management oversight. 4

PCR was delivered on a timely basis 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 4

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 3

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal.

3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon and baseline data are available or are being collected

2

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 3

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 4

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 3

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations. 4

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making. 3

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

J. PROCESSING

STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

18

APPENDIX 1 Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

2 Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.

I

Annexes for National Livestock Productivity Improvement Project (NLPIP) PCR

Annex 1: Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Costs by Components

(b) Financing by Sources of Funds (UA million)

Source Foreign Local Total % Total Cost

ADF Loan

TAF

GoU

Local Government

Beneficiaries

17.33

0.70

---

---

---

6.41

2.09

3.17

1.88

2.02

23.74

2.79

3.17

1.88

2.02

70.6

8.3

9.4

5.6

6.0

Total 18.03 15.57 33.60 100

Shilling (Million) (UA’000) %

Components

Foreign

Cost

Local

Cost

Total

Cost

Foreign

Cost

Local

Cost

Total

Cost

Foreign

Cost

Livestock Genetic Resources Dev.

Animal Health

Water Supply & Forage Resources Dev

Livestock Market Infrastructure & Information Systems

Project Co-ordination

10,971

10,293

9,827

2,847

1,762

6,917

8,197

9,006

5,289

1,547

17,888

18,490

18,834

8,136

3,309

5,034

4,749

4,550

1,318

816

3,197

3,792

4,170

2,449

716

8,230

8,541

8,719

3,767

1,532

61

56

52

35

53

Total Base Cost

Physical Contingency Price Contingency

35,700

1,746

4,441

30,956

1,738

4,664

66,657

3,484

9,105

16,446

803

753

14,323

805

446

30,789

1,613

1,199

53

50

63

TOTAL 41,887 37,358 79,245 18,027 15,574 33,601 54

II

Annex 2: Bank Inputs

Appraisal Team:

B.S. Kanu, Senior Agricultural Economist, ONAR.1 (mission leader), C.L. Tawah, Senior Livestock Officer,

ONAR.1, L. Umar, Senior Livestock Officer, ONAR.1 and S. Pitamber, Gender Specialist, ONAR.0.

Mid-Term Review Team:

Chi L. TAWAH, Senior Livestock Specialist, OSAN.1 (Team Leader), Justus J. KABYEMERA, Senior

Agricultural Economist, OSAN.1, Nana TOURE, Senior Credit Specialist, OSAN.0 and Monica NANDUJJA,

Procurement Assistant, Uganda Field Office.

Supervision Missions:

Type of Supervision Dates

1. Launching 15/09/04

2. Field Supervision 13/06/05 – 24/06/05

3. Sector Portfolio Improvement Plan (SPIP) 30/10/05 – 11/11/05

4. Desk Supervision 05/10/06

5. Field Mission 21/11/06 – 29/11/06

6. Mid-Term Review 19/01/07 – 02/02/07

7. Field Supervision 15/08/07 – 29/08/07

8. Country Portfolio Improvement Plan (CPIP) 11/08/08 – 22/08/08

9. SPIP 14/04/09 – 01/05/09

10. SPIP 23/11/09 – 04/12/09

11. SPIP 22/03/10 – 01/04/09

12. PCR/Field Supervision 23/11/10 – 03/12/10

III

The last supervision was carried out jointly with the PCR from 23 November 2010 to 3 December 2010 and the ratings are

presented below.

INDICATORS

RATINGS

Precedings report This

report

23.11.2010 11.08.2008 14.04.2009 23.11.2009 22.03.2010

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Compliance with loan conditions precedent to entry into

force 2 2 2 2 2

Compliance with General Conditions 1 1 1 1 1

Compliance with Other Conditions

B. PROCUREMENT PERFORMANCE

Procurement of Consultancy Services 3 3 3 3 3

Procurement of Goods and Works 3 3 3 3 3

C. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Availability of Foreign Exchange 3 3 3 3 3

Availability of Local Currency 3 3 3 3 3

Disbursement Flows 2 3 3 3 3

Cost Management 1 3 3 3 3

Performance of Co-Financiers 0 0 3

D. ACTIVITIES AND WORKS

Adherence to implementation schedule 2 2 3 3 3

Performance of Consultants or Technical Assistance 3 3 3 3 2

Performance of Contractors 2 2 2 2 3

Performance of Project Management 2 3 3 3 3

E. IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT

Likelihood of achieving development Objectives 3 3 3 3 2

Likelihood that benefits will be realized and sustained

beyond 3 3 3 3 3

IV

Likely contribution of the project towards an increase in 3 3 3 3 3

Current Rate of Return 3 3 3 3 3

F. OVERALL PROJECT ASSESMENT

Current Supervision Average

2.44

2.53

2.75

2.59

2.71

Current Trend over time

2.60

RATINGS: 3 = Highly Satisfactory, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory, 0 = Highly Unsatisfactory, ‘‘= Non applicable

STATUS

Implementation Progress (IP) = 2.69

Development Objectives (DO) = 2.75

OVERALL STATUS : NON PROBLEMATIC PROJECT / NON POTENTIALY PROBLEMATIC PROJECT /

V

Annex 3: Financial and Economic Analysis

Financial Analysis

Financial analysis was carried out on two enterprises, Livestock Markets and Slaughter-sheds, to assess the improved incomes that will accrue to the project beneficiaries due to the construction of the infrastructure. The analysis showed that the average livestock market would make an annual profit of UGX 74,940,000 (USD 34,4361) and the average slaughter-shed would make an annual profit of UGX 12,144,000 (USD 5,580). See tables 1 and 2 below.

Farm model analyses show attractive financial returns to households benefiting from the improved project activities (health, feed, water supply and market facilities) where quantifiable. Incremental net incomes of UGX 42,492 per cow in PY1, UGX 105,680 per cow in PY5 and UGX 235,168 per cow in PY10 and beyond. The comparable income from the goats was UGX 12,084 per goat in PY1, UGX 31,262 per goat in PY5 and UGX 69,003 in PY10.

Assumptions

The performance of the Bwijanga Livestock Market and the Migyera Slaughter-shed are used as the average for the 20 livestock markets and 20 slaughter-sheds respectively constructed by the project.

The maintenance costs of these infrastructures are calculated at 2.5% of the construction value for PY4-8 and at 5% for PY9-20.

Total beneficiaries from the provision of water are estimated at 91,000 livestock farmers in the livestock corridor and the estimated benefit to each farmer from this service is estimated at UGX 30,000 per year. Total beneficiaries from the provision of animal health services are estimated at 200,000 livestock nationwide and the estimated benefit to each farmer from this service is estimated at UGX 25,000 per year. Total beneficiaries from the provision of livestock marketing and processing facilities are estimated at 87,000 livestock farmers in the cattle corridor and the estimated benefit to each farmer from this service is estimated at UGX 25,000 per year.

Economic Analysis and Sensitivity Analysis

The economic analysis examines the impact of the project’s interventions not only on its immediate target group, but also

on the economy as a whole. On the basis of the assumptions above, the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of the project was

estimated to be 19%. This is slightly lower than the estimated ERR of 23% at the beginning of the project. This may be due

to the fact that due to the escalation of costs during project implementation, the number of livestock infrastructures and

animals distributed were reduced from that planned at the beginning of the project. However, the ERR of 19% is well above

the opportunity cost of these resources which is estimated at 12%. The Net Present Value (NPV) in 2011 Uganda Shillings

is estimated at UGX 16,521 million discounted at 12%. This means that implementing this project adds an amount of UGX

16,521 million to the Ugandan economy.

1 The Exchange rate used is for June 2010 and was 1 USD = UGX 2,176.24.

VI

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analyses reveal limited effects to changes in costs and benefits. With a 10% increase in benefits and 10%

decrease in costs, the ERR increases to 26%. With a 10% increase in costs and 10% decrease in benefits, the ERR drops

to 13%.

Table 1: Financial Analysis of Livestock Market – Bwijanga, Masindi

Data UGX

Cattle traded per market day 250

Trucks loading per market day 7

Revenue

Fee per cattle - trader 5,500 1,375,000

Fee per cattle - farmers 5,500 1,375,000

Movement permit 2,000 500,000

Loading fee 10,000 70,000

Parking fee 10,000 70,000

Total Revenue (per market day) 3,390,000

Annual Revenue 88,140,000

Expenses

Security and cleaning/month 200,000

Management expenses/month 900,000

Total monthly expenses 1,100,000

Annual Expenses 13,200,000

Net Revenue UGX 74,940,000

Table 2: Financial Analysis of Slaughter-Shed, Migyera, Nakasongola

Data

Cattle slaughtered per week 15

Goats slaughtered per week 26

Revenue

Fee per cattle 15,000

Fee per goat 4,500

Total Revenue/week - cattle 225,000

Total Revenue/week - goats 117,000

Total Revenue/week 342,000

VII

Annual Revenue 17,784,000

Expenses

Security and cleaning/month 20,000

Management labour/month 450,000

Total monthly expenses 470,000

Annual Expenses 5,640,000

Net Revenue UGX 12,144,000

Table 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis of the NLPIP Project

Year Total Revenue Total Costs Net Benefits

1 2004 - - -

2 2005 - 673,198,000 (673,198,000)

3 2006 3,224,596,400 4,889,815,000 (1,665,218,600)

4 2007 4,774,596,400 15,159,907,000 (10,385,310,600)

5 2008 10,170,032,800 18,638,495,805 (8,468,463,005)

6 2009 11,155,452,800 34,719,696,000 (23,564,243,200)

7 2010 12,170,872,800 22,218,890,000 (10,048,017,200)

8 2011 14,013,892,745 11,750,000 14,002,142,745

9 2012 14,013,892,745 11,750,000 14,002,142,745

10 2013 14,013,892,745 11,750,000 14,002,142,745

11 2014 14,013,892,745 11,750,000 14,002,142,745

12 2015 14,013,892,745 11,750,000 14,002,142,745

13 2016 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

14 2017 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

15 2018 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

16 2019 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

17 2020 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

18 2021 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

19 2022 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

20 2023 16,908,527,882 23,500,000 16,885,027,882

IRR=19% NPV=16,521.02 12 % (2011 Million UGX)

VIII

Annex 4: Most Recent Procurement Plan

Code Description of Items

No. / Units Unit cost

Reference Contract Comitt's No

objection to bid evaln

Bank's No Objection to

bid evaluatn Contract Award

Commencement Completion Performance

MAAIF-

NLPIP/GDS/06/07/

Evaluation

Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Target Actual Target Actual

3. Livestock

i) Restocking & Genetic improvement

c) Local goats for districts 10,000 80,000 88,000 43 Completed Completed Jan 2010 Feb 2010 April 2010

Sub-total

4. Supplies & Inputs

a) Hand/bucket spray 445 240,000 240,000 Completed Completed Jan 2010 Feb 2010 April 2010

5. Animal Drugs

a) Acaricides 445 44 Completed Completed Jan 2010 Feb 2010 April 2010

CATEGORY B; WORKS

Installation of water at 10

markets and 10 slaughter sheds 20 bores holes 25,000 45 March 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 July 2010

CATEGORY C: SERVICES

Consultancies and studies

Project evaluation and end

of project report 1 200,000 46 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 June 2010 Aug. 2010

Printing services for

livestock census report 1000 75,000 30th August 2009 15th September 2009 30th September 2009 30th September 2009 30th December 2009