Final report
Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances in
Uganda
Project evaluation
Kampala, 27.08.2014
Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances in Uganda
Project evaluation
Client: Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung Africa
Authors: Grit Techel
Kelly Wanda
Lower picture on front page: http://www.hrnstiftung.org/
Acknowledgement
Survey and stakeholder consultations for this evaluation were conducted at short notice and
within a short timeframe. This was possible only thanks to the dedicated support from HRNS,
in particular the General Manager, Stefan Cognigni, and the Field Officers Daniel Kazibwe, David Senyonjo and Kenedy Senoga Sebaggala. All other HRNS staff readily shared information
and thoughts on the project whenever asked.
The enumerators Clessy Ndaula, Douglas Ntwatwa, Jane Najjemba, Justine Namwanga, Kalule
Mbagatuzinde and Rashid Matovu showed great dedication in data collection and entering.
Only their efforts make the project’s benefits at household level visible.
Doris Weidemann from Q-mon international took the lead in the design of the questionnaires
and the training of the enumerators. Without her capturing and analyzing the many details of
this project would have been a lot less efficient.
Last but not least thanks to all those stakeholders interviewed, for sharing their knowledge and
opinions so freely.
Content
1 Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 1
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 8
4 Project interventions.............................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Purpose of the project.................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Objectives of the project ................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Activities conducted and achievement of targets set .................................................... 12
4.3.1 Organizational development................................................................................ 13
4.3.2 On-farm production ............................................................................................. 18
4.3.3 Coffee quality ....................................................................................................... 23
4.3.4 Value addition and market access ....................................................................... 24
4.3.5 Livelihoods ........................................................................................................... 32
4.3.6 Gender equality.................................................................................................... 34
5 Evaluation findings ................................................................................................................. 38
5.1 Overall achievement of the project objectives and vision ............................................. 38
5.2 Relevance and effectiveness of the project ................................................................... 39
5.3 Stakeholder involvement and creation of an enabling environment ............................ 43
5.4 Economic development .................................................................................................. 44
5.5 Social and environmental improvements ...................................................................... 44
5.6 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 45
6 Risk and challenges to the project ......................................................................................... 47
6.1 Risks ................................................................................................................................ 47
6.2 Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 48
7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 50
8 List of literature ...................................................................................................................... 53
Annex ............................................................................................................................................. i
Annex 1: Questionnaire for lead farmers ................................................................................ ii
Annex 2: Questionnaire for members of Producer Organizations ..........................................vi
Annex 3:Questionnaire for non-members .............................................................................. xx
Annex 4: Terms of reference.............................................................................................. xxxiv
Annex 5: List of persons interviewed ................................................................................. xxxvi
Annex 6: Possible limitations of the evaluation methodology ................................................xl
List of tables
Table 1: Sampling collectives ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 2: Organizational development ......................................................................................... 13
Table3: Net income for selected DCs and batches ..................................................................... 18
Table 4: On-farm productivity and practices .............................................................................. 20
Table 5: Coffee quality ................................................................................................................ 23
Table 6: Improving coffee quality ............................................................................................... 24
Table 7: Value addition and market access................................................................................. 25
Table 8: Kiboko marketing through the DC Companies .............................................................. 30
Table 9: Livelihoods ..................................................................................................................... 33
Table 10: Gender equality ........................................................................................................... 35
Table 11: Overall achievement of targets ................................................................................... 38
Table 12: Good post-harvesting practise by non-PO farmers ..................................................... 42
List of figures
Figure 1: Building coffee farmers’ alliances .................................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Sampling framework ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Service provision by Companies................................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Information and control between different levels ...................................................... 17
Figure 5: Use of inputs and application of good agricultural practices ...................................... 21
Figure 6: Coffee yields dry cherry ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 7: Bulking process............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 8: Record keeping by Companies ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 9: Development of coffee bulked..................................................................................... 31
Figure 10: Changes in household assets since 2010 ................................................................... 34
Figure 11: Men contributing to household work ........................................................................ 36
Figure 12: Distribution of farm work ........................................................................................... 36
Figure 13: Decision making in farmer households ...................................................................... 37
Figure 14: Cash flow misalignment ............................................................................................. 41
Figure 15: Use of GAP by non-PO farmers .................................................................................. 42
Figure 16: Spill over to non-PO farmers ...................................................................................... 43
List of acronyms
aBi
Agribusiness Initiative
APEP
Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program
CFAU
Coffee Farmers’ Alliances in Uganda
CSO
Civil Society Organisations
DC
Depot Committees
DEF
Douwe Egberts Foundation
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FAQ
Fair Average Quality
FFS
Farmer Field School
FOB
Free On Board
GAP
Good Agricultural Practises
GIZ
German Development Cooperation
GO
Governmental organisations
HRNS
Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung
ICP
International Coffee Partners
KfW
German Development Bank
LEAD
Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development
LG
Local Government
MAAIF
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries
N
Total sampling collective
n
Valid number of respondents for a particular topic
NAADS
National Agricultural Advisory Services
NGO
Non-governmental Organisation
PO
Producer Organizations
SACCO
Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization
ToR
Terms of Reference
UBOS
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UCDA
Uganda Coffee Development Authority
UCF
Uganda Coffee Federation
UCFA
Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance
UGX
Uganda Shilling
URA
Uganda Revenue Authority
USD
US dollars
UTZ
A sustainability certification standard
VEDCO
Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns
VSLA
Village Savings and Loans Association
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
1 Executive summary
The report describes the evaluation results for the project “Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances
in Uganda”, implemented by Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS) from 2009-2013. The evaluation was limited to two project regions in Uganda: Luwero (Luwero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola districts) and Bukomansimbi (near Masaka). The project seeks to improve livelihoods of [coffee] farmer households through improved [coffee] production systems. The project is set
against the background of low productivity and poor quality in the sub-sector, caused by lack
of professional know-how, access to improved technologies and quality farm inputs on the one
hand, market inefficiencies and the largely unregulated nature of the sector on the other hand.
HRNS’ key strategy to smallholder development in Uganda is organizational development as
farmer organizations form the platforms for all project activities. It created two tiered farmer
organizations: Producer Organizations (PO) at village level and Depot Committees (DC) combining several POs at sub-county level. Also, in 2010 the apex organization Uganda Coffee
Farmers Alliance (UCFA) was formed. The specific objectives of the project relate to:

Organizational development

On-farm production

Coffee quality

Value addition and market access

Livelihoods and

Gender equality.
Overall the project shows very good results, with the targets set in the log frame met largely
(see table below). Adoption of the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) promoted by the project
is high, and especially low cost practices have been increasingly adopted. Yields rose from less
than 1kg dry cherry per tree and year (baseline) to an average of 2.7 kg dry cherry per tree and
year in Luwero and 2.5kg dry cherry per tree and year in Masaka. The quality of the coffee
traded by the DC Companies has improved due to the adoption of better harvesting and postharvest practices by a large number of farmers. Furthermore, control measures implemented
by the DC Companies also contributed to the increased quality of the coffee. Joint marketing
and value addition through the DC Companies with the support of UCFA resulted in the generation of higher incomes from coffee (approx. USD 0.04-0.06 or 8% per kg of unprocessed dried
coffee). Records provided by UCFA show that the dry cherry price in project areas is already
higher than in non-project areas (approx. 5% of the national average). As a result, livelihoods
of participating farmer households have improved, allowing households to save, cover additional expenses and acquire additional assets. Farmers living in the project communities, but
not participating in the project have adopted some of the management practices promoted by
the project. Nonetheless, the degree of spill over is still very limited.
Gender related activities undoubtedly have had a very positive effect at household level. Work,
planning, decision making and sharing of income are done jointly more often.
1
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Overall achievement of targets
Objective
1 Organizational development
2 On farm productivity
Targets achieved*
100%
96%
3 Coffee quality
100%
4 Value addition and market access
100%
5 Livelihoods
Partly achieved
6 Gender equality
Target achieved
Overall
>80%
*The degree of achievement of targets reflects only the targets set in the log frame. The qualitative
analysis is not reflected. Details on the quality of the achievements are provided in the text below.
Part of the project’s effect is the creation of an enabling environment for smallholder development. The structures created (POs and DC Companies) make access by third parties to farmers easier, e.g. for distribution of coffee seedlings from Uganda Coffee Development Authority
(UCDA). Also, the producer groups provide an entry point for other organizations addressing
topics related to health, education and food security as well as political leadership and traders
of other commodities and farm inputs. These structures also play a key role in creating aggregate demand for other service providers. Hence, they facilitate the development of other value
chains and markets. To date government organizations, political leadership and the private
sector are all using these structures. However, use is still limited as access to farmers through
the DC/PO structure is not actively promoted by the DC management as possible business vehicle.
The stability of these positive effects, i.e. in particular continued investments at household
level in productivity and coffee quality, will depend to a large extent on the continued and
expanding service provision by the DC Companies and UCFA:

Technical advice/Extension services

Aggregation of coffee for value addition and marketing

Market linkages to buyers and

Access to finance and farm inputs

Linkages with other service providers
In Uganda and many other developing countries in Sub-Sahara Africa, building strong smallholder organizations has been a major challenge. There are indeed few success stories in terms
of strong and self-sustaining organizations that engage in business. However, the project has
successfully built smallholder run companies with a viable business model. Through this model,
smallholder companies have succeeded in increasing the value retained on the farm. Considering the benefits to farmers that UCFA, DCs and POs have managed to generate, the model has
the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Nonetheless challenges remain, which HRNS and
UCFA are aware of and have started to address:
2
Report

CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Uganda Coffee Farmers’ Alliance has not enough capacity to cover fully the technical advice to and supervision of the DC Companies. UCFA is partially dependent on external finance (approx. 75%), has few staff in particular in the project areas and as a result relies
on HRNS to establish and provide technical support to Companies forming UCFA’s membership base. According to UCFA, the minimum trade volume per year required for financial sustainability is 4,000 tons of FAQ. The biggest recorded amount of FAQ ever reached
is 1,600 tons per annum.
Plans for the introduction of UCFA Regional Coordinators exist. Coordinators will strengthen UCFA support to the DCs and enhance information flow to DCs and farmers.

The sustainability of the DC Companies faces some challenges that need to be overcome.
Deficiencies exist in management and financial capacity, and are related to governance.
Yet Companies are the key stone to the further development of smallholders. Without the
Companies, farmers’ direct access to export markets would be lost. (Partial) failure at this
level would reduce the thus far achieved vertical integration of farmers and their direct access to export markets. On the positive side, many farmers will likely keep applying good
agricultural practices resulting in higher yield, even without the DCs. Also, at least some of
the farmers might seek for better opportunities nearby, e.g. selling to buying stations set
up by some of the exporters in nearby towns.
The project, together with UCFA, should address these challenges by providing further
support to the DC Companies, in particular seeking to improve capacity for planning, accounting and monitoring of the businesses. Non-compliance with the principles of governance should be corrected, mismanagement sanctioned. As part of planning processes
Companies must develop risk mitigation strategies, addressing potential fluctuations in
coffee quantity and quality, as well as price fluctuations. The aim should be to consolidate
the Companies, making them more competitive by gaining the trust of their farmers, passing on as much of the coffee revenues to farmers as possible, while at the same time accumulating working capital.

The project has ably demonstrated and provided a low-cost extension service to the smallholder coffee farmers. In the future the DCs, together with their POs need to ensure continued extension services. However, providing extension services on a purely voluntary basis has proven to be not successful. Hence, DCs must incorporate employment of at least
some staff into their business models.
Access to finance by farmers remains difficult, but is key to the further development of
farmers. As long as farmers cannot cover their short term financial needs at affordable
conditions (to cover expenses such as education and health, or to invest into farm inputs
or assets) their ability to fully adopt GAP and post-harvesting techniques, and to sell all coffee produced to the Companies will be limited. HRNS and UCFA have been working together on attracting and encouraging financial institutions to start lending to smallholders,
with pilot projects been carried out in Mityana and Mubende. However, the models used
thus far, even though successful on pilot basis, were not suitable for roll out to much larger
numbers of farmers and need further adjustments.
Access to finance has to become an integral part of the project design. Supporting the
formation of Village Saving and Loan Associations by strengthening financial literacy of
3
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
farmers and expansion of the new pilot project for commercial lending which has been designed in collaboration between KFW, Opportunity Bank, HRNS and UCFA are possibilities.

The current standard for certification limits participation of farmers, and increases implementation costs to all (project, farmer, Company) without a clear financial gain. The deficiencies of the certification scheme must be addressed. This could mean to simply stop
certification of farmers until a better standard is available, or engage with the standard to
improve it. HRNS is planning to do the latter together with UTZ in areas already certified
with the standard.

Farmers have adopted the various different good agricultural practices to a different extent and spill-over to neighboring farmers is still limited. The project should research the
cause for limited adoption by and/or transfer to farmers not directly participating in the
project, and adjust the project design accordingly. However, 100% adoption of good agricultural practice by all farmers is unlikely as e.g. coffee is not an important crop for every
farm.
The established DCs are likely to overcome the above challenges with reduced support by
HRNS and closer involvement of UCFA. Well established DCs in the older project areas
(Mityana and Mubende) have not just higher managerial capacity, but also the relationship
between farmers and leadership has had time to mature and professionalize, in the process
attracting more farmers.
The current HRNS strategy in Uganda is sound: to remain in a given project area beyond the
initial duration of a particular project. It allows gradual change from intensive support of the
organizations to a more guiding function. At the same time focus of project activities can shift
from the original organizational development to other aspects relevant to the sector and
farmers. It allows adapting initial ideas and designs, and transfer of the best working project
activities to other areas.
4
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
2 Introduction
The Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung(HRNS) implements coffee extension projects in Uganda and
other coffee producing countries, engaging small holder coffee farmers. The aim of the project
in Uganda is to improve farmers’ productivity, ability to produce quality coffee and to build
marketing capacity, thus, seeking to improve the livelihoods of the farmers and their families.
The project sets a strong focus on the organizational development of farmer organizations and
the individual capacity building of farmers. Farmers’ organizations are designed to deliver extension services and joint marketing. Through Farmer Field Schools the knowhow and capacity
of individual farmers in good agricultural practices and post-harvest handling of coffee is
strengthened. At the same time interventions aiming at gender equality and access to finance
address socio-economic issues at the household level.
Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung recruited UNIQUE forestry and land use to evaluate the project
“Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances in Uganda” in two project regions comprising of four districts: Luwero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola (Luwero region), and Bukomansimbi (Masaka) implemented from 2009-2013. The purpose of this evaluation is to inform HRNS, UCFA and the
projects stakeholders on current achievements, challenges, lessons learned and possible future directions to deepen any successes so far achieved.
Background
Coffee is Uganda’s most important commercial agricultural commodity, contributing approx.
20% to Uganda’s foreign revenue (MAAIF, 2013). An estimated 1.7 million farmers are growing
coffee in Uganda, mainly Robusta. The vast majority of these farmers grow coffee on small
farms with an average of 200 coffee trees. Coffee farming in Uganda is characterized by low
farm investment and, as a consequence, productivity is just 10 % compared to model farms
using best practices (MAAIF, 2013). Coffee farmers benefit from a highly competitive value
chain, allowing them to receive 75% of the coffee price compared to export prices1 (Technoserve, 2013). However, the liberal market and high competition between traders promotes
the trading and sale of poor quality coffee, with few incentives for the farmers to improve the
quality of their product i.e. high quality coffee usually does not receive a price premium at
farm gate.
The coffee policy (MAAIF, 2013) identifies the challenges faced by coffee farmers such as limited participation in the post harvesting processes, lack of improved technologies, unreliable
sources of farm inputs, unsustainable agronomic practices, inadequate extension and business
advisory services, and the poor organization of farmers.
The Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances in Uganda project (CFAU) (2009-2013) implemented by
HRNS is addressing the above mentioned deficiencies and builds upon the experiences and
lessons learnt from the Kaweri Coffee Farmers’ Alliance Support Project which started in 2004
in Mubende and Mityana districts. Since then further project areas have been incorporated
into the project, namely Luwero, Masaka and Kasese.
1
Free on Board price (FOB)
5
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
In all of the above cases the project created two tiered farmers organizations: Producer Organizations (PO) at the village level and Depot Committees (DC) combining several POs at the subcounty level. Also, in 2010 the apex organization Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance (UCFA) was
formed which will gradually take on the responsibility of supporting the farmers’ organizations
working in the districts. Its key function is, however, supporting the marketing of the coffee
bulked by the DCs and facilitating linkages with other service providers, such as financial institutions.
The project combines different funding streams and interventions, which either run parallel or
build upon each other - thus ensuring long term technical advice to the farmer organizations.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the different key interventions in all of the project regions
beginning from 2004 to date. For example, in Luwero region the project worked with the
farmers’ organizations on aspects of certification and gender equality. In 2013 the project
started to include climate change mitigation and adaptation components, and in the near future it will try to develop a more applicable certification standard with Luwero as a pilot.
These activities have various funding sources, coming online at different times and focusing on
different aspects. Key partners include the European Union (EU), the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, International Coffee Partners (ICP), USAID, Agribusiness Initiative (aBi), Plan
Uganda, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Douwe Egberts Foundation
(DEF).
Furthermore, the project works closely with the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, Local
Government and National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS).
Project evaluation
The objective of the project evaluation was to quantify the degree to which project objectives
and targets have been achieved. Where possible the evaluation quantifies/qualifies the project’s impacts on project beneficiaries and on non-project farmers living in the same area. Successful elements and lessons learnt are highlighted to support scaling up initiatives.
This report is targeting first and foremost HRNS, in particular the implementation team, and
stakeholders directly involved in the funding and implementation of the project. However,
assuming that at least parts of this report will be shared with parties not directly involved in
the project, structures, implementation approach and details related to coffee cultivation and
trade will be explained where pertinent.
The following chapters provide:

Brief description of the methodology used for the evaluation

Projects objectives, targets and activities planned and achieved

Findings of the evaluation

Risks and challenges to the sustainability of the various developments and

Recommendations for further implementation in the area covered per ToR and elsewhere.
6
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 1: Building coffee farmers’ alliances
Building
of farmers
organizations in:
Mityana
&
Mubende
2004
2006
Luwero* &
Bukomansimbi
2008
Masaka
&
Kasese
2010
2012
...
Uganda
2014
...
Gender
for
growth
Certification
(Luwero)
Coffee
improvement
project
(Bukomansimbi
)
Uganda Coffee
Farmers' Alliance
Luwero
Coffee
Farmers'
Alliance
Kaweri Coffee
Farmers' Alliance
APEP, LEAD
(Mityana, Mubende)
Climate
Change
project
(Luwero)
Youth
project
(Mityana,
Mubende)
*Luwero comprises Luwero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola districts
Revolutionizing
certification
(Luwero)
7
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
3 Methodology
The objective of the project evaluation was to appraise the extent to which the project has
achieved its objectives and to assess the impact that the intervention has had, both on direct
project beneficiaries and on non-project farmers. Furthermore, lessons learnt and successful
elements were to be documented, and recommendations supporting the scaling up of initiatives in the country were to be made. The terms of reference are provided in Annex 4.
The following criteria will be assessed:

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Impact

Relevance

Scalability and

Sustainability
The basis for this evaluation was the project logical framework and the baseline survey (Loisa,
2011). The evaluation methodology chosen was adapted from the baseline survey, i.e. sample
size, households surveyed and the proxies used were the same wherever possible. Likewise,
the structure of the report, in particular section 4.3: “Activities conducted and achievement of
targets set” is based on these two documents.
Literature
Project specific information made available by the project in the form of annual reports, M&E
reports, presentations and farmers data bases wereused for the development of this report,
alongside with secondary documents pertaining to the coffee sub-sector or from stakeholders
interviewed. A detailed list of the documents utilizedis provided in chapter 8.
Sampling framework
In order to assess the project’s performance and impact a vertical sampling approach was chosen as shown in Figure 2. Out of the 32 existing Depot Committees within the two project areas, 12 were selected for interviews. Within each of the selected DCs, five POs were selected. In
total 300 farmers were selected for interviews within the selected POs. In each PO one lead
farmer, three members of the farmer group and one farmer living within the community but
not affiliated to the PO was chosen. (Table 1) The samples, other than the non-project farmer,
were selected systematically from lists provided by HRNS (i.e. taking every x DC, PO or farmer).
The sampling method does not attempt to select a statistically representative group. Rather,
its design strives to capture the range of differences between the project areas, and cover the
project’s intervention at different levels. The design took into consideration the available time
and human resources.
8
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Given the strong linkages between older and newer project sites (see Figure 1) HRNS encouraged the consultant team to visit one of the oldest, DC Company in Mityana (Nabumbugu
Company, established in 2006). Nabumbugu Company is considered in particular successful by
HRNS. For the consultants Nabumbugu Company served as a benchmark and allowed putting
into context many of the comments received in stakeholder consultations.
Figure 2: Sampling framework
Selected project areas:
• Bukomansimbi
• Luwero
Benchmark
Selection of Depot
Committees (DCs):
1 DC in
Mityana
• 4 DCs Bukomansimbi
• 8 DCs Luwero
Selection of Pos within the
selected DCs
• 20 POs Bukomansimbi
• 40 POs Luwero
Approx. 20-30
farmers
Selection of 5 farmers within
each of the selected POs
300 farmers
Lead farmer =
representative
for the PO
3 PO members
1 non-member
= spill over
effect
Table 1: Sampling collectives
Project
Depot Committees
Producer Organizations (Lead farmers)
Project farmers
Non-project farmers
Sample size
Luwero
Sample size
Bukomansimbi
32
8
4
570
40
20
20,000
(planned)
120
60
-
40
20
9
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Quantitative assessments
Project outcomes and impacts at PO and farmer/household level were assessed through structured questionnaires.
Farmers were interviewed about:

Farm and coffee management practices

Coffee sales

Changes in quality of life, and

Affiliation to, and services provided by the producer organization.
Where possible gender specific data was collected. To assess gender related aspects, when
possible/ applicable women were interviewed separately for a small component of the interview.
The lead farmer was interviewed in regard to her/his capacity as representative of the PO,
including aspects related to the:

Degree of formalization and sustainability of the PO

Service provision to members

Participation by members in group activities

Coffee marketing and

Access to third party finance.
Participation and integration of women was also assessed.
The questionnaires are provided in Annex 1 to 3.
The data collection and data entry process was conducted by six HRNS officers. These officers
are familiar with the project´s interventions, and have a sound understanding of the issues
involved. To the highest extent possible, care was taken that officers did not cover the areas
where they normally work in to avoid bias. Enumerators were trained by the evaluation team
prior to the survey. During the survey the consultants were available for any queries regarding
the questionnaires and data entry.
Qualitative assessments
Focus group interviews were conducted with the DCs, using a semi-structured approach, and
combining both qualitative and quantitative questions. The aim was to establish the degree of
formalization, sustainability, transparency, service provision and marketing of coffee. The
groups interviewed usually consisted of the DC executive (chair person, treasurer, secretary),
committee members, the DC manager, extensionists and Farmer Field School facilitators. The
participation in the group interviews was generally very high. Only one DC (out of eight) was
not available for interviews (Kyango Farmers Company) due to a different, unforeseen engagement of several DC members on the day set for the interview.
Stakeholder consultations with key partners and other stakeholders were conducted in the
districts and in Kampala, including organizations working at the national level such as the
10
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), the Uganda Coffee Federation, the Uganda
Coffee Farmers Alliance (UCFA), exporters, donor institutions; and at the district level: Local
Government, NAADS, input dealers, independent traders, hulling factory owner and input
dealers.
From HRNS the general manager, field operations officers, gender expert and certification
officer were interviewed.
A detailed list of the organizations and persons interviewed is provided in Annex 5.
Possible limitations of the methodology used are described in Annex 6.
11
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
4 Project interventions
4.1 Purpose of the project
The purpose of the project is to improve the livelihoods of 20,000 farmer households through
improved [coffee] production and marketing systems, aiming at raising productivity, product
quality and efficiency. The implementation area includes Luwero, Nakaseke, Nakasongola and
Bukomansimbi districts.
4.2 Objectives of the project
For the project lifetime of four years (2009-2013), six objectives2 were set:
1. Organizational development: Establishing and strengthening two-tiered farmer organizations as transparent and professional service providers supporting their members
2. On-farm production: Enabling farmers to significantly improve coffee [productivity,] production and overall farm management in a sustainable way
3. Coffee quality: Enhancing coffee quality through improved practices and management
4. Value addition and market access: Improving the overall marketing performance of producer organizations through value addition and efficient linkage to marketing agencies,
exporters and international traders
5. Livelihoods: Mobilize self-help potential of project coffee farmers and enhance their linkages to additional supporters (NGOs, GOs, programs, projects) in order to improve social
living conditions (focus: formal education, adult literacy, HIV/AIDS, reproductive health,
child mortality)
6. Gender equality: Empowering men and women in coffee growing households to meaningfully participate in and benefit from coffee supported interventions, production and marketing for equitable and sustainable development
4.3 Activities conducted and achievement of targets set
In the project logframe milestones/targets are listed for each objective to be accomplished
during the project lifespan. The activities conducted to achieve these targets are described in
the annual project reports. However, the targets3 and indicators used by the project are often
limited4 and do not allow for a comprehensive assessment. Therefore, additional criteria and
indicators were used to assess the achievement of objectives.
The following additional information for each of the above objectives is provided:

2
Summary of activities planned and conducted;
As listed in the projectlogframe (2010): „Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda“, CFAU project. In
the baseline and annual report for the years 2011 and 2012 only objectives 1-4 and 6 are listed.
3
Targets as set by the project and in the baseline report are listed in the first table in each section: 4.3.14.3.6)
4
The set targets do not capture the full range of activities and related results. In some cases targets set
are rather general, and thus, make comprehensive evaluation difficult.
12
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE

Table listing baseline values, targets set and their degree of achievement; and

Details on the progress observed including additional criteria.
Sample size is reflected for all of the quantitative results. The total sample size (N) and valid
number of respondents (n) for a particular topic are stated.
4.3.1 Organizational development
The project supported the formation and formalization of Producer Organizations (PO; village
level) and Depot Committees (DC; covering [parts of a] sub-county). Farmers were sensitized
on the benefits of joint marketing. The two tiered structures created and the approach used in
doing so was copied from similar project activities in Mityana and Mubende. POs aggregate
farmers for training on good agricultural practices and form the first level for the bulking of
coffee. The DCs aggregate 20-30 POs for bulking, value addition (hulling) and marketing to
exporters in Kampala.
The project provided all of the companies with quality control equipment. Bicycles were given
to the lead farmer. Farmers hosting the demonstration plots received inputs such as seedlings
and fertilizer for 2 years.
The set target for organizational development was fully achieved (Table 2). However, the target set in the log frame for service provision by the DCs and POs is rather open, i.e. the services
were not defined. Also, the ability to provide services autonomously (i.e. without further support by the project), was not captured. For this evaluation the consultants assumed that services provided should address the constraints of Uganda’s coffee sector as listed briefly in section 2.
Table 2: Organizational development
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
No farmer organizations targeting joint value addition and
marketing of coffee exist in the
project area
570 Producer organizations and
32 Depot Committees have
been established and strengthened
100% achieved
570 Producer organizations and
32 Depot Committees can provide defined services to their
members
13
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Box 1: Structure of farmer organizations
All DC companies are under the umbrella of the Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance (see section 4.3.4).
Neighboring companies within one region work with each other for bulked transports to Kampala and
control each other to some extent (zones). Each Company comprises 20-30 POs. Farmer Field School
(FFS) facilitators (see section 4.3.2) work with several POs. POs working with the same facilitator form
PO clusters.
Each DC company has a similar structure: a board, supported by three committees: legal, financial and
marketing, manager, extensionist and a number of FFS facilitators.
Country
UCFA
Mityana
Mubende
Luwero
Masaka
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Kasese
Region /
district
Subcounty
Village
DC 1
PO 1
PO x
Cluster 1
DC 2
PO xx
DC x
PO xx
Cluster 2
Source: HRNS, 2011. CFAU Annual report 2011
PO xxx
Cluster 3
PO xxx
14
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
The evaluation of the organizational development objective additionally included the following
aspects:

Institutional learning and formalization.

Service provision.

Governance (transparency/participation), and

Sustainability.
Institutional learning and formalization
All of the DCs were established in 2009 as Community Based Organizations. In 2012 all of the
DCs made the transition to Limited Liability Companies (limited by guarantee).5
Since their establishment all of the companies have undergone transformations, deviating
from the original blueprint provided by HRNS to different degrees, which is considered a positive development. For example, the companies have different income sources and/or ways of
defining them6. They have learned to deal with the variations in coffee quantity and quality
between seasons and years, and have adapted the process of bulking to meet these changing
conditions. These adaptations accommodate differences between the different DC areas (e.g.
marginal vs. core coffee growing area7, level of competition by other buyers), but may also
explain some of the differences in service provision and governance (see below).
Overall business skills related to planning, controlling and managing the organization still need
to be improved.
None of the Companies have yet undergone formal financial audits as required by law, or have
filed returns with the Ugandan Revenue Authority (URA). According to project management
and UCFA the 1st financial audit as required by law is planned for the next financial year.
Service provision
All of the companies trade coffee, and provide training in coffee management, book keeping
and planning. 80% - 90% of the companies provide market information, limited short term prefinance and train farmers in the management of other crops and livestock. Other services include sale of farm inputs, training in climate change adaptation, sanitation and food security.
Only one of the companies gives formal loans to farmers.
DCs together with the POs provide these extension services free of charge. However, farmers
may not perceive these services as an important added benefit of selling coffee through the
DCs. That is farmers have no obligation to sell their coffee through the DC despite the benefit
from training and technical advice, which are certainly not offered by middlemen or local traders.
5
The company form was recommended byZake, Wegulo& Co. Advocates (2007)
All Companies take a service fee for bulking of coffee (price set per kg Kiboko), some collect membership fee per PO, others collect membership from farmers selling their coffee through the Company.
7
The amount of coffee available in a given area, its distribution over areas and number of farmers influences the way Companies can bulk coffee and cost of bulking.
6
15
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Loans
Others
Training in CC adaptation
Sale of inputs
Training in other crops and
livestock management
Pre-finance / up-front
payments
Market information
Bulking of coffee / marketing
Training in book keeping and
planning
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Training in coffee
management
Companies providing a service
Figure 3: Service provision by Companies
N=11
Governance (transparency/participation)
All companies and POs have information sharing mechanisms in place, such as regular meetings at the company or PO level, between the company and PO representatives (council) and
annual general meetings at the company level. Also, internal audits of the companies are conducted by selected farmers who do not partake in the everyday business of the company.
(Figure 4) Transparency between company and POs is likely hampered in companies where the
archiving, aggregation and analysis of records and data (in particular accounting of cost, income and profit) are still wanting (see section 4.3.4). Also, the information exchange between
the zonal representatives and other companies seems to be limited. For example, companies
whose chairperson is the zonal representative have stated that there is a strong degree of
communication with UCFA. Whereas those who do not have a zonal representative (and therefore meet with UCFA less frequently), said that communication with UCFA is lacking.
The three to four FFS facilitators are an important link between the DC and the POs throughout the year (see box 1 and Figure).
Most of the companies did not have any money on their accounts. Some of the DCs explained
that the seasons benefit was given as a loan to DC members, however, this seemed poorly
recorded if at all. The conditions for these “loans” were not shared. Others spent part of their
surplus on acquiring assets such as office furniture.
16
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 4: Information and control between different levels
UCFA
DC zonal
representative
DC
chairperson
DC
DC
management
FFS facilitator
Internal auditors
PO
Council
Producer organisations
Frequent interaction and information exchange
Infrequent interaction and information exchange
Sustainability
All of the companies still rely on the technical support provided by the HRNS. HRNS officers still
visit the companies and POs, providing technical input, e.g. to the internal auditing process.
Also, HRNS pays for the FFS facilitators8, which are an important feature of the DCs extension
service. Company management works voluntarily, with the exception of the company manager, and the FFS facilitators. The manager is usually paid per UGX 10-15/kg Kiboko bulked.
Companies finance their activities from the FAQ9 returns10 and the resulting accumulation of
capital and through commercial loans (see section 4.3.4). Not all companies use loans due to
the high cost. Companies set the Kiboko price paid to farmers based on FAQ price at the start
of bulking activities and estimated outturn. Given the length of the bulking process (see section 4.3.4 and Figure 7) and possible variations in FAQ prices and outturn DCs are exposed to
financial risk. Although experience shows that these are limited to individual batches. Changes
8
FFS facilitators in Luwero are paid in the framework of the EU/FAO funded Climate Change project
since 2013. HRNS payment for FFS facilitators in Luwero stopped temporarily in 2012. The Companies
were unwilling or unable to take on the payment of the facilitators salaries. While FFS facilitators kept
working their enthusiasm dropped markedly (Annual report for the year 2012).
9
FAQ: Fair Average Quality, Coffee beans freed from their husks, but without further grading.
10
Expenses and profit margin are deducted from the FAQ price
17
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
experienced can of course be positive as well. Another factor for determining price paid for
Kiboko to farmers is the price offered by middlemen. DCs promise to pay a higher price than
the prevailing local trader price. This difference usually amounts to Uganda shillings 200 per kg
Kiboko.
Few companies had cash in their accounts at the time of the visit (see also “Governance”
above) but records provided by the Companies indicate that Companies can build up capital
over time, albeit slowly (Table3). The table shows figures for out-turn, bulking cost and income
for selected DCs and batches. At the moment DCs have relatively high bulking costs. By increasing efficiency in bulking they can further increase their margins and slowly built up their
capital and of course pass on a higher benefit to the farmer. Achieving a higher out-turn (influenced by on-farm management) is important as it contributes greatly to positive margins.
Table3: Net income for selected DCs and batches
Outturn
Income
Cost of bulking,
value addition
and transport
Net-income*
Depot
Committee
%
Kyetume-Kibanyi
57.2
296.0
221.7
74.3
Mitigyera
53.2
108.9
150.1
-41,2
Butalaga
55.1
157.3
111.1
46.2
(UGX/kg Kiboko)
4.3.2 On-farm production
Activities conducted under the objective aimed at three aspects related to on-farm production:

Increased productivity,

Diversification of crops in combination with coffee, and

Expansion of coffee farming (e.g. increased stocking and additional area for coffee farming).
To that end, the project supported the companies in employing FFS facilitators. These people
were taught about Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), training methodology, and other topics.
These facilitators pass on this knowledge to farmers. The project identified and trained lead
farmers and established demonstration plots at the PO level to show good agricultural practices. PO members were trained by the FFS facilitator and Lead Farmers using a modified FFS
approach. On average, three to four facilitators covered all of the POs within one company
during monthly visits.
18
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Box 2: Farmer Field Schools
Group learning: A group of people with a common interest form the core of the Farmer Field
School (FFS). The curriculum follows the natural cycle of its subject. Learning is based on the
principles of sharing knowledge, experimentation and participation (learning-by-doing). Lessons take place in the field and are hands-on.
Facilitation: FFS needs a technically and socially competent facilitator to lead members
through the hands-on exercises. The facilitator can be an extension officer or a FFS graduate.
A good program leader who can support the training of facilitators, organize materials for
the field, solve problems in participatory ways and nurture field staff facilitators is essential.
Finance: FFSs can be expensive or low-cost, depending on who implements the FFS and how
they are conducted. Main cost factors are allowances, transportation and [several layers] of
supervision. When the FFS is carried out by local organizations and farmer facilitators, initial
start-up costs may be moderate, and the running costs will be much lower.
Criticism: FFSs have been criticized for their high cost and limited sustainability. A review of
FFS by Waddington (2012) shows limited spill-over to non-members.
Farmer Field Schools by HRNS:
In the project FFS are formed at village level, basically incorporating the same members as
the POs. Accordingly the group revolves around coffee farming and marketing. Group members set the training agenda for each meeting, and training sessions take place at different
farms chosen in advance by the members.
Facilitators are locals trained by the project. Over time they double in function as an extension worker for the DC Companies (see Box 1 in section 4.3.1). In theory, companies will take
on the compensation of the FFS facilitator at some stage.
Group members live in the vicinity of each other and do not receive allowances. The facilitator receives a very moderate compensation of UGX 100,000/month. She/he covers several
FFS/POs. As a result the cost for FFS per farmer is low.
Experiences in Mityana/Mubende have shown that FFSs are stable groups with high participation if coupled with Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA).
The targets listed by the project – the adoption of GAP and rejuvenation of coffee trees – have
been achieved (Table 4). A quantification of these targets was only made in the baseline study.
While the overall yields of project farmers are higher than those observed in the baseline,
there is still substantial room for improvement when compared to model farms. Furthermore,
the project identified the establishment of nurseries and access to micro-finance as milestones
to raise productivity. Related activities and outputs to these are discussed below.
19
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Table 4: On-farm productivity and practices
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
The baseline reports indicates
low production and productivity
evidenced by indicators such as:
 Knowledge of number of
coffee trees
 Number of coffee trees/ha
 Number of productive trees
 Implementation of good
agricultural
practices
(stumping of coffee trees,
use of plating material, pruning, use of herbicide, pesticide, fertilizer etc.)
Farmers have improved their
farm management practices
Adoption of Good Agricultural
Practices
The target was achieved.
Based on the quantification
provided below (based on the
targets set in the baseline study)
the target was achieved to 96%.
Farmers are rejuvenating their
coffee farms and conducting onfarm research
Baseline and target as in baseline
At least 2kg dry cherry per tree
Average yield in dry cherry per
tree per year is 2.7 and 2.5
kg/tree*year in Luwero and
Masaka respectively.
50% keep farm records
51% keep farm records
Less than 1kg dry cherry per
tree
11% keep records
34% of farmers use inputs
62% of farmers use inputs
100% farmers know their coffee 96% of farmers know their cofyields
fee yields
77% farmer pruning
95% practice pruning
92% practice pruning
Input use and adoption of GAP
The large majority of farmers (>85%) use practices that can be implemented at no, or low cost,
and that do not have a [even short term] negative impact on the amount of coffee harvested.
This includes pruning, de-suckering and selective picking. Stumping of or replacement of trees
is practiced by 65% and 75% of farmers respectively. The use of inputs (herbicide, pesticide,
fertilizer or manure/mulch) has doubled in comparison to the baseline, but is still low when
compared to the other low cost agricultural practices. Over 93% of farmers use elite or clonal
seedlings for planting. The remainder use seedlings from their own gardens or uncertified
nurseries. Some farmers (approx. 13%) use traditional seedlings as well as elite seedlings and
clones.
20
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
% of farmres applying GAP
Figure 5: Use of inputs and application of good agricultural practices
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N=179
Nurseries
Four nurseries were established in Luwero region and four in Masaka region. Another four
nurseries are planned to be established within the framework of the Luwero Climate change
project which started in late 2013. Nurseries are owned and run by private individuals/households. The project encouraged women to take on the main responsibility for the
nursery. The primary objective of the nurseries is to sell high quality clonal seedlings to farmers in the vicinity. Nursery operators were trained and coached, and received inputs based on
a 50:50 cost share agreement.
The targeted annual production capacity per nursery for clones is 37,500. Nursery operators
interviewed stated survival rates of 85% for cuttings. In 2013 the nurseries received Coffee
Wilt Disease resistant mother plants through UCDA. Some of the nursery operators have expanded their operations including the raising of elite seedlings, which are sold to the UCDA,
and incorporate agroforestry tree species into their business.
Between 2009 and 2013 Uganda Coffee Development Authority distributed 1.35 million elite
seedlings, worth more than UGX 400 million, in Luwero and Masaka through the PO structures
created by the project.
Micro-Finance Institutions
Access to finance for farm inputs as well as to cover other expenses (education, health) are
critical to farmer households (see section 4.3.5 and section 5.2).
Access to finance for individual households through e.g. Village Saving and Loan Associations
(VSLA), Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations (SACCO) or commercial lending by banks
remains very limited. Only 20% of the POs have set up VSLAs. It must be stressed, that while
21
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
the log frame lists access to micro finance as a milestone, it was not a key target of the project.
However, in the framework of the project several activities have been initiated to address this
issue.
Productivity
Actual productivity, i.e. the ratio between inputs and output, could not be evaluated. However, increased yields give an indication for higher productivity, in particular when considering
that mainly low cost GAPs are applied.
The average yield of farmers increased from < 1kg/tree to 2.7 kg/tree dry cherry annually in
Luwero and 2.5 kg/tree dry cherry in Masaka.11 However, yield still varies widely with values
between 0.2 and 5.6 kg/tree annually.40% of farmers still have farms with very low productivity of less than 1kg of coffee per tree annually (Figure 6). 12 The discrepancy of many farmers
with low yields to many farmers adoption good agricultural practice may be caused by the
delayed response of coffee trees to the better management.
Values for average rate of outturn (dry cherry to green coffee) provided by the Companies
indicate an impact of implementing GAPs. At the project start, the outturn ranged between 5253%, whereas currently it stands at 56-59%. The exemption is Kakooge Company (53-55%);
which is, however, situated at the edge of the viable coffee growing area.
Farmers per yield class
Figure 6: Coffee yields dry cherry
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
< 1kg
1-2 kg
2-3 kg
3-4 kg
>4 kg
Coffee yield (kg/year*tree)
N=179, n=82
11
Based on project records. The sampling base for Masaka was very limited.
Based on farmers statements: number of productive trees and total amount of Kiboko sold in a year.
Average yield estimated through questionnaires was only 1.7 kg Kiboko/tree*year. Only farmers who
knew the number of productive trees were included in the analysis. The result is not completely reliable
as farmers rarely have records of sales throughout the year.
12
22
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
4.3.3 Coffee quality
Capacity building to improve coffee quality took place at different levels and at all stages of the
coffee value chain:

Production,

Harvesting,

Post-harvest management and storage, and

Marketing.
Farmers were trained in quality management by lead farmers and in FFS (with support from
the project). Company members received training in quality control procedures, communication of quality standards and were encouraged to distinguish between different qualities (e.g.
screen size). Furthermore, the companies received the necessary equipment for quality control:

Weighing scale

Screen sieve

Hand huller

Moisture meter
Targets for improving coffee quality of project farmers were achieved. Quality improvements
resulted from the adoption of good harvesting and post harvesting practices. Furthermore,
quality was improved by the enforcement of a minimum quality standard for coffee traded
through the companies, including requirements such as:

Moisture content of ≤ 13%

Coffee free of foreign materials

No moldy cherries.
Table 5: Coffee quality
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
The baseline report indicates
that the production of poor
quality coffee is largely due to
poor post harvesting practices,
but also linked to the nonimplementation of good agricultural practices as listed above
(Table 4).
Capacities related to quality
improvement at the farmer and
group levels has been built
Quality control measures and
procedures have been established at the farmer and group
levels.
The target was achieved.
Based on the quantification
provided below (target set in
the baseline study) the target
was achieved to 100%.
Baseline and target as in baseline
15.3% of farmers dried coffee
on tarpaulins
50% of farmers drying coffee on
tarpaulins
83% of farmers dry coffee on
tarpaulins
23
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Adoption of good harvesting and post harvesting practices
A significant number of farmers have adopted harvesting and post-harvest practices that have
a positive impact on quality of the coffee (Table 6).
Table 6: Improving coffee quality
Practice
Degree of adoption
Sample size
Picking of ripe cherries
95%
n=168
Drying on tarpaulins
83%
n=178
Storage on raised beds
65%
n=174
N=179
Quality control
The companies have implemented various quality control measures. All coffee is checked for
impurities (dirt, stones, and other biomass), the state of the dried cherries (coloration, moldiness) and the moisture content. Furthermore, the storage conditions are crosschecked by the
lead farmer/bulking team. Coffee not fulfilling the set standards is rejected. The weight of all
coffee sold through the DC is measured before collection. However, none of the Companies
interviewed were using the sample huller or screen sieve at farm level. The reason given was
the impracticality of carrying the equipment from farmer to farmer, and the time
volved.13However, sample hullers can be used to establish differences in outturn between
areas, which would allow DCs to slightly adjust prices area based. Also, by establishing the
outturn before delivery at the hulling factory allows the DC to control the operator of the hulling factory.
4.3.4 Value addition and market access
In regards to value addition and market access, project activities can be grouped into two
components:
1. The training of company members and staff, and selected members of the POs (lead farmers) on access to and analysis of market information, marketing, performance control, and
the benefits of primary processing (hulling). Companies in Luwero were also trained in the
sustainability standard from UTZ.
2. The building of the apex organization UCFA to provide market linkages and connections to
other service providers, e.g. for financial services and farm inputs.
Farmers have better market access and increased benefits from value addition activities (e.g.
the milling of coffee to FAQ). (Table 7) As a result, their income per kilogram of Kiboko is higher.
13
The original idea was to aggregate coffee at collection points, i.e. individual farmers bring their coffee
there. In reality the Companies bulking team collects coffee from individual farmers. Only very small
amounts are delivered by the farmer. (see section 4.3.4, Figure 7)
24
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
The important role of the UCFA is not reflected in the targets. Also, in the logical framework
five milestones were identified. These are:
1. Supply chain agreements have been signed
2. Companies generate income from non-coffee activities
3. A credit scheme has been designed and is implemented (commercial loans for companies).
4. 7,000 farmers are verified by 2013 against the sustainability standard
5. A study on opportunities related to certified carbon emission reductions and carbon sequestration has been conducted
Details on related activities and outputs for UCFA services and the five milestones are provided
below.
Table 7: Value addition and market access
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
No value addition took place.
Capacity in coffee marketing at
The target was achieved to
the PO and DC levels has been
100% based on the targets set in
built.
the baseline.
Strong marketing structures
have been established at the DC
level to enhance value addition.
Trade relations at the national
and international level, including
certification and branding have
been enhanced.
Baseline and target as in baseline
100% of coffee sold at farm gate
as wet or dry Cherry.
The 32 DCs are affiliated to the
UCFA
UCFA has the capacity to deliver
services to the member groups.
Target achieved. All 32 DC companies are members of UCFA.
UCFA, with the support of HRNS,
entered into supply chain
agreements with exporters,
controls the fairness of the
transactions between the DC
companies and exporters, and
facilitates access to financial
resources for both companies
and farmers.
50% of the coffee is sold
through farmer organizations.
50% of coffee is sold as FAQ
directly to exporters in Kampala
The target is understood as 50%
of farmers coffee yields are sold
through the companies. 100% of
the coffee marketed by the
Companies is sold as FAQ.
Approximately 60% of the total
coffee yield is sold through the
companies.*
Almost all the Kiboko collected
by the companies is sold to
exporters as FAQ.
25
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
*The value given is based on estimates by the farmers and reflects only the main season (Nov-Jan).
Information given may not be entirely accurate. For example when coffee is sold at earlier stages (e.g.
flowers) the farmer does not know the amount of coffee sold.
UCFA services
In 2010 UCFA became a functional organization. The alliance facilitates and supports the marketing efforts of the companies, creates linkages with other service providers, lobbies on their
behalf, and is planning to provide additional services to its farmer members. The management
structure of UCFA is slim, with only two management staff on its payroll (an Executive Manager and a Financial Controller). It has no staff on the ground in either of the project regions assessed in this evaluation. However, one UCFA officer is based in Mityana and Mubende respectively in the framework of a project seeking to improve access to finance. An overview of the
UCFA structures is provided in box 3.
Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance finances itself to approximately 25% through a service fee
based on the amount of FAQ traded by the companies to exporters (UGX 50/kg FAQ). The remainder of financial resources (including in kind) stems from other sources (UCDA in-kind,
project finance).
In some cases companies interviewed questioned the amount paid14, even stating that they’d
like to revise the agreement governing their membership to UCFA. Limited information flow
between UCFA and companies was indicated several times. It could not be determined where
exactly information is held back, but it is likely that information is lost in several places: at the
zonal level (i.e. information passed on from zonal representatives to other companies, see
section 4.3.1, Figure 4) and at the company level (i.e. between members).
Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance screens Kampala based coffee exporters at the beginning of
each season (e.g. the history of prices paid, payment modalities, etc.) and enters into agreements with them. Coffee will be sold by the companies to one or more of these exporters. The
supply chain agreement includes the deduction of the UCFA commission from the price
achieved by the individual companies and the direct remittance of it to the UCFA.15
14
In some DCs services provided by UCFA are not very visible/well communicated. Thus, some DCs question the justification of the amount deducted. (see section 4.3.1)
15
Each DCs has entered into an MoU with UCFA: UGX 50/Kg FAQ are deducted by the exporter and are
directly remitted to UCFA.
26
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Box 3: Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance
UCFA management: Managing Director, two management staff, two field officers
Everyday management of UCFA business
Board of Directors: elected by the General Assembly, forming two committees: Business
Development Committee and Finance Committee
Meetings every two months, supervision of and support to UCFA management
Disciplinary Committee: elected by the General Assembly
General Assembly: all members (Companies) are represented through their chairperson,
nine women representatives, twelve founder members
Quarterly meetings disaggregated for regions, decisions made by the assembly are binding for all members
Farmers team of experts: Selected farmers from the best performing Company (amount of
coffee bulked)
Visits to other Companies to share knowledge and control
Board of advisors: Five experts from UCDA director, HRNS general manager, UCF director,
MAAIF director plan for modernization of agriculture, EU head of rural development.
Marketing of coffee
The companies provide market information to their members, which they in turn receive on a
regular basis from Ibero and UCFA. Kiboko is aggregated at the company level and processed
to FAQ. Often companies combine their coffee for transport to Kampala. All companies follow
a fairly lengthy process for coffee bulking, value addition and sale. It can take up to two weeks
between the start of bulking and the payment of farmers.
The bulking process as originally designed by the project, and the one that is currently being
operationalized are depicted in Figure 7. Rather than farmers bringing their coffee to collection
centers, the company management collects the coffee from individual farmers or small groups,
even for fairly small amounts of coffee. The original idea proved to be not feasible given the
high competition of traders buying at the farm gate. The actual duration of the bulking process
depends on the amount and distribution of coffee available, power supply gaps and number of
other customers at the mill, and the readiness of other companies participating in the joint
transport of the coffee to the buyer in Kampala.
The collection and control of Kiboko involves many people:

Farmer

Lead farmer:

Company Manager
Quality control

PO executive and/or treasurer
Weighing

1 member of the marketing committee
Payment and accounting

Helpers
Loading and transport
Estimating the quantity available, controlling the harvesting, drying and
storage processes, and is present for the coffee collection
27
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 7: Bulking process
Planned bulking and sales process
DC
Company
3
Farmer 1
Farmer 2
Farmer 3
Collection
centres
DC store
Farmer ...
Farmer ...
DC
Company
2
Farmer
111
1. Transport of coffee by the farmers to
collection centers.
2. Quality control at the collection
center by the DC:
 Moisture content
 Cleanliness
Transport to the hulling
factory and processing to
FAQ
Joint transport
of FAQ to Kampala
 Outturn
 Screen size
Actual bulking and sales process
DC
Company
3
Farmer 1
Farmer 2
DC
Company
Farmer 3
Collection
centres or
DC store
Farmer ...
Farmer ...
Farmer
111
Bulking from and quality control at
individual farms by the DC:
 Moisture content
 Cleanliness
4-6 days
DC
Company
2
Transport to the hulling
factory and processing to
FAQ
1-2 days
Joint transport
of FAQ to Kampala
2-3 days
28
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Improved farm income
Field data and interviews indicate that in particular small farmers are achieving higher quantity
per unit and providing better quality coffee than large farmers. That is they focus not so much
on additional trees but good management of the existing ones (including replacement). In conjunction with using the marketing and value addition service provided by the DCs, smallholder
farmers can benefit substantially from the DC services.
Farmers in Luwero and Masaka project regions selling through the DCs received between 100200 UGX more per kg of dry been (approx. 8% price premium) more than those selling to middlemen.
Data provided by UCFA for Mityana and Mubende shows that DC price lies on average 15%
above the national average.16 It is noteworthy that farmers situated in project areas but not
selling through the DCs benefit from the project as well: prices offered by middlemen in the
project area are on average 5% above the national average.
Record keeping and financial accountability of Companies
Record keeping, and data aggregation and use varies widely from simple collection of receipts
and minimum aggregation, to very detailed lists combining figures for coffee bulked, members
selling coffee through the Company, expenses and income (Figure 8). However, all companies
report to UCFA (and have reported to the project). While Companies do know the price paid
for Kiboko by middlemen when they set their own price they do not record it.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
16
National average for the same period from UCDA.
Reports
Minutes
Quality of coffee
collected per member
Amount passed on to
exporter
Amount of coffee
collected total
Amount of coffee
collected per member
Members contact
details
N=11
Kiboko prices paid by
middlemen
0%
0%
Members name
No. Companies providing a services
Figure 8: Record keeping by Companies
29
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Quantities marketed by Companies
Farmers sell coffee both to the companies and to other traders, despite the price premium
ranging between UGX 100-200/kg Kiboko given by the companies.17 In particular, in the fly
crop season a large share of farmers sell to other buyers only. This is likely related to the companies not buying at all in some areas due to the much smaller amounts sold per farmer, and
the relatively higher effort of bulking in the fly season.
Table 8: Kiboko marketing through the DC Companies
Main season November-January
Farmers
selling
Share of Kiboko
sold to the DC
Fly crop season April-May
Farmers
selling
Share of Kiboko
sold to the DC
Farmers selling to the DC
Company only
51%
100%
40%
100%
Farmers selling to the DC
Company and others
30%
53%
19%
49%
Farmers selling to others
only
19%
0%
41%
0%
Average
67%
49%
N=179, Farmers selling coffee nNov-Jan=112, nApr-May=93
All Companies show a positive trend in the amount of coffee bulked each year. (Figure
9)However, differences between the companies are huge, ranging between 5.3 tons Kiboko
and 65.6 tons Kiboko in 2013/14. Differences in the total amount of coffee produced in a given
area explain these differences only to a small extent.
17
Price is compared to middlemen prices within the project area. According to the project management
the premium is significantly higher when compared to “normal” prices outside the project area.
30
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 9: Development of coffee bulked
70,0
DC 1
Information not available
DC 2
DC 3
50,0
DC 4
40,0
DC 5
Luwero
Kiboko traded (t)
60,0
DC 6
30,0
DC 7
20,0
10,0
DC 9
DC 10
0,0
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Masaka
DC 8
DC 11
Financial year
Other company income
None of the companies interviewed indicated any income other than from coffee related activities (in a few cases farm inputs were traded against a negligible commission). Nonetheless, all
companies have investment ideas aiming at improvement and expansion of service delivery to
farmers. However, none of them have a business/investment plan to realize their ideas.
Access to commercial loans
Companies have taken out loans between 8 and 10 million UGX for the 2013/14 season. All of
the companies but one indicated that the access to finance is very positive for their ability to
bulk more coffee (ability to pay farmers on the spot).18 All but one of the companies were able
to pay back their loans and interest in a timely manner.
The German development cooperation (GIZ), with a software application developed by SAP,
has developed a data collection system meant to facilitate access to commercial loans by
farmers. The application allows for data collection and analysis from the individual farmer.
Data collected includes bulking and sale to the exporter in Kampala, and payments received by
the farmer. The pilot project started in July 2013 targeting 12 DCs. The aim is to hand over the
system fully to the companies in 2015. From 2016 companies would have to pay the licensing
fee for the software.
Opportunity Bank, together with Gramin Bank, KfW and UCFA, is developing a group lending
scheme. UCFA together with GIZ is developing a similar pilot project in Mityana and Mubende.
Once functional, the model is planned to be implemented in other areas as well.
18
Kakooge Company was not comfortable taking a loan. Instead, it identified members willing to wait for
payment of their coffee until the end of the season, thus providing the company with working capital.
These members were promised the maximum value for coffee achieved in this season.
31
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Certification
All of the companies and their related POs in Luwero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola are certified
with the UTZ standard19. According to the list provided by the HRNS (data from 2013), 73% of
farmers were compliant. Some farmers have dropped out of the project or are dormant as
they are not willing to/cannot/do not yet fulfil the necessary criteria. To ensure adherence to
the UTZ standards control structures are in place at the company and PO levels. The companies do not have the incentive to aggregate and transport certified and uncertified coffee separately, and to maintain separate records as the price premium is negligible. In the 2013/14
season coffee was traded as uncertified regardless of its source.
The achievement of certification is questionable considering the above mentioned missing
incentive to handle different coffee origins. Furthermore, some of the standard´s conditions
are difficult to implement. The cost of certification is likely prohibitive if it is to be covered by
the companies.
Study on Climate Smart Agriculture
A brief assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation options was carried out in
February, 2014. The assessment identified measures aiming at enhancing soil carbon storage
(e.g. mulching) and maintaining the above ground biomass were found to be promising.
4.3.5 Livelihoods
The project’s logistical framework lists a range of activities targeting the improvement of people’s lives in the areas of education and health. These activities focused on the training of facilitators and DC members on such issues. Facilitators and DC members pass on knowledge to
individual households, and are meant to establish linkages to organizations implementing projects/programs targeting education and health.
46% of the POs visited had other organizations (other than NAADS, such as World Vision, VEDCO, Plan international, Heifer international and others) working in the area. Here, changes in
livelihoods cannot be clearly attributed to the CFAU project only.
Income and quality of life has changed significantly for many households since the project
start. Project farmers produce more coffee per unit and are paid on average Uganda shillings
200 per kg Kiboko more compared to what non-project farmers are getting from local traders.
19
UTZ is a sustainability standard focusing on good agricultural practices to enable farmers to strengthen
productivity. The standard incorporates social and environmental aspect.
32
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Table 9: Livelihoods
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
The baseline identified several
proxies as indicators for living
standard or livelihood. There is,
however, no clear indication of
the level of prosperity or poverty observed (i.e. no thresholds
set).
Social and cross cutting issues
are identified, prioritized and an
implementation strategy designed and executed with the
community
Linkages to potential service
providers on cross cutting issues
established
Limited achievement of targets.
The targets set do not allow a
quantitative assessment.
No indication of a strategy addressing social and crosscutting
issues was found (other than
gender, see section below).
Existing linkages to services
providers covering such issues
are informal.
Linkages to service providers to address crosscutting issues
Few of the POs and none of the companies interviewed mentioned relationships with nongovernmental organizations or programs targeting health and education. Where such linkages
existed, they were of a more informal nature, e.g. some PO members were affiliated to another group targeting health or education and shared what they have learned with their fellow
farmers using the group structures. Local government, UCDA and NAADS use the DC/PO structures for various purposes, such as dissemination of health information, agricultural messages,
political mobilization and mobilization for distribution of inputs.
Changes in livelihood
86% of the interviewed farmers can save on average UGX 45,000/month (USD 18), and 78%
can cover expenses which they were not able to cover before 2010. Priority for savings/investments is given, in order, to education, domestic spending, farm investment and
housing. Figure 10 provides an overview on tangible investments made by households since
2010. More than 80% of households acquired new assets, while 10% reported a loss – usually
livestock or crops.
25% of the households have bank accounts, and 36% have taken out a loan - with the majority
through VSLA. Loans are used for education, farm investments followed by domestic spending,
business ventures and medical expenses.
The above notwithstanding 25% of households were still food insecure with not enough food
(on average four months per year). No clear common denominator could be found for these
households. However, 60% of those experiencing food shortages did not sell coffee through
the Companies.
33
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Households aquiring new assets
Figure 10: Changes in household assets since 2010
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
N=179, n=170
Families may have invested in only one or several of the above.
Livestock: no distinction was made between different types of animals
4.3.6 Gender equality
HRNS employs a gender expert in charge of development and oversight of the gender component, and gender field officers in the project regions. Other HRNS staff was trained on gender
issues to create the necessary environment for successful gender interventions with the UCFA,
companies and POs. UCFA, companies (including extensionist and the FFS facilitator) and lead
farmers were sensitized to ensure active participation of women in the project at all levels. At
the village level the project conducted community dialog workshops and theater performances. Participation by all village households was encouraged. In each participating PO several
change agents were identified (i.e. voluntarily, couples setting a good example/role models).
The project engaged Local Government (LG) and civil society organizations (CSO).
7,850 households participated in gender seminars and 2,743 couples were registered as
change agents (CFAU Annual report for the year 2012).
34
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Table 10: Gender equality
Baseline
Targets
Targets achieved
According to the baseline study
women contribute with up to
50% to farm labor, including
coffee. However, often they are
not, or to a limited extent only,
involved in marketing of coffee
and access to the revenues from
coffee.
Capacity and commitment of
HRNS to address gender inequality within the organization
and projects has been built.
Strategies to reduce gender
discriminatory practices in farming communities have been
defined, formulated and are
being implemented.
Linkages and collaboration with
LG and CSOs have been established to address gender concerns in the community
The targets were achieved. The
targets set do not allow for a
quantitative assessment.
Improvements in gender relations
The results and impact of the gender interventions were evaluated in a separate study (Muchodo et al., 2014). The evaluation report shows that:

There is relatively equal access and control between men and woman outside the static
formal definitions of ownership

97% of respondents jointly plan and make decisions on the income earned from their enterprises

60% of women are highly active in training and make every effort to attend to meetings
and trainings whenever invited.

Female representation in farmer organizations is low and the pace into leadership roles is
still slow. 20% of the respondents in the female sample had leadership roles as lead farmers and committee members and only 5% of them served on the executive body at the PO
and DC levels.
These findings could be confirmed to some extent. For example, in the companies and POs
covered by this analysis we found that woman participated at both levels. However, in companies only approximately 15% of the positions (executive and committees) were filled by women. Approximately 35% of the PO members were women.
Figure 11 shows how households with and without gender interventions compare. Out of the
total sample, 35% of the households participated in gender activities. Ironically in households
without gender interventions men contribute more often to the regular household chores such
as cooking, fetching water, fire wood collection and cleaning than in households with the gender intervention.20 However, looking at coffee related management activities distribution of
work is significantly different between “gender” and “non-gender” households. Workload is
20
The actual share of contribution of partners was not be quantified. Households participating in the
gender activities may be more critical due to the intervention, i.e. qualify contribution differently and
are more likely to report imbalances.
35
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
more often distributed equally between men and women in gender households, and in particular for time consuming activities, such as weeding and picking, the entire household21 is
more often involved (Figure 12). For more heavy duty activities, such as pruning, the work is
usually carried out by men. Furthermore, management and marketing decisions, and sales are
more frequently done jointly (Figure 13).
Figure 11: Men contributing to household work
gender
no gender
Men contributing to household work
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Cooking
Fetching Water
Collecting Firewood
Cleaning the house
N=179, ngender=116 , nnon-gender=63
Only contribution to a certain task was assessed, not the extent of contribution.
Figure 12: Distribution of farm work
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Weeding
N=179, ngender=48, nnon gender=70
21
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mulching
N=179, ngender=17, nnon gender=26
UTZCore Code of Conduct Version 1.0: Children living on small scale family farms may participate in
farming activities that consist of light, age appropriate duties that give them an opportunity to develop
skills, provided that the activities are not harmful to their health and development, do not interfere with
schooling and leisure time, and are under supervision of an adult.
36
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 12: Distribution of farm work
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Picking
N=179, ngender=47, nnon gender=70
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Packing
N=179, ngender=47, nnon gender=64
Figure 13: Decision making in farmer households
Management activities and
marketing
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N=179, ngender=47 , nnon gender=71
Sale
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N=179, ngender=46 , nnon gender=71
37
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
5 Evaluation findings
5.1 Overall achievement of the project objectives and vision
Overall the project has achieved very good results, with most of the targets set in the log
frame fully met, and the remainders at least to some degree. Table 11 provides an overview of
the degree of success for each of the objectives.
Table 11: Overall achievement of targets
Objective
1 Organizational development
2 On farm productivity
Targets achieved*
100%
96%
3 Coffee quality
100%
4 Value addition and market access
100%
5 Livelihoods
Partly achieved
6 Gender equality
Target achieved
Overall
>80%
*The degree of achievement of targets reflects only the targets set in the log frame. The qualitative
22
analysis is not reflected.
The vision “To improve the livelihoods of 20,000 farmer households through improved [coffee]
production systems, aiming at raising productivity, product quality and efficiency” has been
achieved:
According to the farmer data base provided by the project 16,176 farmers participated in
the project.23
Indicators for improved productivity exist:

The average yield per tree has risen from less than 1kg/tree and year (baseline) to
more than 2.5 kg dry cherry per tree and year on average.

Outturn of coffee marketed by the Companies rose from on average approx. 54% to
approx. 58%.

Farmers adopted (mainly low cost) good agricultural practices.
Product quality has improved due to better harvesting and post-harvesting practices
adopted by a large share of farmers and control measures implemented by the companies.
Complying with the quality standard, together with the conversion to FAQ translates into
higher prices for farmers (USD 0.04-0.08/kg Kiboko or approx. 8% price premium compared to the usual farm gate price inside the project area).
22
For example, targets under objective 1 are limited to the number of organisations created, not the
quality of service delivery.
23
HRNS was in the process of updating the lists. Hence, actual number of participants might deviate
from the value stated. (Bukomansimbi = 4,417; Luwero = 11,759). According to project management
more farmers did actually participate than officially registered.
38
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Efficiency is achieved through the collection of Kiboko by the companies for transport,
hulling to FAQ and by selling the product to exporters. Without the bulking service provided by the companies, farmers could not sell coffee directly to the exporters. However, the
efficiency of the bulking process can and should be further increased.
As a result, the livelihoods of participating farmer households have improved, allowing
households to save and cover additional expenses. Assets acquired by households since
the project start in 2010 indicate a higher quality of life. Other organizations targeting livelihood aspects also work in the project area, and therefore, it must be noted that all of the
changes in livelihoods cannot be 100% attributed to this project.
5.2 Relevance and effectiveness of the project
The project is extremely relevant given that it targets farmer households, and in total 82% of
Uganda´s population lives in rural settings (UBOS, 2014). 1.7 million farm households grow
coffee in Uganda. In these households coffee constitutes on average more than 50% of the
household income (Technoserve, 2013).
This project addresses major deficiencies in the coffee sector in Uganda, in particular “[...] low
yields, limited participation in the post farm processes, lack [to access to] of improved technologies, unreliable [access to] sources of quality inputs, unsustainable agronomic practices,
inadequate extension and business advisory services, poor organization of farmers [...] (MAAIF,
2013).
The good results described above show that the project design and implementation is effective. The project is well designed, incorporating experiences and lessons learned from previous
projects implemented in Uganda (see Figure 1, chapter 2). Nonetheless, a few deficiencies
exist including:

Degree of value addition
The initial design foresees that companies add value by processing Kiboko to FAQ, as well
as by grading the coffee. However, the existing grading factories do not provide quality
grading according to the exporters standards. Even Nambubugu Company (Mityana district) one of the oldest and, according to the project, best performing companies does not
yet grade coffee.24
Farmers have a clear benefit from the current degree of value addition. Rather than adding
another step of value addition at this time, efforts should concentrate on improving the efficiency deficits in bulking and further improvement of productivity and coffee quality (see
point below).

Design of the bulking process
The bulking process as designed by the project assumed the dried Kiboko would be transported to collection centers by farmers. At the collection center the company would then
24
Nambubugu Company undertook grading ones, outsourcing the work to a grading factory. However,
the grading was done poorly and was not accepted by the buyer. As a result the project encourages DCs
to focus first and foremost on improved production and overall coordination of the value addition (FAQ)
and marketing process.
39
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
check quality (e.g. if it is free of foreign materials, the moisture content, outturn, screen
size, etc.) and record the quantity sold by each farmers. Farmers were to hand over their
coffee, with the actual payment made only after sale of coffee to the exporter in Kampala.
The design did not take into account the competition by traders25, who pay less, but also:
–
Collect at the farm gate,
–
Take any quality of coffee, and
–
Pay cash on the spot.
Companies have adapted the process (i.e. collection at the farm gate, payment of advances) and limit quality checks to foreign materials and moisture content. However, the
adapted process is more costly (transport, loan costs for working capital), time consuming
and prevents quality based payments.26 Allowing and encouraging the change of the original design shows the process oriented approach of the project.

Access to finance
Access to finance at the household level was identified as crucial by many stakeholders as
well as HRNS management. Affordable loans, be it through Village Saving and Loan Associations, SACCOs or banks, are important to cover short to midterm financial needs of
households. Finance is required to bridge time gaps between the actual time of expense
and income from cash crops (e.g. for school fees, Figure 14). Currently this gap is covered
to a large extent by middlemen buying un-dried coffee or coffee flowers at very low prices.
This pre-finance translates into high interest rates, which are however not very tangible to
the farmers. Selling crop early takes away any incentive for quality and yield management
– as the farmer won’t benefit from the related higher income anyway. Loans will also enable farmers to use more inputs such as fertilizer.
The original project design did not incorporate this aspect. However, the project together
with UCFA has started to address the problem, working together with Opportunity Bank
and KFW in two different pilot projects.
25
Competition increased to an unexpected degree, e.g. exporters have set up buying stations in the
project areas and local traders offer better farm gate prices (approx. 10% in comparison to outside the
project area (HRNS)). While unforeseen in the project design it must be seen as a positive development
from the farmer’s point of view.
26
By noting differences in outturn and screensize between farmers, Companies could differentiate payments between farmers. Currently anybody has to comply only with a minimum quality standard, but
also gets paid the same regardless of the actual effort made in management and post harvesting practises and likely related differences in outturn and screen size.
40
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 14: Cash flow misalignment
Source: Technoserve, 2013
Monthly income and expenditure for a typical farmer in USD
Farmers participating in the project have higher income from their farming activities, and are therefore more likely able to set aside money for months with higher expenditures (see section 4.3.5).
However, affordable loans remain unavailable for most farmers.

Feasibility of the current certification standards used (UTZ)
Certification of small holder coffee farmers according to the current sustainability standards requires substantial time, technical and financial input for implementation and control. Yet, UTZ certified coffee has only marginal to no price premium. As a result farmers
and companies have little incentive to become certified, and certainly could not cover the
financial cost of certification if asked to do so.

Project duration
The part of the project focusing on organizational development was limited to four years.
The results of this evaluation show that POs and DCs (companies) can be formed during
this time. However, in particular DC companies need longer to reach a state where they
can operate autonomously in a transparent and beneficial way for all members. Our estimate is that at least six to seven years are necessary to fully develop the capacity of the
organizations and guarantee their sustainability.
The project management is aware of these issues and has started to address them together
with project partners. For example, UCFA is working with KFW and Opportunity Bank to increase access to commercial loans by farmers (see section 4.3.4). HRNS is planning to re-design
the sustainability certification criteria with UTZ in the framework of a pilot project in Luwero.
Also, project offices in Luwero and Masaka will continue to work with and strengthen the
farmer groups and Companies, even though the intensity of their interactions and the project
focus will be different (e.g. Climate Change Adaptation Project Luwero).
Considering in particular the increased benefit to the farmers that the companies have managed to generate, the model has big potential to attract more smallholders and also to increase investment in similar structures elsewhere.
41
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Spill over to non-project participants
Non-member farmers use good agricultural and post harvesting practices to some extent, but
less so than project farmers (Figure 15, Table 12). The differences observed were the greatest
for use of inputs like pesticide, fertilizer, manure and mulch, and in the stumping or replacement of trees. In particular, the drying of cherries on tarpaulins is done too a much lesser extent by non-member farmers. Nonetheless, better practices have been adopted by more nonPO farmers over the last few years. The change is likely attributable to the project. Positive
changes are most visible in low cost interventions with the exception of using herbicide: pruning, de-suckering and storage off the ground.
Table 12: Good post-harvesting practise by non-PO farmers
PO farmer
Post Harvesting
practises
Non-member
Degree of
adoption
Sample size
Degree of
adoption
Sample size
Drying on tarpaulins
83%
n=178
23%
n=57
Storage on raised beds
65%
n=174
77%
n=56
N=179
Figure 15: Use of GAP by non-PO farmers
Good Agricultural Practices
Farmers adopting practise
PO members
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
N=58, nPO members=179, nnon-members=57
non-members
N=58
42
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Figure 16: Spill over to non-PO farmers
Farmers practising …
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Before 2010
June 2014
N= 58 , n= 57
Farmers situated in project areas but not selling through the DCs benefit financially not just
through higher production resulting from adoption Good Agricultural Practice but also due to
the higher prices offered by middlemen in the project area in comparison to the national average (approx. 5% premium).
5.3 Stakeholder involvement and creation of an enabling environment
The project and UCFA work closely with key stakeholders in the sub-sector. HRNS is a member
of the Coffee Platform, a forum for exchange in the sector. Approach, results, experiences and
lessons learnt are shared with everybody interested and through various fora. At the district
level the project works with Local Government, UCDA regional offices and NAADS. All stakeholders interviewed perceived the project as beneficial. The project allows the regional UCDA
coordinators to focus technical advice in areas that are not covered by the project. Exporters
were very positive about the project as it increases the overall quantity and quality of the coffee traded in the project areas.
The structures created (POs and DC Companies) make access to farmers easier, e.g. for the
distribution of coffee seedlings from UCDA. Also, the producer groups provide an entry point
for other organizations addressing topics related to health, education and food security. To
date only government (Local Government, UCDA, NAADS) seems to use the structures. Access
to farmers through the DC/PO structure is not actively promoted by the DC management as
possible business vehicle and as a result other private businesses have not yet fully internalized the value of the structures. However, the social structures created are used by individuals
to share their knowledge and experiences on other topics.
43
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Traders were generally very positive about the companies. They include hulling factory owners
who see DCs as sources of high quality coffee for hulling. In addition, other traders saw DCs as
a vehicle through which they could access a better market and incomes. As pointed out earlier,
DCs lack enough finance to purchase on cash basis all the available coffee from their members,
whereas traders do have higher financial capacity. Potential partnerships can be explored.
5.4 Economic development
The project contributes to economic development by:

Improving the livelihoods of farmer households
Farmers receive higher income per kg Kiboko and produce more coffee per unit of land.
This results in them having more spending power and an improved quality of life.

Developing the capacity of private sector organizations and farmers
The project supported the formation of private sector organizations and their development, thus creating structures that enable farmers to jointly market their product and to
participate to a higher degree in value addition. The project has successfully built a wealth
of knowledge on low cost extension which can ultimately be carried by private sector. By
availing low cost, private extension, the project enables huge savings and release of funds
that can be invested in other areas.

Correcting deficiencies of the coffee value chain
Through the companies’ activities, deficiencies of the value chain are corrected. Quality
control takes place at the producer level, farmers have access to market information and
are vertically integrated along the value chain through the DCs. The project has successfully increased the share of value that is retained on the farm.

Potentially increasing the competitiveness of Uganda’s coffee sector in the global market
(depending on the level of adoption and repetition in the country)
Uganda can raise coffee production and the overall quality of coffee produced consolidating Uganda’s position as global Robusta supplier. This depends on the level of adoption
and repetition of the project’s activities in the country.
5.5 Social and environmental improvements
The project created social (more equal sharing of work, planning and decision making in
households, cohesion within and between communities) and environmental improvements:

Gender activities undoubtedly have had a very positive effect on more equal sharing of
farm management activities. Work, planning and decision making, and sharing of income
are done jointly more often.

Producer organizations are based on voluntary participation with farmers sharing a common target: increased income from coffee. Within the producer groups farmers interact at
least on a monthly basis during training (FFS). In particular during the coffee harvesting
season interaction increases between the PO members, where farmers bring coffee to
their neighbors for ease of collection. Furthermore, there are increased interactions between the PO members and their DC company during the bulking process. Lead farmers
44
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
and the DC executives conduct house visits to estimate yields, control compliance with the
minimum quality and management standards and to provide advice. Over time the cohesion of the group is likely to increase, and trust between the PO members and the company will likely increase. This could have significant impacts on considerations such as the
willingness to wait for payment until after coffee has been sold in Kampala. A certain degree of group cohesion is a prerequisite for other activities such as the formation of VSLAs.
Once established, members are bound even tighter, and new farmers are likely to join –
with access to finance being a major incentive.

Project areas that are certified with the UTZ standard have to comply with a set of regulations ensuring that no harm comes to persons or the environment from potentially harmful substances such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. Farmers have adopted management practices that improve soil fertility and prevent erosion.
5.6 Sustainability
The sustainability of the project has two major aspects:
1. Sustainability of the project’s impacts and
2. Sustainability of the organizations created.
Sustainability of the project’s impacts
The project shows a positive trajectory in regard to improved coffee production and quality,
and related to it, improved household income and spending power.
The stability of these positive effects will depend to a large extent on the continued and expanding service provision by the DC companies and UCFA, especially in regards to:

Technical advice/Extension services,

Aggregation of coffee for value addition and marketing,

Market linkages to buyers, and

Access to finance and farm inputs.
Organizational sustainability
The degree of organizational sustainability varies across the three levels.
1. Organizational identity
The vision and mission of the organizations in the three tiers is fairly similar and focuses on
improving household livelihoods through higher income from coffee. To have this common
vision and goal within and across all of the organizations makes the organizational setup
sustainable.
2. Strategic, business and operational planning
The strategy at each level of the organization is different, thus reflecting on the different
functions of each level. All of the organizations are at least to some extent defined by the
code of conduct by the UCFA. However, in particular at the DC level the absence of strate-
45
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
gic and business planning is worrying. The degree of operational planning and business
control has to be improved.
3. Economic sustainability
The POs require low financial input by members, i.e. transport cost of members to reach
meetings is low, and administrative costs are very limited as time input is voluntary. Some
POs collect membership fees. POs at the moment have a limited role in the bulking of coffee. In the future they can and should have a more substantial role in bulking, thereby reducing cost/increasing efficiency.
Companies are gradually building up operational capital and have access to commercial
loans. However, they are not yet able to (or willing) to pay salaries to key staff members.
The overall efficiency of the companies could be improved.
UCFA relies on up to 75% of its budget from external [donor] funding. Its own income is
determined by the amount of FAQ sold to exporters. Therefore, UCFA’s economic sustainability is directly linked to the capacity and number of member DC companies. Growth in
membership relies largely on HRNS’ creation of new companies by extending the project
area. However, growth can be achieved without relying entirely on aerial expansion, i.e.
through increased productivity of participating farmers and inclusion of more farmers into
the scheme within the existing project areas.
4. Governance
Formal structures for promoting active participation in and control of their organizations
by members exist. However, in particular at the DC level transparency related to financial
accounting needs to be improved. Transparency at DC level will over time ensure more
farmers selling product through the DCs, increasing overall income, need for pre-finance
and as a result efficiency. Leadership and governance are very important factors and are
decisive for better functionality and more business both at POs and DC level.
46
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
6 Risk and challenges to the project
6.1 Risks
Risk of non-performance of the Depot Committee Companies
The biggest risk that could lead to stagnation or even the failure of the project stems from the
limited degree of development of the DC companies. Deficiencies still exist in:

Management capacity,

Financial capacity, and

Governance.
The companies are the key stone to the success of the project. Without the company farmers
direct access to export markets would be lost. The average individual farmer is unlikely to engage in value addition, given that this raises production costs substantially (e.g. transport, milling charge, etc.), and markets for FAQ outside of Kampala simply do not exist. Quality coffee
does not result in better farm gate prices if sold outside of the DC, i.e. farmers would likely go
back to their previous– less costly and time intensive – management practices.
The scenario of complete failure is mostly related to poor governance, i.e. the mismanagement
of funds or takeover by individuals for their personal gain, and the resulting lack of trust by
farmers and/or insolvency of the Company. This scenario is likely limited to very few companies. Failure would therefore be limited to the area covered by a specific company. The risk
can be mitigated by using and strengthening the existing control mechanism. Farmers and
companies must sanction mismanagement.
If the managerial and financial development of the companies stagnates (i.e. the ability to
plan, implement and control better, and to acquire [additional]working capital), coffee volumes sold through the Companies are likely to stagnate as well, since companies can only
handle so many farmers and coffee with their current capacities.
Risk of non-performance of Uganda Coffee Farmers’ Alliance
Uganda Coffee Farmers’ Alliance has limited capacity to take on the full responsibility for the
DC Companies. UCFA is dependent on external finance, has few staff (in particular in the project areas), and as a result relies on HRNS for the establishment of and technical support to the
companies forming its membership base. Without the financial and technical support provided
by HRNS and others, UCFA would likely become dysfunctional to the detriment of the project.
Even without or with a limited UCFA, better established DC Companies will likely be able to
operate, but potentially at a higher cost. For example, it is likely that more time and resources
will be spent finding buyers, and they will have limited bargaining power in negotiating deals.
It must be noted that UCFA does raise additional project funding, e.g. with KfW, Opportunity
Bank and Lutheran World Relief. Provided that the existing DC Companies can increase their
coffee sales at the observed rate UCFA would be able to achieve sustainability in a few years.
47
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Risk related to Producer Organizations
Building strong POs is critical for the survival of DCs and to enable them to quickly achieve the
UCFA target of bulking and marketing 4,000 tons of FAQ annually. PO leaders are crucial in
emphasizing the value of the DCs beyond marketing of coffee to members (training, technical
advice, access to other services, transparent business behavior), can mobilize more farmers to
use the existing PO/DC structures and are crucial for farmer loyalty. However, currently a lot of
responsibility is retained at DC level. In the future participation and responsibility should be
shared more equally between DC and PO.
Risks caused by climate change
Different climate change scenarios exist for Uganda. However, all are predicting a rise in temperature and a change in the distribution of precipitation resulting in more erratic rainfall.
Potential impacts of climate change are shift in the zones suitable for coffee production, and
thus lead to changes in coffee yield and quality.27Therefore, the efforts made by farmers to
increase productivity and quality may be negated by these climatic changes and impacts
thereof.
6.2 Challenges
Access to finance
Access to finance by farmers remains difficult, but it remains key to the further development
of local communities and farmers. As long as farmers cannot cover their short term financial
needs at affordable conditions, covering expenses related to education and health, or to invest
into farm inputs or assets, their ability to fully adopt GAP and post-harvesting techniques, and
to sell all coffee produced to the companies will be limited. Average coffee yields per unit will
remain in the lower range, a lot of poor quality coffee will be produced and traded, and farmers will not be able to capture the full potential of their crop. Group lending schemes such as
VSLAs and micro loans by commercial banks at affordable rates will contribute to overcoming
this challenge.
Strong competition by middlemen
Competition by middlemen to the companies is very strong. Middlemen have access to financial resources that the companies do not have (allowing e.g. pre-finance), and usually buy any
coffee regardless of its quality. The challenge can only be overcome by gradually building trust
between farmers and companies, consistently buying coffee at better prices and increase the
companies’ ability to pay farmers on the spot (see section 6.1). Other options for covering
short term cash needs (see above) are equally important.
27
E.g. reduced and sporadic flowering, higher occurance of pest and diseases.
48
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Reliance on personal commitment
The current organizational structures rely to a large extent on individual commitment and capacity/know how. While this is a viable strategy at the community (PO) level, companies will
have to professionalize eventually to overcome constraints in management and accountability
(see section 6.1).
Certification
The current standard for certification limits participation of farmers, and increases implementation costs (project, farmer, company) without a clear financial gain. The idea of certifying
farmers in this context, or the specific criteria of the standard used should be revised.
Scaling up
Membership in POs remained fairly constant over the project duration. That is the project has
reached few additional farmers directly once the structures were in place. Spill over to farmers28 not participating in the project was observed but remains limited. However, the project
has an effect beyond its participants; the most significant being higher prices per kg dry cherries paid in project areas. Nonetheless, the project should seek to strengthen the ability of
UCFA, DCs and POs to include more farmers in areas were the DC/PO structures have already
been established.
HRNS readily shares its approach and lessons learnt with other organizations, allowing the
implementation of similar schemes elsewhere.
28
Living in the communities were POs are active.
49
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
7 Recommendations
Improve the capacity and functionality of Companies and Producer Organizations
Support to the companies by the project should continue in order to consolidate the project’s
successes. CFAU must be involved in this support to the maximum possible extent. Further
support should focus in particular on:
1. Improving the companies managerial capacity
Companies must improve their know-how in and formalize the procedures for:
–
Planning (strategic, business, operational)
–
Record keeping/accounting
–
Internal control mechanisms and
–
Monitoring and analysis.
While each Company must design the above procedures according to its individual needs
and capacities, the project/UCFA can guide the
Passing on
process of learning and design, and can develmaximum benefit
op generic guidelines and templates which can
to farmers
be adapted by each company.
Over time, the companies should become true
business entities that employ and pay professionals without compromising the ability of the
DC to deliver maximum benefits to farmers.
Cost of being
professional
Having a sound business plan is key. At the moment all DCs have seasonal plans for bulking
and revenue sharing mechanisms. The development of business plans for business growth
and implementation thereof should be guided by UCFA given the limited level of business
acumen at DC level.
2. Strengthening governance
Good governance mechanisms are in place. However, implementation of these mechanisms needs to be controlled (ideally by UCFA) and non-compliance with good governance
(clarity of purpose, transparency, accountability, effectiveness) should be corrected and/or
sanctioned.
3. Improving communication
Communication within companies, between company executives/staff and POs, and between UCFA and companies has to be improved. In a first step UCFA (with the support of
the project), should identify the bottlenecks in communication and then address these accordingly.
4. Development of risk mitigation strategies
Companies are exposed to risk from fluctuations in the quality (e.g. outturn) and quantity
of coffee available. These changes are largely related to weather and occurrence of pest
and diseases, which cannot be mitigated entirely by farmers.
50
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Further risk factors are short term price fluctuations (i.e. between buying Kiboko from
farmers and selling FAQ to the exporters), continued access to affordable loans and increase in competition from middlemen as they adjust their strategies to the companies’
market entry.
5. Improving the bulking process and better integration of DC and POs
The bulking process currently used is inefficient, long and costly. The project, together with
the companies should try to find solutions that increase efficiency and shorten the time
between the collection of coffee and the sale to exporters. The number of persons involved should be adjusted, striking a balance between the cost of bulking and the need for
transparency/internal control. Further increasing the amount of coffee sold to the DC per
farmer as well as the number of farmers selling to the DC will likely result in efficiency
gains, but requires well-functioning POs (see section 6.1).
6. Strengthening the competitiveness of the Companies
The key points for companies to become more competitive in this very dynamic environment are obtaining the trust of farmers and the ability to pay substantially better prices.
The first is addressed in points 1-3 above. The latter depends on the efficiency of the company, but also in their ability to add further value to the product and to share the resulting
gains correctly with the farmer. The latter requires striking a fine balance between the
need to acquire working capital over time (based on the Companies “profit”), and passing
on the full value of the product to the farmer. Over time, with increasing DC capacities and
larger amounts of coffee traded, quality differentiated pricing at farmers’ level should be
adopted.
7. Strengthen business linkages with service providers
A number of opportunities exist for creating win-win partnerships with targeted service
providers. For instance, DCs can build business partnerships with hulling factories and
transport providers. Given good and trusting working relationships these services can be
accessed on credit (as partly already done). However, for this partnership to work it needs
trust building. Business partnerships can in the future be extended to private buyers who
have the capital and can team up with DCs to secure/pay cash for Kiboko. Care must be
taken not to compromise quality standards.
Incorporate access to finance into the core project design
Access to finance by households to cover short term financial needs has to become an integral
part of the project design. The project can support the formation of Village Saving and Loan
Associations by strengthening the financial literacy of farmers. Ultimately, the formation of
VSLAs must be farmer driven. Existing pilot projects for access to commercial lending from
banks in Mityana and Mubende should be evaluated carefully and up scaled to the other project areas.
Address deficits in the current sustainability certification scheme
The deficiencies of the certification scheme must be addressed including its high cost, no related price premium, and [partly] unrealistic technical requirements. This could mean to simply
51
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
stop promoting the certification of farmers until a better standard is available, or engage with
the standard to improve it and make it more applicable for the current context. HRNS indicated plans to do the latter together with UTZ in areas that have been already certified with this
standard.
Research the limitations in adoption and adapt the project design accordingly
The project has shown great results in regard to changed farm management and postharvesting practices. Nonetheless, farmers have not adopted all practices equally. While this
may have some obvious causes, such as the expense for farm inputs, other causes may exist.
Likewise, increase in membership and spill over to neighboring non-member farmers is limited,
yet is an important measurement of success for the project. Therefore, the project should in
detail investigate causes for low adoptions of some practices and spill over in the framework of
a case study, and adjust the project design accordingly.
One important aspect for further research is the scale and impact of early sales, i.e. sale of
coffee as flowers, while still on the tree or without drying to due immediate cash needs of
households. Pre-mature sales directly impact on the willingness of farmers to improve management practices. Ones the problem is better understood financial assistance schemes – be
they commercial lending, VSLAs, SACCOs or others, and other project interventions can then
be designed accordingly.
Ensure participation of rural young population
Uganda has one of the youngest populations in the world. Many of Uganda’s young rural population try to migrate to more urban settings hoping for better opportunities In the future HRNS
and partners should design projects that actively integrate youth in agricultural production.
Young people can explore opportunities as professional service providers in the administrative
structure of the DCs (assuming employment of professionals in the future) and as independent
contractors for specific on-farm services, e.g. application of pesticides.
Already some youth groups have been formed to provide services to agricultural households at
a fee.29
29
Young farmers in Kyetume-Kibanyi DC area provide spraying services.
52
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
8 List of literature
Project specific data and information
CFAU Project log frame, October 2010
Cognigni S., 2010: Kaweri Coffee Farmers Alliance Support Project. Establishment of the
“Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance”, February 2005 – February 2010. End of Project Report.
NKG Coffee Alliance Trust - Kaweri Coffee Farmers Alliance Support Project. HRNS
Cognigni S., 2011: Building Coffee Farmers’ Alliances. Supporting the establishment of Farmer
Organization. Presentation, HRNS.
Growers list for Masaka zone 1, Luwero zone 1-3. MS xls file.
HRNS: Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda. Towards a level playing field. Presentation.
HRNS: CFAU Project report for 2010
HRNS: CFAU Project report for 2011
HRNS: CFAU Project report for 2012
Kabare M., 2012: Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda’ (CFAU) Project. 2011 M&E Annual Report. HRNS.
Kabare M., 2013: Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda’ (CFAU) Project. 2012 M&E Annual Report. HRNS.
Loisa K., 2011: Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda’ (CFAU) Project. Baseline Study
Report
Muchodo L., Shariff A. Mohammed S.A., 2014: Improving gender relations in targeted coffee
farming households for equitable and sustainable development. End of Project Evaluation.
Kabarole Research and Resource Centre, Uganda.
Soil & More, 2014: Luwero Carbon Study, Executive Summary.
ZAKE, WEGULO & CO. ADVOCATES, 2007: Proposed Legal Structure in Support of a Coffee
farmers Alliance.
Other information sources
Braun A., Jiggins J., Röling N., van den Berg H., Snijders P., 2006: A Global Survey and Review of
Farmer Field School Experiences. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). The
Netherlands.
MAAIF, 2013: The National Coffee Policy. August, 2013. Republic of Uganda
Technoserve. 2013: Uganda, A business case for sustainable coffee production
Loisa K., 2011: Building Coffee Farmers Alliances in Uganda’ (CFAU) Project. Baseline Study
Report.
UBOS, 2014: http://countrystat.org/home.aspx?c=UGA
UTZ, 2014: Core Code of Conduct Version 1.0. For group and multi-group certification.
Waddington, H., 2012: Farmer Field schools: a systematic review. International Initiative for
Impact Evaluation. Accessed online under URL:
53
Report
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2012/12/26/hugh_waddington-conferencesession16_3ie_dhaka_colloquium.pdf
54
Annex
Final evaluation of the CFAU project
UNIQUE
Annex
Annex 1: Questionnaire for lead farmers
Annex 2: Questionnaire for members of Producer Organizations
Annex 3: Questionnaire for non-members
Annex 4: Terms of reference
Annex 5: List of persons interviewed
Annex 6: Possible limitations of the evaluation methodology
i
Annex
Final evaluation of the CFAU project
UNIQUE
Annex 1: Questionnaire for lead farmers
1 Questionnaire number
2 Name of enumerator
3 Date
Household ID
4 Name of Producer Organization
5 Name(s) of lead farmer(s)
6 Phone number(s) of lead farmer(s)
7 Since when has this organization been
existent? (Month/Year)
8 What are the objectives of the organization?
9 Is the farmer organization registered?
YES (1), NO (2)
10 Does the organization operate a bank
account?
YES (1), NO (2)
11 What records do you keep?
Members name (1)
Members contact details (2)
Amount of coffee collected:
Per member (3)
Only total (4)
Quality of coffee collected:
Per member (5)
Only total (6)
Time of coffee collected (7)
Minutes (8)
Amount passed on to DC:
Per member (9)
Only total (10)
12 What income does the PO have?
13 What services is the organization
supposed to offer its members?
Membership fees (1)
Service fee coffee bulking (2)
Commission sales inputs (3)
Other services against charge (4)
specify in next line
Specification others
Training in coffee management (1)
Training in other crops and livestock management (2)
Market information (3)
Training in book keeping and planning (4)
Demonstration plot (5)
ii
Annex
Final evaluation of the CFAU project
Bulking of coffee / marketing (6)
Which of these services are available
to non-members?
Village saving scheme (7)
Access to farm inputs (8)
Other services (9)
specify in next line
Specification others
Training in coffee management (1)
Training in other crops and livestock management (2)
Market information (3)
Training in book keeping and planning (4)
Demonstration plot (5)
Bulking of coffee / marketing (6)
14 In your opinion, do you offer the services listed above in a comprehensive/satisfactory manner?
Village saving scheme (7)
Access to farm inputs (8)
Others (9)
specify in next line
Specification others
Training in coffee management
YES (1), NO (2), PARTLY (3)
Training in other crops and livestock management
YES (1), NO (2), PARTLY (3)
Market information
YES (1), NO (2), PARTLY (3)
Training in book keeping and planning
YES (1), NO (2), PARTLY (3)
Demonstration plot
YES (1), NO (2)
Bulking of coffee / marketing YES
(1), NO (2)
Village saving scheme
YES (1), NO (2)
Access to farm inputs
YES (1), NO (2)
15 If no or partly, explain causes/reasons
number: reason
16 What services, in your opinion, are missing?
17 How often do you meet?
Weekly (1), Twice a month (2), Monthly (3), Other (4)
Specification others
UNIQUE
iii
Annex
Final evaluation of the CFAU project
18 How many members participate in meetings on average?
All (1); 2/3 (2); Half (3)
19 Do you give feedback to your members on the following issues?
A) Quality of their coffee?
Yes (1); No (2)
B) Selling price of their coffee?
Yes (1); No (2)
C) Final coffee buyer?
Yes (1); No (2)
D) Financial performance of the PO
updates to farmers
Yes (1); No (2)
E) Do you regularly communicate
quality and management standards?
Yes (1); No (2)
20 How much coffee has the organization bulked (kg kiboko) in …?
21 What was the total expense of the
organization spent for coffee related
activities?
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
22 How much money did farmers receive 2011
on average per kg kiboko in ...?
2012
2013
23 How many members did the organiza- 2011
tion have in …?
2012
2013
24 How many members were/are wom- 2011
an in...?
2012
2013
25 How many executive positions does the PO have?
26 How many woman are in executive positions?
27 How many members bulked coffee
with the organization?
2011
2012
2013
UNIQUE
iv
Annex
Final evaluation of the CFAU project
28 Does the organization have access to loans? (excl. its own Village savings
scheme)
Yes (1), No (2)
29 Are / were there other organizations / programs active in this area?
(NGOs, Government)
List them and indicate running/closed.
30
How do you cooperate with them?
31 How often does the FFS facilitator visit your group?
Monthly (1) Every 2 months (2);
Less (3)
Less - specification
32 How often does the DC extensionist visit your group?
Monthly (1) Every 2 months (2);
Less (3)
Less - specification
UNIQUE
v
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Annex 2: Questionnaire for members of Producer Organizations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
No. of questionnaire (for the day)
Household number
Name of Enumerator
Date
Start time
Ending time
Name of respondent
Telephone
Name of PO
Household participates in gender interventions
Yes (1)
No (2)
SECTION I: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (INTERVIEW HUSBAND AND WIFE)/FARMER BIO DATA
11 Is the respondent head of household / family?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "no", the questions below should refer to the head of household and not the
respondent.
12 Year of Birth
13 Gender
Female (1)
Male (2)
14 Civil status?
Married - monogamous (1)
Married - polygamous (2)
Widowed (3)
Single (4)
Divorced (5)
15 Highest level of education of head of household?
None (1)
Primary (2)
Secondary (3)
College (4)
University (5)
16 Is somebody in your household able to read and write (Don't ask if a household
member has secondary education and above -just choose yes!)
Yes (1)
No (2)
17 How many people live in your household?
Including boarding school - but returning home on a regular basis
18 Total number of children aged 6 years and above living in the household?
Disaggregate by Gender:
Female
vi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
19
Male
20 How many go to school?
Pre-School
Female
21
Male
22 Primary
Female
23
24
Male
Secondary
Female
25
Male
26
College
Female
27
28
Male
University
Female
29
Male
30 Number of other dependents not living in the same household.
31 Who are they?
32 What type of land tenure system do you practice?
Customary (1)
Lease hold (2)
Short term lease (no lease title, 3)
Kibanja (4)
33 Other - specify
34 Does anyone in your household has a formal land title?
Yes (1)
No (2)
35 If yes, who?
Female (1)
Male (2)
SECTION II: COFFEE PRODUCTION, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING DATA
A. General Farm information
36 What is your total farm size in acre?
37
38
39
40
How many acres are under coffee?
How much of it is purely coffee (no intercropping)? (acre)
How much of it is intercropped with beans? (acre)
How much of it is intercropped with banana (and beans)? (acre)
UNIQUE
vii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
41 Do you know the number of coffee trees on your farm?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "No" jump to 46.
42 If yes, how many?
43 # of productive trees?
44 # of non-productive trees
(all trees not harvested including younger than 2yrs if not yet harvested)
45 # of trees that are less than 2 years old
46 Did your farm size change since 2010?
Increased (1)
Decreased (2)
No change (3)
47 By how many acre?
48 What do you grow on the additional land?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Coffee
49
Maize
50
Beans
51
Cassava
52
Banana
53 Others, specify
54 On how many acre did you grow food crops 3-4 years ago?
55 Did food crop production change since 2010?
Increased (1)
Decreased (2)
No change (3)
56 Can you give an estimation by how much food crop production changed?
(put 0.5 for half, 2 for double, 3 for triple etc.)
B. Farm management practices on coffee
57 Do you keep records of your farm activities?
Yes (1)
No (2)
58 If not, why?
59 How many kilograms (in total) Kiboko did you harvest last April-June 2013 season?
60 How many kilograms Kiboko did you harvest last Nov 2013 - Jan 2014 season?
UNIQUE
viii
UGX/kg
Kiboko
UGX/kg
FAQ
UGX/kg
Sold on tree - UGX/unit
unit (tree, tin, etc)
Kiboko
UGX/kg
FAQ
UGX/kg
Sold on tree - UGX/unit
unit (tree, tin, etc)
ix
UGX/kg
To whom did you sell your coffee
harvested between April-June
2013?
Enter the correct amount (kg) for
the largest buyer. All others express
as fraction of the stated amount.
Enter price/kg for all of them!
See the example provided.
60 DC
UNIQUE
Red Cherry
CFAU project evaluation
Red Cherry
Annex
61 Hulling Factory
62 Middleman (Trader)
63 Middleman (Farm gate)
64 Other
To whom did you sell your coffee
harvested between Nov 2013-Jan
2014?
Enter the correct amount (kg) for
the largest buyer. All others express
as fraction of the stated amount.
Enter price/kg for all of them!
See the example provided.
65 DC
66 Hulling Factory
67 Middleman (Trader)
68 Middleman (Farm gate)
69 Other
(This section is to be completed by married respondents only.)
71 Who sold the coffee harvested?
Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
72 Who decides on coffee activities and marketing issues?
Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
73 Is information about sale of coffee (e.g. price, quality, quantity etc) shared with
spouse?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
x
Ask Spouse separately - if possible.
79 Use of herbicides
GAP yes (1) = 2
yearly in combination with
at least 2 x
manual weeding
GAP partly (2)
= approximately half of
recommended
GAP No (3)
Unit for hired labor
(MD, area unit, no. trees)
Unit Cost for hired labor
male
female
male
amount in conventional unit
Hired Labour Units in MD
female
conversion of inputs to conventional unit: unit
(kg, l, MD, t, acre, ha)
Family Labor Units in MD
UGX/unit
Unit of input
(l, kg, wheelbarrow …)
Total quantity per application?
MD = work done
consecutively, e.g.
application of manure 1 hour on 7
days = 1MD
GAP practiced?
Application of
Good Agricultural
Practices
How many applications / Rounds per year?
74 Do you know the quantity of coffee/Kiboko you harvested last season (Kiboko)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
75 How many kg ?
76 Do you know the price of Kiboko per kg received last season?
Yes (1)
No (2)
77 How much was it in UGX?
78 Do you know the total income from last season’s coffee crop?
Yes (1)
No (2)
79 How much was it in UGX?
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
80 Manual
weeding
GAP yes = see
above, or at
least 8 x if
manual only
GAP partly =
approximately
half (or more)
than recommended
GAP No (3)
81 Apply Pesticides
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
82 Apply Fertilizer
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
83 Apply Manure
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
84 Apply Mulch
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
85 Pruning
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
86 Desuckering
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
87 Selective
picking (red
cherries only)
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
Costs related to GAP, enter the total cost in a year (both seasons).
90 Harvesting Costs
Material
91
labor
92 Drying Costs
Material
93
labor
94 Hulling Costs
95 Coffee Transport Costs
UNIQUE
xi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
96 Other - specify
97 Did you rejuvenate coffee trees during the last two seasons?
Yes (1)
No (2)
98 Did you replace old trees with new ones in the last two seasons (2013)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
99 Did you replant in the last two seasons? (gap filling)
Yes (1)
No (2)
If replacement/replanting was done in the last two harvest seasons …
100 What type of planting material did you use?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Traditional
101
elite
102
clone
103 Where did you get your planting material from? Certified source?
Yes (1)
No (2)
104 What was the unit cost of seedling?
Traditional
105
elite
106
clone
107 Family Labour planting Units in MD
108 Hired Labour planting Units in MD
109 Cost for hired labour (UGX/MD)
110 How do you dry your cherries?
On a tarpaulin (1)
On the ground (2)
I do not dry (3)
111 How and where do you store your dry cherries?
In bags on raised beds in store (1)
In bags on raised beds in house (3)
In bags on ground in store (2)
in bags on ground in house (4)
On the ground in store (5)
112 Did you implement any of these management activities before 2010?Yes (1)No
(2) Record keeping
113
Use of pesticide
114
If only manual weeding - at least 8 times/year
115
Combination of manual and herbicide (at least 2 times for both)
116
Use of fertilizer
117
Use of manure
118
Mulching
119
Pruning
UNIQUE
xii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
120
Stumping (rejuvenation)
121
Desuckering
122
Use of elite or clonal seedlings
123
Drying on tarpaulin
124
Storage off the ground
125 Where do you get your farm inputs from?
Local dealer (1)
PO /DC (2)
126 How far is the nearest reliable dealer of farm inputs? (in km)
127 Do you have other trees on your farm (where coffee is grown, excl. banana)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
128 How many trees?
(This section is to be completed by married respondent)
129 Within your family who contributes to coffee activities? Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
Children (4)
Picking
130
Planting
131
Pruning
132
Weeding
133
Mulching
134
Coffee Drying
135
Packing
136 Does the husband contribute to the following
Yes (1)No (2)
Cooking
137
Fetching Water
138
139
Collecting Firewood
Cleaning the house
SECTION III: QUALITY OF LIFE
A. Income sources
140 Which other sources of income (cash, apart from coffee) does the household
have?
Yes (1)
No (2)
food crops
141
formal employment
142
informal employment
143
other Business (e.g. trading)
144
Livestock
UNIQUE
xiii
Annex
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
CFAU project evaluation
B. Housing data
Did your housing conditions change since 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "no", proceed to question 149.
How was it before 2010?
Roof type:
Thatched (1)
Iron sheets (2)
Tiles (3)
Other equally robust material (4)
House walls:
Mud (1)
Wood (2)
Iron sheets (3)
Bricks (4)
Stone/ equal material (5)
How is it today?
Roof type:
Thatched (1)
Iron sheets (2)
Tiles (3)
Other equally robust material (4)
House walls:
Mud (1)
Wood (2)
Iron sheets (3)
Bricks (4)
Stone/ equal material (5)
Did you expand the house? Yes (1)No (2)
What type of latrine / sanitation do you have in your compound / on your farm?
No sanitation (1)
Pit latrine (mud) (2)
Pit latrine (cement / bricks) (3)
VIP (4)
Since when do you have it?
Do you have access to electricity?
Yes (1)
No (2)
What type?
National Grid (1)
Solar (2)
Biogas (3)
Since when?
Any other changes to the house not listed above. (e.g. cement floor)
UNIQUE
xiv
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
C. Nutrition and food security
156 Animal protein in-take
(Consider meat, fish, pork, chicken; do not consider eggs or milk)
Daily (1)
Twice a week (2)
Once a week (3)
Once in 2 weeks (4)
Once in 3 weeks or less (5)
157 In the past 12 months have there been months where you did not have sufficient food for your household?
Yes (1)
No (2)
158 If yes how many months?
159 If yes, which months?
List months using numerical values. E.g. 1,2, 11
D. Family assets
160 Does your family own more assets now compared to 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
161 If "yes";
Gain (1)
Loss (2)
162 If loss - what was the reason?
163 If yes, which family assets do you have now that you did not have in 2010?
Yes (1)No (2)
Motorbike
164
Bicycles
165
TV dish
166
Farm equipment
167
Livestock
168
Solar panel
169
Land
170
Car
171
House(s)
172 Livestock: How many more of these do you own now compared 2010?
Cattle
173
Chicken
174
Goats
175
Pigs
176
Sheep
177
others:
kind: number
UNIQUE
xv
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
E. Source of water for human consumption
178 What type of access to water did you have before 2010?
Stream (1)
Dam (2)
Outside piped water (3)
Tap water in house (4)
Rain water harvesting (5)
Borehole / Hand pump (6)
179 Did you invest in easier access to water since 2010 (like pipes, taps, water tank)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
180 If yes, please specify!
F. Key Consumption expenditure items
181 Did you increase the money spend on food since 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
182 What for do you spend money now that you did not spend before?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Sugar
183
Milk
184
Meat
185
Eggs
186
Bread
187
Snacks
188
Fish
189 What is the value of food crops produced on own farm and consumed in the
household? (UGX)
190 How much do you spend on education including school fees, books etc. per term
(every 4 months)? (UGX)
191 How much do you spend on other non-food items per month? E.g. for hygiene
(Soap, paraffin, tooth paste) (UGX)
192 Are you a member of a community savings group?
Yes (1)
No (2)
193 Do you have a bank account?
Yes (1)
No (2)
194 Can you save money?
Yes (1)
No (2)
UNIQUE
xvi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
195 Where do you save your money?
At home (1)
Saving group/bank (2)
196 How much do you save every month?
(private, saving group, bank)? (UGX)
197 What is the purpose of saving?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Farm investment
198
School fees
199
Domestic
200
Others - specify
201 Do you have a loan
Yes (1)
No (2)
202 Size of the loan? (UGX)
203 Purpose of the loan
Yes (1)
No (2)
Farm investment
204
School fees
205
Domestic
206
Others - specify
207 From where did you get the loan?
PO/DC (1)
FI-Banks (2)
VSLA (3)
SACCO (4)
208 What is the interest rate?
in % or...
209
UGX
210 How long is the payback period? (months)
211 Can you now cover expenses which you were previously not able to cover?
Yes (1)
No (2)
212 Do you prepare a household budget periodically?
(incl. not written down)
Yes (1)
No (2)
213 Who takes the main decision on expenditures?
Head of HH only (1)
Head of HH and spouse (2)
Other male member of HH (3)
Other female member of HH (4)
UNIQUE
xvii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
SECTION IV: AFFILIATION TO A PRODUCER ORGANISATION (PO)
214 Do you know the name of your Lead Farmer?
Yes (1)
No (2)
215 Since when have you been a member of this organization?
Month and Year: e.g. 09/2011
216 Do you know the constitution of your PO?
Yes (1)
No (2)
217 What services are you supposed to receive from your organization?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Training in coffee management
218
Training in other crops and livestock management
219
Market information
220
Training in book keeping and planning
221
Demonstration plot
222
Bulking of coffee/marketing
223
Village saving scheme
224
Access to farm inputs (fertilizer, herbicide, seedlings, tools etc.)
225 Do you receive/participate in all the services listed above?
Yes (1)
No (2)
226 For the specific services you do not use/participate in, briefly explain why not.
Service: reason
227 Do you receive feedback from the organization on the following issues?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Quality of your coffee?
228
Selling price of your coffee?
229
Final coffee buyer?
230 Is the farmer organization registered as CBO?
Yes (1)
No (2)
231 Does the organization operate a bank account?
Yes (1)
No (2)
232 How often do members meet (FFS)
Weekly (1)
every 2 weeks (2)
Monthly (3)
Every 2 months (4)
Less often (5)
233 Which other topics apart from coffee do you discuss in the farmer group?
UNIQUE
xviii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
234 Do you as a member have access to loans through the organization?
Yes (1)
No (2)
235 Have you ever attended a couples’ seminar?
Yes (1)
No (2)
236 Have you registered as a change agent?
Yes (1)
No (2)
237 Are you a member or targeted farmer of any other program?
Yes (1)
No (2)
238 If yes, which? Please explain in brief which organization, project, major purpose,
important aspects - e.g. Caritas - farmers have to bring coffee in order to become members.
SECTION V: Observations by the enumerator
239 Gender:
Spouses answered jointly and equally (1)
Man gave women the lead (2)
Man took sole responsibility but let you talk to the woman to confirm the information given (3)
240 You could not talk to the woman because …
241 State of house and farm
242 Others
UNIQUE
xix
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Annex 3:Questionnaire for non-members
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No. of questionnaire (for the day)
Household number
Name of Enumerator
Date
Start time
Ending time
Name of respondent
Telephone
Confirmation: you are not a member of a HRNS PO?
SECTION I: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (INTERVIEW HUSBAND AND WIFE)/FARMER BIO DATA
10 Is the respondent head of household / family?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "no", the questions below should refer to the head of
household and not the respondent.
11 Year of Birth
12 Gender
Female (1)
Male (2)
13 Civil status?
Married - monogamous (1)
Married - polygamous (2)
Widowed (3)
Single (4)
Divorced (5)
14 Highest level of education of head of household?
None (1)
Primary (2)
Secondary (3)
College (4)
University (5)
15 Is somebody in your household able to read and write (Don't
ask if a household member has secondary education and
above -just choose yes!)
Yes (1)
No (2)
16 How many people live in your household?
Including boarding school - but returning home on a regular
basis
xx
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
17 Total number of children aged 6 years and above living in the
household?
Disaggregate by Gender:
Female
18
Male
19 How many go to school?
Pre-School
Female
20
21
Male
Primary
Female
22
Male
23
Secondary
Female
24
25
Male
College
Female
26
27
Male
University
Female
28
Male
29 Number of other dependants not living in the same household.
30 Who are they?
31 What type of land tenure system do you practice?
Customary (1)
Lease hold (2)
Short term lease (no lease title, 3)
Kibanja (4)
32 Other - specify
33 Does anyone in your household has a formal land title?
Yes (1)
No (2)
34 If yes, who?
Female (1)
Male (2)
35
36
37
38
SECTION II: COFFEE PRODUCTION, MANAGEMENT, AND MARKETING DATA
A. General Farm information
What is your total farm size in acre?
How many acre are under coffee?
How much of it is purely coffee (no intercropping)? (Acre)
How much of it is intercropped with beans? (Acre)
UNIQUE
xxi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
39 How much of it is intercropped with banana (and beans)?
(Acre)
40 Do you know the number of coffee trees on your farm?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "No" jump to 45.
41 If yes, how many?
42 # of productive trees?
43 # of non-productive trees
(all trees not harvested including younger than 2yrs if not yet
harvested)
44 # of trees that are less than 2 years old
45 Did your farm size change since 2010?
Increased (1)
Decreased (2)
No change (3)
46 By how many acre?
47 What do you grow on the additional land?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Coffee (1)
48
Maize
49
Beans
50
Cassava
51
Banana
52 Others, specify
53 On how many acre did you grow food crops 3-4 years ago?
54 Did food crop production change since 2010?
Increased (1)
Decreased (2)
No change (3)
55 Can you give an estimation by how much food crop production
changed?
(put 0.5 for half, 2 for double, 3 for triple etc.)
B. Farm management practices on coffee
56 Do you keep records of your farm activities?
Yes (1)
No (2)
57 If not, why?
58 How many kilograms (in total) Kiboko did you harvest last
April-June 2013 season?
UNIQUE
xxii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
xxiii
Red Cherry
UGX/kg
Kiboko
UGX/kg
FAQ
UGX/kg
Sold on tree - UGX/unit
unit (tree, tin, etc)
UGX/kg
Kiboko
UGX/kg
FAQ
UGX/kg
Sold on tree - UGX/unit
unit (tree, tin, etc)
To whom did you sell your coffee
harvested between April-June
2013?
Enter the correct amount (kg) for
the largest buyer. All others express
as fraction of the stated amount.
Enter price/kg for all of them!
See the example provided.
60 DC
Red Cherry
59 How many kilograms Kiboko did you harvest last Nov 2013 Jan 2014 season?
61 Hulling Factory
62 Middleman (Trader)
63 Middleman (Farm gate)
64 Other
To whom did you sell your coffee
harvested between Nov 2013-Jan
2014?
Enter the correct amount (kg) for
the largest buyer. All others express
as fraction of the stated amount.
Enter price/kg for all of them!
See the example provided.
65 DC
66 Hulling Factory
67 Middleman (Trader)
68 Middleman (Farm gate)
69 Other
(This section is to be completed by married respondents only.)
70 Who sold the coffee harvested?
Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
71 Who decides on coffee activities and marketing issues?
Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
72 Is information about sale of coffee (e.g. price, quality, quantity
etc) shared with spouse?
Yes (1)
No (2)
UNIQUE
xxiv
amount in conventional unit
CFAU project evaluation
conversion of inputs to conventional unit: unit
(kg, l, MD, t, acre, ha)
Annex
Ask Spouse separately - if possible.
73 Do you know the quantity of coffee/Kiboko you harvested last
season (Kiboko)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
79 Use of herbicides
GAP yes (1) = 2
yearly in combination with
at least 2 x
manual weeding
GAP partly (2)
= approximately half of
recommended
GAP No (3)
Family Labor Units in MD
Hired Labor Units in MD
Unit for hired labor
(MD, area unit, no. trees)
Unit Cost for hired labor
UGX/unit
Unit of input
(l, kg, wheelbarrow …)
Total quantity per application?
MD = work done
consecutively, e.g.
application of manure 1 hour on 7
days = 1MD
GAP practised?
Application of
Good Agricultural
Practices
How many applications / Rounds per year?
74 How many kg ?
75 Do you know the price of Kiboko per kg received last season?
Yes (1)
No (2)
76 How much was it in UGX?
77 Do you know the total income from last seasons coffee crop?
Yes (1)
No (2)
78 How much was it in UGX?
female
male
female
male
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
80 Manual
weeding
GAP yes = see
above, or at
least 8 x if
manual only
GAP partly =
approximately
half (or more)
than recommended
GAP No (3)
81 Apply Pesticides
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
82 Apply Fertilizer
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
83 Apply Manure
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
84 Apply Mulch
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
85 Pruning
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
86 Desuckering
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
87 Selective
picking (red
cherries only)
GAP Yes (1)
GAP No (2)
Costs related to GAP, enter the total cost in a year (both seasons).
89 Harvesting Costs
Material
90
Labour
91 Drying Costs
Material
92
Labour
93 Hulling Costs
UNIQUE
xxv
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
94 Coffee Transport Costs
95 Other - specify
96 Did you rejuvenate coffee trees during the last two seasons?
Yes (1)
No (2)
97 Did you replace old trees with new ones in the last two seasons (2013)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
98 Did you replant in the last two seasons? (gap filling)
Yes (1)
No (2)
If replacement/replanting was done in the last two harvest
seasons …
99 What type of planting material did you use?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Traditional
100
elite
101
clone
102 Where did you get your planting material from? Certified
source?
Yes (1)
No (2)
103 What was the unit cost of seedling?
Traditional
104
105
elite
clone
106 Family Labour planting Units in MD
107 Hired Labour planting Units in MD
108 Cost for hired labour (UGX/MD)
109 How do you dry your cherries?
On a tarpaulin (1)
On the ground (2)
I do not dry (3)
110 How and where do you store your dry cherries?
In bags on raised beds in store (1)
In bags on raised beds in house (3)
In bags on ground in store (2)
in bags on ground in house (4)
On the ground in store (5)
111 Did you implement any of these management activities before
2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Record keeping
UNIQUE
xxvi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
112
Use of pesticide
113
If only manual weeding - at least 8 times/year
114
Combination of manual and herbicide (at least 2 times for
both)
115
Use of fertilizer
116
Use of manure
117
Mulching
118
Pruning
119
Stumping (rejuvenation)
120
Desuckering
121
Use of elite or clonal seedlings
122
Drying on tarpaulin
123
Storage off the ground
124 Where do you get your farm inputs from?
Local dealer (1)
PO /DC (2)
125 How far is the nearest reliable dealer of farm inputs? (in km)
126 Do you have other trees on your farm (where coffee is grown,
excl. banana)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
127 How many trees?
128
129
130
131
(This section is to be completed by married respondent)
Within your family who contributes to coffee activities? Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Both (3)
Children (4)
Picking
Planting
Pruning
Weeding
UNIQUE
xxvii
Annex
132
133
134
CFAU project evaluation
Mulching
Coffee Drying
Packing
135 Does the husband contribute to the following
Yes (1)No (2)
Cooking
136
Fetching Water
137
Collecting Firewood
138
Cleaning the house
139
140
141
142
143
SECTION III: QUALITY OF LIFE
A. Income sources
Which other sources of income (cash, apart from coffee) does
the household have?
Yes (1)
No (2)
food crops
formal employment
informal employment
other Business (e.g. trading)
Livestock
B. Housing data
144 Did your housing conditions change since 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
If "no", proceed to question 149.
145 How was it before 2010?
Roof type
Thatched (1)
Iron sheets (2)
Tiles (3)
Other equally robust material (4)
146 House walls:
Mud (1)
Wood (2)
Iron sheets (3)
Bricks (4)
Stone/ equal material (5)
147 How is it today?
Roof type:
Thatched (1)
Iron sheets (2)
Tiles (3)
Other equally robust material (4)
UNIQUE xxviii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
148 House walls:
Mud (1)
Wood (2)
Iron sheets (3)
Bricks (4)
Stone/ equal material (5)
149 Did you expand the house?
Yes (1)
No (2)
150 What type of latrine / sanitation do you have in your compound / on your farm?
No sanitation (1)
Pit latrine (mud) (2)
Pit latrine (cement / bricks) (3)
VIP (4)
151 Since when do you have it?
152 Do you have access to electricity? Yes (1)No (2)
153 What type?
National Grid (1)
Solar (2)
Biogas (3)
154 Since when?
155 Any other changes to the house not listed above. (e.g. cement
floor)
C. Nutrition and food security
156 Animal protein in-take
(Consider meat, fish, pork, chicken; do not consider eggs or
milk)
Daily (1)
Twice a week (2)
Once a week (3)
Once in 2 weeks (4)
Once in 3 weeks or less (5)
157 In the past 12 months have there been months where you did
not have sufficient food for your household?
Yes (1)
No (2)
158 If yes how many months?
159 If yes, which months?
List months using numerical values. E.g. 1,2, 11
UNIQUE
xxix
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
D. Family assets
160 Does your family own more assets now compared to 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
161 If "yes";
Gain (1)
Loss (2)
162 If loss - what was the reason?
163 If yes, which family assets do you have now that you did not
have in 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Motorbike
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
Bicycles
TV dish
Farm equipment
Livestock
Solar panel
Land
Car
House(s)
172 Livestock: How many more of these do you own now compared 2010?
Cattle
173
174
175
176
177
Chicken
Goats
Pigs
Sheep
others
E. Source of water for human consumption
178 What type of access to water did you have before 2010?
Stream (1)
Dam (2)
Outsided piped water (3)
Tap water in house (4)
Rain water harvesting (5)
Borehole / Hand pump (6)
179 Did you invest in easier access to water since 2010 (like pipes,
taps, water tank)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
180 If yes, please specify!
UNIQUE
xxx
Annex
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
CFAU project evaluation
F. Key Consumption expenditure items
Did you increase the money spend on food since 2010?
Yes (1)
No (2)
What for do you spend money now that you did not spend
before?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Sugar
Milk
Meat
Eggs
Bread
Snacks
Fish
189 What is the value of food crops produced on own farm and
consumed in the household? (UGX)
190 How much do you spend on education including school fees,
books etc. per term (every 4 months)? (UGX)
191 How much do you spend on other non-food items per month?
E.g. for hygiene (Soap, paraffin, tooth paste) (UGX)
192 Are you a member of a community savings group?
Yes (1)
No (2)
193 Do you have a bank account?
Yes (1)
No (2)
194 Can you save money?
Yes (1)
No (2)
195 Where do you save your money?
At home (1)
Saving group/bank (2)
196 How much do you save every month?
(private, saving group, bank)? (UGX)
197 What is the purpose of saving?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Farm investment
198
School fees
199
Domestic
200
Others - specify
201 Do you have a loan
Yes (1)
No (2)
UNIQUE
xxxi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
202 Size of the loan? (UGX)
203 Purpose of the loan
Yes (1)
No (2)
Farm investment
204
School fees
205
Domestic
206
Others - specify
207 From where did you get the loan?
PO/DC (1)
FI-Banks (2)
VSLA (3)
SACCO (4)
208 What is the interest rate?
in % or...
209
UGX
210 How long is the payback period? (months)
211 Can you now cover expenses which you were previously not
able to cover? Yes (1)No (2)
212 Do you prepare a household budget periodically?
(incl. not written down)
Yes (1)
No (2)
213 Who takes the main decision on expenditures?
Head of HH only (1)
Head of HH and spouse (2)
Other male member of HH (3)
Other female member of HH (4)
SECTION IV: AFFILIATION TO A FARMERS ORGANISATION
214 Are you a member or targeted farmer of any other program?
Yes (1)
No (2)
215 If yes, which? Please explain in brief which organization, project and major purpose.
216 Would you please share with us why you did not join a PO
(yet)?
217 Are you in contact with PO members?
Yes (1)
No (2)
218 Did you learn something from them?
Yes (1)
No (2)
219 If yes, what?
UNIQUE
xxxii
Annex
220
221
222
223
CFAU project evaluation
SECTION V: Observations by the enumerator
Gender:
Spouses answered jointly and equally (1)
Man gave women the lead (2)
Man took sole responsibility but let you talk to the woman to
confirm the information given (3)
You could not talk to the woman because …
State of house and farm
Others
UNIQUE xxxiii
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE xxxiv
Annex 4: Terms of reference
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Overall Objective
To evaluate the extent to which the project has achieved its objectives and to assess the impact that the intervention has had, both on direct project beneficiaries and on non-project
farmers in the same or surrounding areas. The evaluation should also assess and document
lessons learnt and successful elements as well as formulate recommendations to support scaling up initiatives in the country.
Specific Objectives

To analyse the relevance of the intervention with regards to the problems addressed and
the interests of the involved stakeholders

To assess the extent to which the most relevant stakeholders have been brought together
and have contributed to the development of the project

To analyze the overall achievement of the project objectives

To measure the impact of the project in terms of economic development and social and
environmental improvements, and in the development of an enabling environment

To assess the level of sustainability of farmer groups, specifically with regards to structure,
capacity, empowerment, transparency, active participation of farmers, independence
(from middlemen) and access to services

To assess the effectiveness of the approach, activities and tools implemented

To highlight the most successful elements of the intervention

To identify potential risks (economic, institutional, political, etc) that could affect the current status and/or hinder further developments

To advise on any areas/issues that would still need improvement and that would be important to mitigate any risks identified above

Within the CFAU project there has been a strong commitment to support the promotion of
gender equality at all levels. This was addressed though gender mainstreaming and
through a specific household approach. As part of the evaluation it will be important to
analyze the results and impacts on both men and women separately and also on household level.
Services Required
A study to be carried out by a team of specialists in production systems, organizational development, farmer owned institutions, rural/economic development and assessment of smallholder livelihood standards.
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
The consultants will be expected to evaluate the performance of the project in terms of the
accomplishment of its objectives, the impact generated and the level of sustainability
achieved. An assessment of the project’s relevance, efficiency and effectiveness should also be
carried out.
In order to be a useful management tool for rolling out into other districts, the evaluation/appraisal needs to closely involve all the main stakeholders further to the HRNS team.
Expected Outputs
1. An inception meeting, with a brief inception report.
2. Debriefing session on findings, with the main stakeholders involved in the project, supported by a visual presentation,
3. A final report documenting and describing findings of the evaluation and appraisal exercise.
EXPERTS’ PROFILE
The consultant should have the following experience:

Expertise in evaluating rural (agricultural) development projects in East Africa

Knowledge of smallholder farming methods, preferably in relation to Robusta Coffee

Expertise in environmental, social (gender relations) and economic assessment of smallholder households and farming communities, with key focus on sustainable developments

Understanding of significance, creation and development of smallholder farmer organizations in Africa

Knowhow in assessing the enabling environment for smallholder business development

Understanding of commodity commercialization in rural Africa at smallholder level and
familiarity with coffee value and marketing chains
xxxv
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE xxxvi
Annex 5: List of persons interviewed
Organisations and persons consulted
Nambumgugu DC, Mityana
Rajib Kiwanuka
Chairman
Maximensia
Secretary
Nsubuga Elizabeth
Treasurer, Butalega/Serungwangu
PO
KabuyeSulait
Secretary, Butalega/serungwangu
PO
Kitatta James
Sustainability officer
Ssinnabulya Grant
Marketing manager
Nsubuga David
DC manager
Lwanga Harriet
Secretary
Muwonge James
Chairman Board
KibuukaAbsolom
Treasurer
Kisekka Ronald
FFS Facilitator
Kabugo Abdul
FFS Facilitator
Nayiga Justine
Vice chairperson
NansambaDimintiria
Lead Farmer, Bukabi PO
Mbaziira Godfrey
Marketing manager
Kalanzi Lawrence
FFS Facilitator
Kamwenda Godfrey
Manager
Sengombe Bosco
FFS Facilitator
Mugabi Jackson
Secretary
Luwalira Geoffrey
Chairman
Ssekasamba Israel
Sustainability officer
Nalukwago Olivia
FFS Facilitator
SenvuumoGoffrey
Manager
Lulle Dennis
Secretary
Lutwama Rashid
Chairman
Ssozi Saulo
Sustainability officer
Musoke Abdul
FFS Facilitator
Trader and UTZ certified miller
David Kimbugwe
Bulema Coffee Factory
Centenary Bank; Wobulenzi Branch
Awuyati Pauline Lydia
Loans officer
NAADS, Luwero
Andrew KiddaMakubuya
NAADS coordinator
Budde Farmers Multi Purpose Company Ltd., Nakaseke
NamiiroBena
Treasurer
Kaggwa Paul
Manager
Busana DC, Luwero
Kakooge DC, Nakasongola
Makulubita Farmers Company,
Luwero
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE xxxvii
Organisations and persons consulted
Kityo Moses
Secretary
Wabitungulu Coffee Nursery
EgeseaVicent
Owner
LC 3 Nakaseke
Makande James
Nakaseke Nursery
WamalaYuda
Owner
Kikoma – Musaala farmers & Traders Company Ltd, Luwero
Kiwanuka S.
Vice Chairman
Kigozi Steven
Sustainability officer
SerenkumaEnosi
Manager
Kirimuttu Fredrick
Treasurer
Bbosa Andrew
Secretary
David Mubiru
Coordinator Luwero, Nakaseke,
Nakasongola
Lwanyaga Christopher
Facilitator
?unreadable? Samuel
Sustainability officer
SerumpiMuhamad
Facilitator/extension officer
Lutwama Ronald
Secretary
Kyobe David
Lead farmer
Mutebi Saul
Lead farmer
Katongola John
Demo host
BaakiSuulaMatiam
Committee member
Ssekyala Lawrence
Vice chairperson
Mayanja Dan
Finance committee
Lwasa John
Marketing committee
Richard Musisi
Field operations officer Luwero,
2011-2012; marketing manager
Fortunate Paska
Gender expert
Florence Nakasujja
Field operations officer Luwero
2013, Certification officer,
UCDA
Nsanja Farm Stores, Ssemuto
branch, Nakaseke
Kirema Integrated Farmers Company
HRNS
USAID
Martin Fowler
Cafe Africa, Secretariat of the Coffee Platform
Harriet Fowler
Uganda Coffee Farmers’ Alliance
Tony Mugoya
Executive director
Uganda Coffee Federation
Betty Namwagala
Executive director
Samson Emong
Program manager
Martha Olwenyi
Manager M&&
Teopista Nakkungu
Coffee development officer
Paul Dhabhunansi
Senior M&E officer
aBi
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE xxxviii
Organisations and persons consulted
Opportunity Bank
Andre Lalumiere
GIZ, Agricultural Finance Development Program
Benedikt Brenke
CEO
Lara Anna Chhatwal
UCDA
Henry Ngabirano
MD
HRNS
Stefan Cognigni
General manager
KyetumeKibanyiIntergrated Farmers Company
Lwanga peter
Chair Person
Egesa Vincent
Extensionist
Sserwadda Denis
Vice Chair Person
Nalule Milly
Secretary
John Mary Mayanja
Finance Committee member
Joseph Kamuli
Manager, DC
Musa Ssebirumbi
Chairman, Finance Committee
Kasekende Dominique
Lead Farmer
Segwanyi Eddie
Extensionist
Ssali Francis
Treasurer
Hajji Musa Ssemanda
Chairperson
KagandaZiadi
Secretary
Ssemwogerere Ronald
Chairperson, DC
MwanjeTonny
Chairman, Business Committee
Lutaya Joachim
Lead Farmer Misenyi
Resty Nakyanzi
Vice Chairperson, Finance Committee
Kizza John Baptist
Secretary
MugagaSebabi
Extension, DC
Kiyemba Abdulla
Facilitator
Njalwe Mathias
Facilitator
Kiwanuka John
Lead Farmer, Kyankooko A.
Mabirizi Frank
Treasurer DC
Nsamba Godfrey
Secretary
Kiwanuka Dennis
Chairman, BOD
Fatuma Kalule
Vice Chairperson, BOD
Nseyi John Bosco
Treasurer
KakemboNasur
Member, Business Committee
Fred Senyondo
Treasurer
Kasaija Pascal
Secretary
Kampi Magdalene
Vice Chairperson
Mitigyera Coffee Farmers Development Society, Bukomansimbi District
Gayaza DC, Bukomansimbi District
Butalaga DC, Bukomansimbi District
Mbirizi DC, Bukomansimbi District
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE xxxix
Organisations and persons consulted
Hulling Factory, Masaka
HRNS
Exporters
Hajji KazindaShaban
Incoming Chairperson
Hajji Mutebi Hussein
Outgoing Chairperson
Tim Mulindwa
Incoming Depot Manager
Kalema Peter
Managing Director
Sekayita Fred
District trader/middleman
Jaggwe Joseph
District trader/Middleman
David
District trader/Middleman
Daniel Kazzibwe
Manager Masaka
Ibrahim KyeyuneMuanja
Producer Organization Trainer,
Masaka Area
Eugene Nsereko
General Manager, Ibero coffee Ltd
Anneke Fermont
Regional Sustainability Manager, Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd
Jeremy Mpalampa
Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd, Trader
Roy Olwor-Kumu
Armajaro Uganda Limited, Buyer
Annex
CFAU project evaluation
UNIQUE
Annex 6: Possible limitations of the evaluation methodology
Possible limitations of the evaluation methodology
Limitation
Impact
Due to the similarity/replication of activities in different areas the Possible slight overestimastakeholders interviewed often did not distinguish between the differ- tion of adoption
ent project areas, funding sources and the related activities. Thus, and
given the constant evolvement of the project over time and space, the
consultants took into account feedback even if not pertaining to the
two specific project regions established in the ToR.
External factors such as changes in coffee prices and projects imple- Possible over or underestimented by third parties influenced project participants’ behaviour and mation of the project’s immay have an impact on the overall success of the project. The effect of pact
these factors is difficult to reflect upon.
Interviews of Lead Farmers and framers were conducted in their local Survey results may reflect to
language but recorded in English. Some questions may have required a limited extent the percepexplanation by the enumerators to enable the respondents to answer tions of the enumerators.
in a meaningful way.
Data collected at the PO and farm/household levels is extensive. How- The samples are not defined
ever, not all questions were applicable to all respondents equally. statistically.
Accordingly the sample size varies between topics and questions. In
some cases the data entered was obviously incorrect, in some cases no
information was entered, further altering the sample. To reflect on the
differences in sample size from the original design evaluation, the
results all state the total sample size (N) and the valid number of respondents (n) for a particular topic.
Depot Committees were interviewed by the evaluation team. However, to overcome language barriers the Luwero project manager was
present for five of the seven interviews conducted in Luwero. In fact,
in four interviews the project manager translated both questions and
answers.
Information provided by the
interviewees may by biased,
Information may have been
lost or altered in translation.
The logistic framework and baseline include a limited number of targets and indicators. Where these were deemed insufficient or of limited explanatory power consultants added further criteria. New criteria
do not have a baseline. To overcome this challenge the evaluation
relies on the memory of respondents asking them to compare between the current status and the status in 2010 (project start).
The status given for 2010
(e.g. number and types of
assets) may not always have
been correct, and is difficult
to verify.
xl