POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN
UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY
SERVICES (NAADS) PROGRAMME IN MBARARA DISTRICT.
MUKUNDANE MOSES
2007/HD14/9573U
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
ARTS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MAKERERE
UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER 20, 2011
Declaration
I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, am the sole author of this
dissertation. The work presented in this dissertation has never been submitted to
Makerere University Directorate of Research and Graduate Training for the award of a
Masters Degree in Public Administration and Management or its equivalent, or to any
other University / Institution for any academic award. Thus, the work is original, a result
of my own research, and where other people’s research was used, the authors have been
dully acknowledged.
Date……………………..
Signature…………………………….
MUKUNDANE MOSES
2007/HD14/9573U
The Dissertation has been submitted with knowledge and approval of my supervisor
Signature …………………………………
Date…………………………….
FREDERICK GOLOOBA-MUTEBI (PhD)
i
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my dear wife Mrs. Evas, T. Mukundane and our beloved sons
Alain Akandinda and Alden Akatukunda who missed my full time attention and company
during my study and most especially the fieldwork period.
I also dedicate this work to my beloved parents Mr. Edward Begumisa and Mrs. Kagirasi
Midress Begumisa who toiled for my education and sacrificed the descent life they
deserved to make sure I attained a bachelor’s degree without which I could not have
enrolled for this Masters Degree programme. I am highly indebted to both of them.
ii
Acknowledgement
I sincerely acknowledge the dedicated intellectual guidance, supervision and academic
support I received from my supervisor Dr. Frederick Golooba-Mutebi throughout the
entire study period. It is this guidance and support that has enabled me produce this
intellectual work.
Special thanks go to my dear wife Evas for her motivation, encouragement and
invaluable support- moral, financial and social she gave me throughout the study period.
It is also my pleasure to extend my sincere gratitude to DAAD Academic Exchange
Programme for awarding me the scholarship for this course. The financial support has
made the entire course possible.
I am also grateful to Mr. Geresome Okecho of NAADS Secretariat Kampala for his
assistance particularly his willingness to avail me most literature for documentary review
about NAADS programme implementation in Uganda.
To all the above, and even those unmentioned here,
(Thank you so much).
iii
I sincerely say “Asante sana”
Table of contents
page
Declaration ........................................................................................................................... i
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iii
Table of contents ............................................................................................................... iiv
List of tables ...................................................................................................................... vi
List of maps ...................................................................................................................... vii
Map of Uganda showing NAADS participating districts by FY 2007/2008…............…viii
Map of Mbarara district showing the area of study…………….………………………...ix
Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………...x
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1
1.0.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background to the study .......................................................................................... 2
1.2.0. Statement of the problem ...................................................................................... 8
1.3.0. Objectives of the study........................................................................................ 10
1. 3.1. General objective ........................................................................................... 10
1.3.2. Specific objectives .......................................................................................... 10
1.4.0 Justification of the study ...................................................................................... 11
1.5.0. Scope of the study ............................................................................................... 11
1.6.0. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................ 11
1.6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11
1.6. 2. Participation in theory .................................................................................... 12
1.6.3. Public choice theory ........................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 18
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 18
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 18
2.2. Ways in which NAADS Programme beneficiaries participate in its ..................... 19
2.3. Benefits of popular participation in the programme implementation to its
beneficiaries .................................................................................................................. 22
2.4. Impact of Participation or non-participation by beneficiaries on the .................... 28
CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 30
3.0. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................... 30
3.1. Research design ..................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Study Area ............................................................................................................. 32
3.3. Sample Selection Techniques ................................................................................ 32
3.4. Data Collection Methods and instruments ............................................................. 34
3.5. Data presentation and analysis ............................................................................... 34
3.6. Ethical considerations ............................................................................................ 35
3.7.0. Some of the constraints to the study ................................................................... 35
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 36
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ........................... 36
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 36
4.1. Demographic profile of the respondents ............................................................ 37
4.1.1 Sex distribution of respondents ........................................................................ 37
iv
4.1.2 Age of respondents. ......................................................................................... 39
4.1.3 Level of Education of respondents .................................................................. 40
4.2.0. WAYS IN WHICH THE NAADS PROGRAMME’S BENEFICIARIES ........ 42
4.2.1. Formation of farmers’ groups ......................................................................... 42
4.2.2 Attending group and inter-group meetings and training .................................. 43
4.2.3 Selection of enterprises to be supported in a given financial year. ................ 43
4.2.4 Election of farmer group executives and representatives at various levels ..... 45
4.2.5. Monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme ....................................... 47
4.2.6
Procurement and supply of agricultural and technology input / implements
to farmers .................................................................................................................. 48
4.3. Benefits of popular participation in the programme ............................................. 52
4.4. Comparison of the NAADS Pprogramme beneficiary participation in the counties
of Kashaari and Rwampara ........................................................................................... 57
4.5. Impact of participation or non-participation by the NAADS beneficiaries on the
performance of the programme ..................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................. 63
5.0. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ................................. 63
5.1. Summary of the findings .................................................................................... 63
5. 2. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 66
5.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 68
5.4 Areas of further research .................................................................................... 70
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 74
A. Time schedule for research activities ....................................................................... 74
B. Questionnaire for naads beneficiaries (farmers) ...................................................... 75
C. Interview guide for naads beneficiaries (farmers)................................................... 81
D. Interview guide for key informants ......................................................................... 83
v
List of Tables
page
Table 4.1.1: Sex Distribution of Respondents ……………………………37
Table 4.1.2: Age Distribution of Respondents …………………………...39
Table 4.1.3: Level of education of respondents…………………………..40
vi
List of Maps
page
1. Map of Uganda showing NAADS participating districts …………ix
2. Map of Mbarara district showing area of study……………………x
vii
MAP OF UGANDA SHOWING NAADS PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS BY FY
2007/2008
Source: NAADS programme website- www.naads.org.ug/. Accessed in February
2009.
Key
Area of study (Mbarara district)
viii
MAP OF MBARARA DISTRICT SHOWING AREA OF STUDY
KEY:
Represent study area: Top box represents Kashaari county, Bubaare subCounty, parishes of Rwenshanku and Katojo; bottom box represents Rwampara
County, Nyakayojo sub-county, parishes of Rwakishakizi and Rukindo.
ix
Abbreviations
AAMP
CBF
CBSC
FGDs
FY
IGA
ISFGF
KRIBP
LDCs
MAAIF
MFPED
MDGs
NAADS
NGOS
PEAP
PCC
PMA
PM&E
PRAs
SLCSC
SMS
SPC
UNFA
UWESO
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Area-based Agricultural Modernization Programme
Community Based Facilitator
Community Based Selection Committee
Focus Group Discussions
Financial Year
Inter-Group Association
Integrated Support to Farmer Groups Funds
Kribhcho Indo-British Farming Project
Least Developed Countries
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
Millennium Development Goals
National Agricultural Advisory Services
Non-Governmental Organizations
Poverty Eradication Action Plan
Parish Coordination Committee
Plan for Modernization of Agriculture
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Participatory Rural Appraisals
Sub-county Level Community Selection Committee
Subject Matter Specialist
Sub-county Procurement Committee
Uganda National Farmers’ Association
Uganda Women’s Efforts to Support Orphans
x
Abstract
For the last three decades, popular participation has become an increasing aspect of and
as a key tool of public policy and service delivery within the realm of good governance
across the world. It has gained ground and has been embraced in political, economic and
social spheres of life. Governments, international or multilateral organizations and
agencies emphasize participatory approaches in the programmes that intend to benefit a
given community.
This research assessed popular participation in rural development programmes with
NAADS programme as case study. The premise of the study was in the light of claims
and counter-claims by critics of and advocates for popular participation; thus precipitated
the need to ascertain the degree of popular participation in, and its impact on, the
implementation of the NAADS programme in Mbarara district.
It was conducted in Mbarara district in the counties of Kashaari and Rwampara
particularly in the sub-counties of Bubaare and Nyakayojo. Data collection period ended
in the month of August 2009.
The study employed in-depth interviews and structured questionnaires as data collection
methods.
Research findings revealed that popular participation exists in the implementation of
NAADS programme and beneficiaries have benefited from it. It is however, more
confined at farmer group level activities while the important decisions are made at higher
administrative levels particularly at the sub-county, district, and national levels with
minimal local farmers’ involvement. It was further revealed that popular participation in
the implementation of NAADS programme is on the decline primarily because of
dissatisfaction, disappointments, and skepticism on the side of the beneficiaries on the
way the programme is being implemented. The regular ushering in of various versions of
NAADS implementation guidelines with sometimes rigid directives from the Presidency
seems to be one of contributing factors to the decline of popular participation in the
programme implementation.
The study recommends a more vivid bottom-up approach in the implementation of
NAADS programme. Particularly much effort needs to be put beyond the farmer group
level activities to decision making process at inter-group level, and farmer’s fora at the
sub-county and district level with increased local farmers’ involvement.
xi
CHAPTER ONE
1.0. Introduction
The term ‘popular participation’ entails maximization of people’s involvement in the
spheres or stages of development (Mukandala, 2005). Involvement has to go beyond
implementation or donation of ‘free’ labour and cash contributions and extends to policy
decisions. People need to enjoy basic freedoms so as to be able to freely express
themselves and to develop their full potential in areas of their own choice (ibid).
Drawing from Pearse and Stiefel (1985), and Rondinelli (1991), Muhangi (2007) notes
that the conceptualization of community participation1 has evolved over time, moving
from its narrow definition as the mobilization of people to contribute free labour and
materials, to more extensive interpretations as a process of empowering people and
giving them authority to control programmes.
World Bank (1994) looks at popular participation from development perspective as a
process through which beneficiaries influence and share control over development
initiatives, decisions and resources that affect their lives. Long (2001) also notes that
recognition and support for greater involvement of local people’s perspectives,
knowledge, priorities and skills presents an alternative to donor-driven and outsider-led
development.
The terms ‘popular participation’ and ‘community participation’ are used interchangeably in most
literature, and the same applies to this dissertation.
1
1
According to African Charter (1990), popular participation is in essence, people’s
effective involvement in creating structures and designing policies and programmes that
serve their interests. For popular participation to be realized, people have to be fully
involved, committed and seize the initiative. It is essential that they establish independent
people’s organizations at various levels that are genuinely grass root, voluntary,
democratically administered and self-reliant and that are rooted in tradition and culture of
society (ibid).
Generally, the concept of participation refers to involvement of people in affairs that
affect them especially in decision making process. In most of the literature, there is
agreement that participation connotes a process by which community members take part
in all stages of a programme right from inception, through planning and design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, to sharing of benefits (Paul (1987); World
Bank (1994); Brett (2002). Paul (1987:2) proposes a framework for analyzing community
participation in terms of three dimensions, namely its objectives, its intensity, and the
instruments used to foster it. Paul states that the objectives of community participation as
an active process are (a) empowerment, (b) building beneficiary capacity, (c) increasing
project effectiveness, (d) improving project efficiency, and (e) cost sharing.
1.1. Background to the study
Hickey & Mohan (2004), point out that participation in development theory and practice
has taken different dimensions and approaches over time. From 1940s to 50s, the colonial
approach was community development and participation was regarded as an obligation of
2
citizenship; citizenship formed in homogenous communities. The locus or level of
engagement was a community. From 1960s to 1970s, the post-colonial era approach was
community development, political participation and emancipatory participation and
participation in form of voting, and campaigning. Political party membership was
regarded as a right and obligation of the citizen. Participatory citizenship was also
regarded as a means of challenging subordination and marginalization. For this period,
the locus or level of engagement were political systems and constituent parts, economic
and civic spheres, communities and citizens.
The period beginning in the 1980s, participatory approach was populist / participation in
development and its focus was in projects rather than in broader political communities.
The most actors have been the development professionals, participation learning groups,
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), World Bank, and United Nations agencies. It
has been realised that due to the ineffectiveness of externally imposed and expertoriented forms of project planning, management and implementation coupled with topbottom approach, major donors and development organizations embarked on
participatory approaches purposely to empower local people, capture indigenous people’s
knowledge, and ensure sustainability and efficiency of interventions (Hickey & Mohan
(2004); Adong (2004); Cooke & Kothari (2001), World Bank (2000); Cornwall, A.
(2000); Rudquvist & Woodford-Berger ( 1996); World Bank (1994).
Since the late 1990s to the present, the approach has been participatory governance and
citizenship participation. Participation is regarded as primarily a right of citizenship and
3
its level of engagement is at citizens, civil society, state agencies and institutions. The
focus is on convergence of social and political participation, scaling up of participatory
methods, state-civic partnership, decentralization, participatory budgeting, citizens’
hearings, participatory poverty assessments, poverty reduction strategies programme
consultations among others (Hickey & Mohan (2004).
In Uganda, popular participation has been for many decades synonymous with political
participation. Most scholars notably Burke (1964), Kasfir (1976), Karugire (1980), and
Kabwegyere (1995) link participation to political participation. Burke (1964) traces
political participation from the pre-colonial era decentralized societies of Northern and
Eastern Uganda. These societies through established simple political systems provided
grounds for people’s involvement in the affairs that affected them. These political
systems were organized around the clan. Each clan managed its own affairs, elected its
own leaders, settled disputes between its members, and held the brief and practice that all
important decisions affecting the community could be made through a consensus of
elders representing different clans constituting a particular community (Burke 1964;
Karugire, 1980). This political organization was however contrasted to southern and
western region centralized kingdoms which were governed by kings and a hierarchy of
chiefs and sub-chiefs for example in Buganda, Bunyoro, and Ankole. Buganda’s
centralized political system was always regarded as the most developed and organized
political system in pre-colonial Uganda to the extent that the British colonialists preferred
using the same system in their indirect rule colonial administration throughout the
colonial state (Kabwegyere, 1995, Burke 1964). The system was formalized under the
4
1919 Native Authority Ordinance.
Under this system, the Baganda mercenaries,
administrative agents, localized military forces, chiefs and clan leaders were involved in
colonial administration activities and petty decision making. However, the scope and type
of the participation was limited as major decisions were made by the colonial
government. Besides, the majority of the citizens were left de-participating (Kasfir 1976).
The decolonization period brought hasty efforts by the colonial governments to introduce
new structures which would channel popular demands into responsive policies. These
structures included government and opposition parties, national parliament, local
councils, elections (electoral participation), trade unions and cooperatives (Kasfir, 1976).
Decolonization meant national control which in turn led to widespread popular political
participation. The African Local Government Ordinance (1949) and the District
Administration Ordinance (1955) created local government structures and were
instrumental in granting local government institutions more control over the
administration of the district and local chiefs. Thus these legal instruments increased
opportunities for native people to get involved in the administration of their own local
services and local affairs affecting them (Burke 1964). This participation was however
not sustainable and it shortly deteriorated in post- independent Uganda. The vigour and
importance of all these institutions declined and consequently de-participation (reduction
or elimination of people from political life) became increasingly common (Kasfir 1976,
237). The disappearance of participation in structures designed to facilitate political
involvement was the consequence of efforts of the central administration to seize more
authority. In other cases, participatory structures had lost many of their functions because
5
they were unable to carry out their intended tasks. The manipulation of elections, the
harassment of opposition parties, the decreasing importance of legislatures and the loss of
autonomy of important voluntary associations such as trade unions and cooperatives
(ibid).
The formulation and implementation of the 1987 National Resistance Council and
Committees
Statute, the 1993 Local Government Statute and the resultant
Decentralization policy, the 1995 Constitution, and the 1997 Local Government Act,
revamped popular participation in Uganda. These legal instruments established new
formal participatory local government institutions and structures, devolved powers and
responsibility to local governments with the aim of empowering local governments and
communities to control, influence, direct, develop and manage local
political and
development programmes as well as improving service delivery (Lubanga (1996);
Golooba (2002); Kiyaga-Nsubuga (2002); Muhangi (2007). Popular participation has
thus become as a strong element of decentralization programmes in Uganda. The earlier
notion of participation in the form of political participation has been refined to become a
multi-dimensional key element of the local government, decentralization and good
governance programmes. Its application has transcended all fields including health, water
and sanitation, agriculture, environment conservation programmes among others
(Muhangi, 2007). These efforts have been supported by the increasing emphasis of
popular participation in development programmes by development partners- donors of
these programmes mainly the World Bank through its good governance campaigns.
Participation has become a basic criterion for judging the performance of political and
6
developmental projects / programmes in aid recipient countries (World Bank, 1994;
2000).
This study sought to examine the newly introduced development programmes in rural
Uganda in order to ascertain whether popular participation has been enhanced or stifled.
The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) programme in Mbarara district is
the focus of study.
The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS)2 is a programme of the
government of Uganda which was introduced to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of agricultural extension services (NAADS, 2001). It is implemented through the
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). NAADS is a semiautonomous body formed under the NAADS Act of June 2001. It is mandated to develop
a demand-driven, farmer-led agricultural service delivery system targeting poor
subsistence farmers, with emphasis on women, youth and people with disabilities.
Its development goal is to enhance rural livelihoods by increasing agricultural
productivity and profitability in a sustainable manner (NAADS, 2000).
2
NAADS is one of the seven components under the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA), the planning
framework of the government of Uganda for the transformation from subsistence agriculture to market - oriented for
commercial production.
NAADS is working in line with the national development framework of Poverty Eradication agenda, which is guided
by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). The PEAP provides an overarching framework to guide public action
in the eradication of poverty (PEAP 2004). The PEAP framework also works in pursuit of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). Of the eight Millennium Development Goals2, the PEAP is directly addressing the goal
of eradication of extreme poverty and hunger.
7
The NAADS programme is grounded in the over-aching government policies of
decentralization, liberalization, privatization and increased participation by people in the
policy formulation and implementation process (NAADS, 2000).
Its implementation started in July 2001 and by the end of financial year 2007/2008, it was
covering 79 districts and 748 sub-counties of Uganda, directly benefiting more than
900,000 farm households. It targeted to cover 1033 sub-counties by the end of financial
year 2008/2009 (NAADS, 2008).
The NAADS
programme implementation
framework
emphasizes
participatory
approaches that enable the beneficiaries to get involved actively in decision making
process with regard to the identification of needs, setting of priorities, formulation of
plans, monitoring and evaluation of outputs and outcomes (NAADS 2000; 2006). This
study intended to evaluate the authenticity of this framework.
1.2.0. Statement of the problem
In most developing countries, many past efforts in development programmes have had
limited success because of lack of sufficient participation by stakeholders in the
development process (World Bank (1994; 2002); Brett (2002); MAAIF/ NAADS (2000).
The core constraint to fostering popular participation especially among the rural people
has been over-centralization of decision-making powers and resources thereby creating a
communication gap between the beneficiaries / stakeholders and the development
workers. It is because of this, that today, many programmes and projects have been
introduced and developed with participatory approaches so as to bring the disparate
8
voices of the people into the development process. NAADS in Uganda is one of such
programmes (NAADS 2000; 2006).
However, despite the sounding implementation framework, the NAADS programme has
increasingly become a subject of debate and criticisms among different sections of the
public in Uganda. The criticisms have revolved around the manner in which agricultural
services are delivered, the procurement process of service providers, and suppliers of
agro-inputs/implements, government’s commitment to meet farmers’ needs (selected
enterprises), regular impromptu changes in the programme implementation among others.
These have been expressed in the media reports, and various public fora. It is these issues
that precipitated the researcher to undertake a scientific research as an attempt to assess
whether or not these anomalies can be linked to the issue of popular participation in the
NAADS programme planning and implementation.
Besides, there are divergent views in the literature about participatory approaches to
development. Some present arguments for it (NAADS (2006); NAADS (2000); PMA
(2005/6); Mukandala (2005); Brett (2002); World Bank (2002); World Bank (2004);
Chambers (1997); Putnam (1992); Almond & Verba (1980) while others critique and
present some arguments against it (Hickey & Mohan (2004); Vincent ( 2004); Cooke &
Kothari (2001); Mosse (2001). It is thus necessary to examine these divergent views in
line with the suggested participatory approach in the NAADS programme
implementation.
9
This research therefore intended systematically to investigate whether NAADS in
Mbarara district has enhanced popular participation and in what ways it has done so, in
order to evaluate what is planned and what is actually done on the ground. The study
sought to do this in light of the claims and counter-claims of advocates for, and critics of,
the participatory approach.
1.3.0. Objectives of the study
1. 3.1. General objective
To assess the degree of popular participation in rural development programmes in
Uganda, using NAADS programme in Mbarara district as a case study.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
1.3.2.1. To find out if the NAADS programme’s beneficiaries in Mbarara district
participate in its implementation and if so, the ways in which they participate.
1.3.2.2. To establish the benefits of popular participation in the programme’s
implementation in Mbarara district.
1.3.2.3. To compare the level of participation between beneficiaries in Kashaari and
Rwampara counties.
1.3.2.4. To analyze the impact of participation or non-participation by beneficiary
farmers on the performance (success or failure) of the NAADS programme in Mbarara
district.
10
1.4.0 Justification of the study
The study sought to contribute to the existing body of knowledge through an empirical
investigation into popular participation in development programmes in Uganda and its
contribution to their outcomes.
The research findings would be a useful source of information for farmers, the National
NAADS Secretariat, and country-wide NAADS Coordinating Units especially in
Mbarara district with a view to improving the programme’s implementation.
The research findings would also be a useful source of information for researchers,
development practitioners and public policy formulators and analysts in Uganda and
beyond.
1.5.0. Scope of the study
The study was carried out in Mbarara district, in the two counties of Kashaari and
Rwampara. It covered the period from the year 2001 when the NAADS programme was
introduced in Uganda to 2008.
1.6.0. Theoretical framework
1.6.1. Introduction
This research was conducted within the framework of participatory theory and public
choice theory. It sought to ascertain the relevancy of the claims made by the advocates of
these theories in the implementation of the NAADS programme.
11
The rationale for
selecting two theories was to gain adequate explanations of the subject of the study while
appreciating the fact there is no single theory with sufficient explanatory power on a
given phenomenon.
1.6. 2. Participation in theory
Brett (2003) presents the role of participatory theory in managing development projects
and programmes in poor countries. He notes that participation has emerged in response to
global demands for greater individual and social control over the activities of state and
private agencies, and especially to the manifest failures of traditional 'top-down'
management systems in less developed countries (LDCs). He points out that participation
can succeed for specific kinds of projects and programmes in favourable circumstances,
but is unsuitable for many others. It commonly fails in contexts where local conditions
make co-operative and collective action very difficult, or where it is manipulated by
implementing agencies to justify their own actions or poor performance.
Drawing from Midley (1986) and Rondinelli (1991), Muhangi (2007) points out that the
rationale for community participation has been thought to include being a means of
enhancing empowerment, enhancing responsiveness to people’s real needs, instilling a
sense of ownership of programmes by the local people, promoting sustainability, and
making programmes cheaper by allowing mobilization of local resources. Participation is
also believed to promote more equitable distribution of the benefits that accrue from
development activities.
12
In line with the above, Chambers (1997) argues that participation has the effect of
empowering the citizens so that they can continue to direct future changes and put
pressure on outside forces to support these changes. The location of participatory work is
thus focused on the local level and depends upon local interests and capacity to engage in
action for change.
Brett (2002) puts much emphasis on the issue of participatory groups and rural
development. He calls for a more people-centered development practice that emphasizes
the need to strengthen institutional and social capacity supportive of greater local control,
accountability and self- reliance. He notes that a high priority is placed on a process of
democratization; people are encouraged to mobilize and manage their own local
resources, with government playing an enabling role. Drawing from the works of Korten
(1987) Brett notes that where such decentralizing self-organizing approaches to the
management of development resources are taken seriously, they generally result in more
efficient and productive resource management, a reduction in dependence on external
resources, increased equity, increased local initiative and accountability, and a
strengthening of economic discipline.
Brett further points out that participation is very instrumental for it strengthens
managerial competence, motivation and performance of workers, social and political
solidarity and the relative position of poor and marginal groups in society. He argues that
participation empowers poor people by taking them out of exploitative economic
relationships and giving them control over their own organizations; it strengthens local
13
organizational capabilities by building on traditional commitments to collective, as
opposed to individualistic forms of economic and social organizations. He also notes that
participation guarantees that collective organizations serve local needs, are based upon
local skills and compatible with local cultures and thus help to eliminate foreign
domination and dependency from the development process. He claims that Local officials
through cooperation increase people’s productivity and access to capital, and give them
better access to administrative staff.
Putnam et al, (1992) present the virtues of a civic community and note that citizenship in
a civic community is marked, first of all, by active participation in public affairs.
Drawing from Michaal Walzer, they point out that “interest in public issues and devotion
to public causes are the key signs of civic virtue” (Putnam et al, (1992: 87). They further
note that citizens in the civic community are not required to be altruists. However,
citizens pursue what Tocqueville termed ‘self-interest properly understood” that is, selfinterest defined in the context of broader public needs, self-interest that is “enlightened”
rather than “myopic,” self-interest that is alive to the interests of others.
Almond & Verba (1980), stress that the civic culture model from a democratic
perspective requires that citizens be involved and active in politics, and that their
participation be informed, analytic and rational. They further point put that this
rationality-activist model of democratic citizenship is one of the major components of a
civic culture.
14
Participatory theory was found to be relevant because the findings are in line with most
of the above mentioned claims made by the advocates of the theory. The study findings
indicate that some of the NAADS programme beneficiaries who have participated in the
programme activities have been empowered to demand agricultural services, have
developed a sense of ownership of the programme, and a sense of belonging to
developmental social groups. They have also learnt from each other (farmers’ group
members) on how to improve their selected agricultural enterprises. Others especially
women mentioned that their participation in the NAADS programme activities has
enabled them to gain confidence in public speaking, appearance and presentation.
Farmers who also double as leaders of the NAADS programme at farmers’ group level
noted that their participation in the NAADS programme activities has enabled them to
gain leadership and organizational skills. Chapter four of this report presents all the
above in details.
1.6.3. Public choice theory
Buchanan and Tullock (1962) refer to public choice theory as “the economic study of
non-market decision-making or simply as the application of economics to political
science” (Harmon and Mayer, 1986: 244). Public choice theory seeks to understand and
predict the behaviour of the government sector of the economy as the outcome of the
individual choices made by voters, politicians and bureaucrats interacting in a political
marketplace. In other words, public choice is an application of neoclassical economic
tools (self interest and utility maximization) to explain political behaviour (www.
Wikipedia.org. Accessed in March 2009).
15
Stoker (1988) notes that public choice theory is entrenched within the neo-liberal theory
which argues for private sector, market-led development as apposed to state–led
development. According to public choice theory advocates, the optimum mechanism for
allocating public goods and making public decisions is the market.3 The implication here
is that prices and other economic activities are determined by forces of demand and
supply. There is no government interference in the allocation of goods and services and
determining costs, and there is also private ownership of property.
Stoker points out further that public choice theorists maintain that the public sector and
particularly local government has become too big, too distant and too complicated for
ordinary people to understand and control. The theory hence argues for reforms such as
contracting out, privatization, decentralization and bringing outsiders into the public
organization, instituting a system of performance-related pay among others as alternative
arrangements to improve efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.
Public choice theory thus provides a good theoretical framework for this research because
it provides theoretical explanations of the NAADS programme implementation. NAADS
(2000) states that the beneficiary farmers ought to make choices and take decisions on
which enterprises they feel will benefit them. The document also indicates that the
NAADS programme involves contracting out advisory services to private companies and
also allows room for monitoring, evaluation and auditing from reputable private and
In this study the term “market” is used to refer to an economic system in which individuals rather than
government make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions. The decisions
by individuals regarding exchanging of goods and services are voluntary and free from coercion.
3
16
public organizations. There is emphasis on the contracting out of agricultural advisory
services to farmers to private individuals and companies through a competitive bidding
process. Agricultural advisors and suppliers of agricultural and technological inputs and
implements are contracted at the sub-county level. Various mechanisms are used to
empower farmers and enhance their roles in demanding services through farmer groups
and fora. In the contracting arrangements, the poor and female farmers are specifically
targeted through supporting the development of gender-sensitive procedures and
guidelines for accessing contract services (NAADS, 2000).
During the period in which public funds are the source of procuring advisory services,
local governments are involved in overseeing the use of the funds. They also participate
in the drawing up of the contracts and the technical supervision and audit of the work.
The guidelines and procedures for contracting and contract supervision are prepared at
the national level (NAADS, 2000).
In line with Stoker, G. (1998), the design of the NAADS programme with regard to
contracting out assumes that open competition with private contractors forces public
sector bureaucrats to reveal more information about costs or services pertaining to a
particular project or intervention. Contracting out is also assumed to make it easier for a
comparison of cost-effectiveness or efficiency between government and private business.
It is also held that the profit orientation of private contractors and the narrower focus of
their activities make them flexible and efficient. Contracting out is also preferred because
17
it challenges the monopoly position of in-house service providers especially by the
bureaucrats.
However, the study found some of the above claims made by the advocates of public
choice theory not applicable to NAADS programme implementation. Despite the private
sector orientation of the NAADS programme implementation particularly the
procurement and supply process, the claimed benefits of the private sector advanced by
public choice theory were not found right according to the study findings. For example
contracting out and its claimed merits, were not proved right because of the many
anomalies found in the area of procurement and supply of agricultural services / inputs
and implements. They include lack of transparency in awarding contracts, supply of poor
quality agricultural and technological inputs, and the reluctance of the Sub-county-based
technical planning committee (TPC) to actively involve the farmers’ elected procurement
committees at the parish and sub-county levels in the procurement process. The above
anomalies are presented in details in chapter four of this report.
CHAPTER TWO
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter provides the existing literature that was reviewed by the researcher about the
NAADS Programme implementation in Uganda, and the subject of popular participation
in development programmes as presented in respective themes below.
18
2.2. Ways in which NAADS Programme beneficiaries participate in its
implementation
NAADS Master Document (2000) states that the planning processes in the NAADS
programme are expected to be participatory. It is noted that the primary plans were to
originate from the Farmer Groups. Plans were expected to be generated through group
discussions (Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)-led) as well as consensus building and
collaborative learning approaches.
The aggregation of the plans is expected to be
undertaken at the sub-county, district, and national levels. To make the process as
transparent as possible, guidelines based on criteria developed from the NAADS
principles were to be developed at national level and disseminated to the lower levels.
The master document further points out that to achieve the above, the NAADS
programme will ensure effective farmers’ orientation and mobilization. A core function
of the NAADS programme was to facilitate farmers to acquire and enhance their capacity
to access and take charge of the structures and processes that drive the advisory services.
For this to happen, mobilization and then orientation of farmers so as to acquire new
basic attitudes and capacities that enable them to effectively control the NAADS will be
done. The orientation programme aims at developing farmer institutional capacities in
four main areas namely: Definition and appreciation of the NAADS principles,
procedures and conditionalities- relating particularly to tendering, contracting and
reporting; planning, monitoring, and evaluation, including needs assessment, gender and
poverty issues. Other areas include group dynamics and the instilling of specific skills
related to group activities through formation of farmer groups and fora, and finally the
19
multi-stakeholder dynamics where farmers both female and males meet other
stakeholders, such as input suppliers, traders, credit suppliers, and advisory service
providers, to negotiate and learn about prices, quality standards and other relevant issues
(Ibid., 16).
NAADS Master Document (2000) generally provides a planning framework for NAADS
implementation in a participatory manner. However, bearing in mind that planning is one
thing and implementation is another, there was therefore need to systematically
investigate whether the participatory approach that is presented in the NAADS master
document is actually implemented on the ground and how it impacts on outcomes. This
formed the sole purpose of this study.
PMA annual report 2005/2006 presents the assessment of the extent to which the
PMA/NAADS undertakings for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 that were agreed at the PMA Joint
Annual Review were implemented. With regard to one of the NAADS undertaking of
“designing and implementing more detailed participatory monitoring and evaluation
(PM&E),
it reports that the NAADS Secretariat trained Parish Monitoring and
Evaluation (PM&E) Coordination committee members and facilitators from 20 districts
in the country. The findings from a performance assessment that the NAADS Secretariat
carried out in 274 sub-counties in May 2006 were that 33% of the sub-counties had
undertaken satisfactory PM&E activities and about 70% of the registered groups had
trained group facilitators for PM&E.
20
The report however, does not indicate districts / sub-counties / parishes where this PM&E
training was carried out. The study of popular participation in the NAADS programme in
counties of Kashaari and Rwampara in Mbarara district sought to unearth whether these
counties benefited from this undertaking and if so, establish the way this training has
promoted beneficiary participation in the implementation of the NAADS programme in
the area.
NAADS implementation modalities report (2006) states that the key stakeholders in the
implementation of NAADS are the farmers, the service providers, the Local
Governments and the NAADS Secretariat. The report indicates that NAADS is a
government programme implemented through existing Local Government structures and
farmer organisations. Farmers elect their leaders who represent them at the sub-county
and district levels to form the Farmers’ Fora. The Fora are responsible for ensuring that
the programme is implemented in accordance with the needs of the farmers and that the
funds are used in a transparent way. The farmer organizations work hand in hand with the
Local Governments to implement the Programme.
The report further notes that through a participatory process, farmers are guided to select
profitable enterprises to be promoted in their groups. These are forwarded to the subcounty where farmers’ fora and technical staff then select the main three priority
enterprises to be supported.
21
The report points out that the farmers through their procurement committees hire private
service providers to train and assist farmers to improve their productivity and
profitability. The bulk of NAADS funds are at the sub-county and are used to meet the
cost of these contracts. It is noted that by June 2006, over 1,500 contracts had been
serviced under NAADS in over 346 sub-counties across the country.
Generally, NAADS implementation modalities report (2006) portrays the avenues that
would promote beneficiary participation in decision making, selecting prioritized
enterprises, electing farmers’ representatives, formation of farmer groups and fora at
different levels of Local Government structures.
However, these modalities seemed to generalize about implementation of NAADS in all
participating districts and sub-counties across the country. There was therefore need to
ascertain whether these modalities indeed cut across all the participating districts and subcounties. The study of popular participation in the NAADS programme in Mbarara
district sought to establish the empirical evidence.
2.3. Benefits of popular participation in the programme implementation to its
beneficiaries
NAADS implementation modalities (2006) indicate that NAADS is aimed at empowering
farmers to demand for advisory services in order to increase their agricultural
productivity and incomes. The poor subsistence farmers are the principle beneficiaries of
the NAADS programme. Farmer Groups form the channels through which farmers
receive advisory services under the programme. NAADS support farmers to organize in
22
groups to benefit from collective effort and to access advisory services, technologies and
production inputs.
There is need for empirical evidence on whether the NAADS implementation modalities
as stipulated in the 2006 report are put into action. A study on popular participation in
NAADS programme in Mbarara district will provide this evidence.
World Bank report (2000) points out that poverty has remained stubbornly high in Africa
for decades due to inappropriate approaches used to alleviate it. It notes that top-down
plans, donor-driven investment programmes have been less than successful. What is
contained in the new vision of the Bank is therefore a vision of prosperity through the
empowerment of local communities.
The Bank’s new vision sought to put local governments and rural and urban communities
in the ‘driver’s seat’, and give them a new set of powers, rights and obligations. These
include among others the right to be treated as people with capabilities, not objects of
pity, the power to plan, implement and maintain projects to serve their felt needs, the
obligation to be accountable to local people, not just central governments or donors, and
the obligation to enable stakeholders and beneficiaries most especially the women, ethnic
minorities, the poorest, and other long excluded groups to participate fully in the
economic development activities.
The NAADS programme being one of the World Bank funded programmes in Uganda,
there was need to ascertain whether the programme implementation process / modalities
are congruent to the tenets of the ‘new vision’ of the World Bank as stipulated in the
23
2000 report. To establish this, it required a systematic investigation which indeed formed
the justification for this study.
Brett (2002) also points out that participation is very instrumental for it strengthens
managerial competence, motivation and performance of workers, social and political
solidarity and the relative position of poor and marginal groups in society. He argues that
participation empowers poor people by taking them out of exploitative economic
relationships and thus gives them control over their own organizations. Participation also
strengthens local organizational capabilities by building on traditional commitments to
collective, as opposed to individualistic forms of economic and social organizations. He
also notes that participation guarantees that collective organizations serve local needs, are
based upon local skills and compatible with local cultures and thus help to eliminate
foreign domination and dependency from the development process. He claims that Local
officials through cooperation increase people’s productivity and access to capital, and
give them better access to administrative staff.
In digression however, Hickey & Mohan (2004), present various scholars who have
critiqued and put arguments against participatory development because of its tyrannical
nature. They thus advocate for the need for transformation to more accommodative,
inclusive and practical approaches to development. They argue that the problems of
power and politics have beset some approaches to participation; these should be
addressed if effective participation is to be realized.
Susan Vincent in particular notes that in Matachico, a peasant community in the
Peruvian central highlands, there were numerous small projects that bypassed the
24
“communinad” – which he referred to as the political institution, a vehicle for local
strategizing. He argues that these projects were planned elsewhere and the local people
vied to be included in them for the benefits, usually food handouts, they offered. He for
example notes that in sharp contrast to the initiative displayed by the community to get
electricity, when a church-run NGO which was said to give generous amounts of food
wanted to undertake a project in Matachico in 2000, women clamoured to be included,
although no one knew what the project’s purpose was, nor did they know which church
was involved; their focus was on the hand out (Hickey & Mohan ( 2004).
Vincent points out that despite the rhetoric that conceptualizes the participatory process
as empowering for the ‘locals’, many observers of participatory practice argue that the
process has tended to be coercive instead (Cooke & Kothari (2001), in part because
practitioners resist giving up their authority to direct change (Pottier, 1997).
He further argues that conventional participatory methods such Participatory Rural
Appraisals (PRAs) tend to deny the trusteeship of the state, or other large scale external
agents; through their focus on local-level activities, the people themselves are to
articulate and pursue their own development strategies.
He cites Pieterse (1998) arguing that outsiders tend to retain for themselves the right to
guide the process and decide who participates and how and what gets funded and what
does not.
Bill Cooke & Kothari (2001) also present cases for participation as tyranny as put
forward by a number of contributing writers. The writers collectively confirm that
25
tyranny is both a real and a potential consequence of participatory approaches to
development, counter intuitive, and contrary to its rhetoric of empowerment though this
may be. Three particular sets of tyrannies are identified- the tyranny of decision- making
and control (Participatory facilitators override legitimate decision-making processes); the
tyranny of the group (Group dynamics lead to participatory decisions that reinforce the
interests of the already powerful); and
tyranny of method (Participatory methods /
techniques drive out others which have advantages participation can not provide).
Mosse David (2001) in particular critiques participatory approaches to development. He
points out that an important principle of participatory development is the incorporation of
local people’s knowledge into programme planning and the supposition that the
articulation of people’s knowledge can transform top-down bureaucratic planning
systems. He points out that the techniques of participatory learning and planning (PRA/
PLA) are taken as defining features of ‘participation’ in development (Bill Cooke &
Kothari (2001). Mosse however, challenges the populist assumption that attention to
‘local knowledge’ through participatory learning redefines the relationship between local
communities and development organizations.
Using project-based illustrations while referring to the experience of the Kribhcho IndoBritish Farming Project (KRIBP), a donor-funded programme of a large public sector
organization in India, Mosse notes that ‘local knowledge’, far from determining planning
processes and outcomes, is often structured by them. He for example pointed out that
what in one case was expressed as a local need is actually shaped by local perceptions of
26
what the agency in question would legitimately and realistically be expected to deliver.
Mosse argues that ‘participatory planning’ may more accurately be viewed as the
acquisition and manipulation of a new ‘planning knowledge’ rather than the
incorporation of ‘people’s knowledge’ by projects.
Mosse further notes that there is a tendency to regard outsider agendas as ‘local
knowledge’. He argues that project actors are not passive facilitators of local knowledge
production and planning; they shape and direct these processes. People’s needs are
significantly shaped by perceptions of what the agency is able to deliver (Bill Cooke &
Kothari, (2001).
He cites Pottier (1992) and point out that there is a tendency of local collusion in the
planning consensus where needs are clearly socially constructed and local knowledge is
shaped both by locally dominant groups and by project interests.
Mosse finally notes that there is always manipulation of ‘people’s planning’ where rural
people’s knowledge (including for example analysis of problems, needs and plans) is
collaboratively produced in the context of planning. More generally, programme action is
shaped by the project’s engagement in wider coalitions contending for influence within
national and international policy arenas (Bill Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
All the above critiques of participation and other arguments against it provide new
insights into this study. This study sought to find out the applicability and relevance of
this debate in terms of arguments for participatory approaches on the one hand while
27
critiques and arguments against it on the other with particular focus on the NAADS
programme implementation in Mbarara district. Borne in mind was Brett’s (2003)
argument that participation can succeed for specific kinds of projects and programmes in
favourable circumstances, but is unsuitable for many others, and thus commonly fails
especially in contexts where local conditions make co-operative and collective action
very difficult, or where it is manipulated by implementing agencies to justify their own
actions or poor performance.
2.4. Impact of Participation or non-participation by beneficiaries on the
performance of the Programme
Robert Chambers (1997) points out that participation is assumed to have the effect of
empowering the citizens so that they can continue to give direction in public policies or
programmes and also direct future changes and put pressure on outside forces to support
these changes. He argues that the location of participatory work is thus focused on the
local level and depends upon local interests and capacity to engage in action for change
for the success of the public policy or programmes.
Mukandala (2005) analyses the impact of participatory approach in the community selfhelp movement in Tanzania in 1960s. He presents a transitional process from self-help
(Kujitolea) to Nation-building (Kujenga Taifa) in Tanzania from 1961- 1971.
He notes that a serious self-help programme was officially launched in 1962. The main
objective of the programme, as the Prime Minister Rashid Kawawa outlined it in March
1962, was to enable the local people to participate in projects which could be carried out
without government finance. It was a presidential (Nyerere) initiative whose task was to
28
mobilize the people for self-help projects. Various measures were taken to enhance the
effectiveness of, and raise participation in the government’s programmes in rural areas, as
well as improve its communications with the people. These included among others
subdividing of the provinces into smaller units, setting legal frame work for the self-help
movement, and creation of development committee system at different administrative
levels. The committee system was created to provide the necessary avenues for
participation and to enable the local leadership to translate the people’s enthusiasm into
solid achievement. Development committees were set up from the village to the regional
level in order to spearhead and co-ordinate local development activities, as well as to
create avenues for local participation in decision making (ibid).
In 1963, the old colonial village headmen were removed, and village councils
amalgamated into larger village development committees. By the end of 1963, a total of
7500 village development committees had been created. Each committee was responsible
for drawing up plans for the development of the village over which it had jurisdictions. It
became the main source of self-help initiative and mobilization of local labour force for
such tasks as road construction, brick making among others (Mukandala (2005).
Mukandala further points out that with increased participation of people in self-help
projects, there was increased sense of ownership, and belonging by the local community
members and also their willingness to take care of the existing projects in their respective
villages. It was because of this participatory approach that the self-help movement
29
became successful and later paved the way for nation-building through decentralization
(ibid).
There was a need to find out whether the impact of the self-help movement through
participatory approach in self-help projects made in Tanzania in 1960s could be the same
the NAADS programme in Uganda is making today. Besides, there was need to find out
whether the performance of the NAADS programme in Uganda can be attributed to
participation or lack of it by the beneficiaries. A study about popular participation in the
NAADS programme in Kashaari and Rwampara counties in Mbarara district ascertained
this desirable fact.
CHAPTER THREE
3.0. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research design
The study employed an evaluative survey research design. Smith (1981) defines
evaluative research as a systematic assessment of the effectiveness of programmes that
were designed as tentative solutions to existing problems. The evaluative research design
was employed to examine the NAADS’ set implementation modalities and what is
actually done on the ground while focusing specifically on the participatory approach as
stipulated in the NAADS master document (2000).
30
The study also employed comparative research design. Here the findings from Kashaari
County were compared with those from Rwampara County so as to ascertain any
differences in levels of popular participation in the NAADS implementation programme
and their implications for the performance of the programme in these counties in
particular and Mbarara district in general. The comparative approach was based on the
fact that Kashaari County has predominantly livestock focused NAADS activities
compared to Rwampara County which has NAADS activities focused on arable
agriculture. Besides, NAADS was introduced to the former earlier (2003/ 2004) than the
latter (2004/2005).
The study was largely qualitative in such a way that data was collected by use of mostly
in-depth interviews with open-ended questions. The findings are largely in form of text
depicting respondents’ expressed views, and somewhere with the use of direct verbatim
words or quotations from the respondents. There is little quantifiable data. For purposes
of triangulation, some elements of quantitative research were also employed for example
use of questionnaires to collect data and also tabulation in data presentation and analysis.
The rationale for employing the evaluative survey research design is that it is a form of
applied research for assessment and evaluation of projects or programmes like the
NAADS. The findings of the sample studies can be used to generalize about the study
population. Samples also save time and resources plus the managerial capacity required
from that researcher.
31
A comparative survey design also provided the researcher with vast amount of
information about the similarities and differences in the levels of popular participation in
the NAADS Programme between Kashaari and Rwampara Counties.
3.2. Study Area
The study was carried out in Mbarara district in the two counties of Kashaari and
Rwampara which form the “Greater Mbarara district”4.
Mbarara district is located in the South-Western region of Uganda.
The rationale for selecting this area of study was that since it is researcher’s home
district, it was easier for him to sample the study population because he is conversant
with the area population. Also, being a native Runyankore speaker was an added
advantage, as it rendered communication with my respondents easier.
3.3. Sample Selection Techniques
The study sample size was 60 (sixty) respondents which included forty (40) NAADS’
beneficiary ordinary farmers (main respondents) and twenty (20) key informants. The
sample size of 60 respondents was regarded as researcher’s saturation point, the same
sample size which he also considered big enough to make the findings representative to
the study population.
In both counties of Kashaari and Rwampara, area random sampling was employed but
separately. Here the names of NAADS participating sub-counties and parishes were listed
4
Commonly called so today, following the creation of new districts out of its original geographical area. These new
districts are: Kiruhura, Ibanda and Isingiro. They have claimed the counties of Nyabushozi, Kazo, Isingiro, and Ibanda
which were formerly under original Mbarara district, leaving only two counties of Kashaari and Rwampara.
32
and the lottery method was used to select one sub-county and two parishes to represent
the entire study population.
In Kashaari county, Bubaare sub-county and the two parishes of Rwenshanku and Katojo
were sampled. While in Rwampara county, Nyakayojo sub-county and the two parishes
of Rwakishakizi and Rukindo were sampled.
Selection of respondents involved stratified random sampling. Here, the list of the
NAADS programme beneficiaries in various farmers’ groups (sampling frame) in each of
the parishes sampled was obtained at Sub-county head-quarters with the assistance of the
NAADS coordinators. The researcher reorganized the list of beneficiaries according to
gender. Two strata of male and female beneficiaries were constructed and finally
systematic sampling with the 10th respondent on the list was selected until the desired
sample size was obtained. In each sub -counties of Bubaare and Nyakayojo, twenty (20)
respondents were sampled. Disproportionate stratified sampling was employed because
female respondents dominated majority of the farmers’ groups.
The rationale for the use of this stratified random sampling technique is that it reduces on
sampling errors because the elements (respondents) within each stratum are as
homogenous as possible (males in one stratum and females in another stratum). This
technique also enables the researcher to collect data, analyze it and interpret it according
to the strata created.
33
In addition, non- random purposive sampling technique was employed to select the key
informants totaling to twenty (20) in number from both sampled sub-counties. The
selection of the key informants targeted chairpersons of the NAADS beneficiary farmer
groups and fora, NAADS coordinators at the parish (PCCs, CBFs, CBSCs), and at subcounty levels, local council executives at different administrative levels (LC1-3), SubCounty and Parish chiefs.
3.4. Data collection methods and instruments
In-depth interviews and structured questionnaires were used as the instruments to collect
data. Documentary review and analysis also formed part of the data collection methods.
Under this method, popular participation and NAADS Programme- related relevant
literature (reports, text books, journals, among others) were reviewed.
The rationale for the use of these instruments in data collection methods was to minimize
the short comings of using only one instrument hence using a variety of instruments to
collect data was to utilize the advantages associated with triangulation.
3.5. Data presentation and analysis
Data presentation and analysis process entailed organizing and analyzing the accumulated
mass of detailed information obtained from the field into a comprehensive research
report. It has involved typing and editing, tabulation and interpretation. This has been
done following the themes of study in each main section.
34
3.6. Ethical considerations
The entire research process was conducted with due respect to ethical considerations in
research. The researcher obtained the consent of the respondents to participate in the
study. The researcher also minded about treating the respondents’ views with utmost
confidentiality. In general, a high degree of openness regarding the purpose and the
nature of the research was observed by the researcher.
3.7.0. Some of the constraints to the study
3.7.1. Timing respondents. Being a rural based research, as anticipated earlier, the timing
of respondents was a challenge because there was no time convenient to every one.
Respondents could be involved in their day-to-day activities such as gardening, grazing,
purchasing livestock feeds and farm implements and marketing their farm produce.
Others were attending parties, funerals, and others had journeys for more than two days
before returning home. The key informants like such as NAADS coordinators, extension
workers were attending meetings and others engaged in field tours. Sparing time for an
interview or filling the questionnaire was somehow regarded as an inconvenience and
interruption of one’s working schedule.
However, the researcher would approach the respondents wherever they would be and
through rapport creation process, he would explain to them why one’s responses to the
study are vital and therefore sparing some little time to adjust and participate in the study
was important and desirable. In cases of unadjustable schedules, appointments would be
secured for the next time. Lunch time hours was also mostly used to meet the respondents
as they retired from their activities back home.
35
3.7.2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) was proposed to be used as supplementary data
collection method was not eventually used. The researcher had regarded it to be one of
the effective method of data collection for this particular study because of their ability to
generate collective views of many people on the particular subject at once. However, due
to lack of convenient time for all the participants coupled with expenses on mobilization
and facilitation of the participants in terms of transportation, and sometimes meals for
lunch or break fast, the researcher found it costly to handle. Consequently, he deliberately
ignored FGDs and instead concentrated more on in-depth interviews and questionnaires
which fortunately collected sufficient necessary data.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings vis-à-vis the objectives stated in chapter one. The
findings were collaborated with the help of in-depth interviews and self- administered
questionnaires to the respondents (NAADS beneficiary farmers), and key informants.
36
4.1. Demographic profile of the respondents
4.1.1 Sex distribution of respondents
Table 4.1.1: Table Showing Sex Distribution of Respondents
Category
Sex
Freq
Percentage
Male
15
25
Female
25
41
Sub-total
40
66
Male
09
15.0
Female
03
05.5
Sub-total
12
21
Male
b) Administrative / technical
Female
staff / extension workers
(NAADS coordinator,
Sub-total
veterinary officer, sub-county
chief, community
development officers,
c/persons LC III, parish
chiefs)
Total
6
10.0
2
03.3
8
13
60
100
Respondents (NAADS
beneficiary farmers)
Key informants
a) NAADS beneficiary
farmers holding elective
positions in the programme
implementation (Members of
Farmers’ Forum Executive,
PC, PCC, CBSC, and CBFs)
Source: Field data
The table shows that there were more female respondents (40%) than male ones (25%)
(excluding farmers who were regarded as key informants). This is also a reflection of the
proportionate stratified sampling technique used in the study. Women were
proportionately sampled from their strata since they dominated males in most of the
farmers’ groups. Interest was picked in trying to establish the reason for this female
dominance. The NAADS master document states that women are the core target group
under the programme, others being the youth, and people with disabilities
(NAADS, 2000).
37
However, notwithstanding this reason, female respondents noted that men are not
actively involved in NAADS programme activities because some are engaged in what
they called more ‘profitable and productive’ income-generating activities such as trading,
and white collar jobs. But some female respondents countered the above reason and said
that that some men are neither engaged in white collar jobs nor other income-generating
activities, but that they spend most of their time in bars drinking alcohol and regard their
wives (NAADS beneficiaries) as idlers with time to waste in NAADS activities including
meetings and training.
An interesting phenomenon is the increasing participation by widows and women
separated from their husbands in NAADS programme activities. After losing or
separating from their husbands they had to devise means of being self-reliant. Therefore
the introduction of NAADS programme with training in various enterprises, most of
these women joined and got involved in NAADS enterprises, mostly goat rearing, as a
way of getting livestock that could be sold in case of a problem.
Besides, the introduction in most farmers’ groups, of money circles involving members
pooling together and giving out money to the ‘lucky’ group member at each sitting, has
attracted most widows to join NAADS programmes in order to benefit from it alongside
NAADS enterprise activities.
38
4.1.2 Age of respondents.
Table 4.1.2: Table Showing the Age Distribution of Respondents
Age
M
F
Total
%
%age
Total
15-24
0
0
0
0
0
25-34
3
3
6
6
15
35-44
2
4
6
6
15
45-54
4
9
13
13
32.5
55-64
3
6
9
9
22.5
65+
3
3
6
6
15
15
25
100
40
100
Total
Source: Field data
The table shows that the majority of the respondents (32.5%), male and female, were
aged between 45-54 years. This age was particularly reflective of working age group- the
owners of means of production and those with more pushing factors to work than those in
other age brackets because of family responsibilities. 22.5% were aged 55-64 also with
almost similar explanation like the above. The least number of respondents (15%) were
aged between 25-34, 35-44 and 65+ respectively.
Particular focus was put on ascertaining the reason for low rate of participation by youth
(15-34 age bracket) in NAADS programme activities. As noted earlier, the youths are
target beneficiaries of the NAADS programme whose participation is ought to be high
but the findings contradict this. The few youths who were interviewed explained that
youths want to engage in an income-generating activity with short-term gains yet the
NAADS programme and its associated gains are long term.
39
Some youths in one NAADS farmers’ group in Kibingo, Rwakishakizi parish, Nyakayojo
sub-county organized themselves and used this NAADS structure to establish their own
youth project of brick making along side NAADS farmers’ group enterprises. One
member on the youth project said:
“…we the youths want quick money and yet NAADS enterprises take
long, so we organised ourselves, and one development-minded man
offered us a place where to make our bricks. So far we have sold some
tonnes of bricks and we have earned some money quickly but we have
not gained much from the NAADS programme”.
Some of the youths interviewed however, noted that most youths do not possess means of
production such as land and capital which are required by NAADS enterprises.
Consequently, most youths have concentrated on other sources of income such as trading,
hiring motorcycle for riding (bodaboda business), pottering on buildings in town, among
others. It was also mentioned that most youths especially the educated ones are doing
professional work such as teaching or are engaged in other activities elsewhere and are
therefore not interested in NAADS activities.
4.1.3 Level of Education of respondents
Table 4.1.3: Table showing level of education of respondents
Level of education
Male
Female
Total
%
0
01
01
2.5
Primary
05
18
23
57.5
Secondary
07
05
12
30
2
1
03
7.5
0
0
0
0
Degree
01
0
01
2.5
Total
15
25
40
100
No formal education
Post-secondary
vocational studies
Diploma
40
As table 4.1.3 shows, the majority of the respondents (57.5%) had attained only primary
school education and are living a rural peasant life, with agriculture as their main source
of livelihood. It was because of this low level of education that some respondents could
not clearly measure the impact of NAADS due to existence of on-going various
programmes and projects in their area. The low level of education means that some
respondents are uninformed or unaware of their role and the degree to which they ought
to participate in NAADS programme activities as beneficiaries.
Also, table 4.1.3 shows that 30% of the respondents had secondary level education with
between one and four years of schooling. They are also engaged in agriculture as their
main source of livelihood. It was mostly this category of respondents that raised critical
issues and presented critiques on the way the NAADS programme is being implemented
in their area.
The smallest number of respondents (2.5%) comprised those with no formal education
and also those who had been to university and had degrees. Of particular interest was
only one respondent who is a teacher by profession and has a bachelor’s degree in
education. He is a farmer and a beneficiary of the NAADS programme which he joined
purposely for earning additional income to what he earns from teaching. He was critical
of the way in which the NAADS programme was being implemented. He was
particularly concerned about the inadequate avenues for participation by beneficiary
farmers in programme implementation.
41
4.2.0. WAYS IN WHICH THE NAADS PROGRAMME’S BENEFICIARIES
PARTICIPATE IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION
4.2.1. Formation of farmers’ groups
Respondents noted that they participate in the formation of farmers’ groups. The NAADS
Programme by principle requires the beneficiaries to form groups through which
agricultural and technology inputs are channeled to group members (MAAIF, NAADS
implementation modalities report, 2006).
With the assistance of extension workers at the sub-county level specifically the
community Development officer (CDO) farmers are mobilized voluntarily to form or join
groups on the basis of the identified enterprise(s).
The group membership varies from one group to another but the majority of the groups
comprised between 20 and 25 members. A person becomes a member after paying a
membership of 2,000 Uganda shillings, a group co-funding contribution fee which is
determined by the number of members in a particular group.
Every farmers’ group must be registered at the sub-county level with the sub-county
accountant and pay a registration fee. The group is also required to open up a bank
account in a nearby micro finance institution. It is also a requirement that each registered
group pays a co-funding fee annually to the sub-county accountant. This is meant to
ensure that the group is and remains active.
42
4.2.2 Attending group and inter-group meetings and training
Respondents said that they have group meetings which are held according to set group
schedules. Group meetings are held once in a month to discuss issues regarding group
enterprise activities. Meetings are very vital and are regarded as fora for planning,
learning, exchange of views and ideas, and electing leaders among other things.
However, most respondents noted that in the recent past especially under the ‘new
NAADS’ arrangement, attendance at meetings has drastically declined. This is largely
attributed to failure by members in their application for assistance with setting up
enterprises (to be considered for their applied enterprises).
Some respondents said they had introduced the idea of ‘money circles’ in NAADS
farmers’ groups to attract regular attendance by members in group meetings. Members
pool money which is given out to one of the members at every meeting. One respondent
said:
“This idea of a money circle has significantly influenced attendance at
group meetings because members come expecting to pick the lucky
number but thereafter a number of issues regarding the activities of
group enterprises are discussed. I know if it was not this idea,
attendance at meetings would be very low”.
4.2.3 Selection of enterprises to be supported in a given financial year.
The NAADS programme implementation modalities (2006) state that one of the
mandates of the NAADS programme was to empower farmers in enterprise selection.
The report further notes that through a participatory process, farmers are guided to select
43
profitable enterprises to be promoted in their groups. These are forwarded to the subcounty where farmers’ fora and technical staff then select the main three priority
enterprises to be supported.
Respondents said that farmers’ group members participate in selecting from the available
enterprises which have already been determined by the Farmers’ forum executive at the
sub-county level with the assistance of the technical planning committee (TPC). In both
counties of Kashaari and Rwampara, the selected enterprises included Banana growing /
Banana plantation improvement, goat rearing, and poultry.
Each member is free to belong to a group which engages in his /her favourite enterprise.
This is in line with what public choice theorists, Buchanan and Tullock argued, which is
that the greater the diversity of services within a geographical area, the greater the
opportunity for citizens to “vote with their feet” by moving to localities where the range
and costs of services are better suited to their particular needs (Harmon and Mayer,
1989).
The technical planning committee (TPC) at the sub-county level consists of, among
others, the sub-county chief, secretary for production, C/Person LC III, and the NAADS
coordinator. This committee together with the farmers’ forum selects the enterprises for
each financial year on the basis of geographical and climatic conditions that would favour
the selected enterprises.
44
However, the majority of respondents expressed lack of information about the criteria
followed in the process of selecting enterprises in the sub-county. Most of them feel they
are not empowered to select their own enterprises. They said that they are engaged in
some group enterprises because they have no alternative. Some of them applied for
enterprises of their preference, for example cattle keeping and tree planting, but for
several years they have not been considered for funding among the selected enterprises in
the sub-county.
This is in line with what Mosse (2001) pointed out about the tendency by advocates of
participation to regard outsider agendas as ‘local knowledge’. Mosse argues that project
actors are passive facilitators of local knowledge production and planning; they shape and
direct these processes. People’s needs are significantly shaped by perceptions of what the
agency is able to deliver (Bill Cooke & Kothari (2001). Mosse also cites Pottier (1992)
and points out that there is a tendency of local collusion in the planning consensus where
needs are clearly socially constructed and local knowledge is shaped both by locally
dominant groups and by project interests.
4.2.4 Election of farmer group executives and representatives at various levels
All the respondents said that they participate in elections to elect group leaders and other
farmers’ representatives at different levels. Group leadership structures consist of the
chair person, vice chairperson, secretary, treasurer, and advisor/ mobilizer. In a general
meeting, candidates are nominated, seconded, and members vote by show of hands. The
45
term of office varies from one group to another but is commonly between 2-3 years, after
which new leaders are elected.
Respondents said that leaders play a big role in as far as group enterprise activities are
concerned. Notable roles of group leaders mentioned include convening and conducting
group meetings, representing group members at higher level NAADS meetings at parish
or sub-county level, monitoring group enterprise activities, and ensuring group cohesion.
Farmers also elect their representatives at different levels: parish and sub-county. At
parish level, during the inter-group meeting, members elect the NAADS parish
coordination committee (PCC), community based selection committee (CBSC), intergroup association (IGA), and community based facilitators (CBFs). Still at parish level,
under the new NAADS arrangements, farmers elect the six demonstration and lead
farmers in the parish.
At sub-county level, the elected farmers to the parish level hold a meeting and elect
farmers representing the parish farmers at sub-county level which make up the farmers’
forum. The council is composed of 18 members with its chair person as the head. Fifteen
of them are farmers representing various parishes and three are technical staff at the subcounty, including the sub-county chief, secretary for production, and the NAADS
Coordinator. Members of Farmers’ forum elect from among themselves the procurement
committee which is composed of three members.
46
4.2.5. Monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme
Some respondents said that as members of groups they participate in the monitoring of
group enterprises. This is done through group field tours whereby they visit fellow group
members who are engaged in NAADS enterprises. The monitoring exercise focuses on
the assessment of the performance and progress of group enterprises. They look at how
the activities are fairing, difficulties and challenges faced by group members, and advise
accordingly.
Other respondents said that sometimes they make rotational monthly
meetings hosted by a group member. Members use this opportunity to visit the host
member’s activity site to assess the progress and advise accordingly. Respondents in both
counties of Kashaari and Rwampara spoke about this participatory monitoring. However,
this practice varies from one farmer’s group to another; thus, it is not cross-cutting in all
farmers’ groups. The practice is also not continuous but it is planned for only specific
periods of time.
Most respondents said that according to the trainings they attended, they were aware
that monitoring and evaluation of the NAADS programme and enterprise activities is the
work of community based facilitators (CBFs) , parish coordination committees (PCCs),
chair person farmers’ forum and the NAADS coordinator. They reported however, that
the concerned officials have not done their work as expected because they rarely monitor
group enterprises. Some of these officials also admitted that they have not done their
work of monitoring and evaluation effectively. Particularly, the CBFs in both Kashaari
and Rwampara counties explained that this is because of poor facilitation. One CBF
noted:
47
“It is true i was given a bicycle to do the work of NAADS sensitization
and monitoring of NAADS’ farmers’ group enterprises in Rwenshanku
parish but I do this once in three months. I can not do it every month
because I also have other things to do. Besides, the NAADS programme
does not provide me with lunch or dinner whenever I go there to do the
work”
Contrary to the PMA annual report 2005/2006 which states that the NAADS Secretariat
trained parish monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) coordination committee members
and facilitators from 20 districts in the country, in the parishes of Rwenshanku and
Katojo in Kashaari county, Rwakishakizi and Rukindo parishes in Rwampara county the
training programme was unheard of by the respondents. This explains the ineffectiveness
of the NAADS programme monitoring exercise, particularly farmers’ enterprise activities
in the study area.
4.2.6 Procurement and supply of agricultural and technology input / implements
to farmers
One of the areas which the majority of respondents mentioned and termed ‘denial of the
right to participate’ was the procurement process. Respondents reported that unlike in the
first phase of programme implementation where procurement was the preserve of the
NAADS implementing officers at the district and sub-county level something that
resulted in procurement and supply of poor quality goods / materials and services, under
the ‘new NAADS’ implementation guidelines (2008), beneficiary farmers were trained
and well informed that the procurement process should be participatory and involve
beneficiary farmers at each successive stage as much as possible. Beneficiary farmers
were advised to form community- based selection committees (CBSCs) at the parish level
48
and then procurement committees (PCs) at the sub-county level. These were to be
selected from farmers’ fora.
These two committees are supposed to work hand in hand with the farmers’ forum and
other parish level farmers’ committees in the procurement and supply of the required
agricultural and technology inputs and implements. They are charged with the
responsibility of identifying and selecting the potential suppliers of agricultural and
technology inputs through a competitive bidding process. They visit the source of the
supplies and verify the quality before procurement and supply to the selected farmers.
However, members of the CBSC at the parish level in both counties of Kashaari and
Rwampara complained that their participation in this process is stifled by the
procurement committee at the sub-county level. They pointed out that they are less
involved in this process and sometimes they are only informed when it is time to receive
the deliverables on behalf of the beneficiary farmers without knowing how the
procurement process was done. In some cases they receive poor quality supplies such as
poor quality goats (undersize), cow dung manure (mixed with soil and weeds) and farm
implements such as wheel barrows, rakes and spades which are very weak and not long
lasting. Moreover all supplies are procured at high prices which some respondents termed
as “inflated prices”. Some members of these committees noted that they sometimes
deliberately refuse to sign the delivery sheets because of lack of transparency in the entire
procurement and supply process despite the existence of principles and guidelines
49
entailed in the NAADS Master document (2000), implementation modalities (2006), and
‘new NAADS implementation guidelines (2008).
The recipients also reported that they sometimes refuse to sign the delivery sheets
because they do not feel satisfied with the quality of the deliverables supplied to them.
They blame the CBSC and put it to task to explain how such fraudulent and opaque
procurement and supply processes could be conducted its jurisdiction. But the CBSC do
not always have convincing explanations. Instead it also complains of lack of
transparency on the part of the sub-county procurement committee.
There was generally a lack of information about the basis on which loans are awarded.
Consequently those who had recently received the agricultural and technology inputs and
implements did not know how it had happened. The guidelines indicate that one is
selected as lead farmer to receive agricultural or technology inputs and implements
because he/she belongs to a certain farmers’ group. The recipient pays back some amount
of money to other group members through the group bank account after a specified
period of time. This amount of money is determined by the NAADS coordinator and the
sub-county procurement committee.
The respondents, mainly recent recipients, particularly in Rwampara County were not
conversant with these guidelines. They were all not aware of how much they will pay
back to the group and for how long. Surprisingly, others claimed that what they received
is personal property and has nothing to do with other group members because they are the
50
ones bearing the burden of paying the ‘loan’. They had even told group members not to
tamper with their property, which created fear, tension and conflict.
Even some members of sub-county procurement committee confirmed these testimonies
and complained about lack of transparency in the procurement and supply processes. One
committee member said:
“I was elected chairperson of the procurement committee at sub-county
level. In our last meeting we discussed how the procurement and supply
processes could be made more transparent. We identified the activities
to be carried out in a participatory manner. But I was recently shocked
to learn that procurement of goats was done by other committee
members together with the chair person LC III, and the NAADS
coordinator without my knowledge and involvement as the chairperson
of the committee. I was only given a procurement sheet to sign and
acknowledge the procurement of goats but I refused. So I have decided
to declare this procurement null and void and the matter has been
reported to the sub-county chief and chairperson of the farmers’ forum
to advise me on the course of action to take”
It should be noted that the problems surrounding the procurement and supply process
under NAADS contradict the claims of public choice theorists such as Stoker (1998) who
argues that contracting out enables open competition among private contractors to supply
good quality items. It is also assumed that it forces public sector bureaucrats to reveal
more information about costs or services pertaining to a particular project or intervention.
Contracting out is also erroneously assumed to make it easier for a comparison of costeffectiveness or efficiency between government and private business. It is also held that
the profit orientation of private contractors and the narrower focus of their activities make
them flexible and efficient. The rosy picture painted by these claims made by public
51
choice theorists are contradicted by the findings of this study, particularly in the area of
procurement and supply in the counties of Kashaari and Rwampara in Mbarara district.
4.3. BENEFITS OF POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION TO ITS BENEFICIARIES
Most respondents said that because of their participation in NAADS activities mainly
through group meetings and NAADS training, they feel empowered to make decisions
regarding NAADS programme implementation. They freely participate in the formation
of their own farmers’ groups and decide from among the available enterprises to engage
in their favourite enterprises. They also said that they are now empowered to demand
services from higher authorities. In their meetings, they resolve to invite the NAADS
coordinator and other technical staff from the sub-county to train, advice and guide them
in their activities at group or inter-group level. Despite some delays, the officials respond
to their invitation. Also, after realizing how difficult it was to look after exotic goat
breeds they later decided to ask for indigenous breeds which are more able to withstand
local climatic conditions. Currently the farmers in goat rearing enterprise rear indigenous
goats which are procured locally or from neighbouring districts. The same applies to
those engaged in poultry farming who also decide on which breed – exotic or indigenous
to engage in. Some respondents were rearing indigenous while others exotic breeds of
poultry either layers or broilers.
52
Most respondents said that participation in group activities has made them develop a
sense of belonging to a social grouping and that they have benefited from the social
support networks that have developed as a result. They have also developed sense of
ownership of the group enterprises whereby each member of the group ensures that the
group enterprise succeeds for the benefit of all the group members. There is a conviction
of a shared responsibility that the group will gain or lose if the enterprise succeeds or
fails.
The benefits of the programme are distributed on a rotational basis, so that the first
recipients of goats or chickens have to pass on their progeny to other members after a
certain period of time. The first recipient makes sure he/she takes care of the enterprise so
that in future each group member gets his /her share.
NAADS supplies animals to one member of a group and after a certain period, the first
recipient passes on their progeny to another selected member and the cycle continues
until all the group members are covered. Particularly in goat rearing, under the ‘old’
NAADS arrangement, a group would be given 20 female (nanny-goats) plus one male
(billy-goat).
The group members hold meetings and decide how to distribute the
animals. Some groups would decide to distribute these goats among themselves only
once, with each getting one goat ( if the group membership did not exceed 21 members)
while other groups would select three members to be first recipients by use of a lottery
method, with each one taking seven (7) goats. After a certain period of time decided by
the group members themselves, the first three recipients would handover the same
53
number of goats received to the next three selected recipients and the cycle continues
until all the members have benefited.
However, this arrangement has stopped with the coming in of the ‘new’ NAADS on the
basis of a Presidential directive with effect from the financial year 2008/2009. The
directive requires that one member receives all the 21 goats on a loan basis of two million
Uganda shillings to be paid to the group members through a bank account with in a
period of two years. After this period, another group member can be selected to benefit
from this loan by buying the exact number of goats with the help of the procurement
committee.
Most respondents said that their participation in group activities particularly meetings and
training has offered them an opportunity to express personal views. There are issues and
concerns which need collective action and advice from other group members. Through
group meetings members express their opinions freely and get advice and answers or
solutions to whatever problems they may be facing.
The majority female respondents said that participation in meetings and other group
gatherings has helped them gain confidence to express themselves in public. One female
respondent said:
“…before I joined NAADS, I used to be shy and I could not speak in
public gatherings, but these days, because of our farmer group meetings
and training I have gained confidence to speak in public and now I can
freely express myself and put across my point right in meetings and any
other public gatherings without any fear”.
54
Most respondents also said that participating in the activities of NAADS group
enterprises particularly rotational meetings, and training has enabled them to learn from
fellow members about enterprise activities and other development issues. They added
that in such organized activities, members share views, exchange ideas, and have on-site
study about enterprise activities. Members also make self- assessment of their own
enterprises in comparison with others. This motivates them to work hard for better
results. A number of sayings and proverbs were mentioned in connection with the above
point which included among others “Two heads are better than one”; “one who does not
consult others brews bad alcohol”; “concerted effort of the teeth breaks the bone”; “no
man is an island”.
Some respondents who hold leadership positions said that they have gained
organizational and leadership skills. In addition, they have learnt how to be good
examples of others. One chair person of a farmers’ group said:
“…as a leader, you have to be exemplary to others. You must coordinate,
guide, and monitor members’ enterprises and prepare reports for higher
authorities. You have to make sure that your enterprise meets the required
standards and usually be a point of reference for best performance so as
to encourage fellow members to work hard”.
The above responses are in agreement with the arguments put forward by theorists and
advocates of popular participation such as Brett (2002) who argued that participation
strengthens managerial competence, motivation and performance of workers, social
solidarity, and relative position of poor and marginal groups in society. He also argues
that participation empowers poor people by taking them out of exploitative economic
relationships and giving them control over their own organizations.
55
The NAADS programme’s emphasis on the formation of farmers’ groups because of the
associated benefits also gives justification to Brett’s (2002) arguments that group
participation strengthens local organizational capabilities by building on traditional
commitments to collective, as opposed to individualistic forms of economic and social
organizations. He also notes that participation guarantees that collective organizations
serve local needs which are based on local skills and are compatible with local cultures.
Brett also places a high priority on the process of democratization where people are
encouraged to mobilize and manage their own local resources, with government playing
an enabling role.
However, much as most respondents said that they actively participate in the activities of
farmers’ groups and their participation is beneficial, this participation is mostly felt at
group level. Beyond group level, as we saw earlier, most decisions seem to be made by
higher- level authorities at the sub-county, district, or NAADS secretariat. That means
that in some cases farmers participate in the activities already decided upon by someone
else. This tallies with what Mosse (2001) pointed out about the manipulation of ‘people’s
planning’ whereby rural people’s knowledge (including for example analysis of
problems, needs and plans) is produced collaboratively in the context of planning. More
generally, programme action is shaped by the project’s engagement in wider coalitions
contending for influence within national and international policy arenas (Bill Cooke and
Kothari, 2001).
56
4.4. COMPARISON OF THE NAADS PROGRAMME BENEFICIARY
PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTIES OF KASHAARI AND RWAMPARA
Kashaari (Bubaare sub-county) in the parishes of Rwenshanku and Katojo seemed to
have a high level of beneficiary participation because they have benefited from NAADS
more than Rwampara. In Bubaare sub-county, the NAADS programme was introduced in
FY 2003/2004 and most respondents have
benefited directly in terms of agricultural
input, training and group meetings. Most farmers groups are actively involved in
enterprises.
On the other hand, Rwampara County (Nyakayojo sub-county) in the parishes of
Rwakishakizi and Rukindo, the majority of NAADS beneficiaries joined the programme
in its transitional period during 2007/2008. At first they had been reluctant to join it
because of what they used to hear, which was that it was functioning poorly as was
evident from the delivery of poor quality goats, and farmers being mere recipients and
not decision makers, among others. Unfortunately, when they decided to join after having
heard that NAADS had been modified to empower farmers more, it was the same time
that the programme was suspended. Now the ‘new’ NAADS has come with new
guidelines and directives. The majority of the respondents are yet to benefit.
Unlike in Kashaari where farmers were at least trained in enterprise activities, in
Rwampara there are many farmers who are regarded as NAADS beneficiaries (by group
registration) but have never had any enterprise training by NAADS extension workers.
Besides, most respondents had not received any agricultural inputs. Consequently, most
57
respondents were getting demoralized, as evidenced in their reluctance to attend group
and inter-group meetings.
There was also confusion about programmes and projects under implementation in the
area of study. For example, the impact of NAADS in Rwampara is not clear given the
fact that alongside it are numerous other rural development programmes and agriculturalrelated projects being implemented.
Association
(MBADIFA),
Uganda
These include Mbarara District Farmers’
National
Farmers’
Association
(UNFA)
TechnoServe, Uganda Women’s Effort to Support Orphans (UWESO), Area-based
Agricultural Modernization Programme (AAMP) to mention but a few, of which most
respondents were also beneficiaries. Some respondents could hardly differentiate the
activities of these projects and programmes and they seemed to confuse them with those
of NAADS. Others pointed out that it was hard for them to isolate NAADS programme
activities and their impact from the rest of the projects or programmes because they are
all jointly implemented and they are the same beneficiaries.
Generally in both counties, participation was higher in the early phases of NAADS
implementation and specifically at group level as mentioned above. However, today, it is
declining because of new NAADS guidelines and presidential directive, as well as nonresponse from the NAADS programme to beneficiaries’ demands which, with these new
guidelines will probably never be responded to.
58
4.5. IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION OR NON-PARTICIPATION BY NAADS
BENEFICIARIES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME
In both counties of Kashaari and Rwampara, the majority of respondents have benefited
directly from the NAADS programme by way of the training and the agricultural inputs
they have received. Consequently they have increased their stock of domestic animals
mainly goats and chicken. However, there is a big number of “beneficiaries” mostly in
Rwampara county who have been in the NAADS programme for years but have not yet
benefited. There are many farmers’ groups whose members have never individually
benefited and yet they pay annual co-funding. Some of them only benefited from
training.
But in general, the majority of the respondents are doing well and their lives have
changed because of hard work and individual personal initiative. Most of them
appreciated the outcomes of their participation in training they had attended. Farmers
who are doing well have herds of goats, many chickens, and well-tended banana
plantations which produce large bunches of matoke. One successful respondent in
Kashaari said:
“… before I joined NAADS, I had a poor quality banana plantation
which was producing small sized matoke mainly for home consumption.
But now as you can see, my banana plantation has improved
tremendously and it can now produce very large sized matoke for both
home consumption and for commercial purposes. This is because of
advisory services and trainings about enterprises and farmer group
meetings I attend where I got this knowledge”
59
Another one said:
“… before I joined NAADS, I had few and small-sized goats which I was
rearing using traditional method, but when I joined NAADS, I attended
training organized by NAADS officials about modern methods of rearing
goats. Also by attending group meetings, I have learnt better methods of
rearing goats and it is because of this that the stock has increased and
the quality in terms of size has also improved tremendously”.
However, the current NAADS implementation guidelines particularly the Presidential
directive ordering the selection of only six beneficiaries (demonstration and lead farmers)
per parish for each financial year has had a negative impact on the beneficiary
participation and their attitude towards the NAADS programme as a whole.
This is because farmers’ group members, who had previously applied for the enterprises
and have been waiting, may end up not being considered under this new arrangement.
To qualify for selection as a lead or demonstration farmer, one must win the agreement of
fellow parish farmers and meet the set requirements which include previous knowledge
and practice in the prospective enterprise, ability to look after the enterprise and also pay
back. This is judged on the basis of possession of farm structures (for goats and poultry
enterprises), a reasonable size and ‘improvable’ banana plantation among others. The
NAADS coordinator and the PCC have to visit the selected farmer’s farm to verify
whether he /she meets the above requirements before he/she is given the agricultural /
technological inputs. These new developments have raised a lot of complaints amongst
the so-called ‘NAADS beneficiaries’ and this has had a negative impact on their
participation in the activities of the NAADS programme. They are bitter about non-
60
response to their applications for assistance and the fact that benefits are now to be
received on loan basis.
Most respondents argued that NAADS is now for the rich and not the poor, and that it has
lost track. One respondent in Rukindo parish, Rwampara challenged the NAADS
programme implementation modalities and said:
“Surely, if NAADS was designed for poor farmers, how then do we
select those farmers with certain material and structural possessions at
their homes and who happen to be the rich and you give them more
things to make them richer and leave out the real poor and needy
farmers? Is NAADS trying to fulfill the biblical scriptures that ‘one who
has, more will be added unto him’?... i think NAADS is losing track”.
Another respondent commented on the Presidential directive:
“…this directive is unfair and does not consider a number of factors
affecting the poor farmers. I belong to a farmers’ group of goat rearing
enterprise and our member was recently selected as a lead farmer and
she was given 21 goats to rear but to pay back two million shillings to
the group through its bank account within a period of two years. But I
am wondering if my turn comes, will I manage to rear all these goats
because I have a small piece of land? If they die because of overstocking,
will the group not lose out? Besides, we are 20 members in a group, if
the first recipient is to repay after two years, it means the last beneficiary
will have his/her turn after forty (40) years.
Another emerging issue with a negative impact on beneficiary participation is the
involvement of politics in NAADS programme implementation. There exists much
confusion on the difference between the NAADS programme and Prosperity for all (Bona
bagagawale). Most respondents thought that the latter is a compartment of the former
because it is using its group structures. Some respondents especially the local council
61
leaders who seemed to be leaning towards the ruling NRM party claimed that both
programmes have been introduced by the NRM government to alleviate poverty in rural
areas. Therefore they regard both programmes to have been designed to benefit NRM
supporters and also act as political tools to garner support for the party.
Some respondents expressed fear and suspicion about the current guidelines which direct
all the chairpersons of village and parish councils plus sub-county councillors to
participate actively in the NAADS programme implementation in the communities they
lead and ensure the programme becomes a success. They noted that involving local
politicians in implementation might jeopardize the programme’s performance because the
NRM politicians would use it as a campaigning tool for the ruling party, something that is
likely to make supporters of the opposition political parties loose interest in participating
in the programme. One respondent in Kashaari noted that this has happened to their
farmers’ group where all Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party supporters decided
at once to terminate their membership. Another respondent said:
“…supporters of opposition political parties refused to support or join
the NAADS group farmers’ because most farmers’ group members claim
that NAADS programme is for NRM supporters. We do not have any
member in our group who is a supporter of an opposition political party.”
Generally, all the respondents were pessimistic about the operationalisation of the new
NAADS guidelines (2008) and particularly the President’s directive on the criteria of
selecting only six beneficiaries per parish. As a result participation is declining drastically
and beneficiaries argue that they no longer make decisions but just operate on directives
from above thereby making them mere recipients. This justifies the argument put forward
62
by Susan Vincent (2004) against participation which is that outsiders tend to retain for
themselves the right to guide the process and decide who participates and how and what
gets funded and what does not.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary of the findings
From the study, it was confirmed that popular participation exists in the NAADS
programme implementation but only at the farmers’ group level. NAADS beneficiary
farmers participate in the formation of farmers’ groups, attend farmers’ group or intergroup meetings, as well as training.
Farmers also participate in the selection of
enterprises, elect group leaders as well as representatives at various levels.
The study further revealed that monitoring group enterprises elicited low levels of
participation because farmers regarded the work to be for the PCC, CBFs, NAADS
coordinator and other extension workers at sub-county level. The initiative by farmergroup members to monitor group enterprises is still at a low rate and some times
restricted to particular groups.
Absence of participation was also reported within procurement and supply processes
involving agricultural and technology inputs and farm implements. Despite the existence
of community based selection committees (CBSCs) charged with the responsibility of
procurement and supply of the inputs and implements, the procurement committee at the
63
sub-county had stifled its participation. Consequently poor quality deliverables are
supplied to the beneficiary farmers.
Respondents also claimed to have been denied participation in the selection of enterprises
right from the lower level. Much as they have trust in the farmers’ fora and the technical
committee at the sub-county level who select the enterprise to be supported, respondents
argued that it would be better if they are involved at the lower stage right from the group
level. They argued for a bottom-up approach as proposed by the NAADS Master
document (2000) that the work plans should originate from the farmers themselves in
their groups and be presented upwards through parish committees and representatives up
to sub-county level for consideration and implementation.
The study revealed growing dissatisfaction among respondents with the new NAADS
guidelines and the presidential directive. The argument is that the directives have eroded
opportunities for beneficiary farmers to participate in decision making processes
regarding issues that affect them. The beneficiaries of goat-keeping enterprises did not
welcome the directive from the President of giving all the 21 goats to one member on a
loan basis, with the loan repayable after a period of two years. To them, this ruins their
ability to decide the distributional chain for the goats they receive as group members,
which is what they used to do before, and what they deem to be workable and to satisfy
their aspirations.
64
In addition, the selection of the six beneficiaries in each parish coupled with the set
standards regarding the ability to look after the deliverables (goats, chicken, cow dung,
farm implements) was regarded by many respondents as intended to benefit the rich at the
expense of the poor. Hence they argued that the NAADS programme is losing track
because the poor had originally been its prime target beneficiaries (MAAIF, NAADS,
2000).
The study also reveals benefits from participation by the respondents confirming most
arguments for participation theorists and advocates notably Brett (2002) and Chambers
(1997), and World Bank (2002). The most commonly mentioned benefits from
participation in NAADS programme activities include beneficiary empowerment to make
decisions on issues that affect them, developing a sense of ownership, of belonging to an
association and of control over their own enterprises for their own benefit. It was also
mentioned by the majority of female respondents that participation benefits them by
enabling them gain confidence to express themselves in public without fear.
Other respondents praised participation because of the benefit of social support networks,
and an opportunity to learn from others and exchange developmental views / ideas.
However, the above benefits were mentioned more in Kashaari than in Rwampara.
Respondents in Kashaari said that they have been trained in different enterprises, have
received agricultural and technology inputs and farm implements, and have been supplied
with goats, chicken, pigs, bee hives, and cow dung manure. Consequently, they have got
or increased stock of animals and improved their banana plantations. This has raised their
65
incomes and improved their standards of living. They attribute the good performance of
the NAADS programme to its participatory nature whereby each beneficiary is given an
opportunity to take part in programme activities such as meetings, training, election of
group leaders and representatives who are responsible, and ensuring that the programme
is implemented in accordance with farmers’ needs.
In Rwampara, despite some forms of participation mentioned such as attending group and
inter-group meetings, selecting group enterprise, electing group leaders and
representatives among others, the performance of the programme is still unclear. The
majority of the respondents joined the programme during its transitional period
2007/2008 and they have not yet benefited directly from it in the form of training or
receipt of agricultural and technology inputs.
The new NAADS programme implementation guidelines and directives from President
Museveni are regarded by respondents in both counties as tantamount to an erosion of
their opportunities to participate in decision making. They pointed out that they are
pessimistic about the future of the programme. Most of the respondents noted that unless
the programme implementation guidelines are revised in accordance with the NAADS
Master document (2000), it risks being futile and a waste of public funds.
5. 2. Conclusions
From the above findings it can be concluded that popular participation existed in the first
phase of the NAADS programme implementation (2001-2007) but has been on decline.
66
Forms and scope of participation by the beneficiary farmers include selecting enterprises,
forming farmers’ groups, electing group leaders and representatives, attending training,
and group and inter-group meetings. However, this participation was and is still mostly
felt at the farmers’ group level as major decisions are made by higher NAADS
programme implementation authorities.
It is clear that there would be much more
benefits accruing from the programme if the beneficiaries were fully participating in the
decision making regarding the programme planning, and implementation.
The participation of the beneficiaries in the NAADS programme has been on decline over
the years since the early stages of its implementation. The situation has been worsened by
the introduction of new programme implementation guidelines which took effect from
the 2008/2009 financial year. The important decisions are now made by higher
authorities right from the sub-county level upwards. Such decisions include the selection
of enterprises which is done at sub-county level without participation from the grassroot
farmers. Other decisions are entailed in the irreversible directives from the president on
the distribution of goats and the supply of other agricultural and technology inputs and
farm implements, the number of beneficiaries per parish each financial year which is
regarded to be very small compared to the total number of beneficiaries in the parish.
This leaves majority of the ‘so called’ beneficiaries idle, demoralized and disinterested in
participating in programme activities.
67
5.3 Recommendations
Basing on the above findings, I would recommend increased beneficiary participation in
NAADS programme implementation particularly at the lower level. Beneficiaries right
from the group level need to get involved in all the activities of the programme including
planning, identifying their needs, and selecting their own favourite enterprises, while the
farmers’ forum, sub-county technical staff and extension workers play an advisory role.
This will make the programme more bottom-up as was originally designed in the
NAADS Master document (2000).
All the NAADS programme key stakeholders need to ensure that the procurement and
supply process is transparent and it actively involves farmers’ elected community based
selection / procurement committees both at parish level and sub-county level. The
process should be in accordance with the stipulated NAADS programme implementation
guidelines (NAADS 2000; 2006, 2008).
The NAADS coordinators, elected leaders of farmers’ groups and committees at different
levels need to sensitize the programme beneficiaries most especially about the new
programme implementation guidelines. Information is needed on the implication of these
new guidelines for previous arrangements (first phase of NAADS programme). Most
farmers especially in Rwampara are still waiting for a response from the sub-county
NAADS coordinator to their applications for enterprises. Yet with these new guidelines,
this arrangement is no longer applicable. The NAADS coordinator and other elected
leaders at different levels should tell the farmers the truth regarding the fate of their
68
applications for enterprises instead of keeping them waiting in vain which makes them
demoralized, de-motivated and disinterested in participating in NAADS programme
activities.
More sensitization and training is also needed because most farmers who joined the
programme recently are not well conversant with it. This is mostly needed in Rwampara
County, with particular emphasis on their roles, obligations, rights and desired degree of
participation as beneficiaries of the programme. More training sessions for farmers on the
ways to manage and develop their selected enterprises need to be carried out.
The NAADS Coordinators at sub-county and district levels as well as the National
NAADS programme implementation agency(ies) need to pay adequate attention to all
NAADS programme beneficiaries in their farmers groups but not only on the selected six
lead and demonstration farmers per parish as the case seems to be today. This will keep
the farmers actively involved in the activities of their selected farmer group’s enterprises.
Besides, the number of selected beneficiaries for each financial year should be increased
to match the number of the registered beneficiaries in each parish.
NAADS programme implementing agencies also need to encourage more men and
youths to get involved in the programme by identifying the factors inhibiting their
participation.
69
Finally, politicking NAADS programme need to be avoided as much as possible so that
the programme remains a development programme rather than a political tool. There is a
need to make a clear demarcation between the two programmes - NAADS and
Prosperity For All, with each programme being given distinctive structures with different
target beneficiaries. Otherwise, making NAADS programme a political conduit by the
NRM political party members / supporters restrains the interest of the non-NRM
members from participating in the programme.
5.4 Areas of further research
Similar research can be carried out in other districts / regions in this country.
Research can also be carried out to assess the impact of Rural Development
programmes on the rural economy, with different case studies.
Research can be done about gender equity or age-specific and participation in the
NAADS programme.
70
REFERENCES
Adong, R. (2004). The Impact of Western Management Tools on Uganda NGOs. Some
contextual Notes; Mimeo; Kampala: CDRN.
African Charter for popular participation in development and transformation (1990).
African Policy Information Centre (APIC).
Almond, G. &Verba, S. (Eds) (1980). The Civic Culture Revisited. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park.
Benin, Samel et al (2008); Impact Evaluation of The National Agricultural Advisory
Services (NAADS) of Uganda, Revised Report. NAADS Secretariat, Kampala, Uganda.
Brett, E.A (2003). “Participation and accountability in development management”.
Journal of Development studies, Vol.40, No.2. Routledge, Part of the Taylor and Francis
Group.
Brett, E.A. (2002). ; Providing for the rural poor; Institutional decay and transformation
in Uganda. Fountain Publishers Ltd, Kampala Uganda.
Buchanan, J. M. & Gordon.T. (1962). The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? IT Publications, London.
Cooke, Bill & Kathori Uma (Eds) (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? The Case for
Participation as Tyranny. Zed Books Ltd, London.
Cornwall, A. (2000). Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on participatory for
Poverty Reduction. SIDA Studies NO.2, Swedish International Development Agency,
Stockholm.
Golooba-Mutebi, Frederick. “ Local Councils as Political and Service Delivery Organs:
Limits to Transformation”. In: Nakanyike Musisi and Cole Dodge (eds) (2002).
Transformation in Uganda. Makerere Institute of Social Research, Cuny Centre
Washington DC. USA.
Harmon, Michael & Mayer, Richard (1986). Organization Theory for Public
Administration. Chatelaine Press.
Hickey, Samuel & Mohan Giles (Eds), 2004; Participation, From Tyranny to
Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to participation in development. Zed Books
Ltd, 7 Cynthia Street, London.
71
Kabwegyere, Tarsis (1995). The Politics of State Formation and Destruction in Uganda.
Fountain Publishers, Kampala, Uganda.
Karugire Samwiri (1980). A political history of Uganda. Heinemann Educational Books,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Kasfir, Nelson (1976). The Shrinking Political Arena. Participation and Ethnicity in
African politics, with a case study of Uganda. University of California Press. Canada.
Kiyaga-Nsubuga, John. “Uganda’s Decentralization Policy and Process. What Lessons
Learnt?”. In: Nakanyike Musisi and Cole Dodge (eds) (2002). Transformation in Uganda.
Makerere Institute of Social Research, Cunny Centre Washington DC. USA.
Long, C.M.(2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking their
rightful places. London: Earthscan.
Lubanga F. X. “The Process of Decentralization”. In: Soren Villadsen and Francis
Lubanga (eds) (1996). Democratic decentralization in Uganda: A new approach to local
governance. Fountain Publishers, Kampala, Uganda.
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) and Ministry of
Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED):
Mosse, David ‘People’s knowledge’, participation and patronage: Operations and
Representations in Rural Development,’ In: Cooke, Bill & Kathori Uma (Eds) (2001).
Participation: The New Tyranny? The Case for Participation as Tyranny. Zed Books Ltd,
London.
Muhangi, Dennis “Private sector involvement in decentralization and community
participation in Uganda,” In Asiimwe, D and Nakanyike, M (Eds) (2007);
Decentralization and Transformation of governance in Uganda. Fountain Publishers,
Kampala.
Mukandala, R.S. (2005). Political culture and political participation: Popular participation
for Sustainable Human development. Research and Education for Democracy in
Tanzania (REDET) project; Department of political science and Public Administration,
University of Dar es Salaam.
Paul, S (1987), Community Participation in Development Projects;The World Bank
experience. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Putnam, D. Robert et al (1992). Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern
Italy. Princeton University Press. UK.
Rudquvist, A. & Woodford-Berger (1996). Evaluation and participation: Some lessons.
SIDA Studies in Evaluation 96/1: SIDA; department for internal audit.
72
Smith, H.W. (1981). Strategies of Social Research: The Methodological imaginations.
Englewoods Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall.
Stoker, Gerry (1988). The Politics of Local Government. 1st Edition, Macmillan
Education Ltd, London.
The Republic of Uganda, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) New
Implementation Guidelines (2008). Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and
Fisheries (MAAIF). Entebbe, Uganda.
The Republic of Uganda, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) 4TH
Quarter Progressive report 2007/2008. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and
Fisheries (MAAIF). Entebbe, Uganda.
The Republic of Uganda, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS)
Implementation Modalities 2006.Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
(MAAIF). Entebbe, Uganda.
The Republic of Uganda, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) 2000
Master document of the Task Force and Joint Donor Groups. Ministry of Agriculture,
Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). Entebbe, Uganda.
The Republic of Uganda, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Annual
Report 2005/2006. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF).
Entebbe, Uganda.
The Republic of Uganda, Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) Annual Report
2005/06. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) and Ministry
of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED):
The Republic of Uganda, Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) 2000;
Eradicating Poverty in Uganda; Government Strategy and Operational Framework.
The Republic of Uganda, Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) 2004. Kampala,
Uganda. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED):
World Bank (1994), World Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York.
World Bank (2000). The Community Driven Development Approach in the African
Region: A vision of Poverty Reduction through empowerment.
World Bank (2007). World Development Report: The State in a Changing World. Oxford
University Press, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue, New York.
73
APPENDICES
A. TIME SCHEDULE FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY
Research proposal writing and submission
Data collection
Data analysis /report writing
Submission of the dissertation
PERIOD
February – April 2009.
August 2009.
September, 2009.
October, 2009.
74
B. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NAADS BENEFICIARIES (FARMERS)
TOPIC OF STUDY: POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES IN UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICES (NAADS) IN MBARARA DISTRICT:
Dear respondent,
This study is being carried out by a Masters’ student of Makerere University, Department
of Political Science and Public Administration. It is therefore for academic purposes.
You have been selected to voluntarily participate in this study and you are kindly
requested to freely and objectively respond to the listed questions. Be assured that the
information you give out will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Please tick in the box where necessary.
SECTION A
DEMOGAPHIC CHARACTERISICS OF THE RESPONDENT
NAME: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------(optional)
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Village
---------------------------------------------------------------Parish --------------------------------------------------------------------Sub-county --------------------------------------------------------------County -------------------------------------------------------------------District -------------------------------------------------------------------GENDER:
Male
□
Female □
AGE:
15- 24 □
25-34 □
35-44 □
75
45-54 □
55-64 □
65+
□
MARITAL STATUS
Single
□
Married
□
Divorced □
Separated □
Widowed □
LEVEL OD EDUCATION
No formal education
Primary education
Secondary education
Diploma holder
Degree holder
□
□
□
□
□
SECTION B
PART I
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION
1. Are you a beneficiary of the NAADS programme?
Yes □
(ii) No □
2. If yes, when did you become a beneficiary of the NAADS programme?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. How did you become a beneficiary?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. The NAADS programme has different enterprises which include among others poultry,
piggery, banana plantation, cattle keeping, goat keeping, bee keeping among others.
Who decides which enterprise should be in what area?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76
5. Which of these enterprises are you involved in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6. Which day-to-day activities are involved in your enterprise?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. How does NAADS programme help you in these activities?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8. Are there any meetings you attend that are organized or supported by NAADS?
YES □
NO
□
9. If yes, how often do you attend the meetings?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10. What do you usually discuss about in the meetings?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11. What is the benefit to a farmer like you, of attending such meetings?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
GROUP PARTICIPATION
12. NAADS encourages the formation of farmers’ groups and fora. Are there any
farmers’ groups you know of?
YES
□
NO □
13. If yes, are you a member of any group?
YES
□
NO □
14. If yes, what is the name of your farmers’ group?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Does your group have leaders?
YES
□
NO □
77
16. If yes, can you mention the leadership positions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17. Are these leaders elected or appointed?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18. If elected, who elect (s) them?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19. If appointed, who appoint(s) them?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20. What is the role of these leaders in your farmer’s group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21. What do you benefit from being a member of the farmer’s group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22. As a group, do you discuss with agricultural services providers in your area?
YES
□
NO □
23. If no, would you explain why it is not possible for you to have such discussions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24. If yes, how do you do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25. How many times do you often do it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26. How do NAADS programme managers respond to your problems, proposals or
complaints?
78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART III
CONTRACTING OUT AND PROVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
27. Which company(ies) or organization(s) provide (s) Agricultural Services to you
on behalf of NAADS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28. Who decides that this company should be the one to supply the services?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29. Which kind of agricultural services are offered by the company or organization?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30. Are you satisfied with the services it offers?
YES
□
NO □
31. If yes, give reasons to support your answer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32. If no, give reasons to support your answer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART IV
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF NAADS PROGRAMME AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL
33. Do you participate in monitoring and evaluation of the NAADS programme as a
beneficiary?
YES
□
NO □
79
34. If no, who monitors and evaluates the NAADS programme at the local level?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35. If yes, how did you come to participate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36. What do you exactly monitor and evaluate in the NAADS programme?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37. How do you monitor and evaluate the NAADS programme?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38. What are the reasons for monitoring and evaluating the NAADS programme
implementation?.........................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
39. Have you been trained in NAADS programme’s monitoring and evaluation
capacity building?
YES
□
NO □
40. If yes, how has this training helped you to monitor and evaluate NAADS
programme?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41. Which challenges / problems do you face as NAADS programme beneficiary
farmer? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80
42. How do you rate the performance of NAADS compared to what you expected as a
farmer? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR NAADS BENEFICIARIES (FARMERS)
TOPIC OF STUDY: POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES IN UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICES (NAADS) IN MBARARA DISTRICT.
SECTION A
BACKGROUND CHARACTERISICS OF THE RESPONDENT
Name (optional)
Place of residence
Gender
Age
Marital status
Level of education
Employment status
SECTION B
PART I
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION
1. Are you a beneficiary of the NAADS programme?
2. If yes, when did you become a beneficiary?
3. How did you become a beneficiary? (processes and procedures)
4. NAADS programme has different enterprises which include among others poultry,
piggery, banana plantation, cattle keeping, goat keeping, and bee-keeping, among others.
Who identifies or determines which enterprise to be in what area?
5. Which of these enterprises are you involved in?
6. Which activities are involved in your enterprise?
7. How does NAADS programme help you in these activities?
8. Are there any meetings you attend that are organized or supported by NAADS?
9. If yes, how often do you attend the meetings?
10. What do you usually talk about in the meetings?
11. What benefits do you get from attending such meetings as far as your activities are
concerned?
81
PART II
GROUP PARTICIPATION
12. NAADS encourage formation of farmer’s group and fora. Are there any farmers’
group you know of?
13. If yes, are you a member of any of the group?
14. If yes, what is the name of your farmers’ group?
15. Is there any leadership structure your farmer group?
16. If yes, can you mention the leadership positions?
17. How does this leadership structure come into existence? Are the leaders elected or
appointed?
18. If elected, who elect (s) them?
19. If appointed, who appoint(s) them?
20. What is the role of these leaders?
21. What do you benefit from being a member of the farmer’s group?
22. As a group, do you in any way influence the way NAADS programme is conducted at
your local level?
23. If no, would you explain why it is not possible for you to influence the way NAADS
programme is conducted at your local level?
24. If yes, with examples, can you explain how you do it
25. How many times do you often do it?
26. How do NAADS programme managers respond to your influence?
CONTRACTING OUT AND PROVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
27. Which company(ies) or organization(s) that provide (s) Agricultural Services to you
on behalf of NAADS?
28. Who has the mandate or authority to identify and contract out Agricultural Services to
this company or organization?
29. Which kind of agricultural services are offered to you by this company or
organization?
30. How satisfied are you with the agricultural services offered by these organizations?
PART III
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF NAADS PROGRAMME AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL
31. Do you participate in monitoring and evaluation of the NAADS programme as a
beneficiary? If yes, where do you get the authority to do monitoring and evaluation of the
NAADS programme?
32. What do you exactly monitor and evaluate in the NAADS programme?
33. Would you explain how you do monitoring and evaluation of the NAADS
programme?
34. If no, who does the work of monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme at the
local level?
35. Why do you think there is a need to monitor and evaluation the NAADS programme
implementation at your local level?
82
36. Have you been trained in NAADS programme’s monitoring and evaluation capacity
building?
37If yes, how has this training helped you to monitor and evaluate NAADS programme?
38. Which challenges /problems do you face as NAADS beneficiary farmer?
39. How do you rate the performance of NAADS programme versus your expectations as
a beneficiary farmer?
D. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS
SECTION A
Name
Gender
Age
Residence
Marital status
Level of education
Employment status
SECTION B
1. What position do you hold in the NAADS programme and since when have you
held it?
2. Were you elected or appointed?
3. If elected, who elected you?
4. If appointed, who appointed you?
5. Which role do you play in the NAADS programme implementation?
6. Which enterprises are supported by NAADS programme in this area?
7. Who determines which enterprise to be at a given area?
8. How are work plans and budgets developed (processes and procedures)
9. How do farmers’ groups / fora operate and how are they organized structurally?
10. How effective are these groups?
11. Do farmers benefit from these farmer groups?
12. Do farmers have any chance to influence the direction of NAADS implementation
programme and if so in what ways, if no, why not?
13. How is contracting out business done and who does it? Do farmers participate in
any way?
14. Which organizations or companies are contracted to offer agricultural services to
the farmers in this area and for what purposes?
15. How do you rate the performance of contracted companies and organizations in
offering agricultural services in this area?
16. Who is responsible for monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme at the
local level and how is it done?
83
17. Are there farmers in this area who were trained by NAADS programme in
Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)? if yes, has this training
benefited them in monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme at the local
level?
18. How is NAADS Programme’s beneficiaries’ participation enhanced or stifled in
this area?
19. Which challenges / problems do you think NAADS programme beneficiary
farmers face in this area?
20. How do you rate the performance of NAADS programme in this area?
E. KEY INFORMANTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
TOPIC OF STUDY: POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES IN UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICES (NAADS) IN MBARARA DISTRICT:
Dear respondent,
This study is being carried out by a Masters’ student of Makerere University, Department
of Political Science and Public Administration. It is therefore for academic purposes.
You have been purposively selected to voluntarily participate in this study and you are
kindly requested to freely and objectively respond to the listed questions. Be assured that
the information you give out will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Please tick in the box where necessary.
SECTION A
DEMOGAPHIC CHARACTERISICS OF THE RESPONDENT
NAME: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------(optional)
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Village
---------------------------------------------------------------Parish --------------------------------------------------------------------Sub-county --------------------------------------------------------------County -------------------------------------------------------------------District -------------------------------------------------------------------GENDER:
Male
□
84
Female □
AGE:
15- 24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
□
□
□
□
□
□
MARITAL STATUS
Single
□
Married
□
Divorced □
Separated □
Widowed □
LEVEL OD EDUCATION
No formal education
Primary education
Secondary education
Diploma holder
Degree holder
□
□
□
□
□
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Government employed (public servant)
Private sector employed
Self-employed
Unemployed
□
□
□
□
SECTION B
1. What position do you hold in the NAADS programme and since when have you
held it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Were you elected or appointed?
85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. If elected, who elected you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. If appointed, who appointed you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. Which role do you play in the NAADS programme implementation?
6. Which enterprises are supported by NAADS programme in this area?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. Who determines which enterprise to be at a given area?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8. How are work plans and budgets developed (processes and procedures)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9. How do farmers’ groups / fora operate and how are they organized
structurally(leadership structure)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10. How effective are these groups?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11. Do farmers benefit from these farmer groups?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12. Do farmers have any chance to influence the direction of NAADS implementation
programme and if so in what ways, if no, why not?
86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13. How is contracting out business done and who does it? Do farmers participate in
this process?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14. Which organizations or companies are contracted to offer agricultural services to
the farmers in this area and for what purposes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. How do you rate the performance of contracted companies and organizations in
offering agricultural services in this area?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16. Who is responsible for monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme at the
local level and how is it done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17. Are there farmers in this area who were trained by NAADS programme in
Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)? if yes, has this training
benefited them in monitoring and evaluation of NAADS programme at the local
level?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18. In general, how is NAADS Programme’s beneficiaries’ participation enhanced or
stifled in this area?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19. Which challenges / problems do you think NAADS programme beneficiary
farmers face in this area?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87
20. How do you rate the performance of NAADS programme in this area?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21. Do you think this kind of performance is a result of beneficiaries’ participation or
other factors? (Explain your opinion)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88