2 CHAPTER 1
Parliament vehemently opposed the president’s move as being contrary to the country’s poverty reduction ambitions and called for a thorough evalu- ation of the program instead (Monitor 2007). Donors supporting Uganda’s agricultural sector also threatened to suspend disbursement of a committed $180 million in financing if the government did not rescind its decision and continue with implementation of the program according to the NAADS Act (East African 2009). The donors indicated that the president was using the resources set aside for the NAADS program to fund his own Prosperity for All agenda (East African 2009). The use of private service providers as opposed to public extension agents in delivering extension services has been a funda- mental issue in Uganda and is also the subject of global debate. With competing uses of public resources for promoting growth, reducing poverty, and achieving equitable distribution of outcomes, whether socially, economically, or politically motivated, careful reflection by governments and development investors of the impacts of and returns to their invest- ments in the NAADS program is necessary. Due to methodological challenges arising from the complex ways that many factors influence the relationship between extension inputs and outcomes, as well as data quality issues, the existing evidence of the impact of and returns to investment in agricultural extension on the effectiveness of agricultural extension in increasing agricul- tural productivity and incomes and reducing poverty, among other expected outcomes, is often viewed with skepticism among policymakers and develop- ment practitioners. One of the most comprehensive reviews of the impacts of agricultural extension worldwide, which is found in a metastudy of more than 700 case studies, shows that although the average economic rates of return to agricultural extension alone and to combined agricultural research and extension are about 85 and 48 percent, respectively, the range of values is rather large: from zero to 636 percent for the former and from –100 to 430 percent for the latter (Alston et al. 2000). Regarding the NAADS program in particular, some initial evaluations, both qualitative and quantitative, have been quite favorable in terms of its effect on increasing the use of improved technologies, marketed output, and the wealth status of farmers receiving services from the program (Nkonya et al. 2005; OPM 2005; Scanagri Consulting Company 2005; Benin et al. 2007). However, some of the previous findings also show that the program does not appear to be successful in promoting improved soil fertility management, raising concern about the sustainability of potential productivity increases (Benin et al. 2007). Because the first phase of the NAADS program (henceforth NAADS Phase I) ended in June 2008, it is important to rigorously assess the outcomes and impacts of the program and evaluate the returns to investments made in the program so far. These are the aims of this study, the results of which would help inform the imple-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192