INTRODUCTION 7


By the end of the 2006–07 financial year, about UGX 110 billion (in 2000 UGX) had been spent on the program.2 In terms of fiscal decentralization, spending was initially equal between the Secretariat and the districts and sub- counties (or local governments). This was expected, because the Secretariat handled many of the functions (e.g., procurement) on behalf of the districts and subcounties at the beginning of implementation of the program. Over time, however, the bulk of the spending shifted away from the Secretariat toward the districts and subcounties (Figure 1.1) as the districts and subcounties took over their functions and as more districts and subcounties were added to the program. In the 2006–07 financial year, for example, nearly 80 percent of the total budgetary resources for the program was spent at the district and sub- county levels. Also, over time the amount spent per subcounty declined, at an average rate of 11 and 19 percent per year, considering the amount spent at the subnational level and that of the whole country, respectively; although the amount spent per subcounty seems to have stabilized from 2004–05 onward (Figure 1.1). Looking at the sources of funding, development partners contributed the bulk (nearly 80 percent) of the total resources, with the cen- tral government, local governments, and farmers contributing the remaining 20 percent (14, 4, and 2 percent, respectively; Figure 1.2).3 The development partners involved include the International Develop- ment Association (contributing 49.8 percent of the total amount contributed by donors), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (19.3 percent), the EU (18.1 percent), the Netherlands (5.8 percent), Development Coopera- tion Ireland (3.8 percent), the Danish International Development Agency (2.2 percent), and the Department for International Development (DFID, 0.9 percent).4


Figure 1.3 shows the specific items on which the funds have been spent, by function. At the beginning of the program, spending was concentrated on management and coordination (e.g., 39 percent in 2001–02), advisory and information services to farmers (35 percent in 2001–02), and farmer institu- tional development (16 percent in 2001–02). As the program matured, spend- ing on technology development and monitoring and evaluation increased,


2 This is equivalent to a total of about US$60.2 million in 2000 constant prices over the same period, or about 0.5 percent and 0.2 percent of agricultural GDP (AgGDP) and GDP per year, respectively, calculated using the official exchange rate, the consumer price index (200 = 100),


and GDP data obtained from the World Development Indicators (World Bank 2007b). 3 This does not include the in-kind contribution of CBFs in terms of the opportunity cost of their


time spent extending advisory services to farmers in the community. 4 DFID stopped contributing directly to the NAADS program in the 2004/05 financial year but provides nonearmarked budget support to the Government of Uganda.


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