TERMS OF REFERENCE Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) of WFP’s Agriculture and Market Support in Uganda (2009 – 2014) 2nd DRAFT

1. The present TOR aim to inform stakeholders about the evaluation, clarify expectations and requirements and guide the evaluation team in its work during the various phases of the evaluation. 2. The evaluation will run in parallel to the global MTE of WFP’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) pilot project and is expected to feed into the latter. The Agriculture and Market Support (AMS) project in Uganda is evaluated separately since its scope includes, but is not limited to, the local P4P initiatives in support of low income smallholder farmers.

1. Background / Context1 1.A. Country Context 3. Since 1997, the Government of Uganda has promoted a development agenda based on its Poverty Eradication Action Plan, with generally positive consequences for welfare and hunger indicators. The proportion of the population living below the national poverty line declined from 56 to 31 percent between 1992/3 and 2006. Uganda’s score on the human development index has increased steadily since 1995 and Uganda now ranks 154th out of 177 countries worldwide. The Ugandan economy has experienced high and steady growth averaging 6 to 10 percent per annum. These gains, achieved mainly in the industrial sector, have been possible thanks to the peace and security in most parts of the country and to sound macro-economic policies. 4. The Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) provides the framework aimed at transforming Uganda’s agriculture from a subsistence-based to a commercial-oriented sector. Prosperity for All (PFA) is a more recent initiative attempting to achieve similar aims through integrated socio-economic programmes (e.g. food security, home improvements, income generation, micro-credit, improved marketing) targeted to the rural poor. The share of the Government budget devoted to agriculture was 4.0 percent in FY 2005/06. Also significant is the Decentralization Plan, whose aim is to support the implementation of the Government national strategies at the district level while promoting the participation of citizens and local communities. 5. However, even though the economy is largely agriculture-based, with over three quarters of the population dependent on the sector for their livelihoods, agricultural growth rates have lagged behind the rest of the economy at 1.9 percent annually and the incomes and overall quality of life of farmers and rural populations have not significantly improved in the past 15 years. The major constraints are poor market infrastructure and inadequate productivity and these problems are compounded in the north due to decades of insecurity. 1.B. Local procurement vs. Agriculture and Market Support 6. Since the 1990s, the WFP country office (CO) in Uganda has supported agriculture and market development as described in its 1998-2003 Country Strategy Outline and in subsequent country programmes2. This approach flourished as WFP globally expanded its food purchases from developing countries for its operations in emergency, recovery and development contexts. Indeed, in addition to cost-efficiency, timeliness and 1. 1 The documents consulted are listed in Annex one. 2 WFP Uganda Country Strategy Outline 1998 – 2003 (WFP/EB.3/98/6/4); WFP Uganda Country Programme 1994 – 2004 (WFP/EB.2/99/4); WFP Uganda Country Programme 2006 – 2010 (WFP/EB.2/2005/7) AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

appropriateness to the needs of beneficiaries, the principles of WFP food procurement include, when conditions are equal, giving preference to purchasing from developing countries while avoiding to cause negative effects on local markets and prices3. A sub-set of WFP procurement transactions referred to as Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) consists in purchasing food in a recipient country for use within that country (local purchase) and in developing countries in the same geographic region or sub-region (regional purchase). 7. WFP has been involved in purchases of grain and pulses in Uganda since 1991. Between 2002 and 2009, it purchased over 950,500 mt of food commodities4 including 205,000 tons valued at US$ 54.7million in 2007 alone. Uganda consistently ranks in the first ten countries where WFP purchases food5. On average, 70 percent of the food purchased locally is used to support relief activities in Uganda and the remaining 30 percent supplies WFP operations in the neighbouring countries of Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan. (See annex two for details of WFP’s local purchases in Uganda.) 8. The 2006 WFP Policy on Food Procurement in Developing Countries notes that when cash resources are available and can be used without restrictions, LRP are more cost-efficient and timelier than other sources of food aid and the commodities are more likely to suit beneficiaries’ diet preferences6. LRP were also found to positively impact markets, food processing industries and, in a few countries, local agricultural production as well as to transfer resources to local economies. The development impact of LRP was found to be the greatest where markets are not well-developed and where WFP can regularly procure significant amounts. 9. However, development impact was rarely more than a positive by-product of the local procurement transaction or at best an implicit objective7. The Uganda CO is an exception in this respect since, as early as the 1990s, it articulated an integrated approach to agrculture and market support with clear development objectives underpinned by, but not limited to, local purchases. The approach involved stimulating surplus production and marketing through: i) the purchase of food aid locally for relief operations in the country; ii) adapting procurement modalities to allow small farmers and traders to compete in WFP tenders; iii) developing market infrastructure (notably road rehabilitation and storage warehouses); iv) providing farm inputs, milling facilities and enhancing agricultural infrastructure through food-for-work activities; and v) partnering with development actors to develop the capacity of small farmers to reduce post-harvest losses and marketing costs and facilitate access to credit8. 10. The 2006 policy concluded that WFP could do more to encourage and purchase limited amounts from small traders and farmers’ groups that can trade competitively in the formal sector and should continue to support the creation of processing capacity for fortified and blended foods in countries where local processors have the potential to become market competitive. It also concluded that there were limited opportunities for support as part of a broader partner-led strategy to link groups with larger traders or national grain reserves. In September 2008, WFP launched Purchase for Progress (P4P), a five year pilot project to experiment and learn from innovative programme and food procurement activities that have the best potential to stimulate agricultural and market development in a way that maximises benefits to low-income smallholder farmers. The project is being piloted by 21 WFP COs including Uganda. Its goal is to facilitate increased agricultural production and sustained market engagement and thus increase incomes and livelihoods for participating low income smallholder farmers, the majority of whom are women9. Contrary to most COs piloting the P4P approach, the CO was already purchasing about 8 percent of its food from small farmers prior to the

1. 3 Food Procurement Policy, Executive Director circular ED96/009, 11 April 1996 and WFP Financial Rule 112.14 (f). 4 The proportion of commodities purchased from 2002 to 2009 are: maize 70%; beans 14%; maize meal 10%; and Corn Soya Blend 6%) 5 In 2009, Uganda ranked 6th in terms of value of food purchased after Pakistan, Ukraine, India, South Africa and Turkey representing 5.16% of all WFP food purchased that year (in USD). 6 WFP Policy on Food Procurement in Developing Countries, WFP February 2006. 7 Ibid. 6 See WFP Uganda Country Strategy Outline 1998 – 2003 (WFP/EB.3/98/6/4); WFP Uganda Country Programme 1994 – 2004 (WFP/EB.2/99/4); WFP Uganda Country Programme 2006 – 2010 (WFP/EB.2/2005/7) 9 The P4P global objectives are 1) to identify and share best practices for WFP, NGOs, governments and agricultural market stakeholders to increase profitable smallholder/ low income farmers engagement in markets; 2) to increase smallholder/ low income farmers’ capacities for agricultural production and market engagement in order to raise their income from agricultural markets; 3) to identify and implement best practices for increasing sales to WFP and others with a particular focus on smallholder / low income farmers; and 4) to transform WFP food purchase programmes so that they better support sustainable small-scale production and address the root causes of hunger. AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

introduction of the P4P pilot in Uganda. Between 2006 and 2008, the CO had already purchased 27,000 mt of food from 90 small-farmer groups10. 1.C. WFP’s 2009 – 2014 Agriculture and Market Support in Uganda 11. WFP Uganda Country Strategy - To allow WFP to deploy most effectively in Uganda, the country office has developed a Country Strategy for 2009-2014. This strategy derives from analyses of the Uganda policies and needs, of the assistance programmes from other actors and of WFP’s comparative advantage in the country. It also reflects the approach of the WFP corporate Strategic Plan (2008 – 2013), in particular the changing nature of WFP from a food aid to a food assistance agency with a more nuanced and market-sensitive set of tools to address hunger. 12. The Country Strategy (2009 -2014) sets three priorities for WFP in Uganda: 1) emergency humanitarian action; 2) food and nutrition security; and 3) agriculture and market support11. The evaluation is concerned with the third pillar of the WFP Uganda Country Strategy12. (See in annex 3 the Country Strategy Road Map). 13. The 2009 – 2014 Agriculture and Market Support initiative builds upon the CO’s past experience in this sector, represents an important scale-up from past projects and integrates new elements stemming from lessonslearnt. Most notably, the P4P project has been officially introduced as part of the 2009 – 2014 AMS whose objectives and activities were adapted accordingly. The CO P4P initiative, which contributes to the four global objectives of P4P, thus falls under AMS and features prominently in it. 14. The AMS objectives as spelled out in the Joint Action Agreement with the Uganda Government arei13: • • • •

WFP Uganda is able to increase to $100 million annually its local purchases of food commodities. Small-holder farmers are better able to benefit directly and indirectly from increased WFP food purchases in Uganda. WFP is able to substantially increase value-added processing and production that is done in Uganda. Market mechanisms are developed and supported to promote and ensure sustainability.

15. Activities. The 2009 – 2014 AMS includes a broad set of activities focussed on: i) developing market infrastructure to further integrate farmers into the growing agricultural market; ii) improving post-harvest handling to reduce losses, ensure quality standards, enhance productivity and add value for selected commodities; iii) on increasing and diversifying local purchases to help stimulate growth in the agricultural sector, by creating additional market demand for Ugandan commodities and iv) contributing to productivity and diversification of agriculture in northern Uganda. The main activities are as follows:

Developing market infrastructure: • Rehabilitate or construct market collection points, i.e. storage warehouses in agricultural areas, including in communities populated by smallholder farmers. • Rehabilitate or construct feeder roads to boost market connectivity. • Connect farmers, including smallholder farmers, to the Warehouse Receipts systems (WRS) of the Uganda Commodities Exchange (UCE), and to market information systems. • Ensure that adequate market information is available to smallholder farmers. • Support the Government, through the UCE, to establish and operationalise a trading floor for East Africa Grade 1 grain. 1. 10 Figures quoted in Country Programme Uganda 108070 (2009-2014). 11 The Country Strategy identifies three priority areas for WFP Uganda: 1) emergency humanitarian action; 2) food and nutrition security; and 3) agriculture and market support. Priority one is addressed through two relief and recovery operations. Priority 2 and 3 correspond respectively to the components 1 and 2 of the Country Programme (CP 2009-2014) titled “supporting Government-led initiatives to address hunger in Uganda”. 12 Other key reference documents for the AMS project include the Country Programme Uganda 108070 (2009-2014) and the Joint Action Agreement with the Government (December 2009) 13 The first objective of the AMS strategy does not fall within the P4P framework, while the other three do. AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

Improving post-harvest handling • Promote improved practices in post-harvest handling and quality standards among Uganda farmers, including smallholder farmers, notably through related food-or-cash for training programmes conducted in conjunction with technical partners. • Through the market collection points, provide farmers with proper equipment for cleaning, drying and grading their produce. • Support the promotion of milled, fortified and blended products both on the supply side (i.e. production thereof based on an evaluation of demand) and on the demand side (i.e. through local purchases). • Assist farmers in bagging their produce and in the drying, salting and smoking of fish. Increasing and diversifying local purchases: While large-to medium-scale traders will play and instrumental role, focus will also be placed on integration of small-holder farmers and small traders. • Use innovative purchasing techniques that are more friendly to smallholder farmers, such as direct purchasing and forward contracting and increase smallholder farmers’groups’market share of WFP’s local purchase. • Production incentives – By WFP as a stable buyer provide assured demand for the goods. • Expand the range of food commodities purchased locally to include for example, sorghum, millet, cassava, sim-sim and fish in addition to maize and beans. Supporting agricultural productivity and diversification: • Support production of cassava, rice, vegetables and fruit in selected areas of northern Uganda. 16. Partnerships – AMS relies on the successful engagement, collaboration and input of a wide range of actors, especially on the supply-side. Partners include amongst others: the UCE, the Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA), the National Agriculture Advisory Service (NAADS), the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). In addition, WFP Uganda has entered in a number of formal agreements (some including grants) for the P4P implementation, these include local and lnternational NGOs. 17. Donors – The total cost of the AMS initiative is estimated at USD 101 million and is currently funded at 10%. Donors contribute to this project as part of regular funding to the 2nd component of the Uganda 2009 – 2014 Country Programme. They include USAID (81%), Japan (9%), Saudi Arabia and UNDP. The Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation (BMGF) also contributed USD 5 million to finance the P4P component of AMS for the five year period. Contributions to AMS are meant for technical assistance, capacity-building, monitoring and evaluation and grants for supply-side partnerships. These funds do not cover the purchase of food, which is paid for by cash contributions to the regular WFP operations. 18. Organisational framework - Within the WFP Uganda Programme Unit, the AMS unit, located within the programme unit is integrated within the WFP CO structure and is in charge to design, manage, implement, monitor and report on local-level projects.

2. Reasons for the evaluation 2.A. Rationale and objectives 19. Rationale. The recent changes related to AMS in Uganda – increase in the scale, introduction of new activities, Joint Action Agreement with the Government, etc - call for an independent mid-term evaluation to provide a balanced assessment of the project effectiveness, strengths, weaknesses and potential side-effects. 20. Recognising the rarity of the AMS integrated approach, the fact that it is not limited to the P4P activity and that activities of a P4P nature are older and on a larger scale than in most other 20 P4P pilots, AMS warrants a separate evaluation from the P4P MTE. This separate MTE was requested by the Uganda CO. 21. Objectives. WFP Evaluations serve the dual objectives of accountability and learning. The evaluation aims to:

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

• Assess what has been achieved by the AMS project thus far in terms of overall performance and effectiveness (accountability). • Determine the reasons for the observed performance and results and draw lessons to start identifying best practices (learning). The learning dimension will take precedence since the short-implementation time only allows for a partial assessment of performance and results. 2.B. Stakeholders and users 22. The stakeholders that play a role in the AMS project and thus need to be considered during the evaluation are listed below. A more detailed stakeholder analysis will be undertaken in the inception phase to determine, prior to consultation, the best means of interaction (e.g. interviews, focus groups, etc) and key issues for discussion with each of them. 23. Internal stakeholders. The Uganda CO management, the programme unit including the AMS team and the local P4P taskforce as well as the procurement, logistics and finance units are the primary internal stakeholders and should be considered key informants to understand objectives, achievements and challenges. 24. The P4P Coordination Unit at HQ level has a stake in the project and particularly in its P4P component, which will inform the global P4P learning, the development of normative guidance and decision-making on a possible mainstreaming and scaling-up of the P4P project corporately. In addition, the P4P unit is interested to ensure that the AMS evaluation will generate findings to feed into the simultaneous P4P global MTE. The P4P unit is a key stakeholder and will be consulted on issues of project design, performance; best practices and areas where improvements are needed in relation to the P4P component of the project. 25. The WFP COs in Rwanda, Burundi, DRC and south Sudan, which use food purchased in Uganda for their operations expect timely, cost-efficient and appropriate commodities. This aspect will be given due consideration. 26. WFP management, notably at regional and HQ levels, have a strategic and technical support function. The procurement and programme divisions have a special interest in the project as it should contribute to informing policies and practices on local procurement and programme design. These stakeholders will be consulted on issues of relevance, performance and possible side-effects. 27. External stakeholders. AMS seeks to support the efforts of the Government of Uganda, particularly of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, to transform agriculture from a subsistence-based to a commercially-oriented sector. The GoU/WFP Joint Action Agreement seeks to harmonise interventions into a common strategic framework and to clarify roles and responsabilities. The GoU is thus the principal external stakeholder and its representatives at central and local levels will inform issues of relevance, performance, impact and partnerships. 28. Smallholder farmers, particularly women, have a stake in the P4P initiative increasing their capacities to produce and competitively sell agricultural produce. They are key to demonstrating whether the project succeeded and will provide feedback on their views, success stories, frustrations and failures, suggestions for improvements and change. 29. Partners with whom WFP has formal agreements for the AMS implementation, notably on the supply-side, are sine qua non for the success of AMS. These partners, as well as other actors with which WFP does not officially partner but which have complementary programmes (e.g. the African Development Bank, IFAD, AGRA) will be consulted on questions of partnerships, comparative advantage and synergy with their own programmes. 30. Private sector actors, including traders, players on the post-farm segments of the agricultural value chain, commercial banks, warehouse managing companies, etc, have a stake in the project, which will be given due consideration. 31. As the governing body of the organisation, the Executive Board (EB) endorsed AMS as part of the latest WFP Uganda Country Programme. WFP is accountable to it and the evaluation findings will presented to the EB at its session in November 2011. In addition, the EB members contributing to AMS as well as other donors, not represented on the EB, notably the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation (BMGF) have an interest in finding out

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

whether the approach is successful and complements other programmes they fund. A selection of them should be consulted in the course of the evaluation. 32. Users. The Uganda CO is expected to use the evaluation findings to readjust its programme approach, if needed, and possibly use the evaluation as an advocay tool. The P4P MTE team will use P4P related findings to feed into its global assessment of P4P. The P4P Unit at HQ level is also expected to feed P4P-related findings into their lessons-learning mechanisms. 33. Other users include, the Government of Uganda, main partners, the Executive Board and other donors and main partners. To a lesser extent, other practitioners involved in agriculture and market support programme in Uganda, as well as academics are also expected to use the evaluation findings.

3. Scope 34. The evaluation will focus on AMS as defined in the Joint Action Agreement with the Government. It will consider a cross-section of activities including, but not limited to the P4P activities, the systems, processes, guidance, funding, staffing, partnerships, etc. linked to AMS to provide a general assessment of the project strenghts and weaknesses. 35. The evaluation will cover the period from early 2009 when the Country strategy was prepared until today. The geographic scope includes all areas covered by the project (See map in annex 4), however, the field work will necessarily focus on a limited number of regions/sites and transparent selection criteria will be developed in this regard.

4. Evaluation Questions 4.A. Key Evaluation Questions 36. Key questions have been developed to guide this evaluation. These will be further detailed in a matrix of evaluation questions to be prepared by the evaluation team during the inception phase. 37. Q1 – Relevance of the project and appropriateness of the design: The extent to which i) the project goal is in line with the Uganda priorities for poverty alleviation and agricultural development; ii) the project is coherent with the WFP mandate and capacities; and iii) the project design is appropriate notably as far as the objectives, activities14, and partnerships are concerned. 38. Q2 – Quality of performance and extent of results: In its assessment of the below questions, the evaluation will systematically expose the aspects of the project, which are the most helpful in bringing about positive results, when and why and thus build an understanding of the internal and external factors contributing to, or affecting, project performance. The questions focus on: • The level of efficiency i.e. the measure of the observed outputs (quantitative and qualitative) produced through AMS in relation to the inputs (funds, expertise and time). • The extent to which the intended objectives as defined are likely to be achieved and have the potential to collectively lead to the intended impact. • The less tangible results and unintended effects of the projects (both positive and negative) • The level of cost-effectiveness likely to be achieved and where trade-offs are being made between the competitiveness and development objectives. • The extent to which the overall results are in harmony with and supportive of WFP’s main mission – as a provider of cost-efficient, timely and appropriate food aid to food-insecure beneficiaries and as an evolving organisation seeking innovative ways to tackle hunger. 1. 14 This should also include an assessment of the adequacy of the underlying assumptions supporting the WRS model. AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

• The extent to which the approach is sustainable in light of the observed efficiency and cost-effectiveness levels and whether its results are likely to lead to sustainable benefits. 39. Q3 – Cross-cutting issues: • Partnerships. Taking into consideration partners’ mandates, programmes, capacity and resource (particularly of supply-side partners) the evaluation will determine how effectively WFP has worked in partnerships with others in the design and delivery of AMS to optimise impact by creating synergies based on respective comparative advantages. • Gender. The evaluation will assess how effectively WFP has brought women into the project in an attempt to redress gender inequalities affecting women’s roles as agricultural producers 4.B. Evaluability Assessment15 40. Previous project documents, related reports, evaluations and reviews will allow to understand the situation before the start of the 2009 – 2014 AMS project (See annex one). While the WFP Uganda Country Strategy (2009 – 2014), the Country Programme and the Joint Action agreement with the Government all describe the AMS approach and objectives and the CP logframe provides some targets (see annex five), these documents vary in their statements of intended outcomes and impact as well as targets and dates by which the expected outcomes should occur. This will need to be clarified by the evaluation team during the inception phase. 41. By contrast, the P4P focus on learning has brought M&E and reporting considerations to the forefront of the P4P project design and related activities are well documented, which will benefit the evaluation. The P4P country implementation plan (CIP) offers a clear statement of intended outcomes, indicators and targets as per the available logframes and the CO has completed a baseline of smallholder farmers, farmer organisations and traders. In addition, quarterly reports on outputs, progress and challenges as well as qualitative information from case studies exist. Finally, the general documentation on the P4P corporate pilot project managed by the P4P coordination unit at HQ level will inform the evaluation of the P4P component of AMS and will allow for comparisons.

5. Evaluation Approach 5.A. Evaluation phases (See detailed timeline in Annex six)

1. 15 Evaluability is the extent to which an activity or a program can be evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion, which depends on the clear understanding of the situation before assistance was provided, a clear statement of intended outcomes and impacts, clearly defined appropriate indicators, and target dates by which expected outcomes and impacts should occur. AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

Inception phase January – February 2011

Field Mission phase 1 – 13 March 2011

Reporting phase April – May 2011

This phase is meant to ensure that the evaluation team is fully prepared before undertaking the field mission. It includes: - Desk Review of existing documents including: relevant policies and strategies, assessments, project documents, monitoring data, reports, etc - One week inception mission of the team leader and evaluation manager to Uganda. - Inception briefing in WFP HQ with OE and internal stakeholders. - Consultation with key external stakeholders. - Drafting of inception report including evaluation matrix, methodology and data collection tools. - Review by OE. - Consultation with WFP Uganda to establish field visit agenda. The field visit will include: - Initial introduction meeting: WFP CO, key stakeholders and partners. - Interviews, focus groups etc with key stakeholders to elicit feedback on the project. - Visit to selected project site areas. - Preparation of the end of country visit aide-memoire - Debriefing of the CO and key stakeholders on main findings at the end of the country visit. The evaluation manager and interested stakeholders may join through teleconference. -

-

Drafting of evaluation report. Review by OE for quality assurance, followed by the main stakeholders. Incorporation of comments and revision of the report. Sign off by OE on the report.

5.B. Evaluation deliverables 42. The team leader is responsible for the timely submission of the deliverables to the evaluation manager as per the milestones presented in table one. Formats for the inception and evaluation reports will be provided to the team at the start of the evaluation. 43. The inception report will expand on the key questions and stakeholders list, present the apporach and methodology including the evaluation matrix and the data collection tools.

Table one: Mandatory milestones for deliverables.

Evaluation deliverables

Submission date

Draft inception report Final inception report

29 January 2011

Aide memoires of country visit

19 March 2011

First draft evaluation report

16 April 2011

Final evaluation report

21 May 2011

15 February 2011

44. An aide memoire of key findings will be prepared at the end of the field mission. It will be used to support the debriefing with key stakeholders. 45. The evaluation report will build on the findings of the desk review and country visit. Findings should be evidence-based and relevant to the evaluation objectives. There should be a logical flow from findings to conclusions and from conclusions to recommendations. Recommendations will be limited to 10, be actionable and targeted to the relevant users. The report will be 40 pages maximum including a 4,500 words Executive Summary. The executive summary of the evaluation report will be considered as the summary evaluation report (SER) and will be presented to the WFP Executive Board.

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

5.C. Methodology 46. The methodology will be presented in the inception report. It should be consistent with the evaluability assessment and the budget and timing constraints. It will include an evaluation matrix and data collection tools derived from the key questions presented in section 4. 47. The methodology should combine a wide range of methods (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, participatory), tools and information sources to allow triangulation of information and ensure impartiality. In particular, all key stakeholders, described in section 2B, should be consulted to ensure a comprehensive understanding of diverse perspectives on issues, performance and results. Field-visit sites should be selected through an impartial sampling technique. 48. In addition, the methodology will take into account the parallel P4P MTE to ensure that findings from the Uganda P4P pilot project can feed into the overall assessment of the P4P project. 5.D. Quality Assurance 49. WFP’s Office of Evaluation (OE) has developed an Evaluation Quality Assurance System (EQAS) based on the United Nations Evaluation Group norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community. It includes formats for the inception and evaluation reports and related quality assessment checklists. The evaluation manager will conduct the first level quality assurance, while the OE Director will conduct the second level review. This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team, but ensures that the findings are backed up by evidence and form the basis of the conclusions and recommendations. 50. The evaluation team leader is responsible to ensure data validity, consistency and accuracy and to submit reports written in good Standard English. If these standards are not met, the evaluation team will, at its own expense, make the necessary amendments to bring the reports to the required standards. 51. Reference group. A reference group will contribute to quality assurance by providing peer feedback to the evaluation manager and team both orally (briefing, peer advice, etc) and in written by commenting on the TOR, inception and evaluation reports. The reference group will be made up of local representatives of crucial partners including the Government and FAO.

6. Organisation of the Evaluation 6.A. Expertise of the evaluation team 52. To ensure the independence of the evaluation and the credibility of the findings, the evaluation will be conducted by a team of external consultants identified through a transparent selection process. The team will include members with an appropriate balance of expertise in evaluation methodologies, relevant technical expertise and practical experience. 53. The team leader will report to the evaluation manager. He/she should have strong experience in evaluation of agriculture and market support programmes as well as excellent analytical, communication, team management and communication skills (verbal and written). He/she should have a demonstrated ability to conceptualize complex evaluations and to design ensuing approach and methodology. 54. Team members will report to the Evaluation Team Leader and are responsible for delivering inputs as agreed. They should collectively have strong expertise in agriculture economics; local procurement; market infrastructure development; post-harvest handling and value-addition. National expertise is encouraged as part of the team. 55. Team members should have good interpersonal skills, ability to work effectively as part of a team, good analytical and writing skills and experience in the appropriate range of methodologies needed for the evaluation.

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

56. Members of the team will not have been significantly involved in WFP activities in Uganda, have other conflicts of interest or biais. They will act impartially and respect the code of conduct of the profession, notably the 2005 UNEG norms and standards and the 2007 ethical guidelines for evaluation, to which WFP is committed as a member of the UN Evaluation Group. 6.B. WFP stakeholders roles and responsibilities 57. Evaluation management. This evaluation is managed by the WFP office of evaluation and Claire Conan has been assigned as evaluation manager. She is the main point of contact for the evaluation team and is responsible for drafting the TOR; selecting and contracting the evaluation team; preparing and managing the budget; providing the team with an initial library of key documents; organizing the team briefing; assisting in the preparation of the field missions; conducting the first level quality assurance and consolidating comments on the evaluation reports. 58. CO role and responsibility. Relevant staff from the Uganda CO will be key informants. They are expected to be available to discuss with the evaluation team the project, its performance and results; to gather and share with the evaluation manager and team documents deemed relevant to the scope of the evaluation and to facilitate the evaluation team’s contacts with stakeholders locally. To ensure the independence of the evaluation, staff from the CO will not be part of the evaluation team or participate in meetings with external stakeholders where their presence could bias responses. 59. The CO will also be responsible to set up meetings with relevant local stakeholders, assist in the identification of sites to visit and to provide logistical support to the evaluation team when in-country (e.g. arrange for lodging, transportation and provide suitable staff to act as interpreters, if required). 60. Other internal stakeholders notably, the HQ divisions of P4P, procurement, logistics, programme, policy etc are expected to be available for interviews/meetings with the evaluation team and to comment on the evaluation report. 6.C. Dissemination and follow-up 61. The summary evaluation report, together with the management response prepared by the Performance and Accountability Division will be presented to the WFP Executive Board at its second regular session in November 2011. The summary evaluation report of the coporate MTE of P4P will be discussed by the EB during the same session. 62. The evaluation reports (full and summary) as well as the management response to the evaluation will be public documents available on the WFP website. The evaluation manager will prepare a short evaluation brief and will actively seek to disseminate the evaluation findings internally and externally. Lessons will be incorporated into OE’s system for sharing lessons. The CO might, at its own initiative, conduct a follow-up workshop to discuss the conclusions and recommendations and determine follow-up actions with its partners. 6.D. Budget and Resources 63. The evaluation cost is estimated at US$ 120,000 covering consultancy fees, international travels, per diem and miscellaneous expenses. Internal travels will be covered by WFP. Funds will be provided by the Office of Evaluation budget as approved in the 2010-2011 biennium work plan and budget.

7. List of annexes Annex one Annex two Annex three Annex four Annex five Annex six

Documents consulted Key figures about WFP local purchases in Uganda WFP Uganda Country Strategy Road Map. Map Logframe Evaluation timeline

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

ANNEX 1: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED WFP General Documents: WFP, Strategic Plan 2008 -2013. WFP, Policy on Food Procurement in Developing Countries, WFP February 2006. WFP, Food Procurement Policy, Executive Director circular ED96/009, 11 April 1996. WFP, Food Procurement Manual, WFP, 2004. WFP, Food Procurement Annual Reports, WFP, 20015 to 2009. WFP, Update on food procurement, WFP 2006 – 2010. WFP, Memorandum from Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer - Guidance note 1, 2 and 3 related to P4P. WFP, Grant Proposal to the Bill and Melinda Gated Foundation: “Purchase for Progress – Innovations to Connect African Low-Income Farmers to Markets, WFP, 2008. WFP, P4P Monitoring and Evaluation system Design: Final Report, WFP and Management Systems International. WFP, P4P Monthly Update Newsletters. WFP, Summary P4P Data Analysis report – Sept 2008 – 31 March 2010 – Section 1 Procurement, WFP May 2010. WFP, Summary P4P Data Analysis report – Sept 2008 – 31 March 2010 – Section 2 Partnerships and Trainings, WFP May 2010. WFP, Consolidated emerging implementation issues and learning from pilot countries – 2009 annual review. WFP, Technical Meeting on Food Procurement – Best Practices in local and regional food procurement, May 2007. WFP, Minutes of P4P Steering Committee Meetings. WFP, Minutes of P4P Stakeholders Group Meetings. WFP Office of Evaluation, Terms of Reference of the 2008-2013 Purchase for Progress Pilot Project, October 2010. WFP Uganda documents: WFP Uganda Country Strategy Outline 1998 – 2003 (WFP/EB.3/98/6/4). WFP Uganda Country Programme 1994 – 2004 (WFP/EB.2/99/4). WFP Uganda Country Programme 2006 – 2010 (WFP/EB.2/2005/7). WFP, Standard Project Reports for the WFP Uganda Country Programmes. WFP, Office of Evaluation - Evaluation of WFP’s Development and Recovery Portfolio in Uganda, Rome, October 2004. Sserunkuuma & Associates Consult ‘Local and Regional Food Procurement in Uganda – An analytical review”, June 2005. Country Programme Uganda 108070 (2009-2014) “Supporting Government- Led Initiatives to address Hunger in Uganda”. Joint Action Agreement between the Government of Uganda and the United Nations World Food Programme on Agriculture and Market Support, December 2009. WFP, Country Implementation Plan for P4P in Uganda, March 2009. WFP Uganda, Country Strategy (2009 – 2014), May 2009. WFP, P4P Country Programme Profile – Uganda, version 1, October 2010. WFP, P4P Factsheet - Uganda WFP Uganda, P4P Monitoring reports first and second quarters 2010. Other: Government of Uganda, Poverty Eradication Action Plan Government of Uganda, 2006 Annual PEAP Implementation Review, 2007. Government of Uganda, National Development Plan (NDP) 2009-2014.

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

ANNEX 2 – KEY FIGURES ABOUT WFP LOCAL PURCHASES IN UGANDA Food quantities (in mt) purchased by WFP Uganda for operations in Uganda and neighbouring countries, 2002 2009. Commodities Maize Beans Maize Meal CSB Total

2002 8,037 19,213 11,868 1,795 40,913

2003 57,494 20,191 26,896 5,960 110,540

2004 83,962 13,825 9,350 5,351 112,487

2005 118,034 20,547 17,539 7,788 163,907

2006 121,052 22,437 5,252 12,789 161,530

2007 157,819 20,519 17,852 6,614 202,803

2008 76,981 15,110 8,280 7,095 107,466

2009 37,372 4,840 3,775 4,921 50,908

Total 660,750 136,681 100,810 52,313 950,554

Food quantities purchased by WFP Uganda in 2007 -2008 and equivalent costs. Commodities Maize Beans Maize Meal CSB Oil Total

2007 Quantity (mt) 157,819 20,519 17,852 6,614 1,220 204,023

Value (USD) 33,598,387 9,627,940 5,799,697 2,656,015 1,515,740 53,197,780

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

2008 Quantity (mt) 76,981 15,109 8,280 7,216 0 107,586

Value (USD) 32,808,197 10,364,830 4,574,707 4,515,222 0 52,262,956

ANNEX 3 - WFP UGANDA COUNTRY STRATEGY ROAD MAP

May 2009

WFP UGANDA COUNTRY STRATEGIC ROAD MAP Hunger Problem People struggle to meet their basic food and nutrition needs, and remain vulnerable to disasters.

Hunger Problem People cannot meet their basic food and nutrition needs.

Hunger Problem People can meet their basic food and nutrition needs, but require increased incomes to become fully food secure.

GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA RELIEF, RECOVERY & DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES

Cross-Cutting Issues Gender, HIV/AIDS

CAP

UNDAF

(WFP Country Priority One)

(WFP Country Priority Two)

EMERGENCY HUMANITARIAN SO1 ACTION

FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY SO2 SO3

Supplementary & Therapeutic Feeding

SO4

Disaster Risk Reduction (incl. Climate Change)

General Distribution + (incl. food/cash,sensitisation,soap)

Recovery Interventions (incl. livelihoods strengthening)

Hunger Safety Nets (incl. school feeding)

Chronic Hunger Interventions (incl. MCHN)

(WFP Country Priority Three) AGRICULTURE & MARKET SO5 SUPPORT “Purchase For Progress” (P4P)

Local Purchase

Value Added Production (incl. Unimix, RTUF…)

Cross-Cutting Activities Sensitisation, Capacity Strengthening, Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping, Hunger Research, Hand-over Strategies

HAND-OVER

HAND-OVER

GOVT & PARTNERS

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

HAND-OVER

ANNEX 4: MAP

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

ANNEX 5: AMS LOGFRAME

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – October 2010. (CC)

ANNEX 6: TENTATIVE TIMELINE AND DELIVERABLES Uganda AMS mid-term evaluation Phase 1 - Preparation (OE) Desk review, first draft of TOR and OE quality assurance Circulation of TOR to stakeholders Final TOR Identification and contracting of evaluation team Phase 2 - Inception (Evaluation team) Desk review

Key Dates October 2010 October - November 2010 End Nov 2010 October – Dec 2010 4 - 15 Jan 2007

Inception mission to Uganda (team leader and evaluation manager)

11-15 Jan 2011

Briefing core team in Rome HQ and meeting with evaluation team of the P4P midterm evaluation (3 days) Submit draft inception report to OE OE quality assurance and feedback Submit final inception report to OE

Week of the 18 – 22 Jan 2011 29 January 2009 5 Feb 2011 15 Feb 2011

Phase 3 - Evaluation Missions (Evaluation team) Field work

1 - 20 March 2011

Debriefing to key stakeholders and reference groups (HQ) – Aide memoire

19 March 2011

Phase 4 - Reporting (Evaluation team) Submit 1st Draft evaluation report to OE

16 April 2011

OE quality feedback

19 -23 April 2011

Submit 2nd Draft evaluation report to OE

30 April 2011

Review and comments by stakeholders

1 -14 May 2011

Submit Final evaluation report to OE

21 May 2011

Review and comments of executive summary by Executive staff

June 2011

Phase 5 Executive Board (EB) and follow-up (OE and WFP management) Editing / translation of summary report

July 2011

Preparation of evaluation briefs. Preparation of Management response

July 2011 July 2011

Presentation of final evaluation summary report to the EB Presentation of management response to the EB Dissemination of report

November 2011 November 2011 November 2011

NB: - Phases in blue are the responsibility of the evaluation team. Those in white are the responsibility of WFP. - Deliverable milestones are highlighted in red.

5.

AMS Uganda Evaluation. DRAFT 2 – November 2010. (CC)