MID TERM REVIEW OF THE PEACE, RECOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRDP) FOR NORTHERN UGANDA REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

Final

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER JUNE 2011

Glossary ALREP Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme CAO Chief Administrative Officer CSO Civil Society Organisation DFID UK Department for International Development EU European Union GoU Government of Uganda IDP Internally Displaced Person KALIP Karamoja Livelihoods Programme KIDDP Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Plan LRA Lords Resistance Army MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework MTR Mid-term Review NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NGO Non Governmental Organisation NUSAF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund OPM Office of the Prime Minister PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority PMC PRDP Monitoring Committee PRDP Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda SO Strategic Objective TWG Technical working group

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................. ................................................................... i CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE PRDP ................................................ .......................................................... 1 The Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) ............ ................................... 1 Conflict Context to the PRDP ................................................... ................................................................. 1 Poverty Context to the PRDP .................................................... ................................................................ 2 Objectives of the PRDP ......................................................... ................................................................... 3 PRDP Implementation ............................................................ .................................................................. 4 CHAPTER TWO: MID TERM REVIEW ................................................... .......................................................... 5 Objectives of the Mid-term Review (MTR)......................................... ....................................................... 5 MTR Methodology ................................................................ .................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 3: MID TERM REVIEW FINDINGS ............................................ ....................................................... 7 3.1 PRDP Relevance ............................................................. ................................................................... 7 PRDP Objectives ................................................................ .................................................................. 7 Timeframe ...................................................................... .................................................................... 7 Geographic Coverage ............................................................ ............................................................... 7 3.2 PRDP Efficiency ............................................................ ..................................................................... 8 Adherence to the PRDP s Guiding Principles ....................................... .................................................. 8 Emergence of potential risks identified in the PRDP ............................ ................................................. 8 PRDP as a tool to mobilise additional financing ................................ .................................................... 9 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................... ............................................................12 PRDP Coordination and coherence ................................................ ......................................................12 Capacity constraints in local governments ...................................... .....................................................14 Capacity problems among service providers ...................................... ..................................................15 3.3 PRDP Effectiveness ......................................................... ...................................................................16 SO 1 Consolidation of State Authority .......................................... .....................................................16 SO 2 Rebuilding and Empowering Communities ..................................... ..........................................17 SO 3 - Revitalisation of the Economy ........................................... ........................................................18

SO 4 Peace building and Reconciliation.......................................... ...................................................19 3.4 PRDP Sustainability ........................................................ ...................................................................22

Chapter 4: Recommendations ..................................................... ...............................................................24 Immediate Recommendations ...................................................... ..........................................................24 Measures to strengthen PRDP Coordination ....................................... .................................................24 Measures to strengthen PRDP implementation ..................................... ..............................................24 Issues for Consideration in Future Programming ................................. ....................................................25 Programming Focus .............................................................. ..............................................................25 Programming Approach ........................................................... ...........................................................26 Annexes ........................................................................ .............................................................................27 Annex 1: PRDP Districts & Municipalities by Sub-region and Conflict-impact ratin g ...............................27 Annex 2: MTR Participants ...................................................... ..............................................................29 Annex 3: Districts, Sub-counties & Parishes covered by the MTR field survey .... .....................................31 Annex 4: District Questionnaire ................................................ ..............................................................32 Annex 5: Sub-county Questionnaire .............................................. .........................................................34 Annex 6: Parish Questionnaire .................................................. .............................................................38 Charts Chart 1: Percentage of the population living in poverty 1992 2009/10 .......... ......................................... 2 Chart 2: PRDP Interventions Surveyed at Parish Level ........................... .................................................... 6 Chart 3: Top Five Conflict Issues by Region .................................... ..........................................................19 Tables Table 1: PRDP funding by Strategic Objective ($m) FY 2009/10 & 2010/11.......... ...................................10 Table 2: Actual PRDP funding by Strategic Objective vs the original PRDP budget estimates ($m) .............11 Table 3: PRDP funding by Priority Programme ($m) FY 2009/10 & 2010/11 .......... .................................11 Maps Map 1: PRDP Conflict Impact by Sub-region ..................................... ......................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP): The PRDP is a three year Governm ent of Uganda (GoU) plan for the recovery and development of Northern Uganda, which currently covers 55 districts and 9 municipalities in the Greater North. The implementation of the PRDP is managed a nd coordinated under the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). All development actors, government and n on-government, are expected to align their interventions in the North against the PRDP framework. F ull scale implementation started in July 2009, and is currently programmed to run until June 2012. Objectives of the PRDP: The overall goal of the PRDP is to stabilize Northern Ug anda and lay a firm foundation for recovery and development. Specifically, the PRDP aims at promotin g socio-economic development of the communities of Northern Uganda to bridge the gap between the North and the rest of the Country, so that the North achieves national average level in the main socio-e conomic indicators. The PRDP is organized around 4 Strategic Objectives: SO SO SO SO 1: 2: 3: 4: Consolidation of State Authority Rebuilding and empowering communities Revitalisation of the economy Peace building and reconciliation

PRDP implementation: The PRDP is implemented through three modalities, as follow s: 1. PRDP budget grant: GoU provides PRDP grant funding through the budget as a to p-up to the regular budget allocations of the benefitting Districts and central government agencies involved in PRDP implementation. Four donors1 support this modality with earmarked budget support . 2. On-budget special projects: Some donors provide support through on-budget spec ial projects which are managed by the Government (e.g. NUSAF II, funded by the World Bank & DFID, a nd KALIP & ALREP, which are funded by the EU). 3. Off-budget funding. The third modality is off-budget funding, where donors an d other development partners implement projects without the involvement of Government, either direct ly or through NGOs and CSOs. 1 Norway, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark PRDP Mid-term Review (MTR): OPM has just led a multi-stakeholder review to asses s progress made to date towards the achievement of PRDP objectives, identify and document lessons l earned and make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the PR DP. In order to assess

progress in achieving the PRDP objectives, the MTR conducted field surveys in a random selection of 36 Districts, 48 sub-counties and 96 parishes within the six sub regions covered by the PRDP. Additional information was collected through a wide range of stakeholder consultations and data analysis. Continuing relevance of PRDP objectives: The MTR findings indicate that the four strategic objectives of the PRDP remain relevant. Consolidation of state authority (SO1) remains a key o bjective in Northern Uganda, and there is a need to analyse and address conflict drivers (SO4). Furth ermore, although Northern Uganda can no longer be categorised as immediately post-conflict, there is still a significant shortfall in

Northern performance against key socio-economic indicators (SO2 and SO3) relativ e to the rest of the country. Effectiveness of PRDP interventions: Overall, the MTR assessment is that positiv e progress is being made in PRDP implementation, but with significant variation across the four strategic objectives. More progress has been made under the first two Strategic Objectives, than under the third and fourth. The main MTR findings are as follows: - SO1: Law and order has greatly improved over the past two years and State Auth ority has been consolidated. Trust in authorities has also improved, indicated by increased rep orting rates. - SO2: Communities and sub-counties report that with the assistance of the PRDP better services are now being delivered under the PRDP modality though concerns were raised in some cases over lack of comprehensiveness of investments and lack of emphasis on functional service d elivery. - SO3: Provision of economic infrastructure (e.g. roads) has yielded some positi ve results but support to farmers has not been adequately addressed. Much more is needed in order to re duce income poverty and to provide economic oppwortunities for youth. - SO4: Interventions have, on the whole, been weak. Conflict drivers such as lan d, youth unemployment and inadequate reintegration of ex-combatants have not been adequat ely assessed or addressed, although initiatives such as the Northern Uganda Youth Development Centre have started to address some of these concerns. PRDP timeframe: The MTR finds that it was not realistic to aim to bring social a nd economic conditions in the North in line with the rest of the country in just three years. Given the sc ale of the gap between the North and the rest of the country, particularly in terms of the incidence of inc ome poverty, additional funding for supporting the North will continue to remain relevant in the coming decade. The shape this affirmative action should take after the end of the current lifespan of the PRDP is a key issue for future discussion amongst PRDP stakeholders.

Geographic coverage: The PRDP covers 55 districts, which between them have 38% o f Uganda s population. However, only one third of the population in this area lives in dist ricts that have been significantly affected by conflict or cattle-rustling. For a possible next phase of the PRDP consideration could be given to sharpening its focus by developing sub-regional plans within t he overall framework, addressing specific needs of individual sub-regions. However, if the possible ne

xt phase of the PRDP is conceived more broadly as a programme to reduce regional inequalities, its catch ment area could be defined on the basis of poverty indicators. Guiding principles and risk factors: The MTR finds that the PRDP s ten guiding pri nciples have to a large extent been followed, with the exception of the principles of coherence and conf lict analysis. Insufficient information sharing across funding streams has limited the coherence of PRDP int erventions, while the principle of basing interventions on conflict analysis has not been fully follow ed. In terms of the PRDP s risk factors, off-budget development partner activities have been implemented without linkage to the PRDP monitoring framework, increasing the probability of inefficient use of public re sources (including resources from donors). Capacity constraints at point of delivery have also been noted.

PRDP financing: The funding needs of the PRDP were originally estimated at $606 million over three years. An analysis of PRDP financing for the first two years of implementation shows th at $110.3m has been provided through the PRDP grant, with Government providing over Shs 100bn in own -funding each year and the remainder being provided by the budget support donors, and $98m through Special Projects. In addition, the donors have reported to the Ministry of Finance that they have pro vided $382m in off-budget funding. Taken together, this implies a total funding to the PRDP of $590.3m in its first two years, on top of the regular resources provided by Government through the MTEF, showing that P RDP financing is on track to exceed its original estimates. However, the funding provided through Sp ecial Projects and offbudget donor financing is not strictly comparable with funding provided through the PRDP grant, as it includes additional items such administrative costs and technical assistance. Mo reover, it is not clear whether the reported off-budget funding is wholly additional, or whether it incl udes donor projects that were already in existence before the start of the PRDP. The outputs of Donor off -budget funding have been hard to track as there has been limited direct results reporting to OPM, even tho ugh individual interventions may be known at District level in a number of cases. Efficiency of PRDP resource allocations: To date the bulk of PRDP funding has be en provided for Strategic Objective 2, Rebuilding and Empowering Communities, which has received $388m (eq uivalent to 65.7% of total funding). The majority of this funding has come from off-budget interventi ons. Strategic Objective 3, Revitalising the Economy, has received much less, at $89m (equivalent to 15.1% o f total funding). Strategic Objective 1, Consolidating State Authority, received the least funding ($14.6m, or less than 3% of total funding), with the PRDP budget grant providing over two-thirds of the funds for this SO. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the funding for SO4 was provided through off-budget interventio ns. The balance of funding between Strategic Objectives to date does not appear to be fully aligned to the objectives of the PRDP, or the needs of communities, as expressed during the MTR. The construction of Schools, Health facilities and water points under SO2 is important for the attainment of certain socio-economic indicators related to education and health, but it will not reduce income poverty in Northe rn Uganda. In order to do this, greater funding is needed to SO3. The communities that were surveyed also cited the need for Agricultural inputs and support to Agriculture in general as high priorities. Monitoring and evaluation: The higher concentration of PRDP funding to certain p rogrammes relative to overall need is partly due to the shortcomings in the PRDP s original framework fo r Monitoring & Evaluation. OPM has rationalised the original PRDP monitoring framework through

development of the PRDP Results Matrix, and is in the process of consolidating data on progress tow ards attainment of the Key Results. OPM has also set up a monitoring system, tracking investments funded by the PRDP grant, which is designed to provide information on outputs. However, there is need to strengthen the system so that it provides information on the outputs realised through other funding streams, incl uding special projects and off-budget activities implemented by NGOs. Without such data it can be difficult to identify the extent to which actual funding is in accordance with the PRDP s objectives and evolving need s. PRDP s aim is to create coherence between different types of funding streams and investments and to ensure agreement on targets for the various interventions. However, even if the PRDP had had an impr oved monitoring system, tracking inputs and outputs for over 170 off-budget interventions is a significa nt challenge. Strengthened data capture on off-budget interventions within the OPM monitoring system is a p riority.

Co-ordination: OPM s strong leadership is seen to have been decisive for getting P RDP started and for attracting donors. However, the MTR has demonstrated the need for sectors to pla y an active oversight role in PRDP implementation. In principle, the interventions under the PRDP gran t and other PRDP funding modalities follow sector guidelines, but the sectors have not always been able t o ensure that these guidelines are adhered to or that the construction of infrastructure fits into s ector development priorities. This has in some cases had a knock-on effect for the functionality of investment s under the PRDP grant. Outside the PRDP grant, alignment and coordination of PRDP activities has been w eak. The Government has oversight of activities being implemented under the on-budget special projec ts, but they are not fully linked into the PRDP grant monitoring system and communities do not necessarily see them as part of the PRDP. For off-budget projects the situation is even weaker. At sub-county level, the MTR found that while all sub-counties were familiar with the PRDP they viewed it primarily as a government-funded programme. The distribution of the PRDP interventions surveyed at Parish level p rovides a clear indication of the lack of community sensitisation on how NGO activities relate to the PRDP. During the MTR, NGOs acknowledged that they have not used the PRDP as a programming tool, nor have th ey made systematic efforts to link their activities into the PRDP framework. Capacity constraints at District level: In the PRDP document, capacity constrain ts at point of delivery in local governments were identified as a major risk to PRDP implementation. Inadeq uate capacity in terms of staffing and skills at District level has led in some cases to inadequate planni ng, procurement delays, inadequate procurement processes and weak and inadequate supervision of projects . Consideration should be given to providing funds for capacity enhancement of local government under t he PRDP grant, instead of relying on existing donor support and piecemeal interventions under off-budge t interventions and special projects. In addition, supervision of PRDP investments has been hampered by the fact that Districts cannot use any part of the PRDP grant for supervision and monitoring of PRDP inf rastructure investments. Capacity problems amongst service providers: Lack of capacity of contractors was cited as another key constraint to project implementation both in terms of ability to execute works o n time and quality (which has proved to be poor in many cases). The lack of contractors has also contribut ed, amongst other factors, the costs of projects are now much higher th to price increases for construction an the estimates made when the projects were planned. In the survey conducted by the MTR, community re presentatives corroborated that serious problems, related to timing and quality, are not uncom mon.

PRDP sustainability: Communities reported high levels of consultation prior to i nterventions, and the majority said they had contributed to implementation in some way. However, these findings only relate to those investments that the communities identified as belonging to the PRDP. It i s not known whether there has been sufficient community participation in cases where interventions h ave taken place, but communities did not recognise them as part of the PRDP. For the interventions id entified by the communities, user groups have not been routinely established where appropriate. This is a significant concern in terms of the sustainability of PRDP investments, and also implies tha t more needs to be done to strengthen community participation in project implementation. In addition, maint enance has not been systematically provided for. The failure to analyse and address conflict drivers , such as land and reintegration, is also a concern for the sustainability of PRDP results.

MTR recommendations: Overall, the findings from the MTR indicate that affirmativ e action for the North will remain relevant in the coming decade in order to help move the North toward s the national average level of socio-economic indicators after the end of the current lifespan of the PRDP. It is not realistic to expect to bring social and economic condition in the North into line with the re st of the country in just three years. The MTR makes a number of immediate recommendations focusing on measures to impr ove PRDP coordination and implementation within its current lifespan, including: i. Strengthening sectoral oversight of PRDP implementation, for example by invol ving sectors in reviewing District PRDP work plans prior to their approval to ensure that planne d activities are consistent with the sectoral guidelines. ii. Establishing monthly coordination meetings between OPM regional offices and implementing NGOs to improve information flow on off-budget activities, ensure greater NGO co -ordination with the PRDP framework and enable more systematic guidance and planning on activitie s under SO4. iii. Integrating the activities and outputs of special projects into the distric t-level monitoring system already established by OPM for the PRDP grant. OPM should then endeavour to brin g off-budget activites into the system as well. Development partners funding the PRDP could a lso place an obligation on their implementing NGOs to report their activities both to Distric ts and OPM. iv. Ensuring community awareness of the PRDP by requiring implementing partners including NGOs to systematically inform communities about the PRDP and how their interventions fit under it. v. Strengthening inter-agency initiatives for capacity development of PRDP distr icts which are tailored to their individual needs and take into account recent capacity assessm ents and existing funding from donor initiatives through the Ministry of Local Government and else where. vi. Enable Districts to access PRDP funds for monitoring and supervision of PRDP investments at the District level. vii. Focusing on constraints to contractor capacity by requesting the Ministry o f Local Government and other relevant Government agencies such as the Ministry of Works and the PPDA to identify ways of overcoming them. viii. Ensuring strong community awareness and participation, by requiring PRDP i mplementers to explain how their interventions fit within the PRDP, and to establish user commi ttees where appropriate so that communities contribute to the sustainability of PRDP results .

The MTR also raises issues for consideration in future programming, including: i. Affirmative Action: How long an affirmative action programming for the North is still needed in order to ensure resource mobilisation to help the North catch up with the rest o f the country. ii. Comprehensiveness: Consider how far the PRDP or its follow-on programme shou ld try to cover all the needs of the North, or whether it should focus on a sub-set of priority issues. iii. Conflict drivers: How programming can better address key conflict drivers s uch as land issues, youth unemployment and reintegration in a more systematic way. iv. Economic Revitalisation: How to give greater priority to activities related to economic development within PRDP programming.

v. Functionality of investments: How to ensure that infrastructure investments t ranslate into functional service delivery. vi. Sectoral involvement: How best to involve the sectors in future programming. vii. Donor Funding: How to bring more donor funds on-budget and encourage greate r donor harmonisation in off-budget funding. viii. Prioritisation according to District needs: How to maintain the current as pect of the PRDP of enabling Districts to allocate funds according to their needs, in line with give n criteria. ix. Sub-regional appraoches: Whether to develop sub-regional programming within the overall plan so that it is better tailored to the different sub-regional needs, for example T eso and Bunyoro. x. Monitoring framework: How to ensure that a comprehensive monitoring framework covering interventions financed through all funding streams, and involving districts and communities, is agreed to by all stakeholders during the design phase. This should include harmo nised output reporting, as well as measurable outcome indicators for results-based monitoring . xi. Risk mitigation: Consider developing a system for risk monitoring, linked to the Monitoring & Evaluation framework, in order to enable stakeholders to take action to mitigate risks as they materialise.

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE PRDP The Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) The Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) is the Government of Uganda s (GoU) plan for the recovery and development of Northern Uganda. It is a three year plan which curre ntly covers 55 districts and 9 municipalities in the Greater North. Full scale implementation started in July 2009, and is currently programmed to run until June 2012. All development actors, government and non-go vernment, are expected to align their interventions in the North against the PRDP framework. T he intention is to provide a more Government-led and harmonised approach to recovery efforts, relative to the ad hoc provision of support during the years of insurgency, while ensuring that programming is conte xt-appropriate and takes into account the drivers and consequences of conflict and the needs of the regio n. The PRDP also acts as a mechanism for the mobilisation of additional funds to finance recovery efforts i n Northern Uganda. Conflict Context to the PRDP Districts benefitting from the PRDP have been categorized into three conflict ca tegories, as follows2: C:\Fiona\OPM\PRDP\Districts\PRDP_districts_2011_Conflict_impact-district_boundar ies.jpg 2 See Annex 1 for a list of PRDP districts by sub-region and conflict category 1. Severely conflict or cattle rustling affected 2. Sporadically conflict and/or cattle rustling affected 3. Conflict spillovers

Map 1: PRDP Conflict Impact by Sub-region

The Northern and North-Eastern regions of Uganda suffered from prolonged insecur ity from 1986 - 2007. The Central Northern sub-region of Acholi was at the centre of the Lord s Resistan ce Army (LRA) rebellion, which subsequently spread to the Lango and Teso sub-regions. The Teso sub-region and parts of Acholi and Lango also suffered from cattle raids from the neighbouring Karamojong tribes. W ithin Karamoja, insecurity rooted in cultural traditions of cattle rustling destabilized the region and was worsened by the infiltration of small arms that up-scaled the weaponry from traditional spears to guns. The West Nile sub-region was also affected by the LRA conflict, though on a lower scale than the Central North, as well as enduring its own armed rebellions up to 2002. Regions neighbouring the conflict-affected areas (B unyoro, Elgon, and Bukedi) experienced spill-over effects, as people were displaced and inter-regional comm erce was negatively affected. A combination of the above conflicts exacted socio-economic losses, leading to a breakdown in social infrastructure, severely weakened governance structures and service delivery, an d asset depletion. Consequently, poverty levels in the region rose and other major social developme nt indicators fell far short of national averages. Poverty Context to the PRDP Poverty in Northern Uganda has been significantly above the national average sin ce 1992. In 1992, 74% of people in Northern Uganda were living below the poverty line, as compared to 56% nationally. By the end of the 1990s, even though the poverty rate had fallen, the gap between the North and the rest of the country remained, as 64% of the people in Northern Uganda were living below the poverty line compared to 34% nationally. It was only once the LRA insurgency ended, almost a decade la ter, that significant inroads were made into poverty levels in the North. In 2009/10, the first year o f implementation of the PRDP, the poverty rate had fallen to 46%, as compared to the national average of 25%. Chart 1: % of the population living in poverty 1992 74% 64%63% 61% 46% 56% 34% 39% 31% 25% 20% 30% 40% 2009/103

50% 60% 70% 80% 19921999/002002/032005/062009/10NorthNationalAverage 3 Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics National Household Surveys

Strategic Objective 1: Consolidation of State Authority 1.Facilitation of Peace agreements 2.Police enhancement Programmes 3.Prisons enhancement Programmes 4.Judicial Enhancement Programmes 5.Rationalization of auxiliary service Programmes 6.Local Government Enhancement Programmes

Strategic Objective 2: Rebuilding and empowering communities 7.IDP Emergency Assistance programme, 8.IDP Return/Resettlement Programmes 9.Community Empowerment and Recovery Programmes (health, Education, Water and Livelihoods Programmes)

Strategic Objective 3: Revitalisation of the economy 10.Production and Marketing Enhancement Programme 11.Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Urban Improvement Programme 12.Environment, Land and Natural Resources Management Programme

Strategic Objective 4: Peace building and reconciliation 13.Public Information and Communication/counselling services support programme 14.Mediation and reconciliation support programme and Amnesty and reintegration of ex-combatants

It will take some time for the North to catch up with other regions of the count ry, which have seen a more rapid rate of poverty reduction over the past two decades. In addition, due to p opulation growth, the number of poor people living in the North has risen in absolute terms, even thou gh the percentage of people living in poverty has fallen. In 2009/10, the number of poor people livin g in Northern Uganda stood at 2.84 million. Although the level of poverty in the East is significantly lowe r than in the North, almost as many poor people currently live in the East as in the North, due to its higher p opulation. In total, 56% of the people currently living in poverty in Uganda (4.2 million) live in the geographi

c catchment area of the PRDP. Objectives of the PRDP The overall goal of PRDP is to stabilize Northern Uganda and lay a firm foundati on for recovery and development. Specifically, the PRDP aims at promoting socio-economic development of the communities of Northern Uganda to bridge the gap between the North and the rest of the country, so that the North achieves national average level in the main socio-economic indicators. In order to achieve its overall goal, the PRDP is organized around 4 Strategic O bjectives which in turn guide interventions in 14 priority areas. Box 1: PRDP Strategic Objectives & Priority Programme Areas

PRDP Implementation The implementation of the PRDP is managed and coordinated under the Office of th e Prime Minister (OPM), which is responsible for overseeing and coordinating all national program mes in Northern Uganda. PRDP oversight is assured by PRDP Monitoring Committee (PMC), which is chaired b y the Rt.Hon. Prime Minister and includes representatives from all PRDP stakeholders including: othe r central Government agencies, Districts, Development Partners, Members of Parliament from the affect ed regions, NGOs and community representatives. The PMC meets twice annually. Two PRDP technical work ing groups (PRDP TWG and the KIDDPTWG), at national and regional level, meet monthly to assist OP M in its task of managing and coordinating the PRDP, and to identify issues for discussion by the PMC. The PRDP is implemented through three modalities, as follows. 1. PRDP budget grant: GoU provides PRDP grant funding through the budget as a to p-up to the regular budget allocations of the benefitting Districts and central government agencies involved in PRDP implementation. Approximately 80% of the PRDP grant is transferred directly to i mplementing districts. At the outset, emphasis was put on infrastructure spending in education, health, water and roads sectors under the oversight of the Districts with monitoring by OPM. The remaind er is allocated to GoU agencies in the Justice Law & Order Sector for activities in support of SO1, and to OPM for activities in Karamoja. Four donors4 support this modality with earmarked budget support. 2. On-budget special projects: Some donors provide support through on-budget spec ial projects which are managed by the Government (e.g. NUSAF II, funded by a loan from the World Ba nk & a Grant from DFID, and KALIP/ALREP, which is funded by the EU). 3. Off-budget funding. The third modality is off-budget funding, where donors an d other development partners implement projects directly, without the involvement of Government, or through NGOs and CSOs. 4 Norway, Ireland, Sweden & Denmark

CHAPTER TWO: MID TERM REVIEW Objectives of the Mid-term Review (MTR) PRDP implementation has just passed its mid-point. The Office of the Prime Minis ter (OPM) has therefore led a multi-stakeholder review5 to: assess progress made to date towards the ach ievement of PRDP objectives; identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that could inform the design and implementation of successor interventions/programmes); and to make recommendatio ns regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the PRDP. 5 See Annex 2 for details of MTR participants 6 See Annexes 4 6 for copies of the Questionnaires

7 The field team s selection of one parish might have given rise to systematic bia s. Comparison of the randomly selected parishes and their interventions with the parishes and interventions se lected by the field teams has however not shown marked differences. MTR Methodology The Mid-term Review was primarily based on a survey focused on an assessment of the implementation process and an assessment of outcomes in the community. Questionnaires were deve loped for interviews at three levels6: - District: directed at the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the District Pla nner and the PRDP Focal Point (refer to Annex 4 for the full district questionnaire); - Sub-county: directed at sub-county councillors and officers (refer to Annex 5) ; - Parish: directed at community leaders and a separate section directed at a wom en s group. The parish questionnaire includes a series of questions related to interventions in the parish under the PRDP. The questionnaire has space for five interventions in each parish (refer t o Annex 6).

The MTR drew a weighted, random sample of 48 sub-counties from a list of sub-cou nties in the PRDP catchment area. The sample was weighted according to district population and to conflict affectedness. Districts significantly affected by conflict or cattle-rustling were given the w eight 4; districts sporadically affected were given the weight 2 and districts that only suffered from spill-ove r effects were given the weight 1. The 48 sub-counties sampled were located in 36 districts where the Dis trict Questionnaire was conducted.

At a second stage sample the MTR made a random selection of one parish per sub-c ounty. As it was not known whether PRDP activities (Government, special projects, NGOs) were taking p lace in the selected parishes the MTR field teams selected a second parish where activities under the PRDP grant were known to have taken place.7 Annex 3 contains a list of the districts, sub-counties and parishes covered by the MTR field survey. The data was collected by 6 field teams of 2-3 persons drawn from OPM, Office of the President and some of the sectors. Data collection started on 10th of May and was completed on 18th of May. A team normally used one day to conduct one interview at district level, one interview at sub-co unty level and a series interviews with community leaders and a women s group in two parishes.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Agriculture Education Electrification Health Roads Water Other PRDP Grant NGO Special Projects : PRDP interventions surveyed at Parish Level Chart 2: PRDP Interventions Surveyed at Parish Level At parish level the field teams were instructed to list all interventions groupe d according to types (health, education, water, roads, agriculture and other) implemented under the three fina ncing modalities of the PRDP (grant, special programmes or NGO)8. The team then conducted two group inte rviews, one with community leaders and one with women, focussing on one of each type of these fac ilities/interventions in turn. In the event that two or more facilities/interventions of the same type ha s been funded by different funders, the team was to select two that had been created under different modali ties (e.g. one constructed

by government under the grant and one constructed by an NGO). 8 The only exception to this was in Karamoja, where the focus was on the PRDP gr ant only, as all other interventions were considered to be part of the Karamoja Integrated Disarmenent & Development Programme (KIDDP), which was not a part of the review. 9 Blank answers (= questions where a field team has not recorded information) ha ve not been included in the calculation of percentages. The MTR field teams selected 155 interventions identified by the communities as implemented under PRDP. For each of these interventions they conducted interviews with a group of community leaders as well as with a group of women. These interventions were categorised as education (27 %), water (21 %), roads (20 %), health (18 %), agriculture/food security (9 %), electrification (1 %), a nd other (3 %). Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the interventions were implemented by government under the PRDP grant, 22% were implemented by NGOs and 10% were by special programmes. It should be noted that this is a biased selection of interventions based on what local communities perceive to be PRDP. This weighting illustrates the lack of understanding by communities that PRDP activities include interventi ons by NGOs and under special projects. In a limited number of cases communities were not even aware w ho was implementing an intervention.

The questionnaires from the field teams were entered into database and analysed by the MTR.9 The field teams provided supplementary information at a wrap-up meeting held on 20th of Ma y. Additional information was collected from stakeholders (donors, NGOs, UN organisations, spe cial projects etc.) through a series of meetings (refer to Annex 2 for a list of MTR participants). In addition to this the MTR has used documentary evidence (e.g. minutes of meetings of Technical Working Groups) and statistics.

CHAPTER 3: MID TERM REVIEW FINDINGS 3.1 PRDP Relevance PRDP Objectives The PRDP framework was developed in 2005 2007, when a large part of the populati on in Northern regions were still living in IDP camps (especially in Acholi and Lango) and ther e was an immediate risk of return to armed conflict. The situation has evolved considerably since then, as almost all displaced people have resettled, and the priorities in the North have shifted away from humanitar ian support to peace building and development. Nonetheless, the MTR findings indicate that the four s trategic objectives of PRDP remain relevant. Consolidation of state authority (SO 1) remains a key obje ctive in Northern Uganda, and there is a need to analyse and address conflict drivers (SO 4). Furthermore, although Northern Uganda can no longer be categorised as immediately post-conflict, there is still a sign ificant shortfall in Northern performance against key socio-economic indicators (SO2 and SO3) relative to the rest of the country. Timeframe The PRDP states that the commitment is to improve socio-economic indicators to be in line with national ones in those areas affected by conflict and serious breakdown in law and order .1 0 The MTR finds that it was not realistic to expect to bring social and economic conditions of the North in line with the rest of the country in just three years. The North remains the poorest region in Uganda, lag ging behind in terms of income poverty as well as on social indicators. Getting the North on a par with the rest of the country in terms of socio-economic development will take many years. Thus, affirmative acti on for supporting the North will continue to remain relevant in the coming decade. The shape this affi rmative action should take after the end of the current lifespan of the PRDP is a key issue for future disc ussion amongst the PRDP stakeholders. Affirmative action could be provided through a continuation of a s pecial intervention like the PRDP, or be folded into mainstream sector programming via mechanisms directed at addressing poverty and regional inequalities. During the MTR, the importance of securing greater se ctoral engagement in the implementation of PRDP activities, particularly ensuring adherence to sector gui delines and adequate provision for the recurrent costs of infrastructure investments, was frequently raised. However, a clear concern was also expressed that if affirmative action for the North was integrat ed into mainstream sectoral programming at the end of the current lifetime of the PRDP, the additionality pr ovided might be less easily tracked, and the North might in some way lose out in funding terms.

10 PRDP page 17. Geographic Coverage The PRDP covers 55 districts, which between them have 38% of Uganda s population. However, only one third of the population in this area lives in districts that have been significa ntly affected by conflict or cattlerustling; another third have been sporadically affected by conflict and cattle-r ustling and the last third has only suffered from spill-over effects from conflict or cattle-rustling. For a po ssible next phase of the PRDP consideration could be given to sharpening its focus by developing sub-regional plans within the overall framework, addressing specific needs of individual sub-regions. However, if the possible next phase of the PRDP is conceived more broadly as a programme to reduce regional inequalities, r ather than a post-conflict development programme, then the catchment area might be defined on the basis of poverty indicators.

3.2 PRDP Efficiency Adherence to the PRDP s Guiding Principles The PRDP document identified ten guiding principles to ensure efficient PRDP imp lementation, namely: i. coherence, ii. conflict analysis, iii. promotion of equity iv. prioritization v. needs based programming that promotes participation vi. government responsibility vii. mainstreaming cross-cutting issues viii. decentralization ix. transparency and flexibility in approach x. upward and downward accountability. The MTR findings show that most of these guiding principles have to a large exte nt been followed. However, the first two have not. First, due to insufficient sharing of informati on there has been limited coherence of the interventions within the PRDP framework. This has led to the si tuation in which SO2 (community empowerment), and social infrastructure in particular, has been overfunded relative to other programmes that are equally important to the attainment of PRDP objectives, part icularly under SO3 (economic revitalisation). Further details are provided in the section on PRDP F inancing. Second, the principle of basing interventions on conflict analysis does not appe ar to have been fully followed. When armed hostilities ended, less attention was given to conflict iss ues. However, a number of conflict drivers remain in evidence in the North, while NGO interventions in thi s area lack guidance because districts and other local councils have a limited engagement in broader peace bu ilding activities (although they play a decisive role in relation to dispute resolution). The consequence of this omission is that these conflict drivers, particularly relating to land disputes and issues such as inad equate reintegration of former combatants and youth unemployment, must be addressed in order to ensure sustaina ble recovery and development. Emergence of potential risks identified in the PRDP The PRDP document also identified a number of risks which had the potential to d estabilise PRDP implementation, as follows: i. Inadequate resources; ii. Inadequate coordination of PRDP programmes; iii. Non-compliance by development partners to work with national policies and g uidelines established within the PRDP;

iv. Inefficient use of public resources; and v. Capacity constraints at point of delivery.

The risk of inadequate resources has not materialised as more resources have bee n provided than planned, as detailed in the section on PRDP Financing. However, the other risks have mate rialised to various degrees.

Better co-ordination of interventions across funding streams (PRDP budget grant, on-budget special projects, off-budget funding) would have helped increase the efficiency of PRDP implementation. Offbudget development partner activities have been implemented without linkage to t he PRDP monitoring framework, increasing the probability of another risk, namely inefficient use of public resources (including resources from donors). Capacity constraints at point of delivery have also been noted. Lesson learned on Risk Mitigation Major risks to the implementation process and to sustainability of results must be monitored. Implementers have to be prepared to address or mitigate these risks once they ma terialise. Mitigation of risks should be seen as part of a flexible implementation framewor k for PRDP.

PRDP as a tool to mobilise additional financing The objectives of the PRDP fully match the overall poverty reduction objectives of the Development Partners and the PRDP has been a very successful tool for the mobilisation of fu nds to finance the recovery and development of Northern Uganda. The funding needs of the PRDP were originall y estimated at $606 million over three years. The $606m estimate was meant to be an additionality to existing interventions in the North. Since PRDP implementation began, the primary focus has been on tracki ng the additional allocations made to the North as a result of the PRDP, rather than tracking comb ined funding including existing interventions. The Government has provided the PRDP grant as a top-up t o the regular MTEF allocations of benefitting Districts and central government agencies, while the PRDP funding that donors have reported to the Ministry of Finance covers existing interventions in the No rth and new pledges within the context of the PRDP, but does not include national projects that also operat e in the North. An analysis of PRDP financing for the first two years of implementation shows th at $110.3m has been provided through the PRDP grant, with Government providing over Shs 100bn in own -funding each year and the remainder being provided by budget support donors, and $98m through Spec ial Projects. In addition, the donors have reported to the Ministry of Finance that they have pro vided $382m in off-budget funding11. Taken together, this implies a total funding to the PRDP of $590.3m i n its first two years, on top of the regular resources provided by Government through the MTEF, showing that P

RDP financing is on track to exceed its original estimates. 11 Data source: GoU Budget and donor submissions to the Ministry of Finance, Pla nning & Economic Development However, the funding provided through Special Projects and donor off-budget fin ancing is not strictly comparable with funding provided through the PRDP grant, as it includes addition al items such administrative costs and technical assistance. Moreover, it is not clear whether the reported off-budget funding is wholly additional, or whether it includes projects that were already in existence before the start of the PRDP. The outputs of Donor off-budget funding have been hard to track as there has been limited direct results reporting to OPM, even though individual interventions may be kno wn at District level in a number of cases. Donors funded over 180 interventions under the PRDP in 2009/10, only 11 of which were through the budget. It was beyond the scope of the MTR to assess the relative im pact of on-budget versus off-budget interventions.

Table 1 shows that to date the bulk of the funding has been provided for Strateg ic Objective 2, Rebuilding and Empowering Communities, which has received $388m (equivalent to 65.7% of tot al funding). The majority of this funding ($290m) has come from off-budget interventions, but siz eable funding has also been channelled through the PRDP grant ($66.5m) and Special Projects ($30.9m). S trategic Objective 3, Revitalising the Economy, was second in size, but received much less, at $89m (e quivalent to 15.1% of total funding). Once again, the majority of this has come from off-budget funding ($38 .1m), with the remainder being provided through Special Projects ($31.6m) and the PRDP grant ($19.3m). St rategic Objective 1, Consolidating State Authority, received the least funding ($14.6m, or less than 3% of total funding), with the PRDP budget grant providing over two-thirds of the funds for this SO. Ninety -five percent (95%) of the funding for SO4 was provided through off-budget interventions. Table 1: PRDP funding by Strategic Objective ($m) FY 2009/10 & 2010/11

The balance of funding between Strategic Objectives, with the majority going to SO2, is not fully in accordance the needs of communities as expressed during the MTR. Communities sur veyed cited social infrastructure as a priority, but they also cited the need for agricultural inpu ts and support to agriculture in general as a high priorities. Agricultural activities are a key priority for the returnee districts. The balance of funding is also not consistent with the PRDP s original budget and its commitment to improve socioeconomic indicators in order to bring them in line with national ones, as the co nstruction of schools and health facilities under SO2 will not reduce income poverty in Northern Uganda. I n order to do this, greater funding is needed to SO3. Table 2 compares actual PRDP funding by Strategic Objective in the first two yea rs of implementation with the original three year PRDP budget estimate. From this it can be seen that it w as originally planned that $140.6m should be allocated to SO3, accounting for 23% of all PRDP funding. Inst ead, to date just $89m has been allocated, accounting for 15% of all PRDP funding. SO3, by contrast, ha s received $100m more funding to date than originally planned in the PRDP framework. However, the grea test differential lies in funding to SO1, which was originally expected to account for 24% of all PRDP spe nding, but the actual outturn has been 2.1%. However, this is because the original budget estimates fo r SO1 were driven by high allocations for the Police Enhancement and Local Government Enhancement pro grammes, including salary costs. These costs have since been absorbed in the regular MTEF budget al locations, and do not form part of the PRDP additionality.

Table 2: Actual PRDP funding by Strategic Objective vs the original PRDP budget estimates ($m)

The concentration of funding to SO2, and particularly to the construction of soc ial infrastructure (schools, health facilities, water points), is also clearly shown in the breakdown of PRDP funding by priority programme in Table 3 below. Table 3: PRDP funding by Priority Programme ($m) FY 2009/10 & 2010/11

At the program level, the PRDP was predominantly focused on social infrastructur e as 53% of all funding was provided for Community Empowerment (Programme 9). Economic Infrastructure re habilitation (Programme 11) received just 4.4% of overall PRDP funding, the majority of which was provided by the PRDP grant as Districts used funds under the PRDP grant to maintain or upgrade r oads. Production and Marketing Enhancement (Programme 10) also received just 7.6% of overall PRDP fun ding, entirely financed

by Special Projects and off-budget interventions (as existing Government funding under NAADs is not part of the PRDP grant), while Environment, Land and Natural Resources received just 1.9%. Monitoring and Evaluation The higher concentration of PRDP funding to certain programmes relative to overa ll need is partly due to the shortcomings in the PRDP s framework for Monitoring & Evaluation. Annex 3 of t he PRDP document set out a broad framework for monitoring results, but it mixes inputs, outputs and r esults, and defines a series of indicators some of which would be extremely difficult to measure. OPM has rationalised this framework by developing the PRDP Results Matrix, and h as recently forwarded a questionnaire to all Districts in order to measure the indicators defined. It is currently in the process of consolidating the resulting data in order to measure progress towards attainment of the Key Results identified in the Results Matrix. OPM has also set up a monitoring system, track ing investments funded by the PRDP grant, which is designed to provide information on outputs. However, th ere is need to improve the system so that it provides information on outputs realised through other fun ding streams, including special projects and off-budget activities implemented by NGOs. Thus, although d onor funding to the PRDP is reported through donor submissions to the Ministry of Finance, limited inform ation is available on the activities and outputs achieved through donor funding, particularly off-budget f unding. Without comprehensive data for the PRDP at all levels - input (funding)12, outpu t and outcomes - it is difficult to use PRDP as a programmatic tool to guide planned interventions acro ss the three main funding streams (PRDP budget grant, on-budget special projects, off-budget activities), to identify the extent to which actual funding is in accordance with PRDP objectives and evolving needs, a nd to establish how far the outputs are leading to the expected outcomes. PRDP s aim is to create coherenc e between different types of funding streams and investments and to ensure agreement on targets for the various interventions. However, it should be acknowledged that even if the PRDP had had an improved monitoring system, tracking inputs and outputs for over 170 interventions implem ented by donors through NGOs outside of the budget is a significant challenge. Strengthened data capture on off-budget interventions within the OPM monitoring system is therefore a priority. 12 The figures on funding in tables 1 and 2 have been generated as part of the r eview process. Lesson learned on PRDP design

In order to be effective, a plan which is to be implemented by many stakeholders needs a well-defined operational mechanism for monitoring and coordination, and strong s takeholder compliance in reporting on activities and outputs to the co-ordinating instituti on. This is amplified by the mandate of OPM derived from Article 108A of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

PRDP Coordination and coherence OPM s strong leadership is seen to have been decisive for getting PRDP started and for attracting Development Partners. However, the MTR has demonstrated the need for sectors to play an active oversight role in PRDP implementation. Though in principle the interventions und er the PRDP grant and other PRDP funding modalities follow sector guidelines, the sectors have not alw ays been able to ensure that these guidelines are adhered to or that the construction of infrastructure fits into sector development

Lesson learned on PRDP Coherence One of the strengths of the PRDP has been that it has enabled the mobilisation o f additional resources for the recovery of Northern Uganda. However, they should not be viewe d as separate from sectoral investments, as integrated planning for recurrent costs i s essential. Greater sectoral involvement in PRDP planning is required. priorities. This has had a knock-on effect for the functionality of investments under the PRDP grant in some cases an issue which will be dealt with in the chapter on effectiveness. In the short term, in order to ensure better PRDP co-ordination with the sectors, it is recommended that OPM in volve sectors in reviewing District PRDP work plans prior to their approval, to ensure that plann ed activities are consistent with the sectoral guidelines. A similar initiative is already underway with rega rd to the special project interventions under NUSAF II.

Outside the PRDP grant, alignment and coordination of PRDP activities has been w eak, especially for offbudget interventions. Government is aware of the activities being implemented un der the on-budget special projects, but their outputs have not been fully integrated into OPM s moni toring system, and communities do not necessarily see them as part of the PRDP. For off-budget proj ects, the situation is even weaker. During the MTR, NGOs acknowledged that they have not used the PRDP as a programming tool, nor have they made systematic efforts to link their activities into the PR DP framework at programme level. Most NGOs have simply labelled most of their on-going activities under th e broad PRDP objectives without reconsidering their programming in terms of PRDP alignment. This finding is corroborated by survey evidence from sub-county and parish level . At sub-county level, the survey conducted by the MTR found that while all sub-counties were familiar with the PRDP, they viewed it primarily as a government-funded programme. Almost half did not consider NGO act ivities to be part of the PRDP. At parish level the MTR found that people had heard about PRDP in over 80% of the surveyed parishes, but that it was most commonly perceived as a government-funded program me, rather than encompassing NGO activities as well. Communities therefore understood its main f ocus to be the construction of infrastructure, although there was some understanding that the a

im is to rehabilitate conflict affected areas and improve livelihoods. The distribution of the PRDP interventions surveyed at Parish level provides a c lear indication of the lack of information and understanding of NGO activities as they relate to the PRDP. Two thirds of the interventions identified by parishes as PRDP interventions were funded by the PR DP grant (refer to Chart 2) even though the PRDP grant only funds 19% of total PRDP interventions including off-budget projects (refer to Table 1). All PRDP stakeholders have a role to play in improving PRDP co-ordination and c oherence, particularly with regard to off-budget projects. Firstly, it is recommended that OPM creates a str onger operational framework for PRDP co-ordination and programming by reinforcing its regional pre sence, and engaging NGOs in continuous information sharing and dialogue, for example through monthly PRDP implementation meetings. Second, an onus should be placed on NGOs to sensitise communities abou t the PRDP, and how their projects align to it. Third, Development Partners funding the PRDP should place an obligation on their implementing NGOs to report their activities to both Districts and OPM, and cons ider penalties for non-

compliant NGOs. Fourth, OPM should engage Development Partners in a dialogue on the necessary preconditions for rationalising donor off-budget funding, and bringing more PRDP su pport into the MTEF. Capacity constraints in local governments In the PRDP document, capacity constraints at point of delivery in local governm ents were identified as a major risk to PRDP implementation. The MTR conducted a survey directed at distri ct-level, focused on gaining an understanding of districts assessment of their capacity. While distric ts seemed to have a tendency to downplay the magnitude of their capacity problems, more than half re ported problems in relation to supervision of works, while a third specifically reported that their engineering departments were understaffed. When asked about their biggest constraints to delivering services effectively, most districts (53%) cited inadequate staffing as one of their biggest constraints for effectiv e service delivery. Box 2 gives the detailed results of the district-level survey. Box 2: MTR Survey Findings on District Capacity Most districts (53%) cited inadequate staffing as one of their biggest constrain ts for effective service delivery. For the new districts this was more pronounced as many as 80% indicated that staffing wa s a main problem. However, a large group (38%) also indicated a lack of funding as a constraint: in particula r low local revenue collections, low budget allocations, and late release of funds. 14% responded that lack of means of transport was a major problem (a major proportion of them were new districts), while an equal percentage responde d that the capacity of local contractors was a major problem.

Districts were asked to rate their capacity in areas critical to effective servi ce delivery participatory planning, procurement, and supervision. Overall fewer than 15% rated their capacity as weak , but the comments made by those districts who rated their capacity as adequate indicated that their capacity was still quite limited. Even some of the districts that characterised their capacity as good still indicated that they had staffing constraints.

Districts Assessment of their Capacity

For participatory planning For procurement For supervision

Weak 6% 14% 14% Adequate 31% 25% 19% Good 50% 50% 56% Strong 14% 11% 11%

. Findings on Participatory Planning: a shortage of planners was cited as the mo st common constraint. This constraint applied to both old and new Districts, with over 20% of Districts rep orting understaffing. . Findings on Procurement: a shortage of staff or qualified staff was the main p roblem for Districts with weak or adequate capacity. In total, just under 20% of Districts, both old and new alik e, reported that their procurement departments were understaffed. The length of the procurement process and, in some cases, the absence of a contracts committee, were also noted as constraints. . Findings on Supervision: a lack of resources for the supervision of works, esp ecially qualified staff, and also funding were the main problems for Districts with weak or adequate capacity. In addi tion to this, a third of the districts who categorised their supervision capacity as good indicated that th ey have substantial problems mostly due to understaffing, but also lack of supervision funding and t ransportation. Effectively, more than half the districts have problems in relation to supervision of works, while a third reported that their engineering departments were understaffed.

Initiatives to improve capacity during the past three years Most districts (92 %) reported initiatives to improve past two years. Almost half reported recruitment of staff (to fill vacant positions etc.), ining initiatives. In a fifth of the initiatives it was mentioned that development partners have provided ed training. Most districts reported that these initiatives had led to some (50%) ity improvement. their capacity during the while a third reported tra extra staff or have provid or substantial (44%) capac

Other sources have indicated that problems are more serious than reported by dis tricts in the MTR survey. At the PRDP Regional Technical Working Group meeting in Gulu on 6 April 2011, at tended by CAOs and PRDP Focal Persons from 14 local governments as well as Development Partners, it was reported that inadequate capacity in the engineering departments in terms of staffing and skil ls has led to procurement delays, inadequate procurement processes and weak and inadequate supervision of projects. The meeting s assessment of capacities for participatory planning was very critical. The MTR surveys directed at sub-counties and at parishes also indicated that com munity consultations and planning were not always conducted according to good practice. Eighty-eight perc ent (88 %) of subcounties reported that communities were consulted when social infrastructure fac ilities were planned but that in many of these cases only leaders were consulted (LC members, elders, sch ool management committees). At the parish level, eighty-six percent (86%) of community leaders were of the opinion that there had been enough consultation but this dropped to seventy five (75%) amongs t the women s groups. Twelve percent (12%) of community leaders and 19 % of women s groups were of the o pinion that the implementer had not taken account of what was said. The capacity problems at district level have not been helped by the piecemeal wa y in which capacity support through the PRDP has been implemented. The PRDP document recognised that Northern districts were understaffed and underperforming and therefore Programme 6 (Local Governmen t Enhancement) was designed to address this problem. It had the objective of strengthening serv ice delivery capacity and ensuring that local governments have capacity to coordinate service delivery wit hin the PRDP framework. However, no additional funds were provided for Programme 6 under the PRDP grant, on the understanding that existing donor funding would prove sufficient. At the same time there was u nclear information about the extent of donor supported initiatives for capacity building and insufficient analysis of the impact of continuing capacity constraints on local government service delivery. In the meantime, ad hoc capacity development support has been provided through o ff-budget donor interventions and special projects, addressing capacity constraints in individua l districts, or as per the implementation needs of specific projects. This approach needs to be made more s ystematic, by strengthening inter-agency initiatives for capacity development of PRDP district s, ensuring that they which are tailored to their individual needs and take into account recent capacity ass essments and existing funding from donor initiatives through the Ministry of Local Government and else where.

In addition, the PRDP grant has focussed on hardware infrastructure projects, bu t districts have not been able to use part of the funds for planning, supervision and monitoring. Instead, they have been expected to use existing funds provided for planning, supervision and monitoring under their normal sectoral grants to cover the additional projects funded by the PRDP. During the survey, Districts p ointed out the inadequacy of this approach, particularly in cases where they have an additional fifty or o ne hundred projects to supervise under the PRDP. Enabling Districts to use a fixed percentage of PRDP f unds for monitoring and supervision, in common with the sector guidelines, would help address this probl em. Capacity problems among service providers Lack of capacity of contractors was cited as another key constraint to project i mplementation both in terms of ability to execute works on time and in terms of quality (which has proved to be poor in many cases).

The lack of contractors has also contributed, amongst other factors, to price in creases for construction costs of projects are now much higher than the estimates made when the projects were planned. Community representatives in the survey conducted by the MTR corroborated that s erious problems are not uncommon as 12% of the community leaders and 14 % of the women (at parish le vel) found that the contractor had NOT done a good job. It is suggested that OPM requests the Ministry of Local Government and other rel evant Government agencies such as the Ministry of Works and the PPDA to identify ways of addressi ng this issue. Options to be considered could include assisting local companies in developing their capaci ty or combining smaller works into a larger tender to engage bigger construction companies from outside the area. Bigger companies could be obliged to take smaller local companies on board and to capac itate them. 3.3 PRDP Effectiveness As has already been mentioned, the PRDP has proved an effective tool for resourc e mobilisation. In addition, all Districts surveyed expressed appreciation of the PRDP grant as a s ource of additional funding, which they hoped to see continue after the end of its current lifetime. Fourteen percent (14%) added that they considered PRDP to be a more reliable source of funding than other sources of funds from central Government, while others appreciated the flexibility that the PRDP grant gives t o Districts to prioritise infrastructure investments according to their needs. However, the survey findings indicate that the effectiveness of PRDP interventio ns has varied across the four strategic objectives. Positive progress has been made in achieving objectiv es under SO1 (Consolidation of State Authority) and SO2 (Community Empowerment). However progress under SO3 (Economic Revitalisation) has been mixed while under SO4 (Peace Building and Reconciliatio n) it has been weak. The main findings are that: 1. Law and order has improved over the past two years and state authority has be en consolidated. Trust in authorities has also improved, indicated by increased reporting rates. 2. Communities and sub-counties report that better services were now being deliv ered though problems with lack of comprehensiveness of investments and lack of emphasis on f unctionality were noted. 3. Provision of economic infrastructure has yielded some positive results, but s upport to farmers has not addressed needs. Much more is needed to in order to reduce income poverty an d to provide economic opportunities for the youth.

4. Interventions under SO4 have, on the whole, been weak and have not addressed needs and conflict drivers have not been adequately assessed or addressed. SO 1 Consolidation of State Authority

The majority of sub-counties indicated that they feel more secure than two years ago, as people have been able to return home from IDP camps, police presence has increased and cattle rus tling has been reduced by disarmament initiatives. Only 5 sub-counties representing 10 % of the sample (1 in Acholi, 2 in Karamoja and 2 in West Nile) indicated that they feel less secure. All five are in rural areas and land conflicts were reported as ongoing in three out of five of these sub-counties, while four were experiencing cattle raiding and two reported drought and famine. All these factors are well known to be conf lict drivers.

In general, the main causes of insecurity across all sub-counties were reported as land conflicts (48%), cattle rustling (25%), theft (21%), domestic violence (16%) and food insecurity & natural disasters (10%). With regard to the two most common causes of insecurity; in Lango and Acholi lan d conflict was identified as a source of insecurity by 62% of sub-counties and cattle raiding in only 17% whereas in Karamoja, cattle rustling was raised in 63% of sub-counties and land conflicts by only 13%. Over 85% of sub-counties now have a police presence of some kind and in all subcounties which have such a presence people go to the police to report security/conflict problems. In addi tion problems are also reported to the Local Council in over 80% of sub-counties. Both these figures ar e encouraging as they show not only that state authority is improving but also that people are willing to r eport issues to these authorities. Capacity to handle law offenders was found in over 60% of the sub-counties and o ver half of these said that this capacity had improved over the last two years, with most of them attributin g this to increased police presence. However, the remaining 40% of sub-counties reported that they had no c apacity to deal with these law offenders, which poses a significant problem to state authority and la w and order. Overall, when asked what two main things should be done to improve security, two -thirds of sub-counties said that community sensitisation was needed, particularly on the role of the po lice, crime and crime prevention, half said they still needed an increased police presence, and 15% sa id that the police needed to be better facilitated, in terms of equipment, transport and accommodation. It is important to note that increased deployment of police needs to go hand in hand with sufficient training to ensure they are equipped to deal with the circumstances they will be working in and will meet co mmunity s needs as poorly trained police can, themselves, become a security problem. SO 2 Rebuilding and Empowering Communities

Ninety-three percent (93%) of the communities who responded in the survey report ed that completed social infrastructure constructed under PRDP was functioning and in use. Communi ties and sub-counties reported that better services were now being delivered. For example more classro oms have helped increase student enrolment, construction of staff quarters had greatly improved staff attendance, and boreholes have reduced the walking distances to water for women and girls. Where infrastructure was not in use, it was reported that that essential compone nts were lacking or that the district had not made the necessary complementary investments, for example r ecruitment of staff. For

example in Abia parish in Kuju sub-county (Amuria district) a road had been buil t but there were no culverts and it had not been finished with murram so it was deteriorating rapidly. In Ala ngo parish in Adwari subcounty (Otuke district) a health centre had been built by but there were no staf f so it was not operational. In nine sub-counties interventions had been abandoned before completion with lit tle information as to why this was. The MTR field teams also observed that infrastructure investments have not alway s translated into functional service delivery, due to lack of comprehensiveness of the infrastruct ure investments (e.g. classrooms built without provision for latrines, or health centres without staff houses) and/or due to a lack of provision of essential recurrent components e.g. lack of drugs in health cent res, or no police personnel

Lesson learned on Functionality of Investments A strong focus on physical infrastructure combined with an emphasis on output monitoring can lead to a bias away from the longer term objectives of investment functionality and service delivery. Infrastructure investments need to be compre hensive, and planning for recurrent items should go hand in hand with infrastructure plan ning. to accommodate in the staff housing (unipots) constructed. This points to a plan ning problem at District level, and the lack of involvement of the sectors indicated in the chapter on ef ficiency In a fifth of interventions community members said there was unequal access to t he (benefits) of the intervention. Some of these were inevitable as access to staff housing is, by it s very nature, restricted. However, there were other cases where access should not have been restricted. Fo r example, in Apac there was a case where parents were required to pay for report cards for students, for cing some children to drop out because they couldn t afford to pay. Disputes over access to interventions wer e also mentioned, with 16% of community leaders and 7% of women mentioning this as a problem. Disputes included fighting over queues for a borehole and also incidents related to non-beneficiaries fighting w ith beneficiaries. Taking this even further it was found that 6% of both community leaders and women believed t hat interventions had actually worsened relationships at the parish level. At the sub-county level, it was found that in 20% of sub-counties there have bee n one or more cases where PRDP activities have actually caused disputes within or between communities and also with contractors. For example: in Arinyapi sub-county in Adjumani district there have been dispute s between communities who have felt they have not benefited from interventions and those that have; in Lopei sub-county in Napak district there have been conflicts between contractors and communities and ; in Namalu sub-county in Nakipiripirit district there has been conflict over construction activities e ncroaching on people s land and soil being dumped. These incidences of conflict at both the parish and sub-county level are very si gnificant for the PRDP, given its focus on peace building, and suggest the need for planning and implementatio n to go beyond technocratic processes and be more conflict sensitive. This will enable peace bu ilding potential of all PRDP interventions to be maximised and will also ensure that they do not create confl icts in the very communities they are intended to support.

In terms of future needs, there is need for continued investment but with a focu s on the functionality of infrastructure on two levels. Firstly, infrastructure investments need to be com prehensive as per the sector guidelines (e.g. latrines provided for classrooms, placenta pits for maternity w ards, culverts for roads). Second, planning for recurrent items (staff, drugs) should go hand in hand with infrastructure planning. In addition an increased focus on the conflict sensitivity of interventions would e nsure their peace building potential is maximised rather than causing conflict. SO 3 - Revitalisation of the Economy Most sub-counties provide positive examples on how economic infrastructure espec ially roads has helped increase incomes. The roads are mainly smaller access roads built with la bour intensive methods. In 90% of cases completed infrastructure was being used; however 53% of communities were unaware of any provision that had been made for maintenance.

Only a third of the sub-counties knew of interventions aimed at farmers and only half of these have successfully addressed main problems of farmers according to sub-counties. These interventions were implemented by NGOs and special programmes under the PRDP (e.g. NUSAF). Sub-counties identified the following main problems facing farmers in their area : . poor roads and lack of market access for farmers (36 %). . lack of inputs (33 %). . lack of access to land for cultivation (22 %). Where interventions were known to have taken place, only 35% were considered to have improved farmer incomes. Where income had improved, the increase was, in some cases, due to incr eased yield allowing farmers to sell their surplus. For example in Atego sub-county in Nebbi Distict better seeds have resulted in higher yields allowing farmers to sell more. In view of the fact that income poverty is severe in the North and that a lack o f economic opportunities for youth is a conflict driver there is an urgent need for a much increased focus on revitalising the local economy. This should include increased funding for economic infrastructure and p rovision of contextspecific interventions targeted at farmers, as well as increasing awareness of t hese opportunities. SO 4 Peace building and Reconciliation

The majority of sub-counties classified themselves as relatively peaceful or peacef ul , with only one (in Kole district) classifying itself as un-peaceful and no sub-counties considering t hemselves as very unpeaceful . Land disputes and wrangles were the most often cited source of conflict with a t otal of 69% of sub-counties raising them as a problem. Of these, over half (52%) belong to the highest confl ict impact category (significantly conflict or cattle raiding affected), 27% to the middle category (sporadically affected) and 21% to the lowest category (conflict spill-over effects from neighbouring districts) . In over a quarter (27%) of the sub-counties surveyed representatives said that the frequency and seriousness of land disputes was increasing and others said there had been no improvement in the situation. The v olatility of this situation was illustrated in the escalation of tensions over land in Pader in 2010. Domestic violence, sexual and gender based violence and child abuse/neglect were frequently raised as sources of conflict. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of sub-counties stated that these issues were a source of conflict at some level. Half of these sub-counties were categorised as significa ntly conflict or cattle rustling

affected, 39 % as sporadically affected and only 11% as from districts suffering spill-over effects from neighbouring districts. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the sub-counties (in Agago, Amudat, Bukwo, Kitgum, Kotido, Moroto, and Nakipiripirit) cited cattle raiding/rustling/theft as a sign ificant source of conflict. Other conflict issues which were raised relatively frequently include theft (17%), alc ohol and drug abuse (15%), hunger/food insecurity (8%) and politics/political interference (8%). Unemployme nt, especially in relation to youth, was also an issue that was raised as problematic and is universally re cognised as a conflict driver. A number of initiatives were identified as having been established to address di spute/conflict issues. These include community policing, sensitisation by NGOs, capacity building of LC1 and LCIII to handle cases and the institution of local council courts. In addition increased police deployment and sensitisation of the

police on issues on such as how to handle domestic abuse and gender based violen ce cases have had a positive impact. However, while over 90% of sub-counties say that there has been some form of intervention aimed at addressing the conflicts and disputes they face they appea r to have been done on an ad hoc basis and over 30% of sub-counties (over half of these in Acholi and Lang o) believe that there has been no change in the conflicts that they face during the past two years.

Chart 3: Top Five Conflict Issues by Region13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AcholiBukediBunyoroElgonKaramojaLangoTesoWest NileLandGBVCattle raidingTheftAlco hol and Drug Abuse 13 Sub-county respondents were asked to identify the 3 key conflict issues exper ienced in the sub-county. The percentage (%) value is based on the number of sub-counties who identified an is sue out of the total number of subcounties surveyed in the region.

Nearly all of the sub-counties have access to information about issues affecting them, such as health and hygiene, HIV, land uses, access to justice and gender based violence. However, l ess than three quarters believe communities have access to information about the PRDP and other programm es and opportunities. The source of this information varies but, 27% of these sub-counties said they g ot information from the radio and 21% from local government officials at the sub-county or district. Less than half of the sub-counties stated that there were counselling services a vailable for community members and ex-combatants. The majority of these services appear to be provided by NGO s and community leaders but from the information gathered none of these seem to explic itly target excombatants or conflict-affected populations. Thirty percent (30%) of the service s provided are in subcounties in Karamoja, 20% in sub-counties in Acholi, 15% in West Nile, 10% in ea ch of Bukedi, Elgon and Teso and only 5% in Lango. While it is acknowledged that formal counselling may not be appropriate in some cases it was a provision made under PRDP and it should not be assumed that people are necessarily using other forums. Over 90% of sub-counties have, or have access to, a mechanism for dispute resolu tion and/or dialogue between communities. Dialogue mechanisms mentioned include peace meetings, dialo gue between elders and traditional leaders and discussions between clan leaders. In addition 80% of sub-counties have forums where dispute/conflict issues can be raised, these include some of the mechanism s above but also subcounty meetings, local council courts and community meetings.

Activities which focus on the socio-economic reintegration of ex-combatants were only found in 26% of the surveyed sub-counties (excluding activities undertaken in Karamoja under KIDDP). The majority of activities

mentioned focus on ex-combatants being given access to government programmes suc h as NAADS and NUSAF. Other activities mentioned on a one off basis include drama groups and he lp tracing families. Again it is acknowledged that these activities are not relevant in every district but the incidence does still appear to be low. In terms of future needs, community sensitisation was the top peace building pri ority given, with 50% of sub-counties identifying it as one of their priorities. Issues suggested for sen sitisation included: land issues, gender based violence, the importance of peace, dispute resolution and law and o rder. Specific activities related to improving/increasing policing and law and order were also mentioned b y a quarter of the subcounties and a number of suggestions, such as increasing police posts and the nu mbers of police deployed, overlap with those made under SO1. Almost a fifth of sub-counties prioritised the need to increase employment oppor tunities and income generating activities, especially for youth. The same number also said that more groups should be involved in peace building and dispute resolution; these included church leaders, clan le aders and local government officials. 3.4 PRDP Sustainability This section looks at two key areas, whether the interventions that have been im plemented have imbued sufficient ownership to make communities strive to make the investments last, an d whether conflict risks are being mitigated. One of the key measures for ensuring the sustainability of an intervention is to involve beneficiaries at community level in the planning and implementation from the outset as this gives a sense of ownership. This is the responsibility of Districts for interventions funded under the PRDP grant and special projects, and of NGOs and other donor implementing partners for off-budget interventions. Duri ng the survey, high levels of consultation prior to interventions were reported (community leaders r eported that this had taken place for 85% of the interventions and women found it had taken place for 75%). In addition communities contributed to implementation of most of the interventions (three quarters accor ding to the community leaders, and two thirds according to the women). However, it should be noted tha t these findings only relate to the investments that the communities identified as having been impleme nted as a part of the PRDP. As already noted, the majority of interventions identified by the communit y were implemented through the PRDP budget grant. It is not known whether there has been sufficient community participation in cases where interventions have taken place, but communities did

not recognise them as part of the PRDP. For the interventions identified by the communities, user groups have not been r outinely established where appropriate. Only 36% of interventions had sufficiently trained user group s, with road projects having the lowest level. This is a significant concern in terms of the sustainab ility of PRDP investments, and also implies that more needs to be done to strengthen community participation in project implementation. Maintenance is also a concern in this context as, across the board, provisions f or maintenance appear to be fairly ad hoc. These risks to sustainability can be mitigated by better involvem ent of beneficiaries in the implementation process especially be setting up, training and supporting user co mmittees.

Failure to analyse and address conflict drivers, such as land and reintegration, is also a concern. Better targeting of conflict drivers is also required, to avoid PRDP interventions exac erbating existing tensions or creating new ones.

Chapter 4: Recommendations Overall, the findings from the MTR indicate that affirmative action for the Nort h will remain relevant in the coming decade in order to help move the North towards the national average level of socio-economic indicators after the end of the current lifespan of the PRDP. It is not realisti c to expect to bring social and economic condition in the North into line with the rest of the country in just t hree years. The MTR recommendations are divided into two parts. In the first part, based on its findings, the MTR makes concrete recommendations on actions to improve the implementation and co-o rdination of the PRDP within its remaining time period up to the end of June 2012. In the second part, the MTR identifies a number of issues for consideration amongst key stakeholders when discussing whet her there should be a follow-on programme to the PRDP and, if so, what form it should take. Immediate Recommendations Measures to strengthen PRDP Coordination i. Coordination with sectors: The MTR has highlighted concerns that lack of adeq uate sectoral involvement in planning PRDP interventions has led to less than full functionali ty of infrastructure investments in some cases. In order to ensure better PRDP co-ordination with the sectors, and to ensure that infrastructure spending translates into improved service delivery, i t is recommended that OPM involve sectors in reviewing District PRDP work plans prior to their ap proval, to ensure that planned activities are consistent with the sectoral guidelines. ii. Coordination with NGOs: The OPM regional offices should holding monthly coor dination meetings with implementing NGOs, to improve information flow on off-budget activities, en sure greater NGO co-ordination with the PRDP framework, and to enable more systematic guidance an d planning on activities related to SO4 (Peace building and Conflict Resolution). The OPM regi onal offices should ensure that all districts conduct joint planning sessions with implementing part ners iii. Monitoring: The need for a comprehensive monitoring framework for the PRDP has been noted in this MTR, particularly with respect to the co-ordination of off-budget activitie s. The activities and outputs of special projects should be immediately incorporated into the district -level monitoring system already established by OPM for the PRDP grant. OPM should then endeavour to bring offbudget activites into the system as well. Development Partners funding the PRDP could also place an obligation on their implementing NGOs to report their activities to both Dist ricts and OPM, and consider penalties for non-compliant NGOs.

iv. Responsibility to inform communities: Implementing partners including NGOs s hould be obliged to systematically inform communities about the PRDP and how their interventions fit under it. Measures to strengthen PRDP implementation v. District capacity: The MTR has identified the lack of systematic attention to District capacity development needs as a weak point in PRDP implementation. This highlights the ne ed for stronger inter-agency initiatives for capacity development of PRDP districts, ensuring th at they which are tailored to their individual needs and take into account recent capacity assessm ents and existing funding from donor initiatives through the Ministry of Local Government and else where. The

Government should then engage in a dialogue with development partners on how the y provide support to any emerging gaps. vi. Funds for monitoring and supervision: The MTR has identified lack of specifi c funding for monitoring and supervision of investments under the PRDP grant as a potential co nstraint to investment quality, as Districts are expected to use existing monitoring funds t o supervise additional PRDP investments. It suggests that Districts are able to access PRDP funds for monitoring and supervision of PRDP investments at the district level. vii. Service provider capacity: The MTR recommend that the Ministry of Local Gov ernment and other relevant Government agencies such as the Ministry of Works and the PPDA are requ ested to identify ways of overcoming service provider capacity constraints. Options to be considered could include assisting local companies in developing their capacity or combining smal ler works into a larger tender to engage bigger construction companies from outside the area. Big ger companies could be obliged to take smaller local companies on board and to capacitate them . viii. Community participation: All PRDP implementers should be required to set u p, train and support community-level user committees where appropriate. OPM in conjunction with Distr icts could periodically conduct sample surveys to ensure that user committees have been est ablished and that maintenance plans are in place.

Issues for Consideration in Future Programming The issues identified by the MTR for consideration when discussing future PRDP p rogramming are divided into two main areas. The first set of issues address Programming Focus what the objectives and scope of the programme should be. The second set address Programming Approach the form th e programme should take. Both sets of issues need to be given full consideration when design ing any follow-on programme to the PRDP. Programming Focus i. Affirmative Action: Consider for how long affirmative programming for the Nor th is still needed in order to ensure resource mobilisation to help the North catch up with the rest o f the country. ii. Comprehensiveness: Consider how far the PRDP, or its follow-on programme, sh ould try to cover all the needs of the North or whether it should focus on a sub-set of priority i ssues. The findings from the MTR indicate that the breadth of the current PRDP has meant that it has acted more as a

strategic framework than a programming tool. Reducing the number of priorities t o be addressed could enhance programmatic co-ordination and focus. iii. Conflict Drivers: Consider how the programme can ensure that it better addr esses key conflict drivers, such as land issues, youth unemployment and reintegration in a more sys tematic way. Failure to mitigate these drivers could weaken the long-term sustainability of r ecovery in the North. iv. Economic Revitalisation: Consider how to give greater priority to activities related to economic development, including support to farming and support to developing the local co nstruction sector (including labour intensive construction of access roads).

Programming Approach v. Functionality: The MTR findings indicate that the primary focus of the PRDP t o date has been on infrastructure outputs. Future programming should endeavour to take a more holis tic approach, ensuring that infrastructure investments translate into functional service deliv ery. A key point would be to ensure better integration of investments into sector plans. vi. Sector involvement: Consider how best to involve the sectors in future progr amming. Options include mainstreaming affirmative action for the North into sectoral programmes, or designing a special programme similar to the current PRDP but with greater sectoral involvem ent. During the MTR, the importance of securing greater sectoral engagement in the implementatio n of PRDP activities, particularly ensuring adherence to sector guidelines and adequate pr ovision for the recurrent costs of infrastructure investments, was frequently raised. However, a clear concern was also expressed that if affirmative action for the North was integrated into main stream sectoral programming at the end of the current lifetime of the PRDP, the additionality pr ovided might be less easily tracked, and the North might in some way lose out in funding terms. vii. Donor funding: The MTR findings indicate that the scale of off-budget fundi ng has posed a significant problem for PRDP co-ordination. Government and Development Partners should engage in a dialogue on the necessary pre-conditions for bringing more donor fun ding on budget, and how to encourage greater donor harmonisation in off-budget funding. viii. Prioritisation according to District needs: Consider whether and how to ma intain the current PRDP approach which gives room to Districts to allocate funds according to their need s, in line with given criteria. ix. Sub-regional Differentiation: Consider whether to develop sub-regional progr amming within the overall plan so that it is better tailored to the different sub-regional needs, for example Teso and Bunyoro. x. Comprehensive Monitoring & Evaluation Framework: Ensure that a comprehensive M&E framework covering interventions financed through all funding streams, and invol ving Districts and communities, is agreed to by all stakeholders during the design phase. This shou ld include harmonised output reporting, as well as measurable outcome indicators for result s-based monitoring. xi. Risk Mitigation: Develop a system for risk monitoring, linked to the Monitor ing & Evaluation framework, in order to enable stakeholders to take action to mitigate risks as t hey materialise.

CONFLICT IMPACT KEY: Category 1: Severely conflict or cattle rustling affected Category 2: Sporadically conflict and/or cattle rustling affected Category 3: Conflict spillovers Annexes Annex 1: PRDP Districts & Municipalities by Sub-region and Conflict-impact rating

Annex 1 continued: PRDP Districts & Municipalities by Sub-region and Conflict-im pact rating

Annex 2: MTR Participants

1. Survey Field Teams Office of the Prime Minister Office of the President Police Prisons Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Water

2. Other Sector representatives who attended the Field Team pre-briefing on meth odology Ministry of Gender Ministry of Works Ministry of Finance Ministry of Local Government Amnesty Commission Deniva

3. Survey Field Team Observers Embassy of Ireland Embassy of Sweden Embassy of Norway GIZ Price Waterhouse Coopers

4. Development Partner consultations through the NURD Group

Norway EU JICA GIZ DfID

5. UN Agency consultations IOM UNHCR UNICEF WHO UNRCO

6. NGO Consultations IRC AVSI Norwegian Refugee Council ACF International

Goal International Alert ISIS-WICCE Refugee Law Project Saferworld Save the Children FIDA Caritas Uganda KIWEPE

7. Special Projects NUSAF 2

Annex 3: Districts, Sub-counties & Parishes covered by the MTR field survey

Annex 4: District Questionnaire

Questions to be asked to the CAO, the District Planner and the PRDP focal point: Area Questions Answers Comments Capacity to address issues of importance to communities:

In the District s view, how does it assess its capacity for: . participatory planning, . procurement . supervision of local investment project (schools, boreholes, roads)?

Participatory planning 1 2 3 4 weak adequate good strong

o Procurement

1 2 3 4

weak adequate good strong

o o Supervision of local investment project (schools, boreholes, roads)?

weak

2 3 4

adequate good strong

Have there been any initiatives in the last two years to improve capacity? Yes No If No, skip next two questions If yes, what kind of initiative have there been, and in what area? (please specify)

What impact have these initiatives had on capacity? No change Some change Substantial change

What do Districts consider to be their two biggest constraints to delivering services effectively 1 . 2

How could these constraints be addressed?

The nature of the PRDP grant In what ways does the District consider

compared to the other grants from central Government:

the PRDP grant to be different from other types of central Government funding to the District?

Does the District consider these differences to be positive or negative? Please explain

Positive Negative

Comments

Annex 5: Sub-county Questionnaire

Subcounty: Name of interviewer: Date: Strategic Objective Area and Guiding Questions: Question Answer Comments 0.1 Knowledge about PRDP

Are you aware of the existence of a programme called Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) implemented by government and by other development partners? Yes No If no skip the next 3 questions If yes What do you think it means and does?

Do you consider activities undertaken by NGOs as being under PRDP? Yes No

Have any activities been implemented under PRDP in your sub-county? List Activities:

SO1: Consolidation of state authority

1.1 Is law and order improving? What where the two main problems in terms of security and/or conflict two years ago? List the TWO problems

What are the two main security and/or conflict problems now? List the TWO problems

Do communities feel more safe/secure now than two years ago? More safe Less safe What has changed?

Is there a police presence in the sub-county? Yes No If no, skip next question Do people report security and/or conflict problems to the police? If not, why no t? Yes No

Details:

Who else do people report security problems too?

Is there the capacity to detain or handle law offenders in this sub-county? Yes No

Has this capacity improved over the last two years? Yes No What has changed?

What two things could be done to improve law and order in the sub-county?

List TWO things

Strategic Objective Area and Guiding Questions: Question Answer Comments SO2: Rebuilding and empowering communities

2.1 Are social infrastructures (health facilities, classrooms, staff houses, latrines, water supplies etc) constructed through PRDP aligned with the needs of communities? Were communities consulted when the facilities were planned?

Yes No If Yes who was consulted?

Did implementers take account of the communities Yes No

wishes?

2.2 Do communities contribute to construction and operation? Have communities taken part in construction/implementation activities Yes No

Do communities take any responsibility for operation/maintenance? Yes No

2.3 In cases where

infrastructure has already been completed is it contributing to the delivery of useful services?

Are the facilities that have been completed being used? (for example boreholes, latrines, schools etc) Yes No If yes skip next question If not in use, what is the problem? blem? and is something being done to solve the pro

Skip next Qn If in use, are more and better quality services for the community produced? If n ot, why not?

SO3: Revitalisation of the economy

3.1 Are economic infrastructures (access roads/bridges/culverts, markets or electrification) constructed through PRDP aligned with the needs of communities? Were communities consulted when the facilities were planned? Yes No If yes: who was consulted

Did implementers take account of the communities Yes No

wishes?

3.2 Do communities contribute to construction and operation? Have communities taken part in construction/implementation? Yes No

Do communities take any responsibility for operation/maintenance? Yes No

3.3 Completion and use of infrastructure

Is the infrastructure completed and is it being used? Yes No

Are you aware of any provisions for maintenance Yes No If yes, give details

If it is completed but not in use, what is the problem? one to solve the problem?

and is something being d

If it is in use, has it helped people increase their incomes? Yes No

Have you had experience of interventions that have been abandoned before completion?

Yes No If yes, give details

Strategic Objective Area and Guiding Questions: Question Answer Comments 3.4 Have farmers received support (inputs, credit, training/advice) from any mechanism apart from NAADs? Is this support helping to revitalise the local economy? What are the (three) major problems for local farmers who want to increase their incomes?

1. 2. 3.

What support has been provided?

Does the support provided help farmers to address these problems? Yes No

On what basis have beneficiaries of this support been selected? Do not know

3.5 Have local farmers who have received support been able to increase their incomes? Have local farmers who have received direct support been able to increase their production, produce something new, improve the quality of their products or been enabled to improve their market access? Yes No

Details:

Has this led to a sustainable increase in their incomes?

Yes No If yes, give details:

If incomes have not improved sustainably what are the reasons for this?

What two things could be done to improve the support given to farmers? List two things:

SO4: Peacebuilding and Reconciliation

How peaceful is this sub-county? Rank from 1-4 where: 1 Very unpeaceful - serious conflicts and disputes happen regularly 2 Unpeaceful serious conflicts and disputes do happen but not often. 3 Relatively peaceful conflicts and disputes happen regularly but they are not serious 4 Peaceful conflicts and disputes don t happen very often.

What are the three main sources of conflict and dispute here? 1 2 . 3

Has this changed over the last two years? Yes No Comments

Have there been any interventions aimed at addressing these conflict and dispute s?

Yes No If yes, what?

Are there any mechanisms for managing ongoing conflict risks? Yes No If yes, details:

Strategic Objective Area and Guiding Questions: Question Answer Comments

Do local radio broadcasts include programmes on reconciliation/peace building activities? Yes No

4.3 Counseling services Are counseling services available for community members and ex-combatants? Yes No If yes, who from?

4.4 Community dispute resolution, reconciliation and dialogue

Are there any mechanisms for dispute resolution and for dialogue between communities? Yes No If yes, give details:

Have there been any examples of where PRDP activities have actually caused dispu tes within or between communities? Yes No If yes, give details

Are there any forums where disputes/conflict issues can be raised and discussed? Yes No If yes, give details:

Are there any specific reconciliation activities ongoing?

Yes No If yes, give details:

Annex 6: Parish Questionnaire

Subcounty: Parish: Name of interviewer: Date: Introductory Questions: Q1 Have you heard of the Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP)?

Yes

No If no: Give brief explanation of the PRDP to the interviewees and explain why you are asking these questions. Then skip the next question Q2 If yes: What do you think it is and what does it do?

Q3 What health, education, water & roads and agricultural interventions have been implemented here in the last two years? Who supported/funded them?

If none skip to Q4

If there have been interventions, list them.

Q4 What other activities, such as socio-economic reintegration, counseling or gender based violence programmes, have been implemented in the last two years? Who supported/funded them? List activities:

If none either:

Go to question 5 if none were listed for Q3 either.

If interventions were listed under question 3 go to next page. ONLY ASK Q5 6 if no interventions were listed under Q3. If interventions were li sted go to next page Q5 Has anyone been here to discuss projects with you?

Yes No

If yes, give details

Q6 Do you have any problems accessing facilities in neighbouring parishes? Yes No

If yes, please give details: FINISH QUESTIONS

(INTERVENTION 1 ) Type of intervention: Location of Intervention:

Who supported/funded the work (Indicate name of programme or of the NGO. In case of NGO indicate donor, if kno wn)

Question No. Question Answer Additional Comments

Was there enough consultation about the type of intervention with the beneficiaries? Yes/No

If

yes , how and who was involved:

If no, what could be improved?

2 Did the implementer take into account what was said?

Yes / No

Comments

3 Who implemented the work? Do you think they did a good job?

4 Has the community contributed to the intervention activity in any way?

Yes/No

If yes; indicate with what: For example, building materials/labour/funds/other s pecify

5 Has the intervention been completed? Yes/No

If

no what is still outstanding?

6 If the intervention has been completed, has it been useful? If it involved construction of infrastructure, is it functioning? Yes/No

If

no what is the problem?

For infrastructure - How long has it been broken and is something being done to solve the problem?

7 Has the intervention improved the situation for people in the community?

Yes/No

If not, why not?

8 Has the intervention led to better or worse Better / Worse

relationships in the parish?

Why? 9 Has a user committee been established, where appropriate? Yes/No

Not appropriate If no or not appropriate skip to number 13