[TABLE OF CONTENTS 1](#__RefHeading___Toc160117207)

[I. REQUIREMENTS 5](#i.-requirements)

[II. PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
5](#ii.-purpose-of-the-request-for-proposals-rfp)

[III. PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED 6](#iii.-problem-to-be-addressed)

[A. Basic Trends in Agriculture and Poverty Reduction
6](#a.-basic-trends-in-agriculture-and-poverty-reduction)

[B. Constraints to Enhanced Productivity and Transformation
7](#b.-constraints-to-enhanced-productivity-and-transformation)

[IV. STRATEGIC RESPONSE AND ANTICIPATED RESULTS
9](#iv.-strategic-response-and-anticipated-results)

[A. The Government of Uganda's Policy and Implementation Framework
9](#a.-the-government-of-ugandas-policy-and-implementation-framework)

[B. USAID's Integrated Strategic Plan (2002-2007)
9](#b.-usaids-integrated-strategic-plan-2002-2007)

[C. Other Principal Donors in Agriculture
10](#c.-other-principal-donors-in-agriculture)

[V. USAID PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
11](#v.-usaid-program-background-and-context)

[A. Program Background and Performance
11](#a.-program-background-and-performance)

[B. SO7 and Key Intermediate Results
11](#b.-so7-and-key-intermediate-results)

[.
13](#development-of-elements-and-related-activities-as-well-as-a-performance-monitoring-plan-specific-to-apep-with-so--and-ir-level-indicators-benchmarks-targets-and-monitoring-arrangements-are-two-contractor-deliverables.-indicators-and-targets-in-addition-to-those-in-the-pmp-may-be-proposed-where-they-clearly-serve-management-needs.-to-the-extent-that-proposed-apep-activities-will-have-some-direct-or-secondary-impact-on-so8-and-9-irs-such-effects-should-be-indicated.-the-apep-contractor-will-work-closely-with-the-mission-wide-monitoring-and-evaluation-contractor-the-so7-team-and-the-mission-performance-monitoring-and-evaluation-officer-to-assure-that-data-collection-collation-and-synthesis-and-dissemination-activities-under-the-contract-meet-usaids-needs.)

[C. SO7 Program Composition 13](#c.-so7-program-composition)

[D. Objective of APEP 14](#d.-objective-of-apep)

[E. Illustrative APEP Elements and Implementation Arrangements
15](#e.-illustrative-apep-elements-and-implementation-arrangements)

[**1.** **APEP Elements** 15](#apep-elements)

[**2. Implementation Arrangements** 16](#implementation-arrangements)

[F. Program Integration Strategy 17](#f.-program-integration-strategy)

[**1.** **Relationship to Relevant GOU Institutions and SO7 Partners**
17](#relationship-to-relevant-gou-institutions-and-so7-partners)

[**2. USAID SO7 Program Integration**
17](#usaid-so7-program-integration)

[**3.** **Integrating SO7 Implementation**
20](#integrating-so7-implementation)

[VI. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES 20](#vi.-tasks-and-deliverables)

[Design Phase 1 20](#design-phase-1)

[Design Phase 2 21](#design-phase-2)

[**A. Design Deliverables:** 21](#a.-design-deliverables)

[**B. Implementation Deliverables:**
22](#b.-implementation-deliverables)

[VII. PROPOSAL PREPARATION 22](#vii.-proposal-preparation)

[A. Questions Related to the RFP 22](#a.-questions-related-to-the-rfp)

[B. Content and Schedule for Preparation
22](#b.-content-and-schedule-for-preparation)

[**TECHNICAL** 23](#technical)

[**STAFF** 24](#staff)

[**PAST PERFORMANCE** 25](#past-performance)

[**COST** 25](#cost)

[VIII. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR CONTRACT AWARD
25](#viii.-evaluation-factors-for-contract-award)

[ANNEX A](#annex-a): [SUMMARY OF CORE PROGRAMS AND TRANSITION ACTIVITIES
31](#summary-of-core-programs-and-transition-activities)

[Core Programs and Transition Activities
31](#core-programs-and-transition-activities)

[Transition Activities 35](#transition-activities)

[Special Washington Initiatives 36](#special-washington-initiatives)

[ANNEX B](#annex-b): [SELECTED REFERENCE
DOCUMENTS](#selected-reference-documents) [USAID's Program in Uganda:
Results Review and Resource Request: FY 2003
38](#usaids-program-in-uganda-results-review-and-resource-request-fy-2003)

[ANNEX D:](#annex-d) [ILLUSTRATIVE INDICATORS FOR APEP
39](#illustrative-indicators-for-apep)

[ANNEX E:](#annex-e) [PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT
41](#program-implementation-context)

[**A. Guidelines and Lessons Learned for Managing Implementation:**
41](#a.-guidelines-and-lessons-learned-for-managing-implementation)

[**B. Transition from the Previous Strategy to the New SO7 Strategy:**
43](#b.-transition-from-the-previous-strategy-to-the-new-so7-strategy)

[**C. Program and Institutional Relationships with Partners and Other
Donors**
43](#c.-program-and-institutional-relationships-with-partners-and-other-donors)

[ACRONYMS]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

# 

# 

# ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/

Volunteers in Oversees Cooperative Assistance

**AFRENA** Agroforestry Research Network for Africa

# AGOA Africa Growth and Opportunity Act

**AHI** African Highlands Initiative

**APEP** Agriculture Productivity Enhancement Program

**ASARECA** Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in
Eastern and Southern Africa

**CARE** Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere

**CBOs** Community-based Organizations

**CIAT** International Center for Tropical Agriculture

**COMPETE** Competitive Private Enterprise and Trade Expansion

**CRS** Catholic Relief Services

**DANIDA** Danish International Development Agency

**DFID** Department for International Development

**FEWS** Famine Early Warning System

**GDA** Global Development Alliance

**GOU** Government of Uganda

**ICRAF** International Center for Research in Agroforestry

**IDEA** Investment in Developing Export Agriculture

**IEE** Initial Environmental Examination

**IFPRI** International Food Policy Research Institute

**IITA** International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

**IR** Intermediate Result

**ISP** Integrated Strategic Plan

**MSMEs** Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

**MTCS** Medium-Term Competitive Strategy

**NAADS** National Agriculture Advisory Services

**NARO** National Agricultural Research Organization

**NGO** Non-Governmental Organization

**NTAEs** Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports

**PEAP** Poverty Eradication Action Plan

**PMA** Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture

**PMP** Performance Monitoring Plan

**PRIME** Productive Resource Investments for Managing the Environment

**RFP** Request for Proposals

**SCRIP** Strategic Criteria for Rural Investments in Productivity

**SO** Strategic Objective

**SPEED** Support for Private Enterprise Expansion and Development

**TRADE** Trade for African Development program

U-TRADE Uganda Trade Revitalization and Diversification of Exports

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

STATEMENT OF WORK AND ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET

# I. REQUIREMENTS

> Design and implementation of the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement
> Program.

# II. PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

> The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals from interested
> bidders, providing USAID/Uganda with the basis for selecting a
> contractor to design the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program
> (APEP). Should USAID accept the design, the contract will be modified
> to incorporate implementation, and the contractor will proceed to
> implement the program. This RFP provides guidance for proposal
> preparation, and specifies deliverables for both design and
> implementation.
>
> APEP is one of three core programs to expand and develop sustainable
> economic opportunities for rural growth in Uganda, approved as
> Strategic Objective #7 in USAID's new Integrated Strategic Plan
> (2002-2007). Raising agricultural productivity in ways which sustain
> and enhance Uganda's natural resource endowments is a key aspect of
> this objective. APEP will focus on selected commodity and farming
> systems in geographic locales offering significant prospects for
> increased productivity and commercialization. This, in turn will
> generate increased income and employment. It will build upon and
> continue USAID's successful past efforts in food and cash crops, and
> in strengthening private sector input supply, market development and
> technology applications.
>
> In conceiving the design of APEP, proposals should take into account
> the overall program context and key principles in relation to managing
> implementation arrangements. First, the proposals should consider
> lessons learned from the previous USAID strategy, and build upon
> successful models. Second, the proposals should demonstrate an
> understanding of USAID/Uganda's transition to a new strategy with
> larger but fewer implementation instruments. Third, the proposals
> should demonstrate an understanding of the difference in the manner in
> which USAID operates as compared to other donors and consequently the
> need to develop effective coordination and communication with other
> donors and Ugandan stakeholders. Fourth, the proposals must
> demonstrate effective coordination and working relationships with
> other SO7 transition activities and other new core programs.
>
> Through its experience with past and present programs and as a
> bi-product of the recent lengthy analytical process in preparing the
> ISP, the Mission has developed a set of guidelines for managing
> implementation, which offerors should take into account when
> developing their proposals. These factors, which we believe contribute
> to more successful programs, involve a number of principles including,
> *inter alia*, 1) establishing an enabling environment through close
> relationships with the GOU, 2) making effective use of NGOs and
> private sector partners, 3) building Ugandan public and private
> capacity to ensure growth and sustainability, 4) paying attention to
> cross-cutting issues which affect virtually all activities, and 5)
> managing a smaller number of larger programs, often through consortium
> and partner arrangements, which translate to fewer management units
> contracted directly to USAID. More complete coverage and treatment of
> these guidelines can be found in Annex E.
>
> USAID anticipates a ten week design phase commencing in January, 2003
> and a five year implementation period beginning in May, 2003. **(NOTE:
> Mission may decide to alter these dates.)** The program contract will
> be awarded for a two step design process and an implementation period
> of five years provided USAID approves the design. The successful
> offeror must be prepared to field its design team quickly. Because of
> the length of time devoted to the design phase, USAID expects rapid
> mobilization for implementation.

# III. PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED

## A. Basic Trends in Agriculture and Poverty Reduction 

> Uganda's economy showed remarkable growth during the 1990s, with an
> average GDP growth rate of 6.6 percent sustained over a nine year
> period through 2000/01. Although agriculture's share of GDP is
> declining, it still employs the majority of the rural population and
> contributes 80-90 percent of the value of exports. Uganda's economic
> growth has been coupled with a marked reduction in poverty from 56
> percent in 1992/93 to 35 percent in 1999/2000. However, this growth
> can neither be sustained nor translated into further reductions in
> poverty over the long-term unless agricultural productivity and rural
> off-farm job opportunities increase significantly.
>
> Although poverty declined dramatically in Uganda during the 1990s,
> incidence is still four times as great in rural as in urban areas.
> Within rural areas, poverty remains high and virtually unchanged among
> those engaged in non-crop agriculture (livestock, fishing). Food crop
> farmers experience lower standards of living, with 46 percent
> categorized as poor, compared to cash crop farmers, 34 percent of whom
> are poor.
>
> Analysis conducted for USAID's new Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP)
> classifies arable land in Uganda in three categories in the following
> approximate proportions: very good (25 percent), moderate (50
> percent), poor (25 percent). About 50 percent of Uganda's arable land
> is actually under cultivation. Hence, at least 25 percent of the
> country's good or moderately arable land is not being cultivated, much
> of it probably in the North, and most of it probably in the moderately
> arable category. It is the underutilized moderately arable land that
> would merit greater analysis with respect to potential for future
> expansion of agriculture, in terms of where it is located and what
> cropping patterns are most suitable. However, Uganda's northern
> districts have suffered from conflict for many years. Although the
> situation there appears to be improving, instability and uncertainty
> prevail in many parts of the region. Several hundred thousand
> internally displaced people reside in camps across the North, their
> ability to farm severely curtailed.
>
> Low productivity, unsustainable resource exploitation, and lack of
> competitiveness are the key problems Uganda must address in order to
> sustain a rate of economic growth that will permit continued
> reductions in poverty. In agriculture, production gains have been
> attributable primarily to expansion of cultivated area rather than
> through better management of land already under production. [Uganda
> and its people desperately need to develop more effective and
> environmentally sound land use systems to reverse the country's
> long-term decline in environmental quality and low
> productivity.]{.mark} Unregulated agricultural expansion, spurred by
> population growth and low agricultural productivity, has been a major
> cause of diminishing and degrading forests, savannas, and wetlands,
> and loss of ecotourism assets over recent decades. This is so
> particularly in Southwestern and Western Uganda. Integrating sound
> natural resources management and alternative land use options is
> critical to any strategy for sustainable rural economic growth.

##  B. Constraints to Enhanced Productivity and Transformation 

Enhancing agricultural productivity and the transformation to
commercialization are hindered by a number of critical constraints. Soil
fertility is being depleted, and organic and chemical fertilizer use is
far from sufficient. Lack of direct access for small-holder farmers to
markets is compounded by high transportation, power and "transaction"
costs, and a dearth of marketing information. Alternative technologies
and farming systems offer much promise, but are not widely applied. Only
a small percentage of rural households receive even sporadic technical
assistance and marketing advice. Although credit availability has
increased considerably, access of farmer associations and entrepreneurs
to financing, unsecured credit in particular, is problematic. Land
fragmentation and ownership and control issues plague agriculture.

Some of these constraints point to policy issues which are part of a
larger, unfinished agenda of policy development. Much progress has been
made in this arena, but policy gaps and weaknesses are still
constraining.

> Institutional weaknesses and challenges persist. Augmenting and
> refreshing Uganda's reservoir of professional and specialized skills
> for its drive to spur rural economic growth is very important. This is
> at least as essential for private sector as for public sector
> specialists. The government's institutional framework for a new,
> decentralized approach to agricultural research and technology
> delivery is in transformation, with substantial donor funding
> available. The process is not complete. The private sector lacks the
> capacity to assume the lead in delivering the technology and inputs
> such as seeds and fertilizer needed to boost productivity and cash
> crop farming. At the local level, a critical constraint is the dearth
> of producer and marketing associations and related local advocacy
> groups organized and empowered with the human and capital resources to
> effectively pursue their interests.
>
> Creating implementation mechanisms and contractor/partner
> relationships that ensure an integrated approach to land use, natural
> resources management and rural economic growth objectives will be
> essential, or their absence will become a constraint. The aim is to
> achieve and maintain integration in identifying and pursuing selected
> commodities and farming systems where highest productivity and income
> gains will catalyze agricultural transformation. The results will be
> evident in more households and small holders with increased income, an
> increased proportion of rural labor engaged in off-farm employment,
> and expansion of rural micro, small and medium enterprise. Achieving
> these objectives will require collaboration among those programs and
> partners focusing on the demand side (i.e. marketing and exports) with
> those addressing the supply side (i.e. land use).
>
> The ISP identifies several issues that cut across the USAID portfolio.
> These issues are gender, HIV/AIDS, food security, conflict,
> information and communications technology, and regional trade. These
> issues pose serious constraints to enhancing agricultural
> productivity, and opportunities must be sought to address them in APEP
> activities. The impact of conflict in the North has been noted above.
> The gender issue for APEP is that women head over a quarter of
> Uganda's rural households, yet rarely have secure tenure over the land
> and other resources they need to ensure their livelihood. Women
> provide the bulk of agricultural labor and produce most of the food
> Ugandans consume, but their labor is rarely compensated and they often
> have no control over the disposition of what they produce. Over half
> of adult women are illiterate, and earlier school drop out rates are
> more prevalent among females than males. High levels of adult
> mortality and morbidity from HIV/AIDS contribute to increased
> dependency and declining agricultural productivity, and affect the
> viability of enterprise.

#  IV. STRATEGIC RESPONSE AND ANTICIPATED RESULTS

##  A. The Government of Uganda's Policy and Implementation Framework

> Over the past five years The Government of Uganda (GOU) has developed
> a strong set of policies and programs to sustain economic growth and
> alleviate poverty. The 1997 *Poverty Eradication Action Plan* (PEAP)
> targets reduction of poverty to 10 percent by 2017. It aims to do so
> by creating an enabling environment for rapid, sustainable economic
> growth and structural transformation; increasing ability of the poor
> to raise their income and quality of life; and ensuring good
> governance and security. The Poverty Action Fund, created in 1998,
> expends international debt relief and other funds in support of PEAP
> income and quality of life objectives. A *Medium-Term Competitiveness
> Strategy* (MTCS) to address economic growth objectives was published
> in 1999. It is intended to eliminate the major remaining constraints
> to private sector growth, including competitiveness in regional and
> world markets. The agenda includes commercial justice reform,
> privatization of electrical power, strengthening the financial sector,
> liberalizing trade-related policies and harmonizing them with regional
> trading partners.
>
> The *Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture* (PMA), issued in 2000,
> describes specific areas for attention to transform agriculture and
> make it the engine for economic growth.
>
> The PMA delineates public sector and private sector roles. It
> articulates a broad strategy founded, *inter alia*, on
> decentralization and interaction at the local level of farmer and
> marketing associations with public and private sector service
> providers. The decentralization thrust also entails substantial
> financial transfers from the central government to the districts. The
> newly constituted National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) will
> be a conduit for such transfers, applied to PMA implementation.
>
> NAADS is to be a principal player in the government's institutional
> framework for implementing the PMA. It is to take a demand-driven
> approach to delivering technical services, responding to needs
> identified by farmer associations. NAADS will make funds available to
> these associations to enable them, essentially, to contract with and
> pay NAADS to deliver the technical services farmers determine they
> require. NAADS is paired with the National Agriculture Research
> Organization (NARO). NARO is an established entity, arguably with a
> more "traditional", top-down approach to its research agenda. How the
> NAADS and NARO interdependence will play out in implementing the PMA
> thus remains to be seen. How NAADS will succeed in reorienting its
> technical staff, presumably to be drawn from the existing public
> sector cadre accustomed to the old approach to extension, is also a
> question. Building the capacity of small producer organizations to
> engage with NAADS in the new process, and to access commercial sources
> of finance, is another challenge. Clearly, these processes and
> institutional relationships will take time to take hold and become
> effective.

## B. USAID's Integrated Strategic Plan (2002-2007)

> There is a compelling need for an integrated approach to land use
> development in Uganda that can simultaneously strengthen environmental
> conservation, promote growth in rural productivity and incomes, and
> increase agricultural productivity and exports. Addressing these needs
> in a comprehensive way in its new ISP, USAID has merged its
> environment and economic growth objectives under a single Strategic
> Objective, SO7.
>
> With the overarching goal of assisting Uganda to reduce mass poverty,
> the ISP directly aligns USAID assistance with Uganda's development
> goals in the PEAP. Three mutually reinforcing SOs will contribute to
> mass poverty reduction, building upon accomplishments under the
> previous strategic plan. SO7 is the first of the new interrelated
> objectives: to expand sustainable economic opportunities for rural
> sector growth. SO7 is aligned with the PMA, MTCS, and emerging
> environmental/ natural resources policy frameworks. Increases in
> income and reduction of poverty in the geographic areas to be selected
> for SO7 will improve prospects for achievement of the other two SOs.
>
> SO8, improved human capacity, focuses particularly on delivery and use
> of more effective social services, especially education and health.
> Increases in household and small holder income can enable these target
> groups to gain access to education and use available health services.
> A better educated, healthier rural populace is a greatly strengthened
> resource for agricultural productivity and transformation. SO9, more
> effective and participatory governance, pursues effective devolution
> of power to the local level, separation of powers at the national
> level, and conflict mitigation. Decentralization of authority is vital
> for more responsive, demand-driven services required for agricultural
> commercialization. All three SO7 core programs could furnish
> opportunities to involve Ugandan parliamentarians in policy areas
> which may require enabling legislation. SO7's focus on strengthening
> producer and marketing groups and related community-based associations
> will enhance advocacy and participation in public issues. Similarly,
> SO7's Title II program contributes to food security and dietary
> diversity in communities affected by HIV/AIDS (SO8) and by conflict
> (SO9).

## C. Other Principal Donors in Agriculture 

> Denmark, through DANIDA's Agriculture Sector Program, provides
> assistance for training and education, research, household-level
> production, rural financial services, and support for the Ministry of
> Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. The World Bank program in
> agriculture focuses on the research and extension systems. The Bank is
> a lead supporter of development of NAADS and NARO. It's program has a
> substantial institutional and human capacity building aspect, some of
> which is commodity-specific and some spread more broadly across the
> sector. Commodity development (e.g. cotton) has also been a focus. The
> United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) also
> provides budget support to NAADS, and supports research and training
> for specific commodity development. Application of technology and farm
> inputs is another component of DFID's agriculture program. DFID and
> DANIDA were the principal sources of donor assistance in preparing the
> PMA.
>
> Several donor groups are organized around shared interests in, or
> related to, agriculture such as the Private Sector,
> Environment/Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Commercial Justice
> Donor Groups.

# V. USAID PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

## A. Program Background and Performance

USAID's previous strategic plan (1997-2001) contained two strategic
objectives particularly germane as foundations for an enhanced level of
effort under SO7 and its three core programs. Program performance in
increasing rural incomes under the prior strategic plan, briefly
summarized here, is documented in detail in the Mission's annual Results
Review and Resources Requests (R4s) for the last three years.

Through programs that fostered increased agricultural production and
productivity, enhanced food security, availability of financial
services, and policy reforms, the income of participating households in
selected areas doubled. Another emphasis has been on high value
non-traditional agricultural exports, where the program directly
contributed to growth in these exports from \$8.9 million in 1995 to
\$23.1 million in 2000. The companion focus on lower value commodities -
milk, oilseeds, maize, beans and cassava - resulted in steady increases
in production and productivity and a 46 percent reduction in production
costs. Participation in micro-enterprise programs and access to
micro-finance institutions have also been important features, as well as
policy dialogue with the GOU focused on, among other things,
competitiveness of agricultural exports. These successes were based on a
private sector strategy working with farmers, producer groups,
stockists, and agribusinesses.

The second objective has been to conserve critical ecosystems in order
to sustain biological diversity and enhance benefits to society.
Establishment of a policy framework supportive of these conservation
efforts has also been a component. The program has led to a nearly
fourfold expansion of ecosystems under improved management, some of
which have pioneered "resource agreements" with adjacent communities.
Promoting ecotourism and agroforestry have been related aspects of the
program, which is centered in Southwestern Uganda.

###  

## B. SO7 and Key Intermediate Results

APEP will be a principal contributor to achievement of the SO7 objective
and Intermediate Results (IRs). Highlighted in bold are the IRs to which
APEP is expected to contribute most substantially and which are
priorities in terms of allocation of APEP resources.

**Strategic Objective #7: Expanded sustainable economic opportunities
for rural sector growth.**

Performance indicators:

-   **1. Household income in selected regions**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **2. Number of off-farm enterprises**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **3. Employment generation in on- and off-farm enterprises**

IR 7.1 Increased Food Security for Vulnerable Populations in Selected
Regions

-   **IR 7.1.1 Increased Use of Food Production Technologies**

-   IR 7.1.2 Improved Food Aid Support to People Living with HIV AIDS
    and the AIDS Affected in Selected Regions

> **IR 7.2 Increased Productivity of Agricultural Commodity and Natural
> Resource Systems in Selected Regions**

-   **IR 7.2.1 Improved Utilization of Selected Critical Landscapes**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **IR 7.2.2 Increased Market Access and Efficiency of Rural
    Enterprises**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **IR 7.2.3 Increased Provision of Private and Public Sector Support
    Services**

**IR 7.3 Increased Competitiveness of Enterprises in Selected Sectors**

-   **IR 7.3.1 Increased Capacity of Local Producer and Community-based
    Organizations to Manage and Market Productive Assets**

######## **IR 7.3.2 Increased Business Capacity in Selected Areas**

-   **IR 7.3.3 Increased Use of Financial Services by Rural Producers,
    Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, and Microfinance Institutions**

###### IR 7.4 Improved Enabling Environment for Broad-based Growth

-   IR 7.4.1 Increased Capacity of Commercial Justice Institutions to
    Service Private Sector Transactions

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IR 7.4.2 Increased Capacity of Ugandans to Participate in the
    Benefits of Trade Agreements and Impacts of Globalization

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **IR 7.4.3 Effective Advocacy for Environmental and Natural Resource
    Policies**

> The ISP contains the Mission Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP),
> including indicators to measure progress toward each Intermediate
> Result (See Annex D). APEP will be the principal contributor to IR
> 7.2, but will contribute significantly to IRs 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.
>
> [Some clear APEP priorities with respect to the three SO7 indicators
> and IRs emerge. Improved land use (IR 7.2.1) is at the heart of the
> SO7 and APEP strategy for enhancing productivity and commercialization
> on an environmentally sustainable basis. Collaboration with the
> International Food Policy Research Institute activity for analysis of
> land use options, outlined elsewhere in this document, will be
> fundamentally important to achieving IR 7.2.]{.mark}
>
> Increasing business capacity is a clear area of emphasis (IR 7.3.2). A
> growing number of on- and off-farm enterprises will be essential to
> the employment and household income improvements SO7 seeks (IR 7.2.2).
> Within the micro-to-medium range of enterprise, the small and medium
> enterprises are likely to have the biggest impact on employment and
> income. Sufficient growth in off-farm enterprise can draw
> under-productive farm labor from units of land too small or marginal
> to provide household food security or to cultivate efficiently.
> Enterprises dealing in cash crops, particularly value-added
> processing, and that can ensure both growing demand for and reliable
> supply of quality products are vital for both commercialization and
> competitiveness (IR 7.3).
>
> Strengthening private and public sector services that support
> agricultural growth and transformation also warrants particular
> attention (IR 7.2.3). Good progress is being made in extending the
> outreach of commercial financing entities into rural Uganda. However,
> marketing services and systems need much attention in order to improve
> productivity and induce agricultural commercialization. These include
> enterprises in technology and input supply (e.g. improved seed,
> fertilizer[, pesticides,]{.mark} impliments) that can also furnish
> instruction in best practices and technology application (IR 7.1.1).
> Information and communication technology offers great opportunity for
> impact, and is another sorely needed service for rural market access
> and efficiency (IR 7.2.2).
>
> Local producer associations and CBOs must be increased not just in
> number but in their capacity to create bankable proposals for
> commodity development and marketing that can capture newly available
> private and public sector financing, and can advocate effectively
>
> (IRs 7.3.3 and 7.4.3).
>
> In addition to the central focus on SO7, there are also potential
> links to certain IRs in SO8 (Education and Health) and SO9
> (Governance). For SO8 these include building capacity of
> community-based organizations for advocacy, and provision of non-food
> aid services to food aid clients in the Title II HIV/AIDS program. For
> SO9 those IRs regarding enabling legislation and other parliamentary
> action, financial resources released to local governments and their
> compliance with legislative requirements, dispute resolution and
> policy environment are relevant.

### Development of elements and related activities as well as a performance monitoring plan specific to APEP, with SO- and IR-level indicators, benchmarks, targets and monitoring arrangements are two contractor deliverables. Indicators and targets in addition to those in the PMP may be proposed where they clearly serve management needs. To the extent that proposed APEP activities will have some direct or secondary impact on SO8 and 9 IRs, such effects should be indicated. The APEP contractor will work closely with the Mission-wide monitoring and evaluation contractor, the SO7 team and the Mission Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to assure that data collection, collation and synthesis, and dissemination activities under the contract meet USAID's needs.

## C. SO7 Program Composition

To address the problems identified in Section III, and to promote
achievement of the IRs listed above, SO7 will implement three new core
programs. The Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program focuses on
increasing productivity and commercialization. The Productive Resource
Investments for Managing the Environment (PRIME) program focuses on
increasing economic opportunities through more productive,
environmentally sustainable use of Uganda's natural resource assets. The
Uganda Trade Revitalization and Diversification of Exports program
(U-TRADE) aims at expanding and diversifying Uganda's exports, and
building the country's competitiveness in key export sectors.

While each of SO7's three core programs has a distinct primary
objective, each also contributes to the objectives of the others and to
the overarching SO7 objective. They address interrelated problems and
issues. The core programs are therefore to be interactive and
complementary. Strategic Criteria for Rural Investments in Productivity
(SCRIP), implemented by IFPRI, is a stand-alone support activity through
the ISP period. SCRIP's analytic agenda is focused on land use options
and related productivity potential in selected commodity/farming
systems.

In addition to APEP, PRIME and U-TRADE, the new program carries forward
for a limited time some key activities from the period of the previous
strategy. Investment in Developing Export Agriculture (IDEA), Support
for Private Enterprise Expansion and Development (SPEED), Competitive
Private Enterprise and Trade Expansion (COMPETE) and Dairy are those
most germane to APEP. PL 480 Title II is a major resource for food
security. Title II will continue throughout the strategy period, and
will also have strong linkages to APEP.

Through SO7, USAID/Uganda intends to respond to new initiatives from
AID/Washington, and access resources available through them.
Specifically, the Administrator's Initiative for Agriculture increases
the proportion of assistance AID devotes to agriculture and sustainable
natural resources management. It establishes priorities for use of this
assistance which APEP's illustrative elements will support. The Trade
for African Development program (TRADE) is an Africa Bureau initiative
which supports USAID country strategies for building capacity for
long-term, sustainable trade and investment development. Countries will
be selected on the basis of the strength of five year trade and
investment strategies submitted by field Missions. USAID/Uganda has
applied for priority country status with TRADE. The Global Development
Alliance (GDA) recognizes that over the past twenty years, NGOs, PVOs,
cooperatives, foundations, corporations, the higher education community,
and even individuals, now provide development assistance. The GDA seeks
to facilitate and catalyze public-private alliances which integrate
resources, expertise, creative approaches and new technologies in
pursuing common development objectives. USAID/Uganda would like to
access GDA, and proposals are encouraged to identify those activities
with the potential to do so. Summary descriptions of PRIME, U-TRADE, the
transition activities, Title II and the AID/W initiatives are found in
Annex A.

The proposal will explain how the offeror will incorporate in APEP
design and implementation successful technology applications, analytic
and research products, key partner relationships, and lessons of
experience from USAID's current agriculture, export promotion and
natural resources management activities. The proposal will specifically
address how the program and operations management transition from IDEA
to APEP will be dealt with in designing APEP. It will describe how APEP
interacts operationally and programmatically with related programs and
activities: SPEED, COMPETE, Dairy, Title II, IFPRI/SCRIP, U-TRADE and
PRIME.

##  D. Objective of APEP 

> The objective of APEP is to expand rural economic opportunities, and
> contribute to transformation of Ugandan agriculture through enhanced
> productivity and commercialization. Increasing production of selected
> commodities and use of farming systems which are most competitive on
> the market and yield highest gains, and which catalyze agricultural
> transformation is the path APEP will pursue. The program will seek to
> move a substantial number of small-holder, subsistence farmers to a
> commercial and profitable orientation and, in the process, accelerate
> the expansion of non-traditional agricultural exports, both high value
> and low value. Results will be measured in increasing numbers of rural
> households where real income is rising, growing off-farm employment,
> substantial increases in yields and cultivation of higher value
> commodities, and in increasingly robust performance of rural
> enterprise - particularly MSMEs and producer organizations. APEP will
> build upon USAID's IDEA program, which provides a highly successful
> vertically integrated model which focuses on opportunities and
> constraints from farm to market.

## E. Illustrative APEP Elements and Implementation Arrangements 

Based on USAID experience and current constraints to agricultural growth
and commercialization, SO7 has identified a number of possible key
program elements, each of which would be implemented through one or more
activities. These sets of activities will generate the SO7 intermediate
results listed above, targets for which are to be established in the
APEP PMP. The elements will focus, through their activities, on selected
commodity-based farming systems, demand-driven technology dissemination,
strengthening private sector producer associations and their access to
needed resources and marketing services, increasing marketable surpluses
and cultivation of cash crops, agroprocessing and product quality
enhancement, and upgrading and expanding the pool of Ugandan expertise
required in these initiatives.

This Section presents an illustrative list of key [APEP
elements]{.underline} in tentative order of priority. The first APEP
element listed is an particular priority, as is each of the three action
areas listed below the elements as [implementation
arrangements.]{.underline} Proposals will discuss how the offeror will
analyze these or other elements in the design of APEP, the rationale for
selection and prioritization of elements, and the method to be used in
design for determining level of effort.

### **1. APEP Elements**

-   Working with IFPRI/SCRIP, IDEA, U-TRADE and COMPETE to establish a
    selected number of priority commodity/ farming systems and
    geographic locations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In collaboration with U-TRADE, developing vertically integrated
    production-to-market services and systems. These include marketing
    associations and information and communications technology, that
    effectively serve producers, help ensure food security for
    vulnerable groups, and offer opportunities for productivity gains
    and commercialization to all households.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Simultaneously, identifying rural to urban market linkages and
    trading centers, and increasing direct market access for
    small-holder farmers to internal and regional markets for both low
    value and high value commodities. Planned expansion by the GOU of
    the transport and rural power distribution networks will assist in
    this identification process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Developing rural producer organizations on an expanded scale,
    capable of articulating their productive opportunities and related
    requirements in order to improve access to needed technical services
    and technology. NAADS will be an important player, and PMA a
    principal guiding framework in this effort.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Developing and expanding the private sector input supply systems
    that meet producer demand for appropriate fertilizer, improved seed,
    pest management technologies, agro-processing technology, and
    information systems.]{.mark}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Access to commercial financing for producers, small holder
    production and marketing organizations, and MSME's. This will
    require tight collaboration between APEP and SPEED.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technology development, including biotechnology, that is
    demand-driven and increasingly provided by the private sector, and
    technology applications to selected agricultural commodity-based
    farming systems, e.g. field demonstrations, value-added processing,
    and access to market information.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Policy development that enables the private sector to compete more
    effectively, and a strategy for communicating and applying resulting
    policies at both the central and district levels. Assistance in
    implementing standards and controls may be called for,

> e.g. for export commodity quality assurance, fertilizers,
> [pesticides]{.mark}, the seed industry.

-   Demand-driven training to provide expertise needed in support of
    APEP elements and objectives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expanding access to research products from the various international
    agricultural research centers and NARO.

### **2. Implementation Arrangements**

-   Establishing a flexible grants and sub-contracts component for
    working with local partner organizations (grantees, consulting
    firms, possibly Makerere University, private sector seed
    multiplication, are examples), as well as with other international
    partners. The grants and sub-contracts component will be
    instrumental for APEP implementation. It will be necessary to assess
    recent program experience in Uganda with local partners, and
    identify those with which the offeror proposes to work. If
    justified, the U.S. Grants and Local Grants and Sub-contracts
    component could represent about 20-25 percent of the program budget.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establishing relationships with key GOU and private Ugandan
    institutions, as well as other relevant actors and partners to
    ensure full Ugandan participation and ownership, and access and
    leverage resources for implementation. Some of the most important of
    these key actors and potential partners are noted in Section F,
    below, which elaborates the "Program Integration Strategy".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establishing operational linkages with the other two core programs,
    the transition activities and Title II. Section F expands upon these
    operational interrelationships and suggests possible mechanisms for
    achieving desired integration.

## F. Program Integration Strategy 

### **1. Relationship to Relevant GOU Institutions and SO7 Partners**

To ensure ownership and coordination of efforts, stakeholders and
partners will be consulted fully in design and implementation. On the
GOU side, the PMA and relevant ministries such as the Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, and the Ministry of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development, are primary focal points for
leadership, involvement, and agreement with respect to APEP, in both
design and implementation. The PMA is the definitive statement of the
GOU's strategy and operational framework for modernizing agriculture. To
guide PMA implementation, the government has constituted a PMA Steering
Committee and PMA Forum. The Steering Committee oversees management and
monitoring of PMA implementation. The Forum solicits stakeholder inputs
and promotes "harmonization" of effort through sharing of information.
Both are chaired by the Finance Ministry, and both provide for donor
representation.

NAADS, NARO, and Makerere University are other key GOU institutions for
APEP in the areas of research, extension, and training and education.
APEP will be implemented in the field. Therefore, collaboration with and
networking among appropriate local government offices from the community
to the district level will be an important APEP function.

> SO7 partners include the Famine Early Warning System (FEWS), the
> International Agriculture Research Centers (IARCs), the International
> Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Institute
> for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Agroforestry Research Network for
> Africa (AFRENA), the International Center for Research in Agroforestry
> (ICRAF), the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in
> Eastern and Southern Africa (ASARECA), the African Highlands
> Initiative (AHI), and indigenous and international NGOs.

### **2. USAID SO7 Program Integration**

(a) Core Programs.

> Increasing productivity will require that the contractor develop an
> approach to address vertically integrated systems from production to
> markets, a linkage to U-TRADE for exports and trade policy, and access
> to financial services through linkages with SPEED. APEP will also have
> a strong linkage to PRIME related to land use options and productivity
> and to local organization capacity building. APEP may be designed
> after PRIME and U-TRADE. If so, APEP design will take account of the
> designs of the other two core programs.
>
> APEP, PRIME and U-TRADE each have defined roles in achieving the
> overarching Strategic Objective of expanding sustainable opportunities
> for rural growth. U-TRADE will lead in advancing trade policy
> development, strategic export diversification, and competitive market
> expansion. U-TRADE will interact with GOU trade officials, exporters
> and their associations, but not at the farmer, local producer
> association, or CBO level. APEP and PRIME are more production and
> supply oriented. Coffee provides a good example; as a huge contributor
> to export earnings, it will be a focus for all three core programs.
>
> U-TRADE concentrates on the overall strategy for increasing high
> quality exports and value-added interventions, and facilitating
> overarching trade and investment priorities. APEP will focus on
> increasing productivity of coffee in key land-use systems, linking to
> U-TRADE at the coffee exporter association or private sector coffee
> auction levels. PRIME might focus on creating creating community-based
> organizations that can produce specialty coffees associated with
> better natural resource and land use management, and with additional
> economic value for communities.
>
> U-TRADE will focus on high value export crops, with a limited field
> outreach role to the high value commodity exporter association level.
> APEP's elements serve producers of high value crops at the local
> level, to increase productivity, improve value-added processing
> methods, assure quality product supply to sharpen competitiveness and,
> with U-TRADE, improve export market access for high value producers.
> Where low value crops are the focus, APEP will employ a vertical
> approach, making it responsible from production all the way through
> marketing, whether internally or for export to regional markets.
> U-TRADE will take the lead in advancing policy development. APEP, with
> a major field role in policy implementation, will feed in issues,
> lessons from its experience and points for attention in policy
> development**.**
>
> Increased productivity of agricultural commodity and natural resource
> systems in selected regions (IR 7.2) is the principal, but not
> exclusive, focus of both APEP and PRIME. APEP will facilitate access
> to the means to improve private sector systems, such as inputs of
> improved seed and fertilizer, demand-driven extension and research,
> and market infrastructure essential to commercializing agriculture.
> PRIME will focus on productive economic opportunities such as forestry
> or ecotourism that preserve natural resource endowments in
> environmentally sensitive areas. Other distinguishing features are
> PRIME's applied research and monitoring emphasis on critical
> ecosystems, initially in Southwest Uganda, and on energy use in the
> region. It's support for private enterprise will stress natural
> resource-based enterprises such as agroforestry, ecotourism, and
> sustainable use of biodiversity assets. The policy element of PRIME
> will put priority on clarifying community access rights to wildlife,
> forest and wetlands products. PRIME's training and outreach aspect
> will be tailored to these and related sustainable natural resource use
> and enhancement elements.
>
> [Proposals will need to reflect cognizance of Uganda's fragile
> resource base, and to ensure that APEP activities are environmentally
> sound in design and implementation, thus consistent with long-term
> economic sustainability. Proposed activities should be accompanied by
> brief statements outlining potential adverse environmental impacts.
> These statements should discuss how environmentally sound best
> practices and measures to mitigate adverse impacts will be
> incorporated in activity design.]{.mark}
>
> IFPRI/SCRIP land use options analyses will be instrumental to all
> three core programs in identifying products and farming systems which
> have most potential for efficient and competitive productivity
> enhancement in particular geographic regions. The IFPRI/SCRIP analytic
> agenda will be developed in close consultation with the core programs,
> to serve core program needs on a continuing basis.

\(b\) Transition Activities

> APEP will incorporate appropriate aspects of IDEA's vertically
> integrated model, and will expand focus to additional priority
> commodity/ farming systems. IDEA is regarded as highly successful in
> commercializing agriculture by developing commodity-based farming
> systems for both low and high value crops. IDEA possesses a wealth of
> experience in farmer outreach and delivery of inputs, identifying
> markets, skills development, and facilitating supportive rural
> financial services and grants. Similarly, Dairy's strategy for dairy
> product development, and considerable field implementation experience,
> is very relevant to APEP and the other core programs.
>
> Dairy, SPEED and IDEA collaborate closely. Like IDEA, the Dairy
> approach aims at private sector development from production to
> marketing, and includes capacity building for producer associations. A
> recent evaluation of Dairy activities concluded that the
> interventions, if continued, have considerable potential for large
> multiplier results in on-farm productivity, off-farm employment, and
> diversified product development for export. SPEED assists at the
> "business end", e.g. promoting business development services and
> ensuring that commercial financing is available to producer and
> marketing organizations and MSME's that develop bankable proposals to
> for commodity development and marketing.
>
> COMPETE focuses on export competitiveness of coffee, cotton and fish.
> COMPETE's objectives also include sharpening Uganda's competitive edge
> through trade policy development. COMPETE is exploring rural
> applications of information and communication technology to marketing.
> When the COMPETE program ends in May, 2002, it will be incorporated
> into U-TRADE.

\(c\) Title II

> Title II is a core set of programs focused on food security and
> outreach. Title II program activities contribute to food security for
> the most vulnerable segment of the rural populace, primarily in
> northern and southwestern Uganda. Moreover, the "cooperating sponsors"
> implementing Title II food security activities are key partners. [They
> are sources of successful approaches to increasing farm household
> income by promoting cash crops, assisting producer and marketing
> associations, linking to IDEA for research and technology development
> and, with ICRAF/AFRENA, encouraging environmentally appropriate,
> innovative land use options such as agroforestry.]{.mark} Title II
> activities and partners are an important foundation for extending
> APEP's geographic reach to northern Uganda as the security situation
> there improves.

###  **3. Integrating SO7 Implementation**

> Because interaction and coordination among the three programs and with
> Title II and the transition activities is essential, mechanisms to
> ensure operational integration are fundamental. These could include
> establishment of an inclusive steering committee or working group to
> ensure regular communication and collaboration, and formal
> consultations both in producing integrated annual workplans and in
> results reviews. A forum could be created to exchange information, vet
> lessons learned, and seek solutions to shared operational problems.
> Mechanisms such as these will be incorporated in a "Framework for
> Maintaining Integration during Implementation".

# VI. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES

The design phase will be broken into two parts: (1) a preliminary
assessment and analysis at the end of week five, followed by (2)
completion of the design at the end of week ten.

## Design Phase 1

In reviewing the first phase of design, USAID will focus on adequacy of
the contractor's analysis and preliminary recommendations with respect
to the following criteria.

-   Comprehensiveness of contractor's assessment of the status of, and
    constraints and opportunities associated with, the APEP elements
    described in section V(E) above and other elements that may be
    proposed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clarity and strength of rationale for preliminary recommendations
    for the combination of APEP elements being proposed, and how
    elements would be prioritized and sequenced in relation to the SO7
    Results Framework.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Evidence of early, in-depth collaboration with IFPRI in assessing
    which commodity/ farming systems and geographic locations will be
    the APEP focus;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adequacy of recommendations for mechanisms (e.g., working groups,
    collaborative workplan development and results reviews) to
    facilitate SO7 program and operational integration;

-   Performance in consulting and coordinating with GOU and other
    principal partners during design. Strength of recommended
    arrangements for maintaining adequate consultation and collaboration
    during implementation.

-   [Identification of environmental issues for incorporation in the
    Initial Environmental Examination, of measures to ensure APEP
    activities are environmentally sound in design and implementation,
    and steps that will be taken to mitigate any advese effects;]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

-   Extent to which progress at midpoint in design conforms to a
    workplan and schedule for preparation of the design, submitted in
    week one.

## Design Phase 2

Following the presentation of phase one assessment and preliminary
recommendations to USAID, the Mission will provide the offeror with
written guidance for completing the design with the deliverables listed
below.

### **A. Design Deliverables:**

A.  The contractor will produce a complete program design document for
    USAID review, which demonstrates understanding of the issues and
    constraints APEP addresses and its objectives. The design document
    will include implementation methodology; human resources required
    and a staffing plan that ensures access to required long- and
    short-term expertise; and annual and total financial requirements
    for the five year implementation period. The design document will
    incorporate the additional deliverables below:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Early, in-depth collaboration with IFPRI/SCRIP leading to
    contractor's written assessment of which commodity/ farming systems
    and geographic locations will be the APEP focus;

(2) Initial written assessment that includes proposed program elements
    and related activities, proposed priorities or emphases among
    elements/ activities, and rationale. This assessment will associate
    specific results with each element proposed, and APEP's emphasis in
    terms of relative contribution to individual SO7 Intermediate
    Results;

> \(3\) Performance Monitoring Plan: Initial draft, specifying the IRs
> for particular focus, indicators and specific baseline data and
> targets to measure progress and contribution of proposed program
> elements, and monitoring arrangements. Identify steps remaining to
> complete the PMP for APEP in first three months of implementation;

(4) A written account of organizations and individuals contacted during
    design that reflects a broad and extensive consultative design
    process;

(5) Framework for Maintaining Integration During Implementation: (1)
    with GOU (PMA,NAADS, NARO) and USAID partners; AND (2) with PRIME,
    U-TRADE, SCRIP, Title II and transition activities, to be
    operational in year one. A similar deliverable is included in the
    RFPs for PRIME and U-TRADE;

(6) [Completion of the IEE in consultation with the USAID Environmental
    Officer; and]{.mark}

> []{.mark}
>
> \(7\) Draft first annual workplan and level of effort.

### **B. Implementation Deliverables:** 

Specific deliverables for Implementation will be determined during
design. They will include, but not be limited to:

(1) Within two months of field start-up, submit a detailed first year
    workplan based on

approved design, prepared in coordination with the contract teams for
IFPRI/SCRIP,

U-TRADE and PRIME and other transition activities. Annual workplans,
prepared

similarly in subsequent years;

(2) Performance Monitoring Plan completed in first three months.
    Baseline data established in first six months. Annual results
    reports;

(3) A sustainability or "exit" strategy for APEP commodity-based farming
    systems and small holder assistance activities as well as the
    broader program elements, to be in place by the end of year three of
    implementation. Sustainability criteria for the exit strategy should
    incorporate selected indicators and targets in the APEP PMP.
    Criteria should include level of accomplishments in increasing
    effectiveness of producer and marketing organizations in the private
    sector; access to commercial financing by these organizations and
    MSMEs; and enhanced agricultural productivity and commercialization.
    One important purpose of the exit strategy is to serve decision
    making in expanding the number of commodities and groups/ entities
    developed in the course of APEP implementation;

(4) Any special studies.

# VII. PROPOSAL PREPARATION

## A. Questions Related to the RFP 

> **(NOTE: CO will fill in the standard language prior to RFP
> issuance.)**

## B. Content and Schedule for Preparation

> Proposals must include a detailed plan for developing the design of
> APEP and a provisional plan for implementation encompassing technical
> approach, staff and other resources proposed, relevant past
> institutional experience, and cost. Ninety days will be allowed for
> proposal preparation.
>
> In their proposals, offerors must describe and justify long-term and
> short-term expatriate and Ugandan staff [positions]{.underline} based
> on their understanding of these requirements. In addition to the
> positions, proposals must identify actual long-term expatriate
> [personnel]{.underline} and, if possible, the most senior managerial
> level Ugandan staff member, since personnel staffing is an important
> proposal evaluation factor. Refinements may be made in staff positions
> and functions during the design stage, but basic personnel needs to
> meet program objectives during implementation should emerge during
> development of proposals. It is imperative that the designated chief
> of party and selected other long-term expatriate staff participate
> fully in the design process. Maximum integration of the design and
> implementation teams is important for continuity and cohesion.
>
> The deadline for proposal submission is ...
>
> **NOTE: Mission to enter date.**
>
> Proposals must include the following components:

### **TECHNICAL**

> The technical component will address:

-   How APEP elements will be analyzed, selected, prioritized, and
    sequenced in the design phase;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integration of APEP with PRIME and U-TRADE as well as with
    transition activities and Title II, and with AID/Washington special
    initiatives. Phasing of particular APEP elements with respect to SO7
    transition activities, and related levels of effort, must be
    discussed in preliminary terms in proposals and in detail in design.

-   How the design process will ensure effective communication with the
    GOU and other partners, and will involve small farmers, rural micro,
    small and medium enterprises, district and local government, other
    customers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What steps the offeror will take to ensure that elements and
    activities are environmentally sound in design and implementation;

-   How the offeror will seek to identify opportunities to address
    cross-cutting issues cited in the ISP for all three SOs in design
    and implementation. The cross-cutting issues are gender,
    [environment]{.mark}, conflict, HIV/AIDS, food security, information
    and communication technology, and regional trade. Offerors should
    refer to related analyses in ISP volume II.

-   Preliminary discussion of approaches and criteria to be employed in
    completing APEP involvement with specific commodities, activities,
    or groups targeted by the program, in order to leverage resources
    and ensure Ugandan ownership; This includes a strategy for launching
    APEP elements in Northern Uganda when the situation permits and an
    examination of possible ways to support current Title II activities
    there. These topics will be addressed more fully in design.

-   How APEP will be consistent with and contribute to the objectives of
    the AID Administrator's Agriculture Initiative, the Global
    Development Alliance, and TRADE.

> The technical component will also contain:

-   An initial analysis, which can be elaborated in the design phase, of
    what has already been done by USAID and other donors in the areas of
    APEP focus;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A preliminary Performance Monitoring Plan including: relative
    emphasis of APEP resources on the various SO7 IRs; proposed or
    illustrative indicators, targets and benchmarks to measure progress
    toward expected results; monitoring arrangements;

-   A detailed design schedule;

-   An indicative plan for year 1 of implementation.

Note: The USAID/Uganda ISP vols. I-III are available online at
"www.usaid.gov". All documents cited in this RFP are basic references,
and are available at the USAID Mission to offerors' field teams in
preparing proposals. See also Annex C, "Selected Reference Documents".

### **STAFF** 

-   The team of professionals carrying out the design and implementation
    should have experience in each of the program elements agreed upon
    with USAID in the approved design. Fields of expertise will very
    likely include commodity and farming systems selection and
    development; capacity building for small holder production and
    marketing organizations; demand-driven technology application
    including biotechnology; market analysis; rural microfinance;
    identification of human resource constraints and training; and
    performance monitoring.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The offeror must explain its intentions with regard to entering into
    formal design and implementation partnerships such as sub-contracts,
    grantees and with American and/ or Rwandan universities, and how
    partnerships will ensure access to both long- and short-term
    expertise. In so doing, the roles of each partner in design and
    implementation should be clearly stated and distinguished from the
    roles of other partnerships the offeror may propose.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rapid access to short-term expertise in the above fields and for
    specific agricultural commodity development will be very important.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provide resumes and relevant work experience for the proposed team
    leader and key staff for the design phase, and resumes of available
    candidates for implementation. Final composition of the APEP
    implementation team will be determined during design.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Include a chart in an annex listing the key personnel proposed for
    all contracts awarded over the last two years. The chart must
    include the following: key personnel proposed and expected duration
    of the position; personnel actually performing under the contract
    and duration; and any replacement key personnel and the reason for
    replacement.

### **PAST PERFORMANCE**

-   Corporate experience and demonstrated effectiveness in agriculture
    productivity enhancement and commercialization in developing country
    contexts. This includes commodity and farming systems selection and
    development; capacity building for small holder production and
    marketing organizations; demand-driven technology application
    including biotechnology; market analysis; rural microfinance;
    identification of human resource constraints and training; and
    performance monitoring.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Demonstration that the offeror has fully considered the lessons
    learned from its experience with similar activities in other
    countries, and that it has taken into account how these lessons can
    be applied to Uganda's situation.

### **COST**

-   Offerors will submit a budget for the [design phase
    only]{.underline} in their proposals. Annual funding levels for
    implementation can be determined only after the design is complete.
    However, a preliminary estimate suggests a total for the five year
    program ranging between \$30 and \$37 million. The budget must
    contain sufficient detail for USAID to determine cost realism and
    cost efficiency for the design.

# VIII. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR CONTRACT AWARD 

> Technical, cost and other factors will be evaluated relative to each
> other, as described herein.

(a) The technical, staff and past performance content of the proposal
    will be scored by an evaluation committee using the criteria shown
    in the related sections below.

(b) The cost proposal will be scored by the method described in the cost
    section.

(c) The criteria below are presented by major category, with relative
    order of importance so that offerors will know which areas require
    emphasis in the preparation of proposals. The criteria below reflect
    the requirements of this particular solicitation.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following factors totaling 500
points:

**1. Technical approach 135 pts (27%)**

a\. Feasibility and workability of the proposed technical approach,

i.e., can the proposed technical approach reasonably be expected to

produce the expected results? 40 pts

b.  Evidence of understanding of Uganda's current agricultural context

and the factors bearing on enhancing productivity and commercialization

of the sector 30 pts

c.  Innovative approaches and strategies in proposed design and

implementation that incorporate attention to both technical

(including A/AID's Initiative for Agriculture, GDA, TRADE) and

socio-cultural (gender, vulnerable groups) factors and concerns

in enhancing agricultural productivity and commercialization 30 pts

d.  [A clear and convincing methodology for addressing
    environmental]{.mark}

[soundness and adverse impact mitigation in activity design and]{.mark}

[implementation 20 pts]{.mark}

e.  A clear and convincing methodology for achieving expected results

and for performance monitoring 15 pts

**2. Personnel 125 pts (25%)**

a.  Qualifications and experience of proposed long- and short-

term expatriate technical [personnel]{.underline}, including experience
in

developing country settings, preferably in Africa 40 pts

b\. Appropriateness of the proposed technical [positions]{.underline}
(long-

and short-term) to the proposed technical approach 40 pts

c.  Qualifications and experience of proposed Ugandan
    [personnel]{.underline} 35 pts

d.  Assurances of attentive and appropriate home office support of

field activities by experienced persons. 10 pts

**3. Past Performance 100 pts (20%)**

a\. Demonstrated success in providing similar services on past
contracts,

including satisfaction of past clients with the offeror\'s services
and/or

products. 75 pts

b\. Offeror\'s responsiveness to past clients in terms of ability to

adapt to different country settings and host country priorities

and concerns. 25 pts

**4. Institutional Capability 100 pts (20%)**

a\. Clarity of organizational plan, including intentions regarding a

formal "consortium" or partnership mechanism for managing

implementation, and arrangements to ensure regular interaction with

Ugandan public and private sector actors and NGOs/ CBOs. 45 pts

b\. Demonstrated ability to recruit and retain qualified U.S., local and

expatriate professional staff. 30 pts

c\. Demonstrated ability to provide managerial and technical

back‑stopping for a requirement of this size and complexity. 25 pts

**5.** **Cost 40 pts (8%)**

a\. Cost realism, i.e. line items costs should be reasonable, 40 pts

and should approximate true market costs

b\. Cost effectiveness (See note below) \--

[NOTE re cost criterion:]{.underline} The Government is not obligated to
award a negotiated contract on the basis of the lowest proposed cost
(see FAR 16.605) or to the offeror with the highest technical evaluation
score. Although, for this procurement, technical proposal merits are
considered significantly more important than cost relative to deciding
which offeror might best perform the work, price and other factors are
considered. Therefore, after the final evaluation of the proposals, the
Contracting Officer will make the award to the offeror whose proposal
presents the best overall value to the Government, considering both
technical and cost factors.

APEP ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET

##### NOTE: NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN RFP

DESIGN PHASE

> [Direct]{.underline}

Expatriate Salary (3 x 10 wks.@ \$450/da) \$81,000

Ugandan Salary (3 x 10 wks. @ \$175/da) 32,000

Travel (US -- Uganda, 3rt @ \$6,000) 18,000

Per Diem (210 person days @ \$250/da) 52,000

Other Direct 7,000

Total Direct Costs 190,000

[Indirect]{.underline}

Overhead (100% of expat. salaries) 81,000

G&A (10% of total direct) 19,000

Total Indirect Costs 100,000

Sub-Total: Direct and Indirect Costs 290,000

Fixed Fee @ 10% of Costs 29,000

TOTAL FOR DESIGN 319,000

NOTE: The offeror will determine the make up of its design team.

Illustratively, the expatriates could include the following fields of
expertise

(1) Commodity and Farming Systems Development/ COP

(2) Crops production and Marketing

(3) Agrobusiness and Rural Off-Farm Enterprises

Ugandan professionals could include:

(1) Decentralization Process and Community-based Organizations
    Development

(2) Ag. Technology: Demand-driven Research & Extension (NARO, NAADS,
    Makerere)

(3) Training

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

Pending completion of APEP design, budget projections for implementation
are notional. Figures may be useful primarily in anticipating orders of
magnitude. The projections do not, at the pre- design stage, presume an
ordering of priorities among APEP components.

Level of effort is based in part on the IDEA model. At full
implementation, IDEA maintains six expatriates and sixteen local staff,
of whom eight are professionals, in Uganda. The current intention is
that IDEA will begin phasing down the expat. staff in 2002. To maintain
momentum, APEP will need to come in at near full strength.

At full implementation, IDEA is absorbing about \$4.5 million/year. At
the illustrative levels below, APEP will mount a modest expansion of
effort (e.g. one additional long-term expat professional; the U. S.
grantee line item is actually reduced from IDEA levels). If available,
additional funding/LOE can be expected to achieve more ambitious
targets. Numbers of Ugandan professional personnel are somewhat higher
in the APEP budget than currently on board with IPEA, but these
incremental costs are relatively small. Professional staff costs in the
illustrative budget are very close to those IDEA experiences. Access to
short-term specialists over a wider range of professional specialties
will be essential, particularly as new agricultural crops are identified
in the process of commercialization of agriculture and diversification
of exports. Short-term international expertise will cost approximately
\$25-30,000 per month. Some saving might be realized from recruitment
elsewhere in the developing world.

Grants to fund cooperative agreements with international and local NGOs
who will be key partners, as they are for IDEA, are also a prominent
feature of the illustrative budget. IDEA has averaged about \$500 k per
year for grants and smaller "specialized activities" in its second
phase. (Grant budget allocation between the two NGO categories is
assumed to be fungible.) A lower level of effort is probable in years
one and six as the contractor phases in and down.

Obligations averaging in the neighborhood of \$7 million/year, and a
five year LOP cost of approximately \$35 million, with a range between
\$32 and \$37 million, are contemplated. Some of the following figures
have been rounded slightly. Cost figures assume inflation and are annual
averages.

[Direct Costs]{.underline}

Technical Assistance

Lead and sub-contractor(s), incl. housing, travel etc.

(35 expatriate person/years x \$250,000) \$ 8,800,000

Short-term consultants (32 person months @\$25k/mo.) 800,000

U.S. Grantees (assumes \$1 mil./ yr.) 5,000,000

Local Grantees, Sub-contracts (\$500,000 / yr.) 2,500,000

Local Staff (12 x \$30,000 + support staff x 5 yr.) 1,800,000

Local Office Rental and Utilities

> (2 offices x 5yrs. x \$30k/yr. + utilities) 400,000

Equipment, Vehicles 300,000

Training (in-country, third country, US) 2,150,000

20 US s.t. x \$40,000 = \$800,000

in-country training, workshops @ \$100,000/ yr.x 5 yrs.

10 U.S. l.t. (1 yr.) @ \$85,000

Commodities (\$30,000/ yr.) 150,000

Total Direct Costs 21,900,000

[Indirect Costs]{.underline}

Overhead (85% of direct salaries) 8,200,000

G&A (10% of total direct cost) 2,200,000

Total Indirect Costs 10,400,000

Sub-total of direct and indirect costs 32,300,000

Fixed Fee @ 8% of total costs 2,600,000

Total for all implementation phase contract costs 34,900,000

\[External Evaluation (5 person months) 100,000\]

> **TOTAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION \$35,000,000**

# ANNEX A

# 

# SUMMARY OF CORE PROGRAMS AND TRANSITION ACTIVITIES 

## Core Programs and Transition Activities

**APEP:** The Agriculture Production Enhancement Program will address
the problem of low productivity in the agriculture sector in Uganda. The
objective will be to increase productivity by developing greater
efficiencies in the many commercial transactions from production to
market in much the same way that USAID's transition project, Investment
in Developing Export Agriculture has focussed, but with a broader
spectrum of agricultural commodity systems and an expanded client base.
The program will seek to move a substantial number of small holder,
subsistence-based farmers to a commercial and profitable orientation.
APEP will focus on key commodity and farming systems linked to a
geographical focus where significant productivity gains and competitive
advantage in domestic and export markets can be achieved. In addition to
the continuing Title II food security program, the two transition
activities most relevant to APEP, and still active when APEP
implementation commences, are SPEED and IDEA.

Illustrative elements of the program which will be the focus of design
include:

-   Identifying and increasing direct market access for small-holder
    farmers to internal and regional markets

-   Developing market and finance systems, including marketing
    associations and information and communications technology, that
    serve producers and promote dual aims of ensuring food security for
    vulnerable groups and opportunities for productivity gains and
    commercialization to all households

-   Developing and greatly expanding the private sector input supply
    systems that meet producer demand for appropriate fertilizer,
    improved seed, agro-processing technology, information systems

-   Developing rural producer organizations on an expanded scale that
    are capable of articulating and advocating for their needs, and thus
    able to expand access to services and technology required to
    increase productivity and enable commercialization. NAADS will be
    among the important actors, and PMA a principal guiding framework in
    pursuing this effort

-   Technology development, including biotechnology, and technology
    applications to selected agricultural commodity and farming systems

-   Expanding access to research products from the International
    Agricultural Research Centers and NARO

-   Policy development and application at both the central and district
    level that enables the private sector to compete more effectively.
    Linkage with analytic work in Uganda by the International Food
    Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) will be important for policy
    development and achieving productivity gains for selected commodity
    and farming systems improvements

-   A program-wide approach to ensure that rural women are targeted for
    full and equitable inclusion in the above endeavors

-   Developing criteria and a strategy for devoting greater attention,
    through APEP, to northern Uganda as security improves

-   Demand driven professional, technical and skills training in support
    of PMA and APEP objectives

**PRIME.** The objective of the Productive Resource Investments for
Managing the Environment core program is to promote the alleviation of
poverty by supporting regional economic development in Western Uganda,
principally targeting improvements in management of the region's natural
resource base. The project will be phased geographically, with an
initial focus on the Southwest region.

Financial and technical interventions will respond to locally determined
and identified priorities that support key natural resource management
activities, including (1) conserving important biodiversity resources,
(2) enhancing traditional and non-traditional production of agricultural
commodities, forestry products and livestock, and (3) promoting
alternative sources of income from nature-based enterprises. Customers
will include entrepreneurs, community-based organizations/NGOs, local
government entities (from community through district level), and
national parks and protected areas. Partners will include a USAID-funded
consortium of "for profit" and "not for profit' intermediaries under the
direction of a lead organization, other donors and donor-assisted
organizations, and the GOU.

Elements of the program are expected to include:

-   Policy development that rationalizes economic value of natural
    resources, leading to activities that improve sound use of resources
    and appropriate land-use systems in a sustainable manner

-   Developing community and producer group organizations at the rural
    community level that create economies of scale, and become viable
    business organizations capable of conserving natural resources and
    accessing commercial finance

-   Value-added product development linked to international markets,
    such as non-traditional food and cash crops, commercial forestry,
    new environmental goods and services, ecotourism

-   Energy use alternatives to fuel wood consumption (charcoal)

-   Leveraging U.S. conservation-based organizations and commercial
    companies to invest private capital, technology and expertise

-   Conserving critical biodiversity assets (national parks, reserves
    and wetlands).

**U-TRADE.** The Uganda Trade Revitalization and Diversification of
Exports core program will build on successful results and approaches
already being obtained, primarily with the existing IDEA, COMPETE and
Trade Policy activities. In addition, strong integration with commercial
finance and small business development will link U-TRADE to the SPEED
transition program. The primary objective will be to expand and
diversify Uganda's export base and penetrate new regional and
international markets. A geographic rationale will emerge based on where
selected export commodities have a comparative advantage in terms of
production and export.

Elements of the program will include:

-   Developing with the GOU a strong trade and investment policy
    strategy that will seek to attract both foreign direct investment
    and to encourage local private investment

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Developing a specific export strategy, identifying and building
    competitiveness in key export sectors where industry-wide impacts
    can be achieved

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expanding the potential for new export commodities in the
    non-traditional agricultural export (NTAE) sector and value-added
    product lines

-   Linkages to the other core programs, such as addressing current and
    new export products that are also of interest to APEP and PRIME

-   Developing non-agricultural export sectors such as off-shore
    processing and information technology to address the need for
    massive job creation

-   A strong trade and investment component that will seek to attract
    foreign and local investment, including investment opportunities
    related to the Agriculture Growth and Opportunities Act

-   Market access and trade development within the framework of WTO, EAC
    and other relevant trade agreements

**IDEA.** Investment in Developing Export Agriculture is the most
important transition activity for APEP design and implementation.
Launched in 1995, IDEA has been highly successful in achieving increased
productivity in food and cash crop agriculture, as well as
non-traditional agricultural export (NTAE) development. IDEA components
include business and finance development, marketing including marketing
information, and technology transfer for increasing high and low value
exports. IDEA contributes key results to the current SO Results
Framework, and will continue to do so especially for IR 7.2, but the
other SO7 IRs as well. It has been a core program under the previous
strategy, and will continue to be for SO7, where the intent is for APEP
to absorb its objectives and functions over time.

The private sector approach and ability to "vertically" address needs
from production to market development have been important to success.
The IDEA experience will provide a firm foundation for all three new
core programs- especially APEP and U-TRADE - because IDEA has a large
client base of farmers, agribusiness, exporters and commercial banking
relationships. IDEA has excellent relationships with key GOU ministries
and will provide continuity as the new core programs come on line,
particularly in terms of maintaining private sector capacity to deliver
results. The level of effort under IDEA is currently at peak, but will
reduce significantly in 2003 and 2004, as APEP assumes responsibility.

**SCRIP.** Under the Strategic Criteria for Rural Investments in
Productivity activity, the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) is preparing a strategic planning framework for rural land use
development in Uganda. The framework is developing criteria to be
applied in assessing strategic land use options, integrating the
country's agricultural growth and rural livelihood needs with
responsible environmental management. SCRIP is an essential analytic
resource and underpinning for all three core programs, and IFPRI a
principal partner. It is therefore a core SO7 activity.

**SPEED**. Support for Private Enterprise Expansion and Development is a
three-year activity ending in 2003. SPEED was designed with the SO7
strategy in mind, and contributes results to IR 7.2, IR 7.3 and IR 7.4
for the SO7 Results Framework. SPEED addresses critical issues for
developing viable commercial finance options for small business and for
moving the microfinance sub-sector to a sustainable, commercial basis.
It is initiating a loan guarantee program with a number of commercial
banks in Uganda to catalyze extension and expansion of small lending for
rural economic growth. Several commercial microfinance entities are
being assisted for the same purpose. SPEED is a financial hub for other
partners implementing the SO7 strategy. The financial services delivery
capacity SPEED is creating furthers the aims of APEP, PRIME and

U-TRADE. Therefore, SPEED is part of the core program and will be folded
into U-TRADE at the appropriate point.

**COMPETE.** The two year Competitive Private Enterprise and Trade
Expansion activity was initiated in November 2000 to assist in improving
national policy in strategic export sectors. COMPETE concentrates on
three high value exports: coffee, cotton and fish. It also implements a
cross-cutting Information Communication Technology activity to establish
use of cell phones by producers and fishermen for instant access to
current commodity prices. Since its inception, the GOU, including the
Presidential Task Force on Competitiveness and the Presidency, have
shown keen interest in the program. The COMPETE activity is training GOU
attention on the need for a national level export strategy and
supportive reforms. COMPETE experience and objectives will be folded
into U-TRADE, and as a continued part of the core SO7 program.

**PL 480 Title II: Food Security.** USAID's Title II partners carry out
substantial food security initiatives and agricultural development
activities. These partners and activities present opportunities and
proven approaches to increasing productivity and private sector
expansion of selected commodity and farming systems. Their activities
seek increased access to inputs, to commercial finance and to markets.
The Title II program is clearly affiliated with and a contibutor to core
SO7 program objectives.

Title II partners have been in place for several years, thus have
established relationships with clients and district officials. For
example, Technoserve, a Title II partner, has already established the
Nile Trading Produce Company to assist small holder farmers in Arua,
Apac, and the West Nile region to market their produce more effectively
by buying and cleaning non-perishable goods for resale. World Vision and
Catholic Relief Services assist commercially oriented farm families in
Northern Uganda to organize to market their produce, engage in
agroforestry, and practice better nutrition. Africare assists in
production and marketing of potatoes and other food crops, while
ACDI/VOCA focuses on oilseeds as well as food crops.

**DAIRY.** USAID is completing two three-year grants with Land O' Lakes
and the Heifer Project International in September 2002. The DAIRY
program has focussed on production and market development. Like IDEA,
the DAIRY approach aims at private sector development from production to
marketing, and includes efforts to build capacity of producer
organizations and associations. Recent evaluation of these activities as
well as a special competitiveness analyses show that the interventions,
if continued, have considerable potential to provide sector-wide
impacts, leading to large multiplier results in on-farm productivity,
off-farm employment, and diversified product development for expanded
exports within Uganda and to regional markets. However, to achieve
significant impact, a continued and more intensive effort should be
maintained in the sector for the next several years. A further
three-year transition program will address competitiveness, with
continued focus on marketing and building cost efficient private sector
capacity in the dairy sector.

## Transition Activities

**Trade Policy.** The trade policy activity was the first policy-based
effort to be focussed exclusively on assisting Uganda to improve its
trade-enabling environment. It has focussed on building a consultative
process between private sector and government with respect to the World
Trade Organization, East Africa Community and the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa. Trade related issues such as tariff
structures, tax revenues, quality control for exports, and international
standards have been addressed.

**ECOTRUST.** ECOTRUST is linked to PRIME. This activity serves the
national and international conservation community in support of
biodiversity conservation, renewable and alternative energy sources,
sustainable natural resource management and economic development,
management and control of pollution, and private land acquisition and
management for conservation. ECOTRUST also develops indigenous capacity
on the part of historically disadvantaged rural groups (women and rural
community-based organizations) for sustainable environmental management.
ECOTRUST's grant facilities support implementation of Protected Area
Management plans and Environment Action Plans with a focus on balancing
and harmonizing biological diversity conservation and management with
rural economic development objectives. This activity ends in 2004.

**ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY:** Since March 1999, the World Resources
Institute (WRI) has been funded to improve the ability of local NGOs to
advocate for better environmental policies in Uganda. The focus is on
environmental advocacy, litigation, and law enforcement, as well as
better natural resource management and implementation at the local
level. This activity's objectives reinforce those of PRIME.

**AFRENA**. This activity is linked to PRIME. AFRENA is currently
focused in the mountainous agricultural zones of the Kigezi Highlands of
SW Uganda and in the lakeshore coffee-banana production systems in
Mukono District near the Mabira Forest. It has established a network of
over 430 on-farm trials and nurseries that serve as farmer-selected
research and extension sites in wood production, soil fertility
enhancement, integration of high-value tree crops, increased fodder tree
diversity, propagation of indigenous high-value tree species and
increased local supply of tree germ plasm.

## Special Washington Initiatives

APEP will be designed to integrate the AID Administrator's Agricultural
Initiative, precepts of the Global Development Alliance, and the Africa
Growth and Opportunities Act, and to contribute to IRs linked to the
Trade for African Development program. The **Administrator's Agriculture
Initiative** increases the proportion of the Agency's budget devoted to
agriculture. The core areas are:

-   Technology systems and applications that support agricultural growth
    and economic transformation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Community based farmer and business organizations equipped to take
    advantage of new market opportunities, as well as producer, business
    and environmental services

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improving efficiency and equity of agricultural market and trade
    systems

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Building human capacity to shape and lead policy, technical and
    service development efforts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ensure that vulnerable groups have access to services and markets

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ensure that economically important land use systems are developed in
    an environmentally sustainable manner

The **Trade for African Development Program** is an Africa Bureau
initiative to support selected field Missions in implementing five-year
strategies for long-term, sustainable trade and investment development.
Field Missions will be selected for participation in TRADE based, in
part, on the strength of their strategies, which are to propose
activities that deliver results in increased trade and investment in
five years. The content of TRADE will be defined by participating
Missions in these strategies. Objectives of the Initiative include:

-   Improvement of the policy and policy-making environment for trade
    and investment in Africa

-   Enhanced competitiveness of African products

-   Promotion of U.S.-African business linkages

-   Enhanced capacity of the production chain, focusing on bottlenecks
    in production and exports

-   Strengthening delivery of services from public and private sector
    institutions that impact export competitiveness and improve
    efficiency in trade

The **Global Development Alliance** recognizes that over the past twenty
years NGOs, PVOs, cooperatives, foundations, corporations, the higher
education community, and even individuals, now provide development
assistance. The GDA seeks to facilitate and catalyze public-private
alliances which integrate resources, expertise, creative approaches and
new technologies in pursuing common development objectives. **The Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act** encourages African countries to develop
exports. Among other provisions, it allows counties in Africa to export
products to the United States duty free. Although the Act applies to
Africa, countries must qualify individually. Uganda has just done so.
APEP will also be designed to absorb **biotechnology** earmark funding
from AID/W.

# ANNEX B

# 

# SELECTED REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

**Integrated Strategic Plan for USAID'S Program in Uganda (2002-2007)**:
vols. 1,2,3

# USAID's Program in Uganda: Results Review and Resource Request: FY 2003

Agency for International Development, June 2001

**Implementation Strategy for Transitioning to the SO7 Results
Framework:** USAID internal document; October, 2001

**Concept Papers for APEP, U-TRADE and PRIME:** USAID internal document;
October, 2001

**Vision 2025: A Strategic Framework for National Development:**
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Government of
Uganda; February, 1999

**Plan for Modernization of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in
Uganda:** Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries;
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Government of
Uganda; August, 2000

**Economic Growth and Transformation Strategy:** Government of Uganda,
2001

**Medium-Term Competitiveness Strategy:** Government of Uganda, 1999

**Report to the Executive Directors:** IBRD Consultative Group on
Uganda; May, 2001

**Briefing Book for USAID Delegation to IBRD Consultative Group on
Uganda:** Agency for International Development; May, 2001

**Support for Private Enterprise Expansion and Development RFP:** USAID;

June, 2000

**USAID/Uganda SO7 Assessment of Strategic Agriculture and Environmental
Options:** Submitted to USAID by Chemonics International Inc.; April,
2001

**Assessment of Strategic Land Use Options for Uganda, and Appendices
A-D:** submitted to USAID by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI); August 2001

**Policies for Improved Land Management in Uganda:** Jagger and Pender
(eds.), IFPRI; September, 2001

# ANNEX D

# 

# ILLUSTRATIVE INDICATORS FOR APEP,

**AS PRESENTED FOR SO7 IN THE ISP**

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.1

•Food security monitoring systems in place

•Availability of selected food commodities

•FAO dietary diversity score

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.1.1

•Knowledge of improved farming practices

•Use of improved farming practices

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.1.2

•Targeted people receiving food aid

•Complementary assistance from community-based organizations

•HIV/AIDS infected children receiving food aid

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.2:

•Productivity of selected agricultural commodities

• Volume of production of selected commodities and products

• Market value of selected agricultural and natural resource commodities

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.2.1:

• Increased use of yield-enhancing inputs

• Number of farmers adopting improved farming practices

• Land area under sustainable management

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.2.2:

> • Number of commodity-based and nature-based producer and export firms
> meeting international quality and safety standards

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.2.3:

• Number of enterprise-focused organizations providing input services

> • Amount of local government resources provided to private sector and
> NGOs for natural resource and agriculture service delivery

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.3.1:

• Number of people with enhanced management skills

• Number of organizations with bankable business plans

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.3.2:

• Number of men and women receiving business skills training

• Number of targeted SMEs and MFIs purchasing business development
consulting services

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.3.3:

• Lending by selected banks to MFIs, MSMEs, and rural producers

• Number of clients of selected MFIs and banks outside Entebbe, Kampala
and Jinja

• Number of loans between Ushs 3 million and Ushs 425 million

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.4.1

• Length of time for searches and registration in companies registry

• Length of time for searches and registration in land registry

• Number of commercial cases resolved through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR)

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.4.2

• Number of private sector clients participating in the review and
modification of policies and regulations

• Number of clients knowledgeable about the impacts of globalization and
regional trade arrangements

Illustrative indicators for IR 7.4.3:

• Advocacy agenda identified

• Advocacy campaigns conducted

• Actions responsive to advocacy undertaken

# ANNEX E

# 

# PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT

## **A. Guidelines and Lessons Learned for Managing Implementation:**

The new SO7 ISP clearly defines four Intermediate Results and a
Performance Monitoring Plan. This will be the fundamental guide for
designing activities that will achieve the stated results with specified
targets over the next six years. In addressing results, the design of
core program activities should carefully take into account effective
approaches for effecting change during implementation. Based on
experience during the last several years, the Mission has gained
knowledge about what works well and what does not work. Thus, the manner
in which USAID implementing partners work with Ugandan stakeholders
plays a key role in effecting change and obtaining results. The
following summarizes this experience and should serve as a
guide/criteria in designing new SO7 program activities.

1\. Interventions focused on public sector delivery to farmers and
enterprises are likely to remain problematic for the foreseeable future.
While public sector delivery of some goods and services are important,
it will take time for many of the new government service delivery
mechanisms to become fully operations. Experience has demonstrated that
USAID partners can make excellent impact building capacity directly
within the private sector and households e.g. farmers, community
organizations, micro and SME enterprises, and producer and commodity
associations. Thus, the core programs should factor a private sector
implementation strategy, including a clear perspective on clients into
their approach.

2.  Interventions that focus on meeting market demand with backward
    linkages to the production base is a critical aspect for meeting the
    SO7 objective of increasing economic opportunities on a broad scale
    and that will achieve sector-wide impact on increased income and
    jobs. Core programs should incorporate vertically integrated
    approaches i.e. production to markets perspectives wherever
    possible.

3.  Ugandan stakeholders and clients, particularly private sector,
    farmers, enterprises and household clients noted above; are
    generally very receptive to adopting new solutions based on
    technical assistance and training. However, criteria and rigor need
    to be applied in order to ensure effective and maximum adoption of
    best practices. Many interventions will continue to require
    significant technical assistance and training in order to obtain
    desired results.

4.  To obtain economies of scale that achieve sector-wide impact,
    greater effort is needed to create large numbers of rural based
    enterprises, producer organizations, and community organizations
    that are bankable investment opportunities. Creative solutions
    including ICT and other media techniques are useful in order to
    reach higher numbers of clients.

5.  Increasing productivity and competitiveness will require much
    greater attention to integrating and addressing issues of
    environmental degradation. This issue will need to take into account
    that poor people need alternative income sources and opportunities
    that are sustainable and not result in environmental degradation.

6.  More attention is needed to mainstream and integrate cross-cutting
    issues of HIV/AIDS, gender, [environment]{.mark}, and conflict
    considerations with other core elements/interventions.

7.  In order to address productivity enhancements, attention to
    competitiveness in relation to land-use options, population
    densities, vulnerable groups, infrastructure constraints and access
    to markets will be required. Accordingly, interventions will need to
    be based on careful analysis of potential outcomes in relation to
    interacting constraints linked to geographic focus,
    comparative/competitive advantage of products in markets, realistic
    productivity enhancements, infrastructure, etc. IFPRI is developing
    an analytical framework to begin addressing these issues.

8.  Successful implementation is directly correlated to high quality and
    experienced implementing partners. In addition, implementing
    partners must demonstrate strong capabilities to coordinate with
    each other and to build synergistic working relationships to manage
    for higher level results.

9.  Successful programs do, in fact, capture the attention of senior
    Ugandan political and technical leadership, as well as the attention
    of donors. Each core program will need to develop effective
    communication strategies for stakeholders at all levels, i.e. local
    district and central government level, Parliament, private sector,
    and donors.

10. Improving the enabling environment that promotes competitive private
    sector business transactions is a key issue if competitiveness and
    efficiencies are to be achieved. However, given the vast array of
    inefficiencies that limit competitiveness and productivity, core
    programs will need to carefully focus on those constraints that are
    most critical to stated outcomes and results.

11. A key strategic outcome over the life of the strategy is to develop
    sustainable systems that encourage economic growth. Building Ugandan
    capacity to the point where sufficient momentum and sustainability
    will be a key factor in selecting and approaching implementation.
    Core programs will need to carefully examine how effective capacity
    can be developed in relation to exit strategies over the life of the
    programs.

12. It is anticipated that a relatively high level of effort in
    technical assistance and training will be required in the initial
    years to catalyze momentum of priority elements/interventions,
    particularly those interventions that have not been tested in
    Uganda. In addition, innovative approaches for achieving greater
    outreach in rural areas will be required.

13. As core programs are implemented, it is extremely important to
    examine the cost/benefit of impact in relation to USAID investment.
    This is important to USAID and GOU in terms of demonstrating what
    kinds of investments are effective and are creating desired
    outcomes. In this regard, the core programs should incorporate
    techniques for calculating cost-benefit ratios that demonstrate
    impact of USAID investments.

14. Building Ugandan capacity, whether it is within institutions or with
    entrepreneurs, is critical for achieving broad sector-wide impact
    and sustainable economic opportunities. Capacity building without a
    discernible impact at the IR and SO level is unacceptable. Core
    programs will have a common objective of creating sector-wide
    outcomes at the Strategic Objective level. For example, all core
    programs are expected to contribute to increased income, large
    numbers of business enterprises capable of paying for services;
    farmers and producer groups able to make a sustainable profit;
    higher levels of private investment, export volumes and incomes.

## **B. Transition from the Previous Strategy to the New SO7 Strategy:**

In developing the new SO7 strategy, emphasis was given to examining
successful experience as noted above. For the new strategy, the Mission
expects the core programs to build upon this experience. In doing so,
the core programs are expected to address how broader impact and
scaling-up can be achieved. For example, a higher order magnitude of
results is desired, such as greater outreach in rural areas, significant
foreign exchange earnings from exports, increased private investment,
and broad productivity increases in agriculture. In this context, the
Mission believes that larger program management units can more
effectively address the key problem areas that we have identified in the
ISP: a) Export expansion and diversification, b) Enhanced agricultural
productivity, and c) Productive use and conservation of natural resource
assets. Recognizing that each of these problem areas will require strong
capability to address a number of interrelated elements in a concerted
and systematic manner, the Mission believes that larger program
management units will provide a means to achieve more comprehensive
treatment of the programs. In addition, it is no longer feasible for the
Mission to manage a multitude of direct funding relationships with
different contractors and NGOs because of the management burden it poses
on the Mission. In this regard, the Mission has made a concerted effort
over the last several years to reduce the number of management units.
However, the Mission also recognizes that many diverse partners, both
new and those who have played important roles in Uganda are important in
the development process. In transitioning to the new SO7 strategy, the
design of core programs will call for larger but fewer program
management units. To address the need for working with multiple
partners, the RFPs will encourage consortium type arrangements,
involving international and local partners for each of the core programs
as may be applicable. While each core program RFP may include a number
of partners working together, each core program will have only one
direct contractual relationship with USAID.

In sum, each of the core programs will need to demonstrate strong
linkage to ongoing transition activities initially and until the
transition activities are closed out. Once the transition activities are
closed out, the three core programs will be the primary instruments for
the SO7 strategy, along with the Title II program.

## **C. Program and Institutional Relationships with Partners and Other Donors**

Over the last two years, considerable attention by donors has been given
to how donors support the GOU in the development process. In this
regard, many donors have begun to move towards budget support that
support sector-wide programs as identified by GOU policy frameworks such
as the PEAP, PMA, NAADS, and MTCS. However, donors and the GOU recognize
that not all donors, particularly USAID, can operate in this manner.
Nevertheless, all programs that operate outside of the GOU budget
process must be fully compatible with the GOU policy framework. In this
regard, official donor groups and the GOU will screen all projects for
their compatibility with stated government priorities. Given that all
SO7 programs operate through direct contractual and/or grantee
relationships with implementing partners, it will be extremely important
for the new core programs to demonstrate compatibility with GOU
priorities and linkages that support key GOU initiatives, e.g.
decentralization, the PMA and NAADS, etc.

USAID programs have developed a strong tradition for working closely
together to achieve complementary and integrated results. Many examples
exist with ongoing linkages between Title II programs and IDEA, SPEED
and DAIRY, COMPETE and IDEA, ICRAF/AFRENA and AFRICARE, etc. The new
core programs will be expected to maintain this tradition and build
strong working relationships with other partners. More specifically, the
core programs will require close coordination with transition activities
and between each other because of the integrated nature of the technical
and policy issues being addressed.