Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

1. Background
1.1 ACF and the Lango Sub-Region
ACF has worked in the Lango sub-region since 2004 with a combination of food security,
livelihoods, nutrition, and water/sanitation programmes in an overall integrated approach to prevent
and treat malnutrition. Initial work was in the internally displaced person camps scattered
throughout the North but then shifted gradually to rural homesteads as security improved and
households returned. The ACF food security and livelihood programme throughout this period has
tried to support household recovery through increased access to productive assets like agricultural
inputs, extension, diversified income sources, and knowledge. Means toward these ends have
evolved alongside changing household priorities as rural livelihoods grow increasingly
(re)established through consecutive production cycles. Programming has shifted away from
broadcast activities like seed fairs for thousands of households to more targeted interventions to
strengthen household resilience while seeking greater integration with nutrition and WASH.
Security has improved greatly in the Lango sub-region since the middle of 2006 after a cessation of
hostilities between the Uganda government and the Lord’s Resistance Army. Voluntary
resettlement has been a promising progression from an emergency situation, with the return
process now officially complete in Lango. However, return and recovery have been followed by
reductions in the number of donors supporting the area and the amount of funding currently
available during this transition between so-called emergency and development phases. Food
security nonetheless remains a priority, with ongoing integrated phase classifications ranking the
Lango sub-region as a Phase 2 area with moderate/borderline food insecurity (see map, Figure 1).
Food insecurity in Lango results primarily from insufficient production at the household level. Land
access has improved since return commenced in 2006, with households accessing up to 5.5 acres
according to ACF monitoring. Nevertheless, increases in production have not followed suit. The
main constraints to increased production are with household access to productive inputs like
seeds, tools, and animal traction. Low crop production also contributes to households lacking
sufficient food for consumption, sale, or seed stocks. This is exacerbated by inefficient farming
practices and inferior crop/seed storage practices, the combination of which decreases seed
security and further undermines the household economy.
Newly resettled households require several consistently successful harvests before agricultural
efficiency can be discussed. To support return and recovery they therefore needed some form of
assistance for at least a year and half after their resettlement. Estimates for 2008 harvests were
initially good but below average rainfall ultimately proved counterproductive as the year
progressed. Such conditions could have potential long term effects on household resilience and
food security into 2009.
Local markets are functioning and usually have food available (although less in Otuke), but they
are poor in quantity and diversity of foods because of low local production. Household cash access
is poor and multiple forms of income are needed to ensure basic needs can be met. Formal credit
is almost entirely lacking. Livestock resurgence has also been slow due to limited household
capital, relatively few animals in the area, and sharp price increases for both fuel and staple foods
that have doubled or in some cases tripled since 2005.
1.2 The ACF 2008 Farmer Field School Programme
Farmer Field Schools (FFS) comprise a group of rural smallholders who unite around a common
production interest and problem that they explore together in the course of the programme, with
facilitated external guidance and support throughout. Groups of 25-30 members elect officers,
develop a constitution, and open a shared bank account before receiving a cash grant and ongoing
training in production practices related to their unique production problem. Members meet weekly
to analyse the “how and why” of their production with additional training from the external facilitator
(with one facilitator responsible for four separate FFS groups). On the basis of collective analysis
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 13 - Farmer Field School Evaluation