DRAFT_STATEMENT_OF_WORK.pdf

The Feed the Future Uganda Inclusive Agricultural Markets Activity Draft Statement of Work

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation section 15.201 part c, USAID/Uganda is sharing a draft of the Statement of Work with all interested parties for the purpose of soliciting comments on its clarity and feasibility as part of the process of designing the Feed the Future Uganda Inclusive Agricultural Markets Activity. Through this contract, USAID/Uganda seeks to increase incomes and improve the livelihoods of households through agricultural-led inclusive economic growth.

This notice is solely intended to solicit comments on this possible activity and is not a Request for Proposals. Ideas contained herein may change significantly during the mission’s ongoing program design, consultation and approval process.

Interested parties must submit all comments concerning this draft Statement of Work in writing to KampalaUSAIDSolicita@usaid.gov, by May 11, 2018, 4:00 pm (EDT) Washington, D.C.

Comments sent to any other e-mail address will not be considered. The email transmitting the comments must reference the solicitation number 72061718R00011 and title Feed the Future Uganda Inclusive Agricultural Markets Activity.

Please note that responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a legally binding contract.

SECTION C – DRAFT STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 ACTIVITY SUMMARY

C.1.1 Title of Activity Feed the Future Uganda Inclusive Agricultural Markets (“the Activity”)

C.1.2 Purpose The purpose of the Feed the Future Uganda Inclusive Agricultural Markets Activity is to increase incomes and improve the livelihoods of households through agricultural-led inclusive economic growth.

Inclusivity refers to the active participation and engagement of all actors looking to participate in the market system, including the poor, women, youth, ethnic minorities, or other marginalized groups who are often excluded—or even exploited—by traditional market systems. This activity will contribute to the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) (Attachment J.1) goal of reducing hunger, malnutrition and poverty and the USAID/Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2016-2021-https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs, 5-year goal of strengthening Uganda’s systems to accelerate inclusive education, health and economic outcomes.

C.1.3 Overview The Activity will focus on creating efficiencies in cross market functions that influence systemic changes in order to have a sustainable impact on the sector and the country. The Activity will scale up the market systems approach and focus investments on cross-market functions that enhance systemic changes. Key entry points for this activity will include 1) agro-industry/agribusiness firms, 2) Government of Uganda institutions and agencies, and 3) market actor organizations (trader networks, producer organizations and associations etc.). This activity is currently part of USAID/Uganda’s Feed the Future (FTF) Value Chain Development project and will be transitioned to the Market Systems Strengthening project when approved. Both projects contribute to achieving USAID Uganda’s CDCS Development Objective three (DO3): “Key systems more accountable and responsive to Uganda’s development needs”. This activity will also indirectly contribute to the achievement of USAID/Uganda’s CDCS Development Objectives one and two of “Community and Household Resilience in select areas and target populations increased” and “Demographic drivers affected to contribute to long term trend shift” respectively.

C.1.3 (a) Scope Under the first Feed the Future strategy, investments aimed to drive systemic changes through improving the enabling environment, enhancing market actor capacity, and increasing investment opportunities in three priority value chains (coffee, maize and beans). From the lessons learned through these investments, the U.S. Government (USG) has a greater understanding of where systemic changes need to take place in order to have a broader and sustainable impact on the sector and the country.

Instead of focusing on pre-selected value chains, this activity intends to invest in cross-market functions that will benefit a diversity of value chains in order to have a broader impact on the incomes and livelihoods of participating households. Although the activity will build on gains previously made and continue to promote actor-based, private sector-led models to improve market efficiencies, it will adopt a flexible approach to the selection of value chains and interventions. The Activity’s interventions will pursue opportunities under three broad value chain categories (Commodity, Staple Crop, and Nutritious Foods) as described in the GFSS Country plan. Selecting different categories will depend on the region(s) of interest, the population targeted, and the objectives pursued. To advance inclusiveness, the Activity will implement both pull and push interventions. Pull interventions will seek to promote https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs development of market functions to expand the quality and diversity of opportunities for poor households to participate and benefit from market system improvement. Push interventions will build capacity of households to effectively engage in market activities. Push and pull interventions at all levels will complement each other and enable the activity to engage a broader range of market actors including the poor, vulnerable, women, and youth, particularly the 14-year old girl and other marginalized groups in order to sustainably tackle food insecurity, malnutrition, and poverty.

As part of the market systems strengthening project, this Activity will seek to integrate and collaborate with other market system activities for the achievement of project goals and results. Under the CDCS, the Activity will seek to be integration with activities implemented under the demographics, resilience, health and governance projects in order to build synergies and amplify results throughout CDCS objectives. The Activity will also seek collaboration with other development partners, civil society, and the Government of Uganda (GOU) to address other constraints to the agriculture market system.

Throughout implementation, this Activity will incorporate environmental concerns (i.e., natural resource management, climate resilience) and, where relevant, actively collaborate with biodiversity activities.

C.1.3 (b) Geographic Focus The Activity is expected to work throughout the Feed the Future Uganda Zone of Influence (ZOI). The ZOI covers 38 districts spread across four regions of Uganda (Attachment J.2). Selection of the ZOI considered a variety of factors including:

• Areas with high levels of vulnerability, including high prevalence of stunting;

• Areas of high private sector and local government partnership potential;

• Locations of USG investments including nutrition, PEPFAR, malaria and Global Health;

• Strategic opportunities for leveraging other donors’ and GoU investments;

• Geographies near protected areas and/or areas of high levels of biodiversity.

This confluence of vulnerability, need, and partnership in the ZOI represents the U.S. Government’s best opportunity for reducing poverty over the long term, improving nutritional outcomes, and increasing the resilience of Ugandans.

C.2 BACKGROUND

A well-functioning market system for key agricultural commodities is critical to inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction. Inclusive agricultural sector development presents a major sustainable pathway out of poverty for a majority of Ugandans. Currently 84% of Uganda’s population lives in rural areas defined by the agricultural economy. At the same time for every three Ugandans who escape poverty, two fall back as the result of shocks--particularly successive shocks. Agricultural market systems change and improvement can provide most Ugandans with a structure for weathering those successive shocks. Further, since 78% of Uganda’s population is under 30, the agricultural sector presents economic opportunities for productively engaging the youth, especially female youth. The median Ugandan is a fourteen-year-old girl, vulnerable to a diversity of social, economic, political, climatic and environmental shocks. Her status is the result of a combination of factors, including systems that do not support her ambitions to thrive. Uganda’s agricultural sector is also important regionally. Uganda currently accounts for 70% of the total staple food trade between the countries of the East African Community. With growing regional food demand, there is great potential for Uganda’s farmers to benefit from expanded food exports, particularly if they are able to meet market requirements of quality and consistent volumes.

C.2.1 Agricultural Context and GOU Priorities Agriculture is the foundation of Uganda’s economy. It contributes to 26% of the GDP and one-half of foreign exchange earnings. With 84% of the population still living in the rural areas, agriculture provides the main source of livelihood and income for majority of Ugandans. Within agriculture, crop income dominates, with maize, beans, and bananas accounting for half of the total value of crop sales nationally. Uganda is the largest regional supplier of grains, contributing more than 70% of intra-East African Community trade. Grain exports include maize, sorghum, millet, and pulses.

Furthermore, whereas agriculture is the source of raw materials for the agricultural-based industrial sector in Uganda most crops are highly vulnerable to climate and weather variability.

Both the Second National Development Plan 2016-2020 (NDP 2) and Vision 2040 identify agriculture as a major contributor to economic growth and employment for the country and fundamental to achieving the goal of transforming Uganda from a low income country to an upper middle income one by 2040. The Government of Uganda’s (GOU) Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (ASSP), which is the main vehicle for driving agricultural sector growth, identifies four priority program areas that directly contribute to support the national goals of poverty reduction, economic growth, employment generation, expansion of exports, and improving the nutritional status of Ugandans everywhere. These program areas are: 1) increasing production and productivity; 2) increasing access to critical farm inputs; 3) improving access to agricultural markets and processing facilities; and 4) strengthening the institutional and enabling environment.

C.2.2 USAID Support to the Agricultural Sector For almost three decades, USAID/Uganda has supported core interventions (project and non-project) focused on increasing agricultural production and marketing. More recently, building on the achievements of past efforts and leveraging other development partner resources, USAID Uganda has implemented a diversity of such programs through the FTF multi-year strategy (2011-2015) and five year CDCS (2011-2015). Moving forward, USAID Uganda’s investments in the sector will be guided by the GFSS Country Plan and the current CDCS (2016-2021). The GFSS Uganda Country Plan represents strategic investments that USG departments and agencies will pursue under the three GFSS objectives of agriculture-led growth, resilience, and nutrition. Both strategies will focus investments in country-owned systems that support results-based programs and partnerships to promote inclusive agriculture sector growth and improve nutritional status, especially of women and children. They also feature cross-cutting priorities of gender equity and expanded opportunities for women and girls, as well as environmentally- sustainable and climate resilient agricultural development. Specifically for agriculture, USAID/Uganda will scale up the market systems approach by focusing investments on cross-market functions that enhance systemic changes in order to create broad impact on the sector and the economy as a whole.

C.2.3 Other Donor Programs in Agriculture The largest donors to Uganda’s agricultural sector include the United States, the World Bank (WB), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the European Union (EU). Through the agricultural development partner group, donors seek to align their assistance with GOU National Development Plan II priorities in the sector. USAID is an active participant in the group and has aligned its project interventions closely with the government’s strategies. USAID, the WB, and the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) are the primary organizations currently involved in supporting the public sector provision of agricultural research and advisory services. The African Development Bank, the EU and DANIDA have focused on key aspects of rural infrastructure, especially roads, while the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is working on food security issues. Private sector engagement around value chain development has been largely limited to DANIDA and USAID, and to a lesser extent the EU (coffee), as well as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), which is focused on improving rice production.

C.2.4 Partnership Landscape The GOU agreed to increase inter-ministerial cooperation and embrace a multi-sectoral approach to agricultural development. The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF) convenes joint annual reviews of the sector, involving all stakeholders, as well as regular sector working group meetings with donors and civil society. Civil society organizations are active in agriculture, both in the field and in policy analysis and advocacy work focused mainly on monitoring the country’s commitments under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) process. Private sector interests are well-represented on commodity-based stakeholder platforms and apex organizations. Meetings among development partners ensure coordination between the respective development partner country programs in the sector.

C.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The agricultural market system in Uganda is characterized by inefficiencies, distortions and weak relationships between actors that impact the volume and value of marketed products. Some of the root causes of market inefficiencies and distortions include 1) counterfeits and low quality inputs, 2) limited commodity transformation and upgrading, 3) limited access to quality services, 4) weak relationships between market actors,5) weak policy and institutional environment, and 6) weak enforcement of formal and informal rules. Counterfeit and low quality inputs constrain on-farm productivity; limited transformation and upgrading of commodities (post-harvest handling, movement, conditioning and storage, and processing/manufacturing) limits competitiveness and profitability; and limited access to services (finance, information, extension, business development etc.) constrain the functionality of the entire system. Further, weak relationships between market actors limit their efficiency and effectiveness in responding to market demands and challenges. Uganda’s weak policy and institutional environment limits public sector investment in agriculture development and opportunities for private sector involvement. Weak enforcement of formal and informal rules limits compliance with market requirements (quality and quantity). Additionally, there are other enablers such as infrastructure, human resources, research, social-cultural norms that affect the functioning of agricultural markets.

C.3.1 Counterfeits and low quality inputs Fifty percent of seeds and the majority of agro-chemicals on the market are counterfeits which affects demand and utilization of inputs. For example, only 2% of Ugandan farmers use inorganic fertilizer (averaging only 1 kg/ha/year) and only 13% of Uganda’s crop area is planted with improved seed. While input use is low across the board, it is even lower among women producers, both in terms of frequency and quantity. Additionally, widespread distribution of free agricultural inputs through Non Government Organizations and government programs creates dependencies on handouts and undercuts local private sector input dealers.

C.3.2 Limited Commodity Transformation and Upgrading Uganda predominantly exports unprocessed agricultural commodities. For example in 2015, the raw material exports were worth $873 million compared to finished consumer goods valued at $582 million.

Meanwhile the combined imports of intermediate and consumer goods were over $4 billion. Additionally, post-harvest losses on the raw materials are as high as 40%. Men dominate value addition processes through the ownership of higher-cost equipment, such as maize milling facilities, and through access to more profitable markets. Youth also have difficulty accessing value addition processes that require capital investment or linkages to more profitable markets.

Manufacturing in Uganda consists predominantly of end-product assembling and raw materials processing, a high share of which is food processing. Both of these are low value added activities. There are very few capital goods industries. Agro-processing firms account for about 39% of manufacturing establishments in Uganda. In addition, manufacturing firms in Uganda are high-cost producers and are characterized by high excess capacity, with installed capacity utilization averaging 50%.

C.3.3 Limited access to quality services The agricultural markets in Uganda are constrained by limited access to quality services such as ineffective extension services including agro-meteorology services, poor access to reliable and timely market information, limited access to financial services, inadequate transport and infrastructure, and overall business development services. Currently the ratio of extension workers to farmers is 1:5,000 compared to the recommended standard of 1:500 and this impacts the volume and value of products in the market. Thirty one percent of the Ugandan population uses unregulated channels including loan sharks to access financial products and services not available with regulated institutions. Loan sharks charge very high interest rates, farmers who borrow from these loan sharks end up losing assets and some even get displaced from their homes. There is a general absence of a sustainable model for market actors to obtain information. Accurate information about market players such as their prices, sales turnover, profit margins and plans is often hard to find. Market information is no longer a public good: the private sector seeks remuneration for information and yet a majority of market actors cannot afford it. It is increasingly clear that most businesses (large and small) have limited access to business Development Services in areas such as accounting systems, HR/payroll support, developing business plans that are key in increasing efficiency, improving accountability, and increasing profits. This situation is reflected in a 2013 survey of women entrepreneurs that found that only 25% had obtained advice from a professional business advisor (in the past year). Barriers to accessing these services may be caused by a range of factors (lack of awareness of their availability, the absence of such services in the geographical region, affordability and/or the perception of women entrepreneurs that their enterprises are too small to benefit).

Services addressing specific needs of youth for finance, advisory services, etc. are also mostly absent from the market.

C.3.4 Weak relationships between market actors Capacity building alone without building functional relationships among market actors will not respond adequately to the needs and challenges of market systems. Weak relationships result in a general lack of continued and effective advocacy, present a barrier to market entry and limited trading, and poor service delivery. The agricultural market system is characterized by weak relationships caused by lack of transparency and trust between actors, and lack of information. For example, non-existent or unenforceable contracts make traders fearful of side-selling. Relationships are further constrained by a general lack of effective organization of market actors such as producer organizations, traders’ associations and other platforms for engagement. A majority of the approximated 40,000 active producer organizations lack the basic infrastructure to effectively operate as businesses.

Women and youth are least connected. Due to the social norms and associated limited mobility and lack of market access, women have limited interaction with value-chain actors, e.g. input suppliers, wholesalers, and consumers. Youth also struggle to establish market relationships. Organizing is a key strategy for women and youth to gain access to more lucrative markets through economies of scale and pooling resources and capacities. Yet within market organizations, where they do exist, women and youth struggle to have a voice or take on leadership roles.

C.3.5 Weak policy and institutional environment Generally, there have been shortfalls in developing and maintaining consistent and adequate policies to facilitate improvements in the agricultural market system. Key policy development/ reform processes take decades to be completed. And even when they are completed, their implementation framework may take another decade or more to be put in place. Additionally, weak institutional and technical capacity for policy analysis and planning is a key structural problem impinging on agricultural performance. Whereas there are multiple public institutions (the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MOFPED), MAAIF, and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC), involved in the development of policies relevant to the agricultural sector, the line ministry, MAAIF, has significant skills’ gaps that limit its ability to play an effective coordination role. Further, the existence of multiple GoU initiatives creates policy uncertainty for other stakeholders (private sector, civil society, and development partners) thereby limiting their involvement. Other key constraints are at the local government level, where agricultural sector project and policy planning is the responsibility of MAAIF’s production departments, which do not yet effectively function. This failure to maintain a consistent and functional policy and institutional environment limits public sector investment in the development and the opportunities for others to engage, particularly the private sector.

C.3.6 Weak enforcement of formal and informal rules The agricultural markets in Uganda are characterized by poorly understood and weakly enforced formal rules (i.e. policy, regulation). Uganda is estimated to lose up to US$300 million annually due to spending inefficiencies resulting from many factors including a weak legal framework and GOU capacity.

Government lacks the will, commitment and capacity to enforce existing policies and regulations. Civil society and private sector lack the capacity to effectively lobby and advocate for relevant reforms and enforcement. Laws are generally “gender neutral” yet enforcement of customary practices disadvantages women and girls. The National Development Plan for the country recognizes the economic empowerment of women as a critical priority, yet no ministry, department or agency has been given the mandate to provide cross-governmental policy leadership and coordination for the promotion of women entrepreneurs.

At the same time, the informal rules (social norms, organizational practices, etc.) constrain who can engage in the market and how. The ability to shift these is limited by lack of collective action, underpinned by weak relationships among market actors. These informal rules disproportionately impact women and female youth, limiting their voice, mobility, educational opportunities, options for their labor, etc. A World Bank study attributes two-fifths of the productivity gap to women’s greater child care responsibilities and one-fifth to their difficulty accessing markets from more remote areas. In the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index, workload, leisure, and access to and decisions on credit were the three lowest scoring areas--all substantially shaped by informal rules.

C.4 ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE

C.4.1 Theory of Change The overall theory of change for the Activity is:

If USAID investments facilitate improvements in inclusive agricultural markets that support agro-industry/agribusiness firms, market actor organizations, and GOU institutions to increase efficiencies and respond to demands and changes in the market system, then there will be increased transformation and upgrading of agricultural commodities; increased utilization of quality inputs and services; increased capacity of market actors to profitably engage in the agricultural marketplace; strengthened implementation and enforcement of rules (formal and informal) and regulations; and strengthened inter and intra-actor relationships, which will ultimately lead to sustained improvements in goods and services within the system thereby increasing incomes and improving livelihoods of households.

Assumptions:

• There will be increased political will and government commitment to support development and implementation of adequate policies to facilitate improvements in the agricultural market system.

• There will be no escalations of conflict in the region to outstrip expected results.

C.4.2 Objectives In line with the purpose of increasing incomes and improving the livelihoods of households through agricultural led inclusive economic growth, the activity will facilitate sustainable market improvements that create opportunities for market actor engagement. The Activity’s specific objectives are to:

1. Increase the institutional (leadership, management, technical, adaptive etc.) capacity of GOU institutions and agencies.

2. Increase the institutional (leadership, management, technical, adaptive etc.) capacity of private sector and civil society organizations.

3. Create incentives for agro-industry and agribusiness firms to respond to changes in the market system and invest in it.

These objectives imply that the Activity will drive change in the market system through three key entry points, i.e. market actor organizations, the agro-industry & agribusinesses, and GOU institutions and agencies. Consequently, the Activity will strengthen key elements of the agricultural market that support new firm entry and firm growth in pursuit of consistent and inclusive provision of competitive goods and services demanded by actors. The Activity will also strengthen enabling environment systems and structures that enhance public sector investment in development and create opportunities for others to engage, particularly the private sector.

C.4.3 Expected Results The Activity is expected to achieve the following results:

1. Increased transformation and upgrading of agricultural commodities This result encompasses all forms of transformation (space, time and form) that convert agricultural commodities into consumable products. In addition this result includes upgrading commodities to add value and quality. Both transformation and upgrading are in response to end-market/consumer requirements and preferences.

2. Increased utilization of quality inputs and services This result includes a wide range of inputs and services that support production, transformation and upgrading of goods within the market system. Inputs include seeds and other planting materials, agro-chemicals, and raw materials for processing and manufacturing. Services that support the functionality of the market system include information, finance, business development, advisory, agronomic, agro-meteorology, etc.

3. Increased capacity of market actors to profitably engage in the agricultural market This result includes all types of institutional (for organizations/firms) and individual-technical, leadership, management and adaptive capacity- that market actors either individually or as organizations/firms require to perform their roles and responsibilities in the market system.

4. Strengthened implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations This includes individual, community, organization/firms, and Government implementation and enforcement/influencing of formal and informal rules and regulations including GOU policies and regulations, local government ordinances, codes of conduct for actors etc.

5. Strengthened inter and intra-actor relationships This result speaks to vertical and horizontal relationships including but not limited to public-private partnerships; relationships within and between groups; organizations and associations; actor-agent relationships (e.g. traders and their village agents); and other actor networks. This result also includes behaviors and relationships among actors that adequately respond to the needs and challenges of market systems, enhance continued and effective advocacy, enhance trading and service delivery.

C.4.4 Required Indicators:

In addition to the custom indicators that will be proposed by Contractor, below are the required indicators that will be used to measure results;

Result 1 EG 3.2.-26 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance (disaggregated by type of product/service, further disaggregated by producer/firm, further disaggregated by sex and age).

Result 1 & 2 EG 3.2-24: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance (disaggregated by market actor type, further disaggregated by sex, commodity, management type, age)

Result 3 EG 3.2-29: Number of Organizations with Increased Performance Improvement with USG assistance (disaggregated by actor type, further disaggregated by sex, age, commodity)

Result 4 EG.3.1-d Number of milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support (disaggregated by level and institutional architecture policy element)

Result 5 In addition to traditional monitoring methods, the Contractor will design a monitoring and evaluation system that utilizes innovative approaches to measure how the Activity is changing relationships between and among market actors. Of particular interest is the quality of the relationship and definition of a strengthened relationship. Monitoring relationships and links will go beyond social or transactional network analyses and align with monitoring and evaluation requirements outlined in section C.8.

C.4.5 Illustrative Results Pathways USAID recognizes that there may be several viable results pathways and that the pathways are likely to have interlinkages. This will require careful thought in terms of sequencing and layering interventions for maximum effect. Throughout the life of the Activity, the Contractor must develop, monitor, and revisit these and other pathways and adjust accordingly given new evidence and tactical learning. With that understanding, USAID provides the following possible illustrative pathways.

1. By aligning incentives, supporting the uptake of new business models and strategies, and de-risking first mover actions, the Contractor can encourage the agro-industry and agribusiness firms to invest in improving product quality and in making improvements in market infrastructure to support agro-processing. This, in turn, enables product diversification and higher profit margins. The diversification both increases access to competitive markets and hedges market risk. This has a pull effect at the production level - incentivizing increased production and productivity and higher quality produce.

2. By aligning incentives and supporting capacity development and new strategies with select GOU institutions and agencies, the Contractor can catalyze those institutions to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of formal rules. This will encourage agro-input firms to adhere to quality standards and reduce the prevalence of counterfeit agricultural inputs. This incentive shift for agro-input firms will lead to increased availability of, access to, and utilization of high quality agricultural inputs. Increased and proper utilization of high quality inputs will help producers manage risk in some cases (e.g. drought tolerant seeds) and will lead to increased productivity and higher quality production to open access to and meet the demands/standards of profitable, competitive markets.

3. By aligning incentives for collaboration, supporting the uptake of new models and strategies, and de-risking new methods, the Contractor can facilitate market actor organizations (e.g. producer organizations, trader networks, etc.) to strengthen and grow. This will enable the organizations to profitably engage in the agricultural marketplace and include more members. This will also enable shifts in relationships within the marketplace, influencing the informal rules about who can access what markets. More profitable engagement in the marketplace will also create opportunities for increased utilization of quality inputs and other services. This will lead to increased productivity and higher quality production to open access to and meet the demands of profitable, competitive markets, including responding to the pull effect created by increased agro-processing.

Proposals should articulate a vision for results pathways that link proposed interventions to activity and ultimately higher level outcomes as described in the theory of change, including illustrative indicators that would show progress along the pathway and allow for learning if the pathway is viable. Feed the Future indicators should be included as applicable and the development and use of custom indicators is encouraged. The monitoring process should also capture aspects of why and how tactical actions (inputs) translate (or don’t) into outcomes along the pathway. USAID welcomes proposals for innovative approaches to measure systems dynamics that underpin the results pathways such as leadership, new or improved relationships, and shifts in informal rules, including norms, attitudes, and behaviors.

C.5 ACTIVITY PROGRESSION

Activity implementation will consist of three interrelated phases that will comprise how the Activity proceeds:

1. Analysis – To sufficiently design interventions and conduct analysis of the system constraints, opportunities, and leverage points for each objective.

2. Facilitation of Interventions – All interventions will be facilitated through the private sector, government, and civil society actors based on the analysis.

3. Continuous Learning – Including the baseline survey, performance monitoring and evaluation system, and collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) activities.

While the above list is sequential, the Activity phases will, in reality, be interconnected and layered.

Where analysis finds opportunities in the market, facilitation of intervention catalyzes changes in market function, and learning drives updates to the analysis or refinement of facilitation toward those interventions that are most effective in achieving the Activity objectives. Some interventions may commence immediately at startup if analytical work is not needed in advance. Each phase is further elaborated as follows.

C.5.1 Analysis Contractors will carry out analyses that will be necessary both at the beginning and throughout the life of the Activity, to determine sound interventions and strategies. See Attachment J.3 for a matrix of existing analyses.

C.5.2 Implementation Activity implementation will prioritize innovative approaches and pathways that are consistent with the guiding principles described in the following section. Primarily, the contractor will employ a flexible approach to invest resources in piloting and refining approaches. Through this flexibility, the contractor will continuously re-evaluate actions and assumptions to minimize risk, eliminate what does not work, and test and scale up what is promising and innovative. Additionally, Contractor will leverage private and public sector resources through either grants, cost share agreements, or other strategic partnerships.

C.5.3 Collaboration, Learning and Adapting (CLA) Development work presents many opportunities to collaborate and engage with a broad set of stakeholders, to learn from both evidence and experience and to adapt iteratively to unexpected results or changes in context. This is why USAID places “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting” at the center of its Program Cycle, both as a connector between, and an integrated part of the components.

The ability to learn and adapt program approaches will be critical to the success of the Activity and the Contractor must build adaptive learning into program implementation. Driving and monitoring the Activity’s effectiveness in such a rich, institutional landscape will require the Contractor’s careful consideration of what types of short, focused studies and methods for providing rapid program feedback would be suitable and provide attractive evidence for making program course corrections and decisions.

For example, the locations of clean water and sanitation activities that are funded as part of this award will be mapped, and the mapping data will be shared with the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Geographic Information Specialist (GIS) Specialist, as well as with the district local governments.

These types of action-learning, monitoring and program reflection methods used to ascertain program effectiveness in complex implementation environments are now well documented. Some of these include participatory methods such as stakeholder feedback, be it local scorecards or mobile applications, network analysis that can reveal informational flows and relational dynamics of ‘who decides and who benefits’ and making program adjustments based on findings, or variations of outcome mapping and other methods of monitoring, action-research and otherwise generating faster, responsive program feedback that can foster more practical, problem-derivate iterative adaptation.

Collaborating Collaboration enables cross-sector integration, convergence, and effective interventions to maximize development resources and enhance development results. The Contractor will collaborate with USAID-supported activities in common regions of operation and engage with stakeholders (defined collaboratively with USAID COR) to deliver integrated services to target populations.

Learning Learning is intentional, systematic and resourced. Sources for learning include data from monitoring, portfolio reviews, findings of research, evaluations, analyses conducted by USAID or third parties, knowledge gained from experience, stocktaking exercises, and other sources. Those documents produced by USAID will be shared with the Contractor by the COR for consideration in the learning phase of CLA.

These sources will be used to develop and implement plans, manage adaptively, and contribute to the USAID/Uganda knowledge base in order to improve development outcomes. A collaborating, learning, and adapting focus helps to ensure that programming is coordinated, grounded in evidence, and adjusted as necessary to remain relevant and effective throughout implementation.

Knowledge generated by learning will be applied throughout programming to implementation approaches, processes, and stakeholder engagement. Knowledge generated by learning should also be disseminated to activity stakeholders, partners, and collaborators in an appropriate forum and format so that it may be translated into decisions and actions that enhance the success of approaches and interventions designed to achieve common intermediate results.

The Contractor will share information and knowledge generated by monitoring data, portfolio review results, research findings, evaluations, analyses, and experiences with other USAID implementing partners. The Contractor will apply actionable information and knowledge gained from collaborating partners to activity implementation in order to improve results.

USAID implementing partners will convene on a periodic basis to reflect on actions taken, exchange analysis, and propose decisions that affect implementation.

Adapting The Contractor will demonstrate adaptability that is informed by knowledge gained through learning, and recognize behaviors and incentives necessary to create change. Knowledge gained through learning will influence decision making, resource allocation, and adaptation to contextual shifts. Application of new knowledge to implementation decisions will be reflected in the Annual Work Plan and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). Decisions to adapt may be based on, but not limited to the following:

• Extraneous changes in the operating environment (i.e. emergency or natural disaster; national policy changes)

• Financial and human resource constraints

• Evidence that signals targets are unmet

• Emerging evidence that interventions are not working or could work better if adapted

Any changes to the scope of the contract must be approved by the Cognizant Contracting Officer in a modification to the contract. Changes in technical approach may be approved by the COR by way of the COR’s authority to provide technical direction and approve Annual Work Plans.

C.6 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Activity must incorporate the following guiding principles into all facets of work to the greatest extent possible.

C.6.1 Focus on root causes. The Activity must maintain a problem-driven focus, with appropriate analysis to understand and adapt to the local context. The Contractor must therefore, place emphasis on binding constraints to the performance objectives. Alleviating these particular constraints will allow for more systemic change.

C.6.2 Employ a market facilitation approach. The Contractor will work with and through market actors and target activity resources to leverage partnerships with market actors who demonstrate commitment to investment and a willingness to change attitudes and behaviors that increase industry competitiveness, inclusiveness, and resilience. The Contractor must seek to strengthen the market system by facilitating foundational incentives to normalize new behaviors as driven by market actor roles, relationships, and the rules (formal and informal) that shape them. Thus the focus of the Contractor’s interventions must be on the capacity and network development of these key local actors through a self-selection process that will enable local leadership development. Traditional direct delivery approaches will not be acceptable.

C.6.3 Demonstrate inclusive stakeholder engagement that enables Ugandan leadership. Through the facilitation approach, the Contractor will engage broadly with partners at the national, sub-national, and community level, including market actors of all types including representatives of marginalized groups. These stakeholders shall inform design and participate in implementation and monitoring of activities throughout the Activity lifecycle. This engagement should identify promising leaders, including from marginalized populations, that can inspire larger change processes. The desire to invest in the change must come from within the local system and should be Ugandan-led.

C.6.4 Use Science, Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (STIP). The Contractor will incorporate innovative approaches to implementation and encourage use of scientific research, innovative technologies, and structured partnerships, especially those that are Ugandan-led, as appropriate, to drive change and positive impact in agricultural markets.

C.6.5 Apply a holistic approach to Collaborating, Learning & Adapting. The Contractor shall collaborate and coordinate both programming and learning with others to achieve more effective results.

The Activity shall emphasize strategic collaboration. This is one activity in the portfolio of Feed the Future, USAID/Uganda, and the broader development community in Uganda. For mutual benefit, the Contractor must actively seek out others with which to coordinate at minimum and jointly facilitate where substantial gains can be realized. Strategic collaboration underpins a facilitation approach, so this must be given significant consideration. Through CLA, the Activity shall continuously re-evaluate actions and assumptions to minimize risk, eliminate what does not work, and test and scale up what is promising and innovative. Flexibility in implementation will be essential to establish a learning culture and to adapt with that learning over the life of the Activity. The approach to CLA shall also support transparency and accountability.

C.6.6 Infuse and prioritize inclusive development – including but not limited to women and youth empowerment. Inclusive agricultural market systems must promote gender equity and explicitly target meaningful youth engagement. The Contractor must employ a gender-conscious lens to effectively take into account traditional gender roles and dynamics between men and women, as well as girls and boys.

The Contractor must pursue market systems development that creates opportunities for the poor and otherwise marginalized to engage in and benefit from agricultural markets.

C.6.7 Embed resilience aspects. USAID defines resilience as a set of absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. The Contractor must apply a resilience lens as it improves capacities for actors across levels from the household to the community to the market at large. To support sustained economic gains for Ugandans, resilience aspects must be embedded in the Activity and strong linkages must be built with activities under USAID/Uganda’s Resilience Project (see C.7). This Activity should contribute to addressing the underlying and systemic causes of malnutrition, particularly within the income and women’s empowerment pathways. The Activity interventions should seek to address both the convergences and tensions between nutrition and agricultural market systems development. These should be carefully considered during intervention design.

C.6.8 Embed market based climate smart innovations and other environmental risk management practices. The Contractor must seek to ensure that as market actors change behaviors, good stewardship and risk management are part of strategies driving those behavior changes. These considerations must also be part of enabling environment changes. In all things, the Contractor must do no harm.

C.7 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

C.7.1 Government of Uganda Uganda seeks to bring about the transformation of the agricultural sector from one dominated by subsistence farming to one that is competitive, profitable and sustainable. The Second National Development Plan 2016-2020 (NDP 2) and Vision 2040 both identify agriculture as a major contributor to economic growth and employment for the country, and fundamental to achieving the goal of transforming the country from a low-income country to an upper-middle income one by 2040.

Specifically, the Government of Uganda’s Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (ASSP) and the Uganda Nutrition Action plan 2011 - extended through 2017 (UNAP) are aligned with NDP and Vision 2040. The ASSP is also the main vehicle for implementing the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program in the country, and the UNAP provides guidance on country led interventions with a goal to improve the nutrition status of all Ugandans.

The ASSP identifies four priority programs to support the growth of the sector which will contribute to the national goals of poverty reduction, economic growth, employment generation, expansion of exports, and crucially, improving the nutritional status of Ugandans everywhere. These are:

• Increasing production and productivity

• Increasing access to critical farm inputs

• Improving access to agricultural markets and processing facilities

• Strengthening the institutional and enabling environment

The Activity will have impact on all the four priority program areas.

Uganda continues to contend with the challenge of malnutrition, and progress in addressing it has been slow. The GOU embraced a multi-sectoral approach to food and nutrition security programs with the UNAP as the overarching framework guiding nutrition interventions, under the coordination of the Office of the Prime Minister. The Government of Uganda established Sectoral and Districts Nutrition Coordination Committees to operationalize UNAP and a Common Results Framework to monitor progress towards achieving UNAP goal and objectives. The Activity will indirectly contribute to results under two of those objectives:

• Enhance consumption of diverse diets, and

• Protect households from the impact of shocks and other vulnerabilities that affect their nutritional status.

C.7.2 U.S. Government This Activity aligns with the USG Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) and the USAID/Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Primarily, Activity expected results 1 and 2 contribute to CDCS IR 3.3; expected result 3 contributes to both CDCS IRs 3.1 and 3.2; expected result 4 contributes to CDCS IR 3.4; and expected result 5 contributes to CDCS IRs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of CDCS DO3: Key Systems More Accountable and Responsive to Uganda’s Development Needs. Therefore, in aggregate the expected results contribute to all four intermediate results of DO3. Additionally, through collaboration and coordination, the Activity will contribute to or enhance the achievement of key results under DO1: Community and Household Resilience in Select Areas and Target Populations Increased and DO2: Demographic Drivers Affected to Contribute to Long-Term Trend Shift. Within the GFSS, expected results will directly contribute to the achievement of IR1 ultimately leading to the achievement of IRs 2-7 of the GFSS.