Q1. Some leaders have been allocating the NSCG to other community activities e.g. road construction and maintenance. Shouldn't money be used to fund projects related to agricultural production only?

A. Communities can use PMA grant to overcome all kinds of constraints to increasing incomes through agriculture. As long as the activity they spend money on is directly or indirectly related to agricultural production e.g. they can spend the money on a farmer study tour, school demo plot, bridge, a market structure because all these are related to agricultural production.

Q2. Why is the allocation of the PMA grant done using the population and area criteria? This method is unfair to poor districts and sub-counties because the variables used are not poverty sensitive.

A. Yes in the beginning poverty was not included in the allocation formula for NSCG. During the last two years poverty has been included using a system when all districts have been ranked from the poorest to the richest and the allocation is adjusted according to these rankings.

Q3. Why is the amount of money received by sub-counties and parishes small? It is hardly enough to implement projects at their levels because it cannot meet their needs.

A. It is true government doesn't have much money to satisfy all, but whatever amount is given can be useful as long as sub-counties and parishes prioritise their needs and implement those investments that can have a big impact on poverty.

Q4. Why does government sometimes carry out activities that contradict PMA principles e.g. "no free inputs"?

A. Some of these free inputs are distributed on emergency basis, which is acceptable under PMA, e.g. distribution of coffee seedlings to counter the effects of the coffee wilt disease.

Q5. Isn't the privatising of inputs exposing farmers to exploitation?

A. Not at all. In fact with liberalization, competition will drive prices down and improve services. Farmers will ultimately get value for their money.

Q6. Districts that have low revenue base are already constrained raising the 10% co-funding of LGDP, how will they manage to co-fund the PMA and other programmes?

A. The co-funding can be made over the year so long as by the end of the 4th quarter, it is already fully paid. However with the recent removal of Graduated Tax this is going to be a major problem and we hope that a solution will soon be found for co-funding arrangements.

Q7. Town councils do not benefit from the PMA grant yet agriculture is the main source of livelihood for most people.

A. First of all, PMA targets the rural poor. Secondly, even though some agriculture is practiced in Town councils and Municipalities, there are several other income generating opportunities available. Moreover, Bye-laws in urban areas discourage agricultural activities.We expect this issue to be resolved in the land use policy which is being developed by the MWLE.

Q8. How can people access information about PMA, NAADS, PMA grant investment menu, PMA grant modalities and procedures and roles of various stakeholders since leaders often don't pass on information they get?

A. Most of the information above can be accessed from the PMA Secretariat and the Secretariat has various strategies for disseminating information including: regional sensitisation, popular version and radio programmes.

Q9. Whom do the districts sign the grants with?

A. Districts sign the agreement with Ministry of Agriculture on behalf of the PMA process.

Q10. Does PMA use the same district focal person as LGDP?

A. Since PMA grant follows the procedures and modalities as LGDP, the focal persons are normally the same but they can also be appointed separately on advice of the district.

Q 11. Can PMA grant be used to supplement other funding or complete projects started with other funds?

A. Yes, PMA grant can be used in such cases, as long as clear accountabilities (both physical and financial) are provided to PMA.

Q 12. If Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fishery is not the primary driver of PMA then who has the overall responsibility for accounting for it?

A. a number of options were considered in designing the PMA but the ultimate realisation was that agricultural development required interventions from many sectors. There was therefore need to create a framework within which principles would be set to guide and coordinate the interventions. The PMA steering committee has the overall responsibility for its implementation. In parliament the individual ministries account for their Implementation of the programmes and it has been proposed that the overall accountability to parliament should be handled by Prime Ministers.

Q 13. Since many ministries are involved, how will the distribution of outcomes be made?

A. Each ministry has clear roles and responsibilities in the implementation of PMA and each contribution to PMA success will be credited to them. The main mechanism for assessing out comes is the PMA Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to which all implementation agencies will agree on suitable indicators for assessing their outcomes.

Q 14. Does PMA divert MAAIF resources meant for direct interventions in the agricultural sector to other sectors?

A. The PMA does not have a basket of resources from which allocations can be made to different ministries. The ministries are supposed to budget for and fund PMA priorities that fall within their mandate as regards PMA. In effect this means that the different ministries are assisting and contributing to the development of the agricultural sector and thus poverty eradication.

Q 15. If the PMA is a framework, where are the plans?

A. All the ministries involved in the PMA are at various stages of preparing investment plans that would reflect their direct contributions to the PMA. Some sectors such as Agricultural Education, Water have already finished preparing the investment plants which are being incorporated in their annual budgeting processes.

Q 16. PMA is moving very slowly. There is so much about policies and strategies and little on actual progress of activities on the ground.

A. Yes the process is moving slowly but this is the nature of a developing process such as the one we have embarked on. There are no quick fixes because some of the processes involve adaptive changes whereby people's minds, attitudes, experiences have to be changed so as to get the desired results.

Q 17. Can focusing on the poor really bring modernisation? Won't the inertia of the poor farmers hold back the progressive ones?

A. While the PMA interventions will be directed at the rural poor, the others will not be denied the benefits that could accrue from these interventions such as roads, agricultural education and agro-processing. The decision to focus on the poor was a strategic decision as poverty is the major problem and the idea is to effect pro-poor growth, focusing on alleviating the condition of the poor.

Q 18. Won't the privatisation of supply of inputs limit the ability of farmers to access them?

A. The privatisation of supply of inputs will actually improve farmer's access to them because as has been demonstrated in many countries including Uganda, Government is very poor in undertaking commercial business including distribution of inputs and its this reason the government made a policy shift from direct handling of Agricultural input.

Q 19. Why doesn't the PMA emphasize mechanisation and irrigation yet they are important for modernisation?

A. The PMA process is not in conflict with the aspirations and objectives of mechanisation and irrigation the determining factor is affordability. PMA envisages a process whereby farmers should start with technologies that are appropriate and affordable and over a period of time they graduate to more advanced capital intensive technologies. Past experiences in Uganda here also indicate systematic introduction to ensure appropriateness and sustainability. We expect the private sector to play a major role in these processes.