diff --git "a/annotation_data/wbg_extractions/doc_119/raw/doc_119_raw.json" "b/annotation_data/wbg_extractions/doc_119/raw/doc_119_raw.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/annotation_data/wbg_extractions/doc_119/raw/doc_119_raw.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,5773 @@
+[
+ {
+ "input_text": "Document of\n# The World Bank\n\n\n**FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY**\n\n\nReport No: PAD1188\n\n\nINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION\n\n\nPROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT\n\n\nON A\n\n\nPROPOSED CREDIT\n\n\nIN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 94.3 MILLION\n\n(US$130 MILLION EQUIVALENT)\n\n\nTO THE\n\n\nREPUBLIC OF UGANDA\n\n\nFOR A\n\n\nTHIRD NORTHERN UGANDA SOCIAL ACTION FUND PROJECT (NUSAF 3)\n\n\nMay 5, 2015\n\n\nSocial Protection and Labor Global Practice\nAfrica Region\n\n\nThis document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the\nperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World\nBank authorization.\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 0
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS\n\n\n(Exchange Rate Effective March 31, 2015)\n\n\nCurrency Unit = Uganda Shillings (UGX)\n\nUS$1 = UGX 2,972\n\nUS$1 = SDR 0.7249\n\n\nFISCAL YEAR\nJuly 1 - June 30\n\n\nABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS\n\n\nACDO Assistant Community Development Officer\nACTED [Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acted.org%2F&ei=SCwsVafVD7fLsASw8ICgAw&usg=AFQjCNH5CfzLbJt991V6Q1QrC-FyE6XELQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.cWc)\nAIDS [Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome](http://www.medicinenet.com/acquired_immunodeficiency_syndrome_aids/article.htm)\nASSIP Accountability Sector Strategic Plan\nCAO Chief Administrative Officer\nCAS Country Assistance Strategy\nCBO Community Based Organization\nCDA Community Development Assistant\nCDD Community Driven Development\nCDO Community Development Officer\nCFAA Country Financial Accountability Act\nCIG Community Interest Group\nCMG Community Monitoring Groups\nCPC Community Procurement Committee\nCPMC Community Project Management Committee\nCSO Civil Society Organization\nCWC Community Watershed Committee\nDEC District Executive Committee\nDFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)\nDRDR Department of Relief, Disaster Preparedness\nDRF Disaster Risk Financing\nDRM Disaster Risk Management\nDTPC District Technical Planning Committee\nEPRA Extended Participatory Rural Appraisal\nESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment\nESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework\nESMP Environmental and Social Management Plans\nFA Financial Agreement\nFAO Food and Agriculture Organization\nFEWS Net Famine Early Warning Systems Network\nGHM Grievances Handling Mechanism\nGoU Government of Uganda\n\n\nii\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 1
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "GRS Grievance Redress Service\nIHISP Improved Household Income Support Program\nHISP Household Income Support Program\nHIV [Human Immunodeficiency Virus](http://www.medicinenet.com/human_immunodeficiency_virus_hiv/article.htm)\nIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development\nICB International Competitive Bidding\nIFMS Integrated Financial Management System\nIFR Interim Financial Report\nIG Inspectorate of Government\nIPF Investment Project Financing\nIPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan\nIRR Internal Rate of Return\nISP Implementation Support Plan\nLC Lower Council\nLG Local Government\nLICF Livelihood Investment Commitment Form\nLIPW Labor-Intensive Public Works\nLIS Livelihood Investment Support\nM&E Monitoring and Evaluation\nMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries\nMIS Management Information System\nMELTC Mount Elgon Labor-based Training Center\nMoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development\nMoGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development\nMoH Ministry of Health\nMoLG Ministry of Local Government\nMoU Memorandum of Understanding\nNCB National Competitive Bidding\nNLIPWG National Labor Intensive Public Works Guideline\nNDO NUSAF3 District Officer\nNDP National Development Plan\nNDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index\nNECOC National Emergency Coordination and Operations Center\nNGO Non-Government Organization\nNUSAF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund\nOPM Office of the Prime Minister\nPDC Parish Development Committee\nPDO Project Development Objective\nPFAA Public Finance and Accountability Act\nPFM Public Financial Management\nPLWA People Living with HIV/AIDS\nPMC PRDP Monitoring Committee\nPOM Project Operations Manual\nPPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority\nPRDP Peace, Recovery and Development Plan\nPPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority\n\n\niii\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 2
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "RAP Resettlement Actions Plans\nRFQ Request for Quotation\nRPF Resettlement Policy Framework\nSACS Social Accountability Committees\nSACCOS Savings and Credit Co-operative Society\nSPRING Stability, Peace and Reconciliation Project\nSWC Soil and Water Conservation\nTPC Technical Planning Committee\nTST Technical Support Team\nTWG Technical Working Group\nUNDP United Nations for Development Programme\nUSPP Uganda Social Protection Policy\nVLIC Village Livelihood Improvement Committee\nWFP World Food Programme\nWRSI Water Requirement Satisfaction Index\nYOP Youth Opportunities Program\n\n\nRegional Vice President: Makhtar Diop\nCountry Director: Philippe Dongier\nSenior Global Practice Director: Arup Banerji\nActing Practice Manager: Manuel Salazar\nTask Team Leader: Endashaw Tadesse\n\n\niv\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 3
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**\n**THIRD NORTHERN UGANDA SOCIAL ACTION FUND PROJECT (NUSAF 3)**\n\n\n**TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n**Page**\n\n\nI. **STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1**\n\nA. Country Context ............................................................................................................ 1\n\nB. Sectoral and Institutional Context ................................................................................. 2\n\nC. Higher-level Objectives to which the Project Contributes ........................................... 4\n\n\nII. **PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................................5**\n\nA. PDO............................................................................................................................... 5\n\nB. Project Beneficiaries ..................................................................................................... 5\n\nC. PDO-level Results Indicators ........................................................................................ 6\n\n\nIII. **PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................6**\n\nA. Project Components ...................................................................................................... 6\n\nB. Project Financing ........................................................................................................ 15\n\nProject Cost and Financing ............................................................................................... 15\n\nC. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design ................................................ 15\n\n\nIV. **IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................16**\n\nA. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 16\n\nB. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 18\n\nC. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 18\n\n\nV. **KEY RISKS ......................................................................................................................19**\n\nA. Overall Risk Rating and Explanation of Key Risks.................................................... 19\n\n\nVI. **APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................20**\n\nA. Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................... 20\n\nB. Technical ..................................................................................................................... 20\n\nC. Financial Management ................................................................................................ 21\n\nD. Procurement ................................................................................................................ 21\n\nE. Social (including Safeguards) ..................................................................................... 22\n\nF. Environment (including Safeguards) .......................................................................... 23\n\nG. World Bank Grievance Service .................................................................................. 24\n\n\nv\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 4
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring .........................................................................26**\n\n\n**Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................33**\n\n\n**Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................63**\n\n\n**Annex 4: Implementation Support Plan ....................................................................................96**\n\n\n**Annex 5: Key Lessons from the TAAC Sub-component under NUSAF 2 .............................98**\n\n\n**Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................100**\n\n\nvi\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 5
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": ".\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n**PAD DATA SHEET**\n\n_Republic of Uganda_\n\n_Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3) (P149965)_\n\n**PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT**\n\n\n_AFRICA_\n\n\nReport No.: PAD1188\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|.
Basic Information|Col2|Col3|Col4|Col5|Col6|Col7|Col8|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Project ID|Project ID|Project ID|EA Category|EA Category|EA Category|Team Leader(s)|Team Leader(s)|\n|P149965|P149965|P149965|B - Partial Assessment|B - Partial Assessment|B - Partial Assessment|Endashaw Tadesse Gossa|Endashaw Tadesse Gossa|\n|Lending Instrument|Lending Instrument|Lending Instrument|Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]|Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]|Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]|Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]|Fragile and/or Capacity Constraints [ ]|\n|Investment Project Financing|Investment Project Financing|Investment Project Financing|Financial Intermediaries [ ]|Financial Intermediaries [ ]|Financial Intermediaries [ ]|Financial Intermediaries [ ]|Financial Intermediaries [ ]|\n||||Series of Projects [ ]|Series of Projects [ ]|Series of Projects [ ]|Series of Projects [ ]|Series of Projects [ ]|\n|Project Implementation Start Date|Project Implementation Start Date|Project Implementation Start Date|Project Implementation End Date|Project Implementation End Date|Project Implementation End Date|Project Implementation End Date|Project Implementation End Date|\n|27-May-2015|27-May-2015|27-May-2015|31-Dec-2020|31-Dec-2020|31-Dec-2020|31-Dec-2020|31-Dec-2020|\n|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|Expected Effectiveness Date
Expected Closing Date|\n|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|15-Dec-2015
31-Dec-2020|\n|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|Joint IFC
|\n|No
|No
|No
|No
|No
|No
|No
|No
|\n|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|Practice
Manager/Manager
Senior Global Practice
Director
Country Director
Regional Vice President|\n|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|Manuel Salazar
Arup Banerji
Philippe Dongier
Makhtar Diop|\n|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|.
Borrower: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development|\n|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|Responsible Agency: Office of the Prime Minister|\n|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|Contact:
Ms. Christine Guwatudde Kintu Title:
Permanent Secretary|\n|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|Telephone No.: (256-41) 434-2231/259-498
Email:ps@opm.go.ug|\n|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|.
**Project Financing Data(in USD Million)**|\n|[ ]
Loan|[ ]
IDA Grant|[ ]
IDA Grant|[ ]
Guarantee|[ ]
Guarantee|[ ]
Guarantee|[ ]
Guarantee|[ ]
Guarantee|\n|[ X ]
Credit|[ ]
Grant|[ ]
Grant|[ ]
Other|[ ]
Other|[ ]
Other|[ ]
Other|[ ]
Other|\n|Total Project Cost:|Total Project Cost:|130.00|130.00|130.00|Total Bank Financing:|Total Bank Financing:|130.00|\n|Financing Gap:|Financing Gap:|0.00|0.00|0.00||||\n|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|.
**Financing Source**
**Amount**|\n|BORROWER/RECIPIENT|BORROWER/RECIPIENT|BORROWER/RECIPIENT|BORROWER/RECIPIENT|0.00|0.00|0.00|0.00|\n\n\nvii\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "PAD DATA SHEET",
+ "confidence": 0.9975053668022156,
+ "start": 4,
+ "end": 7
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Report",
+ "confidence": 0.7514864206314087,
+ "start": 34,
+ "end": 35
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Expected Effectiveness Date",
+ "confidence": 0.7290604114532471,
+ "start": 341,
+ "end": 344
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "Endashaw Tadesse Gossa",
+ "confidence": 0.6955901980400085,
+ "start": 151,
+ "end": 154
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Joint IFC",
+ "confidence": 0.5339152216911316,
+ "start": 471,
+ "end": 473
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Financing Data",
+ "confidence": 0.9876569509506226,
+ "start": 1469,
+ "end": 1472
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Financing Data",
+ "confidence": 0.9987956285476685,
+ "start": 1503,
+ "end": 1506
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Total Project Cost",
+ "confidence": 0.8516342639923096,
+ "start": 1717,
+ "end": 1720
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financing Source",
+ "confidence": 0.8953996300697327,
+ "start": 1803,
+ "end": 1805
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financing Source",
+ "confidence": 0.5403664708137512,
+ "start": 1822,
+ "end": 1824
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financing Source",
+ "confidence": 0.5066006779670715,
+ "start": 1879,
+ "end": 1881
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 6
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|International Development Association (IDA)|Col2|Col3|Col4|Col5|Col6|130.00|Col8|Col9|Col10|Col11|Col12|Col13|Col14|Col15|Col16|Col17|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|130.00|\n|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|.
**Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)**|\n|Fiscal
Year|2016|2017|2018|2019|2019|2019|2020|2021|2021||||||||\n|Annual|10.00|30.00|30.00|30.00|30.00|30.00|25.00|5.00|5.00||||||||\n|Cumulati
ve|10.00|40.00|70.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|125.00|130.00|130.00||||||||\n|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|.
**Institutional Data**|\n|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|**Practice Area (Lead)**|\n|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|Social Protection & Labor|\n|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|**Contributing Practice Areas**|\n|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|Finance & Markets|\n|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|**Cross Cutting Topics**|\n|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|[ ]
Climate Change|\n|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|[ ]
Fragile, Conflict & Violence|\n|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|[ X ]
Gender|\n|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|[ ]
Jobs|\n|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|[ ]
Public Private Partnership|\n|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|**Sectors / Climate Change**|\n|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|\n|Major Sector|Major Sector|Major Sector|Major Sector|Sector|Sector|Sector|Sector|Sector|%|%|Adaptation
Co-benefits %|Adaptation
Co-benefits %|Adaptation
Co-benefits %|Adaptation
Co-benefits %|Mitigation
Co-benefits %|Mitigation
Co-benefits %|\n|Health and other social services|Health and other social services|Health and other social services|Health and other social services|Other social services|Other social services|Other social services|Other social services|Other social services|100|100|||||||\n|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|100|100|100|100|100|100|100|100|\n|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information
applicable to this project.
.|\n|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|
**Themes**|\n|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)|\n|Major theme|Major theme|Major theme|Major theme|Major theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|Theme|%|%|%|%|\n|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance &
Social Care Services|75|75|75|75|\n|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Social protection and risk management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|Other social protection and risk
management|15|15|15|15|\n|Social dev/gender/inclusion|Social dev/gender/inclusion|Social dev/gender/inclusion|Social dev/gender/inclusion|Social dev/gender/inclusion|Gender|Gender|Gender|Gender|Gender|Gender|Gender|Gender|10|10|10|10|\n|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|Total|100|100|100|100|\n\n\n.\n\n\nviii\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Expected Disbursements",
+ "confidence": 0.6875255107879639,
+ "start": 175,
+ "end": 177
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Expected Disbursements",
+ "confidence": 0.7830263376235962,
+ "start": 303,
+ "end": 305
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Institutional Data",
+ "confidence": 0.9999250173568726,
+ "start": 576,
+ "end": 578
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Institutional Data",
+ "confidence": 0.9999792575836182,
+ "start": 609,
+ "end": 611
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Institutional Data",
+ "confidence": 0.9726638197898865,
+ "start": 752,
+ "end": 754
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Social Protection & Labor",
+ "confidence": 0.5006403923034668,
+ "start": 929,
+ "end": 933
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Climate Change",
+ "confidence": 0.7523127198219299,
+ "start": 1363,
+ "end": 1365
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Gender",
+ "confidence": 0.5600160956382751,
+ "start": 1801,
+ "end": 1802
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Public Private Partnership",
+ "confidence": 0.5682829022407532,
+ "start": 1945,
+ "end": 1948
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information",
+ "confidence": 0.9991551637649536,
+ "start": 2618,
+ "end": 2625
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information",
+ "confidence": 0.9962006211280823,
+ "start": 2722,
+ "end": 2729
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information",
+ "confidence": 0.9992309808731079,
+ "start": 3008,
+ "end": 3015
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Themes",
+ "confidence": 0.5017054677009583,
+ "start": 3150,
+ "end": 3151
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": null,
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 7
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Proposed Development Objective(s)|Col2|Col3|Col4|Col5|Col6|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the
resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda.”
.|\n|
**Components**|
**Components**|
**Components**|
**Components**|
**Components**|
**Components**|\n|**Component Name**|**Cost (USD Millions)**|**Cost (USD Millions)**|**Cost (USD Millions)**|**Cost (USD Millions)**|**Cost (USD Millions)**|\n|1 Labor Intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing|61.00|61.00|61.00|61.00|61.00|\n|2 Livelihood Investment Support|43.50|43.50|43.50|43.50|43.50|\n|3 Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Anti-
Corruption|5.00|5.00|5.00|5.00|5.00|\n|4 Safety Net Mechanisms and Project Management|20.50|20.50|20.50|20.50|20.50|\n|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|.
**Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool (SORT)**|\n|**Risk Category**|**Risk Category**|**Risk Category**|**Rating**|**Rating**|**Rating**|\n|1. Political and Governance|1. Political and Governance|1. Political and Governance|Substantial|Substantial|Substantial|\n|2. Macroeconomic|2. Macroeconomic|2. Macroeconomic|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|3. Sector Strategies and Policies|3. Sector Strategies and Policies|3. Sector Strategies and Policies|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|4. Technical Design of Project or Program|4. Technical Design of Project or Program|4. Technical Design of Project or Program|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability|5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability|5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|6. Fiduciary|6. Fiduciary|6. Fiduciary|Substantial|Substantial|Substantial|\n|7. Environment and Social|7. Environment and Social|7. Environment and Social|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|8. Stakeholders|8. Stakeholders|8. Stakeholders|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|**OVERALL**|**OVERALL**|**OVERALL**|Moderate|Moderate|Moderate|\n|.
**Compliance**|.
**Compliance**|.
**Compliance**|.
**Compliance**|.
**Compliance**|.
**Compliance**|\n|**Policy**|**Policy**|**Policy**|**Policy**|**Policy**|**Policy**|\n|Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant
respects?
|Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant
respects?
|Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant
respects?
|Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant
respects?
|Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|\n|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|.
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Yes [ ]
No [ X ]|\n|Have these been approved by Bank management?|Have these been approved by Bank management?|Have these been approved by Bank management?|Have these been approved by Bank management?|Yes [ ]
No [ ]|Yes [ ]
No [ ]|\n|Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board?|Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board?|Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board?|Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board?|Yes [ ]
No [ ]|Yes [ ]
No [ ]|\n|Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation?|Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation?|Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation?|Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation?|Yes [ X ]
No [ ]|Yes [ X ]
No [ ]|\n|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|.
**Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project**
**Yes**
**No**|\n|Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01|Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01|**X**|**X**|**X**||\n|Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04|Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04||||**X**|\n|Forests OP/BP 4.36|Forests OP/BP 4.36||||**X**|\n|Pest Management OP 4.09|Pest Management OP 4.09|**X**|**X**|**X**||\n\n\nix\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Development Objective",
+ "confidence": 0.7207229137420654,
+ "start": 45,
+ "end": 48
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9534471035003662,
+ "start": 72,
+ "end": 74
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.9856116771697998,
+ "start": 67,
+ "end": 71
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Development Objective",
+ "confidence": 0.6298757791519165,
+ "start": 156,
+ "end": 159
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.932470977306366,
+ "start": 183,
+ "end": 185
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.9875621795654297,
+ "start": 178,
+ "end": 182
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Labor Intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing",
+ "confidence": 0.7649776935577393,
+ "start": 381,
+ "end": 389
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Systematic Operations Risk- Rating Tool",
+ "confidence": 0.9243074655532837,
+ "start": 506,
+ "end": 512
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Rating Tool",
+ "confidence": 0.8240285515785217,
+ "start": 600,
+ "end": 602
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "waivers of Bank policies",
+ "confidence": 0.7041055560112,
+ "start": 1207,
+ "end": 1211
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01",
+ "confidence": 0.7478574514389038,
+ "start": 1643,
+ "end": 1651
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Environmental Assessment",
+ "confidence": 0.5157489776611328,
+ "start": 1652,
+ "end": 1654
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": null,
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04",
+ "confidence": 0.50099778175354,
+ "start": 1681,
+ "end": 1689
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 8
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11|Col2|Col3|Col4|X|Col6|Col7|Col8|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10|Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10|Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10|Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10||||**X**|\n|Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12|Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12|Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12|Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12|**X**|**X**|**X**||\n|Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37|Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37|Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37|Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37||||**X**|\n|Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50|Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50|Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50|Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50||||**X**|\n|Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60|Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60|Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60|Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60||||**X**|\n|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|.
**Legal Covenants**|\n|**Name**|**Name**|**Recurrent**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Frequency**|**Frequency**|\n|Appointment of key Technical Support
Team staff|Appointment of key Technical Support
Team staff||15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|||\n|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|\n|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|The Recipient, through OPM, shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date appoint Key
Technical Support Team Staff, all in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the
Financing Agreement.|\n|**Name**|**Name**|**Recurrent**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Frequency**|**Frequency**|\n|Updating procurement filing and record
keeping system|Updating procurement filing and record
keeping system||15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|||\n|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|\n|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|The Recipient shall, not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, update its procurement filing
and record keeping system, in form and substance acceptable to the Association.|\n|**Name**|**Name**|**Recurrent**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Frequency**|**Frequency**|\n|Partitioning of office space for PDU staff|Partitioning of office space for PDU staff|
|15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|15-Jun-2016|||\n|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|\n|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|The Recipient, through OPM shall not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, partition office
space for PDU staff.|\n|**Name**|**Name**|**Recurrent**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Due Date**|**Frequency**|**Frequency**|\n|Special covenant|Special covenant|**X**||||CONTINUOUS|CONTINUOUS|\n|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|**Description of Covenant**|\n|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|The Recipient shall undertake no activities under Part 1(b)(ii) of the Project unless and until the
following condition has been met, namely, that the Recipient has determined that a natural disaster has
occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Operations Manual and the Association has agreed
with such determination.
.|\n|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|
**Conditions**|\n|**Source Of Fund**|**Name**|**Name**|**Name**|**Name**|**Type**|**Type**|**Type**|\n|IDA|Preparation of Operations Manual|Preparation of Operations Manual|Preparation of Operations Manual|Preparation of Operations Manual|Effectiveness|Effectiveness|Effectiveness|\n|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|**Description of Condition**|\n\n\nx\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Legal Covenants",
+ "confidence": 0.5893983244895935,
+ "start": 325,
+ "end": 327
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financing Agreement",
+ "confidence": 0.832690954208374,
+ "start": 603,
+ "end": 605
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financing Agreement",
+ "confidence": 0.832690954208374,
+ "start": 753,
+ "end": 755
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Updating procurement filing and record",
+ "confidence": 0.5521807670593262,
+ "start": 1010,
+ "end": 1015
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "15-Jun-2016",
+ "confidence": 0.6626096963882446,
+ "start": 1033,
+ "end": 1034
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "procurement filing",
+ "confidence": 0.9516780376434326,
+ "start": 1126,
+ "end": 1128
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "record keeping system",
+ "confidence": 0.8298823833465576,
+ "start": 1132,
+ "end": 1135
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "procurement filing",
+ "confidence": 0.9636092782020569,
+ "start": 1204,
+ "end": 1206
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "record keeping system",
+ "confidence": 0.9177515506744385,
+ "start": 1210,
+ "end": 1213
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "procurement filing",
+ "confidence": 0.974040687084198,
+ "start": 1360,
+ "end": 1362
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "record keeping system",
+ "confidence": 0.8966907858848572,
+ "start": 1366,
+ "end": 1369
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "OPM",
+ "confidence": 0.8553327918052673,
+ "start": 1570,
+ "end": 1571
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "PDU staff",
+ "confidence": 0.5290461778640747,
+ "start": 1592,
+ "end": 1594
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "OPM",
+ "confidence": 0.8650060296058655,
+ "start": 1660,
+ "end": 1661
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "PDU staff",
+ "confidence": 0.5020729303359985,
+ "start": 1652,
+ "end": 1654
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Operations Manual",
+ "confidence": 0.8266558647155762,
+ "start": 1998,
+ "end": 2000
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Operations Manual",
+ "confidence": 0.9376235008239746,
+ "start": 2144,
+ "end": 2146
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Operations Manual",
+ "confidence": 0.9416845440864563,
+ "start": 2290,
+ "end": 2292
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 9
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|The Recipient has prepared and adopted an Operations Manual, in accordance with the provisions of
Section I.B.1 of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement.|Col2|Col3|Col4|Col5|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|**Team Composition**|**Team Composition**|**Team Composition**|**Team Composition**|**Team Composition**|\n|**Bank Staff**|**Bank Staff**|**Bank Staff**|**Bank Staff**|**Bank Staff**|\n|**Name**|**Role**|**Title**|**Specialization**|**Unit**|\n|Endashaw Tadesse
Gossa|Team Leader
(ADM
Responsible)|Sr Social Protection
Specialist||GSPDR|\n|Grace Nakuya Musoke
Munanura|Procurement
Specialist|Senior Procurement
Specialist||GGODR|\n|Paul Kato Kamuchwezi|Financial
Management
Specialist|Financial
Management
Specialist||GGODR|\n|Agnes Kaye|Team Member|Program Assistant||AFMUG|\n|Alex Kamurase|Team Member|Sr Social Protection
Specialist||GSPDR|\n|Annette Nabisere
Byansansa|Team Member|Team Assistant||AFMUG|\n|Antonia T. Koleva|Team Member|Social Protection
Specialist||GSPDR|\n|Barry Patrick Maher|Team Member|Financial Sector
Specialist||GFMDR|\n|Begashaw Wukaw
Woldu|Team Member|Sr Social Protection
Specialist||GSPDR|\n|Christiaan Johannes
Nieuwoudt|Team Member|Finance Officer|Finance|WFALA|\n|Christine M. Makori|Counsel|Senior Counsel||LEGAM|\n|Constance Nekessa-
Ouma|Safeguards
Specialist|Social
Development
Specialist|Social Safeguards|GSURR|\n|Franklin Mutahakana|Team Member|E T Consultant||AFMUG|\n|Hardwick Tchale|Team Member|Senior Agriculture
Economist||GFADR|\n|Herbert Oule|Safeguards
Specialist|Environmental
Specialist|Environmental
Safeguards|GENDR|\n|Khurshid Banu
Noorwalla|Team Member|Program Assistant||GSPDR|\n|Laura B. Rawlings|Team Member|Lead Social
Protection
Specialist||GSPDR|\n|Lire Ersado|Peer Reviewer|Senior Economist||GSPDR|\n\n\nxi\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 10
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Michael Mutemi
Munavu|Col2|Team Member|Col4|Social Protection
Specialist|Col6|Col7|Col8|Col9|GSPDR|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Muderis Abdulahi
Mohammed|Muderis Abdulahi
Mohammed|Peer Reviewer|Peer Reviewer|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|||GSPDR|\n|Sarah Coll-Black|Sarah Coll-Black|Team Member|Team Member|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|Sr Social Protection
Specialist|||GSPDR|\n|William David Wiseman|William David Wiseman|Peer Reviewer|Peer Reviewer|Program Leader|Program Leader|Program Leader|||ECCU6|\n|Yonatan Yehdego Araya|Yonatan Yehdego Araya|Team Member|Team Member|E T Consultant|E T Consultant|E T Consultant|||GCFDR|\n|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|**Extended Team**|\n|**Name**|**Name**|**Title**|**Title**|**Title**|**Office Phone**|**Office Phone**|**Office Phone**|**Location**|**Location**|\n|Ashutosh Raina|Ashutosh Raina|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Catherin Barasa|Catherin Barasa|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Joe Nuwamanya|Joe Nuwamanya|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Judith Sandford|Judith Sandford|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Mareile Beate Stephanie
Drechsler|Mareile Beate Stephanie
Drechsler|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Pablo R. Valdivia Zelaya|Pablo R. Valdivia Zelaya|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Ravi Cherukupalli|Ravi Cherukupalli|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Rim Nour|Rim Nour|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|Sorssa Natea Merga|Sorssa Natea Merga|Consultant|Consultant|Consultant||||||\n|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|.
**Locations**|\n|**Country**|**First**
**Administrative**
**Division**|**First**
**Administrative**
**Division**|**Location**|**Location**|**Location**|**Planned**|**Actual**|**Comments**|**Comments**|\n|Uganda|Northern Region|Northern Region|Northern Region|Northern Region|Northern Region|**X**||||\n|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|.
**Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary)**|\n|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|Consultants Required?
Consulting services to be determined|\n\n\nxii\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 11
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "I. **STRATEGIC CONTEXT**\n\n**A.** **Country Context**\n\n1. **Uganda has experienced two decades of strong economic growth and a significant**\n**reduction in poverty.** Economic growth rates in Uganda averaged 6.3 percent per year during the\n1990s, 7.0 percent during the 2000s, and 5.8 percent over the past five years. Uganda’s poverty\nrate declined from 31 percent in 2005/6 to 19.7 percent in 2012/13. [1]\n\n\n2. **Despite this progress, a large proportion of the Ugandan population remains highly**\n**vulnerable.** Forty-three percent of Ugandans (up from 33 percent in 1992) have a level of\nconsumption that is equivalent to less than twice the poverty line and so remain vulnerable to\nshocks and risk falling into poverty. This vulnerability to poverty is illustrated by the fact that 70\npercent of those who rose out of poverty between 2005/6 and 2009/10 were replaced by others\nwho became poor (15 percent of the population moved out of poverty, but 10.5 percent fell into\npoverty).\n\n\n3. **There are significant differences between poverty levels in different regions, with**\n**northern regions suffering worse poverty levels on a range of measures.** While poverty has\ndeclined sharply in the central and western regions (in part because of the growth of urban areas\nin these regions), much higher rates of poverty continue to characterize the north, mid-north, and\neast of the country. Table 1 below highlights the high poverty headcount and other socioeconomic\nindicators in these regions. The persistence of poverty in these areas can be attributed to the legacy\nof conflict and violence.\n\n\n**Table 1: Regional Poverty Indicators**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Col1|Poverty
Headcounta/|Stuntingb/|Net enrollment
ratec/|Under 5 mortalityd/|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|National|19.7|33.4|82.3|90|\n|West Nile|42.3|37.8|85.4|125|\n|North/Mid North|35.4|24.7|83.1|105|\n|Karamoja/North-Eastern|74.2|45.0|56.7|153|\n\n\n_Sources_ : a/ Uganda National Household Survey 2012/13. b/ Uganda Demographic Health Survey 2011. c/ Uganda\nNational Household Survey 2012/13. d/ Uganda Demographic Health Survey 2011\n\n\n4. **Vulnerable households in Uganda face considerable climatic risks, primarily**\n**related to drought.** Uganda’s population is predominantly rural (84 percent of the total\npopulation) and relies heavily on rain fed farming. The rural population consists – for the most\npart – of smallholder farmers who are subject to several production constraints and have limited\ncapacity to cope with recurrent climatic shocks. This makes them very vulnerable to food shortages\nand malnutrition and makes exposed regions in Uganda chronically food insecure. [2] The risks range\nfrom an influx of refugees from the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo in the West Nile\nsub-region, thus putting pressure on limited natural resources **,** to floods and landslides in the Elgon\nsub-region, and to drought, prolonged dry spells, and dust storms in the Karamoja sub-region.\nNorthern Uganda is particularly exposed, with more than 80 percent of households relying heavily\n\n\n1 While there are suggestions that the national poverty line is set very low, an analysis of the international poverty line\nof US$1.25 showed the same trend ‒ poverty rates fell from 51.5 percent in 2006 to 38 percent in 2009.\n2 OCHA (2006)\n\n1\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "poverty\nrate",
+ "confidence": 0.7855648398399353,
+ "start": 84,
+ "end": 86
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9938358664512634,
+ "start": 24,
+ "end": 25
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2005/6",
+ "confidence": 0.8844907879829407,
+ "start": 91,
+ "end": 94
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "Ugandans",
+ "confidence": 0.8436570167541504,
+ "start": 135,
+ "end": 136
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Regional Poverty Indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.7505149841308594,
+ "start": 344,
+ "end": 347
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.8344559669494629,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7688544392585754,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2012/13",
+ "confidence": 0.8755890727043152,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2012/13",
+ "confidence": 0.5585801005363464,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Uganda National Household Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.9930277466773987,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.9798297882080078,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9288694858551025,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2012/13",
+ "confidence": 0.9180717468261719,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2012/13",
+ "confidence": 0.731967031955719,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Uganda Demographic Health Survey 2011",
+ "confidence": 0.6317242980003357,
+ "start": 484,
+ "end": 489
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.7442418932914734,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.8969492316246033,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2011",
+ "confidence": 0.560027539730072,
+ "start": 488,
+ "end": 489
+ },
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Uganda\nNational Household Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.7021592259407043,
+ "start": 492,
+ "end": 496
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.7871834635734558,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9397503137588501,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2012/13",
+ "confidence": 0.8100987076759338,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Uganda Demographic Health Survey 2011",
+ "confidence": 0.6215826272964478,
+ "start": 502,
+ "end": 507
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.5714124441146851,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.891181230545044,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2011",
+ "confidence": 0.6445842385292053,
+ "start": 488,
+ "end": 489
+ },
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "national poverty line",
+ "confidence": 0.5575959086418152,
+ "start": 688,
+ "end": 691
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "OCHA",
+ "confidence": 0.8812593221664429,
+ "start": 731,
+ "end": 732
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2006",
+ "confidence": 0.9738900661468506,
+ "start": 723,
+ "end": 724
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2006",
+ "confidence": 0.7710518836975098,
+ "start": 723,
+ "end": 724
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.8888246417045593,
+ "start": 678,
+ "end": 679
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 12
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "on low-productivity subsistence crops, which is exacerbated by other stresses such as land\ndegradation and insecurity.\n\n5. **These effects are expected to increase as climate change creates further challenges**\n**and imposes severe losses and hardships on the poorest communities.** According to the United\nNations Joint Action Framework on Climate Change in Uganda, climate change threatens to\nreverse the country’s hard-won development gains and to jeopardize its economic development\nand poverty eradication goals. In addition, a recent International Climate Risk Report [3] labeled\nUganda as one of the most unprepared and most vulnerable countries in the world.\n\n\n6. **High growth alone is unlikely to be enough to ensure that poor and vulnerable**\n**households share in the benefits of prosperity.** Stagnant inequality and high rates of\nvulnerability together indicate that the growth-oriented strategy adopted by the government has\nbeen unable to bring prosperity to all. Specific pro-poor interventions are needed to protect people\nfrom falling into poverty while enabling vulnerable people to contribute more to economic growth\nin both the short and long term.\n\n\n**B.** **Sectoral and Institutional Context**\n\n7. **The Government of Uganda recognizes the need for additional investments in areas**\n**with high poverty rates and poor socioeconomic indicators.** Both the draft of the Second\nNational Development Plan (NDP2) and the Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan (PRDP)\nhighlight this need. The draft NDP2 recommends that special programs for areas with high poverty\nrates and poor socioeconomic indicators be supported with special interventions focusing on\nrebuilding and revitalizing the local economy in an effort to raise incomes. The PRDP was\ndesigned as a set of affirmative actions to fill development gaps created by over two decades of\ninsurgencies. The Second Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 2) was designed and is\nbeing implemented within the framework of the PRDP. The government is currently formulating\na third PRDP (PRDP3) that will continue to focus on building peace and improving the livelihoods\nof the people in the northern part of the country, with a focus on social protection interventions.\n\n\n8. **These new investments will need to focus on those interventions that will have the**\n**greatest positive impact on household incomes.** NUSAF 1 and 2 have both included a\ncommunity infrastructure component supporting the development of a range of infrastructure\nincluding housing for teachers and health workers, classrooms, latrines for schools and health\ncenters, and boreholes and other potable water sources. Investments by NUSAF (and other\nprojects) have made huge progress in terms of increasing key infrastructure in areas affected by\nconflict. Meeting the remaining social service infrastructure needs can most effectively be\nachieved by taking a sectoral approach that can comprehensively assess and address remaining\ngaps rather than a piecemeal community approach. However, northern sub-regions still lag behind\nthe rest of the country in terms of poverty, and interventions targeted directly to poor households\nwill be the best way to address this problem.\n\n\n9. **NUSAF 1 and 2 have demonstrated the effectiveness of livelihood support in**\n**increasing household incomes.** A randomized evaluation of the Youth Opportunities Program\n(YOP), which was the livelihood support component of the NUSAF1, showed that beneficiaries\nhad experienced substantial and persistent increases in investment, work, and income. After four\nyears, the treatment group had 57 percent more capital stocks, 38 percent higher earnings, and 17\n\n\n3 CIGI (2007)\n\n2\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 13
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "percent more hours of work than the control group. Also, the incomes of women in the treatment\ngroup were 73 percent higher than those of the women in the control group compared with a 29\npercent differential gain for men. Through its Household Income Support (HISP) component,\nNUSAF 2 financed over 5,830 sub-projects that are now providing beneficiaries with vital income\nand improved the livelihoods of about 80,100 beneficiary households of which 61 percent are\nfemale-headed. The beneficiary assessment study of the HISP in NUSAF 2 indicated that\nbeneficiaries earned between UGX 100,000 and UGX 150,000 on a monthly basis, and 79 percent\nof beneficiary respondents indicated that the HISP sub-projects boosted their incomes and\nimproved their lives. In addition, recent monitoring data on the project show that the income of\nthe households that participated in these schemes increased from UGX 96,000 to 255,000 per\nmonth, suggesting the positive gains from this intervention. The beneficiary satisfaction survey\nalso showed that satisfaction is high (82 percent) and households report increased income and\nsavings.\n\n10. **NUSAF 2 has also been investing in public works activities since 2009.** Together with\nthe complementary cash and food for work activities implemented by the World Food Programme\n(WFP), NUSAF 2 has built experience and implementation capacity for public works in northern\nand eastern Uganda. While there have been some weaknesses in achieving the desired objectives,\nNUSAF 2 has employed individuals from almost 18,000 households and constructed 279\nkilometers of access road and 282 culverts, which have increased the accessibility of the\nbeneficiary communities, and planted 25 acres of trees, which has had a positive impact on the\nenvironment.\n\n\n11. **The government adopted social protection as an important part of its strategy to**\n**fight poverty and promote inclusive economic growth.** The National Development Plan (NDP)\n2010-2015 articulated a route to prosperity through economic growth and job creation. However,\nit also emphasized the need to ensure that wealth creation is accompanied by sustained reductions\nin poverty and improvements in the welfare of people living below the poverty line. Given this\nfocus on economic growth with equity, the NDP highlighted the need for social protection for\npeople who are unable to benefit directly from economic growth and job creation because of a lack\nof capacity and basic resources. Consistent with this, the government and development partners\nhave been supporting a number of social protection interventions with an increasing focus on cash\ntransfers.\n\n\n12. **However, the sector is currently characterized by a large number of small programs**\n**being implemented in isolation from each other, which has led to fragmentation, gaps in**\n**coverage, and duplication** . [4] In 2013, total spending, from all sources, on direct income support\namounted to US$88 million. While this amount is low compared with levels of safety net spending\nin other African countries, it represents a significant investment in the sector. However, the\neffectiveness of this spending is undermined by the fact that investments are disbursed among a\nlarge number of small programs, many of which are implemented by NGOs. The two largest\nprograms, Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment (financed by the UK’s Department for\nInternational Development) [5] and the WFP-supported portion of NUSAF 2, [6] cover about 1 percent\n\n\n4 Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development (MoGLSD) (forthcoming 2015)\n5 The Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment cash transfer program is an unconditional cash transfer program\ncomprised of a senior citizens’ grant and a vulnerable families’ grant (the former being more widespread than the\nlatter) targeted to specific categories of the population (the elderly and households with a high dependency ratio).\n6 WFP support for NUSAF 2 provided cash or food for assets and followed different operational procedures to the rest\nof the NUSAF 2 program and was effectively a separate operation.\n\n3\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "beneficiary assessment study",
+ "confidence": 0.9652036428451538,
+ "start": 88,
+ "end": 91
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "beneficiary respondents",
+ "confidence": 0.6900622248649597,
+ "start": 120,
+ "end": 122
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "monitoring data",
+ "confidence": 0.7146528363227844,
+ "start": 139,
+ "end": 141
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.6337291598320007,
+ "start": 150,
+ "end": 151
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "beneficiary satisfaction survey",
+ "confidence": 0.9990144968032837,
+ "start": 178,
+ "end": 181
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "survey",
+ "confidence": 0.778580367565155,
+ "start": 180,
+ "end": 181
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "northern\nand eastern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.532335102558136,
+ "start": 250,
+ "end": 254
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.9734148383140564,
+ "start": 150,
+ "end": 151
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 2",
+ "confidence": 0.9537475109100342,
+ "start": 203,
+ "end": 205
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "northern\nand eastern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7155473828315735,
+ "start": 250,
+ "end": 254
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2009",
+ "confidence": 0.7447368502616882,
+ "start": 214,
+ "end": 215
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "National Development Plan",
+ "confidence": 0.9820187091827393,
+ "start": 348,
+ "end": 351
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "NDP",
+ "confidence": 0.9639754891395569,
+ "start": 352,
+ "end": 353
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2010-2015",
+ "confidence": 0.9526026248931885,
+ "start": 354,
+ "end": 355
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment",
+ "confidence": 0.6696386337280273,
+ "start": 602,
+ "end": 607
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "UK",
+ "confidence": 0.7214952707290649,
+ "start": 611,
+ "end": 612
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2015",
+ "confidence": 0.6346434354782104,
+ "start": 651,
+ "end": 652
+ },
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 2",
+ "confidence": 0.8132938742637634,
+ "start": 627,
+ "end": 629
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "cash or food for assets",
+ "confidence": 0.7282943725585938,
+ "start": 718,
+ "end": 723
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 14
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "and 0.9 of the population respectively. One of the main objectives of the new draft Social\nProtection Policy (USPP) is to strengthen the coordination of social protection services.\n\n\n13. **While public works programs currently cover an estimated 40 percent of all direct**\n**income support beneficiaries, the implementation approach in most programs undermines**\n**their role as an effective safety net.** The duration of employment provided by public works subprojects tends to be short; employment can be created at any time of the year with no reference to\nseasonal variations in consumption; and the opportunity to participate in public works is often\nprovided to each beneficiary household only once. Additionally, the lack of technical capacity\namong implementing agencies at the local level undermines the quality of the infrastructure that is\ncreated. Strengthening public works so that they can serve as an effective safety net and expanding\ntheir coverage will be a key opportunity to develop the sector.\n\n\n14. **The World Bank is well positioned to support the Government of Uganda in**\n**establishing the preliminary building blocks for a national safety net system.** The World\nBank’s support for public works through its support for NUSAF 1 and 2 and its role in further\nreshaping public works as a targeted safety net for the poor will culminate in the development of\nnational guidelines for labor-intensive public works by the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social\nDevelopment (MGLSD). In addition, the Bank can draw on its vast operational experience and\nevidence-based knowledge to help the government to find local solutions based on regional and\ninternational experiences on social protection in general and safety nets in particular. This vast\nexperience will be critical to helping the government of Uganda to build a strong and effective\nsafety net system.\n\n\n15. **Previous investments by the Bank and DFID have been credited with significantly**\n**reducing the prevalence of corruption and other misuse of project funds under NUSAF 2.**\nThe component funded by the Bank and DFID increased the capacity of the Inspectorate of\nGovernment and made communities more aware of their roles and responsibilities with regard to\nmonitoring and supervising NUSAF 2 activities. The lessons learned as a result of that component\nhave contributed to the design of a new directorate – the Project Monitoring Directorate – which\nhas primary responsibility for monitoring all government projects.\n\n\n**C.** **Higher-level Objectives to which the Project Contributes**\n\n16. **The National Development Plan (NDP) provides an overall framework for**\n**development in Uganda.** The vision expressed in the draft NDP2 is to transform Uganda from a\npredominantly peasant and low-income country into a competitive, upper-middle-income country.\nIn order to achieve this, NDP2 emphasizes the need for inclusive and sustainable growth, while\nincreasing overall competitiveness and creating additional wealth and employment.\n\n\n17. **The Peace and Recovery Development Plan prioritizes the necessary investments**\n**for Northern Uganda** . PRDP3 is currently being formulated but is expected to focus on economic\nrevitalization, livelihood improvement, peace building, and conflict resolution. In particular, the\nPRDP3 will support interventions that focus on revitalizing the local economy, on boosting\nhousehold incomes, on environmental protection (particularly with regard to droughts and floods),\nand on social protection interventions targeted to vulnerable populations.\n\n\n18. **The Government of Uganda is currently finalizing its draft Social Protection Policy**\n**(USPP).** The USPP calls for the development of a sustainable system of social protection to protect\nUganda’s poor and vulnerable citizens from the negative effects of shocks. The USPP is made up\nof three intervention areas: contributory social security, direct income support (including\n\n\n4\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 15
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "unconditional transfers and public works programs), and the care, protection, and support of\nvulnerable people. It focuses on the need to enhance coordination of and develop systems for social\nprotection.\n\n\n19. **The NUSAF 3 project will directly contribute to the higher-level objectives**\n**mentioned in paragraphs 16 to 18 above by supporting the Government of Uganda in**\n**ensuring the inclusion of the poor and vulnerable populations of disadvantaged regions in**\n**the country’s development process** . The project will do this by implementing activities in\nComponent 1 and 2 that will provide income support to and build the resilience of the poor and\nvulnerable households. In addition, the project will help the government to reach its goal of\nincreasing transparency and accountability in public service delivery in northern Uganda. This will\nbe achieved by Component 3 consistent with the government’s commitments in Vision 2040, the\nNDP, and the Accountability Sector Strategic Plan (ASSIP).\n\n\n20. **NUSAF 3 will directly contribute to the two pillars of the World Bank’s global**\n**strategy of reducing absolute poverty and promoting shared prosperity.** The project will do\nthis by providing cash transfers to increase the incomes of vulnerable households, by creating\nassets that will reduce the causes of their vulnerability, and by targeting support to increase their\nincome-generating capacity.\n\n\n21. **The proposed operation is fully aligned with the World Bank’s Country Partnership**\n**Strategy for Uganda** . The first strategic objective of the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for\n2011-2015, as well as the 2013 CAS Progress Report, is to promote inclusive economic growth\nand the third strategic objective aims to strengthen human capital development in Uganda. The\nproposed operation will contribute to the achievement of these two results. Safety net support has\nbeen demonstrated to enable poor people to participate in the growth process, while also resulting\nin increased access to health and education services. This has had a positive impact on human\ndevelopment, particularly for children.\n\n\nII. **PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES**\n\n**A.** **PDO**\n\n22. **The Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support**\n**to and build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda** .” Effective\nincome support is defined as the increase in the value of household assets of beneficiaries of Labor\nIntensive Public Works (LIPW) and Livelihood Investment Support (LIS). Resilience is defined\nas the capacity of households and communities to adapt to a new strategy in the face of shocks and\ncrises [7] .\n\n\n**B.** **Project Beneficiaries**\n\n23. **The project (NUSAF 3) will target poor and vulnerable households in 55 districts of**\n**Northern Uganda** . The geographic scope of this project is determined by the area supported by\n\n\n7 NUSAF 3 will contribute to building resilience by creating productive community assets such as soil and water\nconservation activities that would increase land productivity and income; valley tanks, hand-dug wells, and spring\ndevelopment that would increase water supply for human and animal during drought events. The transfers to the LIPW\nbeneficiaries and the grants to LIS beneficiaries would help them build household assets. In addition, the Disaster\nRisk Financing (DRF) will provide access to safety net during shocks for the poor and vulnerable people to protect\ntheir assets and livelihoods\n\n\n5\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "CAS Progress Report",
+ "confidence": 0.7724400758743286,
+ "start": 309,
+ "end": 312
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "promote inclusive economic growth",
+ "confidence": 0.5008758902549744,
+ "start": 315,
+ "end": 319
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "World Bank",
+ "confidence": 0.6702161431312561,
+ "start": 201,
+ "end": 203
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.851705014705658,
+ "start": 153,
+ "end": 154
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2013",
+ "confidence": 0.9733946323394775,
+ "start": 308,
+ "end": 309
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2011-2015",
+ "confidence": 0.7946146130561829,
+ "start": 302,
+ "end": 303
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.7953636646270752,
+ "start": 236,
+ "end": 238
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.6493282318115234,
+ "start": 526,
+ "end": 528
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6818206906318665,
+ "start": 543,
+ "end": 545
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.9244961142539978,
+ "start": 531,
+ "end": 535
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 16
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "PRDP3, which in turn is focused on districts with the highest poverty rates and that were most\naffected by conflict. Over the five year period, 599,100 households (2,995,500 people) will benefit\nfrom the various interventions of the project. Consequently, 499,000 households (2,495,000\npeople) will directly benefit from the LIPW component, while the LIS component is likely to reach\n100,100 households (500,500 people) over the five years of the intervention [8] . The project will also\ncontain a provision to scale up the LIPW component to support additional households in Karamoja\nsub-region in the event of a drought. Indirect beneficiaries will include all those living in\nwatersheds supported through the LIPW component, as well as those who may be better served as\na result of the greater scrutiny and citizen’s engagement enabled by the transparency,\naccountability and Anti-Corruption (TAAC) component.\n\n\n**C.** **PDO-level Results Indicators**\n\n24. It is proposed that progress towards the achievement of the PDO will be measured by the\nfollowing result indicators:\n\n - Number of household beneficiaries of the project\n\n - Number of female beneficiaries of the project\n\n - Number of households benefiting from post-disaster activities\n\n - Percentage increase in the value of household assets of beneficiaries of LIPW and LIS\n\n - Percentage of project beneficiaries satisfied with project intervention\n\nIII. **PROJECT DESCRIPTION**\n\n**A.** **Project Components**\n\n25. **NUSAF 3 builds on the lessons of both NUSAF 1 and 2 and aims to contribute to**\n**the operationalizing of the Uganda Social Protection Policy** . In doing so, it has a greater focus\non labor intensive public works, and seeks to further enhance livelihood support by ensuring\ngreater sustainability of interventions. The project will also test the ability of the labor intensive\npublic works program to scale-up in response to shocks. In addition, it will consolidate the\nachievements of transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption interventions and seek to expand\nand deepen the interventions in a more systemic and effective manner.\n\n26. **The proposed project will have four components** . The first component contains two\nsub-components ‒ Labor Intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing ‒ that will both\nprovide temporary/seasonal employment opportunities for poor and vulnerable households and\nwill be capable of being scaled up in response to disasters in selected pilot areas. The second\ncomponent, Livelihood Investment Support, also contains two subcomponents ‒ Improved\nHousehold Investment Support Program (IHISP) and Sustainable Livelihood Pilot (SLP) – and\nprovides livelihood support to poor and vulnerable households to enable them to increase their\nproductive assets and incomes. The third component ‒ Strengthened Transparency, Accountability\nand Anti-Corruption (TAAC) ‒ will cover activities implemented by the Inspectorate of\nGovernment (IG) to improve transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption efforts in northern\nUganda both for NUSAF3 and other services. The fourth component ‒ Safety Net Mechanisms\nand Project Management ‒ will provide institutional support to implement the new project and\n\n\n8 Average household size of 5 persons in Northern Uganda. Source: Uganda National Household Survey 2012/2013,\nTable 2.8, page 17\n\n6\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW component",
+ "confidence": 0.5439546704292297,
+ "start": 69,
+ "end": 71
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Karamoja\nsub-region",
+ "confidence": 0.5933067798614502,
+ "start": 119,
+ "end": 121
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.890417754650116,
+ "start": 31,
+ "end": 32
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW component",
+ "confidence": 0.5181174278259277,
+ "start": 140,
+ "end": 142
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Karamoja\nsub-region",
+ "confidence": 0.5209181904792786,
+ "start": 119,
+ "end": 121
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.7613344788551331,
+ "start": 31,
+ "end": 32
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "PDO-level Results Indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.9899746775627136,
+ "start": 185,
+ "end": 188
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7891462445259094,
+ "start": 309,
+ "end": 310
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.800709068775177,
+ "start": 231,
+ "end": 232
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.5635049939155579,
+ "start": 284,
+ "end": 286
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.8445308208465576,
+ "start": 309,
+ "end": 310
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "labor intensive\npublic works",
+ "confidence": 0.8174756169319153,
+ "start": 354,
+ "end": 358
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6517711877822876,
+ "start": 309,
+ "end": 310
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.9599949717521667,
+ "start": 438,
+ "end": 442
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Improved\nHousehold Investment Support Program",
+ "confidence": 0.6612066626548767,
+ "start": 472,
+ "end": 477
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.8208190202713013,
+ "start": 590,
+ "end": 591
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.8948403000831604,
+ "start": 545,
+ "end": 546
+ },
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2012/2013",
+ "confidence": 0.7449849247932434,
+ "start": 591,
+ "end": 594
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2012/2013",
+ "confidence": 0.8237578868865967,
+ "start": 591,
+ "end": 594
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.8699449896812439,
+ "start": 493,
+ "end": 497
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 17
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "help to develop the social protection operational tools that are envisioned in the draft Uganda\nSocial Protection Policy (USPP).\n\n\n**Component 1: Labor-intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing (US$61 million**\n**equivalent)**\n\n27. **LIPW will provide beneficiaries from poor and vulnerable households with a**\n**seasonal transfer for multiple years** **[9]** **in return for their participation in LIPW** . Following\ndisasters, the DRF sub-component will be activated in order to scale up the LIPW activities\ntemporarily and rapidly to provide additional support to core LIPW clients and/or to extend\ncoverage to new beneficiaries. The ability to rapidly scale up LIPW is expected to prevent\nhousehold consumption from dropping after climatic disasters and to protect their livelihoods and\nassets, leading to a more rapid post-crisis recovery. While the core LIPW sub-component will be\nimplemented throughout Northern Uganda, the DRF sub-component will be piloted in selected\ndistricts to generate adequate evidence on which to base the design of a possible extension of the\nprogram to other areas after the midterm review. The sub-component will also support the\ngovernment in developing the rules governing any scale–up and estimating the financial costs of\ndifferent options.\n\n28. _**Sub-component 1.1: Labor-intensive Public Works (US$49 million).**_ This subcomponent will provide beneficiaries from poor and vulnerable households with a seasonal\ntransfer in return for their participation in LIPW that will enable them to sustain and increase their\nassets and smooth their consumption during lean seasons. This sub-component will also result in\nthe creation of physical assets of value to the local communities. This component will finance: (i)\nthe wages/transfers for the beneficiaries participating in the public works activities; (ii) the\nequipment, materials, and semi-skilled labor and other inputs necessary to implement the selected\nLIPW up to the required quality; and (iii) capacity building costs such as the hiring of community\nfacilitators, training and planning workshops. It will also finance unconditional transfers to those\ntargeted poor and vulnerable households that have no adult able-bodied members to participate in\nLIPW. The LIPW will consist of a variety of labor-intensive sub-projects to create important\ncommunity assets. These might include rural access roads, tree nurseries, afforestation, the\nconstruction of different soil and water conservation (SWC) measures and flood control structures,\nhand-dug wells, valley tanks, community pond construction, and the construction or rehabilitation\nof market places.\n\n\n29. **The productive assets created by the LIPW must be designed not only to help poor**\n**households but also to benefit the entire community** . These assets will help the communities to\nrespond to and build resilience against the negative effects of climate change by helping them to\ndiversify risk, enhance their incomes, and build their skills and assets. For example, SWC activities\nincrease land productivity and income, and building roads, market shelters, and pavements will\nmake markets and social services more accessible, while valley tanks, hand-dug wells, and spring\ndevelopment will increase the potable water supply and improve hygiene and sanitation.\n\n\n30. **The design and implementation of this component differ significantly from the**\n**public works component of NUSAF 2** . Key enhancements will include: (i) effective targeting of\nhouseholds according to clear agreed criteria related to poverty and vulnerability implemented\nusing a participatory and transparent community targeting approach; (ii) improved participatory\n\n\n9 Retargeting will be conducted every two years, so households will participate in the program for at least two years\nand in many cases more (if they are still identified as poor and vulnerable during the retargeting process).\n\n7\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 18
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "LIPW planning based on multi-year watershed planning principles and conducted according to a\nclearly defined timeframe that will enable the timely implementation of sub-projects; (iii) more\nlabor-intensive sub-projects, with the result that at least an average of 70 percent labor for all LIPW\ninterventions will be spent on wages (transfers) to participants, with a minimum of 60 percent\nlabor intensity for access road and valley tanks subprojects, as there might be a need for more\ncapital inputs there to ensure quality of outputs; and (iv) increased flexibility in making payments\nto allow for both daily wages (for tasks such as nursery management) or piece rates (for tasks such\nas road construction). The multi-year watershed plan will provide a roadmap for systematic and\nsustainable natural resources management and development. Each year the annual LIPW plan will\nbe drawn from the multi-year watershed plan, which will continue to consolidate and build on the\npreceding year’s development efforts. In addition to the activities that will comprise the annual\nLIPW plans, the multi-year watershed plan will include activities that can be scaled up rapidly and\nfunded by DRF resources in the event of a shock.\n\n\n31. **The LIPW component takes into account the special needs of women and requires**\n**that at least 40 percent of LIPW participants are women** . To achieve this target, the project\nwill ensure that some of the selected LIPW activities are located close to villages and appropriately\nmeet the needs of women. Through their representation on the community committees, women\nwill also be fully involved in the decision-making, including in selecting the types of public works\nactivities to be adopted and their locations. The beneficiaries of this component will be selected\nusing a two-step process, in which geographic targeting will be used to identify the poorest subcounties and then community-based targeting will be used to select the poorest and most\nvulnerable households within those communities.\n\n\n32. **Once the poorest and most vulnerable households are selected through the**\n**community-based targeting, the beneficiaries will be further classified as households with**\n**able bodied adult men and women and households without able bodied adult men and**\n**women** . Households with able bodied adult men and women will participate in LIPW in order to\nearn their transfers while households without able bodied adult men and women will receive a\ndirect transfer. The direct transfer is in recognition of the fact that even though these households\nare unable to perform public works, they are entitled to receive support from the LIPW. Therefore,\nincluding this provision will enhance the poverty targeting of the component. While the number\nof such households is expected to be small, not more than 10%, they are usually among the most\ndestitute in their communities because of the lack of able-bodied members. These households tend\nto include disabled or elderly persons, people who are chronically ill, such as those with HIV and\nAIDS, pregnant (up to the six month of pregnancy) or lactating mothers (in the first ten months\nafter giving birth), orphaned children up to 16 years of age and female-headed households with no\nother available adult labor. The amount, frequency and method of transfer is the same for\nhouseholds participating in LIPW and those benefiting from direct transfers.\n\n\n33. **A Public Works Beneficiary Registry and Verification Mechanism will be created**\n**with a management information system that will ensure that payments are made to eligible**\n**beneficiaries** . Spot checks by the district supervision teams and technical support teams, third\nparty verification, and community score cards will also be used to monitor the integrity of the\nimplementation process, especially the accuracy and timeliness of payments to beneficiaries.\n\n34. _**Sub-component 1.2: Disaster Risk Financing (US$12 million).**_ This sub-component\naims to develop a mechanism for scaling up assistance to poor and vulnerable households\nimmediately following disaster events and a system to cover the costs of this expansion. It will\n\n\n8\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 19
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "finance the costs of establishing this scalable response and of building related systems and\ncapacity. This will include the allocation of resources to cover the financial costs of scaling up,\nand of key mechanisms to trigger and operationalize the response.\n\n\n35. **The sub-component will take a sequenced approach to the provision of disaster**\n**assistance in Northern Uganda** . The initial phase will focus on the risk of drought in Karamoja.\nOnce the systems are built under the initial phase, the following phases will look to expand drought\ncoverage to other regions, as well as assess the feasibility to protect against additional risks (for\nexample landslide, floods, etc.). This gradual approach is needed because of the heterogeneity of\nrisks in Uganda, the detailed technical analysis required, and the need to build technical,\noperational, and institutional capacity in Uganda to develop a scalable system of disaster relief.\nDrought will be the first risk on the agenda because it can impact as much as 80 percent [10] of the\npopulation, it affects large geographical areas, and it is very costly for the government to finance.\nThe poorest sub-region, Karamoja, is particularly prone to weather shocks, which in turn\ncontribute to the area’s high levels of poverty, thus making it an appropriate initial geographical\nfocus. Karamoja also has the advantage of having significant operational and practical experience\nin implementing direct income support programs and labor-intensive public works. Landslides\nhave also been identified by GoU as having a high human and economic impact. The subcomponent will conduct a feasibility study on developing a scalability mechanism to respond to\nlandslide events, embedding the mechanism in the broader disaster risk management agenda\n(including risk reduction and mitigation).\n\n\n36. **The first key activity conducted through this sub-component will be the**\n**establishment of a scalable system of disaster relief within the government** . This will involve\nthe development of two key functions: (i) the capacity to store and analyze data to understand\nwhen a disaster or shock has occurred to households (and thus when a scale-up is needed), and (ii)\na triggering mechanism that will signal the need to execute the scale–up. The project team will\nwork with key national and local institutions to develop these functions, including the Uganda\nNational Emergency Coordination and Operations Center (NECOC) in developing the data\ncollection and analysis capacity and the National Council within the Directorate of Relief, Disaster\nPreparedness, and Management (within the Office of the Prime Minister) in developing the\ndecision making mechanism.\n\n\n37. **This sub-component will also explore potential sources of data that document**\n**shocks within specific geographic regions** . These data sources will be used to develop a system\nof triggers. The initial trigger will be based on high-quality data [11] such as satellite data. A backup or secondary trigger will be based on data that more accurately reflects welfare at the household\nlevel (for example, household survey data) will be explored.\n\n\n38. **The subcomponent will use US$10 million of the total allocation to finance the costs**\n**of scale-up activities** . These resources will be disbursed over the life of the project to households\nwhich are identified, as per the data, as effected by drought and landslide events. With this\nfunding, it is estimated that the project will be able to finance the costs of scaling up to\napproximately 84,000 households (420,000 people). This funding can be used to expand LIPWs\nto households not supported by the core component and/ or increasing the number of days existing\n\n\n10 Government of Uganda (2012)\n11 High or insurance quality data is: (i) timely (so that claims can be paid quickly); (ii) relevant (so the product offers\nreliable protection); (iii) audited to international reinsurance standards; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) available over a\nlong time horizon.\n\n9\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 20
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "LIPW beneficiaries can work in return for a transfer. The entire component focuses on disaster\nrisk reduction, however, once a disaster occurs, the project would trigger response through the\ndisaster risk financing sub-component.\n\n39. **The remaining US$2 million allocation will be used for capacity building** . Extensive\ncapacity building activities will be undertaken to ensure the sustainability of the scalability system,\nincluding: (i) organizational capacity building and the development of a collaboration mechanism\nbetween government and other stakeholders (for example the World Food Programme (WFP)) and\n(ii) training, for NECOC and Department of Relief and Disaster Preparedness (DRDR) officials,\non a diversity of topics related to the risk financing including data analysis, index definition, and\ndesigning the rules governing the scaling-up process.\n\n\n**Component 2: Livelihood Investment Support (US$43.5 million equivalent)**\n\n40. The Livelihood Investment Support component will support the government’s aim to\nextend livelihood support to poor and vulnerable households and, by doing so, increase their\nproductive assets and incomes. The LIS component is comprised of an Improved Household\nIncome Support Program (IHISP) and a Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot (SLP).\n\n41. _**Sub-Component 2.1: Improved Household Income Support Program (US$42.5**_\n_**million).**_ The IHISP will build on NUSAF 2 experience but will seek to increase the efficiency\nand effectiveness of the approach. The objective of the IHISP is to improve the livelihoods and\nincrease the incomes of targeted households in Northern Uganda by providing them with\ncomprehensive skills development training, livelihood grants, and mentoring support. The IHISP\nwill be implemented in 55 districts of Northern Uganda. Participating groups (with 10 to 15\nhouseholds per group) may apply for grants up to a maximum cap of US$5,000. IHISP is expected\nto benefit around 100,100 households in five years.\n\n\n42. **As highlighted above, the livelihood interventions under NUSAF 1 and 2 had an**\n**impressive impact** . Notwithstanding this success, the HISP component of NUSAF 2 has some\nshortcomings. These include: (i) limited human and institutional capacity at the district and lower\nlevels; (ii) inadequate community mobilization, sensitization, and beneficiary targeting; (iii) a lack\nof ongoing support and capacity building for Community Interest Groups (CIGs), resulting in a\nlack of business, marketing, and group management skills and the short lifespan of most of these\ngroups; and (iv) little to no support for encouraging group savings.\n\n\n43. **The Improved HISP will build on lessons learned from NUSAF 1 and 2 and will**\n**focus on increasing the efficiency and improving the quality of the program** . Key\nimprovements will include: (i) outsourcing human and institutional capacity building efforts to\ncompetent non-profit and private sector agencies; (ii) following a transparent, simple, and\nsystematic process for community mobilization, sensitization, and beneficiary targeting and for\ntraining key staff in districts and sub-counties in this process; (iii) providing continuous capacity\nbuilding support to CIG members including business and group management training; (iv)\npromoting adherence to the five principles of well-functioning groups – regular meetings, regular\nsavings, inter-lending, regular repayments, and record-keeping; (v) conducting regular market\nassessment and value chain analysis to inform beneficiaries about the types of livelihood activities\nthey may undertake; (vi) delegating to and building the capacity of appropriate community\nfacilitators (parish chiefs or community facilitators recruited by the project) to support CIGs; and\n(vii) increasing the efficiency of the sub-project cycle process to ensure that it is properly followed\nby the districts.\n\n\n10\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "scalability system",
+ "confidence": 0.9148199558258057,
+ "start": 71,
+ "end": 73
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.763483464717865,
+ "start": 189,
+ "end": 193
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Improved Household\nIncome Support Program",
+ "confidence": 0.686231791973114,
+ "start": 213,
+ "end": 218
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7067394256591797,
+ "start": 302,
+ "end": 304
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.6510818600654602,
+ "start": 189,
+ "end": 193
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "IHISP",
+ "confidence": 0.5406954288482666,
+ "start": 288,
+ "end": 289
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6675512790679932,
+ "start": 302,
+ "end": 304
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "targeted households",
+ "confidence": 0.5415759682655334,
+ "start": 299,
+ "end": 301
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "IHISP",
+ "confidence": 0.9644779562950134,
+ "start": 321,
+ "end": 322
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.5003056526184082,
+ "start": 329,
+ "end": 331
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.8804189562797546,
+ "start": 300,
+ "end": 301
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 2",
+ "confidence": 0.5394774675369263,
+ "start": 408,
+ "end": 410
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "market\nassessment",
+ "confidence": 0.931577205657959,
+ "start": 645,
+ "end": 647
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "beneficiaries",
+ "confidence": 0.8755437135696411,
+ "start": 653,
+ "end": 654
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 21
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "44. **The IHSIP will target poor and vulnerable groups such as women, youths, female-**\n**headed households, people with disabilities, orphans, and disarmed Karamojong youths** .\nPriority will be given to women and youths, with the expectation that at least 50 percent of\nbeneficiaries will be women. The LIS component will be targeted using the same two-step process\nthat is used for the LIPW, in which geographic targeting will be used to identify the poorest subcounties and then community-based targeting will be used to select the poorest and most\nvulnerable households within those communities. Although the approach used will be the same,\nthe criteria used will be slightly different. The LIPW beneficiaries are expected to be the poorest\nof the poor, whereas LIS beneficiaries, in addition to being poor, must be willing and able to invest\nin livelihood opportunities. The LIS beneficiaries must also be willing to form CIGs, must be able\nto undertake livelihood activities, and must commit themselves to meeting certain key coresponsibilities. Whenever possible (in other words, when LIS and LIPW components are being\nrolled-out in the same communities at the same time), the targeting of both components will take\nplace at the same time.\n\n45. **The IHISP will be implemented in distinct project cycles** . Each project cycle will last\nfor one year, and will comprise three phases – a preparatory phase (two months); a phase involving\nthe development and approval of a livelihood business plan (four months); and a sub-project\nimplementation, follow-up mentoring, and completion phase (six months).\n\n\n**Figure 1: IHISP Project Cycle**\n\n\n46. In implementing these phases, the IHISP sub-component will provide support in two key\nareas:\n\n(a) _**Livelihood support to existing and new family enterprises**_ **.** This support will allow\nbeneficiaries to enhance and expand their livelihood options by investing in agriculture,\nlivestock, fisheries, and agro-processing. Beneficiaries will receive support consisting of\ntraining in business management skills, including financial management and marketing, and\nthe provision of a grant to pursue their chosen livelihood option.\n\n(b) _**Small grants to youths to allow them to invest in skills training and to establish small**_\n_**businesses**_ **.** Cash grants will be provided to groups of young people to enable them to invest\nin skills training, tools, and materials in a vocation of their choosing and to practice their trade\nindividually or as a group. The training could include but not be limited to tailoring, brick\n\n11\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 22
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "laying, carpentry and joinery, hairdressing, art and craft making, wood carving, pottery, metal\nfabrication, baking, or photography.\n\n47. **Furthermore, to enhance these investments and to build a strong affinity** between\ngroup members, the CIGs will be trained in group management, savings, financial literacy, and\nbookkeeping and will be encouraged to practice five core principles ‒ regular meetings, regular\nsavings, regular inter-lending, timely repayments, and up-to-date books of accounts.\n\n48. **This sub-component will finance** : (i) the grants and technical support to be provided to\ncommunities; (ii) the administrative costs involved in hiring community facilitators, training and\nplanning workshops,; and (iii) outsourced capacity building for the district, sub-county, and\ncommunity levels.\n\n49. _**Sub-Component 2.2: Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot (US$1 million).**_ The Sustainable\nLivelihoods Pilot (SLP) aims to generate lessons and develop evidence to inform more significant\nchanges to livelihood support in the future. It includes three main shifts in approach: (i) a focus on\nthe creation of community institutions that can support household livelihood investments in the\nlonger term; (ii) a greater focus on self-help and the use of revolving village funds as opposed to\ngrants; and (iii) universal coverage of poor households in target villages. The proposed pilot will\noperate in 40 villages in eight districts of Northern Uganda. Villages participating in the pilot will\nnot be eligible for the IHISP component; however the pilot villages will be eligible for the LIPW\nand TAAC components.\n\n\n50. **The existing livelihood programs in Northern Uganda are generally dependent on**\n**grants and can support only a limited number of poor households** . There are many additional\npoor households who need livelihood support but cannot be supported because of the limited\nnumber of grants available. In view of this need, the SLP will test an approach to livelihood support\nthat contains two new dimensions. First, it is expected to foster stronger community institutions\nthat can support household livelihood investments beyond the term of a sub-project and second, it\nfocuses on self-help, with communities establishing sustainable village revolving funds to provide\nloans to beneficiaries instead of providing them with one-off grants.\n\n\n51. **Social mobilization and targeting in the target villages will be conducted in a**\n**participatory manner with the aim of providing universal coverage to the poor** . Through this\nprocess, existing savings/self-help groups will be identified in the target villages. Any poor\nhouseholds who are not currently members of existing savings/self-help groups will also be\nidentified and supported to form their savings groups. The existing and new savings groups will\nbe given training in: (i) group management; (ii) group saving and lending; (iii) financial literacy;\nand (iv) record-keeping. These groups will also be required to practice five core principles to\nensure the sustainability of the group ‒ regular meetings, regular savings, regular inter-lending,\ntimely repayments, and keeping up-to-date books of accounts. Those groups that follow the five\ncore principles for six months will graduate to become NUSAF Self-help Groups (NUSAF SHGs)\nand will go on to form a Village Livelihood Improvement Committee (VLIC).\n\n\n52. **VLICs will be eligible to apply for grants of up to US$10,000 from NUSAF 3 to**\n**establish and manage a village revolving fund** . The NUSAF SHG members can present their\nbusiness plan and borrow from the village revolving fund. The VLICs will review the business\nplans submitted by the NUSAF SHG members and approve the loan request if they find the plan\nto be viable. It will disburse loans to, and collect repayments from, the groups whose livelihood\nbusiness plans have been approved on the terms and conditions (including the interest rate) agreed\nupon by members of the groups and the VLIC.\n\n12\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 23
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Component 3: Strengthening Transparency, Accountability, and Anti-Corruption (TAAC)**\n**(US$5 million equivalent)**\n\n53. **The TAAC interventions under NUSAF 2, implemented by the Inspectorate of**\n**Government (IG), have been credited with increasing the capacity of the IG at all levels to**\n**discharge its mandate and enhancing citizens’ knowledge of their rights, roles, and**\n**obligations** . [12] In addition, the interventions are credited by implementers and beneficiaries on the\nground with reducing misuse of project resources, fraud and corruption. The TAAC component of\nNUSAF 3 will be implemented in a more systematic and effective manner through four main\npreventative interventions These include: (i) sensitization and awareness of targeted communities\nto prevent misuse of project resources; (ii) enhancing the engagement of citizens and stakeholders;\n(iii) inspection and monitoring of project activities at all levels by the IG and at the community\nlevels by the CMGs; and (iv) enforcement through investigation and prosecution.\n\n54. Under NUSAF 3, the primary objectives of the TAAC component is to contribute to the\ngovernment’s commitment to increasing transparency and accountability in public service delivery\nas enshrined in Vision 2040, the NDP, and the Accountability Sector Strategic Investment Plan\n(ASSIP); and enhance the effectiveness of transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption\nprocesses in project areas. This will be achieved through the following design improvements:\n\n(a) _Introduction and implementation of social accountability in a more systematic manner to_\n_enable citizens to participate in monitoring and provide feedback on project activities and the_\n_delivery of other services in the project area_ . Social accountability tools were implemented\nunder NUSAF 1 and 2, but their implementation was _ad hoc_ and the lessons learned were not\nsystematically used. In NUSAF 3, a community scorecard exercise will be conducted at all\nstages of the project to gather feedback. The findings from this exercise will be used to\nstrengthen the project’s ongoing implementation and adjust its design, as may be required.\n\n(b) _Strengthening existing systems and tools for grievance management at the community_\n_level._ The grievance mechanism that was introduced under NUSAF2, improved the reporting\nand registration of grievances but with slow pace in resolving the cases. The system will\ntherefore be strengthened to improve both registration and resolving of grievances at all levels.\n\n(c) _Upgrading and enhancing the functionality of community-level committees to support the_\n_achievement of the component and project objectives_ . The mandate, operation, and\ncomposition of the Community Monitoring Groups (CMGs) have been revised under the new\nproject to reflect the need to increase their effectiveness. The members of the CMGs will\nreceive comprehensive training and policy recognition as well as support from the IG.\n\n(d) _Introducing a simple monitoring tool that enables the IG to collect information on the key_\n_component performance indicators in the NUSAF 3 targeted communities. The tool will be_\n_developed and validated_ prior to commencement of project implementation. The tool will\nmake it possible to collect selected information on the project’s performance, in addition to the\ninformation that will be collected on the performance indicators included in the RF.\n\n\n55. **A key reform will be the upgrading of the community-level committees. The**\n**Community Monitoring Groups (CMGs) have replaced the Social Accountability**\n**Committees (SACs) and have been given an expanded mandate** . The CMGs, will operate at\nthe parish level and will be appropriately constituted to ensure that all relevant interest groups are\n\n\n12 Annex 5 presents a summary of lessons learned during the implementation of the NUSAF 2 TAAC component.\n\n13\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community scorecard exercise",
+ "confidence": 0.8488012552261353,
+ "start": 353,
+ "end": 356
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "performance indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.5889525413513184,
+ "start": 547,
+ "end": 549
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "IG",
+ "confidence": 0.5840992331504822,
+ "start": 526,
+ "end": 527
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "targeted communities",
+ "confidence": 0.6804840564727783,
+ "start": 553,
+ "end": 555
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 24
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "represented. Their mandate will include general oversight, monitoring of activities being\nimplemented, handling of the complaints and appeals at the first instance, and ensuring\nimplementers are operating transparently. Their capacity will be enhanced through systematic\ntraining and capacity development. Detailed terms of reference for the CMGs will be developed\nby IG and be validated prior to commencement of project implementation. The details of\ninstitutional arrangements for this component are included in Annex 2 and more details on design\naspects are captured in Annexes 2 and 5. Specific ToRs for the CMGs, modalities for\nimplementing the CSC and the content of the envisaged revised monitoring tool shall be defined\nin the Project Operations Manual.\n\n\n**Component 4: Safety Net Mechanisms and Project Management (US$20.5 million**\n**equivalent)**\n\n56. _**Sub-component 4.1 Safety Net Mechanisms (US$2.5 million).**_ This sub-component\naims to develop safety net mechanisms as envisioned in the draft Uganda Social Protection Policy\n(USPP). The Ministry of Gender, Labor, and Social Development (MGLSD) has spearheaded the\nproduction of this draft Uganda Social Protection Policy (USPP), which lays out an integrated\nframework for the sector. In order to develop a consensus among stakeholders about how best to\nimplement the USPP, the Government of Uganda undertook a Social Protection Sector Review of\nthe existing social protection sector, aiming to gather critical evidence, conduct key analyses,\nidentify important lessons, and define ways to implement the draft USPP. Conclusions and\nrecommendations from the USPP have informed the design of this subcomponent. The\nharmonization of the efforts of government and all development partners is a crucial element to\nthe sustainability of the social protection system and making it effective while avoiding\nfragmentation. Therefore, the instruments that the government is developing are aimed at\nimproving coordination and building sustainability that would continue even after the project has\nclosed.\n\n\n57. **This sub-component will support the MGLSD in establishing and strengthening**\n**systems to promote the harmonization of the direct income support elements of the social**\n**protection sector** . However, the project would apply the available tools until the new mechanisms\nhave been established. For example, it will support the development of National Labor-intensive\nPublic Works Guidelines and of mechanisms such as a single registry of beneficiaries that will\nmake it possible to prevent the same households from receiving benefits from similar types of\ninterventions by coordinating with other stakeholders in social protection. This component will\nalso support the establishment of payment mechanisms for labor-intensive public works to ensure\nthat beneficiaries receive their transfers in a timely and secure manner. It will explore the\npossibility of using private sector payment service providers (such as mobile money providers)\nand test these modalities in the areas where they can operate.\n\n\n58. **Concurrently, this sub-component will support the establishment of mechanisms**\n**and procedures required to deliver the LIPW and the LIS activities** . These systems and\nprocedures that will be developed under NUSAF 3 can also be used by other similar social\nprotection interventions and will form the foundation of a safety net system. Among the key\nsystems that will be supported are the overall project monitoring system and the management\ninformation systems (MIS) that will be developed to support overall project management and\ndecision-making. The MIS will include modules for: (i) the registration of beneficiaries; (ii) data\non key socioeconomic indicators; (iii) information on public works payments; (iv) the location of\nsub-projects and their status (approved, financed, or completed); (v) monitoring of compliance\n\n\n14\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 25
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "with program; (vi) monitoring of project implementation; (vii) grievances; and (viii) the\npreparation of reports.\n\n59. _**Sub-component 4.2: Project Management (US$18 million).**_ This sub-component will\nsupport the operational expenditures related to the management and the monitoring and evaluation\nof the project. Its support will strengthen the planning and coordination of activities supported by\nthe project, as well as the monitoring of their implementation. Project coordination and the\naccountability for project resources are both the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary in the\nOffice of the Prime Minister with the support of the established NUSAF technical support team\n(TST). To ensure effective project implementation, this sub-component will support the OPM,\nrelevant sector ministries, and local government staff in coordinating and performing routine\nmonitoring of the project activities.\n\n\n**B.** **Project Financing**\n\n60. **The World Bank will use investment project financing (IPF) for this operation** . The\nproposed project will be implemented for a period of five years. The operation will be funded\nthrough a US$130 million equivalent IDA credit.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Project Cost and Financing|Col2|Col3|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|**Project Components**|**Project**
**Cost**|**IDA**
**Financing**|**% **
**Financing**|\n|**1. Labor-intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk financing**
_1.1 Labor-intensive Public Works_
_ 1.2 Disaster Risk Financing_
**2. Livelihood Investment Support**
2_.1 Improved Household Income Support Program_
_ 2.2 Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot_
**3. Strengthening Transparency, Accountability, and Anti-Corruption**
**4. Safety Net Mechanisms and Project Management**
_4.1 Safety Net Mechanisms_
_ 4.2 Project Management_
**Total Costs**|**61**
_49_
_12_
**43.5**
42.5
1
** 5**
**20.5**
_ 2.5_
_18_
**130**|** 61**
_ 49_
_ 12_
**43.5**
42.5
1
** 5**
**20.5**
_ 2.5_
_18_
**130**|**46.9**
_37.7_
_ 9.2_
**33.5**
_32.7_
_ 0.7_
** 3.8**
**15.8**
_ 1.9_
_13.8_
**100**|\n\n\n\n**C.** **Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design**\n\n61. **The design of NUSAF 3 has been informed by lessons learned in the implementation**\n**of NUSAF 1 and 2 and in the social protection sector review completed in 2014** . The design\nalso draws on international experience including the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Program’s\nexperience of public works, the Kenya Hunger Safety Net Program’s experience of risk financing,\na variety of international experiences of community-based support for livelihoods, and the Ethiopia\nSocial Accountability Project. Several key lessons have been learned.\n\n\n62. **The one-off, unpredictable nature of the public works that have been implemented**\n**to date means that they do not act as a safety net** . Delays in planning and approval processes\nhave contributed to public works being poorly timed and lacking in predictability. The use of two\ntranches of project funding to finance implementation has resulted in further delays in\nimplementation and the timing of transfers to beneficiaries. Furthermore, because of a lack of\nprogram funds, beneficiaries are usually only allowed to take part in public works for a short time\n(an average of 13 days) after which they are given no further opportunity to participate in\nsubsequent years. The result is that beneficiaries receive inadequate support, which ends up having\nlittle positive effect in terms of smoothing their consumption or expanding their livelihood options.\n\n\n15\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 26
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "63. **The focus of public works to date has been less about providing a transfer and more**\n**about building assets** _._ The main cost in public works projects has tended to be non-wage costs\n(in NUSAF 2, only 44 percent of sub-project costs were accounted for by wages). This means that\nlimited attention was paid to who was participating in public works. The 2013 annual tracking\nsurvey found that only 59 percent of public works clients met the eligibility criteria.\n\n\n64. **Previous investments in livelihoods through the HISP component of NUSAF 2 have**\n**had a positive impact on people’s lives, but the community structures formed by the project**\n**have not lasted** . Beneficiary satisfaction is high (82.3 percent according to the annual tracking\nsurvey), with households reporting increases in their income and savings as well as other benefits\n(such as the availability of manure as a bi-product from animal husbandry sub-projects). Groups\nformed by the NUSAF 2 HISP component were largely the mechanism through which project\nresources were channeled. However, once grants had been received and distributed among\nmembers, there was little further follow-up or support and, in most cases, the groups disbanded.\n\n\n65. **Participation in village savings schemes is widespread in Northern Uganda and is a**\n**resource that has as yet been untapped by the project to enhance group cohesion** .\nInternational experience has also demonstrated the value of strong community institutions that can\nwork with member households to continue to improve livelihoods over time. Savings groups are\ncommon, with some groups already providing micro-loans to members and acting as a mechanism\nfor mutual support. There is room to build on the potential of these groups, to strengthen how they\ncurrently function, and to enable them to take on new ventures. (See Annex Attachment 6.1)\n\n\n66. **Experience in the use of social accountability tools in other countries has**\n**demonstrated their value in helping citizens to hold service providers to account** . The Ethiopia\nSocial Accountability Program has used a range of tools that both increase citizens’ understanding\nof key government processes and provide an opportunity for dialogue between service providers\nand users. Both providers and users value this interaction, which has led to key improvements to\nlocal services in operational areas.\n\n\n67. **Coordinating M&E activities, particularly involving different players within local**\n**government**, can be challenging given varying capacities and levels of commitment, and this\nrequires sustained capacity building and greater clarity upfront about the roles and responsibilities\nof the various implementing agencies. NUSAF 3 will use parish-level committees for routine\nmonitoring given their proximity to the communities and will invest in providing them with\nintensive training early on to promote stronger ownership and to enhance the capacity of these\nlocal government structures that are critical to the M&E function. Experience from NUSAF 2 also\nshowed that the availability of adequate operational funds was vital to ensuring the regularity of\ndata collection efforts.\n\n\nIV. **IMPLEMENTATION**\n\n**A.** **Institutional and Implementation Arrangements**\n\n68. **The implementation of NUSAF 3 will be mainstreamed into the existing structures**\n**at the national and local government levels** . NUSAF 3 will be implemented by the Office of the\nPrime Minister (OPM) and the Inspectorate of Government (IG). The OPM will be the overall\nimplementing agency of the project and will specifically be responsible for Components 1, 2, and\n4. It will work with a wide range of institutions at the central, district, and sub-county levels to\ndeliver the project. The OPM will continue to be supported by a technical support team (TST)\n\n\n16\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 2",
+ "confidence": 0.7263901829719543,
+ "start": 47,
+ "end": 49
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.8062893152236938,
+ "start": 163,
+ "end": 164
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "annual tracking\nsurvey",
+ "confidence": 0.9816365838050842,
+ "start": 80,
+ "end": 83
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "survey",
+ "confidence": 0.887584388256073,
+ "start": 82,
+ "end": 83
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2013",
+ "confidence": 0.9917662739753723,
+ "start": 79,
+ "end": 80
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "public works clients",
+ "confidence": 0.945671021938324,
+ "start": 89,
+ "end": 92
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "annual tracking\nsurvey",
+ "confidence": 0.9978886246681213,
+ "start": 157,
+ "end": 160
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "survey",
+ "confidence": 0.8111870884895325,
+ "start": 159,
+ "end": 160
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.9901072978973389,
+ "start": 163,
+ "end": 164
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 2 HISP component",
+ "confidence": 0.6994127035140991,
+ "start": 196,
+ "end": 200
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.5522052049636841,
+ "start": 252,
+ "end": 254
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia\nSocial Accountability Program",
+ "confidence": 0.8731653690338135,
+ "start": 398,
+ "end": 402
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia",
+ "confidence": 0.7616144418716431,
+ "start": 398,
+ "end": 399
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.6272643804550171,
+ "start": 507,
+ "end": 509
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.7943487763404846,
+ "start": 609,
+ "end": 611
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 27
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "headed by a Director and staffed by relevant technical experts. The IG will be responsible for\nimplementing the TAAC component (Component 3).\n\n\n69. **The Permanent Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister will have overall**\n**responsibility for project coordination**, for accounting for project resources, and for ensuring\nthe successful implementation of the project. Actual project activities will be planned and\nimplemented at the community level under the guidance and supervision of local government\nentities at the district, sub-county, parish, and village levels. At the district level, the Chief\nAdministrative Officers (CAO) will be in charge as the accounting officers and overall\ncoordinators of the project.\n\n\n70. **Building on the positive experience of NUSAF 2 project implementation, each**\n**district will assign an officer (a civil servant) who will be the focal person for the new project** .\nThis person will be called NUSAF 3 District Officer (NDO) and will be supported by the district’s\ncommunity development officer (CDO), engineer, and environmental officer, commercial officer,\namong others. Multi-sectoral technical planning committees (TPC) at the district and sub-county\nlevels and the Parish Development Committee (PDC) will ensure that the project’s activities are\nappropriately planned, approved, and integrated into the budgets and work programs of the\nrespective local governments and line ministry’s technical agencies. The role to be played by\ndistricts and sub-counties will be outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between the OPM\nand the districts. In NUSAF 3, parish chiefs will play a stronger role in facilitating community\nplanning processes, although there will continue to be a role for contracted community facilitators\nto help them.\n\n\n71. **At the village level, the critical institutions will be the Community Watershed**\n**Committee (CWC) and Community Monitoring Group (CMG)**, [13] the membership of which\nwill consist of elected community representatives with a minimum of 50 percent of the members\nbeing women. The CWC is expected to play key roles in identifying beneficiaries and planning,\nimplementing, and supervising LIPW activities, while the CMG will monitor the project in order\nto promote transparency and accountability. CMG members will be trained on their roles and\nresponsibilities including how to conduct project monitoring and how to identify and report fraud\nand corruption. In addition, Component 2 will include the formation of Community Interest\nGroups (CIGs), which will be supported throughout the life of the project.\n\n\n72. **NUSAF 3 will put more emphasis on district level appraisal and approval of annual**\n**LIPW plans and LIS sub-projects** . This should not only speed up the appraisal and approval\nprocesses but also further bring these processes within the mainstream of government. The\ntimeliness of the approval and disbursement processes will be further promoted by setting clear\ntimetables and performance standards. The TST will continue to play a key role in ensuring the\nquality of the LIPW plans by: (i) reviewing a sample of annual LIPW plans and of LIS subproject\nproposals; (ii) conducting an annual public works review; (iii) monitoring the implementation of\nproject activities; and (iv) providing on-the-ground technical support (at the district and sub-county\nlevels) during the annual planning and sub-project review processes.\n\n\n73. **As mentioned above, Component 3 (TAAC) will be implemented by the IG.**\nCollaboration with local governments will be sustained and improved at the regions, districts, subcounties and parishes through regular coordination and interface meetings as well as existing\nreporting mechanisms. At the local government level, the IG regional offices will closely facilitate\n\n\n13 These groups have evolved from the Social Accountability Committees.\n\n17\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 28
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "the implementation and monitoring of the TAAC. Focal persons will be recruited and deployed\nwithin each regional office and assigned to lead the TAAC work in collaboration with the head\noffice. The team will assess appropriate ways to solve any problems hindering the implementation\nof the NUSAF 3 activities. The regional focal persons will also follow up on the work of the CMGs\nat the parish level. The CMGs will be the first recipients of any complaints and appeals about the\nproject and will help to resolve wherever possible at community levels. If that is not possible, they\nwill refer the complaints to the regional offices and the IG.\n\n\n**B.** **Results Monitoring and Evaluation**\n\n74. **The success of the project will be measured in terms of progress made towards**\n**achieving the PDO-level indicators detailed in the project results framework laid out in**\n**Annex 1** . The project will put M&E tools in place to monitor and measure the results of the\nproposed project. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to measure outcomes.\nThe most important M&E tools are: (i) an MIS to capture key beneficiary information and project\ninputs and outputs and to track implementation; (ii) the independent verification of transfer\nmechanisms; (iii) community scorecards to assess satisfaction with the project; and (iv) a project\nimpact evaluation. Data from all the sources will be triangulated and used as needed.\n\n\n75. **The OPM is responsible for monitoring the results and activities of the NUSAF 3**\n**operation and will work closely with other government structures** . Parish-level committees\nwith their proximity to communities will assume a central role in periodic data collection and\nmonitoring. Day-to-day monitoring and reporting will be supported by a project MIS, which will\ncollate and analyze the key operational information collected during implementation. This will be\nsupplemented by other monitoring activities involving stand-alone studies and special reviews,\nincluding annual public works reviews, third party monitoring of transfers, social accountability\ntools, and other required process studies. An impact evaluation to assess the impact of the LIPW\nand LIS components is also planned, as is an assessment of the welfare impact of the DRF subcomponent. The detailed methodology for the evaluation will be defined at the start of project\nimplementation.\n\n\n**C.** **Sustainability**\n\n76. _**Institutional sustainability**_ is built into NUSAF 3 with project implementation\nmainstreamed into existing government structures at both the national and local government levels.\nFurthermore, project interventions are drawn from and contribute to the government of Uganda’s\ncommitments as expressed in the draft NDP2 and USPP. In particular, Components 1.1 and 4 of\nNUSAF 3 aim to help the government of Uganda to put key aspects of this new draft policy into\npractice. Finally, the success of the TAAC component in NUSAF 2 means that it is now seen as a\ncore mainstream tool of the government that enhances transparency, accountability, and anticorruption measures in all of the services that it delivers. NUSAF 3 will help the government to\nincrease the scope of the tool to cover all services provided in Northern Uganda.\n\n77. _**Environmental sustainability**_ will be built into the design of LIPW sub-projects and will\nbe explicitly required in the National Labor-intensive Public Works Guidelines. The use of\nguidance in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), particularly\napplication of environmental screening and the implementation of any required mitigation\nmeasures for both the LIPW and LIS components, will also ensure environmental sustainability.\n\n78. _**Sustainability of the project’s impact at the household level**_ will be enhanced through\nan improved menu of LIS sub-projects and greater community involvement in selecting\n\n\n18\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "PDO-level indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.7545270323753357,
+ "start": 154,
+ "end": 156
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "project results framework",
+ "confidence": 0.6103583574295044,
+ "start": 159,
+ "end": 162
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "MIS",
+ "confidence": 0.5453180074691772,
+ "start": 220,
+ "end": 221
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community scorecards",
+ "confidence": 0.5818785429000854,
+ "start": 249,
+ "end": 251
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "project\nimpact evaluation",
+ "confidence": 0.5232972502708435,
+ "start": 263,
+ "end": 266
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "project MIS",
+ "confidence": 0.6399020552635193,
+ "start": 342,
+ "end": 344
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "annual public works reviews",
+ "confidence": 0.9420406222343445,
+ "start": 374,
+ "end": 378
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6113869547843933,
+ "start": 497,
+ "end": 498
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.560075581073761,
+ "start": 465,
+ "end": 467
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 29
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "appropriate sub-projects. The greater focus on community institution building and savings will\nfurther reinforce this. The potential for LIPWs to benefit the wider community will be enhanced\nby the robust participatory planning process for the sub-projects combined with the requirement\nthat communities manage and maintain the community assets once the LIPW sub-projects are\ncompleted. Finally, the DRF sub-component, by making it possible to scale up LIPW in the event\nof shocks, should reduce the risk of households and communities losing any gains that they have\nmade in recent years and falling back into poverty.\n\n\nV. **KEY RISKS**\n\n**A.** **Overall Risk Rating and Explanation of Key Risks**\n\n79. **A range of risks has been identified that are largely related to governance**\n**challenges** . A number of other risks are associated with the policy and institutional context and\nthe delivery of the proposed operation.\n\n\n**Table 2: Systemic Operations Risk-Rating Tool (SORT)**\n\n|Risk Categories|Rating (H, S, M or L)|\n|---|---|\n|1. Political and governance|**Substantial**|\n|2. Macroeconomic|**Moderate**|\n|3. Sector strategies and policies|**Moderate**|\n|4. Technical design of project or program|**Moderate**|\n|5. Institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability|**Moderate**|\n|6. Fiduciary|**Substantial**|\n|7. Environment and social|**Moderate**|\n|8. Stakeholders|**Moderate**|\n|**Overall**|**Moderate**|\n\n\n\n80. **Progress has been slow in moving from the social fund model of NUSAF 2 towards**\n**developing key instruments for a safety net** . The main set of risks relates to the need for the\ngovernment to continue to demonstrate strong leadership for the proposed operation in order to\nrealize its objective of building a social protection system. Once the USPP is ratified by the\nCabinet, this will be a significant step in that direction, although there is a risk that this may be\ndelayed. Even so, this will not halt efforts to develop key building blocks for a safety net system.\nThe MoGLSD has already demonstrated leadership in the face of delays by advancing dialogue on\nthe development of national guidelines for LIPWs and by organizing a series of technical\nworkshops to forge a common understanding on underlying principles and to agree a common way\nforward.\n\n81. **Government implementation capacity is weak** . This is a particular challenge at the\nlocal level and constitutes an important risk to project delivery, as are the environmental and social\nrisks that arise from the creation of assets through the labor intensive public works component. A\ncapacity building intervention is included in the project, and related activities have started in\nearnest as part of the transition into a safety net system.\n\n\n82. **The provision of small cash payments to tens of thousands of beneficiaries creates a**\n**risk of fraud and corruption** . However, capacity for managing such payments has already been\n\n\n19\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 30
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "developed under NUSAF 2. Furthermore, the TAAC component has played an important role in\nmitigating this, and other, risks under NUSAF 2. The revamped and strengthened TAAC, in\naddition to the traditional fiduciary measures included in NUSAF 3, is expected to even play a\nmore effective role in safeguarding project proceeds through a mixture of demand-side and supplydriven interventions that will be implemented by an independent Inspectorate of Government.\n\n83. **Inter-agency coordination will be crucial** . The implementation of the project will\ninvolve the OPM, the TST, and the IG and will require close collaboration between them and with\nother institutions like the Ministry of Local Government and districts. The TST has been\ninstrumental in ensuring technical coordination at the OPM. During the preparation of this project,\nit was recognized that a more effective coordination mechanism is needed for the Northern Uganda\ndevelopment agenda. Technical working groups such as the one on the LIPWs will be established\nto deal with different technical areas, and the government and Bank teams on the project will\nensure that this indeed happens.\n\n\nVI. **APPRAISAL SUMMARY**\n\n**A.** **Economic and Financial Analysis**\n\n84. **The overall estimated economic rate for the project is 21.4% with a Net Present**\n**Value (NPV) estimated at US$41.6 million** . If we only consider crop enterprises, the estimated\nNPV drops to US$9.5 million with an economic rate of return of about 19.4%. Cash crop\nproduction and agribusiness/value-addition have the highest rate of return ranging from 24 – 28%.\nNon-agricultural or vocational enterprises have the lowest rate of return estimated at 14% (see\nTable 3). This implies that for the project to be more economically viable there is need to diversify\nthe enterprises under the Livelihood Investment Support component. These estimated returns are\nlikely to understate the overall economic viability because many of the social benefits of the project\nsuch as employment and skills as access to other social amenities have not been accounted for in\nthe analysis because of valuation challenges.\n\n\n**Table 3: Summary of economic rates of return**\n\n|Enterprises|Net Present Value (US$ million)|Internal Rate of Return
(%)|\n|---|---|---|\n|Food cropsa|9.5|19.4%|\n|Cash cropsb|13.5|28%|\n|Value-addition/agribusiness enterprisesc|11.8|24%|\n|Non-agricultural/vocational enterprisesd|6.8|14%|\n|Total
|41.6
|21.4%
|\n\n\n\nb. Cash crops include: coffee, groundnuts, sunflower and trees\nc. Other agricultural enterprises include: poultry (meat and eggs), small ruminants, unprocessed honey, piggery and dairy\nd. Non-agricultural enterprises include: beauty salons, metal fabrication and welding, carpentry and joinery, tailoring, motor\nvehicle mechanics, milling, arts and crafts.\n\n\n**B.** **Technical**\n\n85. **The proposed project design and implementation arrangements are based on**\n**Uganda’s own experience and international best practices** . The social protection analytical\nwork, policy dialogue with the government, and the experiences of NUSAF 1 and NUSAF 2 have\ninformed the technical design of the NUSAF 3. There is growing evidence that LIPW, if designed\nand implemented well, have positive welfare outcomes and can serve as an effective safety net for\n\n\n20\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 31
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "vulnerable groups. The design of NUSAF 3 has learnt from weaknesses in the previous\nimplementation of public works in Uganda and aims to address these weaknesses by ensuring\ngreater labor-intensity, improved timeliness and a more predictable multi-year approach which is\nbased on participatory watershed development. There is significant international evidence that\nresponding early to disasters has a greater impact on saving both lives and livelihoods and leads\nto more rapid post-disaster recovery. Incorporating a pilot to test how such an approach can be\noperationalized in Uganda ensures this Project is in line with international good practice.\n\n86. Impact evaluations and beneficiary assessments have demonstrated the usefulness of the\nHousehold Income Support Program in increasing incomes and enhancing livelihoods. NUSAF 3\nplans to build on this success by incorporating a strong focus on savings, increased attention on\nthe building of community institutions and more sustained support to communities both before and\nafter receiving capital injections to support their livelihood interventions.\n\n87. The TAAC interventions under NUSAF 2 have been credited with increasing the capacity\nof the IG at all levels to discharge its mandate. The TAAC also led to enhanced awareness of the\ncitizens about their rights, roles and obligations and, in addition, the interventions are credited for\nreduced misuse of public resources, fraud and corruption as affirmed by implementers and\nbeneficiaries on the ground.\n\n\n**C.** **Financial Management**\n\n88. The project under design will follow the same arrangements as in the current NUSAF 2\nwith the overall responsibility for project financial management, promotion, and monitoring and\nevaluation vested in the OPM with the Permanent Secretary as the accounting officer while the\nTAAC component will be implemented by the IG. The OPM will be supported by a TST comprised\nof qualified and experienced specialists in areas of financial management, among others. Current\nFinancial management arrangements have been assessed with an overall FM risk rating of\nSubstantial.\n\n89. At the district level, the CAO will be the accounting officer while the day-to-day\nimplementation will be dedicated to a nominated Desk Officer. Under the supervision of OPM,\nthe TST will monitor the disbursement of funds as well as the withdrawals and direct payment\napplications as approved by the PS/OPM. The OPM/TST together with IG will keep project books\nof account, prepare and produce quarterly Interim unaudited Financial Reports (IFR) and make the\nnecessary arrangements for the annual project audit. The TST together with OPM accounting staff\nhave set up a sound accounting system (SUN financials) together with the project tracker that links\nparticipating districts with OPM to ensure timely accountability of advances. These current\nsystems under NUSAF 2 will be used in the next phase to record, aggregate and report all project\ntransactions in a timely manner. The financial manual plus the chart of accounts are in place with\nthe required reporting periodicity of various statements. The design of the project has envisaged a\nstrong role of government systems both at central and local government levels (district, sub-county\nand community levels). It will be crucial to maintain the required key operational and fiduciary\nstaff at OPM to ensure continuity and smooth implementation of the new project.\n\n\n**D.** **Procurement**\n\n90. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World\nBank’s \"Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits\" dated January 2011 and\nrevised in July 2014; and \"Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank\nBorrowers\" dated January 2011 and revised in July 2014, Guidelines on Preventing and Combating\n\n\n21\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 32
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants, dated\nOctober 15, 2006 and revised in January 2011,and the provisions stipulated in the Legal\nAgreement.\n\n91. Procurement for NUSAF 3 will be implemented at 3 levels namely; (i) at the Central\nGovernment level – OPM and the IG, (ii) at the local government level – Districts, and (iii) at\ncommunity level- Community committees. Recent audit reports of the Public Procurement and\nDisposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) of various districts have highlighted a number of\nrisks: a high rate of non-compliance to the requirements of the PPDA Act, limited competition,\nand incomplete/abandoned public works. There risks will be mitigated through the preparation of\nsimplified procurement manuals for local government staff and technical support from the\nprocurement specialist at OPM. However, the risk of procurement management at local\ngovernment remains substantial.\n\n92. The key risks for project implementation are: (i) inadequate seating arrangement for PDU\nwith PDU sharing open office space with other staff; (ii) limited experience of OPM staff in IDA\nfinanced procurement management; (iii) heavy workload for staff of OPM PDU to handle NUSAF\n3 procurement and inadequate procurement capacity of communities; (iv) inadequate record\nkeeping; (v) need for clarity on roles/coordination between user departments and PDU; (vi) delays\nin procurement processing; and (vi) inadequate number of Technical Staff to handle the work load.\n\n93. These risks will be mitigated by: (i) OPM partitioning off space for the PDU to ensure\nintegrity of the procurement records; (ii) Recruitment of a Procurement Specialist with ToR\nacceptable to IDA to support NUSAF 3 procurement and capacity building for community\nprocurement at community level; (iii) PDU ensuring completeness of procurement files\nparticularly to include contract management records, and contracts committee minutes; (iv)\nPreparing Project Procurement Manual or including Procurement section in Project Operations\nManual to clarify IDA procedures; and (v) Recruiting staff under Technical Support Unit to\naugment OPM technical staff in implementing NUSAF.\n\n\n**E.** **Social (including Safeguards)**\n\n94. Overall, the NUSAF 3 project will draw on key success factors, challenges and lessons\nlearned from the current NUSAF 2 project. Most critical will be, identifying local specific social\nissues and their link to poverty as well as addressing poverty through improved targeting and\ninclusion mechanisms that ensure access and input of marginalized groups including the poorest\nof the poor within the communities. NUSAF 3 will prioritize approaches that ensure deliberate\nidentification and inclusion of those community members that have not benefited for one reason\nor another, from any project support before, including previous NUSAF projects.\n\n95. The proposed NUSAF 3 will facilitate and strengthen the engagement of communities in\nthe proper and sensitive targeting of vulnerable households that are at the greatest risk of food\ninsecurity and hunger. The mobilization process will address existing social cleavages in the\ncommunity, through a vulnerability-based approach that will underpin the planning and decision\nmaking at community level. Furthermore, communities will participate in the planning,\nimplementation and oversight of the interventions under the LIPW and LIS. Effective\ncommunication will underpin the community engagement process. Clearly defined and\ncommunicated project processes, roles and responsibilities, transparency and accountability\narrangements, including an accessible and responsive grievance redress mechanism, will support\nsmooth project implementation.\n\n\n22\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 33
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "96. Gender analysis will also remain central to all project activities including community\nengagement processes, decision making and identification of livelihood projects including\nmonitoring of the project progress. NUSAF 3 will ensure that project planning, targeting and\nimplementation committees are comprised of both male and female members and that both women\nand men benefit from project interventions. At least 40 percent of public works participants are\nexpected to be women, and 50 percent of IHISP beneficiaries.\n\n97. Because of the likely small scale land acquisition and impact on the livelihood of\ncommunities, Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 is triggered. The Resettlement Policy\nFramework (RPF) from the NUSAF 2 was reviewed; NUSAF 2 lessons were incorporated and\nadopted to guide the implementation of NUSAF 3 project. The RPF, which was disclosed in\ncountry and in the Infoshop on April 15, 2015, specifies the process of preparing, reviewing,\napproving, including disclosure, and implementing Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) for\nactivities that trigger OP 4.12 on involuntary Resettlement before any civil works are initiated. In\naddition, the RPF defines a clear guideline to prepare and establish a grievance redress mechanism,\nto manage any complaints that may arise from implementation of this project. Where resettlement\nissues will be identified, appropriate RAPs will be prepared in consultation with the local\nleaders/authorities, affected individuals and communities to address specific impacts, and\ncompensation issues. As in line with the NUSAF 2, where contribution of land would be done\nvoluntarily, an agreement and consent will be reached, documented and filed at the relevant local\ngovernment levels to fulfill the requirements for the land acquisition in the project. In addition to\nthe RPF, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared in\norder to guide implementation of any other social issues that may result from the project.\n\n98. The overall responsibility for social issues including safeguards will be with the OPM in\ncollaboration with relevant line ministries within which various relevant mandates fall. At the\ndistrict level, the CAO will ensure that the positions of the Community Development Officers\n(CDOs) and Community Development Assistants (CDAs) are filled as well as those of Parish\nChiefs to ensure that the needed critical mass of community resource facilitators is in place to\nsupport community dialogue, mobilization, and implementation and follow up. A pool of\ncommunity resource persons at village level will be trained and supported to have close interaction\nwith communities and established groups of the poorest of the poor. It will be very crucial to\nmaintain the social development staff at OPM to ensure continuity and smooth implementation of\nthe new project.\n\n\n**F.** **Environment (including Safeguards)**\n99. The envisaged interventions of the proposed Project will likely generate potential\npositive benefits for local communities in and around the project area, through creating\nemployment opportunities, generating income to support their livelihoods and developing\ncommunity assets which address the needs they have prioritized. The salient physical\ncharacteristics relevant to environmental safeguard analysis relate to project Component 1: LaborIntensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing and Component 2: Livelihood Investment\nSupport. Component 1 involves public works which will focus on a variety of asset creation\nactivities, including rural access roads, tree nurseries, afforestation, construction of different soil\nand water conservation measures, and flood control structures, rainwater harvesting, rehabilitation\nand construction of market shelters, rural health facilities, and schools, among others. These have\na potential to generate some negative environmental and social impacts. Component 2 will support\nlivelihood investments which may involve value-addition to existing family-based small income\n\n\n23\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 34
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "generating activities including likelihood of using pesticides and acaricides that may have\nassociated environmental health and safety impacts.\n\n100. Since by their nature, project components 1 and 2 may have limited and localized\nnegative environmental and social impacts, which can be easily mitigated, the project has been\nassigned EA category “B”. The potential environmental and social impacts can be adequately\nmanaged by integrating environmental and social due diligence into the subproject cycle. World\nBank safeguard policies triggered are Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Pest Management\n(OP 4.09), and Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11).\n\n101. The Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared and\nit provides a step-by-step process of identifying, assessing and managing any likely environmental\nand social impacts during project implementation. Specific safeguard instruments Environmental\nand Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs)\nshall be prepared during project implementation following guidance in the ESMF. In order to\nprovide a mechanism for managing any anticipated impacts associated with use of pesticides, the\nproject has prepared an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) as part of the ESMF. Guidelines\nfor procurement, transportation, storage, application and use of pesticides and disposal of\nassociated wastes shall be included in the Project Operations Manual. In addition, Physical\nCultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 was triggered as the civil works involved in the Labor Intensive\nPublic Works component may impact on known and/or unknown physical cultural resources and\ntherefore a Chance Finds Procedure has been developed as part of the ESMF. The ESMF was\nprepared in consultation with stakeholders and local communities and was disclosed both incountry and at InfoShop on April 14, 2015.\n\n102. The OPM implementing agency has adequate safeguards capacity to undertake\nenvironmental and social tasks of NUSAF 3 project through the TST that includes among other\npersonnel the Environmental and Social management Specialist. At district/local government\nlevel, the respective District Environment Officers, Community Development Officers and\nNUSAF 2 Coordinators have been central in implementation of environmental and social aspects\nof NUSAF 2 and this arrangement is expected to continue into NUSAF 3. Where appropriate the\nTST will continue to provide refresher courses to all the relevant local government staff (Planners,\nCommunity Development Officers, and Environment Officers) in all the NUSAF 3 project\ndistricts. In addition, the districts will be supported to transmit the environment and social issues\nincluding safeguards knowledge and skills to lower level local governments especially the SubCounty corresponding staff. Supporting acquisition and development of knowledge & skills\nincluding continuous environmental and social assessment is recommended. Therefore, necessary\ncapacity building activities will be implemented early in the project.\n\n\n**G.** **World Bank Grievance Service**\n103. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected by a World\nBank (WB) supported project may submit complaints to existing project-level grievance redress\nmechanisms or the WB’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints\nreceived are promptly reviewed in order to address project-related concerns. Project affected\ncommunities and individuals may submit their complaint to the WB’s independent Inspection\nPanel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of WB non-compliance\nwith its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have\nbeen brought directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an\nopportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s\n\n\n24\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 35
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "[corporate Grievance Redress Service (GRS), please visit www.worldbank.org/grs. For information](http://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/grievance-redress-service)\non how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit\n[www.inspectionpanel.org.](http://www.inspectionpanel.org/)\n\n\n25\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 36
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": ".\n\n\n.\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n**Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring**\n\n\n**Country: Uganda**\n\n**Project Name: Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3) (P149965)**\n\n\n**Results Framework**\n\n\n\n**Project Development Objectives**\n\n\n.\nPDO Statement\n\nThe Project Development Objective (PDO) is “to provide effective income support to and build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households in\nNorthern Uganda.”\n\n**These results are at** Project Level\n\n\n.\n\n\n**Project Development Objective Indicators**\n\n\n\n\n\n|Col1|Col2|Cumulative Target Values|Col4|Col5|Col6|Col7|Col8|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Indicator Name|Baseline|YR1|YR2|YR3|YR4|YR5|End Target|\n|Number of household beneficiaries of the project
(Number)|0.00|258,500|939,000|1,634,500|2,315,000|2,995,500|2,995,500|\n|Number of female beneficiaries
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown)|0.00|103,400|375,600|653,800|926,000|1,198,200|1,198,200|\n|Number of Households benefiting from post-
disaster activities
(Number)|0.00|0|21,000|42,000|63,000|84,000|84,000|\n|Percentage increase in the value of household
assets of beneficiaries of LIPW and LIS
(Text)|0.00|NA|NA|20%|NA|NA|20%|\n|Percentage of project beneficiaries satisfied with
project interventions
(Percentage)|0.00|50.00|60.00|65.00|75.00|80.00|80.00|\n\n\n26\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Development Objective Indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.9734299778938293,
+ "start": 99,
+ "end": 103
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7353195548057556,
+ "start": 82,
+ "end": 84
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.9198223948478699,
+ "start": 77,
+ "end": 81
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Indicator Name",
+ "confidence": 0.7146287560462952,
+ "start": 158,
+ "end": 160
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "Households",
+ "confidence": 0.6141159534454346,
+ "start": 278,
+ "end": 279
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 37
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": ".\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Intermediate Results Indicators|Col2|Col3|Col4|Col5|Col6|Col7|Col8|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|||Cumulative Target Values|Cumulative Target Values|Cumulative Target Values|Cumulative Target Values|Cumulative Target Values|Cumulative Target Values|\n|Indicator Name|Baseline|YR1|YR2|YR3|YR4|YR5|End Target|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets programs (number)
(Number) - (Core)|0.00|200,000|770,000|1,355,000|1,925,000|2,495,000|2,495,000|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets programs - Female
(number)
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown) - (Core)|0.00|80,000|308,000|542,000|770,000|998,000|998,000|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets programs -
Unconditional cash transfers (number)
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown) - (Core)|0.00|20,000|66,500|114,500|161,000|207,500|207,500|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets programs - Cash-for-
work, food-for-work and public works (number)
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown) - (Core)|0.00|180,000|693,000|1,219,500|1,732,500|2,245,500|2,245,500|\n|Female beneficiaries participating in LIPW sub-
projects
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown)|0.00|72,000|277,200|487,800|693,000|898,200|898,200|\n|Number of person days of employment created
(Number)|0.00|2,160,000|8,316,000|14,634,000|20,790,000|26,946,000|26,946,000|\n|Number of community assets built by LIPW
(Number)|0.00|254|978|1,722|2,446|3,170|3,170|\n|Number of household beneficiaries of Livelihood
Income Support
(Number)|0.00|11,700|33,800|55,900|78,000|100,100|100,100|\n|Number of female beneficiaries of Livelihood
Income Support
(Number - Sub-Type: Breakdown)|0.00|5,850|16,900|27,900|39,000|50,000|50,000|\n|Number of Income Generating sub-projects
completed (Number)|0.00|900|2,600|4,300|6,000|7,700|7,700|\n\n\n27\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 38
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Percentage of NUSAF3 SHGs who have accessed
funds from VLIC in pilot villages for their
livelihood business plans
(Percentage)|0.00|0.00|20.00|60.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Percentage of participating parishes with functional
community monitoring groups
(Percentage)|0.00|50.00|70.00|70.00|80.00|85.00|85.00|\n|Percentage of participating parishes in which social
accountability is implemented using a community
score card (CSC)
(Percentage)|0.00|50.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|\n|Percentage of grievances registered about NUSAF3
that are resolved in a timely manner
(Percentage)|0.00|50.00|60.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|70.00|\n|Of total grievances registered and resolved,
percentage representing non-NUSAF3 activities
(Percentage)|0.00|5.00|10.00|15.00|20.00|20.00|20.00|\n|An MIS for LIPW and LIS developed and
functional
(Text)|No|System
design &
software
complete|MIS in
place and
functional|MIS Reports
routinely
generated|MIS
Reports
routinely
generated|MIS
Reports
routinely
generated|MIS Reports
routinely
generated|\n|Systems in place to collect and analyze data for
triggers of DRF
(Text)|No|System
designed|System
operational|System
operational|System
operational|System
operational|System
operational|\n|A national Guideline for LIPW design, targeting,
implementation and M&E developed
(Text)|No|in use|in use|in use|in use|in use|in use|\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 39
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Indicator Description**\n\n\n.\n\n\n**Project Development Objective Indicators**\n\n\n\n|Indicator Name|Description (indicator definition etc.)|Frequency|Data Source / Methodology|Responsibility for Data
Collection|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Number of household
beneficiaries of the project|This indicator captures number of
beneficiary households. A ‘beneficiary’ in
the broadest sense is anyone who is
benefiting from a project/program. In
particular in the context of World Bank-
financed operations, direct project
beneficiaries are people or groups who
directly derive benefits from an intervention
(i.e., households who are participating in the
LIPW and DRF activities, benefit from
Livelihood income support grant, and direct
transfer). A household in Uganda is
considered to have an average of 5
members)|Quarterly|Routine Monitoring|OPM|\n|Number of female
beneficiaries|Female beneficiaries are at least 40% of total
household beneficiaries of the project|
Quarterly|Routine Monitoring|OPM|\n|Number of Households
benefiting from post-
disaster activities|Indicates the number of households the
LIPW sub-component has enabled the DRF
mechanism to reach the disaster affected
area.|Quarterly|Routine Monitoring and
post disaster follow-up|OPM|\n|Percentage increase in the
value of household assets of
beneficiaries of LIPW and
LIS|Indicates if program is having desired
impact on the household (and in particular
their continued ability to earn future
income). Will be monitored by component,
gender, and asset type (including savings).|In year 2|Household Survey|Ext. evaluation firm
(implementation) and OPM
(coord.)|\n|Percentage of project
beneficiaries satisfied with
project interventions|Measures the extent to which NUSAF3
beneficiaries are satisfied with the project
interventions.|Annually|Survey/LIPW/LIS studies|OPM|\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n29\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Project Development Objective Indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.9854626655578613,
+ "start": 9,
+ "end": 13
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.895153820514679,
+ "start": 193,
+ "end": 194
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW",
+ "confidence": 0.717440664768219,
+ "start": 167,
+ "end": 168
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.8512905836105347,
+ "start": 193,
+ "end": 194
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.9651926159858704,
+ "start": 158,
+ "end": 159
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Household Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.9721176028251648,
+ "start": 397,
+ "end": 399
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.6159992814064026,
+ "start": 398,
+ "end": 399
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "OPM",
+ "confidence": 0.8771281242370605,
+ "start": 314,
+ "end": 315
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "year 2",
+ "confidence": 0.989517867565155,
+ "start": 394,
+ "end": 396
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Survey/LIPW/LIS studies",
+ "confidence": 0.7440905570983887,
+ "start": 459,
+ "end": 465
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "OPM",
+ "confidence": 0.9122637510299683,
+ "start": 314,
+ "end": 315
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "year 2",
+ "confidence": 0.5973371863365173,
+ "start": 394,
+ "end": 396
+ },
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "beneficiaries",
+ "confidence": 0.5394805073738098,
+ "start": 332,
+ "end": 333
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 40
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Intermediate Results Indicators**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Indicator Name|Description (indicator definition etc.)|Frequency|Data Source / Methodology|Responsibility for Data
Collection|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets
programs (number)|This indicator measures the number of
individual beneficiaries covered by safety
nets programs supported by the Bank. Safety
nets programs intend to provide social
assistance (kind or cash) to poor and
vulnerable individuals or families, including
those to help cope with consequences of
economic or other shock.|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets
programs - Female
(number)|This indicator measures female participation
in SSN programs. It has the same definition
as the \"Beneficiaries of Safety Nets
programs\" but applies only to female. This
indicator will yield a measure of coverage of
SSN projects disaggregated by gender (in
absolute numbers)|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets
programs - Unconditional
cash transfers (number)|Follows the safety nets programs’
classification used in SP Atlas.|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Beneficiaries of Safety Nets
programs - Cash-for-work,
food-for-work and public
works (number)|Follows the safety nets programs’
classification used in SP Atlas.|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Female beneficiaries
participating in LIPW sub-
projects|Female beneficiaries are 40% of total LIPW
beneficiaries|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Number of person days of
employment created|Measures the temporary employment
created through the public work component
for both the LIPW and DRF subcomponents|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n\n\n\n30\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "indicator",
+ "confidence": 0.7120769023895264,
+ "start": 182,
+ "end": 183
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "SP Atlas",
+ "confidence": 0.9502536058425903,
+ "start": 301,
+ "end": 303
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "Female beneficiaries",
+ "confidence": 0.6313343048095703,
+ "start": 390,
+ "end": 392
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 41
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Number of community
assets built by LIPW|They represent key community assets
created by the community as part of the
LIPW program and disaggregated by the
different categories of subprojects in the
LIPW menu|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Number of household
beneficiaries of Livelihood
Income Support|Indicates the number of households
participating in the Improved Household
Income Support (IHISP) sub-component of
LIS component as CIG members|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Number of female
beneficiaries of Livelihood
Income Support|Female beneficiaries are expected to be 50%
of total LIS household beneficiaries|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Number of Income
Generating sub-projects
completed|Indicates the number of income generating
sub-projects under Improved Household
Income Support (IHISP) sub-component of
LIS component whose business plans have
been implemented and completed|Quarterly|MIS|Communities to sub-
counties and district, to
OPM|\n|Percentage of NUSAF3
SHGs who have accessed
funds from VLIC in pilot
villages for their livelihood
business plans|Indicates that the VLICs are functional and
SHGs are following the program design
principles to access funding for their
livelihoods|Quarterly|From pilot|Communities/ Parish with
data entry at district
level/OPM oversight|\n|Percentage of participating
parishes with functional
community monitoring
groups|Captures basic functionality of system and
whether a key structure of TAAC design in
NUSAF3 is in place.|Six-
monthly|Routine monitoring|IG|\n|Percentage of participating
parishes in which social
accountability is
implemented using a
community score card
(CSC)|Captures extent to which social
accountability has been mainstreamed in
NUSAF3 at the implementation level|Annually|CSC exercise|IG|\n\n\n\n31\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW menu",
+ "confidence": 0.520007848739624,
+ "start": 49,
+ "end": 51
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "VLIC",
+ "confidence": 0.5559941530227661,
+ "start": 308,
+ "end": 309
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "SHGs",
+ "confidence": 0.697009265422821,
+ "start": 299,
+ "end": 300
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF3",
+ "confidence": 0.6353849768638611,
+ "start": 418,
+ "end": 419
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community score card",
+ "confidence": 0.9911841750144958,
+ "start": 461,
+ "end": 464
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "CSC",
+ "confidence": 0.9863606691360474,
+ "start": 468,
+ "end": 469
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 42
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Percentage of grievances
registered about NUSAF3
that are resolved in a timely
manner|Shows how well the grievance mechanism is
functioning and helps also signal problem
areas and bottlenecks to management so
they can be addressed. Monitored at
community, local government, and IG level.
Ideally, most complaints should be resolved
at the community level showing that Social
Accountability is working well. Timeliness
is measured as time taken to resolve or
otherwise take required action by the
responsible from when the complaint and/or
appeal is first received and registered and is
defined as 2 months for purposes of this
indicator.|Quarterly|Information generated
through grievance module
in MIS|IG|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Of total grievances
registered and resolved,
percentage representing
non-NUSAF3 activities|Captures extent of non-NUSAF3 related
grievances, given the expanded scope of
TAAC to monitor both NUSAF3 and other
govt. programs monitored at community,
local government and IG levels.|Quarterly|Information generated
through grievance module
in MIS|IG|\n|An MIS system for LIPW
and LIS developed and
functional|Functionality of a key measure and whether
it is being used to support elements of
program operation|Quarterly|Routine monitoring|OPM|\n|Systems in place to collect
and analyze data for
triggers of DRF|Data collection and monitoring. Note: in
medium term to increase capacity of GoU of
the risk, and so design scalability component
to suit their needs|Annually|Annual public works
review|OPM|\n|A national Guideline for
LIPW design, targeting,
implementation and M&E
developed|This indicates that the National LIPW
Guideline (to be issued by MoLGSD) is
available in its final and approved form for
use by OPM/NUSAF3 project and other
agencies implementing Public work
activities in Uganda|One time
event|Final Guideline ratified and
approved for dissemination
and program use|MoLGSD/OPM|\n\n\n\n32\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF3",
+ "confidence": 0.7261137962341309,
+ "start": 9,
+ "end": 10
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "grievance module",
+ "confidence": 0.6418785452842712,
+ "start": 167,
+ "end": 169
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Final Guideline",
+ "confidence": 0.890455961227417,
+ "start": 489,
+ "end": 491
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "MoLGSD/OPM",
+ "confidence": 0.8420219421386719,
+ "start": 506,
+ "end": 509
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9403972029685974,
+ "start": 480,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 43
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 2: Detailed Project Description**\n\n**UGANDA: The Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3)**\n\n1. NUSAF 3 builds on the lessons learned from both NUSAF 1 and 2 and aims to contribute\nto the operationalizing of the Uganda Social Protection Policy. As a result, it has a greater focus\non labor intensive public works and seeks to further enhance livelihood support by ensuring the\ngreater sustainability of interventions.\n\n2. The Labor-intensive Public Works (LIPW) sub-component (Sub-component 1.1) will\nreflect significant design changes from the equivalent component implemented in NUSAF 2 with\nenhanced targeting, greater labor intensity (to ensure that the majority of the budget is spent on\ntransfers), and greater predictability in the timing of works and payments to enhance their safety\nnet function. The project will also include a Disaster Risk Financing sub-component (Subcomponent 1.2) that will pilot the potential for scaling up the public works program in response to\nshocks. Uganda frequently suffers from climatic shocks that have a significant negative impact on\nlivelihoods, and the rapid scaling up of safety nets can mitigate these effects. The sub-component\nwill test the operationalization of LIPW scale-up and its financing in a limited number of regions\nand for a limited range of shocks.\n\n3. Component 2, the Livelihood Investment Support (LIS) component, builds on the\nexperience of the Household Income Support Program (HISP) implemented under NUSAF 1 and\n2. It comprises an Improved Household Income Support Program (IHISP) and a Sustainable\nLivelihoods Pilot (SLP). The IHSIP includes a greater focus on building the capacity of groups\nbefore providing them with grants and on requiring them to start saving, while the SLP aims to\nenhance the sustainability of support to household investments through creating sustainable\ncommunity institutions, focusing on self-help, and encouraging the use of revolving village funds\ninstead of grants.\n\n4. NUSAF 3 also aims to build on the experience of the Transparency, Accountability, and\nAnti-Corruption (TAAC) component of NUSAF 2. This component has been credited with\nsignificantly reducing the prevalence of fraud and corruption in the project by a combination of\npreventative measures and increased risk detection. This component (Component 3) will also\nincrease opportunities for the community to be engaged in the project and will improve the\nmanagement of grievances.\n\n5. One key focus of NUSAF 3 will be to develop and improve systems, processes and tools\nthat will constitute the foundation of a broader sustainable safety nets system as envisioned in the\ndraft Uganda Social Protection Policy. Component 4 will support the MGLSD by establishing and\nstrengthening systems to harmonize Uganda’s direct income support programs, including a\nnational framework for public works, the establishment of effective payment mechanisms for\nlabor-intensive public works, and mechanisms to support an integrated approach to targeting\nbetween similar types of interventions. The project will also develop management information\nsystems (MIS) to support all of these efforts.\n\n\n33\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 44
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Component 1: Labor-intensive Public Works and Disaster Risk Financing (US$61 million**\n**equivalent)**\n\n6. This component will provide beneficiaries from poor and vulnerable households with a\ntransfer over a number of years [14] during the lean agricultural season in return for their participation\nin LIPW. The Disaster Risk Financing sub-component will test the possibility of temporarily and\nrapidly scaling up these LIPW activities in the event of shocks either to provide additional support\nto core LIPW clients or to extend coverage to new beneficiaries. The coordinated implementation\nof the LIPW and DRF sub-components is expected to smooth the consumption, reduce the\nvulnerability, and protect the assets of poor and vulnerable households both during lean periods\nand in times of shocks. The ability to rapidly scale up LIPW is expected to reduce the vulnerability\nof these households to drops in their consumption as a result of climatic events and to protect their\nlivelihoods and assets, thus enabling them to recover from crises more swiftly. While the core\nLIPW sub-component will be implemented throughout the project area, the coordinated\nimplementation will be piloted in selected districts to generate an adequate evidence base on which\nto base the design of a possible extension of the program to other areas after the midterm review.\n\n_**Sub-component 1.1: Labor-intensive Public Works (US$49 million)**_\n\n7. The objectives of the labor intensive public works (LIPW) component are to: (i) create\ncommunal assets of value to the community and (ii) make seasonal transfers to the community in\nreturn for their temporary employment in LIPW. This seasonal transfer will allow households to\nsmooth their consumption during lean seasons, help them to sustain their assets, and enable them\nto participate in savings schemes, which in turn will enable them to invest in productive ventures.\nThe development of physical assets will result in improvements to the environment, which in turn\nwill have a positive impact on households’ productive ventures. This component builds on lessons\nlearned from the existing range of public works programs in Uganda and other sub-Saharan\nAfrican countries (for example Ethiopia and Tanzania). A key objective is the delivery of\npredictable, multi-annual support to poor and vulnerable households.\n\n8. This component will finance: (i) the transfers for the beneficiaries participating in the\nLIPW activities; (ii) capacity building at the community level; and (iii) the equipment, materials,\nand semi-skilled labor needed to implement the LIPW to the required standard and quality. The\ncosts incurred by districts and sub-counties in implementing this component will be financed\nthrough the program management budget described under Component 4 below.\n\n9. **The LIPW Menu.** The LIPW will consist of a variety of labor-intensive interventions to\ncreate productive assets that will meet the communities’ needs. Typical LIPW sub-projects build\nor repair rural access roads, establish and manage tree nurseries, plant seedlings or promote\nafforestation, construct different soil and water conservation (SWC) mechanisms, flood control\nstructures, build community ponds, valley tanks, hand-dug wells, or spring developments, develop\nmechanisms for rainwater harvesting, and rehabilitate or construct market shelters. These assets\nwill help not only poor households but also the community at large to respond to and build\nresilience against the impact of climate change by helping them to diversify risk, enhance their\nincomes, and build their skills and assets. For example, SWC activities increase land productivity\nand income, and building roads and market shelters will make markets and social services more\n\n\n14 Retargeting will be conducted every two years, so households will be able to participate in the program for at least\ntwo years and in many cases longer (if they are still identified as poor and vulnerable by the retargeting process).\n\n\n34\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 45
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "accessible, while valley tanks, hand-dug wells, and spring development will increase the potable\nwater supply and improve hygiene and sanitation.\n\n10. **Ensuring the Technical Quality of LIPW Interventions** . The extent to which LIPW\nactivities can contribute to sustainable livelihoods and long-term development will depend on\nwhether they result in the creation of appropriate and durable communal assets. Thus, high\nstandards in the planning and implementation of LIPW are essential for the success of the program.\nPublic works planning will include a detailed physical design process, which in turn will ensure\nthat the necessary technical feasibility assessments have been carried out and documented. These\nwill include soil feasibility for the construction of water harvesting structures such as valley tanks\nand community ponds. The districts, with support from the TST, are responsible for ensuring that\nthe assets created fulfill the standard technical specifications provided in the operations manual\nand National Labor-intensive Public Works Guidelines. [15]\n\n11. **Targeting** . The beneficiaries of this component will be selected using a two-step process,\nin which geographic targeting will be used to identify the poorest sub-counties and then\ncommunity-based targeting will be used to select the poorest and most vulnerable households\nwithin those communities. Geographic targeting and the distribution of resources between districts\nand sub-counties will be based on poverty and population. Accordingly, beneficiary quotas will be\nallocated to each district. Household targeting will begin with the parish/sub-county\nrepresentatives creating awareness of the project among the community. All community members\nwill be invited to a general assembly, at which representatives from all sections of the community\nwill be elected to form a Community Watershed Committee (CWC). At least 50 percent of its\nmembers must be women. The CWC will coordinate the implementation of all LIPW activities in\na given watershed. [16] During this general assembly, community-level criteria for selecting the\nbeneficiary households will be agreed. Using these agreed criteria, the CWC will then identify\nthose households eligible to benefit from the LIPW component including those who will be eligible\nfor direct transfers, and this preliminary list of households will then be presented to a subsequent\ngeneral assembly for discussion, correction, and approval. [17] This final approved list will form the\nbeneficiary list [18] for the LIPW program, and only those included on the list will receive the\ntransfer.\n\n12. **Eligibility for Direct Transfer.** Direct transfer is intended for poor and vulnerable households\nwithout labor to participate in public works and who do not have sufficient and reliable support\nfrom children or remittances from other relatives living outside the village. Such households\ninclude disabled or elderly persons, lactating mothers during the first ten months after giving birth,\npregnant women, and orphaned teenagers. The direct transfer is a mechanism for providing grants\nto the poorest members of the community. Payments to these category of poor and vulnerable\n\n\n15 These guidelines are currently under preparation By MGLSD and are expected to be finalized by June 2015.\n16 As described further below, public works planning and implementation will follow a watershed planning approach.\nOne watershed is usually comprised of several villages.\n17 The targeting of the LIS component will use the same approach although the community criteria may differ between\ncomponents. The LIPW beneficiaries are expected to be the poorest of the poor, whereas the LIS beneficiaries, in\naddition to being poor, must be willing and able to invest in livelihood opportunities. Whenever possible (in other\nwords, when LIS and LIPW components are being rolled-out in the same communities at the same time), the targeting\nof both components will take place at the same time.\n18 Whenever possible, this beneficiary list will also be checked by district and sub-county officials to ensure that\nhouseholds are not benefiting from more than one direct support transfer, whether unconditional or through another\npublic works intervention.\n\n\n35\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 46
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "households are in recognition of the fact that even though these individuals are unable to perform\npublic works they are entitled to support from the LIPW. Direct transfer beneficiaries are identified\nthrough the community targeting process as those poor and vulnerable households with no\navailable labor and no other means of support. These households may be composed of people who\nare: (i) too young to qualify for Public Works, i.e. 17 years of age and under; (ii) too old to qualify\nfor Public Works; (iii) physically disabled; (iv) mentally disabled; and (v) temporarily unable to\nwork, including women six months pregnant or more, lactating mothers in the first ten months\nafter giving birth, and people who are sick.\n\n13. Lists of the beneficiaries for public works and direct transfer would be unified to better\nenable individuals to change their status and to ensure that households received a single stream of\nsupport from public works and/or unconditional support. This is particularly relevant for pregnant\nwomen, who are transferred from public works to direct transfer in the six months of pregnancy\nand remain there until ten months after the birth of their child.\n\n14. The number of household members eligible to participate in the LIPW (and the number of\nperson days for which they can participate) will depend on a number of factors including: (i) the\nbudget envelope for the target area as specified in the annual LIPW plan; [19] and (ii) the size of the\nbeneficiary households and the number of adult able-bodied members. Larger households (those\nwith more members) will be eligible to participate in more person days of work than smaller\nhouseholds, which in turn will make them eligible to earn more income. The detailed proportion\nof LIPW participants per family will be included in the project Operations Manual.\n\n15. **LIPW Planning** . The LIPW planning process will continue to involve participatory\ncommunity planning but will be enhanced by a new watershed development planning process.\nEligible works must be labor-intensive (see below for further details) and demand driven, they\nmust meet the needs of the community, and they must be technically, socially, and economically\nviable. They must not have any significant negative social or environmental impact, require land\ncompensation, or have any negative impact on physical or cultural resources. Also, they must\nfacilitate the participation of women.\n\n16. Each CWC will prepare a multi-year watershed plan for their watershed area based on the\nprinciples of watershed planning (hill-top to valley). Each year the annual LIPW plan will be drawn\nfrom the multi-year watershed plan, which will continue to consolidate and build on the preceding\nyear’s development efforts. The multi-year watershed plan will be based on systematic and\nsustainable natural resources management and development. In order to facilitate this approach,\nparishes will be divided into recognizable watersheds, and community mobilization, targeting, and\nplanning will then take place within these watersheds. One watershed will often be comprised of\nseveral villages, and it will be the watershed boundary rather than the village boundary that will\ndetermine the planning unit. [20] In addition to the activities that will comprise the annual LIPW\nplans, the multi-year watershed plan will include LIPW activities that may be suitable to be scaled\nup with the support of DRF resources in the event of a shock. These activities should not require\ncomplex procurement and should be easy to implement under crisis conditions.\n\n\n19 The annual LIPW plan is the plan specifying all of the LIPW sub-projects to be implemented in the watershed in a\ngiven year.\n20 In order not to over-complicate planning processes, watershed planning units will not cross parish or sub-county\nboundaries. Where it is necessary for activities to be coordinated across a parish boundary, sub-county and district\ntechnical staff will support this process\n\n\n36\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 47
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "17. An annual LIPW plan may be comprised of several LIPW sub-projects depending on the\nsize of the resource envelope (which in turn will be informed by population numbers and levels of\npoverty). Once approved, the annual LIPW plan should be integrated into the sub-county and\ndistrict development plans. As necessary, the sub-project can be drawn from the District and Subcounty Investment Plan, which was drawn up in a participatory process at the community level.\nAnnex Table 2.1 below provides an indicative list of possible public works.\n\n\n**Annex Table 2. 1: List of Potential LIPW Sub-projects**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Areas of Work|Activities*|\n|---|---|\n|Physical Soil and Water
Conservation|•
Hillside terrace construction
•
Check dam construction
•
Cut-off drain construction
•
Flood control dike/ditch construction|\n|Biological Soil and Water
Conservation|
•
Nursery establishment and management
•
Seedling raising/production
•
Pitting
•
Seedling planting
•
Vegetative/life fencing|\n|Community Water
Development|
•
Spring development/protection
•
Community pond construction/rehabilitation
•
Construction of valley tanks
•
Construction of hand-dug wells|\n|Rural Infrastructure|
•
Construction of community access roads
•
Market sheds and pavements
•
Sanitation facilities|\n\n\nNote: The actual activities will be decided on and prioritized by communities through a participatory and\ntransparent process.\n\n18. A key constraint under NUSAF 1 and 2 was the long time needed to prepare, process, and\napprove sub-project applications, and it was this, rather than the urgency of need, that often\ndictated when LIPWs were implemented. Under NUSAF 3, the identification, planning, and\nimplementation of LIPWs will be completed in accordance with a clearly defined timeframe.\nFurthermore, responsibility for appraisal and approval will be fully devolved to the districts\n(regardless of the size of their budget envelopes under the annual LIPW plan), with the OPM/TST\nbeing responsible for supporting this process and for reviewing a sample of annual LIPW plans\n(five per district). The full cycle of planning, appraisal and approval, disbursement, and\nimplementation should be completed within 12 months. This will make it possible to offer LIPW\nemployment at predictable times and will allow implementers to ensure that LIPWs coincide with\nthe agricultural lean season.\n\n19. The annual LIPW plans will include information on how sub-projects will be managed and\nmaintained upon completion. Communities’ commitment to the ongoing management and\nmaintenance of sub-projects will be a key precondition for the approval of the annual LIPW plan.\nOnce sub-projects have been completed, beneficiary communities will take the responsibility for\nensuring the sustainability of the assets created by the LIPWs. During planning, clear operation\nand maintenance plans will be prepared for each sub-project. At the sub-project level an operation\nand maintenance committee will be established to implement the plan. For some sub-projects such\nas roads, where maintenance is beyond the community technical skill and financial capacity, the\nlocal government will assist in the maintenance of the infrastructure. The LIPW component, with\n\n\n37\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 48
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "an available total budget of US$61 million (LIPW US$49 million and DRF US$12 million) will\nbe able to develop a total of 377 integrated sub watersheds during the five years of the project\nperiod. On average, eight sub-projects will be planned and implemented based on watershed logic\nto rehabilitate the environment and create sustainable community assets. Total number of\ninfrastructure sub-projects to be created during five years is estimated at close to 3,000.\n\n\n**Annex Table 2. 2: Infrastructure created by type**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|S/N|Description of Activity|Unit|Average|%
(Proportion
By type)|No
infrastructure|Total
unit|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|S/N|Description of Activity|Unit|
Average|%
(Proportion
By type)|||\n|1|Road|km|3|0.22|664|1,991|\n|2|SWC|km|2|0.26|784|1,568|\n|3|Valley tank|No|1|0.20|603|603|\n|4|Pond|No|1|0.15|452|452|\n|5|Seedling Production and
plantation|No
of
acre|1|0.10|302|302|\n|6|Spring Development|No|1|0.03|90|90|\n|**7 **|Shallow well|No|1|0.04|121|121|\n|** Total**|** Total**|** Total**|** Total**|1.00|3,016||\n\n\n20. In each sub watershed, the infrastructure to be prioritized and implemented is driven by the\nrespective communities’ needs and interest. However, for the purpose of estimating the number of\ninfrastructures that will be created, the following assumptions are made: (i) Average length of a\nroad in the sub watershed is three kilometers; (ii) SWC includes terraces, bunds, flood control and\ngully control structures, with an average length of two kilometers; (iii) Estimated number of valley\ntanks to be prioritized and constructed by the communities is 603 with an average water holding\ncapacity of each valley tank of 10,000 cubic meters; (iv) Estimated number of ponds to be\nprioritized and constructed by the communities is 452, with each pond having an average water\nholding capacity of (2.5 mx 20m*20m) 2,250 cubic meters; (v) Average tree seedlings\nplantation/afforestation per acre is 50,000 with one acre of afforestation considered to be one\ninfrastructure, with the total number of trees seedlings to be planted in the five year project period\n(302 acre x 50,000 seedling per acre) being 15.1 million; (vi) Estimated number of springs to be\nidentified and developed by the communities is 90, depending on the physical availability of\nsprings in the project area; (vii) estimated total number of shallow wells to be prioritized and\nconstructed in the project area is 120, depending on the technical feasibility of the ground water\ndepth in the project area.\n\n\n21. **Labor Intensity** . Public works in Uganda have tended to be a costly way to deliver\ntransfers, costing an average of around US$3 to US$5 per US$1 of benefit transferred. Welldesigned LIPW in other countries have spent as much as 50 to 80 percent of their budgets on\nwages. The NUSAF 2 Operations Manual emphasized the need for wages to make up a high\nproportion of the sub-project costs. However, in practice, this principle was not adhered to, and\n\n\n38\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 49
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "there were even examples where heavy earth moving machinery was the main equipment used to\nconstruct a community road. This meant that such projects did not fulfill a safety net function but\nwere only focused on infrastructure development. Under NUSAF 3, on average, 70 percent of the\nbudget allocated to the component will be spent on wages (transfers) for participants. However, a\nminimum of 60 percent labor intensity will be spent on wages (transfers) to participants for access\nroads and valley tank subprojects, due to the need for more capital inputs to ensure quality of\noutputs, including hiring of specialized equipment on exceptional circumstances. The remaining\nbudget will be spent on: (i) equipment, materials, and semi-skilled labor and other inputs necessary\nto implement the selected LIPW to the required quality needed at the community level; and (ii)\ncapacity-building costs such as the hiring of community facilitators, training and planning\nworkshops, and any sub-county and parish supervision costs. The district, sub-county and TST\nsupervision costs will be covered by Component 4.\n\n22. Annual LIPW plans may be made up of a combination of sub-projects with differing levels\nof labor intensity. Furthermore, under NUSAF 3, if a specific sub-project cannot be implemented\nby human labor, it will not qualify as a LIPW and will be excluded during the sub-project selection\nphase.\n\n23. **Benefit Levels and Wage Rates.** Under NUSAF 2, LIPWs provided an estimated daily\nwage rate of UGX 4,000, with households working for an average of 22 days and therefore earning\nUGX 88,000 over the life of a sub-project. In NUSAF 3, the aim will be to provide households an\naverage transfer of UGX 240,000 per year in return for their participation in 60 days of public\nworks. UGX 240,000 is the difference between the average consumption of a poor household and\nthe consumption required to meet the food poverty line. [21] The direct transfer beneficiaries will\nalso receive average transfer of UGX 240,000 per year which is equivalent to 60 days of transfer\nto public work beneficiaries.\n\n24. Furthermore, under NUSAF 3, both “piece wages” and “daily wages” will be applied\ndepending on the nature of the sub-project. Activities such as the establishment and management\nof a tree nursery will pay a daily wage since the activity requires daily attendance to manage the\nseedlings. Other activities such as the construction of ponds or access roads will use the piece wage\napproach. This approach provides farmers with the flexibility to fit LIPW activities around their\nfarming duties by allowing them to set their own working hours as long as they complete the LIPW\nwork up to a set quality standard. The National LIPW Planning and Implementation Guidelines\nwill provide guidance on when “piece wages” or “daily wages” should be used and will define the\nappropriate work norms to assist planning and payment. The process for setting and adjusting the\ndaily wage and the piece wage will be defined in the NUSAF 3 Operations Manual. [22]\n\n25. **Payment Modality.** As discussed further under Component 4 below, NUSAF 3 will pilot\nthe use of payment service providers to pay LIPW participants in selected areas. However, as\ncoverage by such institutions is currently very low in Northern Uganda, the majority of LIPW\nbeneficiaries will continue to receive their payments manually. Payments will be made by the\nCommunity Watershed Committees (CWC) following verification by the community-employed\n\n\n21 Smith, Jim (2014) “Can Productive Transfers Speed up Sharing of the Benefits of Prosperity in Uganda?” un\npublished June 10 [th]\n22 Current analysis indicates that UGX 4,000 (approximately US$1.4) is both adequate (allows the annual benefit level\nto be achieved without competing with other labor demands) and appropriate (below the prevailing market wage) as\na daily wage rate. However, actual wage rates (along with the overall annual benefit level) should be periodically\nrevised to take inflation into consideration.\n\n\n39\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 50
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "foremen or technical supervisor that household members have indeed participated in public works\nand have done work up to a satisfactory standard. Payments will initially be made every two weeks,\nwith the CWC withdrawing the money for each month’s payroll from the community bank\naccount. The frequency with which payments are made will be reviewed during the life of the\nproject to review what is preferred by beneficiaries and what CWCs and district officers consider\nto be practical.\n\n26. **Twice-yearly LIPW Reviews.** Setting high standards for the LIPWs is essential to ensure\nthat the assets created are sustainable and contribute to the area’s long-term development. To\nsupport ongoing improvements in quality, LIPW reviews will be conducted by the community\nwith the support from TST and consultants twice annually. The first review of the year will review\nLIPW planning, while the second review will focus on their implementation. The reviews will\nassess the extent to which: (i) annual LIPW plans follow the community-based participatory\nwatershed development approach; (ii) the sub-projects are screened for ESMF; (iii) the assets\ncreated meet satisfactory standards: and (iv) the sub-projects have operation and maintenance\nplans in place. Following each review, a workshop will be organized by TST in which the findings\nof the review are shared and discussed with district technical staff in order to correct any problems\nin the implementation of the LIPWs.\n\n27. **Capacity Building and Collaboration.** This approach to labor-intensive public works is\nrelatively new in Uganda and is currently beginning to be put into operation. Key technical staff\nfrom 28 districts have been trained, but there is a need to train technical staff in the remaining 27\ndistricts and to ensure that training is also provided to sub-county officials and community\ncommittee member levels in all 55 districts. The local government engineer at the district level\nalong with the Lead Local Artesian (LLA) is responsible to maintain the minimum standard quality\nof LIPW. The LLA will be trained in the technical aspect of LIPW implementation by Mount\nElgon Labor-based Training Center (MELTC). The project will make partnership arrangement\nwith MELTC for the training of LLAs. Furthermore, to increase the harmonization of LIPW\nimplementation approaches in Uganda, a LIPW Technical Working Group composed of key\nstakeholders (from the government, development partners including the WFP, and the international\nand local NGOs involved in implementing LIPWs) will be formed and will meet regularly to assess\nprogress, discuss and resolve challenges, and agree a common way forward.\n\n_**Sub-component 1.2: Disaster Risk Financing (US$12 million)**_\n\n28. This sub-component aims to develop a mechanism for scaling up assistance to poor and\nvulnerable households immediately following natural disasters shocks in Northern Uganda. This\nsub-component will finance the costs of establishing this scalable response and the costs of\nbuilding related systems and capacity. This will include the allocation of resources to cover the\nfinancial costs of scaling up, and of key mechanisms to trigger and operationalize the response.\nOnce a response is triggered under this sub-component, funds will be released which will be used\nto increase the days of employment available to households in the effected region. Scaling up the\nLIPWs will make it possible for poor and vulnerable households to smooth their consumption over\ntime and reduce their vulnerability following shocks. It will also enable households to protect their\nassets and livelihoods, thus leading to a more rapid post-event recovery.\n\n29. Given the heterogeneity of risks in Uganda and the novel nature of scalable public works,\nthis sub-component will take a sequenced approach to developing scalability across Northern\nUganda. It will initially focus on one sub-region and one risk. In order to successfully develop a\n\n\n40\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 51
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "scalability mechanism, it is important to build the government’s technical, institutional, and\noperational capacity to enable them to put the scalability mechanism into operation. The key\ntechnical steps that will need to be taken are assessing the availability of appropriate data,\ndeveloping the infrastructure to collect and analyze data, and designing an index on which to base\nscalability, all of which will take time to develop. Key institutional and operational considerations\ninclude building the capacity of a data collection agency, such as the National Emergency\nCoordination and Operation Center (NECOC), to enable it to fulfill its role and developing the\ninstitutional arrangements between the DRDR, line ministries, and international agencies to enable\nthe triggers for scalability. Given that this concept is new and untested in Uganda, it will be\nimportant to implement it gradually, enabling the mechanism to be piloted so that lessons can be\nlearned and used to improve the quality of the scalability mechanism going forward. These lessons\nand improvements can then be incorporated as the project expands to cover additional sub-regions,\nand potentially additional types of shocks, in Uganda.\n\n30. The Karamoja sub-region is widely considered to be particularly prone to weather shocks,\nespecially droughts, which contribute to its high levels of poverty. The climate in Karamoja is\ncharacterized by frequent dry spells and intermittent rains, which exacerbate food insecurity and\ndeepening poverty in the region. Given that both agriculture and livestock activities rely heavily\non rainfall conditions, changes in the rainfall pattern over Karamoja region have had devastating\neffects in terms of malnutrition as a result of food scarcity. With these challenges, the Karamoja\nsub-region has long been chronically food-insecure, with nearly 80 percent [23] of its population\nexperiencing some degree of food insecurity. The Karamoja region has been the location of some\nof the greatest practical experience in implementing income support programs and labor-intensive\npublic works. This makes focusing on the sub-region of Karamoja, and the risk of drought, one of\nthe most appropriate candidates for the initial phase of the sequenced approach to testing\nscalability in Uganda. The initial phase will be used to develop the systems and capacity in\ngovernment to operate the scalability mechanism. Once these are developed, following phases of\nthe project will look to expand drought coverage to other regions in Northern Uganda, as well as\nassess the feasibility to protect against additional risks (for example landslide, floods, etc.).\n\n31. GoU has in addition highlighted the need to address the risk of landslide in Uganda, due to\nthe high economic and human cost. As part of the activities under the sub component, the\nfeasibility of using the scalability mechanism to respond to landslide events will be assessed. This\nwill involve looking at the current institutions and processes that exist in Uganda to respond to\nlandslide events, the key enhancements to the processes that would be required as well as what\nwould be needed to strengthen resilience, preparedness, and financial protection against this\nparticular exposure. It will build upon risk data modeling activities [24] and look to embed the\nmechanism in the broader disaster risk management agenda (including risk reduction and\nmitigation).\n\n\n32. **This subcomponent will allocate resources in the amount of US$12 million to fund the**\n**scalability mechanism** . Out of this allocation, US$10 million will be used to fund scalability and\nUS$2 million will be used to build the system and fund capacity building. It is estimated that the\n\n\n23 Government of Uganda (2012)\n24 The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and RecoveryACP-EU Africa Disaster Risk Financing (ADRF) Program\nis a new program that will be developing risk models for a number of countries in the region. This program may be\nable to support the development of a landslide risk model for Uganda.\n\n\n41\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 52
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "allocation of US$10 million will enable the government to finance the cost of scaling up to\napproximately 80,000 households in case of a drought and or landslide event. [25] The need for\nscalability in the Karamoja region is high, with estimates of the number of households needing\ntransitory support several times this on an annual basis [26] . The US$10 million has been allocated\nas an initial amount to enable the scalability mechanism to function. Activities undertaken through\nthis subcomponent will build the system that will allow government to support scalability in the\nlong term.\n\n33. The disbursements from the sub-component will be channeled through the existing LIPW\nfinancial and operational framework. The payment modality will be identical to that of the LIPW\nsub-component. In addition, the activities undertaken with the additional resources will be planned\nand developed under the LIPW sub-component, as will the targeting mechanism for who will be\nentitled to the benefits. The exact details of what will trigger the scale-up and of which\nexpenditures will be eligible in the event of a scale-up will be detailed clearly in the Operations\nManual.\n\n34. The sub-component will make use of the broader LIPW component as the mechanism for\nscaling up support. In areas where this approach is being tested, “off-the shelf” sub-projects will\nbe developed that will allow LIPWs to be scaled up if a pre-defined event is triggered. These subprojects would be incorporated into community Annual LIPW plans but would not be financed\nuntil funding was released. In the event of funding being released, the Community Watershed\nCommittee would implement as many sub-projects as could be financed by the additional funding.\nIn the event that the CWC decides to extend the coverage to new households, the already existing\ntargeting mechanisms will identify those households that should benefit. (please see section 1.1\nLabor Intensive Public Works for more information on this planning process)\n\n35. There are four key requirements to enable scalability. These are: (i) the existence of an\nindex (or trigger mechanism) according to which the decision to scale up will be made; (ii)\nsufficient financing to meet the financial costs of scaling up; (iii) an ongoing transfer system (with\ncapacity to absorb additional resources) that can be scaled up when additional resources become\navailable; and (iv) a governance framework for the disbursement of funds. This sub-component\nwill focus on requirements (i), (ii), and (iv) with the broader LIPW component fulfilling the need\nfor (iii) the ongoing transfer system.\n\n36. The mechanism to trigger a scale up will be designed based on data sources. The data\nsources considered will ensure that the scalability mechanism captures the impacts of the majority\nof droughts and that the response can be appropriately and rapidly tailored to for both moderate\nand severe droughts. The data to be used will be based on satellite data. Satellite data is of high\nquality [27] and available (more than 20 years of data are available for Karamoja). Information from\nsatellites is also objective as it is collected by independent third parties, has been validated, and it\ncan be made available almost in real time. The team has investigated several satellite data sources\n\n\n25 This figure was calculated with the following assumptions: (i) daily wage rate of Ugx 4,000, corresponding to a\n70% labor intensity; (ii) 15 working days per month; (iii) 4 months of work.\n26 Data is difficult to obtain for the Karamoja region alone as agencies aggregate information at higher levels.\nIndicative figures based on high level analysis of FEWS Net and WFP data show over 250,000 households needing\nsupport on an annual basis\n27 High quality data are: (i) timely (so that claims can be paid quickly); (ii) relevant (so the product offers reliable\nprotection); (iii) audited to international standards; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) available over a long time horizon.\n\n\n42\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 53
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "in the Ugandan context [28] and is confident that an appropriate one can be used. Triggering scale up\non such high quality data would help NUSAF 3 to respond to droughts in a fast, transparent, and\naccountable manner. The project team will explore the possibility of using other data sources to\ncomplement the satellite data. Data that reflects welfare at the household level may be used to\ndevelop key indicators will be explored. There are several agencies, including ACTED, FEWS\nNet, the Makarere University, and the WFP, that have experience in collecting ground-level data\nin Karamoja, and the project will leverage that experience for this purpose. The project team will\nalso investigate the required investments necessary to strengthen such data and ensure it can be\nused in a consistent way by government and development partners.\n\n37. In order to develop the scalability mechanism, there are two key functions that the\ngovernment will need to perform: (i) to store and analyze data on risk on a regular basis; and (ii)\nto develop the institutional system that will trigger a scale-up in response to shocks to household\nwelfare. Given the DRDR’s mandate to coordinate disaster-related activities in Uganda, it will be\nresponsible for the implementation of the sub-component to ensure sustainability of the scalability\nsystem.\n\n38. It is proposed to use NECOC to fulfill the data storage function. NECOC is an early\nwarning system within the OPM. UNDP has made significant investments in the hardware of\nNECOC in recent years, which the project can leverage. NECOC will gather together the data\ncollected by other development partners and NGOs in addition to maintaining a historical dataset\nof the selected primary and secondary triggers and of the locations and years where and when the\nscalability is triggered. In order to enable NECOC to fulfill this function, the project will finance\nsignificant capacity building on key data and risk financing issues. This will enable the government\nto increase its knowledge about the risks and thus refine the scalability mechanism over time\naccordingly.\n\n39. To trigger a scale-up, it is proposed that NECOC will pass on the required data to the\nNational Council to verify, which will then inform the OPM that a scale-up can be triggered. The\nNational Council is an inter-agency technical committee housed within the DRDR with\nrepresentatives from the line ministries, donors, development partners, and NGOs. This council\nwas established to gather information from key DRM players in the field and to decide when to\nrespond to disasters in Uganda. The project proposes to use this already existing council to validate\nNECOC’s data regarding a possible scale-up. Upon validation, the council will then inform the\nOPM that a scale-up has been triggered, and the OPM will then decide whether to draw the\nresources allocated to the sub-component to finance the cost of the scale-up.\n\n40. The sub-component will ensure that the government has the capacity to execute the\nscalability mechanism. This will be achieved by a broad range of capacity building activities which\nwill be funded through the US$2 million capacity building funds allocated:\n\n(i) _**Organizational capacity and collaboration mechanism**_ _:_ The project will create a\ncommittee for coordinating the institutions that will be part of the implementation of the subcomponent, including but not limited to government institutions, NGOs, and development\nagencies. The project will also support government to establish knowledge through work plans,\noperating norms and procedures for data collection, data processing, and data transmission.\n\n\n28 Including the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), NOAA’s Rainfall Estimate (RFE) product, the\nWater Requirement Satisfaction Index (WRSI), and Relative Evapotranspiration (RE)\n\n\n43\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "satellite data",
+ "confidence": 0.8564035296440125,
+ "start": 59,
+ "end": 61
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "project team",
+ "confidence": 0.5877187252044678,
+ "start": 45,
+ "end": 47
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Karamoja",
+ "confidence": 0.6593000292778015,
+ "start": 108,
+ "end": 109
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "data on risk",
+ "confidence": 0.5063263177871704,
+ "start": 181,
+ "end": 184
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Karamoja",
+ "confidence": 0.7325275540351868,
+ "start": 108,
+ "end": 109
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NECOC",
+ "confidence": 0.6666814088821411,
+ "start": 249,
+ "end": 250
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "historical dataset",
+ "confidence": 0.6507219076156616,
+ "start": 305,
+ "end": 307
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7120790481567383,
+ "start": 222,
+ "end": 223
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NECOC’s data",
+ "confidence": 0.7287026047706604,
+ "start": 476,
+ "end": 480
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9629692435264587,
+ "start": 463,
+ "end": 464
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Normalized Difference Vegetation Index",
+ "confidence": 0.9917895793914795,
+ "start": 653,
+ "end": 657
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "NDVI",
+ "confidence": 0.9954156875610352,
+ "start": 658,
+ "end": 659
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Water Requirement Satisfaction Index",
+ "confidence": 0.8660125732421875,
+ "start": 672,
+ "end": 676
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "WRSI",
+ "confidence": 0.8980071544647217,
+ "start": 677,
+ "end": 678
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Relative Evapotranspiration",
+ "confidence": 0.7641392946243286,
+ "start": 681,
+ "end": 683
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "RE",
+ "confidence": 0.6049178242683411,
+ "start": 684,
+ "end": 685
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 54
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "(ii) _**Information and communication technology:**_ Gathering reliable and timely data for risk\nanalysis and for triggering scalability will require the project to invest in adequate information\nand communications equipment. The investments made through this project will strengthen\nkey government institutions involved in data collection, including the NECOC.\n\n(iii) _**Trainings:**_ The project will focus on funding specialized courses on a diversity of topics\nrelated to the component, including primary data analysis, index definition, designing the rules\nof scaling up the LIPW, and more general risk financing knowledge.\n\n41. In addition to the capacity building activities, the US$2 million will support the\ndevelopment of the infrastructure needed to implement the data systems, rules for scalability,\ninstitutional framework, and governance processes associated with the public financial\nmanagement that will be needed to implement the scalability mechanism. Below are listed the\nactivities planned, with the estimated timeframes (time frames are subject to change and activities\ncan occur in parallel):\n\n(i) Institutional mapping and gaps assessment (3 months)\n\n(ii) Drafting guidelines for the implementation of the risk financing instrument in Uganda, with\nsupport from government and international development agencies (6 months)\n\n(iii) Establishment of data set used to trigger the scale up response (12 months)\n\n(iv) Development of data and IT system to support risk financing for scalability beyond the\npilot region (18 – 24 months)\n\n42. The sub-component will also support the government in developing the rules governing\nany scale–up and in estimating the financial costs of different options. The cost of a scale-up will\ndepend on how frequently the scale–ups happen and who will receive the additional resources and\nfor how long. The more frequently the program scales up, for example, the more costly the\nscalability component will be. The sub-component will look into different options for scaling up\nthe LIPW program and estimate the financial cost of each option to enable the government to make\nan informed decision.\n\n\n**Component 2: Livelihood Investment Support (US$43.5 million equivalent)**\n\n43. The Livelihoods Investment Support (LIS) component will increase incomes and the\nproductive assets of targeted poor and vulnerable households in Northern Uganda. The LIS is\ncomprised of an Improved Household Income Support Program (IHISP) and a Sustainable\nLivelihoods Pilot (SLP). The IHISP incorporates key lessons from previous experience to improve\nthe efficiency and effectiveness of the component. The Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot aims to\ngenerate lessons and develop evidence for more significant changes to livelihoods support in the\nfuture.\n\n\n_**Component 2.1: Improved Household Income Support Program (IHISP) (US$42.5 million)**_\n\n44. **Objective of IHISP:** The objective of IHISP is to improve livelihoods and incomes of\ntargeted households in Northern Uganda through comprehensive skills development training,\nprovision of livelihood grants and follow up mentoring support. The IHSIP will be targeted at the\npoor and vulnerable groups such as women, youth, female headed households, persons with\ndisability, PLWAs, elderly, orphans, child mothers, and disarmed Karamojong youth. The priority\nwill be given to women and youth. The IHISP aims to develop market oriented and demand driven\n\n\n44\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Institutional mapping and gaps assessment",
+ "confidence": 0.6122771501541138,
+ "start": 196,
+ "end": 201
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7617465853691101,
+ "start": 219,
+ "end": 220
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "data and IT system",
+ "confidence": 0.6442197561264038,
+ "start": 256,
+ "end": 260
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "pilot region",
+ "confidence": 0.5014747381210327,
+ "start": 268,
+ "end": 270
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "IHISP",
+ "confidence": 0.5084331035614014,
+ "start": 452,
+ "end": 453
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.5790240168571472,
+ "start": 542,
+ "end": 544
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot",
+ "confidence": 0.5289372801780701,
+ "start": 470,
+ "end": 473
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Northern Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.5025330185890198,
+ "start": 425,
+ "end": 427
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "poor and vulnerable households",
+ "confidence": 0.6645528674125671,
+ "start": 420,
+ "end": 424
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 55
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "livelihood skills especially among poor and unemployed youth for creating opportunities for selfemployment. The IHISP will be implemented in 55 districts of Northern Uganda; participating\ngroups (10-15 households per group) may apply for grants up to a maximum cap of US$5,000 and\nis expected to benefit around 100,100 households in five years.\n\n\n45. **Impact of and lessons learned from previous livelihood interventions:** A randomized\nevaluation of Youth Opportunities Program which was the livelihood support component of the\nNUSAF1, showed substantial and persistent increases in investment, work, and income. After four\nyears the treatment group had 57 percent greater capital stocks, 38 percent higher earnings, and 17\npercent more hours of work than the control group; incomes of treatment women were 73 percent\ngreater than control women compared to a 29 percent gain for men. NUSAF 2 through its\nHousehold Income Support (HISP) component financed over 5830 sub-projects which are now\nproviding vital income and improved the livelihood of about 80,100 beneficiary households of\nwhich 61 percent are female. The beneficiary assessment study on HISP of NUSAF 2 indicated\nthat beneficiaries earned between UGX 100,000 and UGX 150,000 on a monthly basis and 79\npercent of beneficiary respondents indicated that the HISP sub-projects boosted their incomes and\nimproved their lives. In addition, recent project M&E data shows that the income of households\nthat participated in these schemes increased from UGX 96,000 to 255,000 per month suggesting\nthe positive gains from this intervention. Beneficiary satisfaction survey also shows that\nsatisfaction is high (82 percent) and households report improved income and increased savings.\n\n\n46. Notwithstanding this success, NUSAF 2 HISP component has some shortcomings. These\ninclude (a) limited human and institutional capacity at district and lower levels; (b) inadequate\ncommunity mobilization, sensitization and beneficiary targeting; (c) lack of ongoing support and\ncapacity building to Community Interest Groups (CIGs) resulting in a lack of business, marketing\nand group management skills and the short life-span of most groups; (d) lack of regular meetings\nand little to no support to group savings; (e) a number of livelihood activities financed were not\neconomically viable; and (f) delays in implementing the project cycle. All of these shortcomings\nlimit the CIG’s capacity to plan and improve management of their livelihood activities to expand\nand generate income in a sustainable manner.\n\n\n47. **Key improvements envisaged in IHISP:** The IHISP will build on lessons learnt from\nNUSAF 1 and 2, and focus on improving the efficiency and quality of the program. Key\nimprovements include: a) outsourcing human and institutional capacity building efforts to\ncompetent non-profit and private sector agencies; b) following a transparent, simple and systematic\nprocess for community mobilization, sensitization and beneficiary targeting in target villages and\ntrain key staff in districts and sub-counties in this process; c) provide continuous capacity building\nsupport to CIGs members including business and group management training; d) promote\nadherence to five principles of well-functioning groups – regular meetings, regular savings, interloaning, regular repayment and record-keeping; e) conduct market assessment and value chain\nanalysis at the start and during the implementation of the project to inform the beneficiaries on the\ntype of livelihood activities they may undertake; f) delegating to and capacity building of\nappropriate community facilitators (Parish chiefs or project recruited community facilitators) to\nprovide follow up support to CIGs; and g) improve the efficiency of the subproject cycle process\nto ensure it is properly followed by districts.\n\n\n48. The IHSIP subcomponent will support two main areas of intervention:\n\n\n45\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 56
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "(i) **Livelihoods support to existing and new family enterprises.** This support will allow\nbeneficiaries to enhance and expand livelihood options through investments in agriculture,\nlivestock, fisheries, and agro-processing. Beneficiaries will receive support in their chosen\nlivelihood option (training and the provision of a grant), and in business management skills\n(including financial management and marketing).\n\n\n(ii) **Small grants to youths to support skills training and the establishment of small**\n**businesses.** Cash grants will be provided to groups to support skills training, tools and\nmaterials in a vocation of the youth’s choosing, and enable them to practice their trade\nindividually or as a group. The findings of the impact evaluation of the Youth Opportunities\nProgram (YOP) indicated that this approach is highly effective. Training could be in areas such\nas tailoring, brick-laying, carpentry and joinery, hair dressing, art/craft making, wood carvings,\npottery, metal fabrication, baking, photography, etc.\n\n49. An indicative menu of investments has been developed (see Annex Table 2.3 below). Some\ncategories of livelihood activities financed under NUSAF 2 HISP were not working well in some\ndistricts, yet they worked well in other districts. A market assessment and value chain study to\ndevelop a long list of livelihood options for beneficiaries will be undertaken at the start of the\nproject. The exhaustive list will exclude those categories of livelihoods which have limited market\ndemand and higher risks.\n\n\n**Annex Table 2. 3: Indicative menu of investments**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Type of investment|Possible investments|\n|---|---|\n|Agricultural production|Improved goat rearing
Animal Traction
Local heifer dairy
Bee-keeping
Fruit/Tree nursery operation
Vegetable production e.g. Onions|\n|Value addition/ agribusiness|Honey processing and packaging
Cassava/ potato chips
Post-harvest handling- e.g. rice hulling; ground nut shelling, maize/ millet
grinding
Maize/Millet flour packaging|\n|Non-Agricultural/ vocational|Tailoring and garment cutting
Hair dressing
Carpentry and joinery
Grinding mills|\n|Non-fundable list
|Purchase of large-scale equipment e.g. big tractors
Purchase of Hydraform brick/block making machines
Emergency assistance/relief
Products and services which will have negative environmental and social
impact examples include alcohol brewing and selling, charcoal making|\n\n\n\n50. Furthermore, to enhance investments and growth and build strong affinity among group\nmembers, the CIGs will be trained in group management, savings, financial literacy, book keeping,\nand encouraged to practice five core principles - regular meetings; regular savings; regular interloaning; timely repayment; and up-to-date books of accounts.\n\n51. _**IHISP project cycle approach for systematic implementation:**_ The IHISP will be\nimplemented through a distinct project cycle. Each project cycle will be of one year, and will\n\n\n46\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 57
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "comprise three phases – preparatory phase (2 months); livelihood business plan subproject\ngeneration and approval phase (4 months); and livelihood business plan subproject\nimplementation, follow up mentoring and commissioning phase (6 months) – details presented in\nProcess diagram below.\n\n\n**Figure 2: IHISP Project Cycle**\n\n\n52. **Target Group and Targeting:** The IHSIP will be targeted at the poor and vulnerable\ngroups such as women, youth, widows/widowers, female headed households, persons with\ndisabilities, People Living with HIV/Aids (PLWA), orphans, disarmed Karamojong youth, and\nchild headed households. Priority will be given to women and youth with at least 50 percent of\nbeneficiaries expected to be women.\n\n53. Targeting of the LIS component will use a similar approach to that used for the LIPW;\nthere will be a two-step process including the geographic identification of the poorest sub-county\nand community based targeting to select the poorest and most vulnerable households. As with the\nLIPW component, resources will be allocated between districts and sub-counties on the basis of\npoverty and population to ensure equity and fairness. The process for allocating resources to\ndistricts and sub-counties will be done by OPM/TST and will be included in the Project Operations\nManual (POM). The availability of these resources will guide districts and sub-counties to\ndetermine how many parishes and villages they can target, and how many groups in a village they\ncan support. Furthermore, first priority will be given to villages who have not benefited from\nNUSAF 2 or from other similar programs.\n\n54. Prior to household targeting, robust community mobilization is critical. Once target\nparishes have been identified, a joint team, comprised of parish chiefs, Local Council 1 members\n(LC 1) and community facilitators, will conduct social mobilization in all the villages of a selected\nparish (this mobilization may coincide with mobilization conducted for the LIPW component if\nparishes are targeted for both components at the same time). This team will work under the\nleadership of the Community Development Officer (CDO). The aim of this social mobilization\nwill be to ensure that all households (including elderly and disabled household members) in target\nparishes are aware of this component, the activities supported, who is eligible and how to access\nsupport.\n\n\n47\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 58
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "55. Following the mobilization, a community targeting exercise will be conducted to identify\nthose households that are eligible for the IHISP component. This targeting will follow the same\nprocess as outlined for the LIPW but will include component specific criteria. This would include\nthe prioritization of particular poor and vulnerable groups including women, female headed\nhousehold, youth, ex-combatants and households caring for the elderly, orphans or people living\nwith HIV/AIDS; and the ability and willingness to undertake and manage the livelihoods activities.\nIn addition, households must demonstrate a commitment to comply with key conditions or coresponsibilities (the exact conditions will vary on the basis of local conditions and services but\nmay include school attendance, tree-planting or other environmental activities, pit latrines and\nother sanitation actions, and uptake of child vaccinations). Adherence to co-responsibilities will\nbe checked before the grant can be released to the CIG.\n\n56. **Formation of Community Interest Groups:** Households eligible for and interested in the\ncomponent will be able to nominate one representative to be a member of the Community Interest\nGroup. The recommended size of a Community Interest Group is 10-15 households of which at\nleast 50 percent should be women. The CIGs are preferred to individuals mainly for three reasons:\n(i) Individuals are more widely spread in geographical terms than groups and therefore more costly\nand difficult to support, (ii) Groups have economies of scale advantages in marketing their\nproducts and in purchasing inputs for their activities due to their numbers, and (iii) individual\nmembers will have peer support from fellow members of CIG. The CIGs should express interest\nand commitment to participate in trainings, savings, other community conditions and livelihood\nactivities using a Livelihood Investment Commitment Form (LICF). Upon receipt of the LICF at\nsub-county level, the CDO will identify or delegate an appropriate community facilitator (this may\nbe the parish chief or project recruited facilitators in parishes without a parish chief or where the\nparish chief needs additional technical support). At CIG level, the critical institution will be a\ncommunity project management committee (CPMC) and community procurement committee\n(CPC). The CPMC will consist of nine members elected by the community, and will have the\nleadership role during livelihood business plan sub-project design, appraisal, implementation, and\nmonitoring. The CPMC will open sub-project accounts and receive, disburse and account for\nresources allocated by NUSAF3 to the sub-projects. The CPMC will define what needs to be\nprocured for implementation of the sub-projects and start the procurement process by forwarding\na request to the Community Procurement Committee (CPC). The CPC will consist of five members\nand will be responsible for the procurement of all goods and services required for the\nimplementation of the sub-project. The detailed information about CPMC and CPC will be\nprovided in the Project Operations Manual.\n\n57. **Identification of livelihood activities and business planning** . The appointed facilitator\nwill support CIGs to identify an appropriate livelihood activity based on their capacity, availability\nof local demand, and availability of inputs, environmental and social suitability of the activity.\nThis process will be informed by regular market assessment and value chain analysis to ensure\nthat facilitators are able to provide appropriate guidance to beneficiaries on the types of livelihood\nactivities they should consider. The CIGs will then be supported to prepare a livelihood business\nplan for their preferred livelihood activity. This business plan will both act as a road map for CIG\nmembers as they pursue their livelihood investment and as a subproject proposal requesting a\ngrant. Development of the business plan will be informed by a databank of the prevailing market\nrates for key goods and services for each livelihood option (this databank will be updated on a six\nmonthly basis). A livelihood market assessment and value chain analysis studies as well as\nlivelihood market pricing studies will be conducted twice – at the start and during the project by\n\n\n48\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 59
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "the competent private or non-profit organizations and will be guided by the District Commercial\nOfficers and NDOs. The District Commercial Officer will be responsible for updating the databank\nof the prevailing market rates for key goods and services for each livelihood option on a six\nmonthly basis.\n\n58. **Business plan approval** . Once the business plan is completed, it is submitted first to the\nsub-county Technical Planning Committee for desk appraisal and then to the district for review\nand approval. Business plans are officially reviewed and approved by the District Technical\nPlanning Committee (DTPC) and endorsed by the District Executive Committee (DEC). The TST\nmay provide support to selected districts during the appraisal and approval processes and will\nverify that correct appraisal and approval processes have been followed using a random sample of\nsubprojects. The DTPC can only approve a total value of subprojects up to their annual budget\nceiling.\n\n59. **Provision of key trainings.** Once the business plan is developed, the CIGs receive\nintensive support both focused on their chosen livelihood activity and regarding principles of group\nmanagement. This process can and should start before the disbursement of subproject grants as\nlong as approval has been confirmed. All CIG members will be trained for three days in the\nprinciples of group management including regular meetings, regular savings, inter-loaning, regular\nrepayment and record keeping. Any groups who have not already started regular savings, will be\nrequired to start saving at this point. Groups will need to demonstrate that, in addition to their nonsavings related conditions, they have adhered to good group management and savings principles\nfor at least three months. These five non-negotiable principles include (i) regular meetings; (ii)\nregular savings; (iii) internal lending; (iv) regular repayment; and (v) regular bookkeeping and\nacceptable group by-laws.\n\n60. **Management of livelihood activities and follow-up support** . The CIGs will manage their\nlivelihood activities in accordance with their business plan and with ongoing technical support\nfrom relevant sub-county and district sector experts including CDOs, NDOs and District\nCommercial Officers. Groups should continue to receive follow-up support for at least six months\nfollowing receipt of the grant. This follow-up support will both focus on technical support for their\nchosen livelihood activity, and further business development support including value addition and\nmarketing. Such support may include creating linkages with producers or commodity processors,\nrelevant wholesalers and retailers (in case of non-agriculture livelihoods activities) or contract\nfarming/out-grower schemes (in case of agriculture livelihood activities). Groups will be\nencouraged to register, enhancing their eligibility for other forms of support and efforts will be\nmade to encourage groups doing similar activities to federate for economies of scale, greater voice\nand sustainability.\n\n\n49\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 60
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex Table 2. 4: IHISP Livelihood Business Plan Subproject Cycle**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Phase and
Steps|Col2|Activity|Responsibility
center|Max.
duration|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|**Preparatory phase**|1
|_Central Government Coordination and guidance:_ Orientation and
sensitization of district, sub-county and parish level stakeholders
regarding the IHISP subcomponent. Formation of technical and
implementation support teams at district and sub-county level.
Capacity building of the district and sub-county implementation
support teams (IST).
|TST staff,
consultants,
partner agencies
for capacity
building|2 months|\n|**Preparatory phase**|2|_Geographic targeting to identify target Parishes:_ Districts will
define how many villages they can target and how many groups
they can support based on available resources and guided by key
poverty and other socio-economic criteria. First priority will be
given to villages who have not benefited from NUSAF 2 or other
similar programs.
|CAO, NDO,
district and sub-
county political
and technical
leadership|CAO, NDO,
district and sub-
county political
and technical
leadership|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|3|_Community mobilization & sensitization in target villages:_
Mobilizing all households in targeted villages to participate,
Clarifying objectives, access criteria & implementation
modalities, Encouraging stakeholder participation, Inspiring &
creating determination among the target population.
|CDO, Parish
Chief, LC1
members,
Community
facilitators|4 months
|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|4|_Targeting & formation of CIGs in selected communities:_
Generating baseline data on the community; identifying,
prioritizing & planning for community needs; identifying existing
resources & resource gaps; preparing community action plans;
selection of beneficiaries and formation of CIGs through
wellbeing ranking, public vetting, and subject to requirements of
LICF.
|Community
committees
supported by
Sub-county
IST29
|Community
committees
supported by
Sub-county
IST29
|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|5|_Identification of livelihood activities and preparation of livelihood_
_business plan by CIGs:_ Orientation about livelihood activity menu
and viability of livelihood activities, Selection of livelihood
activity by CIGs, Business plan training for CIGs, preparation of
livelihood business plan subprojects by CIGs
|CIGs supported
by community
facilitators,
Parish Chiefs
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|CIGs supported
by community
facilitators,
Parish Chiefs
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|6|_Desk appraisal of livelihood business plan subprojects at Sub-_
_County level:_ Checking completeness of documentation, checking
conformity with sector standards & norms, checking conformity
with project guidelines, checking appropriateness of budgets
|STPC
|STPC
|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|7|_Approval of livelihood business plan subprojects at the District_
_level:_ Reviewing livelihood business plan subproject
documentation, Ascertaining conformity with sector norms &
standards, Ascertaining compliance with project guidelines
|DTPC and
endorsed by the
DEC|DTPC and
endorsed by the
DEC|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject preparation and approval phase**|8a|_Group training and adherence to regular meetings and savings:_
CIGs will receive group management training, Adhere to regular
meetings, regular savings, proper book keeping and stick to their
group by-laws|Community
facilitators with
support from
partners|Community
facilitators with
support from
partners|\n\n\n\n29 The Sub-county Implementation Support Team is led by CDO and comprised of Parish Chiefs and representatives\nfrom LC1\n\n\n50\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 61
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Phase and
Steps|Col2|Activity|Responsibility
center|Max.
duration|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n||8b|_Technical training in chosen livelihood activity._CIGs will also
receive relevant technical training to support members in their
chosen livelihood activity.
|Community
facilitators with
support from
district and sub-
county||\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject implementation, monitoring, follow up**
**mentoring support and commissioning phase**|9|_Provision of livelihood grants and procurement of assets:_
Reviewing livelihood business plan subproject approval process,
Checking compliance with subproject budget ceilings, Singing of
financing agreements, Providing basic training to subproject
management committees, Transfer of funds to district/subproject
accounts
|TST/OPM,
CPMCs, and
CPCs|6 months
|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject implementation, monitoring, follow up**
**mentoring support and commissioning phase**|10|
_Implementation of livelihood business plan subprojects by CIGs:_
Livelihood business plan subproject launch, Implementation of
approved livelihoods business plans, Provision of technical
support to CIGs
|CIG supported
by community
facilitators,
parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|CIG supported
by community
facilitators,
parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject implementation, monitoring, follow up**
**mentoring support and commissioning phase**|11|_Supervision, monitoring and continuous implementation support_
_and follow up mentoring:_ Field visits to livelihood subproject
sites, Providing technical support & guidance to implementers,
Review of implementation reports, Reviewing implementation of
previous recommendations, Documenting and reporting progress
in implementation, Tracking progress towards meeting the
livelihood subproject activities
|CIG supported
by community
facilitators,
parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|CIG supported
by community
facilitators,
parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|\n|**Livelihood business plan subproject implementation, monitoring, follow up**
**mentoring support and commissioning phase**|12|_Commissioning and process review:_ Receipt of subproject
completion reports, Issuing subproject completion certificates to
the community, Formal handover of subproject assets to the
beneficiaries, Inauguration of O&M committees, Conducting
process review, Consolidate learnings, and inform implementation
in the next IHISP cycle|Community
facilitators,
Parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|Community
facilitators,
Parish chiefs,
CDOs, NDOs
and District
Commercial
Officers|\n\n\n61. **Development of key implementing capacity** . In order to achieve the above there is a need\nto enhance the institutional and human capacity at district, sub-county, parish and community level\nand to improve coordination with other actors. Appropriate budget will be allocated in order to\nimplement capacity building efforts including:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(i) Orientation and sensitization of district, sub-county and parish level stakeholders regarding\nthe IHISP subcomponent.\n(ii) Formation and orientation of technical and implementation support teams at district and\nsub-county level.\n(iii) Capacity building of the district, sub-county, parish and implementation support teams.\n(iv) Development of key partnerships including the holding of quarterly review meetings for\nall stakeholders involved in livelihood support at the district level.\n\n\n51\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 62
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "62. These efforts will be coordinated by the OPM who will have overall responsibility for\ncapacity building, while actual implementation of these capacity building efforts will be\noutsourced to competent non-profit and private sector agencies like Enterprise Uganda.\n\n_**Component 2.2: Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot (SLP) (US$1 million)**_\n\n63. _**Need for this Pilot:**_ The existing livelihood programs in Northern Uganda are generally\ndependent on grants, and can support only a limited number of poor households. There are many\npoor households, who need livelihood support, but cannot be supported due to limited financial\nresources (grants). Furthermore, due to the absence of strong community institutions and\ncontinuous capacity building, many livelihood activities which start with grant support do not\nsurvive after the project is over. Therefore, there is a need to develop a more sustainable livelihoods\nprogram, which is scalable and can support a greater number of poor households in a cost-effective\nmanner. In view of this need, the LIS component will also support a sustainable livelihood pilot.\n\n64. _**Objective of the pilot:**_ The objective of the pilot is to enable the poor and vulnerable by\nenabling the poor households to access gainful self-employment, resulting in appreciable\nimprovement in their livelihoods on a sustainable basis, through building strong village level\ncommunity institutions of the poor. This pilot will test an approach to livelihood support that is\nexpected to foster stronger community institutions that can support household livelihood\ninvestments beyond the term of a subproject and has a greater focus on self-help with beneficiaries\naccessing a village revolving fund rather than receiving grants. The pilot will focus on universal\ncoverage of the poor in target villages. Such an approach not only creates stronger community led\ndevelopment, it also has the potential to reach larger numbers of beneficiaries and with a more\nsustainable approach. The learning from this pilot will help to inform future revisions to livelihood\nsupport.\n\n65. _**Learning from similar international experiences:**_ SLP is informed by lessons learnt in\nNUSAF 1 and 2, as well as implementation of large scale community driven sustainable livelihood\nprograms in South Asia. The poor have a strong desire and innate capabilities to come out of\npoverty. They are entrepreneurial and the challenge is to unleash their innate capabilities to\ngenerate meaningful livelihoods. The first step in this process is motivating them to form their own\ninstitutions. Their true potential is realized when they are provided sufficient capacities to manage\nthe external environment and easy access to finance, and are enabled to expand their skills and\nassets and convert them into meaningful livelihoods. This requires continuous handholding\nsupport by their institutions. An external dedicated, sensitive support team, from the national level\nto the sub-county level, is required to induce such social mobilization, community institution\nbuilding and livelihoods promotion.\n\n66. _**Key features of pilot:**_ The key features of the pilot design are (i) universal social\nmobilization of poor in target villages; (ii) building strong grassroots community institutions of\npoor which will act as a platform to support household livelihood investment in the longer term\non a sustainable basis; (iii) a greater focus on self-help and the use of revolving village funds as\nopposed to grants; (iv) continuous capacity building, imparting requisite skills and creating\nlinkages with livelihoods opportunities for the poor; (v) promoting specialized community\nmanaged livelihoods federations/collectives for aggregating produce, achieving economies of\nscale, support backward and forward linkages, access to market, collective procurement, valueaddition and marketing; and (vi) convergence with anti-poverty programs at the village level.\n\n\n52\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 63
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "67. _**Implementation of pilot:**_ This proposed pilot would operate in 40 villages in 8 districts of\nNorthern Uganda. The 5 villages comprising the pilot in each district are expected to form a cluster\ncovering 1 or 2 parishes in a single sub-county. Villages participating in the pilot would not be\neligible for the IHISP component; however the pilot villages will be eligible for the LIPW and\nTAAC components. The pilot will be coordinated by the OPM and a designated anchor person in\nthe TST who will be responsible for working closely with the NDOs and CDOs of the target\ndistricts and sub-counties. One full-time community facilitator in each district will be engaged to\nexclusively support the pilot. The pilot will be rolled out in a phased manner. An assessment of\nthe pilot will be conducted after two and half years from the start of the implementation to find out\nwhether the approach for livelihood support followed in the pilot is working. Based on the\nassessment results, the pilot approach may be replicated in the non-pilot districts under IHISP\ncomponent. Figure 3 below summarizes the six phases of implementation of pilot:\n\n\n**Figure 3: Six Phases of SLP Implementation**\n\n\n68. _**Project cycle for the SLP at the village level:**_ The pilot will work with existing and new\nsavings and self-help groups through the provision of a package of support comprising group\nstrengthening, livelihoods and business development training, and access to a village revolving\nfund. The program will begin by working with the already existing extensive number of\nsavings/self-help groups but will also support targeted poor households to form their own savings\ngroup to enable them to access program support. Figure 4 below summarizes the project cycle to\nbe used.\n\n\n53\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 64
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Figure 4: Project Cycle for the SLP at the Village Level**\n\n\n69. _**Triggers for phasing:**_ The pilot will be implemented in six phases. The activities, their\nduration and triggers for phasing are outlined in the table below:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Phase|Activity|Maximum
duration|\n|---|---|---|\n|**Phase 1**|**_Preparatory activities for starting the pilot in 8 target districts in Northern_**
**_Uganda:_ **Engage a Pilot coordinator at TST level, a partner agency for capacity
building and a community facilitator in each district; orientation and sensitization of
district, target sub-county and parish level stakeholders regarding the pilot
intervention; identify cluster of 5 pilot villages in each of the 8 target districts;
formation of technical and implementation support teams at district and sub-county
level; capacity building of the sub-county implementation support teams; and design
a MIS and an impact evaluation study for the pilot
|5 months|\n|**Phase 2**
|**_Social mobilization and formation and capacity building of NUSAF SHGs in 40_**
**_villages:_ **Social mobilization and targeting in target villages: identify existing
saving/self-help groups target villages, identify poor households not currently
members of existing saving/self-help groups and form their savings groups; training
in groups management, savings, financial literacy, record keeping and 5 core
principles; groups following 5 core principles for 6 months graduate to become
NUSAF SHGs
|7 months|\n|**Phase 3a**
|**_Formation and capacity building of VLICs, SLCCs, establishing village revolving_**
**_funds (VRF):_ **
•
The VLICs will be registered as a community based organization, and will
have a legal status to ensure support for their business activities and can
access government services. The details on the registration of VLIC will be
provided in the Project Operations Manual (POM). The VLIC will be
represented by 2 members (1 female, 1 male) from each NUSAF SHGs.
There will not be more than 15 members in VLIC; VLIC members will
democratically elect a Chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, assistant
secretary, treasurer, and assistant treasurer to carry out its work. The VLIC
members will receive training and orientation in the areas of participatory
planning, budgeting, appraisal, procurement, monitoring and other skills
required for the implementation of pilot elements. VLICs will have to open
a separate account in a bank or any other reliable and properly regulated|6 months
|\n\n\n\n54\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 65
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Phase|Activity|Maximum
duration|\n|---|---|---|\n||financial institutions. The VLICs will share financial and progress reports
with Sub-County and District staff every month.
•
The Sub-County Livelihoods Coordination Committee (SLCC) will be led
by Sub-County Chief Chairs, and will comprise of CDO as Secretary,
Parish chiefs as members, & 3 members from VLICs and Community
facilitators, NDO as ex-officio. The role of SLCC will be as follows:
Review the process of pilot on quarterly basis; and Report to the District on
the progress of the pilot through the sub-county chief.
•
The pilot will establish a village revolving fund, managed by the VILC, to
provide livelihood loans to NUSAF SHGs who have completed livelihood
trainings and prepared a viable business proposal for their livelihood
activities; the village fund will be provided as a grant to the VLIC by the
District who will then manage it as a revolving fund; providing loans to
NUSAF SHGs and collecting repayments including interest or service
charges.
|
|\n|**Phase 3b**
|**_Business training & preparation of business plans by SHGs, and provision of_**
**_loans through VRF:_ **Livelihood and business development training to NUSAF SHG
members; preparation of business plan proposals/village revolving fund
applications; appraisal and approval of livelihood business plan proposals by VLIC;
disbursement of loans to NUSAF SHG members for implementing livelihood
business plans
|**_Business training & preparation of business plans by SHGs, and provision of_**
**_loans through VRF:_ **Livelihood and business development training to NUSAF SHG
members; preparation of business plan proposals/village revolving fund
applications; appraisal and approval of livelihood business plan proposals by VLIC;
disbursement of loans to NUSAF SHG members for implementing livelihood
business plans
|\n|**Phase 4**|**_Implementation of livelihood business plans by SHGs, and follow up support by_**
**_community facilitators:_ **Continuous implementation support and follow up
mentoring will be provided to NUSAF SHGs who have receive livelihoods loans
from Village Revolving Fund; Support will be provided for facilitating convergence
of anti-poverty programs at village level
|9 months|\n|**Phase 5**
|**_Federating similar livelihood activities across villages and supporting them:_ **The
SLCC will facilitate the formation of federations of similar livelihoods activities
across the target villages to benefit from economies of scale; Support to federations
will be provided in terms of value addition and marketing to develop community run
and managed producer groups or federation.|18 months|\n|**Phase 6**
|**Consolidate learning for future programming:**Consolidate lessons from the pilot
based on impact evaluation study and process review; Prepare operational guidelines
for sustainable livelihood intervention in Northern Uganda for future programming|3 months|\n|**Total**|**Total**|4 years|\n\n\n70. **Role of Districts** : The pilot would operate in 40 villages in 8 districts of Northern Uganda.\nThe 8 pilot districts will be identified by OPM/TST based on set criteria. The criteria will be\noutlined in the Project Operations Manual (POM). The district administration of pilot districts will\nbe responsible to identify 5 villages in their districts for implementing the pilot. The 5 pilot villages\nare expected to form a cluster covering 1 or 2 Parishes in a single sub-county. The NDOs will\nhave overall responsibility to oversee the implementation of the pilot, and will be supported by the\nDistrict Commercial Official on technical matters. The Pilot coordinator from the TST will support\nto the NDO on operational matters.\n\n71. _**Role of the Sub-County:**_ A Sub-County Livelihoods Coordination Committee (SLCC) will\nbe formed in the Sub-County, where the pilot will be implemented. The SLCC will be chaired by\nthe Sub-County chief, and will comprise the CDO as Secretary, Parish Chiefs as members, and 3\nmembers from VLICs and Community facilitators, and NDO, District Commercial Officer and\nPilot Coordinator from TST as ex-officio. The role of SLCC will be to review the pilot on monthly\n\n\n55\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 66
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "basis; and report to the District on the progress of the pilot through the sub-county chief. However,\nuntil the formation of SLCCs, the NDOs will review the pilot on a monthly basis, and will be\njoined by the District Commercial Officer. The Pilot Coordinator from TST will participate in the\nreview meetings on a quarterly basis. The NDO will initially review the pilot on a monthly basis\nuntil the SLCCs are set up and fully functional. Afterwards, the SLCCs will review the pilot at\nSub-County level, and report the progress of the pilot to the district on a monthly basis.\n\n72. **Role of the VLIC.** The VLIC is a key institution in the delivery of the SLP. It acts as the\nlink between groups/beneficiaries and Sub-County Implementation Support team; reviews and\napproves livelihood business plans and manages the village revolving loan fund. The Key roles\nand responsibilities of the VLIC are detailed below:\n\n(i) Establish and manage village revolving fund.\n(ii) Review and approve the livelihood business plans and loan requests from the groups\nwith the support from the Sub-County/District Technical task team.\n(iii) Sign the Financing Agreement and disburse loans to the groups whose livelihood\nbusiness plans have been approved.\n(iv) Monitor the loans provided to the groups to ensure that they are being used for the\ndesired purpose in accordance with their livelihoods business plans.\n(v) Manage recovery of loans from the groups and payment of agreed interest rates/\nservice changes.\n(vi) Keep records of funds and support SHGs to maintain records.\n(vii) Prepare financial and process reports and share with CDO and NDO and all the groups\non a monthly basis.\n(viii) Convene quarterly general meetings with all groups in the village.\n(ix) Ensure proper adherence to the VLIC by-laws.\n(x) Act as link between groups/beneficiaries and Sub-county Implementation Support\nTeam.\n(xi) Ensure all the groups are registered at village level.\n(xii) Ensure SHGs develop and follow by-laws and are adhering to agreed principles\n(regular meetings, regular savings, regular repayment, inter loaning, regular repayment).\n(xiii) Assess and grade the self-help saving groups and those groups who have followed the\nfive principles for six months will be treated as NUSAF SHG groups.\n(xiv) Link and support groups in opening their group accounts in banks or any other reliable\nand properly regulated financial institutions. The details of banks or properly regulated\nfinancial institutions will be provided in the Project Operations Manual (POM).\n\n73. **Costing and expected number of beneficiaries:** Annex Table 2.5 indicates some of the\nkey costs, beneficiary numbers and targets to be achieved by the IHSIP and SLP subcomponents\nmaking up the LIS component.\n\n\n56\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 67
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex Table 2. 5: Costing and Expected Numbers of Beneficiaries of LIS**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Cost Centers and Targets|Unit|Outputs|Costs (US$)|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|**IHISP Sub-component allocation**|||** 42,500,000**
|\n|IHISP Sub-projects|$5,000|7700 sub-projects|38,500,000
|\n|Household representatives reached per group||13 people||\n|Household representatives reached by end of project||101,100 people||\n|Potential indirect beneficiaries reached by end of
project (assuming average household size of 5)||500,500 people||\n|Capacity building training including financial literacy,
marketing, business plan development etc., and
business follow up services, hiring 2 community
facilitators per district|||$4,000,000|\n|**SLP Sub-component Allocation**|||**$1,000,000**|\n|Pilot districts|8|||\n|Grant per pilot village (5 pilot villages per district)|$10, 000|40|$400,000|\n|Capacity building training including financial literacy,
saving and credit, business plan development, and
follow up|||$600,000|\n\n\n74. **LIPW AND LIS Linkages:** The LIPW beneficiaries are expected to be the poorest of the\npoor, whereas LIS beneficiaries, in addition to be poor, must be willing and able to invest in\nlivelihood opportunities. In villages, where LIPW and LIS are both implemented, the poorest of\nthe poor beneficiaries may be eligible for both LIPW and LIS components. LIPW will provide\ntemporary employment to the poorest of the poor to smooth their consumption and save; whereas\nIHISP will enable the poorest of the poor beneficiaries to learn skills, access gainful selfemployment opportunities, earn incomes, save earnings and invest the earned incomes in more\nproductive enterprises. The LIPW can smooth consumption and build resilience, while LIS can\nprovide productive income earning opportunities to the poorest of the poor, resulting in appreciable\nimprovement in their livelihoods on a sustainable basis. Overall, the LIPW and LIS linkage will\nrevitalize the local economy by smoothing consumption, preventing destitution, building\ncommunity assets, human capital development, and facilitating access to employment, savings and\nincome among the poorest of the poor in target villages.\n\n\n57\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 68
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Component 3: Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption (TAAC)**\n**(US$5 million equivalent)**\n\n75. Implemented directly by the IG, the Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and AntiCorruption (TAAC) will be carried forward as one of the main components under NUSAF 3.\nTAAC interventions under NUSAF2 have been credited with increasing the capacity of the (IG)\nat all levels to discharge its mandate. TAAC implementation complemented existing checks and\nbalances but with significant enhancements regarding awareness and outreach to communities.\nThere is widespread perception that TAAC has significantly reduced risks of corruption by\nimproving awareness and increasing scrutiny. It also enhanced awareness of the citizens about\ntheir rights, roles and obligations. In addition, the interventions are credited for reduced misuse of\nproject resources, fraud and corruption as affirmed by implementers and beneficiaries on the\nground.\n\n76. Under NUSAF 3, this component will sustain the achievements made under NUSAF 2;\nand expand and deepen implementation of transparency, accountability and anti-corruption\ninterventions to improve effectiveness in service delivery. In particular, the new component will\nbe tailored to contribute to the government priority for improved transparency and accountability\nin public service delivery as enshrined in the vision 2040, the NDP and the Accountability Sector\nStrategic Investment Plan (ASSIP). In addition, the strengthened TAAC will enhance effectiveness\nof transparency, accountability and anti-corruption processes in project areas; introduce\nimplementation of social accountability tools in a more systematic manner to facilitate citizens\nparticipation in monitoring and providing feedback on project activities and other service delivery\nin the project area; strengthen existing systems and tools for grievances management at the\ncommunity level; and strengthen functionality of community level committees to support\n\n\n58\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 69
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "achievement of the component and project objectives. To achieve the above objectives, a simple\nmonitoring tool that allows regular collection of information by the IG on the key component\nperformance indicators will be developed and validated before project implementation.\n\n77. Implementation of the TAAC will continue to be done through four main interventions and\nin a more systematic and effective manner. The preventative interventions will include: (i)\nsensitization and awareness of communities; (ii) citizens and stakeholder engagement; (iii)\ninspection and monitoring of project activities at all levels; and (iv) enforcement through\ninvestigation and prosecution. Key priorities for the new phase are described in the paragraphs\nbelow.\n\n78. **Upgraded community committees** . A key reform for the TAAC implementation\narrangement will be the upgrading of the community level committees. The Community\nMonitoring Groups (CMGs) committees have replaced the Social Accountability Committees\n(SACs) and have been given an expanded mandate. The CMGs, will operate at the parish level\nand will be appropriately constituted to include representation of various interest groups. Their\nmandate will include general oversight, monitoring of activities on the ground, handling of\ngrievances at first instance, ensuring observance of transparency by implementers, and\ncontributing to awareness and sensitization efforts. Their capacity will be enhanced through\nsystematic training and capacity development. Detailed terms of reference for the CMGs will be\nelaborated through a consultative process and be validated before project implementation.\n\n79. **Introduction of social accountability.** An important design element of the TAAC will be\nthe introduction of social accountability tools as a critical aspect for strengthening citizens’\nengagement through demand-side governance. Selected and feasible social accountability tools\nwill be introduced to facilitate information gathering on beneficiary perceptions and track useful\ninformation from citizens perspectives to inform project decision making. The tools will provide\ncitizens as users of services with the means to participate in the identification, assessment and\nmonitoring processes, and delivery of quality of the services. In so doing, the citizens will be able\nto engage service providers in constructive dialogue directly through public meetings or through\ndelegated representatives in interface meetings to jointly determine actions that could lead to\ndesired improvements in service delivery.\n\n80. This component is building on international experience of using social accountability tools\nsuch as those used in the Ethiopia Social Accountability Program. Tools used in this program\ninclude: citizens’ report cards, community score cards, participatory planning and budgeting, and\nGender Responsive Budgeting and Participatory Expenditure Tracking Surveys. The proposed\nproject will adopt the application of at least two social accountability tools. While it was agreed\nduring design that a community score card would be implemented at start, midterm and end of the\nproject, the modality of implementation will be based on a practical exposure of the implementers\nled by the IG to at least one country environment where such tools have been or are being applied.\n\n81. **Strengthening systems and tools for grievances handling mechanism (GHM).** The\ngrievances handling mechanism (GHM) which was introduced at the IG under NUSAF 2 has\nmainly worked through a toll free SMS initiative. Cases handled are recorded but the challenge is\nthe timely management of the cases. The GHM will be enhanced by strengthening the tools and\nsystems for grievance redress. A system to enable registration and management of the grievances\nat different levels expeditiously will be developed by IG.\n\n\n59\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "monitoring tool",
+ "confidence": 0.6661209464073181,
+ "start": 16,
+ "end": 18
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "IG",
+ "confidence": 0.6738070845603943,
+ "start": 26,
+ "end": 27
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "TAAC",
+ "confidence": 0.7933489084243774,
+ "start": 47,
+ "end": 48
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "TAAC",
+ "confidence": 0.6466150283813477,
+ "start": 286,
+ "end": 287
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "information gathering on beneficiary perceptions",
+ "confidence": 0.7122793197631836,
+ "start": 319,
+ "end": 324
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "citizens",
+ "confidence": 0.6339184045791626,
+ "start": 301,
+ "end": 302
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "citizens’ report cards",
+ "confidence": 0.9653264880180359,
+ "start": 441,
+ "end": 445
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia",
+ "confidence": 0.8787193298339844,
+ "start": 429,
+ "end": 430
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community score cards",
+ "confidence": 0.7911883592605591,
+ "start": 446,
+ "end": 449
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia",
+ "confidence": 0.7331044673919678,
+ "start": 429,
+ "end": 430
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "participatory planning and budgeting",
+ "confidence": 0.5529764890670776,
+ "start": 450,
+ "end": 454
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia",
+ "confidence": 0.6564810276031494,
+ "start": 429,
+ "end": 430
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Gender Responsive Budgeting and Participatory Expenditure Tracking Surveys",
+ "confidence": 0.7107782959938049,
+ "start": 456,
+ "end": 464
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Ethiopia",
+ "confidence": 0.6579986810684204,
+ "start": 429,
+ "end": 430
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community score card",
+ "confidence": 0.6299546957015991,
+ "start": 488,
+ "end": 491
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "IG",
+ "confidence": 0.7489832639694214,
+ "start": 521,
+ "end": 522
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "grievances handling mechanism",
+ "confidence": 0.733169436454773,
+ "start": 547,
+ "end": 550
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "IG",
+ "confidence": 0.7732685208320618,
+ "start": 521,
+ "end": 522
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "system",
+ "confidence": 0.5859251618385315,
+ "start": 613,
+ "end": 614
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "registration and management of the grievances",
+ "confidence": 0.5080567598342896,
+ "start": 616,
+ "end": 622
+ },
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "system",
+ "confidence": 0.6792949438095093,
+ "start": 613,
+ "end": 614
+ },
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "IG.\n\n\n59",
+ "confidence": 0.8726307153701782,
+ "start": 630,
+ "end": 633
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 70
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "82. **Monitoring and results assessment.** Efforts were made to implement monitoring of\nactivities under NUSAF 2 through regular field visits and case-based field work by the IG.\nHowever, there were challenges with regards to how regularly data was collected and how\ninformation was aggregated and reported upon with the result that much of the positive feedback\non the role of TAAC is anecdotal and not systematic. Monitoring in the successor program will be\nenhanced by the use of a simplified information and data collection tool linked to systems for\naggregating the information to allow periodic updates of progress against key performance\nindicators. In addition, the impact evaluation initiative, of implementation under NUSAF 2, is just\nabout to conclude its endline survey. This can provide baseline information for NUSAF 3 with\nfollow up impact evaluations used to complement regular monitoring and results assessments.\n\n\n**Component 4: Safety Net Mechanisms and Project Management (US$20.5 million**\n**equivalent)**\n\n_**Subcomponent 4.1 Safety Net Mechanisms (US$2.5 million)**_\n\n83. The aim of this subcomponent is to support the government to lay the foundation for a\nsustainable social protection system that is envisioned in the draft Uganda Social Protection Policy.\nThe component will thus support the MGLSD to establish and strengthen systems to promote the\nharmonization of the direct income support elements of the social protection sector, such as a\nnational guideline for the implementation of labor intensive public works and mechanisms which\ncan support the avoidance of the same households accessing benefits from similar types of\ninterventions. In order to develop a consensus among stakeholders about how best to implement\nthe USPP, the Government of Uganda undertook a Social Protection Sector Review of the existing\nsocial protection sector, aiming to gather critical evidence, conduct key analyses, identify\nimportant lessons, and define ways to implement the draft USPP once it has been approved by the\nCabinet. This review, completed under the leadership of the MGLSD, has informed the design of\nthe activities in this subcomponent.\n\n84. The harmonization of the efforts of government and all development partners is a crucial\nelement to the sustainability of the social protection system and making it effective while avoiding\nfragmentation. Therefore, the instruments that the government is developing are aimed at\nimproving coordination and building sustainability that would continue even after the project has\nclosed. In doing so, the proposed project will finance the following activities:\n\n(i) **The** **National Labor Intensive Public Works Guideline (NLPWG).** The NLPWG is\ncurrently being developed under the leadership of MGLSD with World Bank and WFP\nSupport. Once finalized it will become the guiding document for the LIPW component for\nNUSAF 3. NUSAF 3 will continue to collaborate with other institutions involved in LIPW and\nwill support the formation of an LIPW Technical Working Group. This working group will\nmeet regularly to assess progress in the roll-out and operationalization of the National Labor\nIntensive Public Works Guideline, any challenges faced in implementation and how such\nchallenges can be resolved.\n\n(ii) **Payment Mechanism.** The timely flow of funds from sources to programs and then\npayments to beneficiaries is critical to the smooth operation of the programs and to the\nwellbeing of social protection recipients. In this regard, this sub-component will also pilot an\nalternative to the manual cash transfer payments which are most commonly used in Uganda.\nWhile easy to establish, manual payments are more at risk from errors and fraud because of\nthe lack of effective controls, manual procedures and involvement of actors not familiar with\n\n\n60\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "endline survey",
+ "confidence": 0.5794676542282104,
+ "start": 132,
+ "end": 134
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Social Protection Sector Review",
+ "confidence": 0.8584674000740051,
+ "start": 319,
+ "end": 323
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.92707759141922,
+ "start": 232,
+ "end": 233
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "households",
+ "confidence": 0.8060089945793152,
+ "start": 288,
+ "end": 289
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "National Labor Intensive Public Works Guideline",
+ "confidence": 0.937934935092926,
+ "start": 466,
+ "end": 472
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "NLPWG",
+ "confidence": 0.9118201732635498,
+ "start": 473,
+ "end": 474
+ },
+ "author": {
+ "text": "MGLSD",
+ "confidence": 0.8061124086380005,
+ "start": 488,
+ "end": 489
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7144811749458313,
+ "start": 637,
+ "end": 638
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "manual cash transfer payments",
+ "confidence": 0.7672097086906433,
+ "start": 627,
+ "end": 631
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9322522282600403,
+ "start": 637,
+ "end": 638
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "social protection recipients",
+ "confidence": 0.7741997241973877,
+ "start": 610,
+ "end": 613
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 71
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "cash handling. Ideally, a revised payment mechanism would make use of mainstream payment\ninfrastructure. When such systems are available they offer value for money, have mainstream\nsafeguards built-in (such as know-your-customer requirements and two-factor authentication)\nand promote financial inclusion objectives. However, mainstream payment service providers\nhave limited outreach in Uganda outside of major cities. Banks only have a limited number of\nbranches and are awaiting changes to the Financial Institutions Act before they can start using\nan agency banking model (such as that used by Equity Bank in Kenya). Mobile money\nproviders offer the largest number of points of service (with MTN and Airtel having registered\n26,000 and 22,000 agents respectively (this compares with around 2,200 points of service\nthrough SACCOs and 430 through banks). [30] However, agents remain limited to major towns\nand there is little knowledge of, let alone use, of the facility outside of major towns. As a\nresult, it may be necessary to explore non-mainstream payment solutions. This has been the\napproach taken by other interventions who have contracted MTN to provide a customized\npayment service which makes use of salaried agents to make payments and SIM cards to\nprovide two factor authentication. But the payments do not rely on households having access\nto network coverage, and MTN agents travel specifically to payment sites to make payments.\nThis approach does reduce opportunities for error and improves transparency in payment\nmechanisms. NUSAF 3 will explore the feasibility of either testing a bespoke service or the\nuse of a mainstream mechanism. For the latter to be possible, it may be necessary for the project\nto work with a payment service provider in specific geographic areas where they are prepared\nto put in place infrastructure to make the approach work (this is the approach used by the\nHunger Safety Net Programme in Northern Kenya where Equity Bank agreed to recruit agents\nin all locations where the project operates thereby allowing the use of beneficiary bank\naccounts to process payments).\n\n(iii) **Targeting:** Targeting is the mechanism by which the beneficiaries of social protection\nprograms are selected. The most appropriate targeting methodology depends on what each\nprogram is trying to achieve and the context in which it is working. Whatever approach is\nselected, there is a need to provide sufficient resources to support implementation and\nsupervision and to ensure that communities understand and are aware of the existence of the\nprogram being targeted, who is eligible for it, and the existence of an appeals system. NUSAF\n3 will work with the MGLSD, as the lead agency for social protection, to identify good\npractices in targeting and to agree how direct income support interventions provided by various\nagencies to differing target should operate alongside each other in a coherent manner.\n\n(iv) **Registry of Beneficiaries.** A registry of beneficiaries, fully integrated into the MIS to be\ndeveloped through the NUSAF 3 will ensure the existence of a module listing beneficiary\nhouseholds to facilitate cross-checking with other programs and allow the prevention of the\nsame households receiving similar benefits from more than one program. This would lay a\nfoundation for the development of a future single register that would be coordinated by\nMGLSD and fully integrated into the management information system.\n\n(v) **Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E):** Concurrently, this sub-component will support the\nestablishment of the systems, tools and procedures that are required to deliver the labor\nintensive public works and the livelihood investment support interventions. The monitoring\nand evaluation system will support the following activities:\n\n\n30 Pulver, C, 2014, Payment Mechanisms Input into Social Protection Review and EPRC, 2013, FINSCOPE Uganda\n\n\n61\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 72
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "(a) _**Management Information System (MIS).**_ The MIS will be developed to support\noverall program management and decision making. Management information systems will\nbe developed to support program management with decentralized read and write access at\nthe local government levels. This will allow district implementers to enter information into\nthe system and to generate reports to inform their own decision making. The MIS will\nfacilitate key program processes, information exchange and data analysis with regards to a\nnumber of key project processes including: a module listing all beneficiary households (and\nthe component from which they are benefiting); the location and state of completion of all\nsubprojects, the status of appraisal and approval processes, information regarding\ndisbursement, and community accounting for financing received. In sub-counties with\nbasic infrastructure (electricity and internet access) and where Community Development\nOfficers are already in possession of a computer, the possibility of devolving read and write\naccess to this level will also be explored. The MIS will be developed by an external vendor.\nThe proposed MIS would also communicate with key systems such as the Integrated\nFinancial Management System/IFMS and the NUSAF2 database at the Northern Uganda\nData Center (NUDC), and also have the ability to share data on targeting with other largescale safety net programs currently under operation.\n\n(b) _**Random Verification (spot checks):**_ In order to check the accuracy of the information\nin the MIS and the reliability of the sources that it comes from, the project will support the\ngovernment in carrying out in-field verification spot checks that will show how data\ncollection, processing, and analysis may be improved.\n\n(c) _**Impact Evaluation:**_ Uganda has actively sought to build capacity for evaluating its\nown projects, programs and policies and mainstreaming impact evaluations within\ngovernment initiatives. To this end, an impact evaluation examining the impact on\nbeneficiaries of the LIPW and LIS program is planned.\n\n_**Subcomponent 4.2 Project Management**_\n\n85. This component also includes the overall program management of the project. Detailed\nimplementation arrangements can be found in Annex 3 but the key activities financed under this\nsubcomponent include:\n\n(i) The establishment of the Technical Support Team largely based in Kampala but with an\nadditional small team based in Moroto supporting operations in Karamoja. This subcomponent\nwill finance establishment of this team and the capacity required to carry out their assigned\nrespective roles and responsibilities under the proposed project;\n(ii) Implementation of capacity building efforts to support implementation capacity at district\nand sub-county level. Key capacity building requirements have been highlighted in the sections\nabove and these would be financed from this subcomponent.\n(iii) The implementation of monitoring and evaluation activities at all levels.\n(iv) Design of a communications strategy and plan / campaign in order to inform stakeholders\nat all levels about all aspects of the project implementation.\n(v) This component will also finance other operational costs incurred at national, district and\nsub-county levels for the administration of the project. This budget will be used for planning,\nimplementation, technical oversight and monitoring of the LIPW and LIS components.\nSpecifically it can be used to finance contract staff (for example community facilitators),\ntechnical assistance, training, and per diems and other travel costs.\n\n\n62\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Management Information System",
+ "confidence": 0.9960615038871765,
+ "start": 6,
+ "end": 9
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "MIS",
+ "confidence": 0.9931831955909729,
+ "start": 10,
+ "end": 11
+ },
+ "author": {
+ "text": "external vendor",
+ "confidence": 0.6033487319946289,
+ "start": 191,
+ "end": 193
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "beneficiary households",
+ "confidence": 0.9175072312355042,
+ "start": 102,
+ "end": 104
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF2 database",
+ "confidence": 0.5273935794830322,
+ "start": 214,
+ "end": 216
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.9200078845024109,
+ "start": 219,
+ "end": 220
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Impact Evaluation",
+ "confidence": 0.9171334505081177,
+ "start": 319,
+ "end": 321
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.951511561870575,
+ "start": 325,
+ "end": 326
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "beneficiaries",
+ "confidence": 0.8022698163986206,
+ "start": 360,
+ "end": 361
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW",
+ "confidence": 0.58668452501297,
+ "start": 591,
+ "end": 592
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 73
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements**\n\n**UGANDA: The third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3)**\n\n**Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements**\n\n\n1. The implementation of NUSAF 3 will continue to be mainstreamed into existing\ngovernment structures at national and local government levels. NUSAF 3 will be implemented by\nthe **Office of the Prime Minster (OPM)** and **Inspectorate of Government (IG)** . The OPM will\nhave overall responsibility for implementing and accounting for project funds and coordinating\nactivities under all project components, except the TAAC subcomponent. The Office of the IG\nwill be responsible for implementing the TAAC component. The OPM Permanent Secretary will\nbe assisted by a Technical Support Team on project related activities. This team will provide key\ntechnical support during implementation, monitoring and evaluation.\n\n2. Although the institutional arrangements remain largely unchanged from NUSAF 2, there\nare some small but important adjustments. These include:\n\na. Responsibility for appraisal and approval of subprojects and Annual LIPW Plans (which\nreplace the interest form and subproject proposal process for the LIPW component) will, under\nNUSAF 3, lie entirely with the district government regardless of thresholds. [31] The Technical\nSupport Team (TST) will support districts to undertake high quality appraisal and approval\nand will undertake a quality control of appraisal and approval processes by reviewing a sample\nof Annual LIPW Plans and LIS subproject proposals.\n\nb. Recognition of the role of Parish Chiefs in supporting communities to plan and implement\nproject interventions, with NUSAF activities specifically included in their ToRs. They will\nplay key roles as community facilitators. Where needed, contracted community facilitators\n(similar to EPRA facilitators in NUSAF 2 but contracted and paid by the district government\nout of NUSAF 3 operational funds) will support them to play this role.\n\nc. Involvement of the National Emergency Coordination and Operations Centre (NECOC)\nand the National Council (housed within the Directorate of Relief, Disaster Preparedness and\nRefugees) in the Disaster Risk Financing (DRF) sub-component. NECOC will be responsible\nfor data collection and analysis for the (DRF triggers), while the National Council is\nresponsible for verifying the analysis and informing the OPM that a scale-up of the Labor\nIntensive Public Works (LIPWs) is required.\n\nd. Recognition of the role of the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development\n(MGLSD) as the lead agency in social protection and the need to provide them with\ninformation on progress in implementation of LIPWs and to work with them in the\ndevelopment of basic systems for safety nets.\n\ne. The TAAC component will be led by the IG and implemented through its existing\nstructures both at the national and regional levels. The implementation of TAAC will be\ncoordinated by the Director of Projects Monitoring department.\n\n\n31 LIS subprojects have a maximum cap of US$5,000, while the resources available for an Annual LIPW plans will\nbe determined on the basis of poverty and population.\n\n\n63\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.5747015476226807,
+ "start": 40,
+ "end": 42
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "UGANDA",
+ "confidence": 0.831146776676178,
+ "start": 11,
+ "end": 12
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Annual LIPW Plans",
+ "confidence": 0.9678101539611816,
+ "start": 194,
+ "end": 197
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "quality control of appraisal and approval processes",
+ "confidence": 0.7618881464004517,
+ "start": 252,
+ "end": 259
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIS subproject proposals",
+ "confidence": 0.5719361305236816,
+ "start": 268,
+ "end": 271
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "DRF triggers",
+ "confidence": 0.9281409978866577,
+ "start": 399,
+ "end": 401
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPWs",
+ "confidence": 0.584140956401825,
+ "start": 427,
+ "end": 428
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPWs",
+ "confidence": 0.608588457107544,
+ "start": 471,
+ "end": 472
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 74
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "3. An operations manual will be developed which will set forth all operational and procedural\nsteps regarding reviews and approvals of specific activities, flow of information, detailed\ndescription of project management and implementing bodies, procurement and financial\nmanagement arrangements, reporting requirements, and manual amendment procedures.\n\n4. **Implementation Period.** The proposed project will be executed over a period of five years.\n\n\n**Project Administration Mechanisms for Components 1, 2 and 4**\n\n5. NUSAF 3 has been designed as a multi-sector operation. Accordingly coordination will\ntake place at the national, local, and community levels. For components 1, 2 and 4, coordination\nwill be as outlined below.\n\n_**National level**_\n\n6. The PRDP Monitoring Committee (PMC) will provide overall policy guidance to the\nNUSAF 3 project. The PMC has been set up in the broader PRDP framework to be chaired by the\nRt. Honorable Prime Minister and with representation of all senior ministers (including the\nMinister for Northern Uganda rehabilitation) and heads of mission. The PMC will discuss all high\nlevel PRDP policy issues and results/outcomes of PRDP implemented programs, including\nNUSAF 3.\n\n7. The Permanent Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) will have overall\nresponsibility for the coordination, accounting for the project resources and ensuring successful\nimplementation of the Project. The OPM and Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic\nDevelopment (MoFPED) will be responsible for ensuring that project resources are budgeted for\nand disbursed within the national medium-term expenditure framework, and the project accounts\nare audited. The OPM will also closely coordinate with Ministry of Local Government to ensure\nsmooth implementation of the project at the district and sub-county levels. In addition, a steering\ncommittee, which would meet twice a year, would have overall responsibility for providing\noversight of the project implementation. This committee is envisaged to be chaired by the\nPermanent Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister, with members to be identified and detailed in\nthe OM.\n\n8. A Technical Support Team (TST) will continue to support the OPM Permanent Secretary\nand her technical team in day to day running of the operation, governed by the provisions of the\noperations manual and other appropriate legal instruments agreed to between the GoU and the\nfunding agency. The TST is headed by a Project Director, assisted by a number of relevant\ntechnical experts. The TST will provide technical support to OPM staff in performing the\nfunctions, including but not limited to, development of operations manuals and other relevant\nguidance material for implementers, provision of technical support to local government\nimplementers in all areas of project implementation, management of IDA funds on behalf of GoU\nby ensuring that the Special Account is replenished regularly.\n\n9. Given the need for additional capacity and technical support to implementation in\nKaramoja, an additional three person team – employed by the TST – will be recruited and based\nin local government offices in Moroto. Their role will be to provide more intensive capacity\nsupport to local government implementers in Karamoja sub-region.\n\n10. Oversight of NUSAF 3 will be supported by a Technical Working Committee (TWC)\nchaired by the NUSAF 3 Project Director and with members drawn from representatives of the\nkey Sector Ministries (including Ministry of Local Government) participating in the\n\n\n64\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 75
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "implementation of NUSAF 3. The TWC will meet twice a year and will report to the OPM\nPermanent Secretary and the Peace and Recovery Development Plan Technical Working Group\n(PRDP-TWG). [32]\n\n11. While the OPM will be responsible for the overall resources management and\nimplementation of the project, the Ministry of Gender, Labor, and Social Development (MGLSD)\nretains the mandate as the government agency responsible for Social Protection sector\npolicymaking and overall coordination of social protection interventions. As a result, the MGLSD\nis leading the preparation of a national framework for public works, to which this Project will\ncontribute. The OPM will coordinate with the MGSLD to demonstrate the Project’s contribution\nto the national public works initiative specifically and the expansion of direct income support more\ngenerally. However, the existing tools will be used until the envisaged mechanisms have been\ndeveloped.\n\n12. In addition a specific LIPW Technical Working Group will be established to provide\nsupport to the roll-out of the new National Labor Intensive Public Work Guidelines. The LIPW\nTechnical Working Group will be co-chaired by OPM and the MGLSD and will be composed of\ninterested stakeholders (government and development partners including WFP, international and\nlocal NGOs involved in LIPW implementation). It will meet regularly to assess developments in\nrolling out the National Labor Intensive Public Work Guidelines, share progress in implementing\nLIPWs, discuss and resolve challenges and agree a common way forward.\n\n13. Two other entities within the OPM, the National Emergency Coordination and Operations\nCentre (NECOC) and the National Council (housed within the Directorate of Relief, Disaster\nPreparedness and Refugees), also have responsibilities related to the Disaster Risk Financing\n(DRF) subcomponent. Given NECOC’s existing responsibility for coordinating and consolidating\nearly warning information, they will be responsible for data collection and analysis for the DRF\ntriggers. NECOC already gathers data collected and information generated by a number of\nministries, NGOs, development partners and other stakeholders. Given the limited local capacity\nfor downloading and processing satellite-derived data (i.e. NDVI and WRSI), there will be a need\nto appoint a specialized institution to support this area. Whichever institution is supported will\nreport to NECOC.\n\n14. The National Council, or Inter-Agency Technical Committee is responsible for verifying\nwhether the conditions for the activation of the risk financing instrument have been met. The\nproposed Committee is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the OPM and composed of focal\npoint technical officers from the MoH, MAAIF, WFP, FAO, ACTED, FEW SNET and Makarere\nUniversity and other relevant stakeholders.\n\n_**Local government level**_\n\n15. At district, sub-county and parish level the project will be fully mainstreamed into existing\nstructures. The relationship between the local and central government under NUSAF 3 will be\ngoverned by a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the responsibilities of the respective\n\n\n32 The PRDP-TWG provides operational and technical oversight for all PRDP related investments. It is chaired by\nthe OPM’s Under Secretary for Pacification and Development. It, in turn, reports to the Public Sector Management\nGroup, chaired the OPM Permanent Secretary and is made up of Permanent Secretaries of various line ministries\nand representatives of the donor community. The PSMG will report to the Minister for Northern Uganda\nrehabilitation, who reports to the Prime Minister, PMC, Cabinet and Parliament on the project progress.\n\n\n65\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 76
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "parties. The MoU will be reviewed at mid-term to take into consideration emerging lessons from\nproject implementation.\n\n16. The **Chief Administrative Officer** is the Accounting Officer and overall coordinator of\nthe Project at District Level. The CAO, supported by the district staff member appointed as a focal\nperson (the NUSAF District Officer) will be responsible for the proper execution of the project's\nactivities in the district in line with the requirements stated in the operations manual.\n\n17. In order to ensure the smooth flow and full accountability for the fund’s resources at district\nlevel, the **District Chief Finance Officer** will undertake accounting duties within prescribed GoU\nlaws, policies and procedures and NUSAF 3 Operations Manual.\n\n18. **District Executive Committee.** The DEC is responsible for policy formulation, overseeing\nthe implementation and monitoring of council programs, co-coordinating the work of NGOs,\naddressing problems forwarded by lower councils (e.g. LC3), and annually evaluating the\nperformance of the council against the approved work plans and programs. In the implementation\nof NUSAF 3, DECs will perform the following functions on behalf of the District Council:\n\n19. **District Council.** District council members will be involved in the incorporation of\napproved community subprojects into the sector plans and budgets and subsequently in the\ndevelopment plans and overall budgets. Since NUSAF 3 proposals are multi-sectoral, there will\nbe need for various standing committees to actively participate in the integration of NUSAF 3\nactivities into the district plan, especially at the appraisal stages. The DEC will notify the council\non approved subprojects for funding.\n\n20. **District Technical Planning Committee** (DTPC). For NUSAF 3, the DTPC will be\nresponsible for appraisals and technical support during implementation and monitoring of\nsubprojects from the district level. The CAO will recruit representatives from district technical\ndepartments, CSOs/NGOs/inter-faith groups and the private sector during its meetings to\ndeliberate on NUSAF 3 matters.\n\n21. **Sub-county Level.** The **Community Development Officer** (CDO) and Assistance\nCommunity Development Officer (ACDO) are responsible for coordinating project activities at\nsub-county and community level. They will participate in mobilization of the communities, work\nwith sector specialists to provide technical support to the communities, and support the preparation\nand submission of community subprojects and Annual LIPW plans. They will be supported in their\nwork through a **Sub-County Implementation Support Team** comprised of parish chiefs,\nrepresentatives from Parish Development Committees and LC1s, Sub-county extension staff, and\nany contracted community facilitators.\n\n22. Where capacity exists, members of the **Sub-County Technical Planning Committee** will\nliaise with the DTPC to support NUSAF implementation. In particular they will seek to integrate\nNUSAF 3 activities into local government plans, incorporate activities not eligible for funding by\nNUSAF 3 into sub-county plans and provide technical support to community proposals and Annual\nLIPW plans. Furthermore, the standing committees of the **Sub-county Council** will be involved\nin the integration of project activities into the sector plans and ultimately, the sub-county plans.\nThe **Sub-county Executive Committee** will play a key role in approving work plans and budgets,\nand monitor implementation of the project on behalf of the Sub-county Council.\n\n23. While the CDO is responsible for coordinating project activities at sub-county and\ncommunity level, much of the facilitation work will be conducted by **Parish Chiefs** . Where\n\n\n66\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 77
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "needed, they will be supported by contracted **community facilitators.**\n\n_**Community**_\n\n24. A number of project related institutions will support implementation of the project at\ncommunity level. These include: (i) the Community Watershed Committee, made up of\ncommunity representatives, and are responsible for overall targeting of NUSAF 3 interventions\nand for implementation of LIPW activities in selected watersheds; (ii) the Community Interest\nGroups comprised of beneficiaries of the IHISP component and who are responsible for\nimplementing the IHISP activities on behalf of their members; (iii) the Community Procurement\nCommittee who undertake all procurement on behalf of the community; and (iv) the Community\nMonitoring Group who are responsible for implementing the TAAC component and are further\ndiscussed below.\n\n25. In areas where the Sustainable Livelihoods Pilot Subcomponent of the LIS is being\nimplemented, the institutional arrangements slightly differ; Self Help Groups displace Community\nInterest Groups and a Village Livelihoods Implementation Committee will be formed to support\nimplementation of activities and to manage the village revolving fund.\n\n\n**Project Administration Mechanisms for Component 3**\n\n26. The TAAC component will be led by the IG and implemented through its existing\nstructures both at the national and regional levels. The implementation of TAAC will be\ncoordinated by the Director of the Projects Monitoring department.\n\n27. Overall collaboration with the local government entities starting with the Ministry of Local\nGovernment down to districts, countries and parishes will be ensured to maximize synergy and\nensure smooth implementation of this component.\n\n28. At the local government level, the IG regional offices will closely facilitate implementation\nand monitoring of the TAAC. Focal persons will be recruited and deployed within each regional\noffice and assigned to lead the TAAC work in collaboration with the head office. The team will\nassess appropriate ways to solve any problems hindering the implementation of the NUSAF 3\nactivities. The regional focal persons will also follow up on the work of the CMGs at the parish\nlevel. The CMGs will be the first recipients of any complaints and appeals about the project and\nwill help to resolve wherever possible at community levels. If that is not possible, they will refer\nthe complaints to the regional offices and the IG.\n\n29. At community level, the parish level based CMGs will be trained to contribute to necessary\nawareness and sensitization of the citizenry and project beneficiaries. The CMGs will become the\nregistrars of appeals and complaints at first instance and facilitate, as necessary, resolution of\ngrievances and parish and community levels as well as reference to regional offices and the IG.\n\n\n**Financial Management, Disbursements and Procurement**\n\n\n**Financial Management Assessment**\n\n30. A financial management capacity assessment of the participating institutions and\ndiscussions with the staff of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the Inspectorate of\nGovernment (IG), Accountant General, the Auditor General and Ministry of Local Government\nwas undertaken. The assessment was conducted based on the Financial Management Practices\nManual issued by the Financial Management Sector Board on November 3, 2005. The objective\n\n\n67\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF 3",
+ "confidence": 0.604943573474884,
+ "start": 64,
+ "end": 66
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "TAAC",
+ "confidence": 0.5324417948722839,
+ "start": 210,
+ "end": 211
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "registrars of appeals and complaints",
+ "confidence": 0.5109913945198059,
+ "start": 448,
+ "end": 453
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financial Management Assessment",
+ "confidence": 0.9956064820289612,
+ "start": 493,
+ "end": 496
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "participating institutions",
+ "confidence": 0.847428560256958,
+ "start": 507,
+ "end": 509
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Financial Management Practices\nManual",
+ "confidence": 0.9827743172645569,
+ "start": 554,
+ "end": 558
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "Financial Management Sector Board",
+ "confidence": 0.8937081098556519,
+ "start": 561,
+ "end": 565
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2005",
+ "confidence": 0.5635206699371338,
+ "start": 569,
+ "end": 570
+ },
+ "reference_year": {
+ "text": "2005",
+ "confidence": 0.5727252960205078,
+ "start": 569,
+ "end": 570
+ },
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 78
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "of the assessment was to determine whether the respective participating institutions have adequate\nfinancial management systems and related capacity in place which satisfies the Bank’s Operation\nPolicy/ Bank Procedure 10.02 with respect to financial management. Under the policy, borrowers\nand project implementation entities are supposed to have and maintain adequate financial\nmanagement systems which include budgeting, accounting, internal controls, funds flow, financial\nreporting and auditing arrangements to ensure that they can readily provide accurate and timely\ninformation regarding project resources and expenditures. These arrangements are deemed\nacceptable if: (a) they are capable of correctly and completely recording all financial transactions\nand balances relating to the project resources; (b) if they can facilitate the preparation of regular,\ntimely and reliable financial statements; (c) safeguard the project’s assets; and (d) are subject to\nauditing arrangements acceptable to IDA. In conclusion, the proposed financial management\narrangements put in place by the Project at central, district and community level meet the Bank’s\nminimum requirements for project financial management as per OP/BP 10/02.\n\n31. Mitigation measures for financial management risks to project funds have been\nincorporated as outlined in a Risk Identification Worksheet (RIW) which aims at addressing\nspecific perceived risks as indicated. An anti-corruption and transparency component\n(Strengthening Transparency, Anti-corruption and Accountability –TAAC) with a related action\nplan has been included in the design of the program which includes fiduciary measures to provide\nadditional assurance that key risks, including FM risks, are properly addressed. The anti-corruption\nmeasures outlined will be part of the key legal agreements to be entered into with the GOU. The\naggregate Financial Management overall risk rating for the project is Substantial.\n\n\n**Country Issues**\n\n32. The PFM framework in Uganda is developed to a great extent. The present framework for\nbudget formulation, execution, and audit is provided by the Public Finance Management (PFM)\nAct 2015, Anti-corruption Act of 2009, Local Government Financial and Accounting Regulations\n2007, and the National Audit Act 2008. The PFM Act prescribes the budget information that\ngovernment presents budgets to Parliament. The Act also regulates budget procedures within\nParliament. The PFM Act provides the legal framework for enhancing the control and management\nof public resources and strengthening fiscal transparency and accountability.\n\n33. Uganda’s Public Financial Management Systems have undergone reforms over the last ten\nyears. The country has been rated consistently above average for SSA on PEFA scores with the\nlatest done in 2012. Major improvements have been made in budget classification, budget\nformulation, minimizing overall deviations, making the budget more in line with agreed strategies\nand policies by adopting a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) and successfully\nimplementing the Oracle-based Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) across the\nwhole of central government and several local governments, agencies and external audit.\n\n34. Successful adoption of the MTEF has improved the overall allocative efficiency of budget\nresources. It has strengthened the budgeting processes by linking planning at the sector level with\nbudget allocations. Budget execution has also improved. A key ingredient that has led to this\nsuccess has been a well-functioning PFM reform program anchored in well performing\ninstitutional arrangements for regular dialogue and monitoring PFM reforms. Despite this\nprogress, significant challenges do remain. Reforms need to percolate to lower local governments.\nInternal audit still remains weak and managing arrears has been a problem for quite some time,\ncoupled with the need to improve discipline in budget management, reinforcing tax administration\n\n\n68\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 79
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "and strengthening payroll and pension controls. Budget credibility has continuously declined with\nsupplementary budgets becoming a norm by the executive.\n\n35. The annual audits by the Office of the Auditor General have highlighted some fraud cases\nthat expose weaknesses in the PFM system.\n\n36. With the support of a number of donors, the Government of Uganda is undertaking a\nnumber of Public Financial Management Reform programs to address the weaknesses noted above.\nFor example, the FINMAP continues to aim at supporting the implementation of a deepened Public\nFinancial Management Reform agenda. The Treasury Single Account (TSA) has been rolled out\nfor consolidated funds of government while there are plans to incorporate donor funds in the same\nsystem. A High Level Action Matrix was developed by government in collaboration with donors\nto ensure implementation of agreed actions addressing identified weaknesses in the PFM system.\n\n\n**Local Governments**\n\n37. The Local Governments (Financial and Accounting) Regulations, 2007 under section 88\nsets out the requirement for local governments to maintain proper books of accounts and to produce\nfinancial statements within three months of the end of the financial year in accordance with the\nPFM Act. The regulations also stipulate that these accounts shall be audited by the Auditor General\nor someone appointed by him or her in accordance with the Local Government Act, CAP 243.The\nAuditor General reports to Parliament and informs the Line Ministries, the Minister of Finance,\nthe Local Government to which the audit relates, the Local Government Public Accounts\nCommittee, the Local Government Finance Commission, the Inspectorate of Government and the\nResident District Commissioner.\n\n38. The successful implementation of this program will require proper financial management\narrangements at district, sub-county and at community level that hold each party accountable for\nany funds disbursed for the project. This was evidenced under the NUSAF2 program and should\nbe emulated. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the nominated program Desk Officer\nare the key players for compliant districts in managing, disbursing funds to communities and\nensuring their appropriate accountability of such project resources. Whilst NUSAF2 has\nestablished robust accountability mechanisms for project resources and operated a ring fenced\nfinancial management system for the project, this program will use the same systems including the\nexisting Project Tracker for recording and reporting. The existing accountability mechanisms for\nproject resources in every participating district will be supplemented by Local Government\n(Financial and Accounting) Regulations 2007.\n\n39. The Internal Auditors both at OPM and Districts will continue to play a big role in\nreviewing the adequacy of controls and highlighting improvements where possible for\nmanagement’s action.\n\n\n**FM Arrangements**\n\n_**Planning and Budgeting**_\n\n40. The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) as assisted by the TST will have the responsibility\nof ultimately ensuring that the plans and budgets of project activities are realistic and based on\nvalid assumptions. The DPTC shall coordinate and integrate all the sectoral plans of lower\ngovernments for presentation to the District Executive Committee (DEC), which is the executive\nand ultimate planning and approving authority in the district. The DPTC is chaired by the CAO\nand is made up of Heads of Departments of the district administration and other technical people\n\n\n69\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 80
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "co-opted by the CAO. The budgets and work plans will lay down physical and financial targets\nand will be used to monitor actual subsequent performance of the subprojects.\n\n41. At community level, subproject plans or annual LIPW plans will be generated by the\ncommunities with the help of a Community Development Officer (CDO) and Parish Chief. Where\ncapacity for generation of such plans is weak; the task will be undertaken by a designated\nFacilitator. Proposals for funding the subprojects/annual LIPW plans will be forwarded to the\nDPTC for appraisal aided by officials from Sub-county to which the households belong for\nendorsement. Once approved, the proposals will be forwarded to OPM for funding. In the\ncircumstances, fiduciary team within OPM will ensure conformity with all budgets/ work plans\nwith the project policies, guidelines and legal agreements. OPM will communicate planning and\nbudget policy inclusive of the allocation formula for the project resources to the participating\ndistricts, enforce timely delivery of budget proposals, review submitted budgets for adequacy and\nconsolidate all district budgets into a master for inclusion into the national budget. It is this\napproved budget that will be subject to financing from IDA.\n\n_**Organization and Staffing**_\n\n42. The project will use existing accounting staff in all participating Local Governments.\nWhere there are staffing gaps, efforts shall be made by government to hire staff for proper project\nimplementation. At OPM, the TST will have three Accountants one of whom will lead the team\nas an FMS under the supervision of OPM Head of Accounts. The CAO as the accounting officer\nat the district will be assisted by the nominated Desk Officer to ensure completeness of transactions\nand records.\n\n_**Accounting Policies, System and Procedures**_\n\n43. A computerized accounting system (SUN System) has been established at national level\nand it is functioning well and all districts have installed a simple Excel based Project Tracker to\ncapture and track transactions at both national and district levels respectively. A paper based\nsystem will be used to track the inflows and outflows at community and other implementing\nagency levels. The aim of such financial management systems are to: (a) allow for timely recording\nof project transactions; (b) safeguard project assets; and (c) allow for timely reporting of project\ntransactions.\n\n44. The project’s accounting policies will specify the accounting treatment for the project’s\nfinancial transactions and will constitute basic principles designed to ensure that the accounting\nrecords at district, community and OPM level are complete, relevant and reliable and that\naccounting practices are followed consistently. It is expected that the Local Government Financial\nManagement manuals will be supplemented with project manuals.\n\n45. The accounts of the project will be prepared on a cash basis in accordance with\nInternational Financial Reporting Standards. A dedicated unit within OPM will have an accounting\nsystem for consolidating all financial reports of the project that allows for the proper recording of\nproject financial transactions, including the allocation of expenditures in accordance with the\nrespective components, disbursement categories, and sources of funds. Controls over the\npreparation and approval of transactions are in place at both OPM and district level to ensure that\nall transactions are correctly recorded and reported upon.\n\n46. Financial management and accountability under the project will be traced from national,\ndistrict right down to sub-county and community level. At national level, the OPM supported by\n\n\n70\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 81
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "an appointed team of accountants and the defined role of TST will ensure that there exists a welldefined and transparent financial management and reporting procedures to be followed by districts\nand communities. Such details are contained in a Financial Management Handbook. Quarterly and\nannual financial statements or reports reflecting all district NUSAF transactions will be prepared\nand distributed to all stakeholders for information and review.\n\n47. At district and sub-county level, suitable procedures for disbursing and accounting for\ncommunity funds will be employed. Sub counties will be responsible for maintaining proper\nrecords for funds received and utilized for supervising community subprojects within their ambit.\nRecords of funds utilized shall be maintained in accordance with sound accounting policies and\npractices. The local government staff designated to coordinate the Project activities at District level\nwill provide the necessary support to facilitate speedy justification of expenditures and tranching\nas well as submit periodic reports to the CAO.\n\n48. At the community level, CWC financial management and administration needs will be\nidentified and members of the community shall be trained in the maintenance of accurate accounts\nfor the funds utilized. This will be done partly during the identification periods. The training\nmaterials for the community level shall contain information on simple accounting.\n\n_**Banking, Funds Flow and Disbursement Arrangements**_\n\n49. The project shall have one Designated Account denominated in United States Dollars\nopened in the name of OPM at Bank of Uganda. All disbursements from IDA will be deposited\ninto this account. Funds from the Designated Account will be transferred into the OPM Subprojects\nLocal Currency Account (in shillings) before they are disbursed further into the District subproject\naccount upon instructions from the accounting officer, where funds will be disbursed into the\nDistrict operations account and the District subproject account. OPM will also have an operations\nlocal currency account to cater for the day-to-day activities of project management. Funds for\nimplementation of the transparency component of the project will also be transferred into a\nDesignated Account at Bank of Uganda and then to a local account opened at the same bank both\nin the names of IG. Government is implementing the TSA modality and when all arrangements\nare in place and agreed, donor funded projects will be added to the same system.\n\n50. Community subproject funds will be disbursed directly into a community subproject\naccount. The Districts will receive operational funds for supervising sub counties and communities\nseparately. Thus community subproject funds will be disbursed from OPM Local Currency\nAccount through the Government Grants Account to the District Project Accounts from where it\nwill be transferred directly to the respective subproject bank accounts in a commercial bank agreed\nto with the CAO under local government rules. The initial disbursements will be made upon receipt\nby OPM of a request for funds from the districts based on the approval list of subprojects indicating\nthe mode of execution. This will be a consolidated list of approved subprojects from communities.\n\n51. In selected pilot areas, the use of private sector payments service providers to effect labor\nintensive public works payments will be explored.\n\n52. The disbursement of the IDA credit will be done quarterly based on Interim Unaudited\nFinancial Reports (IFRs). These IFRs will include project financial reports, a progress report and\na procurement management report.\n\n53. An initial six months forecast of project expenditures will be made by the OPM using data\ncollected from subprojects so far submitted and projected operational expenditures. Following this\n\n\n71\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 82
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "agreement, an advance relating to aggregate disbursement requests not exceeding the forecast\namount will be payable by the Bank upon demand. After the first and each subsequent quarter, the\nproject will submit to IDA IFRs and relevant supporting documentation relating to each\ndisbursement. IDA will be responsible for reviewing the documentation relating to each\ndisbursement to confirm eligibility of expenditures during the period covered by the IFR. Through\nthe review, IDA will also ensure that internal controls as documented in the Financial Management\nmanual have reasonably been applied by all levels of project implementation in their disbursement\nof funds to implementing agencies. The IFR will also contain a new forecast for the next two IFR\nperiods. The cash request relating to each IFR will be the amount indicated in the approved cash\nflow forecast for the following six months less the balance in the Designated Account at the end\nof IFR period. Subsequent disbursements of the IDA credit will therefore be made in respect of\nsimilar cash requests.\n\n\n**Chart 1: NUSAF 3 Funds Flow**\n\n\n54. Past experience of projects that have tried to channel funds to communities through local\ngovernment as will happen in this program have identified a few bottlenecks. These are: (1)\ndelivering resources to communities is slow; (2) the proportion of resources taken up by structures\nmeant to promote delivery is unsustainably high; (3) the services delivered are not always relevant\nto the needs of the poor; and (4) the mechanism used to identify community needs are poorly\ndeveloped and communities are left out of many decision-making process. The design of the\nproject has taken on board all NUSAF-2 success factors and provided safeguards that will ensure:\n(1) timely delivery of resources to communities; (2) there is a defined amount to be collected by\ndistricts and sub counties for supporting communities for their technical backstopping; and (3) the\nservices to be provided will be identified by communities themselves.\n\n_**Internal Controls**_\n\n55. The internal controls system described in the Financial Management Manual will provide\nguidance to the Project financial and district staff and also help in monitoring the system of internal\ncontrols. The District internal auditors will provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of,\ncompliance with, established controls, policies and procedures. Similarly, it is expected that OPM\n\n\n72\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 83
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "will retain and absorb critical NUSAF-2 staff to carry on the new program. A system shall be\nestablished for following up on all weaknesses reported by External and Internal Auditors.\n\n56. Internal audit services at local government level will be executed as provided for in the Local\nGovernment Financial and Accounting Regulations. Reliance shall be placed on the District\nInternal Auditor with respect to funds provided by the project for activities implemented in the\ndistrict. A Local Government Internal Audit Manual was issued in January 2000 and includes\nguidance to Local Government Internal Auditors on the objectives and procedures of internal audit\nengagements. The OPM will work with local governments to supplement internal audit\nrequirements where necessary.\n\n_**Financial Reporting**_\n\n57. NUSAF’s accounting system which will be adopted by OPM would be used to generate\nquarterly un-audited Interim Financial Reports (IFR) in form and content satisfactory to the Bank,\nwhich will be submitted to the Bank within 45 days after the end of the quarter to which they relate.\nThe quarterly IFR’s will be used as a basis for the disbursement. NUSAF’s has demonstrated its\nability to prepare and use IFRs under the report-based method of disbursement. IFRs under\nNUSAF-2 were prepared and submitted to the Bank as stipulated and were deemed to be of good\nquality.\n\n58. The IFR will consist of a statement of sources and uses of funds (by main expenditure\nclassifications), opening and closing balances of the funds from the Bank; and actual and budgeted\nexpenditures by component and/or activity within component and explanations of any variances,\nfor the quarter and cumulatively for the project. It will also contain forecasts for the next 6 months.\nThe format of these reports has been agreed between the Bank and OPM. At lower levels of\nimplementation at community and district level, reporting formats have been designed so as to\ngive adequate information to higher levels for monitoring and consolidation. Frequency of such\nreports has been outlined in the projects financial management manual.\n\n59. **Public disclosure of information** : regarding (1) activities funded under the project (2)\nperiodic resource appropriation and accountability; (3) project implementation progress and\noperational results; and (4) sharing of best practices amongst communities and beneficiary\ncommunities should be disclosed publicly in LG notice boards, and other visible places. These are\nexpected to be prominently disclosed including through the media.\n\n\n**Auditing**\n\n60. The Auditor General of the Republic of Uganda is primarily responsible for the auditing of\nall government projects. The audit may be subcontracted to a firm.\n\n61. The annual financial statements for the Project will be audited by independent auditors\nacceptable to IDA, working under terms of reference acceptable to IDA. The audit TORs will\ncover both the annual audit of the project financial statements including their consistency with the\nquarterly IFRs, and a review of internal controls and compliance with the Project Agreement. The\nauditor will be required to issue a management letter providing an assessment of the financial\nmanagement system, including the adequacy of internal controls. The audit report and the\nmanagement letter must be submitted to the Bank within six months after the end of each fiscal\nyear. The cost of audit is provided in the project budget and can be paid out of project funds as\nauthorized expenditures.\n\n\n73\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "quarterly un-audited Interim Financial Reports",
+ "confidence": 0.9840583205223083,
+ "start": 150,
+ "end": 155
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "statement of sources and uses of funds",
+ "confidence": 0.9301280379295349,
+ "start": 251,
+ "end": 258
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "IFR",
+ "confidence": 0.9979568719863892,
+ "start": 156,
+ "end": 157
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "primary"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "reports",
+ "confidence": 0.6812059283256531,
+ "start": 319,
+ "end": 320
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Republic of Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6867302060127258,
+ "start": 463,
+ "end": 466
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "government projects",
+ "confidence": 0.5554890036582947,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 476
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "annual financial statements",
+ "confidence": 0.6094087958335876,
+ "start": 489,
+ "end": 492
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Republic of Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.6676754951477051,
+ "start": 463,
+ "end": 466
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "government projects",
+ "confidence": 0.6022552847862244,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 476
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "audit TORs",
+ "confidence": 0.8051889538764954,
+ "start": 515,
+ "end": 517
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "annual audit of the project financial statements",
+ "confidence": 0.5150316953659058,
+ "start": 521,
+ "end": 528
+ },
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Republic of Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7151612639427185,
+ "start": 463,
+ "end": 466
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "government projects",
+ "confidence": 0.9370967745780945,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 476
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "primary"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 84
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Financial Management Action Plan 62. The following actions were agreed upon:|Col2|Col3|\n|---|---|---|\n|**Actions**|**Responsible**
**by**|**Completion Date**
|\n|Formulating reporting formats (IFR) for the project|OPM|- _Done_
|\n|Development of terms of reference for the project audit|OPM|- _Done_|\n\n\n**Supervision Plan**\n\n\n\n63. As the FM risk is assessed as substantial, financial management supervision will be\nundertaken twice a year by members of the FM team. The supervision will review the Project’s\nfinancial management systems and capacity, in accordance with the FM Manual, including but not\nlimited to the operation of Designated Account, evaluating quality of budgets, financial reports,\nassessing relevance of FM Manual, statement of expenditures, internal controls, reporting and\nfollow up of audit and mission findings.\n\n\n**Procurement**\n\n64. Procurement for NUSAF 3 will be implemented at 3 levels namely; (i) at the Central\nGovernment level – OPM and the Inspectorate of Government, (ii) at the Local Government level\n\n- Districts, and (iii) at community level.\n\n\n**Applicable Guidelines**\n\n65. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World\nBank’s \"Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits\" dated January 2011 and\nrevised in July 2014; and \"Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank\nBorrowers\" dated January 2011 and revised in July 2014, Guidelines on Preventing and Combating\nFraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants, dated\nOctober 15, 2006 and revised in January 2011,and the provisions stipulated in the Legal\nAgreement. The items under different expenditure categories to be procured, identified by\nappraisal, are indicated in the “Scope of Procurement under the project” section.\n\n\n**Applicable Procedures**\n\n66. **Advance Contracting and Retroactive Financing** shall apply for this project which\nallows the Borrower to proceed with the initial steps of procurement before signing the related\nBank loan. In such cases, the procurement procedures, including advertising, shall be in\naccordance with the Guidelines in order for the eventual contracts to be eligible for Bank financing,\nand the Bank shall review the process used by the Borrower. A Borrower undertakes such advance\ncontracting at its own risk, and any concurrence by the Bank with the procedures, documentation,\nor proposal for award does not commit the Bank to make a loan for the project in question.\n\n\n**Use of National Procurement System**\n\n67. All contracts procured at the national level following National Competitive Bidding (NCB)\nand other lower procurement procedures such as Shopping, may follow the national public\nprocurement law (the Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) Act, 2003\namended 2014 ) and attendant regulations. These procedures have been reviewed by the Bank and\nfound to be acceptable, except for the following provisions, _which will not be applicable under_\n_this project:_\n\n\n74\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "FM Manual",
+ "confidence": 0.6037784814834595,
+ "start": 149,
+ "end": 151
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Designated Account",
+ "confidence": 0.740475594997406,
+ "start": 160,
+ "end": 162
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": {
+ "text": "2014",
+ "confidence": 0.5022982954978943,
+ "start": 291,
+ "end": 292
+ },
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "financial reports",
+ "confidence": 0.7471522092819214,
+ "start": 168,
+ "end": 170
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "National Procurement System",
+ "confidence": 0.9792967438697815,
+ "start": 514,
+ "end": 517
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 85
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "a. Domestic preferences shall not apply under NCB;\n\nb. The charging of fees for dealing with bidder complaints at procuring entity level shall not\nbe permitted;\n\nc. Firms or individuals debarred or suspended by the World Bank shall not be eligible (in\naddition to firms or individuals suspended by PPDA);\n\nd. Regulation 48 (a) of the PPDA Regulations (on rejection of a bid submitted by a bidder\nwho obtained the bidding document directly from the procuring and disposing entity) shall not\napply;\n\ne. Paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Fourth Schedule of the PPDA Act, restricting contract\namendments to an aggregate amount of 25 percent of the original contract amount, shall not\napply;\n\nf. Regulation 53(9) of the PPDA Act, restricting the use of bid securing declarations to\nrestricted domestic bidding and quotations procurement, shall not apply; and\n\n68. In accordance with paragraph 1.16(e) of the Procurement Guidelines, each bidding\ndocument and contract shall provide for the following: (i) the bidders, suppliers, contractors and\nsubcontractors shall, on request, permit the World Bank to inspect the accounts and records\nrelating to the bid submission and performance of the contract, and shall have the accounts and\nrecords audited by auditors appointed by the World Bank; and (ii) any deliberate and/or material\nviolation of such provision by any bidder, supplier, contractor or subcontractor may amount to an\nobstructive practice provided for in paragraphs 1.16(a) and (v) of the Procurement Guidelines.\n\n69. Under the proposed project, procurement processing under the project shall also in addition\nto the World Bank guidelines comply with the national approval system except where the two\nconflict, when the World Bank Guidelines will take precedence. Specifically, the Contracts\nCommittees shall perform their oversight functions at every key procurement stage as required by\nthe PPDA Act, and contracts shall be subjected to the Solicitor General’s clearance where\napplicable.\n\n70. **Procedure for Shopping:** Shopping shall follow the Request for Quotation (RFQ)\nprocedures as defined in the PPDA Act and attendant regulations. These procedures have been\nreviewed by the Bank and found to be satisfactory subject to the exceptions under paragraph 67.\n\n71. **Use of Framework Agreements (FAs):** Common supplies, for example, stationery and\nconsumables will be aggregated and procured through framework contracts to enable\nimplementing agencies to place orders for urgently needed supplies at short notice, at a competitive\nprice. FAs shall not restrict foreign competition, and should be limited to a maximum duration of\n3 (three) years. FA procedures applicable to the project are those of the Borrowers that have been\ndeemed acceptable by the Bank, and shall be described in the Financing Agreement.\n\n72. It has been agreed with the Borrower, that bidding documents under NCB procedures\ninclude a clause rendering ineligible for Bank financing a firm, or an individual, of the Borrower\ncountry that is under a sanction of debarment from being awarded a contract by the appropriate\njudicial authority of the Borrower country and pursuant to its relevant laws, provided that the Bank\nhas determined that the firm, or the individual, has engaged in fraud or corruption and the judicial\nproceeding afforded the firm or the individual adequate due process.\n\n\n75\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 86
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Bidding Procedures at Local Government**\n\n73. The procurement will be conducted in accordance to the Local Government Amendment\nAct, CAP 243 and its Regulations provided they are consistent with IDA rules. Selection of\nConsultants Services will be done in accordance with Bank's Guidelines for Selection and\nEmployment of Consultants by the World Bank Borrowers published in January 2011 and revised\nin July 2014, and using the appropriate Standard Forms of Contract. The Local Government\nContracts Committee will provide oversight of the procurement process.\n\n\n**Bidding Procedures at Community Level**\n\n74. Once the subproject has been approved, the community shall adopt local bidding or local\nshopping and direct contracting on exceptional basis. The said bidding options will be described\nin the project operations manual and will be explained in detail in the Community Procurement\nHandbook to be given to the Community as part of the training, prior to the disbursement of funds.\n\n\n**Flow Chart for Procurement Activities by Communities**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Step|Activity|Description|Responsibility|Timing|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|1|Prepare
procurement plan|•
Consult community members and
identify requirements, quantities,
prices, procurement methods, and
package contracts
•
Prepare procurement schedule
|CPC|Before
submission of
project proposal/
annual LIPW
plan|\n|2|Advertising|
•
Advertising community procurement
using local notice boards, radios,
religious
and
other
gatherings.
Advert should be in writing.
|CPC|Soon after
notification of
subproject
approval.|\n|3|Issue bidding
documents/request
for quotations to
interested bidders|•
To at least three qualified bidders for
shopping
•
To single supplier for direct contract
shopping
•
Complicated purchases forwarded to
the district
|CPC|Within 5 days
after CWC/CPC
training|\n|4|Bid opening and
evaluation|•
Bid opening at the announced time
and place
|CPC|On deadline for
receipt of bids|\n|5|Bid evaluation|•
Record prices, bidders names
•
Analyze quotations
•
Select lowest evaluated bidder
•
Recommend contract award to
CWC/ CIG
•
Prepare bid evaluation report for ex-
post financial review
|CPC|Within 5 days
for the date of
closure of the
receipt of bids or
opening of the
bids|\n|6|Award contract|•
Announce the award to all bidders
•
Send a copy/report of the decision to
award to the Sub-county chief
•
Receive letter of acceptance from the
successful contractor/supplier|CWC/CIG|Within 14 days
of the bid
opening|\n|7|Sign contract|•
Sign contract (3 copies)
•
Send copy of contract to the Sub-
county chief, 1 copy to contractor
and 1 copy in the CWC/CIG file|Chairperson of
the CWC/CIG|Within 5
working days of
announcing the
award|\n\n\n76\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 87
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|8|Issue local
purchase order|• Issue purchase order for
goods/services/works|Chairperson
CWC/CIG|Col5|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|9|Receive goods|•
Check quantity and quality
•
Obtain delivery note, invoice, or
suppliers memo
•
Fill stock card
•
Witness delivery
|CPC Witnessed
by treasurer of
CWC/CIG||\n|10|Pay supplier|
•
Pay a supplier and keep records|CWC/CIG||\n\n\n**Solicitation Documents to be Used**\n\n\n\n75. **Goods, Works and Non-consulting services:** The Bank’s standard bidding documents\nand standard bid evaluation forms will be used for procurement under ICB.\n\n76. Under NCB, the standard tender documents for procurement of Supplies prepared and\nissued by the PPDA may be used subject to modifications acceptable to the Bank and those\nindicated under subject to the exceptions under para 67 above.\n\n77. **Consulting Services:** The Bank’s Standard Request for Proposal document and sample\nform of evaluation report will be used in the selection of consulting firms. The PPDA procedures\nfor selection of Consultants including bidding documents, evaluation forms, etc., shall not apply.\n\n78. **Community Procurement:** Simplified Bidding documents and Procurement planning\nforms and other documents for use by the community that were developed under NUSAF 1 and\nupdated under NUSAF 2 will be updated and aligned for use under the Safety Net Project\ncomplemented by other documents such as the Guidelines for Labor Intensive Public Works.\n\n\n**Record Keeping**\n\n79. At OPM and at Local Government level, the HPDU will be responsible for record keeping\nand shall open a procurement file for each contract processed. The file should contain all\ndocuments on the procurement process in accordance to the requirements and as described in the\nPPDA Act. At Community level, the CPC shall be responsible for record keeping as specified in\nthe simplified operations manual. At all levels, OPM/LG/CPCs will ensure that there is adequate\nlockable storage space for active files, and for archiving.\n\n\n**Monitoring**\n\n80. Monitoring and evaluation of procurement performance will be carried out through annual\n_ex-post_ procurement and technical audits by (i) Procurement Consultants with Terms of Reference\n(ToR) and Qualifications acceptable to PPDA and IDA, and (ii) Bank supervision and Post-review\nmissions. At national level – (i) and (ii) will apply while at local government level, only (i) will\napply.\n\n81. At community level, Monitoring and evaluation of procurement performance will be\ncarried out through (a) regular ad-hoc reviews by the sub-county CDO and (b) annual procurement\naudits by Procurement Consultants with ToR and Qualifications acceptable to IDA. Such audits\nshall:\n\n1. verify compliance to the procurement and contracting procedures and processes specified\nin the Simplified Procurement Handbook;\n2. verify technical compliance, physical completion for works or the physical existence of\ngoods;\n\n\n77\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 88
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Scope of Procurement under the Project**\n\n**Central Government**\n\n82. The OPM will be responsible for procurement of goods, non-consulting and consulting\nservices that will be used at the OPM and/or distributed to the district offices. A procurement\nspecialists with ToR and qualifications acceptable to the IDA will be appointed at OPM to support\nthe TST by 6 months after project effectiveness.\n\n83. The Procurement and Disposal Unit of the IG will carry out procurement of goods and nonconsulting services at the IG.\n\n84. **Operating Costs:** The Project will finance costs of OPM/LGs that directly relate to project\nimplementation. The Project’s operating costs include audit fees, expenditures for office supplies,\nvehicle operation and maintenance, maintenance of equipment, communication and insurance\ncosts, office administration costs, utilities, rental, consumables, accommodation, travel and _per_\n_diem_, and salaries of Project staff, but excluding the salaries of the Recipient’s civil service,\nmeeting allowances, other sitting allowances, salary top ups and all honoraria. These will be\nprocured using IDA procedures or the Borrower’s procurement, financial and other administrative\nprocedures, acceptable to the Bank.\n\n85. **Training:** The project will formulate an annual training plan and budget which will be\nsubmitted to the Bank for its prior review and approval. The annual training plan will, inter alia,\nidentify: (i) the training envisaged; (ii) the justification for the training, how it will lead to effective\nperformance and implementation of the project and or sectors; (iii) the personnel to be trained; (iv)\nthe selection methods of institutions or individuals conducting such training; (v) the institutions\nwhich will conduct training, if already selected; (vi) the duration of proposed training; and (vii)\nthe cost estimated cost of the training. Upon completion of training, the trainee shall be required\nto prepare and submit a report on the training received. A copy of the training report will be kept\nfor IDA review. Additionally the OPM’s Project Operations Manual shall specify how candidates\neligible for the graduate training shall be selected. These procedures shall ensure equal opportunity\nto all eligible participants.\n\n_**Procurement at Local Government Level**_\n\n86. The procurement will be done at the District level. The sub-county level as a user\ndepartment may procure within the thresholds specified in the Local Government Amendment Act,\nCAP 243 and its Regulations.\n\n87. Procurement at the local government level will include stationery, fuel, vehicle\nmaintenance and related operational expenses. Selection of Consultants may also arise if the need\nis established during project implementation.\n\n_**Community Procurement**_\n\n88. At community level, the procurement function will be undertaken by the beneficiary\ncommunities who will participate in procurement by: (i) Identifying subproject requirements and\nprocure the same from the local sources within the community, (ii) Hiring limited equipment to\nsupport labor-based intensive technology in subproject implementation.\n\n89. For purposes of this project, a Community can be described as group of people brought\ntogether by a common need, for example; a watershed catchment area or community using the\n\n\n78\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 89
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "same community road. For effective community participation, the communities constitute the\nfollowing committees for each subproject:\n\n90. Community Watershed Committee (CWC) – The CWC consists of nine members elected\nby the community during the initial mobilization to manage the implementation of their\nsubprojects. The CWC (or for the IHSIP, the Community Interest Group) is responsible for\ndefining what needs to be procured for implementation of the subprojects and start the procurement\nprocess by forwarding request to the Community Procurement Committee (CPC). The CWC will\nbe responsible for making a decision on the contract award and the contract will be signed by the\nCWC Chairman and the Secretary.\n\n91. Community Procurement Committee (CPC) – The CPC is comprised of five members\nelected by the community during the PRA process. Three of these members will be drawn from\nthe non-executive members of the CWC. The other two members are selected from the rest of the\nbenefitting community. The members of the procurement committee, which should be gender\nbalanced, shall be named in the subproject financing agreement signed by the chairperson of the\nCWC on behalf of the community. The CPC is responsible for the procurement of all goods and\nservices required in the implementation of the subproject.\n\n92. The CPC shall follow the tender procedures for community procurement when procuring\ngoods and hiring labor. After approval of a subproject, the Community Development officers\n(CDO) or another person appointed by the CAO will provide the training to the CWC and CPC\nmembers in project, procurement, disbursement and financial management as well as record\nkeeping and accountability reporting to enable them carry out the procurement function in a\nmanner acceptable to the government and the World Bank. As part of the training, the CWC and\nCPC members will receive the Community procurement handbook and other simplified documents\nas described in the operations manual. Funds shall be disbursed to a subproject after this training.\n\n93. The CDOs will be provided with the Project Operations Manual, which will act as a\nteaching guide. The Manual will include sections on Financial Management, Procurement,\nMonitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and Information, Education and Communication (IEC). The\npreparation of this Manual is a condition of effectiveness.\n\n94. Subprojects implemented by more than one implementing agency (i.e. the CWC and CSO)\nshall form a procurement committee composed of both CWC and CSO representatives (with the\nmajority being from the CWC), and the members of which must be named in the Subproject\nAgreement.\n\n95. There are two components under Community Procurement; (i) Household Investment\nSupport Program (HISP), and (ii) Labor Intensive Public Works Program.\n\n96. Household Income Support Program - The average size of subprojects under House Income\nSupport Program will be US 3500 with a maximum of US5,000 to be approved by the DPTC and\nendorsed by the DEC. The District/TST will work with the communities to ensure that there is\nadequate technical support for these subprojects, and will be subject to the approval of the District\nExecutive Committee (DEC).\n\n97. Labor-Intensive Public Works Program: The community will provide the labor required\nfor execution of these contracts. After the subproject approval and as a condition for disbursement\nof funds, the Community will receive training to obtain the skills required to enable them meet this\nrole.\n\n\n79\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 90
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "98. Emergency procedures as defined under the PPDA Lawa may apply for Procurement under\nsubprojects established after the Disaster Risk Financing has been invoked.\n\n\n**Assessment of the Capacity to Implement Procurement**\n\n**Capacity at OPM**\n\n99. The key risks for project implementation are: (i) inadequate seating arrangement for PDU with\nPDU sharing open office space with non-PDU staff; (ii) limited experience of OPM staff in IDA\nfinanced procurement management; (iii) heavy workload for staff of OPM PDU to handle NUSAF\n3 procurement and inadequate procurement capacity of communities; (iv) inadequate record\nkeeping; (v) need for clarity on roles/coordination between user departments and PDU; (vi) delays\nin procurement processing; and (vii) inadequate number of Technical Staff to handle the work\nload.\n\n100. These risks will be mitigated by: (i) OPM shall partition off space for the PDU to ensure\nintegrity of the procurement records; (ii) Recruit a Procurement Officer with ToR acceptable to\nIDA to support NUSAF 3 procurement and capacity building for community procurement at\ncommunity level; (iii) PDU will ensure completeness of procurement files particularly to include\ncontract management records, and contracts committee minutes; (iv) recruit Individual\nConsultants under Technical Support Unit to augment OPM technical staff in implementing\nNUSAF 3; and (v) Prior to effectiveness, prepare Project Procurement manual or include\nProcurement section in Project Operations Manual to clarify IDA procedures.\n\n\n**Engagement of Individual Consultants for the Technical Support Unit**\n\n101. OPM will extend contracts of the Individual Consultants currently working under NUSAF2\nthat are critical for the start of the project. OPM provided the following justification that is\nacceptable to IDA: (i) NUSAF3 is a successor project to NUSAF2 and is building on the\nachievements, capacity, practices and results of the previous program, so it is imperative that\ncritical staff are retained to facilitate quick take-off and sustain organizational memory to reduce\nthe learning curve and have a robust beginning of the project; (ii) These positions require staff\nwith substantial experience in working with OPM, government sectors, districts and are familiar\nwith application of World Bank Guidelines, tools and systems; and (iii) the performance of these\nconsultants under NUSAF2 has been consistently satisfactory. Other positions will be advertised\nas soon as the project starts through a competitive process\n\n\n**Capacity Assessment of Local Government Level**\n\n102. The following have been identified as risks at LG level based on recent audit reports of\nPPDA of the various Districts: a high rate of non-compliance to the requirements of the PPDA\nAct, limited competition, and incomplete/abandoned works.\n\n103. The above risks will be mitigated by: (i) OPM should prepare simplified Procurement\nmanuals for local government staff similar to those prepared for communities under NUSAF 1,\n(ii) The Procurement Specialist at OPM shall support local government personnel to ensure that\nall procurements are done in accordance with the World Bank and PPDA procedures as appropriate\n\n104. In light of; (i) the limited experience of the PDUs to handle procurement at local\ngovernment level, (ii) the amount of procurement to be done under the project, the risk to\nprocurement management at local government is Substantial.\n\n\n80\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 91
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Community Level**\n\n105. The following risks were identified as impediments for NUSAF 2 at Community level: (i)\nlimited training for the communities on how to conduct procurement, leading to increased risk of\nelite capture of the subprojects and lack of collective decision making by the procurement\ncommittee, and (ii) limited publication of opportunities. The overall risk to procurement is\nsubstantial.\n\n106. The above risks will be mitigated as follows: (i) wide publication of available bidding\nopportunities; (ii) training community on procurement procedures involved in Community Based\nprocurement upon approval of the subproject and prior to disbursement of funds at the community\nlevel. The training will be carried by the Community Development Officer (CDO) or other officer\nappointed by the CAO; and (iii) the CWC will be required to advertise opportunities using\nprocedures described in the procurement manual.\n\n107. Additionally: (i) the local government PDU with support from the CDO and OPM/TST\nwill monitor Communities on a sample basis to ensure that (a) the communities are sufficiently\ntrained to handle procurements (b) the CWCs are adequately selected in adherence to procurement\nguidelines; and (ii) the project will engage a Consultant of qualification acceptable to the World\nBank to carry out an annual audit of community procurement and verify progress and existence of\ngoods and works procured.\n\n108. In light of the above proposed mitigation measures, the residual risk to procurement\nmanagement at local government for this project is expected to be Substantial **.**\n\n\n**Frequency of Bank Supervision**\n\n109. In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out by World Bank Country Office\nstaff, the capacity assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended at least bi-annual\nsupervision missions to visit the field, at least one of which shall include carrying out post review\nof procurement actions.\n\n\n**Prior Review Thresholds**\n\n110. The prior review thresholds are as follows:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-consulting services|Col2|Col3|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|
Expenditure
Category|
Contract Value
(Threshold) USD|
Procurement Method|Contracts Subject to
Prior Review|\n|1. Works|>=10,000,000
< 10,000,000
<200,000|ICB
NCB
Shopping|All Contracts
Selected Contracts as indicated on PP
First contract under this method|\n|2. Goods and Non-
consulting services|>=1,000,000
<1,000,000
<100,000|ICB
NCB
Shopping|All Contracts
Selected Contracts as indicated on PP
First contract under this method|\n|All categories|All values|Direct Contracting|All|\n\n\n81\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 92
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Selection of Consultants33|Col2|Col3|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|
Expenditure
Category
|
Contract
Value
(Threshold) USD|_Selection Method_|Contracts Subject to Prior Review|\n|(a) Firms34
|>=300,000
<300,000
|QCBS, QBS, FBS,
LCS
Qualifications/Other
Selection Methods|All contracts
Selected Contracts as indicated on PP|\n|(b) Individual|<= 5,000
|IC|Selected Contracts as indicated on PP|\n|Firms and
Individual|All values|SSS|All contracts|\n\n\n\n**Procurement Plan**\n\n111. At central government, Procurement Plans have been prepared by OPM and approved by\nIDA on April 22, 2015. The plans will be available in the respective entities and in the project’s\ndatabase and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement\nwith the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs\nand improvements in institutional capacity. No contracts involving international competition are\nenvisaged for the first 18 months.\n\n112. At local government level, the PDU will prepare a procurement plan on condition that the\nplanned procurement is in line with the local government plans. The Procurement plan will be\ncleared by the Local Government Contracts Committee.\n\n113. At community level, procurement plans will be prepared using a simple format indicated\nin the Community Procurement Handbook, and submitted as part of the documentation for the\nsubproject proposal, and updated by the CPC upon approval of the subproject prior to the\ndisbursement of funds.\n\n\n**Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition**\n\n**(A) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and Direct Contracting:** _**None**_\n**B. Selection of Consultants**\n\n**1. Short list comprising entirely of national consultants** : Short list of consultants for services,\nestimated to cost less than $200,000 equivalent per contract, may comprise entirely of national\nconsultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.\n\n\n33 All Terms of Reference regardless of cost will be subject to clearance by the Bank.\n34 A shortlist of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$ 300,000 equivalent per contract may consist\nentirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.\n\n\n82\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 93
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**2. Consultancy Assignments with Selection Methods and Time Schedule**\n\n\n\n\n\n|1|2|4|5|6|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|**Ref.**
**No.**
|**Description of Assignment**
|**Selection**
**Method**|**Review by**
**Bank (Prior**
**/ Post)**|**Expected**
**Proposals**
**Submission Date**|\n|1|Director|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|2|Program Operations Specialist|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|3|Finance Management Specialist|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|4|Environment / Safeguards Specialist|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|5|Development Communication Specialist|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|6|M&E Officer|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|7|ICT Officer|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|8|Accountant|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n|9|Procurement Officer|SSS|Prior|August 2015|\n\n\nAgreed Action Plan\n\nThe mission held a meeting with the OPM team to discuss the Procurement Capacity Assessment\nreport, and consequently agreed on the following Action Plan to mitigate the overall risk as\nindicated in the matrix below:\n\n**Action Plan to Mitigate the Procurement Risks**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nProcurement Specialist for supporting/capacity building at Community level.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Risk|Action|Completion
Date|Responsible
Entity|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|Limited experience
of OPM staff in IDA
financed
procurement
management and
inadequate number
of staff to manage
workload under
NUSAF 3 and
inadequate
procurement
capacity of
communities|Recruit a Procurement Specialist
with ToR acceptable to IDA to
provide hands-on coaching and
mentoring of PDU staff, and and
capacity building for community
procurement at community level|By 6 months
after
Effectiveness|OPM|\n|Inadequate number
of Technical Staff to
handle 3 work load|recruit staff under Technical
Support Unit to augment OPM
technical staff in implementing
NUSAF 3|By 6 months
after
Effectiveness|OPM|\n\n\n83\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 94
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Inadequate seating
arrangement for
PDU with PDU
sharing office space
with other staff|OPM shall partition off space for
the PDU to ensure integrity of the
procurement records|By six months
after
Effectiveness|OPM|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|Inadequate record
keeping due to
incomplete records,|PDU will update/ensure
completeness of procurement files
particularly to include contract
management records, and
contracts committee minutes
|By six months
after
Effectiveness||\n|Clarity on
roles/coordination
between user
departments and
PDU as well as
between OPM and
LGs and
communities|• Prepare Procurement section
to include in Project
Operations Manual to clarify
IDA procedures and to be
circulated
• Prepare and disseminate to
communities simple versions
of documents for communities|Prior to
Effectiveness|OPM|\n\n\n\n**Environmental and Social (including safeguards)**\n\n\n114. The proposed NUSAF 3 would facilitate and strengthen the engagement of communities\nin the proper and sensitive targeting of vulnerable households that are at the greatest risk of food\ninsecurity and hunger. The mobilization process would address existing social cleavages in the\ncommunity, through a vulnerability-based approach that would underpin the planning and decision\nmaking at community level. Furthermore, communities would participate in the planning,\nimplementation and oversight of the interventions under the Labor Intensive Public Works.\nEffective communication would underpin the community engagement process. Clearly defined\nand communicated project processes, roles and responsibilities, transparency and accountability\narrangements, including an accessible and responsive grievance redress mechanism, would\nsupport smooth project implementation.\n\n115. Given the nature and limited scale of the proposed Project, the environmental assessment\ncategory for this project is assigned to be category B-partial assessment. World Bank safeguard\npolicies triggered are Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Pest Management (OP 4.09), and\nPhysical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12).\n\n116. An ESMF has been prepared, consulted upon and disclosed both in-country and at\nInfoShop on April 14, 2015 before project appraisal. The ESMF provides a step-by-step process\nof identifying, assessing, developing management plans, monitoring and reporting likely\nenvironmental and social impacts of the project. Since some of the project activities expected to\nlead to livelihood improvement could ultimately result in the increased use of chemicals and\nfertilizers, and subsequent environmental health and safety risks, the project prepared a Pest\nManagement Plan (PMP) as part of the ESMF. The PMP will provide guidance on procurement,\ntransportation, storage, handling and use of pesticides, including disposal of used pesticides\ncontainers. District and sub-county extension staff (agricultural and veterinary officers/assistants)\nwill train farmers on appropriate use, storage and disposal of pesticides. In addition, Physical\nCultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 was as the civil works involved in the Labor Intensive Public\n\n\n84\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 95
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "Works component may impact on known and/or unknown PCRs and therefore a Chance Finds\nProcedure has been developed as part of the ESMF.\n\n117. Components 1 & 2 may generate among others the following environmental and social\nimpacts: **Health and safety issues:** The civil works and use of pesticides will pose health and\nsafety issues. These shall be addressed first and foremost by providing and ensuring use of\nappropriate PPE. In addition, workers and farmers shall be sensitized and/or trained on the\nimportance and use of PPE in civil works and use of pesticides; **Vegetation clearance and soil**\n**erosion** : The likely environmental and social impacts of community access roads rehabilitation\nare expected to be minor given the low mechanized road works that will be involved. Where loses\nof vegetation are inevitable, compensation measures shall be instituted as per approved\ngovernment rates and as outlined in the RPF for NUSAF 3; **Impacts on PCRs** - There may be\ngraves or other physical cultural resources along proposed community access routes. The\nsubsequent environmental and social assessments should take into account specific measures to\naddress mitigations for such resources during project implementation. As for this ESMF, it is\nproposed that the design stages should propose alignments that avoid graveyards. In addition,\nmeasures outlined in the Chance Finds Procedures should be operationalized as well; **Waste**\n**Management** - One critical issue observed during NUSAF 2 was waste management especially\nhazardous waste. The NUSAF 3 Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been prepared to address\nwaste management issues associated with the NUSAF3 project in line with legal and regulatory\nrequirements as detailed in Annex 5 of the ESMF\n\n118. Because of the likely limited scale land acquisition and impact on the livelihood of\ncommunities, Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 is triggered. Since the multiple subprojects\nare not yet known including their location, a Resettlement Policy Framework has been prepared in\na consultative manner, and disclosed both in-country and at InfoShop on April 14, 2015. The RPF\nread together with the POM give guidance on the preparation and implementation of the\nResettlement Action Plans resulting from any subprojects and activities triggering OP 4.12\nInvoluntary Resettlement. Given the participatory approach to the selection of activities and their\nsmall-scale nature, there would be no large scale, significant and irreversible adverse impacts.\n\n119. The envisaged interventions of the proposed Project would likely generate potential\npositive benefits for local communities in and around the project area, through creating\nemployment opportunities and generating income to support their livelihoods. Activities under the\nPublic Works component would respond to the urgent economic infrastructure needs of the\ncommunities that would offer them opportunities for wage incomes and contribute to improve their\nliving standards. These activities would generate both positive and negative environmental and\nsocial impacts.\n\n120. Overall, the NUSAF 3 project will draw on key success factors, challenges and lessons\nlearned from the current NUSAF- 2 project. Most critical will be, identifying local specific social\nissues and their link to poverty as well as addressing poverty through improved targeting and\ninclusion mechanisms that ensure access and input of marginalized groups including the poorest\nof the poor within the communities. Addressing bottlenecks to participation in mainstream\nconsultation processes and using pro poor alternatives for inclusion in such processes will be\nadopted. NUSAF 3 will prioritize approaches that ensure deliberate identification and inclusion of\nthose community members that have not benefited for one reason or another, from any project\nsupport before, including previous NUSAF projects.\n\n\n85\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 96
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "121. Participatory poverty and vulnerability analysis at community level will facilitate access\nof the poorest segments of the community to project benefits including the opportunity to\nparticipate in stakeholder engagement meetings as well as in identification of livelihood options\nfor the lowest quartile of the poor. Potential challenges among the poorest of the poor to participate\nand implement various community projects, will be determined upfront and addressed with\naffirmative actions. Some of the key factors that will inform pro poor targeting will include\nindividual/community history of benefits from other projects including previous NUSAF projects,\npertaining economic and social status due to gender barriers/differentials including powerlessness\nin decision making, limited or no access and control over resources at household and community\nlevels, disability (both physical, due to age/illness and low literacy), disparities in access and\ncontrol over productive resources particularly land and farm inputs, persistent cultural barriers that\nimpede particularly women/young people’s engagement in key development initiatives,\nmarginalization of individuals and households due to HIV/AIDS and other health related\ndisabilities, inability to read or write among other factors. The poor and marginalized will be\nensured a voice.\n\n122. Primarily, the NUSAF 3 project will adopt improved approaches to ensuring gender\nresponsiveness across all components as well as inclusive targeting of project beneficiaries to\nensure that the poorest of the poor are reached through community driven participatory processes.\nA gender analysis (with a focus on both men and women), will inform gender responsive priorities\nfor NUSAF 3. Strategies will include participatory identification of community based resource\npersons and mentors to facilitate identification, support and protection of the rights of the poor.\nInvestment options for the poor will take into account the main challenges under NUSAF 2\nincluding limited access to production resources including land, low capacity of some\nindividuals/groups to sustain quality management of their enterprises, poor record keeping and\nlimited access to extension services among others. The project will advance the requisite success\nfactors identified under NUSAF 2 required for each investment/enterprise to break even. Guidance\nthat takes into account considerations for inclusion will be provided by the project to all districts.\n\n123. NUSAF 3 will build on existing community institutions including self-help groups formed\naround a common interest. The project will address capacity needs for group leadership, cohesion,\nrecord keeping, accountability and transparency, savings and nay others identified. Such groups\nwill be beneficiaries of the proposed revolving fund to boost their savings and investments. The\npoorer members of the community will participate in the Labor Intensive Public Works and be\nencouraged to join existing savings groups or form new savings groups where they can benefit\nfrom training and livelihood support. A partnership framework will be essential at various levels\nto ensure that support to such groups and communities is better coordinated and monitored.\n\n124. The OPM implementing agency has adequate safeguards capacity to undertake\nenvironmental and social tasks of NUSAF 3 project through the PST that includes among other\npersonnel the Environmental and Social management Specialist. At District level, the respective\nDistrict Environment Officers, Community Development Officers and NUSAF 2 Coordinators\nhave been central in implementation of environmental and social aspects of NUSAF 2 and this\narrangement is expected to continue into NUSAF 3. Where appropriate PST will have to continue\nto undertake refresher courses of all the relevant LG staff (Planners, Community Development\nOfficers, Environmental Officers) in all the NUSAF3 Districts LGs.\n\n125. In addition, the Districts will be supported to transmit the environment and social issues\nincluding safeguards knowledge and skills to lower level LGs especially the Sub-county\n\n\n86\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 97
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "corresponding staff. The CAO will ensure that the positions of the Community Development\nOfficers (CDOs) and Community Development Assistants (CDAs) are filled as well as those of\nParish Chiefs to ensure that the needed critical mass of community resource facilitators is in place\nto support community dialogue, mobilization, and implementation and follow up. A pool of\ncommunity resource persons at village level will be trained and supported to have close interaction\nwith communities and established groups of the poorest of the poor.\n\n\n**Summary of World Bank Safeguard Policies analysis in relation to NUSAF3**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|OP
No.|Summary of Safeguard
Policy|Safeguard
Policy
Triggered/Not
Triggered|Remarks|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|**OP**
**4.01**|**Environmental Assessment:**
The Bank requires
environmental assessment
(EA) of projects proposed for
Bank financing to help ensure
that they are environmentally
sound and sustainable, and
thus to improve decision
making. Projects are screened
to determine the appropriate
extent and type of EA. The
Bank classifies the proposed
project into one of four
categories, depending on the
type, location, sensitivity, and
scale of the project and the
nature and magnitude of its
potential environmental
impacts.|
√
|Because of the public works and
livelihoods support projects there
are likely negative environmental
and social impacts to be generated,
though localized and readily
manageable. The details including
the locations of the sub-components
activities of projects are not known,
a framework for conducting
Environmental Assessments on such
activities has been provided in this
ESMF. The ESMF has been
prepared in a consultative manner,
and has been disclosed both in-
country and at info-shop before
project appraisal. Specific safeguard
instruments (ESIA, ESMPs) shall be
prepared during project
implementation following guidance
in the ESMF.
The project is under Environmental
Assessment Category B because the
likely impacts are anticipated to be
of small-scale, localized, of short-
term in nature and can easily be
mitigated and managed.
|\n||**Natural Habitat:**The Bank
supports the protection,
maintenance, and
rehabilitation of natural
habitats and their functions.
The conservation of natural|** X**|The project shall not support any
activities that affect natural habitats.|\n\n\n\n87\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 98
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|OP
No.|Summary of Safeguard
Policy|Safeguard
Policy
Triggered/Not
Triggered|Remarks|\n|---|---|---|---|\n||habitats is essential for long
term sustainable development.|||\n|**OP**
**4.09**|**Pest Management:**The
objective of this policy is to
promote the use of biological
or environmental control
methods and reduce reliance
on synthetic chemical
pesticides. In Bank-financed
agricultural operations, pest
populations are normally
controlled through Integrated
Pest Management (IPM)
approaches. In Bank-financed
public health projects, the
Bank supports controlling
pests primarily through
environmental methods. The
policy further ensures that
health and environmental
hazards associated with
pesticides are minimized.
The procurement of pesticides
in a Bank-financed project is
contingent on an assessment
of the nature and degree of
associated risk, taking into
account the proposed use and
the intended user.|
√
|Under project Component 2
Livelihoods Support, the project
may support CDDs that involve
small scale use of pesticides that
may be applied to veterinary care of
animals.
A Pest Management Plan (PMP) has
been developed as part of the
ESMF. A guiding note on safe
procurement, transportation, storage
and use/application of pesticides and
disposal of contaminated containers
shall be included in the project
operational manual.|\n|**OP**
**4.10**|**Indigenous peoples:**These
are defined to be a distinct,
vulnerable, social and cultural
group possessing a number of
characteristics including
collective attachment to
geographically distinct
habitats or ancestral territories
in the project area and to the
natural resources in these
habitats and territories.|
**X**
|OP/BP 4.10 is not triggered because
there are no Indigenous Peoples in
the project area. However, the
project is focusing on the North,
North-East and Eastern regions of
Uganda where there is
overwhelming majority of
vulnerable and marginalized
populations. The elements of
vulnerable/marginalized people will
be included in the overall project
design, and therefore a separate V-|\n\n\n88\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 99
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|OP
No.|Summary of Safeguard
Policy|Safeguard
Policy
Triggered/Not
Triggered|Remarks|\n|---|---|---|---|\n||||M/ IPPF is not required. For this
reason, the project will pay careful
attention to ensuring that these
groups are extensively consulted and
their needs specifically addressed.|\n|**OP**
**4.11**|**OP 4.11 Physical Cultural**
**Properties:**This policy
addresses physical cultural
resources, which are defined
as movable or immovable
objects, sites, structures,
groups of structures, and
natural features and
landscapes that have
archaeological,
paleontological, historical,
architectural, religious,
aesthetic, or other cultural
significance.
The Bank supports the
preservation of cultural
properties which includes
sites with archaeological,
paleontological, historical,
religious or unique natural
values. It seeks to avoid
impacts on such sites.|
√
|Component 1 involves public works
which will focus on a variety of
asset creation activities, including
rural access roads, tree nurseries,
afforestation, construction of
different soil and water conservation
measures, and flood control
structures, rainwater harvesting,
rehabilitation and construction of
market shelters, rural health
facilities, and schools, among
others.
Though the level of impacts on
PCRs cannot be ascertained with
certainty at this stage, a Chance
Finds Procedure has been outlined
in the Annex 8 of this ESMF for
management of accidental
encounters with PCRs.|\n|**OP**
**4.12**|**Involuntary Resettlement:**
This policy includes
safeguards to address and
mitigate these risks and
recommends involuntary
resettlement instruments
which include a resettlement
plan, a resettlement policy
framework and a resettlement
process framework.|
√
|Though this is likely to be a small
scale impact, a Resettlement Policy
Framework has been prepared for
NUSAF 3 and disclosed both in-
country and at the InfoShop
alongside the ESMF which defines
measures and modalities of handling
resettlement challenges in the
project.|\n|**OP**
**4.36**|**Forests:**The objective of this
policy is to assist borrowers to
harness the potential of
forests to reduce poverty in a|
**X**
|The policy is not triggered because
NUSAF-3 supported activities will
not have any direct impacts on the
health and quality of forests, or on|\n\n\n89\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 100
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|OP
No.|Summary of Safeguard
Policy|Safeguard
Policy
Triggered/Not
Triggered|Remarks|\n|---|---|---|---|\n||sustainable manner, integrate
forests effectively into
sustainable economic
development, and protect the
vital local and global
environmental services and
values of forests.||the health and safety of people who
depend on forests. There is no
intention to change the management,
protection, or utilization of forests.|\n|**OP**
**4.37**|**Safety of Dams:**The Bank
distinguishes between small
and large dams where large
dams are 15 m or more in
height. Dams that are between
10 and 15 m in height are
treated as large dams if they
present special design
complexities. Dams less than
10 m in height are treated as
large dams if they are
expected to become large
dams during the operation of
the facility. Such large dams
require amongst others, that
preparation and
implementation of detailed
plans ensure safety aspects.
The ESIA is one of the tools
that can therefore formulate
some of the safety aspects in
large dams.|
**X**
|
The project involves the
construction of flood control
structures and ponds for rain water
harvesting, but thesedo not pose dam
safety risks. However, the construction
of these works will be guided by the
Small Dam Guidelines prepared for
Uganda and the FAO Manual on
small Earth Dams. The project is not
supporting the construction of dams.|\n|**OP**
**7.50**|**Projects on International**
**Waterways:** This policy
applies to the following types
of international waterways:
(a) any river, canal, lake, or
similar body of water that
forms a boundary between, or
any river or body of surface
water that flows through, two
or more states, whether Bank
members or not; and (b) Any
tributary or other body of
surface water that is a|**X**
|The Projects on International Waters
(OP 7.50) policy is not triggered.
The project will not be implemented
on international waters.|\n\n\n90\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 101
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|OP
No.|Summary of Safeguard
Policy|Safeguard
Policy
Triggered/Not
Triggered|Remarks|\n|---|---|---|---|\n||component of any waterway
described in (a) above.|||\n|**OP**
**7.60**|**Projects in Disputed Areas**:
Projects in disputed areas may
raise a number of delicate
problems affecting relations
not only between the Bank
and its member countries.|**X**|NUSAF 3 project activities will not
be undertaken in disputed areas.|\n\n\n\n**Monitoring & Evaluation**\n\n\n126. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in the project will draw upon lessons from the previous\noperation to have in place more robust and simplified tools that better track progress and capture\nresults over the lifetime of the project. NUSAF2 has been a source of learning by doing on M&E\nboth at OPM as well as within local government structures. Key lessons learned from NUSAF2\non M&E show that: (i) the fundamental complexities of M&E coordination involving different\nplayers with varying capacities and levels of commitment, particularly within structures below\ndistrict level, can be challenging and requires sustained capacity building and greater clarity in the\nroles and responsibilities of front-line implementers; (ii) the timeliness in availability of\noperational funds is also critical to maintaining regular data collection schedules and building a\nstronger evidence base on project data; and (iii) responsibility for reporting should be clearly\ndefined with a focus on timelines, quality and reliability to enable project management to make\nevidence-based decisions.\n\n127. Although there has been significant investment in monitoring under NUSAF2 and a lot of\ninformation is collected, there remain weaknesses in the analysis and use of information by\nrelevant units. These weaknesses highlight a need to: review the amount of information collected\nand ensure that it is limited to only that information which is necessary and can be used; improve\nthe transmission and analysis of information; involve information users in the design of these\nsystems; and move towards more decentralized decision making whereby information is used at\nthe point data is collected to take corrective measures before being shared with higher structures.\nIn NUSAF3, there needs to be better use of knowledge and data at the different levels and by\ndifferent stakeholders. To this end, the Operations Manual will provide further details and the\nM&E strategy will develop custom reports that are tailored specifically to the needs and functions\nof decision makers at the various levels (i.e. central, district. sub-county, parish).\n\n128. The project will actively seek to improve upon processes and institutional arrangements\nfor better M&E in this successor operation. The design will shift the responsibility for monitoring\nand data collection to the parish level structures [35] that are closer to the community. [36] At the sub\n\n35 Staff at the Parish level typically includes the Parish Chief, who is supported by a volunteer Parish Development Committee\n(PDC). At present, there are close to 4134 parishes in all of Uganda (MoLG) with xx parishes across Northern Uganda\n36 This is also very much in line with MoLG recommendations in the National Local Government Capacity Building Policy\n(NLGCBP) document which advocates to...” _enhance the knowledge and skills of community level structures like the parish_\n_development committees and ensure that capacity building adequately benefits parish chiefs and PDCs..”._\n\n\n91\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 102
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "county level, the Community Development Officer (CDO) will serve as the focal point and also\nas a bridge to the parish structures on coordination of monitoring. Under NUSAF2, parish\nstructures, particularly parish chiefs who are salaried government staff, were not formally tasked\nwith collecting data and EPRA facilitators often ended up being leveraged for data collection under\nsomewhat unclear terms of reference since the MoLG structures (especially on the preferred data\nflow loop from CWCs, CDO, and District Planner to NDO) which was part of the original design\ndid not work as expected. MoLG supports this proposed mobilization and it is expected that this\nwill also invariably result in the revitalization of parish structures over time. Such an approach\nwould be aligned with the government’s larger mainstreaming objectives while at the same time\naddressing some of the gaps in M&E that were created in the earlier project. Given this operational\nshift and the associated learning curve for new staff, the project will actively invest in intensive\ntraining and capacity building early on for parish level structures and higher level staff to sensitize\nthem to their expected roles and responsibilities and also create stronger ownership and interest\namong implementers so that the quality of results tracking is strengthened over time. The NDOs\n(NUSAF Desk Officers), who have acquired more capacity under NUSAF2 and become a\nrelatively strong cohort of coordinators/implementers at the district level, will continue to be\nintegral to M&E and day-to-day coordination and periodic reporting for the project. In NUSAF3,\nlinkages between the NDO and District Planner need to be stronger and routine data from NUSAF3\nshould be fed to the District Planning unit to facilitate data analysis and periodic reporting. EPRA\nfacilitators when employed for data collection will operate with clearer terms of reference to\nremedy some of the issues encountered in the earlier project. Given there were challenges with\ndata collection on TAAC in NUSAF2, much of the positive feedback on the rollout of TAAC is\nanecdotal and not evidence based. Monitoring in the successor program will be enhanced by the\nuse of a simplified information and data collection tool linked to systems for aggregating the\ninformation to allow periodic updates of performance against project indicators. Community\nMonitoring Groups (CMGs) in the TAAC component should be empowered and given more\nfocused training and capacity building in light of their broader mandate (relative to the SAC\nstructure under NUSAF2) to monitor all government projects at the community level, including\nthis project.\n\n129. Data collection and reporting should also be better aligned with targeting priorities of the\nproject, particularly focused on women, youth, disabled and other vulnerable categories. Similarly,\nin the case of Karamoja, methodologies and approaches will need to take into account the specific\nsituational context and align with unique design needs to devise simplified monitoring\nmechanisms. The TST will endeavor to actively engage with stakeholders at the district and lower\nlocal government levels (sub-county, parish, and village) through some form of annual M&E\nlearning and knowledge sharing event. The idea is to bring together M&E front-line implementers\nfrom the sub-regions and set up an active feedback loop to help better inform program monitoring\nand improve overall results tracking in the project.\n\n130. A Management information system (MIS) will be developed with a modular approach to\nsupport program management with decentralized read and write access. This will allow district\nimplementers to enter information into the system and to generate reports to inform their own\ndecision making. The development of the monitoring system and management information system\nwill involve core implementers to ensure that systems meet their needs. A key concept for the MIS\nunder the successor program is that the MIS is a tool for those involved in program operations\n(whether based in Kampala, a NUSAF District Officer or Sub-county (Community Development\nOfficer). The role of IT staff is to support and maintain the database, provide technical support to\n\n\n92\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF2",
+ "confidence": 0.8773770332336426,
+ "start": 31,
+ "end": 32
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "parish\nstructures",
+ "confidence": 0.6136962175369263,
+ "start": 33,
+ "end": 35
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "MoLG",
+ "confidence": 0.7608913779258728,
+ "start": 71,
+ "end": 72
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF2",
+ "confidence": 0.5320858955383301,
+ "start": 243,
+ "end": 244
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "TAAC",
+ "confidence": 0.6239455342292786,
+ "start": 347,
+ "end": 348
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "TAAC",
+ "confidence": 0.517834484577179,
+ "start": 360,
+ "end": 361
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Management information system",
+ "confidence": 0.8705542087554932,
+ "start": 596,
+ "end": 599
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "MIS",
+ "confidence": 0.5690898895263672,
+ "start": 600,
+ "end": 601
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "district\nimplementers",
+ "confidence": 0.5823615193367004,
+ "start": 623,
+ "end": 625
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "MIS",
+ "confidence": 0.5330482125282288,
+ "start": 600,
+ "end": 601
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 103
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "front line users and to further develop automated reporting at the request of operational staff. The\nMIS will be developed by an external vendor. The proposed MIS would also communicate with\nkey systems such as the Integrated Financial Management System/IFMS and the NUSAF2\ndatabase at the Northern Uganda Data Center (NUDC), and also have the ability to share data on\ntargeting with other large-scale safety net programs currently under operation.\n\n131. Special studies and surveys relevant to the different components are being envisaged.\nBesides data from routine project monitoring drawing upon information in periodic reports from\nthe districts as well as data from the MIS, the project also plans to commission stand-alone studies.\nThere is also clear interest from the government in embedding an impact evaluation (IE) in this\nproject. More recently, Uganda has actively sought to build capacity for evaluating its own\nprojects, programs and policies and mainstreaming impact evaluations within government\ninitiatives. To this end, an impact evaluation examining the impact on beneficiaries of the LIPW\nand LIS program is planned with a baseline and follow-up envisaged to assess potential impacts\nof this program on participating households.\n\n132. On labor intensive public works, an annual review will be undertaken on a sample of the\nprojects. These studies will establish a baseline and provide other information required to measure\nthe overall progress and impact of the LIPW component. The LIPW review will be carried out\ntwice a year. The first review will focus on the planning process and assess the extent to which a\nparticipatory community-based watershed development approach has been applied with\nsubprojects screened for the ESMF. The second review will examine various aspects of LIPW\nimplementation and assess the extent to which LIPW subprojects implementation takes into\naccount gender sensitivity, meets satisfactory standards, includes proper O&M mechanisms, and\nfollows the mitigation measures identified in the ESMF screening process. The project also plans\nto have third party monitoring of the LIPW component to track payments, their accuracy and\ntimeliness and other key program parameters. This approach would also encourage strong citizen\nengagement, particularly in the targeting of beneficiaries and planning of public works, in order to\nensure transparency and accountability in program delivery at local levels.\n\n133. On the disaster risk financing subcomponent under LIPW, a study on assessing the welfare\nimpact of the DRF component is planned. The welfare impacts of the scalability component can\nbe measured through an analysis of the impacts of the program on household welfare indicators.\n\n134. On the Livelihood and Investment Support component, beneficiary assessment studies\nwould be carried out twice (prior to mid-term and project closing) across selected districts to assess\nefficacy of the LIS component using approaches such as focus group interviews and other\nparticipatory qualitative techniques.\n\n135. On the TAAC component, social accountability tools will be introduced to strengthen\ncitizens’ engagement through demand-side governance and facilitate information gathering on\nbeneficiary perceptions and track useful information on citizens’ perspectives to inform decision\nmaking. The tools will provide citizens who are end-users of services with the means to participate\nin the identification, assessment and monitoring, planning, delivery and quality of the services. A\ncommunity score card exercise will be undertaken enabling communities to provide formal\nfeedback on overall project governance including the fairness of targeting and redress mechanism,\ntimeliness, efficiency and accuracy of transfer mechanisms, and feedback on the planning,\nimplementation and the supervision process for labor intensive public works, and livelihoods under\nthe project. The proposed project will also explore the adoption of two other social accountability\n\n\n93\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "NUSAF2\ndatabase",
+ "confidence": 0.6720271110534668,
+ "start": 46,
+ "end": 48
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.7756949067115784,
+ "start": 51,
+ "end": 52
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "LIPW",
+ "confidence": 0.5314798951148987,
+ "start": 250,
+ "end": 251
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "household welfare indicators",
+ "confidence": 0.9704079627990723,
+ "start": 450,
+ "end": 453
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "selected districts",
+ "confidence": 0.628305196762085,
+ "start": 481,
+ "end": 483
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "beneficiary assessment studies",
+ "confidence": 0.7216257452964783,
+ "start": 464,
+ "end": 467
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "selected districts",
+ "confidence": 0.72081059217453,
+ "start": 481,
+ "end": 483
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "community score card exercise",
+ "confidence": 0.6084067821502686,
+ "start": 577,
+ "end": 581
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "communities",
+ "confidence": 0.6123433709144592,
+ "start": 585,
+ "end": 586
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "social accountability\n\n\n93",
+ "confidence": 0.5136134624481201,
+ "start": 646,
+ "end": 649
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 104
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "tools during implementation based on a study tour for the implementers led by the IG to at least\none country setting where social accountability tools are being successfully applied.\n\n136. Overall project monitoring at each stage would identify any problems that might arise\nduring the project cycle and would make it possible to promptly adopt solutions. The World Bank\nteam would also conduct regular supervision missions and assess compliance with the\nimplementation guidelines (as outlined in the OM), including adherence to financial management\nand procurement procedures and compliance with social and environmental safeguards. A timely\nmidterm review (MTR) would also provide a comprehensive assessment of the proposed project’s\nachievements toward the PDO and the effectiveness of its implementation arrangements while\nproviding a platform for any strategic decisions and realignment that may be necessary.\n\n137. Annex Table 3.1 summarizes the key M&E reports expected to be produced during the\nproject:\n\n\n94\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 105
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex Table 3. 1: NUSAF 3 M&E Reports**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Types of
reports|Information provided|Frequency|Examples of
indicators|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|**Monitoring**
**Reports**|• Regular collection of information at output and
activity level, including regular financial reports
(IFRs).|• Monthly from
parish to
district level;
• Quarterly to
OPM/TST37|• No. of beneficiaries
• No. of public works
completed|\n|**Annual**
**Assessments**
|• _LIPW Review (Planning)_ to assess the adequacy
of Annual LIPW plans (ALP)
• _LIPW Review (Implementation)_ to review the
quality and sustainability of LIPW projects
• _Grievance Redress Mechanism Review_ to assess
the functioning of the appeals and complaints
system
• _Independent Procurement Assessment_to review
procurement processes at community level|• Annual
• Annual
• Annual
• As needed|• Percentage of ALPs
planned & impl.
consistent with
national
• LIPW guideline
• Proportion of
public works
subprojects meeting
technical standards
• Percentage of
grievances
registered that are
resolved|\n|**Audits**
|• _Financial Audit_ includes an audit of accounts;
systems audit; and review of transactions to
beneficiaries to ensure that funds were used for
purposes intended.
• _Third Party Monitoring under LIPW_ to track
payments/accuracy and timeliness/other key
program parameters
|• Quarterly
rolling, annual
• Annual|• Percent of
households
receiving full
payment
• Timeliness of
payments|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _Value Chain studies_for Livelihoods component
|• Twice|• info on those
preferred activities
with better income
gen. potential|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _Livelihoods and Pricing studies_ to
inform/recalibrate design and implementation
|• Twice
|• Twice
|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _LIS Process Review_to make course corrections
and strengthen overall implementation
|• Twice
|
|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _LIPW and LIS Impact Evaluations_to assess
outcomes and impacts on these programs
|• Twice
|• Info. on efficacy of
Targeting/trends in
consumption/
change in incomes
|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _Study assessing the Welfare Impact of DRF_
_component_ involving ananalysis of the impacts
of the program on household welfare indicators
|• Once
|• Percentage
decrease in
likelihood of falling
into poverty during
drought due to the
scalability
component
|\n|**Special**
**Studies/**
**Evaluations**
|• _Community Score Card exercise_enabling
communities to provide formal feedback on
overall project governance|• Twice|• Citizens’
expressing
satisfaction with the
program
(NUSAF3)|\n\n\n\n37 Where possible, the analysis and transmission of much of this information will be mainstreamed within the MIS\n\n\n95\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 106
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 4: Implementation Support Plan**\n\n**UGANDA: The Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3)**\n\n\n**Strategy and Approach for Implementation Support**\n\n1. The Implementation Support for the proposed project is based on lessons learned from the\nimplementation of past and ongoing projects in Uganda, including NUSAF 1 and NUSAF 2, and\nother countries as well as on the proposed project’s specific design, complexity, challenges and\nrisks. The project supervision team aims at ensuring an effective and timely implementation of the\nmitigation measures designed to ensure inclusion and mitigate conflict at community level during\nimplementation and to deter the chances of corruption and fraud and ensure the achievement of\nthe project’s development objective.\n\n\n**Implementation Support Plan**\n\n2. The team is aware of the implementation risks faced and consequently of the need for\nenhanced supervision and would work to ensure adequate staffing for proper implementation\nsupport. In addition to ensuring the proper implementation of the project as designed, the\nImplementation Support Plan (ISP) would also focus on building the capacity of the client.\n\n3. Team composition: The main implementation support team would consist of World Bank\nstaff and consultants based in the field and Washington DC office. The team would be composed\nof one field-based Task Team Leader (TTL), country based staff (procurement, financial\nmanagement, environmental and social safeguards, communication and team assistant), regional\noffices based staff (public works and social protection) and Washington based staff (social\nprotection, M&E, risk financing,). The team members would be responsible for the\nimplementation support of project specific activities in their areas of expertise.\n\n4. Frequency of implementation support: In addition to a regular monitoring of project\nimplementation progress by field based staff, there would be at least two annual formal full\nsupervision missions per year during which project sites would be visited. Country based staff and\nconsultants would conduct field visits to project sites as frequently as needed. The supervision task\nteam would develop, together with the client, lists of actions required to ensure a good\nimplementation of the project’s activities, with a particular focus on the governance, fiduciary and\nsafeguards issues and participation of stakeholders.\n\n5. The project implementation plan would include a robust communication campaign to\nensure that there is widespread understanding of the project, its objectives, the target group it hopes\nto reach, and the criteria and procedures for participation.\n\n6. Implementation support budget. To ensure a strong and continuous implementation support\neffort, especially during the first two full years of implementation, a minimum of US$150,000 per\nyear supervision budget would be required to cover World Bank staff, consultants and travel\nexpenses.\n\n\n96\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Implementation Support Plan",
+ "confidence": 0.9095110893249512,
+ "start": 5,
+ "end": 8
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "UGANDA",
+ "confidence": 0.7915763854980469,
+ "start": 12,
+ "end": 13
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Implementation Support Plan",
+ "confidence": 0.9096658229827881,
+ "start": 191,
+ "end": 194
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Implementation support budget",
+ "confidence": 0.6932315826416016,
+ "start": 467,
+ "end": 470
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 107
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "_What would be the main focus in terms of support to implementation during:_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Time|Focus|Skills Needed|Resource
Estimate|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|_First twelve_
_months_
|Establishing essential systems
for the project including
-Recruitment of TST
- Capacity building for system
development,
- Capacity building in
procurement, financial
management, and safeguards
- Establishment of bank
accounts, FM, MIS and M&E
systems
- Information campaign
-Roll out the project
implementation to selected
regions
|Core technical expertise on:
- Procurement
- Financial Management
- Environmental and Social
Safeguards
-Monitoring and evaluation
- Management information
systems and registry of
beneficiaries
- Institutional capacity
building
-Grievances redress systems.
- Skills development and
livelihoods
|
_US$150,000_
|\n|_Other_
|
|||\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Skills Mix Required Skills Needed|Number of Staff Weeks|Number of Trips|Comments|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|
**_Skills Needed_**
|**_Number of Staff Weeks_**
|**_Number of Trips_**
|**_Comments_**
|\n|
_Task Team Leader_
|
_12_
|
_ NA_
|
_Based in the country_
|\n|
_Social Protection_
_Specialist_
|
_8 _
|
_2 _
|
_Based in the_
_headquarters_
|\n|
_Procurement Specialist_
|_6 _
|_NA_
|
_Based in the country_
|\n|
_Financial Management_
_Specialist_
|
_6 _
|
_NA_
|
_Based in the country_
|\n|
_Environmental_
_Specialist_
|_6 _
|_NA_
|_Based in the country_
|\n|
_Social Specialist_
|_6 _
|_NA_
|_Based in the country_
|\n|
_Skills Development_
_Specialist_
|
_6 _
|
_2 _
|
_Based in headquarters_
|\n|
_Public Works Specialist_
|_6 _
|_2 _
|_Based in region_
|\n|
_Monitoring and_
_Evaluation Specialist_
|
_6 _
|
_2 _
|
_Based in headquarters_
|\n|
_Consultant (targeting)_
|_6 _
|_1 _
|_Based in headquarters_
|\n|
_Consultant (MIS)_
|
_6 _
|
_1 _
|
_Based in headquarters_
|\n|
_Team Assistant_
|
_6 _
|
_- _
|
_Based in headquarters_
|\n|
_Team Assistant_|
_6 _|
_NA_|
_Based in the field_|\n\n\n\n97\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 108
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 5: Key Lessons from the TAAC Sub-component under NUSAF 2**\n\n**UGANDA: The Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3)**\n\n1. This note summarizes some of the key lessons learned during implementation of the\nTransparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption (TAAC) sub-component under NUSAF2. The\nlessons are based on anecdotal evidence generated from project progress reports, field visit reports\nand focus group discussions during the districts and village level interactions with implementers.\nAreas covered include overall design of the component; partnerships; Implementation arrangement\nand coordination; community level participation; monitoring, documentation and reporting; and\nfunding and funds flows.\n\n\n**Overall design**\n\n2. The intervention took a bottom up approach which promotes participation of ordinary\ncitizens in monitoring and reporting issues that affect their own communities. In addition, a key\ndesign approach was community empowerment through social accountability and community\nmonitoring, training and awareness creation using localized materials. Community Monitoring\nGroups (CMG) training provides basic understanding of key concepts in social accountability and\ncommunity monitoring. It also highlights the cost of corruption on communities while making a\nclear linkage between corruptions at any level to the individual households of community\nmembers. This gives communities reasons to take action. Experience working with communities\nreveal that households are not motivated to take action because they do not understand their roles\n/ rights as beneficiaries and that they are actually contributors to government revenue and that\ncorruption at any level directly or indirectly affect their households.\n\n\n**Inspectorate of Government Partnership with Civil Society Organization (CSOs).**\n\n3. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the IG partnership with other specialized agency proved\nto be an effective way of enhancing accountability in government service delivery. CSOs are\nhighly regarded in the communities given their pro poor approach and level of transparency. Yet\ntheir partnership with government when positive, promote enhancement of community trust in the\nplans and outcomes of government programs. Under NUSAF2 TAAC, the IG was able to broaden\ncoordination with several organizations that are working on anti-corruption interventions across\nthe country.\n\n4. The partnership also enhanced IG capacity to reach out. A rapid assessment conducted by\nthe World Bank before the program showed that majority of rural communities were not sure about\nthe roles of the IG. The IG was largely perceived as a central based government watchdog to arrest\ncorrupt officials but hardly connected with the communities. Social Accountability and\nCommunity Monitoring (SACM) intervention introduced the IG to the communities and clarified\ntheir mandate in fighting corruption therefore broadening the network of anti-corruption\ncombatants across the country. 725 communities are being targeted across the 55 NUSAF2\ndistricts.\n\n5. However, the initial partnership arrangement did not provide a mechanism for managing\nthe overlap between the TAAC community works with partner NGOs traditional roles. In addition,\ncapacity and expectations of grassroots organizations were not properly assessed at the beginning.\nThis caused challenges with management and coordination with partners during implementation.\n\n\n98\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 109
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**IG engagement and overall coordination**\n\n6. Implementation of TAAC component by the IG is perceived to be an effective way of\nmainstreaming anti-corruption interventions in a community driven development. It is perceived\nthat the IG involvement in NUSAF2 saved resources that could have been mismanaged at different\nlevels of government.\n\n7. IG leadership of TAAC enhanced overall outreach of the inspectorate and therefore\ncreating more impact in IG traditional roles of both preventing corruption and prosecuting culprits\nof corruption.\n\n8. As a result of learning from NUSAF2, a Project monitoring department at the IG was\ncreated to enhance coordination and oversight of the IG mandate for all government projects. This\nhas consequently led to enhanced level of local government and other stakeholder engagement in\nthe fight against corruption.\n\n\n**Community level participation**\n\n9. Revamped NUSAF2 Social Accountability Committee structures were trained and inspired\nto monitor community projects. The newly formed community structure (CMG) comprises of 4\nstrong members of the wider communities that are more effective in conducting social\naccountability and community monitoring.\n\n10. SACM training motivated communities to monitor NUSAF2 and other government\nprograms. With the training and sensitization, the communities became more aware that corruption\nundermines development and creates costs for them and are consequently more determined to take\naction to protect resources that has been allocated to them. 366 out of the 725 targeted communities\nare trained and fully functional.\n\n11. The CMG roles require some level of education and or community leadership experience.\nThis was not considered at the time of SAC formation. Future CMGs should include a mix of\ncommunity participants who are trusted by community members. Pre CMG election activities\nshould include proper sensitization of community members about the CMG roles.\n\n12. Feedback from local governments and implementers on the ground indicated that the\nquestion of facilitation needs to be addressed. Limited or no facilitation for voluntary work can\naffect long term commitment.\n\n\n**Monitoring, documentation and reporting**\n\n13. The use of ICT to monitor delivery of CMG training by partner organizations was an\neffective monitoring platform. The design should be improved to enhance usability and content.\nAn expanded content will enhance overall project monitoring and reporting.\n\n14. However, the design lacked elaborate data collection tools for regular monitoring and\ndocumentation of overall project progress. In addition, the SMS hotline reporting was challenged\nby IG internal coordination constraints.\n\n\n99\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 110
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis**\n\n**UGANDA: The Third Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF 3)**\n\n**A.** **Introduction**\n1. The proposed Third Northern Uganda social action fund (NUSAF 3) project intends to\nbuild upon the achievements of NUSAF I and II and other development projects implemented in\nNorthern Uganda. The project aims to contribute to the operationalization of the Uganda Social\nProtection Policy by focusing on labor intensive public works and seeking to further enhance\nlivelihood support by ensuring greater sustainability of interventions. The project will also test the\nability of the labor intensive public works program to scale-up in response to shocks. In addition,\nit will consolidate the achievements of transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption\ninterventions and seek to expand and deepen the interventions in a more systemic and effective\nmanner.\n\n2. The proposed project will have four components: (i) Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW)\nand Disaster Risk Financing (DRF) that will provide temporary/seasonal employment\nopportunities for poor and vulnerable households and be able to scale-up in response to disaster\nevents in selected pilot areas; (ii) Livelihood Investment Support (LIS) for poor and vulnerable\nhouseholds; (iii) a strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption (TAAC)\ncomponent that includes activities implemented by the Inspectorate of Government (IG) to\nimprove transparency, accountability and anti-corruption efforts in northern Uganda; and (iv)\nInstitutional support to implement the new project and help develop the social protection system\nthat is envisioned in the draft Uganda Social Protection Policy.\n\n3. Economic and financial analyses were carried out to determine the viability of the proposed\nproject. The financial analysis is based on representative benefits and cost budgets for the various\nproductive activities that are likely to be undertaken by project beneficiaries especially under the\nLivelihood Investment Support for the poor and vulnerable households. Key activities included in\nthe analysis are farm production, local agribusinesses/value-addition, and nonagricultural/vocational enterprises. The analysis uses the incremental benefits and costs,\nattributable to the project interventions. The economic analysis aggregates from the individual\nenterprise budgets to the overall number of beneficiaries covered by the project, and applies\nrelevant conversion factors to derive economic/shadow prices. The incremental net benefits are\nobtained by assuming a non-project scenario.\n\n4. While public works programs currently cover an estimated 40 percent of all direct income\nsupport beneficiaries, the implementation approach in most programs undermines their role as an\neffective safety net. The duration of employment provided by public works sub-projects tends to\nbe short; employment can be created at any time of the year with no reference to seasonal variations\nin consumption; and the opportunity to participate in public works is often provided to each\nbeneficiary household only once. Additionally, the lack of technical capacity among implementing\nagencies at the local level undermines the quality of the infrastructure that is created. Strengthening\npublic works so that they can serve as an effective safety net and expanding their coverage will be\na key opportunity to develop the sector.\n\n\n100\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 111
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "5. The World Bank is well positioned to support the Government of Uganda in establishing the\npreliminary building blocks for a national safety net system. The World Bank’s support for public\nworks through its support for NUSAF 1 and 2 and its role in further reshaping public works as a\ntargeted safety net brings value added to the success of the operation. In addition, the Bank can\ndraw on its vast operational experience and evidence-based knowledge to help the government to\nfind local solutions based on regional and international experiences on social protection in general\nand safety nets in particular. This vast experience will be critical to helping the government of\nUganda to build a strong and effective safety net system.\n\n**B.** **Summary of project net economic benefits**\n\n6. The main project benefits will be derived from (1) increased and diversified household\nincomes from a broad range of livelihood sources; (2) improved community assets and market\nintegration; (3) sustainable business institutions owned by the rural poor; and (4) increased\nopportunities for self-employment and skills transfer. Most of these benefits are generated from\nthe Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) and Livelihoods Investment Support (LIS) components.\nHowever, there are other benefits mainly related to social, institutional, capacity building, disaster\nrisk management and human resource development, which are mostly long term and not easily\nquantifiable. These have largely not been included in the analysis.\n\n7. The ex _-ante_ economic analysis mainly based on the LIPW and LIS components could serve\nas an indication of the economic viability of the project given together they take up over 75 percent\nof the overall project budget. The analysis was prepared using the data collected by the project\nteam, including other earlier data collected under NUSAF 1 and 2. This _ex-ante_ analysis was\nthorough in terms of both activity and geographical coverage (covered all regions in the north) and\ninvolved random sampling by major activities. The aggregated economic rate of return for the\nproject (including mostly activities under the LIPW and LIS) was estimated at 21.4% [38] and the\ndiscounted Net Present Value (NPV) is US$41.6 million.\n\n**C.** **Methodology**\n\n8. The net benefit flows from this project are assumed to accrue from activities introduced or\nsupported by the project. An ex-ante identification of such activities could be challenging given\nthat most of the actual activities will be demand-driven and may not be certain at project appraisal.\nHowever, based on random stakeholder consultations and the lessons from NUSAF 1 and 2, a\nconventional cost-benefit analysis of a number of activities under the LIPW and LIS was\nundertaken to derive the net benefit flows from which the economic and financial returns have\nbeen computed.\n\n9. As is the case in most social action fund investments, there are often some key\nmethodological challenges associated with the valuation of costs and benefit streams attributable\nto project interventions that may not lend themselves to objective valuation. For instance, all\nactivities related to strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption (TAAC)\nunder component 3 as well as institutional capacity building under component 4 cannot easily be\nevaluated using standard economic analysis approaches because of the challenges related to the\n\n\n38 Detailed assumptions are contained in the last section of the Annex.\n\n\n101\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "project net economic benefits",
+ "confidence": 0.7402257919311523,
+ "start": 139,
+ "end": 143
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "rural poor",
+ "confidence": 0.7384096384048462,
+ "start": 190,
+ "end": 192
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "data collected by the project\nteam",
+ "confidence": 0.6384052634239197,
+ "start": 320,
+ "end": 326
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": {
+ "text": "project\nteam",
+ "confidence": 0.7890599966049194,
+ "start": 324,
+ "end": 326
+ },
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "random stakeholder consultations",
+ "confidence": 0.9011212587356567,
+ "start": 478,
+ "end": 481
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "vague",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 112
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "objective estimation of the benefits. As such, all project interventions under component 3 and 4\nhave not been included in this analysis due to lack of objective data to estimate net benefit flows.\n\n10. Theoretically, there are three approaches that are commonly used in economic analysis of\nSFIs. In cases where the objective of the project is to invest in community and institutional capacity\nor promote rural livelihoods and employment, it is plausible to use the conventional benefit-cost\nanalysis and the key indicators of project viability are net present values (NPV) and the internal\nrate of return (IRR) [39] . Secondly, in cases where it is difficult to accurately measure project outputs\nand outcomes in monetary terms, the economic analysis consists of calculating cost-effectiveness\nratios. This entails comparing the costs of project outputs with costs of other similar projects and/or\nsector standards as a basis for selecting the most effective way to achieve the desired output.\nThirdly, if the project has several outcomes, the economic analysis may be conducted through\nweighted cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis in which subjective weights may be assigned\nto each of the different outcome indicators. For this analysis, we use mainly the second approach.\nThe proposed activities that beneficiaries are likely to undertake within the project, including their\nassociated scope in terms of number of beneficiaries and project costs are as shown in paragraphs\n23 and 60 of the main text of the PAD.\n\n**D.** **Analysis of economic Returns to NUSAF 3 Interventions**\n\n11. According to the project allocations, US$104.5 million will finance the Labor Intensive\nPublic Works (US$ 61 million) and the Livelihood Investment Support (US$ 43.5 million). The\nproject activities will be targeted by an estimated 449,000 HH through LIPW and 100,100 through\nLIS rural able-bodied poor households and administered through community level structures. The\nkey assumption is that poor communities are rational economic actors whose choices will reflect\nthose sub-projects that provide the greatest rate of return to their inputs of labor, time, materials\nand cash.\n\n12. The analysis of the economic rate of return uses the data on food and cash crop production,\nvalue-addition/agribusiness and non-agricultural/vocational enterprises. Crop enterprises include\nthe main smallholder crops such as maize, sorghum, beans, cassava, Irish potatoes, field peas,\nplantain/banana, sim-sim, sunflower, onions, groundnuts and trees. The non-crop enterprises\nincluded: poultry (meat and eggs), small ruminants, unprocessed honey, piggery and dairy. The\nnon-agricultural enterprises include beauty salons, metal fabrication and welding, carpentry and\njoinery, tailoring and motor vehicle mechanics, milling, arts and crafts. All the enterprise data used\nfor estimating the rates of return are from the following regions of Northern Uganda: Acholi,\nBukedi, Bunyoro, Elgon, Karamoja and Lango.\n\n13. The overall estimated economic rate for the project is 21.4% with a Net Present Value\n(NPV) estimated at US$41.6 million. If we only consider crop enterprises, the estimated NPV\ndrops to US$9.5 million with an economic rate of return of about 19.4%. Cash crop production\nand agribusiness/value-addition have the highest rate of return ranging from 24 – 28%. Nonagricultural or vocational enterprises have the lowest rate of return estimated at 14% (see Table 1\nfor the summary and Table 2 for the sub-projects estimated returns). This implies that for the\n\n\n39 This is normally plausible where it is assumed that correct utilization of project inputs will result in predetermined outputs that will generate measurable impacts (or outcomes) on the target beneficiaries.\n\n\n102\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 113
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "project to be more economically viable there is need to diversify the enterprises under the\nLivelihood Investment Support component. These estimated returns are likely to understate the\noverall economic viability because many of the social benefits of the project such as employment\nand skills as access to other social amenities have not been accounted for in the analysis because\nof valuation challenges.\n\n14. Early separate analysis of the potential short-term impacts of the scalability of the disaster\nrisk financing sub-component on household welfare indicatively estimate that such interventions\ncan improve household incomes. The impacts are more favorable in all the livelihood zones, but\nmore so in the agricultural livelihood zone. [40] This underscores the importance ensuring the\nimplementation of multiple and well-coordinated interventions in order to better achieve the\nproject development outcomes. The welfare analysis also shows that the variety of assets created\nthrough the LIPW (rural access roads, tree nurseries, afforestation, construction of different soil\nand water conservation (SWC) measures, flood control structures, rainwater harvesting,\nrehabilitation of market shelters, rural health facilities and schools) will have direct welfare\nbenefits to households by boosting income and earnings opportunities. Additionally, the public\nworks program will create productive assets, support the creation of human capital and increase\ncommunal reserves. These positive macro-economic effects will further mitigate the harmful\neffects of droughts and will benefit household welfare in the long run.\n\n\n**Annex Table 6. 1: Summary of economic rates of return**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Enterprises|Net Present Value
(US$ million)|Internal Rate of Return (%)|\n|---|---|---|\n|Food cropsa
|9.5|19.4%|\n|Cash cropsb|13.5|28%|\n|Value-addition/agribusiness
enterprisesc|11.8|24%|\n|Non-agricultural/vocational
enterprisesd|6.8|14%|\n|Total|41.6|21.4%|\n\n\na. Food crops include: maize, sorghum, beans, cassava, Irish potatoes, field peas, plantain/banana and sim-sim,\nb. Cash crops include: coffee, groundnuts, sunflower and trees\nc. Other agricultural enterprises include: poultry (meat and eggs), small ruminants, unprocessed honey, piggery and\ndairy\nd. Non-agricultural enterprises include: beauty salons, metal fabrication and welding, carpentry and joinery, tailoring,\nmotor vehicle mechanics, milling, arts and crafts.\n\n\n40 The welfare analysis uses the Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS) and assumes typical household typologies\nfrom three different livelihood zones - pastoral, agricultural and agro-pastoral from some regions of Northern\nUganda.\n\n\n103\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "welfare analysis",
+ "confidence": 0.632522463798523,
+ "start": 142,
+ "end": 144
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "economic rates of return",
+ "confidence": 0.8070695400238037,
+ "start": 263,
+ "end": 267
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "non-dataset",
+ "description": null,
+ "data_type": null,
+ "acronym": null,
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": null,
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": {
+ "text": "Enterprises",
+ "confidence": 0.6881403923034668,
+ "start": 270,
+ "end": 271
+ },
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "background"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset_name": {
+ "text": "Uganda National Panel Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.9995201826095581,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "dataset_tag": "named",
+ "description": {
+ "text": "typical household typologies",
+ "confidence": 0.6691338419914246,
+ "start": 483,
+ "end": 486
+ },
+ "data_type": {
+ "text": "Survey",
+ "confidence": 0.8594051599502563,
+ "start": 477,
+ "end": 478
+ },
+ "acronym": {
+ "text": "UNPS",
+ "confidence": 0.8694443106651306,
+ "start": 479,
+ "end": 480
+ },
+ "author": null,
+ "producer": null,
+ "geography": {
+ "text": "Uganda",
+ "confidence": 0.990269660949707,
+ "start": 474,
+ "end": 475
+ },
+ "publication_year": null,
+ "reference_year": null,
+ "reference_population": null,
+ "is_used": "False",
+ "usage_context": "supporting"
+ }
+ ],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 114
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Annex Table 6. 2; Estimated rates of return for the selected sub-projects**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Col1|Category of sub project|IRR range
across districts
(%)|Average
IRR (%)|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|1|Crop production|16-37|23|\n|2|Dairy|12-31|19|\n|3|Poultry (broilers/eggs)|14-26|21|\n|5|Piggery|12-28|17|\n|6|Bee-keeping|14-24|16|\n|7|Saloons|8-17|11|\n|8|Metal fabrication and welding|11-24|15|\n|9|Carpentry and joinery|7-18|12|\n|10|Tailoring|9-21|13|\n|TOTAL|TOTAL|7-37|21.4|\n\n\n15. Other returns to NUSAF 3 investments will be in the form of enhanced social capital and\nsustainability of community assets a result of a combination of peace building efforts and targeted\ninterventions. NUSAF 3 will pursue cost-effectiveness measures and simple screening procedures\nfor sub-projects based on the experiences from the implementation of NUSAF 1 and 2.\n\n**E.** **Sensitivity analysis**\n\n16. These economic rate of return estimates have been calculated using fairly conservative\nassumptions as stated below (see section H). Most of the data is based on field assessments and\nstudies conducted in the project area [41] . Therefore these results should be quite robust. However,\nthe robustness of the results depends on their sensitivity to some of the key variables that define\nthe magnitude and direction of the results. As such, along with the results of the estimated rates of\nreturn, we have also done a sensitivity analysis to determine how the estimated returns change\nwith changes in the key variables. Four kinds of sensitivity analysis have been conducted and the\nresults are presented in Table 6.3.\n\n\n**Annex Table 6. 3: Sensitivity analysis (over 15 year horizon)**\n\n|Scenarios|ERR (%)|NPV (US$
million)|\n|---|---|---|\n|Base case|21.4|41.6|\n|Costs increased by 5%|18.4|36.5|\n|Benefits increased by 5%|23.6|43.9|\n|Costs increased by 10%|14.2|28.7|\n|Combined effect of cost increment by 10% and the associated
reduction.|12.2|9.5|\n\n\n\n41 The studies consulted included: Dalipagic, I and Elepu, G., 2014. Agricultural Value-Chains in Northern Uganda:\nmaize, rice, groundnuts, sunflower and sesame. ACF International; World Food Program, 2015. Uganda Monthly\nMarket Monitor, January 2015 Issue 1; Blattman, C., Fiala, N., and Martinez, S. 2013. The economic and social returns\nto cash transfers: evidence from a Ugandan Aid Program.\n\n\n104\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 115
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "17. The sensitivity analysis shows that the rates of return remain robust even when costs are\nincreased by up to 5%. A 10% increase in costs lower the rates of return below the opportunity\ncost of capital, assumed at 15%. This implies that the project returns are highly sensitive to the\ncosts of production. Either cost-reducing measures and/or productivity enhancing interventions\nwould be more favorable. The sensitivity of the project returns should also be dependent upon a\nnumber of factors including: poor targeting resulting from elite capture where the actual\nbeneficiaries are left-out, strength and/or weakness of the linkage effects in the local economy and\nthe resurgence of conflict and/or natural shocks and disasters.\n\n**F.** **Fiscal impact**\n\n18. The project is likely to have considerable positive fiscal impacts (estimates of magnitudes\nnot determined because of lack of reliable data). The project is likely to improve rural livelihoods\nby providing short-term employment opportunities to over 415,000 people over 5 years. [42] Some\nof the activities under the LIS may transform into medium to long-term employment depending\non how well they are taken up and implemented by the communities. This is likely to have positive\nimpacts in poverty reduction, particularly in the north where poverty rates have been quite high\ncompared to other parts of the country. Furthermore, the without project scenario has obvious\npotential economic consequences arising from arising from poverty and deprivation with the\nattendant negative consequences in a relatively fragile socio-economic environment.\n\n**G.** **Conclusions**\n\n19. On the basis of the estimated economic rate of return particularly for the LIS component,\nand the implications of LIPW on household welfare, the project is economically viable and should\nhave significant impact on the targeted households, if implemented as per the design. The rate of\nreturn analysis is limited to LIS component for which objective data is available. It is likely that\nthe social return for the project is much higher than can be empirically demonstrable. The\nsensitivity of the project returns to key variables used for the analysis also shows that the economic\nrate of return is still achievable within a given range of these selected variables.\n\n\n**H.** **Key assumptions in the analysis**\n\n20. The major assumptions include:\n\n\na. Where data is significantly inconsistent and/or unreliable, conservative assumptions have\nbeen made. An improvement in this analysis is that estimates of activity output and input\ncosts and output prices are based on current studies undertaken in the project area, and\nshould therefore be more current and reliable. Where data has not been available, informed\nassumptions have been made based on experiences with earlier phases of the project;\nb. A 15 year time horizon is considered for the full project build-up of costs and benefits\nbased on individual activity or activity groups assuming a 10 year horizon.\n\n\n42 Approximately 83,000 households (415,000 people) per year will directly benefit from the Labor Intensive Public\nWorks component whilst 115,000 households (575,000 people) will benefit from the Livelihood Investment Support.\nBoth the LIPW and LIS will transfer up to US$104.5 million to the beneficiary communities over a 5-year period.\n\n\n105\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 116
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "c. Current income levels (and assumed “without project” incomes) are assumed to be the\nequivalent of what beneficiaries will receive under the LIPW and LIS components;\nd. A conservative estimate of productivity increase (0.5% per annum) has been made to take\ninto account access to better technology, skills and know-how as well as improved inputs\nas a result of the project support;\ne. Input costs include seeds, establishment costs and implements and other capital\nrequirements. Output prices assume low quality, rural level prices.\nf. Family labor is valued at the rural labor rate (informal labor) of Uganda Shillings 3000/day,\nas the opportunity cost in the remote rural areas where alternative gainful employment is\nscarce.\ng. A discount rate of 15% is used, in line with the current interest rates as published by the\nBank of Uganda.\nh. Significant distortions in the economy in input costs and output prices are assumed to be\nminimal (no significant policy interventions distorting market prices). Therefore, financial\nand economic costs and prices are assumed to be virtually the same.\ni. The non-farm multiplier from the linkage effect of a change in farm production and cash\non the local economy is assumed to be 1.5.\nj. Overall project costs include the LIS component costs as estimated at project identification\nas given in Annex 1 and a full description in Annex 2 of the PAD. Enterprise data upon\nwhich indicative activity budgets have been estimated are presented in Annex 2 of this\nreport.\n\n\n21. Some benefits have not been included in the analysis because they are either difficult to\nvalue, or reliable data is not available (value of community assets, expected human capital\nimprovements and institutional capacity building and Strengthening Transparency, Accountability\nand Anti-Corruption interventions.\n\n\n106\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 117
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Attachment 6.1: Overall Resource Allocations for LIS Component**\n**Costing and Expected Numbers of Beneficiaries of LIS**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Cost Centers and Targets|Unit|Outputs|Costs (US$)|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|**IHISP Sub-component allocation**|||
**42,500,000**|\n|IHISP**Sub**-**projects**|$5,000|7700 sub-
projects|
38,500,000|\n|Household representatives reached per group||13 people||\n|Household representatives reached by end of
project||100,100 people||\n|Potential indirect beneficiaries reached by end of
project (assuming average household size of 5)||500500 people||\n|Capacity building training including financial
literacy, marketing, business plan development
etc., and business follow up services, hiring 2
community facilitators per district|||$4,000,000|\n|**SLPSLP Sub-component Allocation**|||**$1,000,000**|\n|Pilot districts|8|||\n|Grant per pilot village (5 pilot villages per
district)|$10, 000|
40 villages|$400,000|\n|Capacity building training including financial
literacy, saving and credit, business plan
development, and follow up|||$600,000|\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Interventions|Budget|Unit cost
per sub-
project
(USD)|Sub-
projects|Number of
HHs to
benefit|Cost per
HH
(US$)|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|1. Livelihoods
Investment Support||||||\n|(a) Improved HISP Sub-
projects|38,500,000|5,000|7,700 (13
members
per group)|100,100|384|\n||**Budget**|**Unit Cost**
**per village**
**revolving**
**fund (USD)**|**Villages**
|**Number of**
**HHs to**
**benefit**|**Cost per**
**HH**
**(US$)**|\n|(b). Sustainable
Livelihoods Pilot|400,000|10,000|40|2800|143
|\n\n\n107\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 118
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Attachment 6.2: Enterprise budget data**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|NO|ENTERPRISE|AVERAGE
YIELD(in
Kg/acre)|AVERAGE
SALES
PRICE
(Ug.
Shs/Kg)|GROSS
SALES(
in
shs/acre)|TOTAL
VARIABLE
INPUT
COSTS( in
Shs/ acre)|Gross
Margins
(in
shs/acre)|\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n|1.|Maize|1200|350|420,000|323,700|96,300|\n|2|Beans|600|1,400|840,000|415,000|425,000|\n|3|Sim-sim|90|3500|315,000|282,500|32,500|\n|4|Sunflower|500|900|450,000|390,000|60,000|\n|5|Onions|800|800|640,000|450,000|190,000|\n|6|Irish potatoes|800|600|480,000|420,00|60,000|\n|7|Sorghum|650|700|455,000|280,00|175,000|\n|8|Rice|1500|500|750,000|601,600|148,400|\n||Ground nuts ( shelled)|320|3000|960,000|420,000|540,000|\n|8|Unprocessed honey|15kg/ bee-
hive|4000 per Kg|60,000|3,470|56,530|\n|9|Medium sized goat||120,000|120,000|||\n|10|piglet||85,000||||\n|11|Chicken||15,000||||\n|12|Medium sized heifer||450,000||||\n|13|Milk||1000
per
litre||||\n|14|A tray of eggs( 30)||8000||||\n\n\nNote: The above details are only indicative.\nSource: Based on NUSAF 2 field data\n\n\n108\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 119
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Attachment 6.3: Expected productive assets to be generated under Livelihood Investment**\n**Support Component**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Category of sub-
projects|No. of sub-
projects|No. of
households
benefiting from
sub-project
(13 HH per sub-
project)|No of productive
assets generated per
CIG
(Avg 13 members per
CIG)|Total productive assets
generated for all sub-
projects|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n|Animal Traction|1500|19500|13 bulls + 6 ox
ploughs + assorted
drugs + 4 spray pumps
+ 13 yokes + 13
chains + 13 ear tags +
13 injection syringes
and needles + 3
drenching gun for
feeding
|19500 bulls + 9000 ox
ploughs + 6000 spray
pumps + 19500 yokes
+19500 chains + 19500
ear tags + 19500
injection syringes &
needles + 4500
drenching gun|\n|Improved Goat
Rearing|900|11700|52 female goats + 5
improved male goats
+ assorted drugs + 4
spray pumps + 57 ear
tags + 57 injection
syringes and needles
|46800 female goats +
4500 improved male
goats + assorted drugs +
3600 spray pumps +
51300 ear tags + 51300
injection syringes &
needles|\n|Local heifer deary|900|11700|13 heifers + 1 bull +
assorted drugs + 4
spray pumps + 14 ear
tags + 13 injection
syringes and needles
|11700 heifers + 900
bulls + assorted drugs +
3600 spray pumps +
12600 ear tags + 11700
injection syringes and
needles|\n|Bee keeping and
honey production|600|7800|65 improved beehives
+ 65 local beehives +
3 assorted kit
including smokers,
gloves, buckets etc.
|39000 improved
beehives + 39000 local
beehives + 1800
assorted kits smokers,
gloves, buckets etc.|\n|Fruit/Tree nursery
operation|500|6500|20 kgs of tree seeds +
assorted chemicals + 4
wheel barrows + 13
hoes + 4 watering cans
+ 4 spray pumps + 13
Gum boots + 5000
plastic bags + 2 rolls
of polythene cover
sheets
|10000 kgs of tree seeds
+ assorted chemicals +
2000 wheel barrows +
6500 hoes + 2000
watering cans + 2000
spray pumps + 6500
Gum boots + 2500000
plastic bags + 1000 rolls
of polythene cover
sheets|\n\n\n109\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 120
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Category of sub-
projects|No. of sub-
projects|No. of
households
benefiting from
sub-project
(13 HH per sub-
project)|No of productive
assets generated per
CIG
(Avg 13 members per
CIG)|Total productive assets
generated for all sub-
projects|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n||||||\n|Vegetable
Production|500|6500|20 kgs of vegetable
seeds + assorted
chemicals + 4 wheel
barrows + 13 hoes + 4
watering cans + 4
spray pumps + 13
Gum boots|10000 kgs of vegetable
seeds + assorted
chemicals + 2000 wheel
barrows + 6500 hoes +
2000 watering cans +
2000 spray pumps +
6500 Gum boots
|\n|Tailoring &
Garment cutting|500|6500|13 Sewing machines,
13 measuring tapes, 13
pairs of scissors, 13
iron boxes, 13
tailoring stools, 13
sewing kits including
sewing threads, hand
needles, tailors chalk,
clothing materials, 1
meter straight
edge/ruler.
|6500 Sewing machines,
6500 measuring tapes,
6500 pairs of paved
scissors, 6500 iron
boxes, 6500 tailoring
stools, 6500 sewing kits
including sewing
threads, hand needles,
tailors chalk, clothing
materials, 1 meter
straight edge/ruler.
|\n|Grinding Mills|500|6500|1 Grinding mill with
diesel engine, 1 Huller
with diesel engine, 25
pcs of bolts for fixing
enginebase, huller and
mill+1 drum for
engine cooling, 1
house pipe, 1 grease
gun, 5 litres of grease,
1 small generator +
150 lts of fuel for mill
+ 1 weighing scale+
assorted building
materials for
construction of a
shade for the mill,
including 20 bags of
cement, 15 kg of
assorted wire nails, 30
pieces of iron sheets(
30G), 200 bricks,
assorted timber, 1|500 Grinding mill with
diesel engine, 500 Huller
with diesel engine,12,
500 pcs of bolts for
fixing engine base,
huller and mill +500
drum for engine cooling,
+500 house pipe,+ 500
grease gun,+ 2500 liters
of grease,+ 500 small
generators + 75,000 lts
of fuel for mill + 500
weighing scales +
assorted materials for
building a shade for the
mill, including 10,000
bags of cement, 7,500 kg
of assorted wire nails,
15,000 pieces of iron
sheets ( 30G), 100,000
bricks, assorted timber,|\n\n\n110\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 121
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Category of sub-
projects|No. of sub-
projects|No. of
households
benefiting from
sub-project
(13 HH per sub-
project)|No of productive
assets generated per
CIG
(Avg 13 members per
CIG)|Total productive assets
generated for all sub-
projects|\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n||||metal door and 2 metal
windows|500 metal doors and
1000 metal windows|\n|Carpentry and
Joinery|500|6500|Carpentry and joinery
tool kits including 2
chisels, + 3jack
planes, + 2 sascramp +
2 G-Scramp + 2
bowsaws+ 2 hand
saws+ 1 small
generator + 3 squares
+ 1 rotor machine+ 1
spoke shave,|Carpentry and joinery
tool kits including 1000
chisels+ 1500 jack
planes+ 1000 Scramp+
1000 G-Scramp + 1000
bow saws+ 1000 hand
saws+ 500 small
generators+ 1500
squares+ 500 rotor
machines+ 500 spoke
shaves,|\n|Saloons|
300|3900|3 Saloon kits
including scissors,
dryers, brushes, hot
comb, blades, hear
lotion, chears, tables,
carpets, drawers, solar
panel, inverters with
wires and batteries,
saloon clothing,
towels, cutting
machines etc.
|900 Saloon kits
including scissors,
dryers, brushes, hot
comb, blades, hear
lotion, chears, tables,
carpets, drawers, solar
panel, inverters with
wires and batteries,
saloon clothing, towels,
cutting machines etc.
|\n|Total|7700 sub-
projects|100,100
Households|||\n\n\n\nNote: Actual number of sub-projects by category will depend on community demand and this list\nis only indicative.\n\n\n111\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 122
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Attachment 6.4: Pros and Cons of various categories of livelihood sub-projects**\n\nBelow is a summary of pros and cons of 13 categories of subprojects implemented under NUSAF2.\nThe information is based on various reviews, field observations, monitoring reports, and group\ndiscussions with stakeholders, including beneficiaries.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Col1|Categories of sub-
projects|Pros|Cons|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|1|
Piggery|
-
Pigs can multiply quickly
and can generate income in
a relatively shorter time
-
Pigs can feed on local
foods, like potatoes and
cassava peelings, cassava
and potato leaves, etc which
are available.
-
There is local demand for
pork and sausages and live
piglets
-
Activity requires little land
-Does not require heavy start-up
capital
|
-High mortality rate of piggery, estimated at 10.5
percent in 2013 in NUSAF2, mainly as a result of
African Swine Fever which has no drugs or cure
yet.
- Piggery management requires high level of
management which most beneficiaries do not
have. For example, since there is no drug or cure
for African Swine Fever, people have to rely on
prevention; therefore, piggery needs intensive
quality assurance to ensure that piggery units do
not get into contact with sources of African Swine
Fever; their movement needs to be restricted by
keeping them indoors with a high level of
sanitation.
**-**Communities need technical support from
specialists which in most cases is not readily
available
|\n|2|Goat Rearing|-
Goats multiply relatively
faster than cattle and are a
quick source of income to
meet household demands.
For example, a group of 10
members of Apeneki Widows
Goats Rearing group in Dokolo
district which received 45 female
goats and 2 boar goats had a total of
131 goats within 2 years, even after
34 goats had been reported to have
died.
-
Animals can be obtained
locally
-
Goats can withstand local
conditions and are not as
susceptible to diseases as
cattle or pigs.|-
There are risks of some diseases; in
NUSAF2, deaths of some animals have
been reported
-
Thefts of animals have been reported in
NUSAF2, especially with communities
close to towns
-
In some communities, land for grazing
goats is not sufficient|\n\n\n112\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 123
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Col1|Col2|- Management of goats, in
terms of feeding and
general care is easier than
that of cattle
- Local people have sufficient
knowledge and experience
to manage goats|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|3|Animal traction|–Enables communities to
open large tracts of land for
cultivation, thereby
increasing production of
crops for sale to earn
income and for food for
household consumption.
– Enables preparation of
land for cultivation on time
at the on-set of rains, thus
avoiding late planting
which results in increased
crop productivity and
income. For example, a
group of 12 members of
Adyongoto B Elderly Ox-
traction in Dokolo district
earned a net income of sh.
2.65 million from sale of
their produce in only one
year.
- Bulls can be obtained
locally
– Bulls can withstand local
conditions
– People of the North and
North East have
traditionally used oxen for
cultivation; they have
knowledge and skills of ox-
cultivation.
– Local conditions, e.g.,
soils and the terrain are
favourable for ox-
cultivation
|-
There are risks of diseases so great care
needs to be taken; some deaths of bulls in
NUSAF2 have been reported in NUSAF2
as a result. Bulls require good husbandry
management which most beneficiaries do
not have
-
Local bulls take long to mature to start
ploughing
-
There is inadequate effective extension
service in livestock management to the
beneficiaries
|\n\n\n113\n\n\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 124
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|4|Local Cattle
Rearing/ Local
Dairy|-Animals can be obtained locally
-Can produce milk for income and
/or for household consumption
- Can produce and multiply,
thereby increasing the numbers of
cattle owned by the household
leading to more income
-Can sell subsequent generations to
earn more income
- Local cattle can withstand local
conditions
- Management requirement is not
as sophisticated as for improved
breed|-Have a very low feed conversion ratio, and as a
consequence take long to put on weight, take long
to calve and produces very little milk. NUSAF2
experience shows that most heifers calve on
average 2 years after being procured and produce
on average 1 litre of milk per day for only about 6
months.
-Most beneficiaries have very low level of
knowledge about good animal husbandry
practices and yet there is no effective technical
support to the communities in livestock
management; experience of NUSAF2 reveals that
a good number of cattle (estimated at about 4% by
2013) died as a result poor management and lack
of effective extension service.
- Because of long dry spells in most parts of
Northern Uganda, there is often inadequate
pasture and water for cattle -|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|5|Poultry/ Egg
production|- Layers can generate good
income in a relatively shorter
time through sale of eggs
- Enterprise does not require
large tracts of land
- Does not require heavy start-up
capital
|-High mortality rate of poultry estimated at 21.6
percent by 2013 in NUSAF2 mainly due New
Castle disease.
- Poultry requires high level of management
which most beneficiaries do not have; For
example, poultry needs to be vaccinated regularly;
after hatching, then after 7 days and after 3
months; a regime which most beneficiaries do not
observe. Moreover, vaccines are sensitive to high
temperatures and must be strictly kept under
refrigeration which most beneficiaries do not
have.
-Poultry needs to be kept under certain conditions
(e.g. under brooder for 2 months so that they
mature) and require special type and quantity of
feeds e.g., layers’ mash, for a certain period of
time if they are to be productive and remain
health. Most beneficiaries are not likely to observe
these conditions.
-Communities require technical support from
specialists which is not readily available
|\n|6|Apiary- honey
production|-
Can generate relatively high
income in a fairly short
time. For example, a group
of 12 members of Enget
Widows Bee Keeping in
Dokolo district earned a net|-
Risks of being stung by bees are high
-
Insects like, red ants can attack and cause
decolonization of bee hives. This has been
experienced in NUSAF2
|\n\n\n\n114\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 125
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Col1|Col2|income of sh. 4.5 million
from honey in only one
year.
- Does not require
sophisticated management
- Requires little labour, low
capital investment, low
recurrent expenditure and
other inputs like land, etc.,
compared to other activities
- There is demand for honey
locally and nationally
- Local conditions favour the
activity|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|7|Tailoring &
Garment cutting|-
Can generate relatively high
income in a fairly short
time. For example,
members of Jomadi East
Youth Tailoring Group in
Nebbi district indicated that
men earn an average net
income of sh. 140,000 per
month each while women
earn an average net income
of 80,000 each per month.
|-
Requires relatively high capital
investment in machinery
-
Requires skills which people do not have
and therefore need to undergo training for
at least 8 months
-
There is need for working capital for
procurement of inputs, like cloths, etc.
-
Requires some skills in marketing
finished products
-
Requires regular power supply, which is
often not available in most parts of
Northern Uganda
-
Machines require routine servicing and
maintenance
|\n|8|Grinding Mill|-
Can generate relatively high
income in a fairly short
time- Income is generated
on a daily basis. For
example, a group of 13
members of Cwagere Youth
& Elderly Grinding Mill in
Dokolo district earned a net
income of sh 1.92 million in
8 months.
|-
Requires relatively high capital investment
-
Requires regular power supply which is
not in most parts of Northern Uganda|\n\n\n\n115\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 126
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Col1|Col2|- - It is an indoor activity and
does not require a lot of
land|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|9|Metal Fabrication|-
Can generate relatively high
income in a fairly short
time.
-
For example, 15 members
of Akitenino Youth metal
Fabrication in Lira district
indicated that they were
able to earn a net income of
sh 3.25 million in 5 months.
-
Can be good income
generating activity for the
youth
-
Instructors to conduct
training are available
locally
|-
- Requires relatively high capital
investment in equipment
-
-
- Requires a certain level of working
capital for inputs to continue meeting
orders
-
-
- Requires technical training and
marketing skills for finished products
-
-
- Requires electricity which is not regular
-
|\n|10|Carpentry and
Joinery|-Can generate relatively high
income in a short time and can
provide self-employment for the
youth. For example, a group of 15
members of Youth Carpentry &
Joinery in Arua district indicated
that they had managed to save sh
1,010,000 in 8 months from their
earnings.
-Instructors to conduct training are
available locally
|-Requires high capital investment in equipment
- Required a certain level of working capital for
materials to continue meeting orders of clients
**- **Technical skills required and hence training is
essential
- Requires regular power supply which may not be
available and yet running a generator renders the
products uncompetitive in the market place
|\n|11|Vegetable growing
(Cabbage, Onions,
Tomatoes, carrots,
egg-plants, green
paper, etc.)|
-Requires low capital investment
-Does not require big tracts of land
-Can be high income generating
activity, especially in areas not
from urban areas. Take a very short
time to grow and mature.
-Local people have knowledge and
experience to grow them
|-
Spraying for insects and diseases is
essential in vegetables, like tomatoes, for
optimal production
-
High yielding planting materials is
essential for optimal production
-
Some vegetables, like tomatoes, are
perishable and need to be sold soon after
harvest, thus requiring ready market.
|\n\n\n116\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 127
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "|Col1|Col2|-Local conditions favourable for the
activity|Col4|\n|---|---|---|---|\n|12|Mushroom
Growing|-
Can generate income in a
relatively shorter time
-
Does not require large space
in terms of land
-
Does not require a lot of
start -up capital nor a lot of
recurrent expenditure
-
Seeding materials can be
got locally
|-
Requires special skills in mushroom
growing, hence beneficiaries must
undergo training
-
Local demand for mushrooms needs to be
assessed before the activity is established|\n|13|Tree Nursery
operations|-
Good activity for youth to
generate income
-
Does not require a lot of
land
-
Does not require a lot
capital investment nor a lot
of recurrent expenditure
-
Materials for planting can
be obtained locally|**- **Requires skills in nursery management, hence
beneficiaries must undergo training
**-**Local Demand for tree planting needs to be
assessed before starting the activity. Seedlings
need to be sold immediately they are mature,
otherwise it can be expensive keeping them in the
nursery bed longer than necessary
- Water requirement: tree nursery activity needs a
lot of water and therefore needs to be established
near a permanent water source
|\n\n\n117\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 128
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Attachment 6.5: Key Characteristics of the existing saving groups in Northern Uganda**\n\n\n1. A village has an average of 4 saving groups\n2. Most saving groups are registered at their Sub-Counties with the Sub-County CDO\n3. Most saving groups have a total membership of over 20 people, both male and female\n4. Most saving groups are dominated by the youths( both female and male)\n5. All saving groups have a designated day in a week for the members’ meeting\n6. All saving groups maintain minutes of their weekly meetings\n7. Most of the saving groups register their members at a non-refundable fee ranging between\nsh.2000= to sh. 10,000= per member\n8. Few saving groups require their members to buy shares\n9. In all saving groups, it is a requirement for members to save every week\n10. Saving groups have varying minimum amount of money their members are required to\nsave per week, ranging from sh. 1000= to sh.5000=\n11. All saving groups lend their savings to their members at 10% interest rate per month\n12. Few saving groups lend their savings to non-members. Those which do also charge an\ninterest of 10% per month\n13. Saving groups carry out the transactions of saving, lending and repayment during the\ngroup meetings in a transparent manner on a weekly basis\n14. Most saving groups lend to their members amount of money not exceeding their savings\nto avoid defaulting. For those groups which lend to non- members, it is only possible when\na member stands in for a non-member.\n15. Most saving groups have internal codes or by-laws that govern their operations and\nmembers tend to strictly adhere to them\n16. Most saving groups maintain a record of their saving, lending and repayment transactions\n17. Most saving groups have a lockable cash box in which they keep their savings. The box is\nnormally kept by one member who does not keep the keys. The keys are kept by other two\nmembers, one of which must be a female\n18. Most saving groups share their savings amongst the members once a year, often during the\nChristmas festival\n19. Most members of saving groups spend most of their savings on their children’s education,\nhousehold consumption items and little on their livelihood activities\n20. Most members of saving groups lack basic skills in financial management, saving and\ninvestment and business management skills and would like to be supported in those areas.\n21. Most saving groups have limited capital from which all members can borrow and repay at\na reasonable interest rate\n22. Most of the saving groups are not linked to banks and therefore do not have accounts in\nthe formal banks.\n\n\n118\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 129
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Assessment 6.6: Life Cycle of a Livelihood Income Support Program**\n\n**A Case Study of a NUSAF 2 HISP Sub-Project Group**\n\n**Name of the sub-project group** : Ongei Widow Ox-Traction\n**Location:** _**Village:**_ Ongei, _**Parish:**_ Adeknino _**, Sub-County**_ : Kangai, _**District:**_\nDokolo\n\n\n**Milestones:** Date of formation of the group: Feb 24, 2011 (EPRA process was completed)\nDate when group submitted sub-project to the Sub-County: March 12, 2011\nDate when group received money from the District: Nov 9, 2011\nDate when implementation of sub-project started: Nov 30, 2011 (brought animals\nin Feb 2012)\n**Capacity Building:** Training support provided to the group included General sensitisation,\ntraining of CPMC members (3 days), and training in animal health by health assistant and NAADs\ncoordinator.\n**Funding** : Total amount of funds received by the group: UGX: 9, 256, 800 shillings\n\n\n119\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 130
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Expenditures incurred for sub-project by the group:** Brought 12 Oxen, 3 Ox ploughs, bean\nseeds (36 kgs), 240 pine seedlings, stationary, veterinary drugs, 2 spray pumps, injection syringes,\nand needles – total expenditure (9, 256, 800 shillings)\n**Incomes earned by the group** - 15 million shillings (2 seasons – 1 year) – _**15 time increase in**_\n_**income**_\n**Savings:** 12 members created a savings group, meet every Wednesday, save 1000 – 5000 per\nmember per week. Current group savings is 3 million shillings\n**Investments:** Planning to buy maize hailer machine, lending money to members\n**Diversification** _**:**_ Many members have used this money to start other IGAs like selling grinding\nmaize in the local market, tailoring, motor cycle repair etc.\n\n**A case study of an individual household beneficiary belong to CIGs**\n**Name of the group member** : Ogwal Benson\n\n\n**Household size:** _**Total**_ : 7 _**Adults:**_ 2, _**Children:**_ 5,\n\n\n120\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 131
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "**Major sources of incomes and expenditures**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n|Expenditure|Income|\n|---|---|\n|1. Education of children – 450,000 per
year
2. Health – 120,000 per month
3. Basic
consumption
(food,
soap,
clothing etc.) – 100000 per month|4. Cycle / motor cycle workshop –
150,000 per month
5. Farming – 1 to 1.2 million per season (
2 seasons per year)|\n\n\n\n**Savings:** saves in 3 groups, group 1: 1000 per week; group 2: 600000 per year; group 3: 300,000\nper year\n**Finances:** _**Loans:**_ no loans _**Debt:**_ no debt _**Bank account**_ : No account.\n**Investments:** Lives in ancestral home – first priority - buy land and build house for his family;\n2 [nd] priority – to put money in building his business (repair and spare parts workshop).\n**Livelihood:**\n\n - Increase in income: Increase his household income, earning more in farm\n\n - Increase in assets: 1 oxen provided by project, brought 1 oxen, 1 heifer,\n\n - Increase in productivity: 15 time increase\n\n - Plan for diversification of livelihoods: brought 4 goats multiplied to 7\n\n\n121\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 132
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "input_text": "122\n\n\n",
+ "datasets": [],
+ "document": {
+ "source": "http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/584381553014128394/pdf/PAD1188-P149965-IDA-R2015-0115-1-Box391433B-OUO-9.pdf",
+ "pages": [
+ 133
+ ]
+ }
+ }
+]
\ No newline at end of file