Markets and Agriculture Trade Improvement Project UGANDA
As part of the implementation essay (I am currently writing) , I will be using the Markets and Agriculture Trade Improvement Project (MATIP) as a case study. In 2009, the Government of Uganda called on banks, African Development Bank and to fund an extensive market redevelopment project. This project fits under ADB’s country wide strategic plan that merges Uganda’s National Development Plan goals with ADB’s continent planning goals. MATIP1 was proposed using research undertaken by the Ministry of Local Government. One of their reasons for the project was that it is a vital form of employment for cities in Uganda; it requires ‘no skills and limited capital’ making it easily accessible for many. As markets are being developped accross the country, my own project to redevelop Owino market becomes relevant and timely in this context, Understanding MATIP in more detail could provide key tips for my implementation strategy.
I visited one of the projects in Kampaal from this scheme a few months ago:
I met with Asaph Nuwagira, an Agriculture and Rural Development specialist on the project with ADB, on the 25th of September- he has been working on the MATIP scheme since it started.
Some key points from our discussion about MATIP:
What factors contributed towards the MATIP Proposal's successful for funding? - ‘Markets are very political – can change anytime – people want to pay little or nothing to work in them’ - Government in charge of project - Government has National Devt. Plan and ADB has their own continent wide Plan SO in between this a country strategic plan is created for Uganda – it fit in the plan - Govt kills two birds with one stone: 1) Agricultural facilities 2) also include various other trades in markets
Initial thoughts about the project proposal? - Fit well with the country plan; is now one of the key projects in ADBs current country plan - Project originating from study by MoLG expanding markets/privatising markets - Government uses bank procurement rules and bank evaluates govt reports
Has ADB funded any market development projects (or other similar schemes) in other countries before? - Projects done similar before mostly rural agricultural – this scale/including urban is new During the different phases of the project, does ADB collaborate with different stakeholders; which ones? - Stakeholders involved : vendors, public servants, MolG, MoTW - Maintain relationship with theme individually through key contacts that make up committees Why were 9 markets built as opposed to the original plan for 26? Was there scope for shortcomings in the original agreement? - Monetary issues – projects were agreed before designs were done and so when including stakeholders figured out project is on a much larger scale; for some markets plan was to rehabilitate but local governments refused this and wanted compete new buildings, new infrastructure
What was ADB’s role during implementation phase? - Visit twice a year until end of project – review and write a report with which they start with on the next review
What categories of the project were observed for the funding released? - By certificate of what is done,1) to contractors // 2) mobilisation money given to the govt. To what extent have the objectives of MATIPI been achieved?/lessons for MATIP 2 - Successful – major issue with height of buildings, higher levels low occupancy - But generally more economic activity;Vendors may pay higher fee but less than similar buildings around them
At what point was MATIPII established and why is ADB participating in the project a second time? - Initial plan was for 26 and government made promises to people, need to pay off debts to people
Advice on model for private market, Owino? - Large sight so need to compartmentalise it because it will help with consultations – specify areas and consult with people in parts (stakeholders KEY) to develop the masterplan
Some of the projects
A timeline of the MATIP 1 project :
:
Reflections:
One of the most reiterated lessons from MATIP1 was that more in-depth consultations with beneficiary communities would have reduced hindrances during project realisation. Across the projects, top floors have had low occupancy; therefore, new designs for MATIPII are at a maximum of three floors. However, the project team are still challenged with vendors demands for space on lower floors, whilst building models that have enough trading spaces for vendors within them. These markets follow a mixed-use model including office spaces which are intended to bring in higher rent fees and subsidise vendors costs. However, critiques question whether the ‘multibillion dollar markets’ are increasing economic activity; if vendors cannot afford to occupy spaces in new buildings, they will be filled with other activities.Therefore, Is tax payers money being used appropriately to provide market spaces with affordable goods? Or, is it being used to design unknown futures? (SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSA6IZM5rZM)
For the Owino redevelopment projejct I am proposing, key stakeholders will be used through committees that assess project objectives and outputs. Their intense involvement in all stages of implementation is a step towards more inclusive project for the city.My project will build on the momentum established by the MATIP and its emphasis on stakeholder participation - this could motivate officials to put wide-ranging needs into their city development strategies.