Improving Institutional Capacity:
Strengthening Farmer Organizations in the OIC Member Countries
40
Table 10: Kitenge DC’s performance on organizational set-up and impact capacity59
Organizational Setup
(74 points)
Aggregate
Score
Impact capacity
(51 points)
Aggregate score
0.68 0.55
Governance (33 points) 0.87 Strategic Potential (6 points) 0.33
Organizational structure 1.00 Overall Strategy 0.33
General Assembly 0.83
TA and Other Services (41
pts)
0.54
Communication 0.67 Market Access 0.61
Business Fundamentals
(27 points)
0.55
Access to Inputs, Equipment, &
Infrastructure
0.20
Financial Planning and
Management
0.58 Transportation and Storage 1.00
Resource & Revenue
Generation
0.50 Financial Services 0.50
Meeting Member Needs 0.50
Human Resource
Management
0.00
Advisory and Knowledge
Services
1.00
Advocacy, Policy &
Collaboration
0.50
Systems and Infrastructures 0.67 Economic Gains (4 points) 1.00
Representation (14
points)
0.55 Productivity 1.00
Accountability 0.55 Quality & Value Addition 1.00
Figure 8: Kitenge DC relative performance on main dimensions (out of 1.0)
In many ways, the successful governance of Kitenge DC is rooted in exemplary commitment to
farmer ownership and transparency, which echoes in UCFA as well. Semi-annual general
assemblies with public reading of financial results, open elections and nominations, an
independent disciplinary committee, a constitution that can be modified by farmer members,
and audits both internal (by UCFA) and external ensure that Kitenge DC is responsive to the
59 This table is calculated based on the answers to and scoring system of the Profiling Tool shown in Annex 2, as given to the
authors by Kitenge DC local leadership during an in-country visit to Uganda in October 2014.