evaluation of general food distribution in northern uganda: gulu ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 INTRODUCTION“…The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or incommunity with others has physical and economic access at all times to adequate foo d ormeans for its procurement…” 3For the last 22 years, the population in the Acholi region in Northern Uganda, has beenaffected by a violent conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Governmentof Uganda (GoU). In 1995-1996, the GoU decreed that all residents of areas affected by theconflict had to move into “protected villages”. These were de facto camps with limited spaceand extremely poor living conditions, creating an unbearable humanitarian situation forthousands of people, which in time triggered a humanitarian response. In 1997, the UNWorld Food Programme (WFP) with the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) as itscooperating partner started distributing food to the affected population in Gulu 4 and Kitgumdistricts. At that time there was an average of 450,000 Internally Displaced People (IDPs).The number of people today receiving monthly food assistance amounts to 755,000 IDPs 5 -located in the camps as well as in transit sites. In 2007 NRC distributed food to 458,000 IDPsin 65 camps and 27 transit sites in Gulu and Amuru districts, and 297,000 IDPs in 26 campsand 13 transit sites in Kitgum district. 6The objectives of the General Food Distribution Project have been to:1. To contribute to household food security and maintain the minimum nutritional anddietary standard by providing food assistance to people affected by displacement incamps in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum districts.2. To protect lives by providing humanitarian food assistance to IDPs to meet the assessedaverage net food gap.3. To safeguard the fundamental right to food for targeted IDPs with special emphasis onwomen and children, EVIs, and the long-term effect of insufficient access to food.After distributing food to IDPs for 10 years NRC decided in 2008 to conduct an evaluation ofthe GFD project. The purpose being to obtain a systematic and objective assessment of theachievements and performance of the GFD project viz the realisation of the three objective,and subsequently also to identify lessons learned which can inform recommendations forfuture project direction. To narrow down the scope and increase relevance for future NRCprogramming, the evaluation period was defined from 2005 to 2008.2.1 Objectives & Methodology of the EvaluationIn order to assess the performance and achievements of the GFD project the followingOECD DAC evaluation criteria has been used: Relevance/Appropriateness; ProjectEfficiency and Coverage, Project Effectiveness, Coordination, Impact andLinkages/Connectedness.The GFD evaluation methodology comprised three phases: i) an inception/desk phase tomake necessary logistical arrangements, review relevant documents and develop anevaluation tool/question guide; ii) a field phase to collect qualitative data throughobservations and interviews/consultations with stakeholders; and (iii) a synthesis phasebringing together the results of the field and desk phases.3The UN charter on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights4Gulu was divided in two administrative districts in 2007, Gulu and Amuru5 The NRC Food distribution program as cooperating partner to WFP covers the districts of Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum. Paderdistrict is covered by World Vision.6 The following part is summarised from NRC Evaluation TOR8
NRC coincided the field phase of the evaluation with their monthly food distribution activitiesin order to provide the Evaluation Team an opportunity to follow ‘activities on the ground’.Subsequently the Evaluation Team spent two weeks in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum from 14 th -25 th April. During the field phase several meetings and discussions were held with the NRCGFD team and other NRC programme staff as well as management (Gulu and Kitgum). Aseries of consultations and interviews were carried out with district officials (DDMCs, LCVsand RDCs) in the three districts. In addition interviews were conducted with humanitarianactors and implementing agencies in the food security, nutrition and coordination clusters(WFP, FAO, UNOCHA, UNHCR etc). In Kampala interviews were held with donor agenciesand WFP Country Office. A full list of people consulted is attached in Annex 4.In order to obtain detailed information from the IDPs a series of focus group discussions(FGDs) and individual interviews were held in a number of camps and transit sites. SomeFGDs were held exclusively with extremely vulnerable individuals or men or women. Othergroups were mixed. The camps and transit sites visited are presented in table 1 below:Table 1: Camps and Transit Sites VisitedDistrict Date Location ActivityKitgum 17 th April Amida IDP Camp Observation of Food DistributionFGD with 10 IDPs (male a nd female)Key Information Interviews with 2 women (NEVI)17 th April Lukwor Transit site FGD with 15 people (EVI and NEVI)18 th April Pawidi Transit site FGD with 15 people – and later plenary discussion with 37IDPs (female and male (EVI and NEVI)18 th April Omiya Anyima IDP Observation of Food DistributionCampGulu 15 th April Opit IDP Camp FGD with 20 Food Management Committee membersKey informant Interviews with selected EVIs22 nd April Orafwoyo TransitsiteFGD with 15 IDPs – later deve loped into plenary sessionswith 30 IDPs (women and men)22 nd April Acet IDP camp Observation of Food DistributionKey Information Interview with 2 female beneficiaries(EVIs)Amuru 21 st April Amuru IDP Camp FGD with 21 IDPs (men and women)FGD 16 Food Management Committee membersThe combination of all these actors ensured, that a balanced approach was made to coverstakeholders from all levels and as many voices as possible have been heard.The Evaluation Team consisted of Rekha Das and Anne Nkutu of Nordic Consulting Group,Uganda. The Evaluation Team would like to extend its thanks to all the stakeholders whopatiently participated in this evaluation exercise. Your views and opinions have been ofimportance to the input to the report. Special thanks are also extended to the NRC GFDteam who played an important role in facilitating the logistics and contacts and a smooth fieldvisit.2.2 Structure of the Evaluation ReportAfter a brief context description and an introduction to the GFD project, the fo llowing pageswill analyse and discuss the performance, achievements and challenges, which the NRCimplemented GFD project has faced. The chapters are sequenced as follows: Relevance &Appropriateness; Efficiency &Coverage; Project Effectiveness (analysing the fulfilments ofthe three GFD objectives); Coordination; Connectedness (between relief and recovery);Impact and finally a discussion of the scenario of Phasing off food aid in Northern Uganda.Each chapter discusses findings/achievements/concerns and wraps up with lessons learnedand recommendations.9
Page 4 and 5: List of Contents1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 6 and 7: 9.3 NRC’s Efforts Towards Connect
Page 8 and 9: tools; however it ensures food secu
Page 10 and 11: ♦♦♦♦With the ration reducti
Page 12: 1.4 CoordinationNRC’s approach to
Page 17 and 18: Juba talks have been perceived as t
Page 19 and 20: Table 2: 2004 Global Food Aid Deliv
Page 21 and 22: 4 PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO FOOD - TH
Page 23 and 24: 5 PROJECT RELEVANCE & APPROPRIATENE
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Lesson Learned♦♦♦‘Being
Page 27 and 28: schedules and working long hours to
Page 29 and 30: The complaints about the failed ver
Page 31 and 32: 7 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESSHaving asses
Page 33 and 34: most and mothers observed the nutri
Page 35 and 36: 7.1.7 Lesson Learned♦ Food aid ha
Page 37 and 38: By 2005 the profile of the crisis i
Page 39 and 40: Recent studies 95 on global food se
Page 41 and 42: From the 2007 EFSA 104 it transpire
Page 43 and 44: 7.3 Project Objective 3:To safeguar
Page 45 and 46: 7.3.4 A Future Strategy for EVIs?Se
Page 47 and 48: 8 COORDINATION8.1 A Co-ordinated Re
Page 49 and 50: some extent also GoU through distri
Page 51 and 52: 9 RELIEF AND RECOVERY - CONNECTEDNE
Page 53 and 54: expected of them. From their perspe
Page 55 and 56: 9.4 Lessons Learnt♦♦♦♦♦St
Page 57 and 58: dependency among the IDPs and unwil
Page 59 and 60: establish the food security situati
Page 61 and 62: ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for the
Page 63 and 64:
• Desk studies. As a general back
Page 65 and 66:
F. Time frame and budget considerat
Page 67 and 68:
Annex 2: Evaluation Programme - inc
Page 69 and 70:
Annex 3: List of Documents Consulte
Page 71 and 72:
Expert OpinionsMr. Joe OloyaMr. Gra
Page 73 and 74:
Typical Menu:BREAKFAST:• Millet p
Page 75 and 76:
NRC objectives andTOR objectivesTo
show all

evaluation of general food distribution in northern uganda: gulu ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?