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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 NORTHERN UGANDA – A CHALLENGING CONTEXT3.1 Poverty & Conflict in Northern UgandaThe districts of Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader in the Acholi Sub region in Northern Ugandahave been at the centre of a conflict between the Government of Uganda (GOU) and theLord’s Resistance Army (LRA) for more than 22 years. The protracted conflict has lead tomassive internal population displacements in Northern Uganda. At the height of theinsurgency (2002 -2004) nearly 2 million people were forced to live in crowded camps. In theAcholi region alone, more than a million people were living in 112 camps. Insecurityhampered free movement, to the effect that people were confined in camps for years 7 . Thiscontributed to making North Uganda the third, among the 10 worst internal displacementsituations in the world 8 .The war had a direct impact on people’s lives and ability for survival. Over 20.000 childrenhave been abducted by the LRA and forced into the rebel forces as child soldiers. Abductedgirls and young women were subjected to sexual enslavement and forced to serve as wivesto LRA rebels 9 . In addition to repeated gross human rights violations 10 , countless lives havebeen lost and assets, social infrastructure and livelihoods destroyed. Health indicators duringmany years reflected discouraging trends. Between 1995 and 2000 infant mortality increasedfrom 81 to 88 deaths per 1000 live births. Mortality amongst children under the age of fiveincreased from 147 to 152 per 1,000 deaths 11 , stunting reached the level of 39% and by early2000 the global acute malnutrition rates reached an alarming 20% in many parts of theNorth. 12Northern Uganda accounts for over 20% of Uganda’s arable land. Traditionally this area wasknown as the breadbasket of Uganda as it produced a food surplus that was sold in otherparts of the country. However, the impact of the conflict changed this favourable situation,and from being farmers and livestock herders, people became largely dependent onhumanitarian assistance for their survival. The conflict has contributed to high poverty levels,which range between 61 – 70% and are more than double the national average of 31% 13 .The war widened the poverty gap between the North and the rest of the country from 17% in1992 to 30% in 2005/06. Today, almost half (44.3%) of the poorest 20% in Uganda live inNorthern Uganda, many of whom are extremely vulnerable individuals 14 .With time the humanitarian crisis has drawn international attention. Resourc es channelledtowards emergency assistance have grown substantially from USD 42 million in 2002, USD204 million in 2006 and close to USD 300 million in 2007. 15 Although the regularity of thehumanitarian assistance varied due to the security situation, provision of basic socialservices, food, medicine and other support services have been extended to the IDPs.3.2 Peace Process & ReturnsThe security situation in Northern Uganda has improved significantly since the signing of acessation of hostilities agreement in August 2006 and the peace talks in Juba. The respiteimproved mobility, access for humanitarian assistance, increased movement, access to land,and sparked the re-emergence of economic life in parts of the region. However, while the7EU, 2007: Northern Uganda Agricultural Recovery Programme: Identification Mission Report8IDMC/NRC: Internal Displacement - Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 20059Feinstein International Center: Movement on the Margins: Livelihoods and Security in Kitgum District, Northern Uganda10Abductions, conscription, mutilations, rape and other forms of sexual violence,11A UNICEF situation analysis report of 2005 states that the dire situation resulted in over 400 children under the age of fivewould die each week from easily preventable diseases including malaria, diarrhoea, anaemia and malnutrition.12WFP PRRO 2005-2008132005/06 Uganda National Household Survey14Orphans, widows, children heading households and the elderly15UNIRIN, November 200710
Juba talks have been perceived as the best chance for peace so far, they have been facedby many challenges and a long drawn process. It was initially anticipated that acomprehensive peace agreement would have been signed between the GOU and the LRA inthe first quarter of 2008. The process has however been delayed by sticking points aroundthe issues of justice, accountability and reconciliation for the LRA – all of which are critical forlasting peace and stability. The impasse around the indictments of the Internatio nal CriminalCourt of the LRA leadership and the application of alternative justice mechanisms remainsone of the bigger challenges.Originally the IDP population of the Acholi sub region (Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum and Pader) was1.102.438. The Gulu/Amuru and Kitgum population alone comprise 763.499 IDPs. While theGOU has declared the period of active conflict as effectively over, the delays in the signing ofthe peace deal have tapered the optimism and return movements of the IDP communities inthe worst affected Acholi sub region. For example, it was expected that 70 % of thepopulation would have returned to their villages of origin by December 2007. However,statistics as of March 2008 16 show that approximately 50% of the population (534.380people 17 ) in the Acholi sub region had moved away from the main camps. Many Acholis(36%) who have left the camps have returned not to their villages, but have settled inspontaneous transit sites from which they have better access to the own land 18 and alsosocial services. Studies show that many may – contrary to initially anticipated – never returnto original homes. 19 The number of transit sites in the Acholi sub region today amounts to1062. The most recent figures also show that only 12% of the IDPs in Acholi have retur ned totheir villages of origin.The return patterns indicate that many IDPs still maintain some presence in the originalcamps first and foremost, as a security blanket in the event of fresh outbreaks of insecurity.Security concerns aside, return patterns are also affected by among others – the absence ofbasic services in some of the return areas, fear of unexploded ordinances (UXOs), lack ofconstruction materials for shelter, lack of adequate agricultural inputs and the continuedthreats of the Karimojong in certain areas. The return process has also increased pressureon the already overstretched humanitarian resources as humanitarian agencies providingfood assistance, health, water and sanitation services struggle to meet the needs ofcommunities in the camps, transit and in the villages of origin. Although GOU has listedcriteria to assess sites for resettlement – few services are in place and this has slowed theresettlement process.3.3 Government Policies, Plans & ServicesThe Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) – GOU’s overarching development frameworkrecognises that, while economic growth is a necessary condition for poverty reduction,poverty is a multi-dimensional problem. Over the years, the PEAP has been revised tocapture and reflect emerging issues pertinent to poverty reduction. In the last revision, thePEAP introduced a third pillar on security and conflict resolution as a direct recognition of thepoverty implications of conflict and hence the need for a coherent approach to r ecovery anddevelopment. Priority areas under this pillar include: ending rebel insurgency, by peacefulmeans if possible; ending cattle rustling; and enhancing disaster management specifically inrelation to issues of internal displacement.Government has also developed an IDP policy aimed at mitigating the IDP crisis. GoU hencecommits to:16UNHCR matrix on estimated IDP population movements, March 2008 (It should be noted that during population movementsaccurate figures are difficult to ascertain)17Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum and Pader18CAP, OCHA 200819Waiting for Godot in Gulu, OCHA 200711
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 15: NRC coincided the field phase of th
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?