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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Up until 2005 most people received a 74% or 98-100% rations depending upon the capabilityto compliment the distributed food aid with food items from own sources. In 2006 the rationswere reduced. In Gulu and Amuru the reduction was 40%, 50% and 60% of the full ration forNon Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (NEVIs) and for the Extremely Vulnerable Individuals(EVIs) 98%. In Kitgum the rations were reduced to 60% for NEVIs and maintained at 100%for the EVIs.Table 4: Food rations and ValuesFoodrationCerealkg/person/monthPulseskg/person/monthVeg. Oilkg/person/monthCSBkg/person/monthFoodValue/day100% 12,5 2,1 0,6 2,1 2100 kcal98% 12,45 2,1 0,6 1,5 2054 kcal74% 8,4 1,8 0,37 1,8 1554 kcal60% 7,2 1,2 0,45 - 1259 kcal50% 4,5 1,8 0,36 - 1050 kcal40% 4,5 0,9 0,3 - 828 kcalAs shown in the table with the exception of EVIs, most allocated food ration s do not amountto the minimum nutritional and dietary standard of 2.100 kcal per person per day, theassumption being that IDPs will manage to secure the remaining food -gap themselves.Furthermore it is argued that IDPs compliment their diet with other fo od aid interventionsfrom WFP such as Food for Education (school feeding), Therapeutic Feeding Centres (foodfor babies and lactating mothers) and Food for Work (food in exchange for manual labour).7.1.3 Employing the Fair Share ‘Family Size Model’In order to ensure that each household was secured equally with food, NRC employed a newmethodology of food distribution in 2003, described as the ‘family size model’. Until thenNRC had been using a model, where individuals with a ration card would receive the sam erations regardless of their family size. This resulted in an unfair distribution of rations, wherea family of one person would receive the same amount of food, as a family of 12 persons.With the ‘family size model’ food rations are given according to the number of people in eachhousehold, which eventually leads to all individuals receiving the same amount. It took sometime before the new model was understood and the organisation of the distribution performedas intended. Once this was in place the results were clear: households were receiving theirfair share of food in an organised way 67 . Moreover, NRC handed over the physicaldistribution activity of scooping to the beneficiaries themselves and the FMCs. In groupsbeneficiaries carry their sacks and divide scoops of the different items between them. IDPsappreciate being actively involved because as one women said: “its our food, why should weleave it to somebody else to serve for us” 68 . In order to ensure that NEVIs do not disturb theEVIs this group is served separately.7.1.4 Have Beneficiary Needs & Demands been met?NRC monitors its contribution to household security and the maintenance of nutritional anddietary standards (‘Objective 1’) through daily, monthly and quarterly reports, post distributio nmonitoring reports and participation in food security and nutritional surveys. Some of theconsistent findings on the quantity and quality of food during the past three years include 69 :Regarding the food basket composition, its usage and quality: Beneficiaries expressedgeneral satisfaction with the food basket as a temporary intervention – particularly when itwas complete, i.e. with all the intended food items. This food basket combined with thesupplementary feeding programmes in feeding centres and in schools was appreciated by67Key informants from Kitgum and Gulu Districts, WFP Gulu and OCHA Kitgum.68Focus group discussion with IDPs in Amida camp.69 NRC monthly and quarterly monitoring reports + Post Distribution Monitoring Reports from 2005 to 2008 + interviews/focusgroup discussions with male and female IDPs (EVIs and NEVIs) in Amida camp, Pawidi Transit site, Opit camp, OrafwoyoTransit site, Lukwor Transit site, Acet IDP camp, Amuru IDP camp.26
most and mothers observed the nutritional standards of their children gradually improving.Nevertheless the uniform and unchanged diet during so many years was expressed asinsufficient to maintain a healthy nutrition. Considering their traditional staple food and varieddiet IDPs explained that their needs included a more diverse food basket including suchnutritious items like sweet potato, vegetables and meat. It took them some time to get usedto new food items such as sorghum, cooking oil and split peas (the latter two not used in atraditional Acholi diet). As mentioned, the Acholi diet usually uses sim sim for cooking, whichcontains a more nutritious fat. The IDPs tried to supplement their food basket in various ways– amongst others by growing cassava in their gardens, but due to the tall size of the plant themilitary prohibited the production of cassava, which provided for camouflage for the LRArebels. These kinds of constraints have lead many IDPs to rely on the food supplies as amain part of their diet through the most difficult times in the conflict.Several IDPs have experienced receiving extremely poor quality food, including rotten maizeand uneatable beans 70 through the GFD programme. IDPs did however find the Corn SoyaBlend (CSB) useful. Mothers prioritised the CSB for the children as a substitute for thetraditional nutrients, which the Acholi diet prescribes for small children. CSB was howevereliminated from the food basket with the ration reduction. The sa me applies to cooking oil.Most IDPs use their food for household consumption (more than 95%). Only a ‘negligiblelevel’ (between 1-3%) is used for sale to acquire other necessities such as salt, lighting fueletc.Regarding food rations and food quantity: Across the board IDPs expressed dissatisfactionwith the reductions in food rations. In most cases the reduced rations, delays in delivery aswell as missing items from the food basket leave IDPs with food for less than two weeks andin the majority of cases one meal or less than a meal per day (see also Section 7.2. for moredetails). The 98% and 100% rations given to EVIs have suffered from reductions in cookingoil and CSB particularly since June 2007. Most frustrating to many IDPs is being left off theWFP registry after the verification process (discussed in Section 6.4).Apart from monitoring beneficiary satisfaction, reactions and complaints, NRC has during th eproject period not taken initiatives to supplement the diets or provide alternative nutritionalsolutions.7.1.5 Responding to ComplaintsIDPs complaints regarding food aid are regularly compiled in NRC reports and filed to WFPfor action and recourse. However the problems and demands of the IDPs remain. Althoughseveral stakeholders claim that IDPs have received multiple explanations and justifications toissues such as WFP print list problems, rotten food, the lack of cooking oil and the rationreductions, the Evaluation Team found that these had not been sufficiently internalised bythe IDPs.A complaint desk is set up after each food distribution. It is manned by volunteers, whoreceive and forward complaints from the IDPs, but otherwise have no autho rity to take anyother action. The normal use – one would think - of a complaint desk is that the complaintsreceived at the desk are handled or addressed and that IDPs get a satisfactory feed back.Nevertheless observing and visiting the complaint desks set up after the food distributionsand speaking to several IDPs as well as staff/volunteers in charge of the desks, theEvaluation Team found that the value of these desks to some degree seems to havewithered away. Complaints have been filed to WFP for ye ars without any major action orrecourse. The frustration or apathy of no response is showing amongst both IDPs andvolunteers, questioning the use/seriousness of these desks.70 In several NRC monitoring reports the expression about the poor quality food is ‘that it is not fit for human consumption’.27
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 and 16: NRC coincided the field phase of th
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: 7 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESSHaving asses
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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?