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

Recent studies 95 on global food security and emergency needs assessments support theabove findings by arguing that linking ‘analysis to decision making’ in food s ecurity is facedwith numerous challenges. The criticisms amongst others centre around: “analytical capacity(assessments of needs, cost-effectiveness and impact), the ability to allocate resourcesimpartially, the ability to link analysis or early warning to a timely and appropriateresponse…” 96 . Studies also highlight that while food security assessments may be useful forfood agencies’ own programming, they “are not as useful for donors or other partners infacilitating decision making… they continue to be narrowly focused on an a priori assumptionof food aid programming, rather than providing a basis on which to inform the broader rangeof response options” 97 .To address the problems regarding the EFSAs and provide a more confident basis for foodaid policy development in Northern Uganda, an EFSA conducted independent of those with avested interest would be timely and relevant (see also Chapter 11 on Food Phase Off). Ofcourse the research should be conducted by food aid experts, some of whom may be drawnfrom current experienced food actors on the ground. Moreover, an independent EFSA neednot necessarily replace currently planned EFSAs, but be additional to it.Given stakeholders’ and donors’ concerns for t he direction of food aid policy, the EvaluationTeam finds that there is opportunity to present an independent EFSA and persuade donorsof its added value. What they stand to gain from a quality EFSA would most likely dwarf thecost.7.2.2 Covering the Net Food Gap – How do People Cope?Despite the noted improvements in security, increased access to land and possibilities formarket use, NRC’s monitoring reports and post distribution reports as well as severalinterviews 98 with humanitarian actors and donors still show that meeting the net food gap is achallenge to many IDPs. IDPs asked during the field visits in mother camps as well as intransit sites confirmed that they had access to land (average 2 -5 acres) and some access tomarkets. Some IDPs said the land was their own, while others said they had to rent land.Many were farming this season and hoped for a good harvest (due to heavy seasonal rainslast year their crops were destroyed). Nevertheless most of the IDPs interviewed explainedthat they were not able to meet their food gap largely because:95ODI study of 2007: “A Review of the links between needs assessments and decision making in response to food crisis:WFP/Emergency Needs Assessment” + “Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian Response”, Maxwell et. al, 2008 in adiscussion paper for CARE, Oxfam, Tufts University and Feinstein International Centre. A conference on food security and howto ‘rethink it’ was held in Rome in April 2008. Earlier papers on this subject amongst others include: Simon Levine and ClaireChastre et al: “Missing the point: An analysis of food security in the Great Lakes”, Network Paper 47, Humanitarian PracticeNetwork London, ODI, 200496“Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian Response”, Maxwell et al, 2008, p. 23.97ODI study of 2007: “A Review of the links between needs assessments and decision making in response to food crisis:WFP/Emergency Needs Assessment”. Referenced in “Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian Response”, Maxwell et. al,2008, p. 32-3398 Interview with OCHA Gulu/Kitgum, DFID Kampala, FAO Kitgum, NRC staff and volunteers Gulu/Kitgum, IDPs (incl. FMCmembers, camp commandants) in several camps and transit sites visited, WFP Kitgum33