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

Box 8: IDPs reasons for not meeting their net food gap 99Regarding access to landRegarding cultivation of land♦♦For several years accessing a few km of landin the periphery of the camps has not beenenough to sustain the food gap (graduallyexpanded from 1 -5km).Not everybody has access to land.♦ Some have to rent land and it is costly 100 .♦♦With their manual efforts they were only in aposition to cultivate and weed 1 -2 acres.In Eastern parts of Kitg um there is fear ofKaramojong raiders, who raid peoples homes– this fear restricts many IDPs to their campsor transit sites.♦♦♦♦Inadequate farming tools and seeds despitesome blanket distribution;‘Opening up’ the uncultivated land is difficultand needs more than just manpower (when ittakes long to open up land, they miss afarming season);The lack of oxen ploughs/tractors or moreintensive machinery to open up land.IDPs ‘don’t feel strong enough to dig, as theydon’t get enough food’Regarding alternative income opportunitiesRegarding saving and investment♦♦♦Income generating activities and employmentopportunities in camps, in town or in transitsites are few.The youth no longer help parents in the farms– they have little experience of far ming anddream of urban lifestyles and jobs.Older women who have lost their family butstill have land are not able to get help tocultivate it.♦♦No granaries to store food (some IDPs inAmuru said that their produce in farms lastyear resulted in a sur plus, which they cannotsave)Lack of money to rent an oxen and a plough♦ Prices on food have increased in towns. 101Several key informants (government officials, humanitarian organisations and donors)admitted that along side the ration reductions in most cases the IDPs have not been able tomeet their net food gap. As one UN agency in Kitgum phrased it: ”people are not yet wherewe thought they would be”. A confirmation of this statement is found in some of the copingstrategies, which several of the IDPs, interviewed have claimed to apply 102 :Box 9: Coping strategies 2005 to 2008 1031. Reduction in number of meals per day2. Borrowing food3. Reduced the sizes of meals4. Purchasing food on credit5. Skipped food consumption for an entire day6. Restriction of adult consu mption at home7. Consumption of wild food8. Consumption of immature foods9. Consuming less preferred food10. Eating seed stocks11. Engaging in degrading jobs99Naturally this is only a snap shot, as the IDPs interviewed are not representative of the entire IDP population. Themethodological sensitivity of any survey regarding food aid, which invariably prompts biased or rhetoric answers is taken intoconsideration: Sources are multiple, answers have been cross checked and corroborated with surveys, monitoring reports andinterviews with other stakeholders.100 Price mentioned: ushs 15.000/acre/year.101 Prices from Kitgum Town Sorghum 2007: Ushs 30/mug and in 2008: Ushs 100/mug. Sweet potato 2007: Ushs 100/heapand in 2008: Ushs 200/heap. Source: FAO, Kitgum102 The EFSA 2005 summarises that the interpretation of the above is difficult and attributes the coping strategies to the factthat the crisis is protracted to such an extent “that some of the strategies may have been adapted”. This is seen in conjunctionwith the fact that global malnutrition rates as well as severe malnutrition rates declined in all districts.103This is only a snap shot, as the IDPs interviewed for the Evaluation are not representative of the entire IDP population.Nevertheless the answers – which were repeated in the majority of FDGs give an indication. Moreover, they were confirmed inseveral of NRCs own monitoring reports from 2005-2008.34