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

From the 2007 EFSA 104 it transpired that adults in 52% of the households had only one meala day and the figure was higher in transit sites (60%) 105 Even for children the figures werenoticeable, with 36% reporting only 1 meal and 3% reporting no meals the previous daybefore the EFSA survey. 47% could manage to feed their children twice a day, but only 14%were in a position to give their children more than 3 meals a day. The EFSA does indicatethat Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum seem to be faring better than the remaining sample sites forthe EFSA 2007. Although not commonly adopted, some of the more disturbing anddamaging coping strategies that the Evaluation Team discovered through some focus groupdiscussions with IDPs were:Box 10: Other coping strategies 2005 -2008 106♦♦♦♦♦♦Begging or sending your younger family members to begTheft (crime rates in camps are in general high)Prostitution (also by young mothers)Child labour by sending children of young age to workGamblingExploiting natural resources for selling (charcoal burning)The Evaluation Team found that despite having more access to land and having left behi ndthe strains of camp-life, the coping strategies in transit sites in Gulu and Kitgum 107 seemmore challenging than in the mother camps. The lack of basic services such as health,access roads, clean water and sanitation in particular puts people in a vulne rable situation.The Evaluation Team’s observations show (and were confirmed by several NRC staff andvolunteers) that the malnutrition levels amongst lactating mothers and the vast number ofchildren who have not yet reached the school going age was relat ively high. As mentionedearlier nutritional surveys conducted by WFP concentrate their research mainly in mothercamps 108 .In spite of these observations, several interviews and findings documented in monitoringreports from amongst others NRC, the common understanding that IDPs are not meetingtheir net food gap is still disputed. For example district officials in Gulu emphasised to theEvaluation Team that as documented in the Nutrition Surveys, Northern Uganda is “out of thedanger zone…. people today are okay… and…they produce enough to supply the Sudanmarket”. 109 If there are reasons for the Acholi people not meeting their net food gap, it isaccording to some officials because they ‘by nature are lazy’ 110 and that food aid over thepast 10 years has brought about a highly inconvenient ‘dependency syndrome’ 111 .One UN agency was strongly of another view: “IDPs do not want the food rations any longerand they can grow the food. The problem is only that the yield is not high enough andtherefore they are not meeting their net food gap…they need tractors…If they had the option,they would go for something else than food aid. The option is still not there. Food is no longerconsidered a push or a pull factor…” 112 .104 The EFSA 2007 covers mother camps and transit camps in: Gulu, Kitgum, Pader, Apac & Oyam, Amuria & Katakwi andLira – i.e. figures include Acholi, Lango and Teso regions.105 EFSA 2007, p.12106IDPs interviewed for the Evaluation are not representative of the entire IDP population, and as stated these coping strategiesare not commonly adopted amongst all IDPs interviewed. Some answers are also confirmed in NRCs own monitoring reportsfrom 2005-2008.107 Pawidi in Kitgum, Lukwor in Kitgum and Oraphoyo in Gulu108WFP Nutritional Surveys of 2006 and 2007 conducted in 53 mother camps in Gulu109 Interview with DDMC, Gulu.110 District Official, Gulu111 District Official Gulu112Interview with UNHCR Gulu.35