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

7.2.3 Stimulating Other OptionsLike the statement made above the 2005 and 2007 EFSAs note that there is a strongrelationship between household food security and contribution of own production to the foodbasket. However, apart from blanket distributions 113 of seeds and tools to a number of IDPs itseems that little has been done by GoU, humanitarian agencies or donors to 114 1) stimulateown production 2) facilitate the market 3) create employment opportunities 4) createinvestment prospects 5) help farmers save their produce or seeds 6) open up for incomegenerating activities and 7) revive animal husbandry … all of which are fundamentallynecessary for the IDPs to cover their net food gap (regular and seasonal) 115 .It is clear to humanitarian and recovery actors on the Ugandan scene that between relief andrecovery/development there is a gap without adequate interventions and actors. While someshut down and phase out their operations others are supposed to open up, increase andexpand. But interventions in the area of food security, livelihoods, durable solution s, socialprotection and safety nets are still slow in taking off. Some of the reasons given are lack ofdonor funding, lack of leadership from GoU to steer the process and lack of a consolidatedand coordinated approach from recovery/development actors. C hapter 9 will discuss some ofthese challenges and dilemmas.7.2.4 Lesson Learned♦ IDPs have in general not been able to meet their net food gap as quickly as assumedfrom the beginning of the project period. Meeting the net food gap as well as nutritionalstandards is challenging if food ration reductions do not go hand in hand with livelihoodand food security expansion, particularly for more vulnerable groups and in the transitsites, where basic services are lacking and markets for purchase/sale are far.♦♦With the ration reductions and no immediate livelihood opportunities, IDPs are forced intovarious coping strategies, some more encouraging than others. In worst cases the copingstrategies are of a degrading nature, challenging the protection of some of the IDPs.EFSA’s and nutritional surveys are faced by a series of methodological limitations, delaysand lack of nuances, which question their credibility. Yet these surveys comprise the solebasis for crucial decision-making on food aid policy in Northern Uganda. Enhancedcorroboration, triangulation of data, comprehensiveness and independence of thesurveys will increase the credibility of the evidence base for decision -making.7.2.5 Recommendations♦ To address the reported problems regarding the EFSAs’ methodology and credibility andprovide a more confident basis for decision making and policy development at this time inNorthern Uganda, an EFSA cum nutrition survey, independent, and of a higher qualityshould be conducted to establish a more comprehensive and varied assessment of foodsecurity, coping strategies, ability to meet the net food gap etc. The research should beconducted by food aid experts, some of whom may be drawn from current experiencedfood actors on the ground. An independent EFSA need not necessarily replace currentlyplanned EFSAs, but be additional to it. (This is also recommended in Chapter 11 on FoodPhase Out strategy). NRC should advocate for and contribute to the realisation of this.♦NRC should invest in more specific research of various alternatives to food aid duringand after emergency settings, with a view to strengthen peoples’ coping strategies asquickly as possible (ref. recommendations in Sections 5.4 and 7.1).113 Amongst others undertaken by GoU, ICRC and selected other NGOs114 Key informant interviews with District officials in Gulu, Kitgum and Amuru, WFP Gulu and Kitgum, OCHA Gulu and Kitgum,NRC, AVSI as well as selected food aid donors, Kampala.115All of which is also mentioned in the EFSA’s36