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

involvement of stakeholders; sharing of information, greater leverage of resources;identification of needs; increased accessibility to all camps; quality assurance and ultimately,the timely, efficient and safe distribution of food aid to the intended beneficiaries.Examples of some of the areas where the co-ordination efforts with some of the actors e.g.DDMC have been useful include: provision of military personnel 135 to escort the food trucksand provide security protection during distribution in particularly insecure areas. The DDMCCoordinator has at times also been involved in dissemination of information to thecommunities on food distribution issues (reductions in rations) 136 .At the level of the beneficiaries, co-ordination efforts have resulted into increased beneficiaryinvolvement, better identification and representation of the communities’ needs andproblems; orderly distribution and crowd control. Coordination with other agencies/NGOsinvolved in camp management has provided NRC with important information on IDPpopulations, return movements and figures as well as information on protection concerns e.g.level of gender based violence 137 .There have been challenges arising from the limited capacity (personnel, finances,equipment) of some agencies, organisations and government institutions to participateactively 138 and effectively respond to problems within their ambit. For example the poorcondition of some roads during the rainy season has from time to time caused delays indelivery of food aid to some IDP camps. NRC frequently experiences problems intransporting food to some camps e.g. Pabbo in Amuru and the Eastern Chwa region inKitgum. Food trucks occasionally get stuck, delaying the di stribution process andnecessitating the volunteer teams to spend nights in the camps. Kitgum district expects torepair at least 5 bridges 139 having submitted a request for funds from the Ministry of Worksand Housing for funds; as well as repair some of th e feeder roads through funds fromDanida. In the interim, NRC has demanded for stronger trucks from its transporters and hasalso arranged to distribute at least two months rations to some of the hard to reach areasahead of the rain season 140 .Frequent movements of IDPs and the absence of uniform data on camp populations andreturn figures have also been a challenge to proper planning. UNHCR (in liaison withorganisations responsible for camp management) compiles figures of the IDP populations incamps and transit sites and updates a matrix sent out to all other stakeholders.Communication with the beneficiaries is not always timely. It was found that beneficiarieswere not always fully aware of the reasons behind the ration reduction and/or absence ofcertain food items. The beneficiaries also complained about the slow response to theproblems that they have raised. Participation of IDPs in DDMCs is not as regular due tofunding constraints 141 . Although NRC as an organization has ensured that food related an dother problems of IDPs are captured in its reports, non response (as highlighted in earlierchapters) to the problems has partly been a result of the co -ordination challenges of thedifferent sectors as discussed below.The GFD is only a part of the humanitarian response to the conflict in northern Uganda.There are many other inter-related activities. Although not indicated on the table, there are anumber of other players 142 – UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs, CBOs, NRC’s programmes and to135Interview with District Official, Gulu136Interview with DDMC Coordinator, Gulu137Interviews with UNHCR and Camp Management NRC138Often district sector officials have not attended meetings.139Interview with Vice Chair, LCV Kitgum140Quarterly report FFL/FFE: Jan – March 2008141FGD with IDPs in Opit and Pawidi142UNICEF, WHO, MSF, ICRC, AVSI, IRC, OXFAM just to mention a few.42