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

some extent also GoU through district departments, that have provided services that haveincreased the effectiveness of NRC’s GFD e.g. provision of water & sanitation, health,education and some food security interventions.With the security improvements in the North and the ongoing return process, the nature ofthe roles and responsibilities by actors on the ground is also subject to change. Thisconcerns humanitarian actors, NGOs, UN, Donors and in particular Government actors atcentral and district levels. All are now supp osed to change gears from the emergencyapproach to the recovery. However it has been noted that coordination between the differentsectors and capacity of Government in particular to pick up where humanitarian agencies areleaving is neither effective nor adequate. Coordination of this process falls within the remit ofthe DDMCs and the various sector/cluster groups. For example the absence of certain socialservices in the transit sites has forced a number of IDP households to move back and forthand has caused some disruption in GFD’s distribution programme 143 . These are some of thechallenges facing a coordinated response to the transition from relief to recovery, more ofwhich will be discussed in Chapter 9.8.2 WFP – NRC: A Mutual PartnershipWFP has the overall mandate of providing emergency food aid to the IDPs in NorthernUganda and NRC is one of and also its biggest cooperating partner in Uganda. As spelt outin the MOUs that are renewed annually, NRC is re sponsible for logistical operations anddistribution of commodities in addition to being WFP’s ‘eyes and ears’ on the ground. NRCand WFP employ a number of channels including regular meetings and monthly postdistribution monitoring reports through which information is shared and delivery anddistribution activities are co-ordinated. Effective co-ordination between the two partners hascontributed to the improved assessment of beneficiary needs and hence adjustments ofrations 144 , improved targeting (at least 97% of planned beneficiaries reached), preparednessand delivery of food in response to changing circumstances e.g. floods and impassableroads. WFP has highlighted NRC’s openness and transparency in discussion of difficultissues as being one of the main reasons for effective coordination. NRC is credited for itsefficiency, flexibility and ability to quickly adjust its distribution plans in sync with WFP’smodalities. However, despite this very conducive environment there have been a number ofcoordination challenges incl. verification and registration of beneficiaries, slow handling ofcomplaints and slow responses to problems, which have caused frustration amongst all –also in the absence of contingency measures (See details Section 6.4).8.3 Lessons♦♦NRC’s approach to coordination through openness, transparent dialogue and sharing ofinformation with humanitarian organizations, agencies, beneficiaries as well asGovernment has been imperative to efficient coordination.Lack of active coordination on behalf of all stakeholders (perhaps due to lack of clearunderstanding of roles and responsibilities) is having a negative effect on the recoveryresponse, leaving IDPs in a void.8.4 Recommendations♦NRC should push/advocate for an articulation of roles and responsibilities as well strongcoordination amongst humanitarian actors through the recovery phase.143Interview with NRC, Kitgum144Interview with WFP Gulu43