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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Pawidi Transit Site firmly stated: “I don’t even want to talk about the possibility of reducingfood aid as long as that man, Kony, has not signed.”11.4 Recommendations for Phase Out♦♦♦♦♦♦A credible basis for a food Phase Out decision would be - similar to the recommendationsin Section 7.2 - to conduct an EFSA cum nutrition survey independent and of higherquality to establish a more comprehensive and varied assessment of food security,coping strategies, ability to meet the net food gap and phase out etc.Acknowledging that a more comprehensive EFSA may require more resources, NRCshould advocate directly to humanitarian donors for funding for such an EFSA. Given theconcern of some donors for the direction of food aid policy, there is currently anopportunity to present and to persuade its rationale.In addition NRC should pursue the inclusion of a consequence analysis for each areasubject to the Phase Out.NRC should assist in developing a ‘main streaming approach’ for EVIs, which should beincluded in the Phase Out strategy, so they are not left to the assumption that NEVIs willtake care of them.Based on a new EFSA, NRC together with other food security stakeholders should beguided in the Phase Out of food aid.While Phase Out is being discussed and determined, NRC and other actors should scaleup its FSL activities to cover more households.54
ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for the EvaluationNRC EvaluationsTERMS OF REFERENCEProject/Program: General Food Distribution in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum districts 1997 -2008Country:UgandaPeriod: April 2005 - April 2008Date final version: 20 th FebruaryA. Project BackgroundFor the last 20 years, t he population in the Acholi region in Northern Uganda, has been affected by a violentconflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda (GoU). In 1995 -1996, theGoU decreed that all residents of areas affected by the conflict h ad to move into “protected villages”, whichtriggered humanitarian response. In 1997, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) with the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil (NRC) as its cooperating partner started distributing food to the affected population in Gulu184 and Kitgumdistricts. An average of 450,000 Internally Displaced People (IDPs) was registered in camps.In late 2001, the GoU declared the LRA a terrorist organisation which led the LRA to infiltrate the northern regionfurther and to intensify their commitment of violent and atrocious acts against the civil population. This resulted ina second massive wave of displacement. By October 2003, the total population of displaced persons had grownto 885,800 persons in the Acholi region. The IDP population increased, and in 2006 the number of IDPs in Acholiwas 1,111,780.In August 2006 a Cessation of Hostilities Agreement was signed between the GoU and LRA. This Agreement haslargely held over the last year, and resulted in reducing violence in the region. Peace tal ks are ongoing in Juba,South Sudan. Most notably, the parties must develop a mechanism to implement the Accountability andReconciliation Agreement reached in June 2007, and the Annex to this Agreement reached in February 2008.Justice and reconciliation and the role of ICC remain challenges.The relative improvement in security situation has enabled IDPs to cultivate land further away from the campsthan before 2007, and transit sites 185 have been established adjacent to parishes of origin. In the Acholi r egion,(Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum and Pader districts) it is estimated that out of 1.1 million IDPs, 300,000 are graduallyresettling in their sub -counties/parishes of origin. Still, many of these IDPs maintain a strong link to the camp, anddo not feel secure t o return to their homes of origin until the peace agreement is signed. By June 2007 onaverage an estimated 63% of the IDP population in Acholi region remained in the camps while 34% had moved totransit sites and 3% settled home 186 .Project context and rat ionale:The Norwegian Refugee Council has provided food assistance to IDPs in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum districts in theAcholi sub -region in partnership with the UN World Food Programme since 1997. During 2007, 755,000 IDPs 187received a monthly ration in the camps and transit sites through the General Food Distribution/Food for Lifeproject (GFD/FFL 188 ). In 2007 NRC distributed food to 458,000 IDPs in 65 camps and 27 transit sites in Gulu andAmuru districts, and 297,000 IDPs in 26 camps and 13 transit sites in Kitgum district.The food rations provided to the IDPs and the composition of the food basket are based on biannualcomprehensive EFSA led by the WFP Vulnerability and Assessment Monitoring unit. One nutritionist and onemonitoring officer from the NRC FFL project and food security officers from NRC’s Food Security and Livelihoodsproject participate in the EFSA. The food rations to be distributed are calculated based on the assessment results184Gulu was divided in two administrative districts in 2007, Gulu and Amuru.185In Gulu and Amuru districts, IDPs in 27 transit sites have received food assistance since July, and IDPs in 13 transit siteshave received food assistance in Kitgum district.186Pader district contributed most to these figures and that especially movement in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum district has be enlimited (respectively 19 and 25 % at transit sites).187The NRC Food distribution program as cooperating partner to WFP covers the districts of Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum. WorldVision provides food assistance to IDPs in Pader in partnership with WFP.188The name of the WFP and NRC General Food Distribution Programme was changed to Food for Life in 2007 in accordancewith WFP HQ policies.55
Page 4 and 5:
List of Contents1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 6 and 7:
9.3 NRC’s Efforts Towards Connect
Page 8 and 9:
tools; however it ensures food secu
Page 10 and 11: ♦♦♦♦With the ration reducti
Page 12: 1.4 CoordinationNRC’s approach to
Page 15 and 16: NRC coincided the field phase of th
Page 17 and 18: Juba talks have been perceived as t
Page 19 and 20: Table 2: 2004 Global Food Aid Deliv
Page 21 and 22: 4 PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO FOOD - TH
Page 23 and 24: 5 PROJECT RELEVANCE & APPROPRIATENE
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Lesson Learned♦♦♦‘Being
Page 27 and 28: schedules and working long hours to
Page 29 and 30: The complaints about the failed ver
Page 31 and 32: 7 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESSHaving asses
Page 33 and 34: most and mothers observed the nutri
Page 35 and 36: 7.1.7 Lesson Learned♦ Food aid ha
Page 37 and 38: By 2005 the profile of the crisis i
Page 39 and 40: Recent studies 95 on global food se
Page 41 and 42: From the 2007 EFSA 104 it transpire
Page 43 and 44: 7.3 Project Objective 3:To safeguar
Page 45 and 46: 7.3.4 A Future Strategy for EVIs?Se
Page 47 and 48: 8 COORDINATION8.1 A Co-ordinated Re
Page 49 and 50: some extent also GoU through distri
Page 51 and 52: 9 RELIEF AND RECOVERY - CONNECTEDNE
Page 53 and 54: expected of them. From their perspe
Page 55 and 56: 9.4 Lessons Learnt♦♦♦♦♦St
Page 57 and 58: dependency among the IDPs and unwil
Page 59: establish the food security situati
Page 63 and 64: • Desk studies. As a general back
Page 65 and 66: F. Time frame and budget considerat
Page 67 and 68: Annex 2: Evaluation Programme - inc
Page 69 and 70: Annex 3: List of Documents Consulte
Page 71 and 72: Expert OpinionsMr. Joe OloyaMr. Gra
Page 73 and 74: Typical Menu:BREAKFAST:• Millet p
Page 75 and 76: NRC objectives andTOR objectivesTo
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?