Food Security and

Agricultural
Livelihoods Cluster

Plan of Action for Northern Uganda

2008 - 2009

Summary poster with a video documentary

 Food Security and Agricultural
Livelihoods Cluster

Plan of Action for Northern Uganda

2008 - 2009

FSAL cluster member contribution:

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)
Office of the Prime Minister (OPM)
ACF, ASB, AHA, AAH, ACDI, ACTED, AVSI, ADAN, CRS, Caritas, CD, CLIDE, CONCERN, CoU, DRC, ICRC, IRC, IIRR, GAA, GOAL, FIDA, LWF,
NAADS, NARO, KDLG, NRC, MADEFO, MEDAIR, Mercy Corps, PU, RALNUC, TEMEDO, TEDDO, SCIU, UNHCR, URCSm OXFAM, WFP, VSF.

Financial support:
European Commission, USA, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, UK, ECHO, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, CERF, Spain, Italy, France,
Denmark.

Coordinated by FAO
Contents

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................................. iv
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION: OBJECTIVES AND ORIGINS OF THE PLAN OF ACTION ............................................................2

2. SITUATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................3

Northern Uganda in national context ...........................................................................................................................3
Regional situation, problems and scenario analysis ....................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................4
Karamoja region.......................................................................................................................................................5
Teso, Lango and Acholi sub-regions..........................................................................................................................9
West Nile region.....................................................................................................................................................15

3. RESPONSE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................18

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................18
Structure of the response plan ...................................................................................................................................19
Programme 1 - Karamoja ...........................................................................................................................................20
Programme 2 - Teso, Lango and Acholi......................................................................................................................23
Programme 3 - West Nile...........................................................................................................................................27

4. RISK ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................................29

5. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK, MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................................30

Introduction and logical framework ...........................................................................................................................30
Plan of Action monitoring, evaluation and reporting .................................................................................................. 32
Management arrangements.......................................................................................................................................33

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................34

ANNEXES ...........................................................................................................................................................36
ANNEX 1: relationship between the Plan of Action and key Government plans and strategies ........................................ 37
ANNEX 2: “What if” risk analysis ...................................................................................................................................42
ANNEX 3: Regional/sub-regional Plan of Action development workshop participants ..................................................... 43
ANNEX 4: NGOs implementing food security interventions and their areas of operation................................................. 47
ANNEX 5: Household livelihood security ........................................................................................................................50

iii
Acknowledgements

This cluster plan of action is the result of three intensive months of collaboration between
all stakeholders involved in Food Security and Agricultural Livelihoods activities in Northern
Uganda.

Whilst FAO Uganda had overall responsibility for developing and guiding the preparation of this
publication, technical expertise and contribution from the different organisations was paramount
to the revision of the PoA.

We would like to express our appreciation to all 131 individuals, UN agencies, NGO, CBO staff
members, civil servants who spared time to contribute to the four different brainstorming
workshops that were organized at field level in July 2007. In addition, we would like to thank the
several hundred men women and youth who participated in the community validation exercises
that took place across Karamoja, Teso, Lango, Acholi and West Nile in August 2007.

iv
Acronyms

ACF Action Contre la Faim

ADAN Apac District Agricultural Network
ASB Arbeiter Samariter Bund
ASTU Anti Stock Theft Units
AVSI Asozatione di Voluntary per il Sivelupo Internationale
BXW Banana Xanthomonas Wilt
CAHW Community Animal Health Worker
CAP Consolidated Appeal Process
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CBO Community-Based Organisation
CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuro Pneumonia
CBSD Cassava Brown Streak Disease
CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuro Pneumonia
CERF Central Emergency Relief Fund
CEWARN Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism
CFSAM Crop and Food Supply Assessment Missions
CFW Cash For Work
CMD Cassava Mosaic Disease
CMR Crude Mortality Rates
COU Diocese of Kitgum-Church of Uganda
CPA Concern Parent’s Association
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
EACMD-UG Eastern African Cassava Mosaic Disease – Ugandan variant
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office
EFSA Emergency Food Security Assessment
EU European Union
EVI Extremely Vulnerable Individual
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FEWS NET Famine Early Warning System Network
FFA Food For Assets
FFS Farmer Field School
FFW Food For Work
FHI Food for the Hungry International
FSAL Food Security Cluster
FTS Financial Tracking System
GAA German Agro Action
GAM Global Acute Malnutrition
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System
GOU Government of Uganda

v
Acronyms

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

HoA Horn of Africa
ICPAC IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP Internally Displaced Person
IK Indigenous Knowledge
IRC International Rescue Committee
KDFA Kitgum District Farmer’s Association
KIDDP Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme
LEWS Livestock Early Warning System
LRA Lord’s Resistance Army
LWF Lutheran World Federation
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MoH Ministry of Health
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
NCA National Competent Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PLWHA Person Living with HIV/AIDS
PoA Plan of Action
PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants
PRDP Poverty Reduction Development Plan
PRRO Protracted Relief and Rehabilitation Operation
RALNUC Rehabilitation of Agricultural Livelihoods Component
RDA Recommended Daily Allowance
RDP Recovery and Development Programme of the World Bank
REIN Reintegration, Employment and Income Development for the North
UFNS Ugandan Food and Nutrition Strategy
UN United Nations
UNAIDS The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
URCS Uganda Red Cross Society
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VSF Vétérinaires Sans Frontières
WFP Word Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WVI World Vision International

vi
Executive Summary

The Northern region, which is identified by official statistics as trailing behind the central, western
and eastern regions in terms of poverty reduction, has experienced multiple and severe shocks
including drought, civil war lasting for over 10 years and loss of cattle to Karamojong raids.
The signing of a peace agreement between the Government of Uganda (GOU) and the Lord’s
Resistance Army (LRA) and initial implementation of terms bears hope for Northern Uganda.

It is in this context that the 2008/09 Cluster Plan of Action (PoA) for Northern Uganda has been
developed. The PoA is the result of a three month process of field consultation and analysis on
food security and livelihoods with national and international NGOs, UN agencies, government
representatives and civil society.

In terms of scope of interventions, the PoA aims to create and promote the conditions for
addressing root causes of livelihood erosion by linking short term/immediate actions with longer
term measures and considerations. Thus the Plan proposes a set of balanced responses that
aim to protect, rehabilitate and diversify the livelihoods of pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and
farmers in northern Uganda. In that respect, the document is meant to complement long-term
development strategies and focuses on the range of emergency, recovery and rehabilitation
interventions needed for the whole of the North (Karamoja, Teso, Lango, Acholi and West Nile).
Implementation of the PoA will be through partnerships between government, UN agencies,
NGOs, civil society and the private sector.

The selected option is based on a pro-poor and community self-reliance approach as the most
sustainable way to achieve productivity growth and improve use and access of natural capital. In
areas with low agricultural potential (Eastern Uganda – Karamoja), livestock systems are the basis
of livelihoods. In areas with higher agricultural potential (Northern and Nile provinces), where
farmers could pursue high-value livelihood opportunities, use of improved technologies will be
supported to raise productivity growth.

The goal of the PoA is to improve the livelihood security of rural households in Northern
Uganda.

The anticipated outcome sets the medium-term scenario on which the programme is expected
to make an impact and is to support and stabilise food security of rural households in Northern
Uganda.

The outputs of the PoA were designed to have a rapid impact, building on existing and
successfully implemented approaches and systems.

Output 1 – Increased food availability

Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food security risk
Output 3 – Better access to food through safety nets

The outputs of the PoA will be achieved through three pronged and regionalised programmes.

Programme 1 - Karamoja: Diversifying and strengthening of pastoral and agro-pastoral

livelihoods
Programme 2 - Teso, Lango, Acholi: Support to the return process
Programme 3 - West Nile: Improving self-reliance of refugees, IDPs and host communities

In addition to this narrative section, the Food Security and Agricultural Livelihoods (FSAL) cluster
has developed a 20-minute video document to illustrate the main activities undertaken to
implement the above identified programmes.

1
1. Introduction: Objectives and Origins of the Plan of Action

The Plan of Action (PoA) is a planning tool conceived to concretely and efficiently set a technically
appropriate framework for interventions by the Uganda FSAL agencies in Northern Uganda in the
2008/09 period. It is a ‘live’ and dynamic document reflecting the premise, progress, and results
of a crisis management programme cycle.

Conceptually, the PoA aims to contribute to the formulation of the Consolidated Appeal Process
(CAP) in terms of information and targeting. Alternatively, in the absence of an institutional tool,
the PoA can sustain the appealing process as well as advocate for a ‘connectedness’ between the
emergency and development assistance.

Operationally, the realisation of the PoA is achieved through the existing food security and
agricultural livelihoods interagency cluster and this framework have the buy-in, ownership and
support of local and central Government, communities, national and international NGOs, UN
agencies and donors. The interagency cluster - co-chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), FAO and WFP - provides a forum for information exchange and
consensus building, ultimately leading to an enhanced response and a more balanced allocation
of resources.

The PoA’s structure follows the sequence of a logical framework progressing from Situation
Analysis to Response Options Analysis, Response Planning, Response Implementation, and
Monitoring and Evaluation. In order to effectively reflect the changing context of the North, the
PoA will be periodically updated to incorporate additional information and adjust the response
to the new situation whenever required. Additional video documents will be developed to detail
implementation methodologies for specific activities selected on best practices considerations.

The 2008/09 Plan of Action for Northern Uganda has been designed to tackle some key aspects of
food insecurity for rural-poor communities in post-conflict situation areas (Northern Uganda) and
marginal productive areas (North-Eastern Uganda), by using and building on existing bottom-up
and community-based approaches.

Furthermore, the document has been developed as a complementary livelihood, food security
and vulnerability reduction tool to link the 2008 Uganda CAP with longer-term strategic
documents. In particular, the 2008/09 PoA links to the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), the
Poverty Reduction Development Plan (PRDP), the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS)
strategy for Northern Uganda, the Uganda Food and Nutrition Strategy the Karamoja Integrated
Disarmament and Development Programme (KIDDP) and the draft transition strategy for the LRA-
affected North.

Finally, the PoA also complements the UN consultative process for the Horn of Africa initiative
which was initiated at the request of the UN Special Humanitarian Envoy for the Horn of Africa,
Kjell Magne Bondevik, in November 2006. As an expression of its commitment to the Horn of
Africa process, GOU has given its support to the development of this PoA for the Food Security
Cluster, and the PoA itself draws on the recommendations and proposed actions provided by the
Uganda Horn of Africa Report1.

1
Horn of Africa Consultations on Food Security, Uganda Country Report (Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry
and Fisheries, June 2007).

2
2. Situation Analysis

Northern Uganda in national context

Key facts
Compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa,
• Population: 28.2 million
Uganda has performed better since 1990 in
• GDP (PPP) per capita: US$1 800
reducing the percentage of its people under
• Population below poverty line: 35%
the poverty line. There has been a significant
• Labour force by occupation: agriculture 82%, industry 5%,
decline in absolute poverty between 1992
(56%) to 2003 (38%). Further to Uganda’s services 13%

credit, at the end of 2005, the adult national • Total land area: 236 040 sq km, bordering Democratic Republic
HIV/AIDS prevalence rate was estimated at of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, the Sudan, and Tanzania
6.7%, a huge reduction from the peak of • Total arable land: 21.6%
30% in 1988. • Life expectancy: male: 52 years, female: 54 years
• Literacy rate: male: 79.5% , female: 60.4%
In general terms, Uganda is regarded as self-
• Human Development Index: 144/177
sufficient in food production. However, at
(Source: UN; World Bank)
any given time, 40% of Uganda’s population
(median age 14 years) lacks reliable access
to sufficient healthy food and 39% of children under age five are stunted. Agricultural and
population statistics available indicate that per capita food production in early 2000 was over
40% less than what it was in 1970. Uganda’s rapid population growth (2.5% per annum) presents
a continuing challenge to future economic growth and poverty reduction efforts. Moreover, the
country suffered massive terms of trade shocks when international coffee prices fell. As a result,
per capita incomes fell sharply during the 1980s and early 1990s.

In comparison to the rest of the country, the Northern districts lag behind in terms of human
development indicators. Most welfare indices are poor in the North largely because of the
presence of conflict and weak state institutions. The PRDP gives the following comparisons:

• Income poverty: Income poverty has declined less than in other regions of the country. The
proportion of poor people in the North (defined as those unable to meet their basic needs)
declined from 72% in 1992 to 60% in 1997, but increased again to 64% in 2002.

• Literacy: There are wide regional disparities in literacy rates. In the Central region, 80% of
adults are literate whilst in the Western region the figure is 74%. In Eastern region, the figure
is 63%, and in Northern region it is 56% (with 42% of adult females being literate).

• Primary education: The majority of Northern districts are lagging behind in terms of pupils’
ability to complete primary education and service provision is worst of all in the Karamoja
sub-region.

• Water and sanitation: Depending on the season, in Kotido, Pader and Yumbe districts,
between 20% and 40% of households are estimated to have clean water supplies whilst the
majority of the other districts in the North have an estimated coverage of 40% (rainy seasons)
and 60% (dry seasons) which is close to the national average.

• Health: Infant, child and maternal mortality remain high nationally having increased between
1995 and 2000. Disaggregated by region, the mortality rates were much higher in the North.
The rates for Gulu, Kitgum, Pader are crude mortality rates (CMR) of 1.54/10,000 and U-5
MR 3.18/10000 (July 2005 MoH) and CMR for Karamoja is 3.9/10,000 (MoH August 2004).

• One of the factors affecting poor health and income indicators is the increase in female
fertility rates

• HIV/AIDS: Although Uganda has seen HIV prevalence fall from an average of 18% in 1992
to 6.4% in 2005, HIV/AIDS prevalence in conflict-affected areas of North-Central Uganda
(Acholi, Teso and Lango) is still high at 8.2%. Prevalence amongst women is higher than
men, 9% and 7.1% respectively (Source: PRDP – second draft page 12).

3
 Regional situation, problem and scenario analysis

Introduction
Using a conflict analysis framework, Northern Uganda can be divided into three broad situations,
as shown in the following table:

Table 1: Northern Uganda districts in a conflict framework

Conflict status Sub-regions and districts

Post Conflict: armed rebellion ended, resumption North West - West Nile sub-region: Arua /
of normality and stabilisation/development Koboko / Maracha, Adjumani, Moyo, Nebbi,
investments needed Yumbe
Cessation of hostilities/early recovery: whilst North Central – Lango, Acholi, parts of Teso
peace agreement yet to be signed, situation sub-regions: Gulu / Amuru, Kitgum, Pader,
largely stabilised, investments needed to support Lira / Dokolo / Amolatar, Apac /Oyam, Soroti,
social, economic and political rebuilding Kaberamaido
Lawlessness and underdevelopment: armed North East - Karamoja and part of Teso sub-
civilian population and destruction of property region: Moroto, Kotido / Abim / Kaabong,
through inter-ethnic conflicts with spill over Nakapiripirit, Katakwi/Anuria.
effects, stabilisation and development
investments needed

Source: Adapted from PRDP second draft (March 2007)

The details of the food security and livelihood situation analysis for the three regions targeted by
the PoA are provided in the following regional situation analysis section. However, a summarised
visualisation of the key food security problems in Northern Uganda is presented below in form
of a diagram, called a “problem tree”. The objective of the problem tree is to help analyze and
clarify cause–effect relationships.

Problem tree

EFFECTS Un-sustainable
livelihood

Food insecurity

Limited food High exposure to Limited access to food

availability disaster risks

Low crop/livestock Dependency on

productivity and Humanitarian aid
production

Over-dependency High incidence of Low capacity to

Post harvest on traditional Low seed quality Crop/livestock Environmental Reduced mobility Erosion of coping
engage in post
losses farming pest and disease degradation for pastoralists strategies
conflict rehab

Limited access to Loss of physical Loss of natural Loss of social Loss of financial Loss of Human
Droughts, floods, Lack of Capital –Low Capital – Capital –
crop/livestock Capital – Land Capital –
water logging knowledge farming inputs Social fragmentation Knowledge/skills
treatments access issue No cash/No loans

Unreliable Low level Insufficient Poor infrastructure Physical Population Disrupted

rainfall patterns of education extension services and feeder roads insecurity movement economy

CAUSES Natural Hazard Insufficient public service provision Conflict environment

4
Karamoja region
Food security situation
Karamoja can be broadly divided into three main agro-ecological zones - running north to south
- which cut across the main ethnic groups in the region. The zones are delineated with reference
to a spectrum in which settled farming is at one end and pure transhumance pastoralism at the
other. In between, there is a zone which is commonly described as “agro-pastoral”, although in
reality - with the possible exception of the Pokot ethnic group2 - all farming systems in Karamoja
are agro-pastoral to some degree. The following map shows where these three zones lie:

Figure 2: Karamoja Livelihood Zones

LIVELIHOOD ZONES OF UGANDA

LEGEND
Forest Crop Farm
Fishing-Cassava Banana-Cereal
N Apujan Clay Tea-Annual Crops
Clay Loam Tobacco-Sugarcane
Dry Belt Banana-Annuals
High RF wet belt Fishing-Tourism
Moderate RF Horticultural
Sandy Loam Livestock
Wet Belt National Parks
Banana-Coffee Potato
Cattle-Banana Rice-Tobacco
Cattle-Fishing Tea
Fishing-Salt Extraction Agro-Fishing
Highland Cultivation Sugarcane
Lowland Agriculture Agricultural
Maize-Groundnuts Agropastoral
Tea-Cattle Mid Plateau Tobacco
Crop-Livestock The Highland Coffee
Pastoral The Highland Plateau
Urban/Peri-urban The Lowland Cotton
Loams-High RF Beans-Cassava
Sandy-Low RF Cattle-Cassava
Sandy Loam-High RF Cattle-Millet
Crop Production Cattle-Rice
Fishing Cattle-Sorghum
Forest Pigeon peas-Cassava
0 50 Kilometers
Root Crop Sorghum-Cattle
FEWS NET June 2005

The 2002 census gave a total population of 957,245 for the region (50% female). The problem of
food insecurity in Karamoja has been dissected and measured many times and the latest studies
confirm its persistence in the region.

An Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) undertaken by WFP in Karamoja in April this
year classified 27% of the sample as “food insecure”, with a further 47% as “moderately food
insecure”. The assessment was undertaken in all five districts of the region. The highest levels
of “food insecurity” were found in the Dodoth and Jie counties in Kotido and Bokora County
in Moroto. Taken together, the “food insecure” and “moderately food insecure” categories
accounted for 70% or above of the sample in six of the nine counties surveyed (and over 80% in
three of them).

2
The Manyattas of the Pokot are located in the South Eastern corner of the region.

5
 Using a different methodology, a survey commissioned in October 2006 and published in June
2007 also found very high levels of food insecurity in the three districts of Abim, Kaabong and
Kotido3. Using a combination of a household dietary diversity index and a household grain
availability index, the study classified households into four groups:

1. Households with adequate dietary diversity and grain availability = Food Secure
2. Households with inadequate dietary diversity but adequate grain availability = Vulnerable
3. Households with adequate dietary diversity but inadequate grain availability = Vulnerable
4. Household with inadequate dietary diversity and grain availability = Food Insecure

Depending on the district, between 47% and 64% of the sample were classified as “food insecure”
with a further 42-29% classified as “vulnerable”.

Underlying these figures is a complex picture of conflict, poverty and environmental factors.
Over the centuries, the pastoral peoples of these areas have developed a highly sophisticated
approach to sharing scarce water and grazing land in an unstable, ecological system. Cattle
raiding, to restock decimated herds, was a traditional part of this system, but so was shared land
use between different ethnic communities. Today, however, violence in the region has reached
unprecedented proportions. It has changed in nature, scale, and dimension due to a number of
factors, including: the proliferation of automatic weapons, policies of neglect and interference
for political gain, high youth unemployment, increased demand for and decreased productivity
of land, a long-term pattern of desiccation, and reduced respect for traditional rules governing
cattle raiding and warfare. “Traditional” cattle rustling is increasingly being transformed into
organized criminal violence, perpetrated by a new generation of warriors between 15 and 35
years of age (karachuma) who do not follow the advice and lead of traditional elders. Many
commentators argue that the resumption of the Government policy of forced disarmament in
2006 has increased, not decreased, the levels of insecurity in the region.

Food security problem analysis

Against this background of conflict and instability, consultations undertaken in the course of
developing the PoA confirm the findings of several studies that the underlying causes of food
insecurity in Karamoja revolve around the relationship between physical insecurity, poverty,
cultural factors, public service provision and environmental factors – particularly rainfall patterns
and water scarcity.

Historically, the Karamojong have adapted to the unfavourable climatic conditions in the central
and eastern parts of the region by focussing on livestock rearing, with crop cultivation taking a
more subsidiary role. This, according to the PRDP, is the “only rational way and most viable form
of livelihood”. Reliance on livestock carries risks even in the absence of conflict or drought. One of
the most important in the region is livestock diseases. One recent example of this is the outbreak
of Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) which is estimated to have killed fifty thousand sheep and
goats in the region since it was identified earlier this year. Disease problems are compounded by
the poor physical security situation which limits access to drugs and advice.

In the western part of the region, conditions are more suitable for agricultural cultivation, and
this is reflected by the historical crop production output and the social organisation of the people
(in settled villages as opposed to Kralls and Manyattas). However, like the rest of the region, food
security is seriously affected by poor security, poverty and poor service provision.

Physical insecurity has a number of damaging effects on food security. These include loss of
livestock, property and human life due to periodic raids. In addition, security concerns also reduce
access to land for cultivation, and lead to a sense of de-motivation. These factors increase the
reliance on food aid as the only reliable source of food.

3
Sserunkuuma D, Omiat G, Kikafunda J “Baseline Study on Household Food Security and Nutrition Status
of Poor Communities of Eastern Uganda: Executive Summary” (June 2007).

6
High levels of poverty relate to environmental and insecurity factors in a vicious circle. One key
raids. Women whose husbands, brothers or sons have raided become very insecure because
homesteads where raided cattle are hidden become potential targets for revenge raids.

“Enemies” (from another tribe) who raid Karamojong settlements may rape women. Many women
in Moroto have been raped whilst collecting water and firewood, and during charcoal burning.
Karamojong warriors may do the same when they raid the neighbouring districts (Katawki in the
Teso sub-region). This pattern of abuse can contribute to the spread of HIV, as a warrior who
rapes an HIV positive women may be infected and transmit the virus to his wife or wives who may
be inherited by his brother who could then also infect his other wife or wives.

A woman is married by a clan, whose members contribute to the payment of the bride price.
The practice of bride price is a major factor contributing to raiding cattle. Courtship is sometimes
associated with rape of the potential bride. The wife from a marriage sanctioned by the clan
belongs to the entire clan. Some women have been “inherited” between five to ten times because
of high adult male mortality due to raiding. It is the male clan members who decide who is to
marry the widow. It is normally a brother of the deceased, but owing to high mortality of men,
this is not always possible. The property of the deceased is inherited by the man who marries
the widow. Widow inheritance and polygamy has led to increased risk of contracting HIV. Early
marriages persist, with girls being generally married between 14 to 18 years old.

The Pokot and Tepeth groups practice female genital mutilation as part of the initiation into
adulthood.

Cases of domestic violence are particularly high in the four districts of Karamoja. The guns which
are intended to ensure security of home from raiders are sometimes used during domestic
feuds. The warriors, often under the influence of alcohol, will easily batter their wives and may
accidentally use their guns. Younger women who refuse to take off their husband’s shoes are
usually battered including by their parents and brothers. Women who don’t properly store arms
and ammunition may be whipped. Women who refuse to sing may be beaten.

As most households have lost livestock, the indirect consequence of the conflict on girls is that
they are forced to look for causal employment to earn some income for the household whereby
their employers exploit them. With regard to education, preference is given to boys whilst girls
are required to assist their mothers with domestic chores. Only 6 % of the women are literate and
81% of the girls who should attend school are in charge of domestic chores at home.

HIV/AIDS issues
At 1.7%, reported rates of HIV/AIDS infection are the lowest in the country4. Although prevalence
rates are relatively low, the lack of access to services compromises the needed prevention, care,
support and mitigation of HIV. The gender issues mentioned above, combined with a low level of
awareness, create the potential for an increasing number of infections.

Scenarios
During consultations with district level key informants, a number of possible food security scenarios
for 2008/09 were discussed. The consensus amongst informants was that the most likely scenario
for 2008/09 is that the security situation will improve, although much will depend on how the
disarmament process is handled. It is felt that greater emphasis needs to be put on voluntary, not
forceful, disarmament and that this will not happen without concomitant improvements in law
and order enforcements and incentives such as improved livelihood prospects. One important
issue that cannot be predicted at this stage is rainfall. Emergency food security needs will clearly
increase if rains fail. This reinforces the need for early warning systems and contingency planning
and livelihood diversification, all of which are part of the PoA programme for Karamoja (see
section 4 below). The number of NGOs undertaking food security interventions is expected to
continue to increase during the 2008/09 period. This means that the capacity for catalyzing
positive change will increase. Translating this potential into food security improvements will be
heavily influenced by the security situation in the region.

4
Source: Uganda Sero-Behavioral Survey (March 2006)

7
 Teso, Lango and Acholi sub-regions
Introduction
Since the start of hostilities between the LRA and the GOU in 1986, about 1.8 million people
have been internally displaced into various IDP protected camps, spread all over the Acholi
(Kitgum, Gulu, Amuru and Pader districts), Lango (Lira, Apac, Oyam districts) and Teso (Amuria,
Soroti, Katakwi, Kaberamaido and Kumi districts) sub-regions of the country. During the past 20
years, the livelihoods of the IDPs have been severely affected by the security situation, which has
restricted their access to land and has decimated livestock holdings. In addition to the LRA, the
population of the region has been affected by Karamojong raids. These have caused particular
problems in the eastern districts of Katakwi and Amuria in Teso (where there were about 130,000
IDPs in camps as of the end of June 2007) and also Soroti and further north in Pader.

The cessation of hostilities between GOU and LRA in August 2006 and the related peace talks in
Juba, Sudan have dramatically improved prospects for most of the IDPs in the “central north”.
Whilst the process of healing and restoration of productive livelihoods in this region may be
long and precarious at times, rapid improvements in food security are possible with appropriate
support.

For the majority of LRA-related IDPs, the return process has already started. Still, as of the end
of June this year, over 900,000 IDPs still lived in “mother” camps, or main camps, and a further
381,000 in new “transit” sites. Out of 539,550 IDPs who have fully returned to their villages of
origin, only 55,000 were in Acholi. The vast majority of full returnees (431,000) have been in
Lango5. The following table gives the details.

Table 2: IDP population groups as of the end of June 2007

Categories Sub-Regions and Districts

Acholi Lango Teso
Gulu/Amuru Kitgum Pader Lira Apac/ Katakwi/
Oyam Amuria
IDPs in camps 317,000 (70%) 231,000 150,000 16,000 19,000 110,000 (77%)
(74%) (43%) (5%) (16%)
IDPs in transit 88,000 (19%) 77,000 194,000 - - 22,000 (15%)
sites (25%) (56%)
Returned to 48,000 (11%) 2,000 5,000 335,000 6,000 5,550 (4%)
village of origin (1%) (1%) (95%) (83%)

Source: IASC Working group / OCHA Uganda

When interpreting the table, it is important to bear in mind two points:

• The IDPs in Katawi and Amuria have been doubly displaced, first by the LRA and more recently
by the Karamojong. For this group, the two key factors for current and future food security
prospects are the weather and the security situation in Karamoja.

• As seen from the table above, the return process in Lira and Apac/Oyam in Lango sub-region
is much more advanced than in the Acholi sub-region (Gulu, Amuru, Pader, Kitgum). The
numbers of people in camps is much smaller in Lango, and there are no settlement camps
(people leave the main camp and go directly back to their home areas).

Because of these differences, for the purposes of food security analysis, it makes more sense to
classify the Central Northern districts into three groups, and then look at different populations
within each group as required. The three groups are:

• Katakwi and Amuria in Teso region

• Lira and Apac/Oyam in Lango region and Soroti and Kaberamaido in Teso region
• Gulu, Amuru, Pader and Kitgum in Acholi region

5
IASC Working group figures for end June 2007, released in August

8
Katakwi and Amuria districts (Teso region)
As of June 2007, 37% of the population in Amuria and 59% of the population in Katakwi were
displaced. A recent WFP EFSA (April 2007) found that about half of the households in mother
camps in Amuria and Katakwi were food insecure to some degree. 24% were classified as “food
insecure” and 27% were classified as “moderately food insecure6”. During PoA consultations,
district level stakeholders cited insecurity, climate and low investment in infrastructure and
services as being the key underlying factors behind continued high levels of food insecurity in
these districts. The two most pressing immediate problems for the IDP population are the security
situation and waterlogging/flooding of fields.

Poor security restricts the time which people can spend in their own fields or in rented fields
– currently the average is less than 4 hours per day7. In a recent assessment of the sub-counties
bordering Karamoja, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) found
that for 64% of communities, access to land was restricted to a 2 km radius from the camp8.
One other feature of the insecurity has been depletion of livestock through LRA and Karamojong
raids, particularly cattle with consequent knock-on effects for availability of animal traction. This
combined with restricted access to land has significant consequences for productivity, and hence
food availability, at the household level.

Waterlogging of crops is a recurrent problem for the IDPs owing to the location of the camps,
which are in a crescent shaped area of about 150 km in length, with a concentration in the south
eastern part of Katakwi district. This is a low lying area which is often flooded. In addition, the
area is also affected by extended droughts and hailstorms.

Low investment in the area by central government combined with the topography of the area has
resulted in a very poor road network. According to UNOCHA, an astonishing 59 communities out
of 139 are not accessible by road during the rainy season and 10% of these communities have no
access roads at all. This, combined with the scarcity of markets, makes access to food markets for
buying and selling food problematic in the area. This is important because, on average, 60% of
food consumed in the districts comes through the market9. On the food production side, cassava
mosaic virus normally presents significant problems in the area owing to the lack of virus resistant
varieties.

Lira, Apac/Oyam (Lango region) and Soroti, Kaberamaido (Teso region)

These districts have been characterised by very high rates of returnees to villages of origin. Since
2004, the rate of returnees arriving in Soroti and Kaberamaido has been 99% (a total of about
130,000 people). In Lira, about 335,000 people have voluntarily and spontaneously returned to
their homes since the end of 2005, with the majority returning in the last 9 to 12 months. In
Oyam/Apac, the return process has been slower, although it has increased recently. Currently,
the number of people estimated to have returned since the end of 2005 is estimated at about
96,000 (83%).

Due to increased access to land in these areas, there is now clear potential for improvement in
food security in comparison to previous years. However, A number of problems remain. The key
food security problems for returnees centre around three main issues. First, there are constraints
in terms of land utilisation and productivity. Underlying this are other problems which include:
inadequate quantities and/or poor quality of seeds, other inputs and tools; crop pests and

6
“Food Insecure” = households with very poor or poor food consumption that accessed their food
mainly through the market but with little cash availability both for food and non-food basic needs and
households with poor food consumption that declared to have borrowed food/money for food (again
with little cash availability). “Moderately food insecure” = households that were vulnerable to deeper
food insecurity due to limited cash, and/or heavy reliance on food aid with little cash to improve food
access by themselves.
7
Source: Pers. Com with Harriet Atim OCHA Katakwi.
8
Source: Humanitarian situation Katakwi and Amuria Districts (January – June 2007) Briefing Notes
– UNOCHA July 2007.
9
Source: Katakwi and Amuria Mid-year CAP review 2007 (FAO June 2007).

9
 diseases; and insufficient animal traction. The amount of land utilized (i.e. ploughed and then
planted with crops) is limited to 2 to 4 acres per household. Given the types of crops planted
and the low yields, food insecurity is still a problem. Second, returnees have limited purchasing
power, as incomes are low and food prices have risen significantly in some areas10 since people
have returned. Finally, service provision by the state has not kept pace with the return process,
specifically poor health and sanitation coverage and poor road and market infrastructure.

It is because of these factors that, despite receiving resettlement rations, food insecurity and
under-nutrition in the areas of return in Teso are higher than what might be expected. The WFP
EFSA of April 2007 estimated that the proportion of households classified as “moderately food
insecure” or “food insecure” were higher in the areas of return in Lira (74% of all households)
than most of the transit or resettlement camps. Moreover, surveys undertaken by Action Contre
la Faim (ACF) in May 2007 found that rates in Lira have risen since 2006, and were higher than
in Pader, Gulu or Apac/Oyam11.

Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader (Acholi region)

These four districts have by far the highest number of IDPs in the country and the lowest number
of returnees. There has been a lot of movement, however, between the old camps and transit
camps that are closer to home.

The districts of Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader have over 20% of Uganda’s arable land. Before
the armed conflict, these areas used to produce surplus food crops that were sold in other parts
of Uganda, as well as cash crops (notably cotton). The length of displacement (up to 20 years)
and the high levels of underlying poverty have left the majority of the IDP populations in these
districts with very limited assets and correspondingly poor ability to cope with shocks such as crop
and livestock diseases and droughts. One of the biggest changes in comparison with the pre-
war situation has been the decimation of livestock12, which changed the farming systems so that
farmers currently rely heavily on hand hoes for tillage. This will constrain increases in agricultural
production.

The improvement in the security situation this year and the movement to transit camps has led
to an increase in land access. Figures from the latest FAO/WFP land access study indicate that,
on average, access to land per household in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader was 4.4 acres, an increase
from the 3.2 acres estimated in June 200613. In the past, restricted land access was seen to be a
key impediment to household crop production and food security. However, it appears that now
other factors are becoming more important, principally access to agricultural input and drought
power in particular.

Levels of food insecurity in main camps and transit sites appear comparable across the districts.
The WFP EFSA found that between 8 and 14% of households were “food insecure”, and between
52 and 70% of households were “moderately food insecure”. When interpreting these figures
it is important to note that food aid contributes to between one-third and 40% of the average
household food basket14. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that without food aid, households
would be significantly more food insecure than they are at present.

10
For example, average prices for cassava and sorghum sold in local markets in Soroti municipality is
more than 30 % higher in 2007 than in 2003 (Source: Foodnet market information systems reports:
2003 – 07) –
11
Nutritional survey, ACF Uganda (May 2007)
12
In Gulu, prior to the conflict there was an estimated 130,000 cattle, and today there is an estimated
6,000-12,000. Prior to conflict (2002) in Lira, the estimated numbers of livestock in the district were;
cattle: 80,000 (800 exotic), goats: 240,000, and chickens: 900,000. Today, however, it is estimated
only 5-10% of the households have livestock. Dorsey and Opeitum estimate the value of lost livestock
and livestock products in the Acholi region to have averaged approximately US$ 5.48 million per
annum. Livestock make a disproportionately high contribution to the livelihoods of the poor (MAAIF,
2006).
13
Land Access and Land Use Mapping in Northern Uganda: Intermediate Report on Land Access
Mapping, July 2006
14
Source: WFP EFSA: page 19

10
Some of the key reasons for this state of affairs can be interpreted from the following table which
presents some of the preliminary findings from the FAO/WFP land use study.

Table 3: Agricultural Production Constraints

Constraint Non-displaced New camps Mother camps Overall
Rainfall 67.9% 74.2% 68.1% 70.1%
Seeds 64.1% 67.7% 52.2% 61.3%
Pests 54.4% 52.5% 59.4% 55.4%
Tools 56.6% 60.7% 44.9% 54.1%
Crop diseases 47.4% 53.2% 37.7% 46.1%
Insecurity 39.7% 46.8% 40.6% 42.4%
Labour 37.3% 48.4% 39.1% 41.6%
land access 19.0% 51.6% 36.2% 35.6%
Storage 25.0% 35.0% 24.6% 28.2%
Markets 28.6% 32.8% 20.3% 27.2%
Knowledge 19.7% 35.5% 21.7% 25.7%
Fertility/soil productivity 20.5% 37.7% 15.9% 24.7%

Source: FAO/WFP (2007)

Interestingly, the patterns of responses across the three population groups are broadly similar,
suggesting that a “parish approach” to intervention would be appropriate in terms of addressing
food security constraints. Not surprisingly, rainfall problems were the most commonly cited
problem. Seeds, crop pests and tools were also highlighted by over 50% of respondents in each
group. Although about 52% of respondents in transit sites said it was a constraint, land access
was less of an overall problem than these other factors. A further interesting finding was the
low percentages citing soil fertility as an issue, although again, considerably more transit site
respondents mentioned it as a constraint than the other respondents.

Climatic factors
The recent extensive flooding in Teso and other parts of the North15 demonstrates that whilst the
security situation may be improving, the region is still equally subject to extreme climatic shocks
such as flooding and drought. The current flooding is thought to be affecting about 50,000
households or 250,000 individuals. Such major climatic hazards can wipe away the gains from
post-conflict food security recovery interventions such as seed fairs, cash for work (CFW) and food
for work (FFW) programmes. It is therefore vital that contingency planning and surge capacity is
factored into food security programming for the region.

Land tenure issues

One of the most dr the central north is the possibility of disputes over rights to land use amongst
returning populations. The available evidence suggests that there is no consensus on this issue.
Some commentators feel that there will be major problems. For example, research conducted by
the Refugee Law Project last year found that many IDPs interviewed expressed serious concerns
that land disputes will emerge as the return process continues. It was believed that the death of
a large number of elders during the course of displacement was likely to complicate identification
of traditional lands and hamper return and restitution. Other sources take a very different view.
For example, in “Impact of Land Access and Ownership on Livelihoods: Short, Medium and the
Long Term Perspectives in Acholi”16, the authors conclude that, for the most part, there will not

15
An estimated 50,000 households have been affected by the unusually heavy rains and associated
flooding that have fallen in Eastern and Northern Uganda since July. The rains have damaged homes,
crops, water sources, sanitation facilities, health centres, school buildings, key roads and bridges. This
has severely limited the extent to which households are able to meet their food security needs.
16
Source: Land Solutions-Uganda (February 2007)

11
 be serious problems in land access and ownership, and that the majority of problems that do
occur should be resolved under traditional and more modern dispute mechanisms. Certainly,
anticipated escalation in land claims and conflicts in the aftermath of return in Teso have not
been observed17. However, this may not be an accurate guide to what happens in those parts
of Acholi, where communities and clans have been displaced for periods of up to 10 years or
more.

Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVIs)

Approximately 10% of current camp populations are classified as EVIs. People falling into this
group include People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), orphans, frail elderly persons, and physically
and mentally disabled persons. There has been much speculation on the extent to which EVIs
will be able and willing to return back to ancestral lands. It is likely that many will wish to remain
in the camps as they empty. Therefore, special provision will need to be made for them in food
security programming.

Gender
Gender-based violence is prevalent in the region, ranging from sexual violence (including marital
rape) to sexual abuse of children, and other physical and psychological forms of violence. Sexual
exploitation by armed forces and humanitarian workers is also a concern in the region. All these
issues contribute to increased vulnerability of women and have consequences on their mental
and physical health as well as on the school attendance of the youngest survivors. In all regions
of Uganda, the prevalence rate of HIV is higher amongst women than amongst men. In fact, for a
combination of biological, traditional, economical, as well as social reasons, women have higher
susceptibility to the infection.

HIV and AIDS

The North Central region has the second highest prevalence rate of HIV in Uganda. This is
estimated at 8.2%, with 9% amongst adult women and 7.1% amongst adult men18.

The breakdown of family structure, social values and networks, the increase of rape cases, the
presence of military and aid workers, poor camp facilities, poor health services, less disposable
income, sexual abuse and exploitation have all contributed to an increased vulnerability to HIV/
AIDS. Ultimately, food insecurity is both a cause and a consequence of HIV. In fact, the nutritional
and financial needs of affected and infected households increase whilst labour availability and
quality decreases. In this situation, the use of risky coping strategies, such as engagement in
sexual relationships in exchange for material goods or money, amplifies the risk of infection.
Furthermore, the poor nutritional status of PLWHA favours the progression of HIV towards
AIDS.

This situation calls for the promotion of better nutrition for PLWHA and their households. In
designing interventions to support the return process, it is important to take into consideration
the diminished labour force of the affected households and to consider promoting adapted
methods such as labour saving technologies. For instance, affected and infected households
tend to have diminished crop portfolios and less acreage cultivated. The promotion of vegetable
production has proven to be an effective activity for these households. On the other hand, the
support to the production of small livestock has proved to be a difficult activity to implement in
camps. However, it could be advisable in the return process.

The loss of indigenous knowledge (IK) is impacting the agricultural sector, as adults die before
passing their agricultural knowledge on to their children.

17
Source: Post conflict land policy and administration: Lessons from return and resettlement of IDPs in
Soroti district: Implications for PRDP, national land policy, land act cap 227 and NPIDPS 2005 – For the
World Bank Northern Uganda Recovery and Development Program (RDP) January, 2007
18
Uganda Sero-Behavioral survey (March2006)

12
Scenarios
Looking ahead to 2008/09, what are the prospects for food insecurity in Teso, Lango and Acholi?
During district level consultations, stakeholders were asked to develop best case, worst case and
most likely case scenarios, together with triggers for these and explanations of probabilities. From
this process, projections were made of population numbers falling into different categories.

In all LRA-related IDP areas, the worst case scenario would be the breakdown of the Juba peace
talks. This would lead to a worsening of the security situation and a movement back from return
sites to main camps in Acholi and from home areas back into main camps in Teso and Lango.
Most district level stakeholders felt that the probability of this happening was low, as more than
50% of the peace agenda items have now been agreed and the balance of probability is that
there will be agreement on the remaining parts.

The best case scenario would be the successful conclusion of the Juba talks by the end of 2007.
This would lead to an accelerated rate of return to home areas, and access to land. One risk in this
scenario is an increase in the problems of serious under-provision of basic services for returnees
and land disputes.

The most likely case scenario would be that the Juba talks drag on into 2008, with a successful
conclusion sometime during that year. The result of this would be a continuation of the current
rates of movement to transit sites and return to villages of origin. Main camps followed by transit
sites will gradually empty, although there will be residual populations consisting of youth who do
not want to move and EVIs who are reluctant or unable to move19. The population numbers for
the most likely case scenario20 are indicated in the Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4: Return process population projections for Acholi 21

19
Some commentators feel that there are likely to be a number of non vulnerable households who chose
to stay. The pattern of settlement will change as people have become used to a more urbanized style
of life, and those with successful businesses may not want to return to isolated rural living. In Pader,
it has been reported that people may prefer to remain closer to social services, walking further on a
daily basis to access their land (Source: Goal, Pader).
20
Projections derived from PoA stakeholder consultations in Gulu (17.07.07) for Figure 4 and Lira
(12.07.07) for Figure 5.
21
In figures 4, 5 and 6, village of origin populations are current IDPs who are projected to have fully
returned over the life of the PoA. The figure does not include households which have already returned
as at end July 2007,, however, such households will be covered under the outputs and activities of the
PoA.

13
 Figure 5: Return process projections for Lango

In Katakwi and Amuria, the worst case scenario was that the present disarmament process and
KIDDP fails in Karamoja, leading to increased frequency of incursions by Karamojong cattle rustlers
in these two districts. The probability of this happening was felt to be low to medium

The best case scenario would be faster-than-expected progress with Karamojong peace efforts,
resulting in about 85% of the current IDP populations returning to their homes by the end of
2008. The probability of this happening was felt to be low

The most likely case scenario would be a slow but gradual improvement of the security situation,
due to the ongoing disarmament process in Karamoja and the establishment of the Anti Stock
Theft Unit (ASTU) police force to maintain law and order. This is expected to result in a gradual
return over the 2008/09 period, with IDPs moving out of camps to new sites and to villages of
origin. Figure 6 outlines the population projections for the most likely scenario are as follows:

Figure 6: Return process projections for Katakwi and Amuria IDP populations

14
West Nile region

Introduction
West Nile region is comprised of seven districts: Arua, Adjumani, Koboko, Maracha, Moyo, Nebbi
and Yumbe. The 2002 census gave a total population figure for the region of 1,893,424. Presently,
there are both IDP and refugee populations in the region. The Refugees are concentrated mainly
in Arua, Yumbe, Moyo and Adjumani, whereas the IDPs are located in Adjumani and Moyo. The
following table gives the district breakdown.

Table 4: West Nile Refugee and IDP figures as at June 2007

Location Refugees IDPs
Adjumani 52,882 34,000
Moyo 27,000 3,000
Yumbe 24,293
Arua 26,591
Total 130,766 37,000
Sources: UNHCR/ WFP/OPM January 2007, UNHCR, July 2007

In addition to the refugees and the IDPs there are also the host communities. As in the case of the
central North, there is no commonly accepted way to calculate the number of people falling into
the host community category. District level stakeholders defined host community as comprising
those communities residing in the same parish as a refugee or IDP camp. Using this definition, the
total number currently falling into the “host community” category was approximately 578,000.

Refugees
In all of the refugee camps, food aid continues to account for a significant amount of total food
access. The levels vary between camps from about 40-80% of recommended daily allowance
(RDA), with 100% for EVIs22. The most detailed food security picture available for refugees is
given by the Household Economy Assessment, conducted in Moyo and Adjumani in November
2005. The key findings from this study are as follows:
• There is a wealth spectrum amongst refugees. Three groups were identified: “poor” (65-70%
of the refugee population), “moderate” (25-30%) and “well-off” (5-10%).
• For all groups, food aid accounted for a high proportion of total annual household caloric
intake (55-75%), although 10-15% of food aid was sold to meet urgent cash needs.
• There was a relationship between land access and food production. Adjumani refugees had
much lower access to land (0.5 acres) than Moyo refugees (2.5 acres) and consequently
produced less food (10-15% of total annual household caloric intake) versus 20-25%. All
groups complained about lack of inputs and extension advice to fully utilize available land,
and also about the impact of drought on crop production. In addition, one of the main
conclusions of the report was that “land allocated to refugees is generally exhausted in
fertility”.
• Exploitation of local natural resources (charcoal making, pole making, grass collection and
other activities) was the single highest source of income across all refugee groups, accounting
for an average of 30-35% of total income. This made a significant contribution to food
purchases which was necessary to counter food access shortfalls. Other important sources of
income were agricultural labour on other people’s plots and brewing.

The relationship between access to land, food aid and food security is an important one. Indeed
the potential for eventual phase down and out of food aid is highly dependent on land access. In
accordance with the “local settlement” framework, the Government of Uganda provides free access
to land (with rights of usufruct) to enable refugees to contribute to their own sustenance.

However, access to land varies depending on the location of settlements. In West Nile, the land
under and around the refugee camps is owned by the local communities, making it much more

22
Source: UNHCR/WFP/OPM (January 2007).

15
 difficult to allocate additional land than in the western and south western districts where land is
government owned. This difference in land tenure arrangements largely explains the difference
between West Nile and other areas in terms of percentages of refugee populations on food
aid. All this means that moving towards the goal of refugee self-sustainment will need different
approaches in West Nile than in other areas. Of the 177,200 refugees in West Nile, only 26,400
(about 15% of the caseload in the region) are deemed to have access to adequate land and have
been phased-off of food aid assistance as a result.

IDPs
In comparison to the refugees, there has been less attention paid to IDPs in Adjumani and Moyo.
At a PoA planning workshop in Moyo, the district level government, NGO and UN staff confirmed
that IDPs face many of the same food security problems as refugees. Again, a key issue is access
to cultivable land and sufficient high quality seeds and planting material.

Resident populations
2005 poverty estimates confirm that around 50% of the population of West Nile is below the
poverty line. It is highly likely that this correlates well with the levels of food insecurity amongst the
residents in the region. The main occupation of the vast majority of the population is subsistence
crop and livestock farming, with fishing being an important livelihood source for those living near
the river Nile. The most important food crops are cassava, sorghum, maize, sweet potato and
sesame (simsim), and these same crops are also sold for cash. Whilst the issues for sustainable
food security for refugees revolve around land access, for most residents this does not appear to
be a critical constraint. Average land size per household is about 5 acres, although some of the
poorer groups have considerably less than this. Key constraints to improved food security include
inadequate farm power, lack of improved seed, lack of credit facilities, pests, diseases and adverse
weather.

Scenarios
As for the Central North, district level stakeholders were asked to develop scenarios for IDP and
refugee populations for 2008/09.

Refugees
Refugee repatriation rates have been below expectations. This is expected to continue into 2008.
The key factors which will determine the rate of return include:

• The level of services back in Sudan relative to Uganda. Currently, facilities like schools, hospitals
and roads are much better in West Nile than in Southern Sudan.

• The extent to which current land access problems for the refugees can/will be eased

• The stance of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which will move from
“facilitating’ to “promoting” repatriation in 2008. This will involve an increase of incentives
for refugees to return.

The general consensus amongst district level experts was that refugee repatriation would continue
to be slow through the end of 2007. Opinions differ on the rates of return thereafter. Some
district level stakeholders felt that 40-50% of refugees would never go back as they were either
young and had grown up in the camps (the majority) or they were EVIs who were not able to
return, and that the return of others would be slow and take place over several years. Others felt
that a gradual improvement of services in Southern Sudan and a change in UNHCR repatriation
policy would result in higher numbers returning. The more “optimistic” stakeholders expected
refugee numbers to halve by the end of 2008 (to about 65,000) falling to about 38,000 by the
end of 2009.

For the purposes of the PoA the key point is that, even under to most optimistic predictions, there
will be significant numbers of refugees throughout the life of the PoA.

16
IDPs
Stakeholders felt that the most likely scenario was that the Juba peace talks would eventually
succeed, but they would drag on into 2008. The successful conclusion of the talks would lead
to an acceleration of IDPs returning to their ancestral lands, such that by the end of 2008 IDP
numbers were expected to be well below 10,000 (current figure 37,000) with fewer than 2,000
by the end of 2009.

17
 3. Response Plan

Introduction

At the PoA output level, the main problems to address in relation to food security and livelihoods
are common to the different regions. Such problems include low agricultural/livestock production
and marketing, vulnerability to shocks and – for certain groups - inability to meet basic food
needs, thus heavy reliance on food aid. As indicated by the problem tree on page 9 above, these
issues are the main consequences of conflict environments, insufficient public service provision
and natural hazards as a triggering factor. However, the PoA takes into account the specificity of
each of the three regions in terms of crisis dynamics, vulnerability and response options. This is
reflected in the structure of the PoA, which is divided into three main programmes:

Programme 1 Karamoja: Diversifying and strengthening of pastoral and agro-pastoral

livelihoods
Programme 2 Teso, Lango, Acholi: Support to the voluntary return process
Programme 3 West Nile: Improving self-reliance of refugees, IDPs and host communities

Objective hierarchy

Goal To improve
livelihood security

Supported and promoted

Outcome food security

OUTPUT OUTPUT 2 OUTPUT 3

Outp
t uts
t Increased Food Reduced vulnerability Better access to food
to Food security risk and Safety nets

ogramme 2 –Teso, Lango, Acholi Programme 3 –West Nile

work scheme (CFW) Similar activities to those outlined for the programme
nsfers/longer-term food aid transfers 2 with some adjustments madeaccording to the
population group in question
ansfers, including seed fa
f irs, vouchers, quality
oduction
tion of proven low cost technologies
redistribution
to Animal Health sector
on of participatory adult learning process such

to production, processing and marketing of

ve income generating crops
to aquacultureSupport to apiculture
nity early warning system & preparedness
mental related activities (camp clean-up tree
, soil and water conservation)
o microfinance schemes
s to markets

18
Structure of the response plan

Goal
To improve the livelihood security of rural households in Northern Uganda23.

Household livelihood security is defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and
resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities,
educational opportunities, housing, time for community participation and social integration)24.

Outcome
Rural households’ Food security supported and promoted in Northern Uganda.

Subject to certain assumptions, this outcome will be achieved if the three outputs outlined below
are achieved.

Outputs
The outputs described below are designed to have a rapid impact on food security, building on
existing and successfully implemented approaches and systems. In particular, they draw upon the
lessons learned and recommendations made during the UN consultative process for the Horn of
Africa initiative. Building on what already exists provides a rapid start-up of activities and is an
important asset in designing a post-emergency intervention. In addition, bottom-up, participatory
extension and learning approaches will allow a phase-out of the emergency activities and increase
the knowledge and capacity of vulnerable communities to withstand similar crisis scenarios.

Output 1 – Increased food availability

Increased production of crops and livestock is a key output for each of the three regional
programmes. For the LRA-affected central North, it is vital that returning communities get back
on their feet as soon as possible upon return to start cultivation and reduce dependency on
food aid. In Karamoja improved agricultural production (particularly in the western parts) and
strengthened livestock productivity is an important element in the attack on the conflict-poverty-
food insecurity nexus. In West Nile, productivity improvements are an urgent priority and with
prolonged peace and stability, the opportunity is there for sustained expansion of household level
output.
Whilst boosting output is of primary concern, improved storage and marketing will also be
important as production becomes established. Regarding storage, returning populations will
need to reconstruct solid grain stores in order to minimise post harvest losses. Marketing of
crops, livestock and livestock products will also be a key concern after the first harvest cycles.
Development of physical market places as well as rehabilitation/construction of feeder roads will
be necessary.

Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food security shocks

Vulnerability has two aspects: exposure to risk; and ability to deal with it. In order to make
sustained improvements against household level vulnerability to food insecurity in the North,
the PoA has prioritised activities which address both aspects. To reduce exposure to risk, disaster
risk management, including community early warning, is a key area. On the other side of the
equation, it is also important to support livelihood diversification, spreading risk and thus
increasing resilience so that households can better absorb the impact of food security shocks
when they occur.

23
See also Annex 5 for a representation of livelihood security
24
Source: (Drinkwater and McEwan, 1992)

19
 Output 3 – Better access to food and safety nets
As a complement to activities undertaken under outputs 1 and 2, maintaining and strengthening
food and cash based safety net interventions is extremely important, particularly in Karamoja and
areas of return. Such interventions can also have positive spin-offs for agricultural productivity
and vulnerability. As such, they make an indirect contribution to outputs 1 and 2. General food
distributions will continue to be critical in the Karamoja context, and also as a core response
in sudden onset disasters such as the recent flooding. The productivity enhancing and asset
strengthening elements of food, voucher and CFW schemes are similarly important and should
be mainstreamed as part of post-conflict rehabilitation.

Activity areas
The outputs of the cluster PoA will be achieved through a three pronged programme. Each
regionalised programme has been tailored to create a more conducive environment for sustained
food security. Furthermore, each of the programmes will pay considerable attention to the
creation (or reconstruction) of capacities to cope with crises at the local and community level.

All of the areas of activity contributing to the PoA outputs are summarised in Figure 3 and are
detailed below for each programme. Activity profiles are also provided and developed in Annex
6. Each programme and activity area has been designed so that donors and stakeholders may
choose to support specific outputs. However, the success of the PoA will depend significantly
on the capacity to keep a balance between the different activities and outputs of the PoA as a
whole.

Programme 1 - Karamoja: diversifying and strengthening pastoral and agro-pastoral

livelihoods

Introduction
Key informants consulted during the preparation of the PoA felt that the security situation in
Karamoja in 2008/09 should improve, however, the fact remains that in the complex social,
political and environmental situation, breaking the cycle of conflict, poverty and food insecurity
is a daunting task. Whilst there are an increasing number of food security actors in Karamoja
(see Annex 2 for details) the impact of their work is undermined by the strength of the conflict/
poverty/environment nexus. As a result, there is a high reliance on emergency food aid in the
region to guarantee food entitlements. In addition to this, and partly contributing to it, are the
extreme gender imbalances within Karamojong society.

How can this situation be changed? In terms of food security programming in the region,
three things are clear. First, sustained improvements in food security can only come if they are
accompanied by improvements in security and law and order. Second, and equally important, is
that the approach to improving food security in Karamoja must deal with emergency, recovery
and development issues more or less simultaneously, in line with the reality of a situation of
chronic and complex vulnerability. Third, addressing gender imbalances in an appropriate and
sustained way will have positive benefits in terms of food security outcomes. Changing gender
relations will be a long-term process however, and will depend on several factors (i.e. security and
education) outside of the control of food security actors.

Proposed activity areas

The plan of action for food security in Karamoja is organized around the theme of diversifying
and strengthening pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods.
At all stages of implementation, close collaboration with the NAADS (where operational), local
government and KIDDP will be required.

20
Output 1 – Increased food availability

Activity area 1: Provision of seeds and tools as required

Wherever possible, community seed multiplication schemes and seed fairs will be used. The basic
package to be provided will vary according to the agro-ecology of the
communities and households concerned.

Activity area 2: Support to Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs)

The key activities to be undertaken will include training and establishment
and strengthening of CAHW associations in each district25.

Activity area 3: Conduct vaccination campaigns

Diseases such as CBPP/CCPP and PPR are a major problem reducing livestock
numbers and productivity. Under the PoA, vaccination campaigns will be
conducted in 2008/09.

Activity area 4: Expansion of participatory extension methods such as

Farmer Field Schools and introduction of Pastoral Field Schools26.
Gender concerns should be mainstreamed in the curriculum and
membership of these, and careful thought should be given to development
of women only Manyatta Field Schools. Furthermore, topics already
included in FFS curriculum, such as food processing, post-harvest losses
reduction practices and quality seed production, will be further encouraged.

Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food security shocks

Activity area 5: Improve community level disaster risk management

This will be achieved through the establishment and strengthening of agro-pastoral early warning
systems and development of district and community preparedness plans27. Activities under the
PoA will focus on strengthening the links between indigenous early warning systems and systems
such as the Livestock Early Warning System (LEWS), the Famine Early Warning System Network
(FEWSNET), and the Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN).

Activity area 6: Diversify pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods

Diversifying Karamojong livelihoods will be a long-term process. The PoA will complement the
KIDDP in this regard for the 2008/09 period. Under KIDDP Programme Component 4, ‘Support the
development of alternative means of livelihood’, there are several objectives, each with associated
activities. The objectives are as follows:
• Objective 1: Empower the Karamojong to harness the potential of their natural resources;
• Objective 2: Promote sustainable utilisation of gum Arabic and related dry land products
for improved livelihood and biodiversity conservation;
• Objective 3: Support economic diversification interventions in Karamoja to reduce reliance
on livestock as a means of living;
• Objective 4: Secure the land rights of communities in order to encourage sustainable
utilisation of natural resources;
• Objective 5: Support interventions to improve the viability of pastoralism in Karamoja;
• Objective 6: Facilitate the resettlement and rehabilitation of people affected by natural
disasters and armed conflicts.

In consultation with KIDDP management, the PoA will carry out selected activities under this
varied portfolio.

25
Support should build on current work under the ECHO funded MAAIF/OPM / FAO project “Enhancing
capacity for livestock emergency response in Karamoja”, which finishes in December 2007.
26
Vétérinaires Sans Frontieres (VSF) is developing a curriculum for Pastoral Field Schools in Karamoja
supported by FAO/ECHO funding.
27
Foundation work for this output is currently being undertaken through the MAAIF/OPM/FAO project:
“Enhancing capacity for livestock emergency response in Karamoja”.

21
 Output 3 – Better access to food and safety nets
Activity area 7: Meet food access gaps by food aid as required
Owing to a combination of conflict and repeated drought, food transfers have been required to large
numbers of Karamojong. In collaboration with implementing partners, WFP has been distributing
sufficient food for 500,000 individuals over the March–September 2007 period. It is assumed that
even with good rainfall, this general distribution will need to continue in 2008 for significant numbers
of people. For planning purposes, the PoA, assumes that 300,000–500,000 people will need food
aid between March and June 2008, with estimates falling to 200,000–400,000 between March and
June 2009. Achievement of this output will be measured by WFP distribution monitoring records. Two
important assumptions are that drought conditions in 2008/09 are not severe and that the security
situation does not deteriorate.
Activity area 8: Increase food access and incomes through productivity and asset enhancing
safety nets
This will be achieved partly through FFW and Food for Assets (FFA) schemes. One example of this is
the FFW work that Oxfam has been doing, working with local communities to ensure provision of
water to nomadic pastoralists in Karamoja by supporting them in the de-silting of water dams and the
restoration of valley dams. Such activities should be replicated and scaled up as appropriate. Whilst
more complicated and costly to administer than general food distributions, as a general principle, FFW
and FFA are to be encouraged owing to their positive effects on community and household assets.
The programmes should be gendered, and seek where possible to empower women.
A second and very important way in which human and social capital will be strengthened is through
expanding the numbers of FFSs in the region and through the introduction of Pastoral Field Schools.

Community consultations on PoA outputs and activities

Community consultations on the PoA were held in several parts of Karamoja. Over 20 communities
were consulted. As part of this process, groups of men and women gave their opinions on the
importance of the various PoA outputs and activities listed above. Groups were asked to give
a score between 0 and 5 for each activity, with 0 being of no importance and 5 being very
important. The following table summarizes the results.

Table 5: Ranking of activities’ importance for consulted groups in Karamoja

Output and activities (definition used in fieldwork) 2008 2009
Output 1 - Increased food availability
Activities 1 to 4 Seeds and tools distribution, training on farming and animal 4.5 4.0
husbandry and livestock vaccination
Output 2 - Reduced vulnerability to food security risk
Activity 5 Community early warning systems and contingency planning 3.3 3.3
Activity 6 Training and assistance on new ways of making a livelihood 3.5 3.8
Output 3 - Better access to food and safety nets
Activity 7 Food aid 3.5 2.8
Activity 8 FFW and CFW 4.3 3.6

Overall, the highest scores were given to activity areas 1–4 under output 1. This was followed
by activity area 10 under output 3. This points to the fact that that communities would prefer
to provide food and income for themselves (activity areas 1–4), or, where this is not possible, to
at least do something in return for food or income (activity area 10). General food distributions
were not scored as highly as other activity areas and also the score for food aid is lower in 2009
than 2008. This implies a degree of optimism about the general situation, including the impact
of other food security interventions on livelihoods28.

28
These findings need to be balanced against operational considerations, including the fact that distributing
food aid is logistically and technically much more straightforward than operating large FFW and CFW
programmes.

22
Programme 2 - Teso, Lango and Acholi: support to the voluntary return process

Introduction
The situation in the central North is clearly quite different from the one pertaining to Karamoja.
Owing to the current peace and expectations of lasting peace, in Acholi, the return process is
gathering speed, whilst in Lango it is almost complete. Because of this, and unlike Karamoja, food
security programming is able to follow more of a classic recovery, rehabilitation and development
progression. The initial need is to be able to provide returning populations with a “soft landing”
as they go back to their ancestral lands. This is best achieved through a combination of food
transfers, food and cash safety nets and direct support to crop and livestock production. In
addition, and sequentially after the initial “soft landing” phase, there is need for a strong livelihood
diversification element to increase household resilience to subsequent shocks by spreading risk.
In addition, there will be a need to assist former and current host communities, which should
be assisted by some of the same interventions as those targeting returning IDPs, as well as being
targeted with special environmental rehabilitation initiatives.
Furthermore, it is also critical to factor in the possibility that sudden and/or extreme climate
related shocks will lead to episodes of acute food insecurity. The recent extensive flooding has
demonstrated the need for adequate surge capacity within the food security cluster and effective
Government response to such situations.
In Katakwi and Amuria, the return process is least advanced, and is subject to different dynamics,
being heavily dependent on the progress regarding disarmament and law and order in Karamoja.
In terms of access to land and security, the situation in Teso is not unlike Acholi in 2005. As the
security situation improves, food security programming will be able to follow a similar path as
that envisaged for Acholi in the PoA. The difference is that there will need to be more focus on
IDP populations in main camps and transit sites, as the return process is expected to be much
slower. In addition, as in Acholi and Lango, food security programming in Teso in general needs
to take into account the possibility of climate related shocks. As far as flooding is concerned, the
low lying topography of much of Teso means that the probability of flooding is greater here than
in other parts of the North.

Proposed activity areas

The PoA for food security in Teso, Lango and Acholi is organised
around the theme of support to the voluntary return process
At all stages of implementation of the PoA, outputs for the Central
North and collaboration with the NAADS (where operational), local
government and the PRDP will be required.

Output 1 – Increased food availability29

Activity area 1: Increase crop production and productivity
This will be achieved through input transfers including seed fairs,
vouchers and quality seed production/multiplication which will be
preferred over simple seed distribution30. In addition, this activity
group will include distribution of proven low cost technologies to
increase productivity (including, for example, manual irrigation pumps
and agro-forestry) and oxen, ploughs, axes and pangas to open up
land left fallow or uncultivated.

29
At the household level, crop production can be increased either by increasing productivity on existing land and/or
by cultivating on additional land.
30
An extensive study of seed systems undertaken in Northern Uganda last year concluded that “Farmers difficulties
in obtaining sufficient seed stem more from poverty, due to long-term erosion of household assets and loss of
alternative coping mechanisms, than from lack of seed and planting material. Seed and planting materials are
generally available [although there are shortages in some crops e.g. cassava] from both the formal and informal
seed systems, but many farmers are unable to afford the quantities that they require.” (FAO: 2006: 34). This
implies that support to seed distribution should focus on enhancing farmers purchasing power (e.g. through
voucher schemes), stimulating local markets by supporting local stockists as well as encouraging community
production, handling and storage capacity through seed multiplication and seed bank schemes.
23
 Activity area 2: Improve animal health and
production
This will be achieved through animal
redistribution and support to the Animal Health
Sector.

Activity area 3: Improve farmer knowledge and

skills
This will be achieved mainly through expansion
of participatory learning oriented extension
schemes such as the successful FFS concept.
Key issues covered will include: soil and water
conservation, animal traction, reduction of
post-harvest losses, disease and pest control,
entrepreneurial and market oriented skills.
The first priority will be to ensure that returning
households have sufficient basic agricultural and livestock inputs to begin agricultural production.
The interventions should ensure that each returning household has the minimum necessary to
start production, which may consist of:
• 2 goats
• 2 hoes, 1 panga
• 1,200 vines of sweet potato
• 500 cuttings of cassava
• 50 kg of groundnuts
• 50 kg of cereals
• 1 plough

Clearly, oxen will also be required. However, owing to their expense, it may be better for work
oxen to be managed and shared by farmer groups when not possible for individuals

Agencies distributing such inputs should incorporate a needs assessment into their distribution
programmes to ensure that they are gap filling and not over supplying.

Successful voucher based systems, such as the Rehabilitation of Agricultural Livelihoods Component
(RALNUC), should be replicated and scaled up to effect the distribution of these items.

Activity area 4: Support to grain store construction

This will be mainly focused in the return areas of Lango, Teso and Acholi. In order to minimise post
harvest losses, households will be assisted to construct and maintain improved grain stores.

Activity area 5: Support to agricultural marketing at household level

As for grain store construction, most focus will be
on returning households. A number of activities
are possible under this area. They include
support to farmers marketing associations
– possibly linked to farmers groups established
under participatory extension methods (FFS);
rehabilitation/construction of feeder roads and
market sites (perhaps in conjunction with FFW/
CFW safety net interventions (link to output 3
below).

Activity area 6: Support food security and

environmental status of communities living near
IDP (or former IDP) camps
Whilst the main focus of the PoA is on returning
communities, the needs of settled communities living in camps or former surrounding camps
should not be forgotten. During consultations for the PoA, district level stakeholders estimated

24
that, depending on definitions, the current total size of the settled community population is
probably between 55,000 and 165,00031. Statistics on the level of food insecurity within these
communities are scarce. However, from what is available, it is clear that they suffer many of
the same problems as the IDPs (see table 3 above). As such they should be included in many of
the activities earmarked for returning IDPs, particularly those that aim to increase agricultural
production and productivity. In addition to this, certain special interventions will also be required to
help rejuvenate soil fertility in heavily farmed lands around camps and to reverse the deforestation
in these areas, which the PRDP describes as “rampant”. Environmental status and sustainability
of former camp areas needs to be improved through camp clean-up initiatives, tree planting
and soil and water conservation initiatives, all of which should be done in full consultation with
and participation of the settled communities. In this regard, agencies in the food security cluster
will need to link the camp closure with the clean-up campaign, being led by UNHCR, and other
initiatives being undertaken by National Forestry Authorities and Cooperative for Assistance and
Relief Everywhere (CARE), amongst others.

Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food security shocks

Activity area 7: Diversify livelihoods

The diversification of livelihood sources is an important aspect of increasing household and
community resilience to shocks (by spreading risks) and also of improving incomes and reducing
poverty. Activities supported under this output will include:
• Supporting production, processing and m arketing of alternative income generating crops
- Experience with the Vegetable Development Project in Northern and Eastern Uganda has
shown that successful interventions require good linkages with market outlets, and also timely
delivery of seeds. Interventions under this heading will need to ensure that lessons are learned
from the past.
• Support to aquaculture - Experience with WFP’s FFA fishpond programme has demonstrated
that fish farming schemes need to be supported by building local capacity to develop water
resources and harvesting so that fish production is sustainable. There have been a number of
failures in aquaculture in the North, so it will be critical to learn from this.
• Support to apiculture - MAAIF, as the National Competent Authority (NCA) for honey in
Uganda, has managed to secure European Union (EU) approval for Uganda to export honey
to the EU Countries, effective 1 April 2005. This opportunity should be considered. However,
in order to do so, considerable investment will be needed to ensure quality control. In the
short to medium term, honey production for local and regional production may be more
realistic.
• Such interventions can usefully be linked to credit and savings schemes which can provide
“kick-start” finance and start-up kits.

Food Security cluster agencies involved in these kinds of agriculturally based livelihood opportunities
should make links with agencies focusing on non-agricultural livelihood diversification, such as
vocational skills training and SME development for non-agricultural activities (carpentry, brick
making, etc.).

Activity area 8: Improve disaster risk management

This will be achieved through activities at different levels. The establishment and strengthening
of community early warning systems and preparedness plans will be one important element.
In addition to this, the food security cluster itself needs to be better prepared for sudden onset
emergencies. Thus activities under this output will also include the preparation of a sudden onset
emergency contingency plan by the food security cluster, together with a review of existing cluster
surge capacity in emergency food and agricultural supplies. If the review reveals deficiencies, then

31
The higher figure of 165,000 is calculated on the assumption that the host communities represent 15%
of the current IDP population. This is disputed by some who claim that the figure is closer to 5%. There
does not appear to be an established methodology for calculating the size of host communities.
25
 additional resources should be sourced.

Output 3 – Better access to food and safety nets

Activity area 9: Increase food access and incomes of returning populations through productivity
and asset enhancing safety nets
One of the most pressing needs for returning populations is for disposable income to purchase
necessities, including food and seeds, to meet basic needs. In addition, several types of community
assets are normally in short supply or in need of rehabilitation, including roads, market places,
schools and water points. Finally, there is a broad consensus that some, perhaps most, returnees
will need a nutritional “cushion” of some sort whilst they re-establish farming over the next two
or three seasons. In these circumstances, transitional food and cash based investments which
bolster the assets of communities and the resilience of individuals are appropriate.
In terms of income support, priority should be given to interventions that can generate income
quickly for returning populations. This is likely to include CFW schemes throughout the two-
year period of the PoA. These can be implemented within programmes
to develop community assets such as schools, roads, market places
and valley dams. Interventions should seek to learn from and build on
the success of interventions such as the Reintegration, Employment
and Income Development for the North (REIN) programme, funded by
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and
implemented by CARE.
In relation to food transfers, these will be required for returning
populations but should be tailored to seasonal food shortages. As a
general principle, FFW and FFA interventions are to be preferred over
general food distributions. The exception to this is in sudden onset
emergencies such as the recent flooding.
Activity area 10: Meet food access gaps met by food aid transfers as
required
The response to the food security needs of the North should include longer-term food aid transfers
to particularly vulnerable groups, including PLWHAs, the elderly and disabled. In addition,
general food distributions to IDPs remaining in camps will continue and food aid to other groups
experiencing seasonal food insecurity may be required32. The size and frequency of general food
distribution rations should gradually decrease over the period of the PoA, with greater emphasis
being put on FFA, school feeding and FFW activities33.

Community consultations on PoA outputs and activities

During the PoA consultation process, over 60 group interviews were held with community
members in Teso, Lango and Acholi. Main camps, transit sites and return sites were visited and
male, female and mixed groups were interviewed. There were also some separate male youth
(age group 15–25) interviews. As in Karamoja and West Nile, communities were asked to give
their views on the outputs and possible activities to be carried out under the PoA. Groups were
asked to give a score between 0 and 5 for each activity, with 0 being of no importance and 5
being very important. The following table summarizes the results.

32
The recently concluded WFP EFSA found considerable food stress in the May–July period for high
proportions of households in mother camps, transit camps and resettlement areas.
33
This is in line with the recommendations of the recent WFP Protracted Relief and Rehabilitation
Operation (PRRO) Aide Memoire. Currently, WFP plans to continue to provide general food assistance
to IDPs in camps, decreasing the rates to 40% of RDA (source: EFSA July 2007:3).

26
Table 6: Ranking of activities’ importance for consulted groups in Teso, Lango and Acholi
Output and activities34, 35 2008 2009
Acholi Lango Teso Acholi Lango Teso
Output 1 – Increased food availability
Activities 1 to 3 - Seeds and tools istribution,
training on farming and animal husbandry
and livestock vaccination 4.2 4.8 2.4 3.2 3.9 3.2
Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food
security risk
Activities 4 to 6 - Training and assistance on
new ways of making a livelihood 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.8 3.9 1.6
Output 3 – Better access to food and safety
nets
Activity 7 - FFW and CFW 2.8 2.9 1.7 2.1 2.9 2.6
Activity 8 - Food aid 2.3 1.6 3.1 1.2 1.2 1.6

Overall, the highest scores were given to activity areas 1–4 under output 1, followed by activity
area 7 under output 2. These areas were rated particularly high by communities in Acholi and
Lango, which supports the idea that assistance in kick-starting productive livelihoods is the key
priority for populations returning to villages of origin after displacement. In addition, the scores
for food aid indicate optimism that there will be less need for this in 2009 as communities re-
establish their livelihoods.

Programme 3 - West Nile: improving self-reliance of refugees, IDPs and host

communities

Introduction
West Nile is the most stable of the three regions targeted by the PoA and the situation offers
the opportunity for a greater emphasis on crop and livestock productivity enhancement relative
to safety nets and direct food transfers. However, transfers and safety nets will continue to be
necessary whilst there are still sizable refugee and IDP populations and continued restrictions on
access to land.

Proposed activity areas

PoA interventions for West Nile will be aimed at food insecure refugees, IDPs and host communities.
In this way, it will be complementary to the actions detailed in the PRDP and in particular the
actions of the NAADS (see PRDP second draft page 79) and the MAAIF PRDP Agricultural Sector
Plan (see Annex 1 for details). The focus will be on improving self-reliance in food production
over the next two years, which will help provide a platform for the types of growth enhancing
investments put forward in the Agricultural Sector Plan. At all stages of implementation of the
PoA outputs for West Nile, close collaboration with the NAADS (if present) and the PRDP will be
required.

The focus of the activities and outputs is similar to those outlined for the Central North, with
some adjustments made according to the population group in question. This is indicated in Table
7 below.

34
The wording of the activity areas in the table was the same as that used in the community
consultations.
35
Communities were consulted only on activity areas 1–3, 7, 9 and 10. Areas 4, 5, 6 and 8 were added
at a later stage, partly as a result of findings from the community consultations.

27
 Table 7: West Nile PoA Outputs and Population Groups

Output Key population groups Comments

Output 1 – Increased food Refugees, IDPs, Food Return packages only applicable
availability insecure residents to IDPs.
Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability Refugees, IDPs, Food
to food security risk insecure residents
Output 3 – Better access to food Food insecure residents, This is going to be an important
and safety nets returning IDPs. food source for many refugees
and IDPs but should be scaled
down as conditions permit and
activities implemented under
outputs 1 and 3 begin to show
results

Community consultations on PoA outputs and activities

Community consultations on the PoA were held in the West Nile districts of Adjumani, Arua and
Moyo. Overall, 16 community groups were interviewed (8 male and 8 female). The scores (on a 0
to 5 scale) given for each activity in the PoA are summarized in the following table.
Table 8: Ranking of activities’ importance for consulted groups in West Nile

Output and activities (definition used in fieldwork) 2008 2009

Output 1 – Increased food availability
Activities 1 to 3 - Seeds and tools distribution, training on farming and 3.8 3.0
animal husbandry and livestock vaccination
Output 2 – Reduced vulnerability to food security risk
Activities 4 to 6 - Training and assistance on new ways of making a 3.3 2.8
livelihood
Output 3 – Better access to food and safety nets
Activity 7 – FFW and CFW 3.7 2.5
Activity 8 - Food aid 3.0 2.5

Overall, activity areas 1–3 under output 1 were felt to be the most important to achieve better
food security, and activity 10 under output 3 (general food distributions) was rated as least
important. FFW and CFW were generally scored more highly than food aid per se.

28
4. Risk Analysis

A number of factors may adversely affect prospects for achieving the defined PoA objectives
and outputs. Each major risk has been analysed as part of the process of developing the PoA. A
summary of the results of this analysis is given in the table below, with further details contained
in Annex 2. This analysis was a critical exercise to test the realism of the PoA design. Where
necessary, assumptions arising from the risk assessment have been included in the PoA logical
framework (see next section).

Risk Probability of serious negative impact on PoA targets

Insufficient funding Probability felt to be low. There is a high likelihood that the cluster PoA will
and/or uneven funding receive favourable support from donors.
Lack of commitment Stakeholders have already demonstrated their willingness to actively
of stakeholders at contribute to a coordinated approach to respond to assessed humanitarian
regional level needs in the region, therefore probability felt to be fairly low.
Worsening of climatic ICPAC has reported that Eastern Africa could face dry conditions early next
conditions year, with the possibility of seasonal rains being delayed by the effects of a
climate phenomenon called La Niña. The current probability of this occurring
is moderate. If it does occur, then progress during 2008 with respect to
activities under output 1, would be affected, necessitating a subsequent shift
to safety net activities under output 3.
Deterioration in the The probability of LRA-related deterioration is low. Continued low level
security situation instability due to Karamojong raids is considered likely, but this has been
factored in to the selection of PoA activities.
Animal disease Transmissible animal diseases in Uganda are endemic. The probability of an
outbreak unlikely. However, PoA activities are aimed at minimizing this risk.
Therefore, it is expected that outbreaks will be contained and loss of assets
of population will be minimal.
Plant disease Plant diseases are spreading in the region. There is a high probability that
CBSD will spread in Northern Uganda in the next 4 years. The impact of this
will be reduced by the spread of diseases resistant varieties. The likelihood of
CBSD having a significant impact on achievement of improved food security
for large numbers of people is fairly low, although pockets of high impact
cannot be ruled out.
Delays in input delivery This is possible but not highly likely.

29
5. Logical Framework, Monitoring and Evaluation and Management

Introduction and logical framework

A draft logical framework for the PoA is outlined below. The targets set out in the log frame
are not set in stone and should be reviewed on a regular basis. Moreover, the achievement of
these (or alternative) targets will be highly dependent on the success of ongoing peace and
disarmament processes. In addition, sufficient political will from both the government and the
donors is necessary to translate the plan into reality. As these issues are outside of the control
of those implementing the plan, they have been considered important assumptions in the log
frame.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) priorities come out of the LogFrame itself. In the third
column, headed “Means of Verification”, a number of instruments are noted. These will be
the main means by which achievement of the outputs, purpose and goal will be measured.
Measurement of progress at the activity level will be contained in project profiles and documents
designed to implement particular outputs36.

36
See annex 3 for an example of a project profile

30
Logical Framework for food security PoA
Project description Indicators Means of verification Assumptions
Goal: To improve the - By end 2009, average Income and
livelihood security of incomes amongst expenditure surveys
rural households in rural households
Northern Uganda. increased Nutrition surveys
- Average global acute
malnutrition (GAM)
rates for children
under 5 are below 5%
Outcome: Supported By end 2009: PoA assessments; PRDP is implemented
and stabilised food - Number of WFP EFSAs; WFP Food and meets expected
security of rural households in need Security Monitoring targets;
households in Northern of food aid reduced System (FSMS); NGO
Uganda by 20% assessments; Integrated KIDDP meets expected
- Average contribution Phase Classification targets
of household food analysis;
production to Early recovery cluster
household food intake interventions are
increased by 25% successful
- Average number of
non-distress food
access strategies
undertaken by
households increased
by 25%
Output 1: Increased By end 2009: - Integrated Phase Climatic conditions are
food availability Household food Classification analysis; favourable
production increased FAO/WFP Crop
by 20% - Crop yields and Food Supply
or milk production assessment missions
increased by 5% (CFSAM)
Output 2: Reduced By end 2009: Integrated Phase Organisational capacity
vulnerability to food - Number of operational Classification analysis exists
security risk plans developed with
resources identified by Ad-hoc evaluation Political commitment
national collaborating for Integration with
institutions to carry development exists
out mitigation
measures
- Number of emergency
preparedness and
response plans
written or revised
to reflect improved
information on hazard
and vulnerability
Output 3: Better access By end 2009: Integrated Phase Access to food is not
to food and safety nets - Number of households Classification analysis; limited by insecurity
receiving general food FAO/WFP CFSAM;
distribution reduced Nutritional survey
by 40% comparing to
2007
- Number of households
meeting the minimum
requirement of 2,100
Kcal per day and per
person with 3 food
groups increased by
10%

31
 PoA monitoring, evaluation and reporting

Some of the key tools for monitoring and evaluating the achievements of PoA activities are
highlighted in the PoA Logical Framework above. In addition, process monitoring is necessary at
activity level, to ensure that implementation is on-track.
Monitoring is the surveillance system used to measure the extent to which implementation is
going according to plan, as well as the use of resources. It is a continuous feedback system,
ongoing throughout the life of the PoA and will involve the supervision or periodic review of each
activity. Monitoring of activity implementation will be the responsibility of those FSAL member
agencies undertaking individual projects. In addition to any individual donor requirements, each
agency will be required to submit monthly or quarterly implementation reports against project
level log frames. The main criteria for monitoring will be relevance and efficiency where relevance
equals the extent to which the objectives of the PoA intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’
requirement, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies. Efficiency is the
measure of how economically the resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to
outputs. The PoA envisages participatory monitoring involving beneficiaries, through individual
interviews and questionnaires, and all stakeholders, through workshops.
Evaluation is the systematic analysis of operations. It is used to adjust or redefine objectives,
reorganize institutional arrangements or redistribute resources to the extent possible. It is
intended that a PoA “output to outcome review” will be undertaken at the end of the first year
of the PoA (December 2008–January 2009), with a final PoA impact evaluation taking place in
mid-2010. Funding for these evaluations will be sought from donor partners. The key criteria for
both the review and the impact evaluation will be:
• effectiveness: the extent to which the PoA intervention’s outcome was achieved, or is expected
to be achieved;
• impact: positive or negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by the PoA
intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended;
• In addition, the impact evaluation will measure sustainability: the actual and likely continuation
of benefits from the PoA interventions after completion37.
It will be the responsibility of FSAL cluster agencies and the cluster as a whole to learn from previous
experiences, and apply the knowledge gained to anticipate and prepare for future emergencies
in order to provide better aid to vulnerable populations who require assistance. This is also in line
with the overall approach proposed by the ongoing Horn of Africa (HoA) process on food security
that aims at building and scaling up those practices that, in the HoA context, have proved to be
most appropriate in addressing the negative impacts of shocks whilst building the premises for a
sustained reduction of food insecurity. The PoA foresees
maximizing cooperation and harnessing all appropriate
tools and strategies to deal effectively with the crisis
Goal whilst at the same time working towards a speedy and
impact long-lasting recovery. Subsequently, the magnitude and
effectiveness of the humanitarian response, in particular
PoA Outcome of a complex and multi-faceted sector such as food
effectiveness security, must be based on best practices and sound
Outputs information with regards to the needs of the affected
Sustainability

populations.
efficiency
Activities The following diagram relates the criteria of sustainability,
impact, effectiveness, efficiency and relevance to the
vertical hierarchy in the PoA Logical Framework.
Means
relevance

Problematic situation

37
Log frame objective hierarchy Evaluation criteria Source for M&E criteria is Development Assistance Committee
– DAC – OECD, 2002
38
Adapted from the European Commission Aid Delivery Methods,
Volume 1, Project Cycle management guidelines – March 2004.

32
Management Arrangements

Implementation of the PoA will fall heavily on cluster members and actors at central levels. Indeed
the POA should be mainstreamed into the District Development Plans, and this should be taken
forward by FSAL agencies at district level. At the same time, there will be need for guidance,
monitoring and information sharing at Kampala level. These issues shape the kind of management
structures and processes which are necessary to make the implementation of the plan a success.
The key pillars of the Management Arrangements should consist of the following:

1. It would be advisable for a small PoA Executive Committee (ExCom) to be formed. This should
consist of representatives from the OPM, MAAIF, FAO, WFP and representatives of the NGO
community in Uganda. This committee will meet on a quarterly basis throughout the life of
the PoA. The role of the ExCom will involve:
• Taking strategic decisions on the priorities and balance of activities undertaken under the
PoA
• Providing briefings to the humanitarian and development partners
• Interacting with heads of donor agencies in Uganda regarding funding issues

2. The ExCom will be supported technically by the Uganda Food Security Cluster Group co-
chaired by the UN (FAO and WFP) and Government (OPM and MAAIF). The key functions of
the Group include the following:
• Providing technical advice and regular briefings to the ExCom
• Policy advocacy (i.e. promoting a policy environment conducive to the PoA)
• Making sure that the PoA is tailored to other processes

3. Where they do not currently exist, cluster groups should be formed at district level. The
groups will consist of UN (WFP, FAO and OCHA), Local Government, MAAIF, OPM and NGOs.
Where they do exist, such groups will be strengthened. The role of these groups will be to
operationalise the PoA at the field level. This will involve:
• Sharing information on implementation activities and best practices
• Conducting joint field monitoring and training exercises
• Helping to develop individual project proposals

33
Bibliography

ACF (2007) SMART Nutritional and Mortality Surveys, Northern Uganda April
2007

Asingwire N. and
D. Nduhura (2007) HIV and AIDS situation analysis with an emergency perspective in
Northern Uganda: Consultancy Report done for FAO Emergency Unit
Uganda (September 2007)

CARE (2007) Conspicuously Absent: Women’s participation in peace building and

conflict resolution in Northern Uganda: A Report by CARE International
in Uganda (May, 2007)

CRS (2007) Impact of Land Access and Ownership on Livelihoods: Short, medium
and the Long Term Perspectives in Acholi (Report Prepared by Land
Solutions-Uganda for Catholic Relief Services: February 2007

FAO (2006a) Farmer Seed System: Uganda Case Study

FAO (2006b) Karamoja Participatory Livestock Needs Assessment: Final Report

November 2006

FAO (2007) Katakwi and Amuria Mid-year CAP review 2007 (FAO June 2007)

FAO/WFP (2006) Land Access and Land Use Mapping in Northern Uganda: Intermediate
Report on Land Access Mapping, July 2006

Frankenberger
et. al. (2000) Frankenberger T, M.Drinkwater, D.Maxwell: Operationalizing
household livelihood security: A holistic approach for addressing
poverty and vulnerability

GFA Terra Systems (2007) Pre-Report Memorandum on NAADS Strategy to contribute to

rehabilitation and development in Northern Uganda. GFA Terra
Systems / NAADS May 2007

GoU (2004a) Poverty Eradication Action Plan (2004/5 – 2007/8) Ministry of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development, Kampala

GoU (2004b) Uganda 2002 population census

GoU (2005) Uganda Food and Nutrition Strategy

GoU (2006a) Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme

(KIDDP) Creating Conditions for Promoting Human Security and
Recovery in Karamoja 2007/08 – 2009/10. Office of the Prime Minister,
Kampala

GoU (2006b) Uganda Sero-Behavioral Survey (March 2006)

GoU (2007) Office of the Prime Minister, Joint Monitoring Committee, Proposed
Transition Strategy for LRA Effected Northern Uganda. Draft version
19 July 2007

IASC (2007) Update on IDPs movement: July 2007

MAAIF (2007a) Horn of Africa Consultations on Food Security, Uganda Country Report
(Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries, June 2007)

MAAIF (2007b) PRDP – The Way Forward in the Agricultural Sector – Draft (Sub-
committee of the Agricultural Sector Working Group, May 2007)

NAADS (2007) National Agricultural Advisory Services Strategy for Supporting

Northern Uganda and Post Conflict Strategy and Development

OCHA (2007) Humanitarian situation Katakwi and Amuria Districts (January – June
2007) Briefing Notes – UNOCHA July 2007

OPM/WFP/UNHCR (2007) Joint Assessment Mission for Ugandan Refugees December 2006
– January 2007

Oxfam GB (2002) “Summary of Oxfam’s activities on empowerment of pastoral women

in Kotido district”, a paper prepared for Kotido Sustainable Livelihoods

34
 Project (October 2002)

RLP (2006) Beyond “Vulnerable Groups”: Effective Protection of IDPs in Gulu and
Kitgum: Briefing Paper June 2006; Refugee Law Project, Faculty of
Law, Makerere University, Kampala

RLP (2007) Rapid Assessment of Population Movement in Gulu and Pader: Briefing
Paper June 2007; Refugee Law Project, Faculty of Law, Makerere
University, Kampala

Sserunkuuma D
et. al (2007) Sserunkuuma D, G.Omiat, J. Kikafunda “Baseline Study on Household
Food Security and Nutrition Status of Poor Communities of Eastern
Uganda: Executive Summary” (June 2007)

Stenhouse J (2006): Investigation on Landscape changes, land access and use to facilitate
Return of IDPs in Northern Uganda. Catholic Relief Services Uganda

WFP (2005) Household Economy Assessment in Adjumani & Palorinya Refugee

Settlements (World Food Programme Pakelle sub-office Final Report
24th October – 12th November 2005)

WFP (2007a) Emergency Food Security Assessment in Karamoja Region

WFP (2007b) Emergency Food Security Assessment in Teso, Lango, Acholi

WFP (2007 c) Food Security Assessment of IDP Camps in Gulu Kitgum and Pader
Districts October 2006 (WFP January 2007)

World Bank (2007) Post conflict land policy and administration: Lessons from return and
resettlement of IDPs in Soroti district: Implications for PRDP, national
land policy, land act cap 227 and NPIDPS 2005 – For the World Bank
Northern Uganda Recovery and Development Program (RDP) (January,
2007)

World Vision (2005) Pawns of Politics: Children, Conflict and Peace in Northern Uganda

35
Annexes

1. Relationship between the PoA and key Government plans and strategies

2. “What if” risk analysis

3. Regional PoA development workshop participants.

4. NGOs implimenting food security programmes in Northern Uganda.

5. Household livelihood security.

36
Annex 1: Relationship Between The Poa And Key Government Plans And Strategies

1 – PEAP
The Poverty Eradication Action Plan is Uganda’s national planning framework. The PEAP was first
drafted in 1997, and revised in 2000 and again in 2004. Revisions are intended to keep the Plan
current in the light of changing circumstances and emerging priorities. The current PEAP covers
the period from 2004/05 to 2007/08. Its purpose is to provide an overarching framework to
guide public action to eradicate poverty, defined as low incomes: limited human development:
and powerlessness. It provides a framework within which sectors develop detailed plans.
The PEAP is organized around five pillars, namely:
Pillar 1 – Economic management
Pillar 2 – Productivity, income and competitiveness
Pillar 3 – Security, conflict resolution and disaster
Pillar 4 – Good governance
Pillar 5 – Human development

The Plan singles out the agricultural sector as being the single most important sector in terms
of growth and poverty reduction in the short to medium term. Whilst over time the role of non-
agricultural enterprises will increase relative to farming.
“It remains critical to increase agricultural incomes, because returns to activities other than
agriculture will decline in rural areas unless agricultural incomes increase”. (PEAP: 2004: XV)
This is reflected in the public expenditure strategy underpinning the PEAP in which particular
urgency is attached to funding agricultural advisory services (Op.cit XXV).

Relationship with the PoA

The three programmes of the PoA cut across pillars 2, 3 and 5 of the PEAP. The PoA will help to
operationalise the household food security related aspects of these pillars insofar as they relate to
the North, North East and North West of the country.

2 - PRDP
PRDP is a stabilisation plan which aims to disaggregate the North from national sector plans. It
establishes targets which are sensitive to needs of the population and the variations of the three
sub-regional contexts (Karamoja, Central North and West Nile). PRDP elaborates and contributes
to the PEAP pillars 1-5 and is a framework for all interventions in Northern Uganda.
The overall goal of the PRDP is to consolidate peace and security and lay the foundation for
recovery and development. This is to be achieved through four core strategic objectives that are
mutually reinforcing:

Strategic Objective 1: Consolidation of state authority

The ultimate outcome is to ensure cessation of armed hostilities, provide security, restabilise the
rule of law, enable the judicial and legal services to become functional, protect human rights and
strengthen local governance through rebuilding state institutions in the region.

Strategic Objective 2: Rebuilding and empowering communities

The PRDP seeks to contribute to community recovery and promote an improvement in the conditions
and quality of life of displaced persons in camps, completing the return and reintegration of
displaced populations, initiating rehabilitation and development activities amongst other resident
communities and ensuring that the vulnerable are protected and served.

Strategic Objective 3: Revitalisation of the economy

The PRDP seeks to reactivate the productive sectors within the region, with particular focus
on production and marketing, services and industry. This will require major rehabilitation of
critical infrastructure. Revitalisation of the economy has both positive and negative influences
on the environment, therefore mechanisms for sound management of environment and natural
resources will have to be reinforced.

37
 Strategic Objective 4: Peace building and reconciliation
A major outcome of the PRDP is to ensure the continuous prevalence of peace in the region.
The peace building and reconciliation process requires increased access to information by
the population, enhancing counselling services, establishment of mechanisms for intra/inter
communal and national conflict resolution, strengthening local governance and informal
leadership structures and reinforcing the socioeconomic reintegration of ex-combatants.

PRDP priority programmes

The above strategic objectives will be achieved through 14 priority programmes39 that have been
agreed upon by the districts as the most critical for stabilising the North. Although implementation
will start at the same time for all the 14 programmes, the investments will be sequenced and
prioritized in line with the variations in need and absorptive capacity in the districts and sub-
regions.

Relationship with the PoA

There are two main ways in which the PoA will interact with the PRDP:
• First, the PRDP creates an enabling framework. Through improving law and order and
promoting reconciliation, PRDP strategic objectives 1 and 4 will create a space in which the
interventions in the PoA can have real impact.
• Second, the PoA will strengthen the PRDP. The activities in the PoA will play a part in
practical implementation of strategic objectives 2 and 3. Community empowerment, recovery
production and marketing and environment and resource management are important themes
that run throughout the PoA.

3 – PRDP: The Way Forward in the Agricultural Sector – Draft (Sub-committee of

the Agricultural Sector Working Group, May 2007)
This document focuses on strategies and actions to improve production, productivity and
marketing in the agricultural sector over the 2007–2009 period. It makes the point that under
the existing PRDP budget framework, agricultural production is allocated just 7% of the total (or
US$22 million) and goes on to argue that:

“ Contributing 32% of GDP and providing 77% of employment in Uganda, agriculture is regarded
as the critical driver for economic development and therefore poverty reduction.... Somehow
lost in the multiple agendas that the PRDP seeks to address is the need for the area to develop
a growing economy as the only sustainable solution to all of the broader problems. ‘First things
first’ should mean re-establishing economic growth as the foundation of development.” (Op. Cit.
page 6).

Whilst the document argues that projected levels of PRDP resource allocation to agriculture is
inadequate to promote the agricultural and economic growth necessary to reduce poverty, the
budgets in the latest draft of the document are quite modest and do not go beyond the US$22
million envelope40.

39
The 14 programmes are as follows: Facilitation of Peace Agreement Initiatives; Police enhancement;
Prisons enhancement; Rationalisation of auxiliary forces; Judicial services enhancement; Enhancing
local government; Emergency assistance; Return and resettlement of IDPs; Community empowerment
and recovery; Production and marketing; Infrastructure rehabilitation; Environment and natural
resource management; Public information, sensitisation, and
Communication (IEC), Counselling, Amnesty, demobilisation and reintegration.
40
In the latest draft (March 2007) total budgets amount to about US$ 19mn (at an exchange rate of
US$1 = Ug.Sh. 1500, and with no budget allocations as yet for the Coffee and Research programmes).

38
The PoA will supplement and augment the MAAIF PRDP Agricultural sector Plan in two ways:
• First, owing to the modest budget of the Plan (equating to just US$7.5 million per year) it
will supplement the production, productivity and marketing functions with similar activities
(which should be coordinated in terms of target populations and areas).
• Second, it will cover some areas which do not appear in the Plan. These are areas which are
less related to agricultural growth such as safety nets, food assistance (when necessary) and
environmental protection and enhancement.

4 - NAADS Strategy for Intervention in Northern Uganda

The NAADS strategy sets out a framework for food security and farming commercialisation for
the North, focusing mainly on the Acholi, Teso and Lango sub-regions. It is guided by both the
PEAP and the PRDP. The NAADS strategy consists of three interrelated elements, namely:

1. Ensuring household food security: This element consists of interventions aimed at replacing
food relief and providing capacity to meet staple food needs of communities that are resettling
into their homes.

2. Re-establishment of capacity for farming: Key elements include farmer organisation,

institutional development and enhancing community seed and stocking material capacities.

3. Organisation for profitable agricultural production: Planned interventions under this heading
will include guidance in enterprise selection; introduction of high performance planting and
stocking varieties and breeds; value chain development.

Relationship with the PoA

Whilst the precise modalities of the NAADS strategy are yet to be spelt out fully41, it seems likely and
appropriate that NAADS services should be focused on NAADS core function, which is to deliver
private sector based services for extension, training and capacity building of commercially oriented
farmer groups. This implies that NAADS itself can not become involved in such interventions as
input, voucher or cash distribution. Rather, it will complement such kinds of relief, rehabilitation
and development activities carried out by others. In this sense, and assuming that it is present
in the area of intervention, NAADS will be a core service provider for many of the activities to be
carried out under the PoA’s three geographically focused programmes.

5 - Uganda Food and Nutrition Strategy (UFNS)

Finalised in November 2005, the UFNS presents the agenda of action that GOU must take to fulfil
legally binding international and national obligations of banishing hunger and malnutrition. The
over-arching goal of the UFNS is to transform Uganda into a hunger free and properly nourished
country within 10 years. The Strategy identifies several nutritionally insecure groups in Uganda,
together with key “focus issues” which set out how to tackle the needs of each group.

One of the nutritionally insecure groups identified is “IDPs, refugees, and others affected by
conflict”. UFNS has an advocacy role in relation to this group, which highlights:
• Advocate for an emergency food fund in the Ministry for Disaster Preparedness
• Advocate for strengthened Early Warning Systems
• Advocate and lobby for the safety of donated food
• Advocate for special care and nutrition education programmes for children and pregnant and
lactating mothers in conflict situations.
• Advocate for implementation of formal social safety net programmes that provide direct
transfers of cash, food, agricultural inputs or other goods to those in conflict situations.

41
The most complete elucidation of the NAADS strategy is contained in Pre-Report Memorandum on NAADS
Strategy to contribute to rehabilitation and development in Northern Uganda. GFA Terra Systems/NAADS,
May 2007.
39
 Relationship with the PoA
The PoA sets out means for achieving several of the objectives that the UFNS advocates. Thus it is
complementary to the UFNS. In particular, strengthened early warning systems, emergency surge
capacity and safety net programmes are three important activity areas under the PoA.

6 - KIDDP
The overall goal of the proposed KIDDP is: ‘To contribute to human security and promote
conditions for recovery and development in Karamoja’, The philosophy of the KIDDP is summed
up in the following paragraph:

“By and large, attempts to remove illegal weapons will be accompanied by deliberate measures
to ensure peace and stability, which are pre-requisites for the achievement of sustainable
development. In addition to seeking peaceful and appropriate ways of disarming the Karamojong,
the planned programme will also complement the disarmament process with not only peace
building initiatives but also with targeted interventions that support the rehabilitation of pastoral
livelihoods disintegrated by years of virulent armed cattle raiding, as well as supporting the
development of viable alternative forms of productive employment that ensure sustainable
livelihoods for the people of Karamoja.” (Source: KIDDP – page xiv)

In this sense, the KIDDP is an elaboration of the PRDP as it relates to Karamoja. The KIDDP consists
of seven Programme Components as follows:

PC 1: Provide and ensure adequate security for the people of Karamoja

PC 2: Establish law and order in Karamoja
PC 3: Support the provision and delivery of basic social services to the people of Karamoja
PC 4: Support the development of alternative livelihoods
PC 5: Undertake stakeholder mobilisation, sensitisation and education
PC 6: Enhance coordination, monitoring and evaluation
PC 7: Crosscutting issues

Relationship with the PoA

• PoA linkage with KIDDP: The PoA is partially in phase with the livelihood diversification element
of the KIDDP (Programme Component 4).

• KIDDP support to PoA: in so far as the KIDDP leads to sustained improved security, it will
create an enabling environment for PoA activities.

40
7 - Draft Transition strategy
The Office of the Prime Minister has recently proposed a “Transition strategy for LRA Affected
Northern Uganda”. Whilst still in draft form, the strategy, if implemented, will act as a bridge
between the Emergency Humanitarian Action Plan and the PRDP. The strategy, which is intended
to have a maximum duration of one year, advocates a number of core priorities which should be
implemented under a “parish approach”, whereby the provision of basic services is determined
on the basis of the overall population of the parish – including existing villages, fully returned
home populations and transit populations. The strategy has been developed out of a concern
that existing and planned service provision for returning populations is either inadequate or will
not come on stream quickly enough. It thus fills an important gap in existing policy and strategy.
Five “core priorities” are outlined:

• Basic primary health care

• Basic education materials and infrastructure
• Provision of safe water
• Stimulation of livelihoods
• Opening of roads.

Relationship with the PoA

Achievement of the PoA’s objectives in the LRA affected North will be enhanced by core priorities
1,2,3 and 5. The PoA itself will help to operationalise core priority 4 – stimulation of livelihoods.
Currently the strategy is very short on detail, something which the POA provides.

41
 Key Risks Impact Probability Assumption
Lack of commitment The direct impact will be an increased risk in intervention Stakeholders have already demonstrated their Stakeholders at country and regional levels
of stakeholders at overlapping and gaps in coverage. Inability to address the willingness to actively contribute to a coordinated are willing to use the outputs and share

42
regional level problem at a regional level approach to respond to assessed humanitarian information on Food Security and livelihoods
needs in the region
Delay in the delivery of The direct impact of delays in input delivery will include mainly: The probability of suppliers facing difficulties Inputs will be delivered on time
inputs - Yield reduction for crops in delivering inputs (seeds, equipment, drugs,
- Increased livestock losses medicine, etc) is reduced.
- Postponement of programme to the next rainy season
Worsening of climatic Drought ICPAC reported that Eastern Africa could face dry Climatic conditions are favourable for farming
conditions - A drought in pastoral area would increase the risk of livestock conditions early next year, with the possibility of and livestock breeding activities
mortality and morbidity seasonal rains being delayed by the effects of a
- A drought in cropping areas would prevent farmers from climate phenomenon called La Niña. There is a
harvesting cereals, thereby increasing food insecurity fear that La Niña could have a delayed impact on
- Uneven distribution of rains would mainly affect farmers the rainy season, which starts in March 2008; the
through yield reduction Floods worst may be yet to come.
- Floods or excessive rains would increase the risk of diseases for
Annex 2: “What if” Risk Analysis

livestock and the proliferation of endo and ecto parasites, thus

weakening animal production
- Floods or excessive rains would destroy crops and result in
food storage - Floods or excessive rains would also increase soil
erosion
Animal disease Outbreaks of transmissible animal diseases would increase the Transmissible animal diseases in Uganda are Outbreaks will be contained and loss of assets
risk of livestock mortality and morbidity thereby worsening endemic. The probability of an outbreak exists, and of population will be minimal.
food security. Cluster activities are aiming at minimizing this risk.
Plant disease Further diffusion of plant disease such as Cassava Mosaic Plant diseases are spreading in the region. There Outbreaks will be contained and damages to
Disease, the CBSD, BXW, or pests such as the army worm would is a high probability that CBSD could spread in standing crops reduced. Improved Cassava
reduce crop yields and overall production contributing to an Northern Uganda in the coming 48 months. varieties remain tolerant to CMD New CBSD-
increase in vulnerability. tolerant varieties will be released within 48
months
Security A deterioration of the security situation would: The probability of a recrudescence of hostilities in Security situation is conducive for economic
- Cause further displacement Northern Uganda seems to be moderate activities
- Further reduce the pastoralist/livestock mobility
- Contribute to market disruption Access of population to land and water
- Reduce access for humanitarian workers. resources is not averted by insecurity

Risk monitoring Steps proposed within the project to address these risks
• Lack of minimum assistance: the afflux of funds will be monitored through the The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) is provides grants for under-funded
OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and the monthly cluster meetings. crises or sectors. FAO or WFP will appeal to OCHA, should the donor contribution not
• Delays in delivery: cropping calendars will allow monitoring if the intervention has be appropriate to address the populations’ urgent needs. The PoA is also proposing
been implemented on time. to strengthen the community-based organisations’ (CBOs) capacity to deal with
• Worsening climatic conditions: will be monitored through the quarterly update emergencies. If access to beneficiaries were denied for security reasons, local NGOs and
released by the Climatic Outlook Forum and ICPAC. CBOs would play a key role in delivering assistance to needy populations.
• Security: will be assessed and monitored by the UN Security system
Annex 3: Regional PoA Development Workshop Participants

Food Security PoA Consultative Workshop, 19 July 2007, Multi-Purpose Centre, Moyo, list of participants

Name Organisation and Location Phone # e-mail

1 Ambayo, Elias Coordinator – ADFDA – Adjumani. 0772350898 [email protected]
2 Guma, Edward Field Officer – COMA Community Management Agency 0774290119 none
3 Jimmy Bamuru Ayoma District Production Coordinator – Arua 0772828199 none
4 Dulu, Isaac Local Council 5, Secretary for Security – Moyo 0782706442 none
5 Buga Abibu Kemis Secretary, Marketing and Investment, LC 5 Moyo 0782904237 none
6 Okudra, Julius Assistant CAO – Adjumani 0772536414 none
7 Akuti, Lawrence Assistant Production Coordinator – Adjumani 0772370061 [email protected]
8 Nduruga, Angelo Assistant Agricultural Officer – Adjumani LG 0774244925 none
9 Hon. Tiondi Jordan LC5 Secretary for Production – Adjumani 0772978833 none
10 Ajavu, Alabi District Production Coordinator – Moyo 0773344625 none
11 Aceku, Phillemon Programme Officer – Moyo 0772515271 [email protected]
12 Tako, Samuel Assistant Chief Administrative Officer – Moyo 0772543135 [email protected]
13 Dr. Thomas Anyanzo District NAADS Coordinator – Moyo 0772540719 [email protected]
14 Candia Romana Prog. Officer – Danish Refugee Council 0772375840 [email protected]
15 Drakuma Maliki Assistant CAO – Yumbe 0772319277 [email protected]
16 Bakole, Stephen DPC – Yumbe 0774886250 [email protected]
17 Regina Aliga Food monitor – AAH, Moyo 0772334122 [email protected]
18 Buga, Paul AAO – AAH, Moyo 0772825359
19 Edoni Brahan Nasur Coordinator –Yumbe, District Farmers Association 0782541579 [email protected]
20 Liri, Charles Coordinator – DS DAR 0392840922 [email protected]
21 Drabbu, Pascal for DVO, Moyo 0772543527 [email protected]
22 Mawadri, Charles Teamleader, Acord, Adjumani 0772868143 [email protected]
23 Odipio, Charles Sec. Production – Arua 0772513055 None
24 Mawa Bashir DSC/OIC –OPM, Moyo 0772541341 [email protected]
25 Caroline Arubaku DAO, Arua 0772694403 [email protected]
26 Fred Otim Field Assistant, UNHCR, Moyo 0782785400 [email protected]
27 Dr Omara, C Project Coordinator AHA 0772646149 [email protected]
28 Josephine E Nakijoba Assistant Team Leader AAH – Adjumani 0752927045 [email protected]
29 Alfred Odena HOSO – WFP Adjumani and Moyo 0772778018 [email protected]
30 Okabo, Benson Project Manager - ? 077272132 [email protected]
31 Titus Jogo RDO – OPM, Adumani and Moyo 0772475416 [email protected]

43
Food Security PoA Consultative Workshop, 17 July 2007, Acholi Inn, list of participants

Name Organisation and Location Phone # E-mail

1 Delu A. Dahil IRC-Kitgum 712961392 [email protected]
2 Dr. Alfred Best Otto KDLG-Kitgum 782809459 [email protected]
3 Hamilton Ogwang Goal- Pader 772572676 [email protected]
4 Opio Simom KDLG-Kitgum 772653670
5 Nyero Charles KDLG- Kitgum
6 Odongpiny Basil ADLG-Amuru
7 Okellowange Joseph WFP-Kitgum 772771150 [email protected]
8 Akera Samuel ACDI/VOCA 772334668 [email protected]
9 Bai M. Sanko WFP- Gulu
10 Stella Ogalo WFP- Gulu 772741080 [email protected]
11 Opio Joseph NRC- Gulu 772711757 [email protected]
12 Acellam Boniface NRC- Gulu
13 Coreen Auma NRC- Gulu 772711750 [email protected]
14 Aziku Santos WFP- Pader 772827235 [email protected]
15 Olango Clement GDLG-Gulu 782933232
16 Ochola Micheal CARITAS- Pader 782823660 [email protected]
17 Kitara Makmot GDLG- Gulu
18 Ojok Tonny World Vision Uganda 782024484 [email protected]
19 Chritine Atimango ADLG- Amuru 773155113 [email protected]
20 Robert Dekker WFP-Kitgum 772701001 [email protected]
21 Oyugi Mathew CARITAS- Gulu 77667464 [email protected]
22 Ochen Willy D. ADLG- Anuru
23 Obina Godfrey ADLG-Amuru 782845737
24 Astrid Van rooij NRC- Kitgum 772711772 [email protected]
25 Akech Christine SCiU-Gulu 772466905 [email protected]
26 Adolatona Seydou FHI-Pader 772901805 [email protected]
27 Akello Rose PDLG-Pader 782105722
28 Dr. Okeny S.R DP&MO-Pader
29 Okello Okidi PDLG- Pader
30 Ivan Tumuhimbise CRS-Uganda 772329204 [email protected]
31 Judith Nalukwago CRS Uganda 75256302 [email protected]
32 Mutazindwa David USAID 772221675 [email protected]
33 Moro Charles DPO Gulu 772411743 [email protected]
34 Lucy Auma Okello WFP 772672236 [email protected]
35 Oneka Joseph FAO [email protected]
36 Ocan Godfrey FAO [email protected]
37 Piloya Brenda FAO [email protected]
38 Muhumuza Simon FAO [email protected]

44
Food Security PoA Consultative Workshop, 10 July 2007, Mt. Moroto Hotel, list of participants

Name Organisation and Location Phone # E-mail

1 Dr Otim Moses CLIDE consultancy 772467474 [email protected],africavet@yahoo.
com
2 Akello Lucy MADEFO 782390985 [email protected]
3 Dr. Orongo Walter Vet Dept Moroto 772359744 [email protected]
4 Abura Levi Production Kotido 772844497 [email protected]
5 Abelle Joseph WFP Kotido 774481944 [email protected]
6 Atibu .A. Loese HCP Nakapiripirit 772662164
7 Adude Bernard CARITAS Kotido 782073008 [email protected]
8 Obenen Moses CARITAS Kotido 772389773 [email protected]
9 Abura Rebecca CARITAS Kotido 772934523 [email protected]
10 Dr. Etiang Patrick Cooperation and Development 782140387 [email protected]
11 Dr. Eladu Fred Vet Dept Kaabong 772647276 [email protected]
12 Okello JB OXFAM 772938328
13 Ojangor Dan CARITAS Kotido 772325441
14 Achilla Odongo Production Moroto 782398555
15 Dr. Okwii Vincent Vet Dept Moroto 772516475
16 Dr. Lokii JB OXFAM GB 392714474 [email protected]
17 Nangole .J. KADP 772884480
18 Dr. Orengen Geoffrey Vet Dep nakapiripirit 772333980
19 Tengen Mario Education Nakapiripirit 772302514
20 Obiano K ARELIMOK 752502597
21 Robert Isaur Daily Monitor 753334998 [email protected]
22 Julius Bill NAADS N’pirit 752366778
23 Watula Peter Escort
24 Musawu Martin Escort
25 Ali Moses Escort

45
46
Food Security PoA Consultative Workshop, 12 July 2007, Lira, list of participants

Name Organisation and Location Designation Phone # E-mail

1 Lea Graafland Premier Urgence Food security coordinator 0774349776 [email protected]
2 Okello Martin TEMEDO – Amuria Agric. Officer 0782140276 [email protected]
3 Otto Fred German Agro Action – Lira Agric. Supervisor 0782732256 [email protected]
4 Edule O.G.M ADAN – Apac Project coordinatore 0782296569 [email protected]
5 Ajungo Peter Lira DLG District Agric. officer 0772332596
6 Basil Okello Apac DLG Secretary Production 0772841520
7 Ebwongu Michael Action Against Hunger Program Manager 0712072895 [email protected]
8 Epilo James Katakwi DLG Production coordinator 0772566607 [email protected]
9 Otukei Faustine Katakwi DLG Secretary production 0772997719
10 Ongom .B. Silver Katakwi DLG for CAO 0772687044
11 Buzu Gilbert UN WFP – Lira HOSO 0772778047 [email protected]
12 Ogwang Yovan Apac DLG District Agric. officer 071671421 [email protected]
13 Mukama Robert. K Fida International Project officer 0782985348 [email protected]
14 Alori Francis Oyam DLG District Agric. officer 0774859289
15 Mwesigye Joram CONCERN – Amuria P/ Manager [email protected]
16 Harriet Agemo TEDDO – Katakwi Program coordinator o772652940 [email protected]
17 Ocen Andrew IRC – Lira Program officer 0782882662 [email protected]
18 Col. (Rtd) Okello Engola Oyam DLG Chairman Oyam 0772441609 [email protected]
19 Ongom Oscar Oyam DLG Assistant CAO 0752452344 [email protected]
20 N. Opio Bunga Apac DLG Chairman Apac 0753189507 [email protected]
21 Dr. Eriaku Peter Emmanuel Katakwi DLG Vet. Officer 0772446812 [email protected]
22 Ebiru Paul Amuria DLG Secretary production 0774014516
23 Ocan Fredrick RHINO FM Press 0774717828
24 Charles Tucker Magumba Fida International E. Africa Tech. Assistant 0782436699 [email protected]
25 Joseph Egabu FAO – Teso region National Agronomist 0772952099 [email protected]
26 Anywar Andrew FAO Lira National Agronomist 0772341644 [email protected]
27 Neil Marsland FAO Rome Food security Adviser Neil. [email protected]
Annex 4: NGOs Implementing Food Security Programmes in Northern Uganda

Organisations working in Karamoja and their operation area

No Name Area of 0peration(sub-county) District(s)

1. C&D All sub counties in Karamoja All districts in Karamoja

2. KADP Matheniko, Bokora and Pian counties Moroto and Nakapiripirit

3. DADO All sub counties in Kaabong Kaabong

4. BOZIDEP All sub counties in Bokora county Moroto district

5. KACHEP Moroto (Ngoleriet and Iriiri sub counties) Moroto and Nakapiripirit
Nakapiripirit- (Lolachat and Nabilatuk
sub counties
6. CHIPS Moroto- (Lokopo, Lopei, Matany and Iriiri) Moroto and Katakwii

7. OXFAM Kotido-(Panyangara, and Rengen) Kotido and Kaabong

Kaabong-(Sidok, Kalapata and Kathile)
8. Happy Cow Project Nakapiripirit-(Pian and Pokot counties) Kotido, Nakapiripirit and Kaabong
Kotido-All the sub counties
Kaabong-All the sub counties
9. MADEFO Moroto- Nadunget, Rupa and Katikekile Moroto
Turukana and Pokot kraals
10. CLIDE All sub counties in Karamoja on All districts in Karamoja
consultancy basis
11. ACTED Nakapiripirit-Pokot county and Pian Nakapiripirit
(Nabilatuk, Moruita and Kakomongole)
12. MEDAIR Kaabong-(karenga, Kabong TC, Kathile, Kaabong and Abim
Sidok and Loyoro)
Abim-All sub counties
13. ARELIMOK Moroto-(Rupa, Nadunget, Katikekile) Moroto

14. CVM All sub counties in Karamoja All districts in Karamoja

15. CARITAS All sub counties in Karamoja All districts in Karamoja

16. JICAHWs Kotido Kotido

47
 Organisations working in Kitgum and Pader districts and their operation area
No Name Area of 0peration (sub-county) District(s)
1 International Rescue Agoro, Kitgum Matidi, Potika, Palabek Gem Kitgum
Committee (IRC)
2 World Vision International Layamo, Amida, Akwang Kitgum
(WVI)
3 Norwegian refugee Council Oryang, Amida, Labuje Kitgum
(NRC)
4 World Food Programme All Sub counties Kitgum
(WFP)
5 Oxfam Palabek Gem, Palabek Kal, Palabek Ogili, Kitgum
Lokung, Mucwini, Madi Opei and Akwang
6 International Committee of Palabek Gem, Palabek Kal, Palabek Ogili, Kitgum
the Red Cross (ICRC) Lokung, Mucwini, Madi Opei, Kitgum Matidi,
Padibe, Lokung, Labuje, and Akwang
7 Lutheran World Federation Amida, Palabek Ogili Kitgum
(LWF)
8 Asozatione di Voluntary per il Omiya Anyima, Namokora, Agoro, Akilok, Orom Kitgum
Sivelupo Internationale (AVSI)
9 Kitgum District Farmers’ All sub counties Kitgum
Association (GDFA)
10 ACORD Palabek Ogili and Agoro Kitgum
11 Caritas Palabek Ogili, Gem, Amida, Labuje, Paloga, Kitgum
Padibe
12 Mercy Corps Lira Palwo, Patongo, Omot and Puranga Pader
13 Caritas Laguti, Acholibur, Atanga, Awere, Lukole, Lapul, Pader
Lira Palwo
14 Goal Wol, Parabongo Pader
15 CESVI Wol, Parabongo Pader
16 German Agro Action (GAA) Wol, Lukole, Parabongo and Paimol Pader
17 Lutheran World Federation Acholi Bur and Wool Pader
(LWF)
18 Save the Children Lapul and Adilang Pader
19 International Rescue Awere, Omot, Lukole, Adilang, lapono and Lira Pader
Committee of the Red Cross Kato
(ICRC)
20 CCF Patongo, Lukole, Lira Palwo Pader
21 Asozatione di Voluntary per il Atanga, Acholibur, Pajule, Lapul Pader
Sivelupo Internationale (AVSI)
22 Food for the Hungry Pader Kilak, Pajule, Lira Palwo and Patongo Pader
International (FHI)
23 Arbeiter Samariter Bund (ASB) Puranga, Patongo, Awere and Omot Pader
24 World Food Programme All Sub counties Pader
(WFP)
25 World Vision International Acholibur, Atanga, Laguti, Awere, Puranga Pader
(WVI)
26 Diocese of Kitgum-Church of Lira Palwo, Patongo, Puranga and Acholibur Pader
Uganda (C.O.U)

48
Organisations working in Gulu and Amuru districts and their operation area
No Name Area of 0peration(sub-county) District(s)
1 World Vision Uganda Lamogi, Pabbo, Ongako, Koro, Bobbi Sub-counties and Gulu, Kitgum and
Gulu Municipal Amuru
2 CRS Uganda Alero, Amuru, Anaka, Kochgoma, Lamogi, Pabbo, Purongo, Gulu, Kitgum,
Awach, Bungatira, Lakwana, Lologi, Odek, Paicho. Pader and Amuru
3 Caritas Uganda Alero, Amuru, Anaka, Kochgoma, Lamogi, Pabbo, Purongo, Gulu, Kitgum,
Awach, Bungatira, Lakwana, Lologi, Odek, Paicho. Amuru and Pader
4 ICRC Amuru, Anaka, Ataik, Lamogi, Purongo, Bobbi, Bungatira, Gulu and Amuru
Koro, Paicho, Palaro, Patiko and Koro.
5 Norwegian Refugees Council- NRC Lamogi, Opit, Lalogi. Gulu and Anuru
6 ACF-Action Against Hunger Anaka, Kochgoma, Lakwana, Odek Gulu and Amuru
7 Send a Cow All sub-counties Gulu and Amuru
8 Heifer Project International All sub-counties Gulu and Anuru
9 WFP All sub-counties Gulu and Amuru
10 Church of Uganda Not specific depending on the activities of CRS Uganda Gulu and Amuru
11 Surface Uganda Not specific on the sub-county, depend on who is funding Gulu and Amuru
the organisation
12 Christian Children Fund-CCF, Laro/ Laroo Division Gulu Municipality and Bungatira sub-county Gulu
Punena
13 Concern Parents’ Association-CPA All sub-counties Gulu and Amuru
14 Gulu District Farmers’ Association- All sub counties in Karamoja Gulu and Amuru
GDFA
15 Save the Children in Uganda Purongo, Lamogi and Anaka Amuru
16 ILO-SEMA Gulu and Amuru
17 National Agricultural Advisory Services All sub-counties Gulu and Amuru
NAADS
18 CARE International Selected Sub-counties Gulu and Amuru

Organisations working in Lango region and their operation area

No Name Area of 0peration(sub-county) District(s)
1 URCS Aromo and Ogur Lira
2 ACF Okwang, Adwari, Orum, Olilim Lira
3 IRC Apala, Abako and Aloi Lira
4 Premier Urgence Omoro and Amugo Lira
5 Samaritan Purse All the 4 sub counties in Otuke Lira
6 DANIDA [RALNUC] Aromo, Ogur, Apala, Adwari, Orum, Okwang, Lira
7 Send a cow Amac, Barr, Agwata, Lira municipal council Lira
8 Fida International Barr Lira
9 CIPAR Amac, Adekokwok Lira
10 Fida International Iceme, Minakulu Oyam
11 GAA Otwal Oyam
12 ACF Otwal, Minakulu Oyam
13 ASB Ngai, Iceme, Otwal Oyam
14 DANIDA [RALNUC] Minakulu, Iceme, Ngai, Otwal Oyam
15 ADAN Loro Oyam
16 DANIDA [RALNUC] Alito, Aboke Apac
17 Send a cow Apac Town council, Cawente, Aduku Apac
18 ADAN Ibuce, Apac, Cegere, Kwania, Aduku, Abongomola, Inomo Apac

49
Annex 5: Household Livelihood Security

50
FAO Representation in Uganda
Plot 79, Buganda Road Wandegeya
P.O. Box 521 Kampala