Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
Book (stand-alone)Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods – Karamoja and Northern Uganda 2019
Also available in:
No results found.This paper examines the parallel but separate trajectories of peace-building, recovery and transformation that have occurred over the past 15 years in northern (Acholi and Lango sub-regions) and northeastern (Karamoja sub-region) Uganda. While keeping in mind the key differences in these areas, we highlight the similarities in the nature of recovery, the continuing challenges and the need for external actors to keep in mind the ongoing tensions and vulnerability that could undermine the tenuous peace. The initial peace processes in both northern Uganda and Karamoja were largely top-down in nature, with little participation from the affected populations. In Karamoja, the Ugandan military started a forced disarmament campaign in 2006. This was the second such effort in five years and was top-down and heavy-handed. Although many observers gave it little chance of success, by 2013 large-scale cattle raids were infrequent, and road ambushes were almost non-existent. Critically, local initiatives eventually emerged in parallel to the top-down disarmament efforts. Prime amongst these were local resolutions adopted in 2013–2014 that created a system of compensation for thefts, enforced by “peace committees.” In northern Uganda, a top-down, politically negotiated peace process between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda ended two decades of fighting in 2006. The internally displaced person (IDP) camps were disbanded, and thousands of displaced people returned to their rural homes, some because they no other option once assistance in the camps ceased. One of the most important factors in recovery in Karamoja has been the growth of markets. Traders were reluctant to bring wares to the region during the period of insecurity, and hence goods were few and prices high. Today, most trading centres host markets on a weekly basis, and shops have consistent inventories. In northern Uganda, the biggest driver of recovery has been the return of displaced people to their homes and the resumption of farming. By 2011, crop production had resumed its pre-conflict status as the primary livelihood in the region. In both locations, however, engagement in markets is limited, and many people remain economically marginalized. Challenges to recovery and long-term stability are similar across the two locations. Both northern Uganda and Karamoja continue to struggle with food insecurity and malnutrition, despite the massive influx of development funds, improved security and expansion of markets. In northern Uganda, the conflict continues to influence household livelihoods. Households that have a member who experienced war crimes are consistently worse off. These continuing problems with food security and nutrition call into question many assumptions about recovery and development. In particular, the idea that peace will bring a natural bounce in economic and household well-being does not appear to hold up in these cases. Additional structural challenges to recovery in both locations include climate change and environmental degradation, poor governance and corruption, limited opportunities for decent work, livelihood transformation and loss, and conflict over land. These factors reinforce each other and make it extremely difficult for average households to develop sustainable and secure livelihoods. External interventions often fail to take into account the local priorities and realities in these areas. Many programmes are place based or focus on rural areas, but the population is in flux. This is especially true for young people. In addition, while many people are doing much better than they were 15 years ago, others are being pushed out of pastoralism and are struggling to achieve diversified and sustainable livelihoods. Overall, while the recent trajectories of recovery in Karamoja and northern Uganda are remarkably similar, the context, livelihoods and challenges in each location are importantly unique. National actors should not seek to derive combined approaches or policies that lump together these two areas. In both cases, the lived reality, history and experiences of the population should be central to designing appropriate, effective and sustainable responses to the ongoing obstacles to a stable peace and full recovery. -
Brochure, flyer, fact-sheetSocial protection: effective and inclusive response and recovery in the context of COVID-19 in Africa 2020
Also available in:
No results found.COVID-19 poses significant challenges to an already strained rural context in Africa. The growing direct impact of COVID-19 is affecting health, in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as quickly overburdening health care services with negative repercussions for non-COVID related health problems. But even before COVID-19 had spread in Africa, the socio economic impact was felt. The sharp decline in demand and production from the most economically developed countries where contagion had initially hit hardest – China, European Union and the United States of America – has caused a global recession, with direct repercussions in Africa. With the spread of the virus across the continent, containment measures including social distancing, closing of schools, the prohibition of gatherings, closure or limitations on non-essential businesses and economic activities, and border closures may have devastating consequences. These impacts further exacerbate a situation of increasing rates of hunger and poverty, as well as challenges affecting rural areas, including the desert locust outbreak, fall army warm impacts, early droughts, conflict and insecurity. The disruption of traditional transhumance patterns and the creation of new ones may lead to tensions and local displacement, and increased levels of poverty and food insecurity. Despite these challenges, the region has also made important progress in terms of prioritizing social protection as a core component of poverty reduction and rural development strategies, including in the context of the Malabo Declaration and Agenda 2063. This is a critical moment to scale up these efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and support longer-term recovery for vulnerable populations. -
Brochure, flyer, fact-sheetFood safety guidelines: Keeping workers safe along the food supply chain in acutely food insecure contexts
Webinar – 30 June 2021: Summary points, questions and answers
2021Also available in:
No results found.Keeping food and food workers safe is even more complex during a global pandemic crisis and all stakeholders must contribute to maintaining 360 degree oversight of every aspect of the food supply chain. Workers in the food supply chain play an indispensable role in sustaining the movement of food along the supply chain. Therefore, keeping workers, production facilities, transport infrastructure and all other areas in the supply chain safe, is critical for mitigating the impacts of this unprecedented COVID-19 crisis. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in a longstanding partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), is involved in a range of initiatives to support global food safety and protect the health of both consumers and workers. As part of the comprehensive COVID-19 response and recovery programme, FAO and its partners are working to prevent the pandemic from disrupting food systems. While COVID-19 is not transmitted by food products, disruptions precipitated by the primary and secondary effects of the pandemic have put food supplies at risk all over the world, while simultaneously raising awareness on food safety-related issues. Concerted efforts on the food supply chain and more specifically the health and safety of workers, will help the most food insecure countries mitigate the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic and boost resilience for the long term by facilitating food and agricultural trade, preventing the spreading of any future zoonotic pandemic and helping the transition of the food systems towards sustainability. FAO, in the publication "Food safety in the time of COVID-19", provides sound principles of environmental sanitation, personal hygiene and established food safety practices to reduce the likelihood that harmful pathogens will threaten the safety of the food supply. Additionally, component IV of FAO’s COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan is supporting awareness raising and sensitization campaigns among food workers at all levels. Against this background, the webinar aimed at bringing together an array of diverse partners and experts to discuss issues surrounding occupational health and safety risks along the food supply chain. The discussion focused on food safety guidelines as well as the experiences and learnings from different contexts among the most acutely food insecure countries.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.