House of Commons - International Development

Select Committee on International Development Ninth Report

3 Towards a sustainable peace

20. DFID told us that conditions in the camps have improved since our visit. The Government of Uganda has directed more resources to the north, and has invested in an Emergency Humanitarian Action Plan (EHAP).[31] This is monitored by the donor Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC).[32] DFID reports that the high rates of mortality in the camps described in the World Health Organisation 2005 survey have declined and that recent World Food Programme surveys indicate that malnutrition is well below emergency levels.[33] However the UN Consolidated Humanitarian Appeal for 2007 was still high at US$296 million, covering areas affected by the LRA conflict, refugees and the Karamoja region.[34] The UK Government is one of the largest humanitarian donors in Uganda. The table below sets out the UK humanitarian assistance to northern Uganda since 2004-05.[35]

Table 1: UK humanitarian assistance to Uganda 2004-2008

2004-05	£11 million
2005-06	£20 million
2006-07	£18 million
2007-08	£7 million (to date)

Data source: Ev 20 [DFID]

21. Despite the cessation of hostilities brought about by the Juba peace process, northern Uganda still faces a humanitarian crisis. Donors must undertake to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, at the level outlined by the UN Consolidated Humanitarian Appeal, as long as is necessary to ensure that conditions in the IDP camps do not deteriorate again.

Security in northern Uganda

22. The security situation, in areas outside the IDP camps, while improving, remains unpredictable.[36] It is estimated that, at the end of 2005, approximately 400,000 of the 1.7 million people in IDP camps had returned home and a similar number had moved to satellite camps leaving some 900,000 in the IDP camps.[37] While farming and food production outside the camps has increased, with consequent reductions in World Food Programme rations,[38] uncertainty about the peace process continues to be an obstacle to return. The Norwegian Refugee Council has expressed concerns that any return must be voluntary and in an environment which guarantees security.[39] One area where some progress has been made is in the training and provision of Special Police Constables under the Emergency Humanitarian Action Plan. This is a welcome development which should enable the UPDF presence, which has at times been counter-productive, to be reduced.[40]

23. Fears about the security situation outside the camps must be taken seriously. Measures to increase and improve the police presence in the camps and in rural areas are a step in the right direction. We believe that funding for police training should become a priority for donors in northern Uganda and that an appropriate exit strategy for the Uganda People's Defence Force should be developed as the civilian police presence increases.

24. We have also received evidence that the current situation in the Karamoja region in north-east Uganda is fuelled by the same root causes as the conflict in Acholi, including lack of access to natural resources and easy availability of small arms and light weapons, and that the Government of Uganda's attempts forcibly to disarm these communities, including the excessive use of force by the UPDF, is increasing tension in the area.[41]Saferworld warns that efforts to address security challenges need to be linked to the broad development agenda and that the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (see paragraph 26) should cover all of the north including the west Nile and Karamoja region to prevent spillovers of violence into neighbouring regions.[42] We note that the UN Consolidated Humanitarian Appeal includes the Karamoja region and share the concerns raised by NGOs about security there. We urge donors to adopt a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding in the region and not to exclude security in the Karamoja region from their discussions with the Government of Uganda.

Protecting children

25. During the conflict many children became night commuters, sleeping in centrally located refuges which offered more protection than their homes or the camps. We are pleased to learn that the phenomenon of night commuting has decreased significantly since our visit.[43] However, in addition to the abduction of children by the LRA, World Vision reports that over a third of the children in IDP camps have been forced to have sex in return for basic services.[44] DFID is beginning to think about a social protection scheme based on cash transfers for the most vulnerable people. The idea is that if the poorest families have some cash, there will be less need for children to sell themselves.[45] The protection of conflict-affected children is an area of great concern and we consider that the welfare of children, including psycho-social needs, should be treated as a priority. We recommend that the needs of children affected by the conflict become a focus of DFID's post-conflict programmes. We expect to be kept informed about progress on the social protection and cash transfer schemes which DFID is considering.

Resettlement and development

26. We agree with the International Crisis Group that "as part of any peace deal, there is a need for very comprehensive re-development in the north."[46] While the responsibility to build economic progress must be widely shared if the peace negotiations succeed, the primary responsibility lies with the Government of Uganda. To this end the Government has developed a Peace, Recovery and Development Programme (PRDP) for the north. The PRDP will be a three-year programme and the Ugandan Government estimate that it will require US$180 million per year.[47] Concerns have been raised about the lack of civil society consultation on the PRDP. We have been told that the Government of Uganda has now started a consultation process but that this is probably still not sufficiently comprehensive.[48] The international donor community must work alongside the Government of Uganda to ensure that sufficient resources continue to be directed at the north and that the priorities for re-development are those identified by people in the north, including women and civil society groups. We recommend that a greater level of consultation should be a condition of DFID's and other donors' contributions to the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan.

Donor coordination

27. The coordination of early recovery programmes to assist in the smooth transition from humanitarian assistance to development is essential. Worryingly, while we have been assured that discussions are taking place about that transition,[49] the Norwegian Refugee Council point out that as yet there is no Early Recovery Cluster to coordinate this transition.[50] The idea of an Early Recovery Cluster, for linking immediate humanitarian responses with medium and long-term recovery efforts, was tried for the first time in response to the Pakistan earthquake in 2006. We commented on problems with the implementation of the cluster approach in our report on Humanitarian Response to Natural Disasters and recommended a review.[51] In northern Uganda limited access to basic services, for example water and health care, are already proving to be obstacles to return. A coordinated early recovery cluster would help in this regard. The UN Development Programme and the Government of Uganda should work together to ensure that an Early Recovery Cluster is established as soon as possible. All too frequently when conflicts end there is a time lag before development projects get underway with severe consequences for sustaining the peace. We recommend that DFID takes all possible steps to ensure this does not happen in Uganda.