ANNEX A: DFID'S PROGRAMME IN NORTHERN
UGANDA
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
1. The conflict has had severe humanitarian
consequences for people living in areas affected by LRA activity:
the provision of normal social services has been severely disrupted
by insecurity and a large international humanitarian programme
has been required in response. Approximately 1.7 million people
were estimated to be living in camps for the internally displaced
at the beginning of 2006. In recent months improvements in security
associated with the peace process in Juba have allowed some people
to return home and the number of displaced currently stands at
just over 1.4 million.
2. In the last few years the UK has been
one of the largest humanitarian donors in Uganda. In 2004-05 we
provided £11 million mainly through UNICEF, the World Food
Programme and the Red Cross. In 2005/06 we provided £20 million
and in 2006/2007 we provided almost £18 million. So far this
financial year we have provided £7 million and we expect
to make further commitments as events unfold.
3. We have sought to ensure that our humanitarian
assistance is both targeted at meeting priority humanitarian needs
and is helping to build more effective coordination in support
of the UN reform agenda (including the implementation of the Cluster
Approach). For example; in health we have helped the UN agencies
(WHO, UNAIDS, UNFPA and UNICEF) develop an important new joint
programme to address high crude mortality and HIV prevalence.
Our support to UNICEF has helped to establish better water and
sanitation provision in the camps and enabled them to provide
non-food relief items to vulnerable families. As the situation
changes we will seek to channel more of our resources towards
recovery and development efforts while continuing to help meet
urgent humanitarian needs.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
4. A joint UK conflict analysis and response
strategy was drawn up in 1999 and updated in June 2003. Its main
elements were:
— development of better co-ordination
arrangements, common understandings and approaches, for example
through participation in the Donor Technical Co-ordination Group
on the North;
— promotion of human rights, international
humanitarian law, accurate information and civil society;
— targeted support to reconciliation
and peace processes, as appropriate, with an emphasis on locally
driven initiatives; and
— Co-ordinated action at the political
level to press the Government of Uganda to consider all avenues
to resolve the conflict.
5. We have provided practical and financial
support to peace initiatives. We have supported organisations
involved in dialogue and advocacy such as the Acholi Religious
Leaders (an interfaith grouping), Kacoke Madit (a Diaspora group)
and the Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda.
We have supported the Amnesty Commission and financed the development
of MEGA FM in northern Uganda. We have financed work by UNICEF
and Save the Children aimed at the reintegration and rehabilitation
of former child combatants. We have provided support to the Juba
process through UN OCHA. In total, we have spent just over £3.8
million on these initiatives, most of which has been financed
through the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool.
6. An independent review of our conflict
programme was carried out by the University of Bradford in July
2005. Its overall conclusion was that DFID- supported conflict
interventions have made a positive impact. For example there is
strong evidence that MEGA FM has played an instrumental role in
encouraging many combatants to come out of the bush. Our support
to the Acholi Religious Leaders in the aftermath of a major massacre
in 2004 enabled them to quickly intervene and diffuse tensions
between the Langi and Acholi communities which threatened to ignite
wider ethnic conflict. Our work with the Diaspora group, Kacoke
Madit, has helped change perceptions towards the conflict within
the influential Acholi Diaspora and strengthened relations between
them and communities in the North.
| 
