DOCSLIB.ORG

Updated 15Th April 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Updated 15Th April 2020 Republic of Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports UGANDA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPANSION PROJECT (USEEP) SOCIAL ASSESSMENT Community Consultation at Lonyilik and Akariwon villages in Tapac Sub- county Moroto District Updated 15th April 2020 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ vi 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 The Proposed Project Components ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.1 Component 1: Equitable expansion of secondary education Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.2 Component 2: Refugee and hosting communities support ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.3Component 3:Improving Teachers Support and Policy Development Nationally……………10 1.3.4 Component 4: Project management, monitoring and evaluation ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Rational for the Social Assessment ............................................................................................... 7 1.5 Objectives of the Social Assessment ............................................................................................. 8 1.6 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.7 Study Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.7.1 Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.7.2 Data Collection Methods and Instruments: .......................................................................... 9 2 POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 11 2.1 The National Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995): .......................................................... 11 2.1.2 Education Act (2008): .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2 The National Policy Framework .................................................................................................. 12 2.2.1 National Development Plan (NDP) 2015/16 – 2019/20: ..................................................... 12 2.2.2 Universal Secondary Education Policy, 2007: ..................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Gender in Education Policy (GEP) 2009: ............................................................................. 15 2.2.4 National Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children (OVC) Policy 2004: ............................... 15 2.2.5 The Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan (SDIP 2) 2011/12-2015/16: .... 15 2.2.6 The Revised Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP), 2007 -2015: ...................................... 16 2.3 Institutional Framework for USEEP ............................................................................................. 17 2.3.1 The Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Sports: ............................................. 17 2.3.2 The Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD): ............................... 17 2.4 Key Supportive Strategies ........................................................................................................... 19 i 2.4.1 Gender Considerations for USEEP....................................................................................... 19 2.5 World Bank Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples, OP 4.10 ............................................... 20 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF USEEP PROJECT ON AFFECTED IPs .............................................................. 22 3.1 Key Issues ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Potential Positive Impacts ........................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Potential Positive Impacts For Sample IPs/VMGs .............................................................. 23 3.2.2 Potential Adverse Social Impacts ........................................................................................ 24 3.3 GENDER ANALYSIS OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS OF WOMEN AND MEN TO PARTICIPATE AND BENEFIT IN USEEP. .................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Opportunities for Women and Men to Participate in USEEP ............................................. 28 3.3.3 Lessons Learned by MoESS in Dealing with VMGs ............................................................. 31 4 SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABLE AND MARGINALIZMARGINALIZEDED GROUPS IN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 32 4.1 Definition of Indigenous/Vulnerable and Marginalized People ................................................. 32 4.1.1 Indigenous Peoples ............................................................................................................. 32 4.1.2 Vulnerable Groups .............................................................................................................. 33 4.1.3 Marginalized Groups ........................................................................................................... 33 4.2 The Batwa in South Western Uganda ......................................................................................... 34 4.3 The Ik Community in Kaabong District ........................................................................................ 35 4.4 The Tepeth Community in Moroto District ................................................................................. 36 4.5 The Benet/Ndorobo in Kween District ........................................................................................ 37 5 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AREA DISTRICTS ........................................................................................... 39 5.1 Kasese District ............................................................................................................................. 39 5.1.1 Population and Demographic Characteristics: .................................................................... 39 5.1.2 Ethnicity: ............................................................................................................................. 39 5.1.3 Gender Dynamics in Kasese district: ................................................................................... 39 5.1.4 Livelihoods in Kasese: ......................................................................................................... 40 5.1.5 Characteristics of Local Communities in Kasese District ..................................................... 41 5.1.6 Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups (VMGs) .................................................................... 42 5.1.7 Status of Secondary Education Resources in Kasese District .............................................. 45 5.1.8 Equality in the Secondary Education System ...................................................................... 45 ii 5.1.9 Gender Equality in Enrolment and Retention ..................................................................... 45 5.1.10 Gender Equality in Performance ......................................................................................... 47 5.1.11 Gender Equality in Leadership and Teaching Positions ...................................................... 47 5.1.12 Equality in the Participation of IPs and CWSN .................................................................... 48 5.1.13 Teachers Quality ................................................................................................................. 48 5.2 Overview of Kaabong District ..................................................................................................... 49 5.2.1 Population and Demographic Characteristics: .................................................................... 49 5.2.2 Ethnicity: ............................................................................................................................. 49 5.2.3 Gender Dynamics in the district:......................................................................................... 49 5.2.4 Livelihoods in Kaabong: ...................................................................................................... 50 5.2.5 Local Communities in Kaabong ........................................................................................... 51 5.2.6 Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups ................................................................................. 52 5.2.7 Orphans
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uganda 2015 Human Rights Report
    UGANDA 2015 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Uganda is a constitutional republic led since 1986 by President Yoweri Museveni of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party. Voters re-elected Museveni to a fourth five-year term and returned an NRM majority to the unicameral Parliament in 2011. While the election marked an improvement over previous elections, it was marred by irregularities. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. The three most serious human rights problems in the country included: lack of respect for the integrity of the person (unlawful killings, torture, and other abuse of suspects and detainees); restrictions on civil liberties (freedoms of assembly, expression, the media, and association); and violence and discrimination against marginalized groups, such as women (sexual and gender-based violence), children (sexual abuse and ritual killing), persons with disabilities, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) community. Other human rights problems included harsh prison conditions, arbitrary and politically motivated arrest and detention, lengthy pretrial detention, restrictions on the right to a fair trial, official corruption, societal or mob violence, trafficking in persons, and child labor. Although the government occasionally took steps to punish officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere, impunity was a problem. Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from: a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life There were several reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. On September 8, media reported security forces in Apaa Parish in the north shot and killed five persons during a land dispute over the government’s border demarcation.
    [Show full text]
  • Karamoja and Northern Uganda Comparative Analysis of Livelihood Recovery in the Post-Conflict Periods November 2019
    Karamoja and Northern Uganda Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods November 2019 Karamoja and Northern Uganda Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods November 2019 Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Tufts University Rome, 2019 REQUIRED CITATION FAO and Tufts University. 2019. Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods – Karamoja and Northern Uganda. November 2019. Rome. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or Tufts University concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO or the University in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or the University. ISBN 978-92-5-131747-1 (FAO) ©FAO and Tufts University, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Napak District
    National Population and Housing Census 2014 Area Specific Profiles Napak District April 2017 National Population and Housing Census 2014 Bokora County Constituency – Napak District This report presents findings of National Population and Housing Census (NPHC) 2014 undertaken by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). Additional information about the Census may be obtained from the UBOS Head Office, Statistics House. Plot 9 Colville Street, P. O. Box 7186, Kampala, Uganda; Telephone: +256-414 706000 Fax: +256-414 237553; E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.ubos.org Cover Photos: Uganda Bureau of Statistics Recommended Citation Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2017, The National Population and Housing Census 2014 – Area Specific Profile Series, Kampala, Uganda. National Population and Housing Census 2014 Bokora County Constituency– Napak District FOREWORD Demographic and socio-economic data are useful for planning and evidence-based decision making in any country. Such data are collected through Population Censuses, Demographic and Socio-economic Surveys, Civil Registration Systems and other Administrative sources. In Uganda, however, the Population and Housing Census remains the main source of demographic data, especially at the sub-national level. Population Census taking in Uganda dates back to 1911 and since then the country has undertaken five such Censuses. The most recent, the National Population and Housing Census 2014, was undertaken under the theme ‘Counting for Planning and Improved Service Delivery’. The enumeration for the 2014 Census was conducted in August/September 2014. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) worked closely with different Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) as well as Local Governments (LGs) to undertake the census exercise.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Humanitarian Update
    UGANDA HUMANITARIAN UPDATE MAY – JUNE 2010 I. HIGHLIGHTS AMID HEAVY RAINS, HUMANITARIAN ACCESS IN PARTS OF KARAMOJA AND TESO HAMPERED BY DETERIORATING ROAD CONDITIONS OVER 1,000 CHOLERA CASES REGISTERED IN KARAMOJA SINCE APRIL 2010 90% OF IDPS IN NORTHERN UGANDA NO LONGER LIVING IN CAMPS, BUT LAND CONFLICTS AND LANDMINES IMPEDING RETURN IN SOME AREAS II. SECURITY AND ACCESS SECURITY The general situation in Karamoja remained fragile, according to the United Nations Department for Safety and Security (UNDSS). Cattle raids, including on protected kraals, particularly affected Moroto and Kotido, with some resulting in fierce clashes between the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and the raiders. In South Karamoja incidents associated with food distributions involved theft of food and non-food items (NFIs), and attacks on food distributors as well as on food recipients. Following three road ambushes in Alerek sub-county of Abim District during the month, UNDSS issued an advisory limiting UN movement along the Abim-Kotido road to between 09.00Hrs and 16.00Hrs with effect from 28 June 2010. Three civilians were killed in one of those ambushes. In northern Uganda, Amuru District officials and partners carried out a joint assessment in the wake of a violent land dispute that occurred in Koli village of Pabbo sub-county on 23 June. Preliminary findings indicated that one person was killed and several others injured in the dispute involving two clans. Some 40 huts were torched and many members of either clan had fled the village. Also of concern in the region during the reporting period were raids by illegally armed Karamojong, particularly in Pader District.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Framework (Vmgf)
    VULNERABLE AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS FRAMEWORK (VMGF) FOR THE UGANDA DIGITAL ACCELERATION PROGRAM [UDAP] FPIC with The Tepeth Community in Tapac FPIC with the Batwa Community in Bundibugyo MARCH 2021 Confidential VULNERABLEV ANDULNE MARGINALISEDRABLE AND MA GROUPSRGINALIZ FRAMEWORKED GROUPS (VMGF) January 2021 2 FRAMEWORK Action Parties Designation Signature Prepared Chris OPESEN & Derrick Social Scientist & Environmental KYATEREKERA Specialist Reviewed Flavia OPIO Business Analyst Approved Vivian DDAMBYA Director Technical Services DOCUMENT NUMBER: NITA-U/2021/PLN THE NATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AUTHORITY, UGANDA (NITA-U) Palm Courts; Plot 7A Rotary Avenue (Former Lugogo Bypass). P.O. Box 33151, Kampala- Uganda Tel: +256-417-801041/2, Fax: +256-417-801050 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nita.go.ug The Uganda Digital Acceleration Program [UDAP) Page iii Confidential VULNERABLEV ANDULNE MARGINALISEDRABLE AND MA GROUPSRGINALIZ FRAMEWORKED GROUPS (VMGF) January 2021 2 FRAMEWORK TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................................ vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Background.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What's New in 2003?
    Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES and Prevention (CDC) Memorandum Date: February 21, 2003 From: WHO Collaborating Center for Research, Training and Eradication of Dracunculiasis Subject: GUINEA WORM WRAP-UP #130 To: Addressees What’s New in 2003? UGANDA INTERRUPTS GW TRANSMISSION IN RECORD TIME? Uganda's Guinea Worm Eradication Program reported only 7 indigenous cases in 7 endemic villages, and 18 cases imported from Sudan during 2002. Eighteen (76%) of the 24 cases were reportedly contained - all in case containment centers. Thus, the indigenous case reported in Lorukumo village of Moroto District in December 2002 might be the final instance of indigenously transmitted dracunculiasis in Uganda. That patient, a 48-year-old woman, was confined in a local hospital from the swelling stage until the worm was completely removed. If no indigenous cases are reported in 2003, Uganda will become the first endemic country to interrupt transmission since Chad reported its last case in 1998. This is a remarkably rapid achievement for the Ugandan program, which recorded 126,639 cases in 2,677 endemic villages of 16 districts during its national case search in 1991-1992 (figure 1). Most cases (94.9%) were located in only three contiguous districts (Kitgum, Kotido, Moroto) in the northeast of the country (figure 2). Before the national village-by-village search, which was one of the last to be conducted among the endemic countries, Uganda had reported only 1,960 and 1,309 cases for the entire country in 1988 and 1989, Figure 1 respectively. When Uganda reported 42,852 cases of NUMBER OF CASES OF DRACUNCULIASIS REPORTED SINCE 1992 IN UGANDA dracunculiasis in 1993, it ranked as the second- AND YEAR OF INTRDUCTION OF INTERVENTIONS AND STRATEGIES highest endemic country, exceeded only by Nigeria (75,752 cases), and followed by Niger 10000000 (21,564) and Ghana (17,918).
    [Show full text]
  • UNICEF Uganda End-Of-Year Humanitarian Situation Report
    Uganda Country Office Humanitarian Situation Report No. 5 UNICEF/UNI3255804/Abdul © Reporting Period: May 2020 Situation in Numbers Highlights • As of 31 May, Uganda had a cumulative total of 457 COVID-19 cases, including 2.12 million 73 recoveries and zero deaths. Seven new cases among health care workers # of children in need of were confirmed during this reporting period. Uganda has tested a cumulative humanitarian assistance 96,825 individuals for COVID-19 since the beginning of the outbreak. (UNICEF HAC 2020) • 923,994 people (463,845 female) were reached with key messages on the prevention and control of COVID-19 in May. • On 4 May, Moroto District confirmed its first cholera outbreak since 2016. 3.48 million # of people in need • 39,214 people were reached with sufficient quantities of water for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene. (UNICEF HAC 2020) • Flooding displaced 24,335 people, according to the Office of the Prime Minister, while affecting 176,620 people through the destruction of homes, crops and 840,380 infrastructure and the disruption of livelihood activities. # of refugees and asylum- • 353,833 women and children (176,209 male, 177,624 female) were reached seekers who are children with essential health care services during the reporting period. • Since April 2020, 499,929 primary caregivers of children (248,965 male, 250,964 female) were reached with infant and young child feeding (IYCF) 1.42 million counselling through facilities and community platforms. # of total refugees and • 61,625 children (30,689 boys, 30,936 girls) were reached with home- asylum-seekers (OPM, Pro based/distance learning to ensure continuity of learning as of May 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Karamoja Rapid Crop and Food Security Assessment
    KARAMOJA RAPID CROP AND FOOD SECURITY ASSESSMENT KAMPALA, AUGUST 2013 This Rapid Assessment was conducted by: World Food Programme (WFP) - Elliot Vhurumuku; Hamidu Tusiime; Eunice Twanza; Alex Ogenrwoth; Swaleh Gule; James Odong; and Joseph Ndawula Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) - Bernard Onzima; Joseph Egabu; Paddy Namurebire; and Michael Lokiru Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) - Johnson Oworo; Timothy Ojwi; Jimmy Ogwang; and Catherine Nakalembe Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) - James Obo; and Stephen Kataama Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Background .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1. Sampling methodology .................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2. Selection of respondents ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WHO UGANDA BULLETIN February 2016 Ehealth MONTHLY BULLETIN
    WHO UGANDA BULLETIN February 2016 eHEALTH MONTHLY BULLETIN Welcome to this 1st issue of the eHealth Bulletin, a production 2015 of the WHO Country Office. Disease October November December This monthly bulletin is intended to bridge the gap between the Cholera existing weekly and quarterly bulletins; focus on a one or two disease/event that featured prominently in a given month; pro- Typhoid fever mote data utilization and information sharing. Malaria This issue focuses on cholera, typhoid and malaria during the Source: Health Facility Outpatient Monthly Reports, Month of December 2015. Completeness of monthly reporting DHIS2, MoH for December 2015 was above 90% across all the four regions. Typhoid fever Distribution of Typhoid Fever During the month of December 2015, typhoid cases were reported by nearly all districts. Central region reported the highest number, with Kampala, Wakiso, Mubende and Luweero contributing to the bulk of these numbers. In the north, high numbers were reported by Gulu, Arua and Koti- do. Cholera Outbreaks of cholera were also reported by several districts, across the country. 1 Visit our website www.whouganda.org and follow us on World Health Organization, Uganda @WHOUganda WHO UGANDA eHEALTH BULLETIN February 2016 Typhoid District Cholera Kisoro District 12 Fever Kitgum District 4 169 Abim District 43 Koboko District 26 Adjumani District 5 Kole District Agago District 26 85 Kotido District 347 Alebtong District 1 Kumi District 6 502 Amolatar District 58 Kween District 45 Amudat District 11 Kyankwanzi District
    [Show full text]
  • Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg
    KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG An Analysis of Budget Allocations and Revenue from the Environment and Natural Resource Sector in Karamoja Region Caroline Adoch Eugene Gerald Ssemakula ACODE Policy Research Series No.47, 2011 KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG An Analysis of Budget Allocations and Revenue from the Environment and Natural Resource Sector in Karamoja Region Caroline Adoch Eugene Gerald Ssemakula ACODE Policy Research Series No.47, 2011 Published by ACODE P. O. Box 29836, Kampala Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Website: http://www.acode-u.org Citation: Adoch, C., and Ssemakula, E., (2011). Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg: An Analysis of Budget Allocations and Revenue from the Environment and Natural Resource Sector in Karamoja Region. ACODE Policy Research Series, No. 47, 2011. Kampala. © ACODE 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. ACODE policy work is supported by generous donations and grants from bilateral donors and charitable foundations. The reproduction or use of this publication for academic or charitable purposes or for purposes of informing public policy is excluded from this restriction. ISBN 978997007077 Contents LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alcohol in Karamoja, Uganda: Observations and Remaining Questions
    Alcohol in Karamoja, Uganda: Observations and Remaining Questions A FEINSTEIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER BRIEF Elizabeth Stites This briefing paper presents findings from field work completed during early 2017 in the northern Karamoja districts of Abim, Kaabong, and Kotido. The field work was conducted by a team from the Feinstein International Center (FIC) at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and was funded by Mercy Corps as part of the Growth, Health, and Governance (GHG) program supported by USAID’s Food for Peace (FFP) program. In addition, this briefing paper relies on background material and observations from multiple previous rounds of research conducted in Karamoja by the same FIC team in the period from 2004 to 2016, funded by Mercy Corps, the World Bank, Save the Children in Uganda, UNICEF, and the International Development Research Center (IDRC). The research team used qualitative methods (open-ended semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews) to collect data for this study. In early 2017, we interviewed approximately 150 people in 14 different villages (five in Kotido, five in Kaabong, and four in Abim). Questions to male and female respondents (in focus groups divided by age and gender) covered a number of topics relating to livelihoods, food security, access to markets, and health concerns. We did not focus exclusively on alcohol production, use or sale in any of the interviews; rather, questions on alcohol were embedded within broader discussions on these other topics. Key informants interviewed individually through open-ended semi-structured discussions included brewers, local councilors (LCI), and representatives of village savings and loans associations (VSLAs), mother care groups (MCGs), and water user committees (WUCs).
    [Show full text]
  • Food Security & Livelihoods Assessment Kaabong & Moroto, Karamoja August – September 2008
    September 2008 Updated Version May 2009 Food Security & Livelihoods Assessment Kaabong & Moroto, Karamoja August – September 2008 CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 9 2. OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 11 2.1 Location ................................................................................. 11 2.2 Data Collection Methods .............................................................. 12 2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................ 13 3. ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 13 3.1 Livelihood Systems ..................................................................... 13 3.2 Livestock Production .................................................................. 16 3.3 Crop Production ........................................................................ 19 3.4 Markets .................................................................................. 21 3.5 Wealth Groups .......................................................................... 23 3.6 Changes in Household Food Sources ................................................ 24 3.7 Changes in Household Income Sources ............................................. 25 3.8 Changes in Household Expenditure .................................................. 26 3.9 Changes in Household Coping Strategies ........................................... 27 4. CONCLUSIONS
    [Show full text]