Case Studies from Pfr Uganda
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BUILDING RESILIENT COMMUNITIES: CASE STUDIES FROM PFR UGANDA WORKING TOWARDS COMMUNITY RESILIENCE EXPERIENCE FROM PARTNERS FOR RESILIENCE IN KENYA AND UGANDA \\ REVIEWED BY: SIRak aBEBE TEmESgEn I. INTRODUCTION: result of climate change. Rap- the extremes they face. Mean- A CASE FOR CHANGE id environmental degradation is while, the world around them is Disaster risk is rapidly increas- reducing the capacity of nature changing rapidly. This represents ing. The reasons for this are to regulate these hazards and to a major challenge. At a local lev- manifold. Extreme events such provide food, clean water sup- el poor communities in both rural as storms, floods and droughts plies and other products. Com- and urban areas face setbacks become more extreme and more munities struggle to find a way in their livelihoods each time a frequent in some places as a to prepare for and respond to disaster strikes. As a result they 5 FOCUS OF THE PARTNERS FOR RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT ECOSYSTEMS RESILIENCE DISASTER CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREME WEATHER DEGRADATION EVENTS are trapped in a vicious cycle of both temporal and spatial scales. Philippines, Indonesia, India, poverty. At a broader scale gov- In addition, resilience building Nicaragua, and Guatemala. The ernments are confronted with the requires much more than the program is funded by the Dutch mounting costs of ill-informed sum of isolated and disconnect- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and development decisions that ren- ed interventions by different ac- runs from 2011 to 2015. der the natural environment and tors. That is exactly the rationale society increasingly vulnerable. behind the coming together of The overall goal of the program humanitarian, development, cli- is to reduce the impact of natu- Risk reduction practitioners typ- mate and conservation practi- ral hazards on the livelihoods of ically adopt sectoral approaches tioners to form the consortium 750.000 – 1.000.000 members of to resolve these issues. Some dubbed “Partners for Resilience” vulnerable communities. experts focus their risk reduction to implement “a climate proof di- This goal is pursued through work exclusively on communi- saster risk reduction” program in three outcome objectives: ties. Others focus on water man- nine disaster prone countries in agement within river basins or on Africa, Asia and Latin America. 1. To increase the resilience of the management of ecosystems. These organizations are Neth- communities to disasters, These fragmented approaches erlands Red Cross (NLRC), Cor- climate change and environ- no longer suffice on their own. daid, Wetlands International (WI), mental degradation; Instead, efforts to enhance the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate resilience of the most vulnerable Centre (RCCC) and CARE Nether- 2. To increase the capacity of communities should encompass lands. The target countries are civil society organisations multiple disciplines and span Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mali, (CSOs) to apply disaster 6 risk reduction (DRR), cli- daid, WI and RCRCCC which have to resist, absorb, accommodate mate-change adaptation been engaging with Kenya Red to and recover from the effects (CCA) and ecosystem Cross Society (KRCS), Merti In- of a hazard in a timely and effi- management and restoration tegrated Development Program cient manner, including through (EMR) measures and engage (MID-P), and IMPACT to imple- the preservation and restoration in policy dialogue; ment the program from 2011 to of its essential basic structures June 2015. The target area for and functions”. We do so without 3. To make the institutional en- the program is Isiolo and part of discounting other valid terminol- vironment from international Laikipia Counties following the ogy. It is not our intent however to grass-root level more Ewaso Nyiro River Basin benefit- to contribute to the academ- conducive to integrating di- ing 40,000 vulnerable community ic discussion that has evolved saster risk reduction, climate members. The area is affected by around this topic. Instead, we try change adaptation and eco- frequent drought, flood, conflict, to show below how the partners system-based approaches. eco-system degradation, human have tried to unpack the concept and aid its translation into prac- The strategy to realize these out- and animal diseases. tice using identified success sto- come objectives and, ultimately, PfR Uganda: - The PfR alliance ries. a contribution for the overall goal members in Uganda are Cor- is guided by the effective inte- daid, NLRC, CARE, WI and RCCC. gration of disaster risk reduction The implementing partners GUIDING APPROACH/ (DRR), climate change adapta- are Uganda Red Cross Society OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES tion (CCA) and eco-system man- (URCS), Soroti Catholic Diocese TO UN-PACKAGE AND PUT agement and restoration (EMR) Integrated Development Organ- RESILIENCE INTO PRACTICE as outlined and specified in the isation (SOCADIDO), Transcul- PfR resilience vision document, tural Psychosocial Development Asses disaster risk in a holistic the Minimum Standards for lo- Organisation (TPO), Caritas manner cal climate-smart DRR and the Uganda, Ecological Christian Or- Communities, civil society or- Eco-System Criteria. ganisation, Facilitation for Peace ganisations and government en- and Development (FAPAD) and tities are aware of the multi-risk This booklet documents the prac- Caritas Moroto. environment they face. Risks, tical experience of Partners for vulnerabilities, capacities and Resilience in Kenya and Uganda in The target districts are: Amuria, root causes to risk are always applying the integrated approach Napak, Nakapriprite, Apach, Kat- assessed at both community and and the PfR resilience vision akiwi and Otuke. The total num- landscape level. This results into guidance to realize the outcomes ber of beneficiaries PfR Uganda comprehensive insights into the sought through the program. It benefits at the end of year to be social, economic and ecological describes the challenges over- 75,000 people across 93 villages. aspects of risk. The way in which come in the course of implemen- people impact and depend on na- tation, and lessons learnt. These ture and how they evolve along insights contribute to existing with a changing environment knowledge in unpacking and ap- II. OUR VISION OF is fully understood. Knowledge plying this lofty concept called RESILIENCE about these socio-ecological in- resilience and will help to improve What do we mean with commu- terrelationships forms the basis future program design. nity resilience? A nearly endless of risk reduction planning. list of descriptions and defini- PFR PROGRAM IN KENYA tions exist. For practical reasons Address the whole range of risk AND UGANDA in this document we follow the management options UNISDR definition; “Resilience is PfR Kenya: -The PfR alliance Stakeholders are dedicated to the ability of a system, communi- members in Kenya are NLRC, Cor- take all measures that are required ty or society exposed to hazards 7 to prevent disasters, reduce their degradation of the natural en- opment measures that contribute impact or prepare to deal with the vironment inflicts new hazards, to enhanced social and economic effects of a disaster. Following the exacerbates vulnerability to ex- resilience. In this way, regular risk steps defined in the risk reduction isting ones and weaken people`s assessments were done con- cycle they implement convention- coping and recovering capacities. sidering existing, changing and al humanitarian measures such as This increase in disaster risk is a emerging risks at the local level. contingency planning, emergency result of the decreased capacity stocking and preparedness, first of degraded ecosystems to sta- Work across scales response, forward recovery and bilise hill slopes, regulate water Risk reduction professionals un- rehabilitation. They also address flows and provide food and clean derstand that drivers to vulnera- underlying causes of vulnerability water supplies. With this in mind, bility express themselves at mul- and disasters, through a well-inte- the management and restoration tiple spatial and temporal scales: grated set of environmental man- of ecosystems, including the re- from household or community to agement and development mea- sources they provide forms a core landscape level. They understand sures. part of risk reduction in the tar- how the water cycle connects get areas. Risk reduction, climate people along the upper reaches of Consider environmental, social change adaptation and Infra- a river with those who live further and economic dimensions of structure development measures downstream. They appreciate the resilience work with and alongside nature, temporal dimension of risk: some Both in Kenya and Uganda, all di- rather than fighting it. These key drivers to vulnerability and mensions of resilience are con- measures are implemented par- approaches towards increasing sidered. It is understood that allel to humanitarian and devel- resilience take years to emerge. 8 This is acknowledged in pro- whereby risk reduction measures Promoting Community gramme design and taken care were unintentionally done at the Self-Management of during implementation through expense of long term benefit. Part- Communities are not just vic- inclusion of short- and long-term ners were distributing drought re- tims of shocks and stresses, they risk reduction measures at local sistant crops and vegetable seeds are survivors in otherwise dif- and regional scales. to later found out they were plant- ficult situations.