DOCSLIB.ORG

Karamoja Rapid Crop and Food Security Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 ................................................................................................. 5 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Performance of the rainfall season ......................................................................................... 5 2.2. Land preparation .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Crop Inputs ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4. Area planted ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.5. Crop performance and yields ....................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1. Southern Districts .................................................................................................................. 8 2.5.2. Northern districts ................................................................................................................ 10 2.6. Production Estimates ................................................................................................................. 11 2.7. Livestock and pasture condition................................................................................................. 12 2.7.1. Pasture and water availability ............................................................................................. 12 2.7.2. Milk production ................................................................................................................... 12 2.7.3. Livestock health ................................................................................................................... 12 3. MARKETS ........................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Casual labour .............................................................................................................................. 13 3.2. Livestock markets ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.3. Main Cereal Markets .................................................................................................................. 14 3.4. Terms of Trade (TOT) .................................................................................................................. 15 4. HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................... 16 4.1. Household food access ............................................................................................................... 16 4.1.1. Income Sources ................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.2. Food Sources ....................................................................................................................... 17 4.2. Household food consumption .................................................................................................... 19 5. NUTRITIONAL STATUS ....................................................................................................................... 20 6. FOOD ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 22 6.1. Vulnerable areas ......................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.1. Current food security (September to November) ............................................................... 22 6.1.2. Projected food security (Lean season 2014 /Post-harvest) ................................................ 23 6.1.4. Strategies for coping with food insecurity .......................................................................... 24 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ............................................................................ 25 7.1. Recommendations related to household food security ............................................................. 25 7.1.1. Short term ........................................................................................................................... 25 7.1.2. Medium to long term .......................................................................................................... 25 7.2. Recommendations related to agriculture .................................................................................. 26 7.2.1 Short term ............................................................................................................................ 26 7.2.2 Medium to long term ........................................................................................................... 26 4 September 2013: Karamoja Rapid Crop and Food Security Assessment Report P a g e | 1 Executive Summary Following a long dry spell from mid-May to mid-July of 2013, the Government requested FAO and WFP to carry out a rapid assessment in Karamoja region to understand its impact on agriculture and food security. The assessment was meant to triangulate findings from earlier studies by the Government and humanitarian partners. The assessment was carried out by staff from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) of the United Nations; the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM); and the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). As a result of the dry spell, less than optimum acreages of sorghum and finger millet were planted in the northern districts of Karamoja, estimated at 50 percent for Kotido; 40 percent for Abim; and 30 percent or less for Kaabong. For the southern districts, the planted acreages were within the normal season range. The dry spell led to wilting of the early planted sorghum and maize crops and also resulted in poor grain-filling of the crops that survived in Kotido, Abim and the agro-pastoral areas of Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit and parts of Amudat districts. The yields are expected to be below the normal in most of the sub-counties as a result of the general poor crop performance; an estimated 108,000 tonnes of cereals will be harvested in Karamoja. Furthermore, due to the poor season and crop failure, the harvest will be delayed thereby extending the lean season by 1 to 2 months as the main harvest will be expected in September/October in most of the sub-counties. Most of the sub- counties in the southern districts of Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit and parts of Amudat districts were green- harvesting by the time of the survey, despite the poor rainfall season. Similarly, in Kotido and Abim some households had access to green harvest. The dry spell did not have much impact on pastures and water and hence, livestock production and productivity across all districts was good. Calving and milk production were at the normal levels, especially with the resumption of the rainfall in mid-July 2013. Livestock has however been affected by a number of diseases such as Contagious Bovine Pleuro Pneumonia (CBPP) in all the seven districts of Karamoja. The sub-counties whose harvest has been severely impacted by the dry spell are in Kotido and Kaabong and the central agro pastoral belt of Moroto, Napak and Nakapiripirit districts. As a result, current food insecurity situation is severe for about 103,000 people and another 248,000 are under stress and require a further round of food assistance in October 2013, to cover the extended lean season until the main harvest in October 2013. Given the low income opportunities, high poverty levels, diminished livestock ownership and high malnutrition rates in the affected sub-counties, the expected poor harvest will result in an early lean season by February 2014, and the food security condition in the
Recommended publications
  • Uganda 2015 Human Rights Report

    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.
  • 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 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.
  • Uganda Humanitarian Update

    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.
  • Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Framework (Vmgf)

    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.................................................................................................................................................
  • What's New in 2003?

    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).
  • UNICEF Uganda End-Of-Year Humanitarian Situation Report

    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.
  • Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region - July 2017 I Report

    Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region - July 2017 I Report

    Nakapiripirit District Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region - July 2017 i Report Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region NAKAPIRIPIRIT DISTRICT REPORT Nakapiripirit ii Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region - July 2017 District Report IBFAN Uganda Nakapiripirit District Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Karamoja Sub-Region - July 2017 iii Report Acknowledgements This report is the outcome of a collaborative well, to the senior district leadership that process and would not have been possible provided initial guidance for the analysis without the contribution of many of the report. individuals: Appreciation also goes to the International WFP & UNICEF are grateful to the Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) that Government of Uganda and the people of was responsible for the overall field data Karamoja for the support provided during collection, analysis and report writing for the entire exercise, especially during data this round of the FSNA. collection across all the Karamoja districts. Last but not least, thanks goes to colleagues Appreciation is also extended to the from WFP field offices in Karamoja and the Ministry of Health and the District Health Regional Bureau; the team of supervisors Offices of Abim, Amudat, Kaabong, Kotido, and Enumerators; community leaders and Moroto, Nakapiripirit and Napak for village health teams who worked tirelessly supporting the assessment exercise and, as to assure quality for the whole exercise. For more information related to
  • WHO UGANDA BULLETIN February 2016 Ehealth MONTHLY BULLETIN

    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
  • The Charcoal Grey Market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan (2021)

    The Charcoal Grey Market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan (2021)

    COMMODITY REPORT BLACK GOLD The charcoal grey market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan SIMONE HAYSOM I MICHAEL McLAGGAN JULIUS KAKA I LUCY MODI I KEN OPALA MARCH 2021 BLACK GOLD The charcoal grey market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan ww Simone Haysom I Michael McLaggan Julius Kaka I Lucy Modi I Ken Opala March 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank everyone who gave their time to be interviewed for this study. They would like to extend particular thanks to Dr Catherine Nabukalu, at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bryan Adkins, at UNEP, for playing an invaluable role in correcting our misperceptions and deepening our analysis. We would also like to thank Nhial Tiitmamer, at the Sudd Institute, for providing us with additional interviews and information from South Sudan at short notice. Finally, we thank Alex Goodwin for excel- lent editing. Interviews were conducted in South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya between February 2020 and November 2020. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Simone Haysom is a senior analyst at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), with expertise in urban development, corruption and organized crime, and over a decade of experience conducting qualitative fieldwork in challenging environments. She is currently an associate of the Oceanic Humanities for the Global South research project based at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Ken Opala is the GI-TOC analyst for Kenya. He previously worked at Nation Media Group as deputy investigative editor and as editor-in-chief at the Nairobi Law Monthly. He has won several journalistic awards in his career.
  • Livelihood Dynamics in Northern Karamoja

    Livelihood Dynamics in Northern Karamoja

    LIVELIHOOD DYNAMICS IN NORTHERN KARAMOJA A Participatory Baseline Study for the Growth Health and Governance Program John Burns – Gezu Bekele – Darlington Akabwai May 2013 II Table of Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Research Background and Overview .................................................................................... 4 1.2 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 5 2. METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Study Overview ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Method and Size ............................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Data Collection Methods ....................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Pre-Testing ...........................................................................................................................
  • Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg

    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 ..................................................................................................
  • KOTIDO District Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Profile August 2014

    KOTIDO District Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Profile August 2014

    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA KARAMOJA KOTIDO District HAzArd, risk And VulnerAbility Profile August 2014 KOTIDO HAZARD, RISK AND VULNERABILITY PROFILE | i With support from: United Nations Development Programme Plot 11, Yusuf Lule Road P.O. Box 7184 Kampala, Uganda For more information: www.undp.org ii | KOTIDO HAZARD, RISK AND VULNERABILITY PROFILE Contents Acronyms.....................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgement........................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 3 Objectives...... .............................................................................................................3 Methodology ................................................................................................................3 Overview of the District ...............................................................................................6 Brief district history ..................................................................................................6 Location and administrative structure ......................................................................6 Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................6