SAMPLE OF ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN CONSOLIDATED APPEALS AARREC COSV HT MDM TGH ACF CRS Humedica MEDAIR UMCOR ACTED CWS IA MENTOR UNAIDS ADRA Danchurchaid ILO MERLIN UNDP Africare DDG IMC NCA UNDSS AMI-France Diakonie Emergency Aid INTERMON NPA UNEP ARC DRC Internews NRC UNESCO ASB EM-DH INTERSOS OCHA UNFPA ASI FAO IOM OHCHR UN-HABITAT AVSI FAR IPHD OXFAM UNHCR CARE FHI IR PA (formerly ITDG) UNICEF CARITAS Finnchurchaid IRC PACT UNIFEM CEMIR INTERNATIONAL FSD IRD PAI UNJLC CESVI GAA IRIN Plan UNMAS CFA GOAL IRW PMU-I UNOPS CHF GTZ Islamic RW PU UNRWA CHFI GVC JOIN RC/Germany VIS CISV Handicap International JRS RCO WFP CMA HealthNet TPO LWF Samaritan's Purse WHO CONCERN HELP Malaria Consortium SECADEV World Concern Concern Universal HelpAge International Malteser Solidarités World Relief COOPI HKI Mercy Corps SUDO WV CORDAID Horn Relief MDA TEARFUND ZOA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table I. Summary of Requirements - By Location ................................................................................ 3 Table II. Summary of Requirements - By Sector/Cluster ....................................................................... 3 Table III. Summary of Requirements - By Appealing Organisation......................................................... 4 2. 2008 IN REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 STRENGTHS / ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER/SECTOR ...................................................................................... 7 2.3 LESSONS LEARNED AND DONOR FUNDING TRENDS...................................................................................... 10 3. THE 2009 COMMON HUMANITARIAN ACTION PLAN............................................................................. 12 3.1 THE CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 HUMANITARIAN CONSEQUENCES................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 SCENARIOS.............................................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.1 Best Case Scenario (General)....................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Worst Case Scenario (General)..................................................................................................... 17 3.3.3 Most Likely Scenario...................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.4 Humanitarian Consequences and Planning Figures...................................................................... 20 3.4 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE IN 2009 ................................................................. 20 3.4.1 Operational Approach.................................................................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Roles and Competencies............................................................................................................... 23 3.5 CLUSTER/SECTOR RESPONSE PLANS BY REGION........................................................................................ 24 3.5.1 Acholi sub-region........................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.2 Teso sub-region............................................................................................................................. 30 3.4.3 Karamoja region ............................................................................................................................ 34 3.5.4 West Nile and other Refugee-Hosting Districts.............................................................................. 39 4. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND PRIORITISATION OF PROJECTS..................................................... 40 4.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PROJECTS..................................................................................................... 40 4.2 CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISATION OF PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 40 5. MONITORING PLAN................................................................................................................................... 42 6. DISTRICT PROFILES ................................................................................................................................. 43 ANNEX I. STRATEGIC MONITORING MATRIX FOR 2008 ......................................................................... 67 ANNEX II. ADAPTING THE CLUSTERS – IASC APPROVED GUIDANCE ................................................. 75 ANNEX III. TABLE IV. LIST OF PROJECTS – (GROUPED BY SECTOR/CLUSTER).................................. 77 ANNEX IV. TABLE V. LIST OF PROJECTS – (GROUPED BY APPEALING ORGANISATION).................. 86 ANNEX V. TABLE VI. SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS – BY IASC STANDARD SECTOR .................... 101 ANNEX VI. DONOR RESPONSE TO 2008 APPEAL.................................................................................... 102 ANNEX VII. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................ 112 Please note that appeals are revised regularly. The latest version of this document is available on http://www.humanitarianappeal.net Full project details can be viewed, downloaded and printed from www.reliefweb.int/fts iii iv UGANDA 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The situation across much of conflict-affected northern Uganda continues to progress along the transition from humanitarian to recovery and development action. In 2009, distinct humanitarian needs will continue to require a coordinated international response, even as recovery and development is recognised as the dominant paradigm across the majority of existing areas of operation. Indeed, the humanitarian action outlined in the 2009 Consolidated Appeal for Uganda should be considered as an essential support to promote further gains such as those made since the signing of the original Cessation of Hostilities between the Government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in August 2006, despite the lack of a conclusive end to the peace process. It is vital, however, that added urgency be placed on increasing the impact of recovery and development activities by both the Government of Uganda and the international community in their areas of comparative advantage in order to consolidate these peace dividends. By contrast, a third consecutive year of drought, below-normal harvests and animal disease, coupled with the historic marginalisation of the region, has jeopardised the food, nutritional and livelihood security of up to 800,000 people in Karamoja (80% of the region’s population).1 The severity of the crisis has and will continue to necessitate targeted humanitarian actions complementing longer-term development programming, which will prove the sole means of ensuring that this vulnerable region attains a similar level of development as the rest of the country. Additionally, continued vulnerability to natural hazards, particularly drought, floods and outbreaks of infectious human, animal and crop diseases, and weak existing capacity at local and district levels to prepare for and respond to potential disasters mandate action be taken to strengthen disaster preparedness and response capacity in keeping with the Hyogo Framework. The continued presence of more than 146,400 refugees also requires humanitarian action to meet the needs of those who have sought shelter in the country. Overall, four separate spheres of humanitarian needs are seen to require a concerted response in the coming year, corresponding to four distinct regions of the country: Acholi, Teso, Karamoja and the refugee-hosting areas of West Nile/Western Uganda. Thus, the 2009 CAP has been developed and is presented according to the regional specificities at play – particularly with regard to the response plans developed by the clusters/sectors. However, three strategic objectives have been commonly arrived at through the individual regional consultations, These are: 1) to supplement government efforts to provide basic services that save lives and alleviate suffering, as the basis for creating the conditions for achieving the three durable solutions2; 2) to enhance food and nutritional security to save lives, alleviate suffering and kick-start livelihoods; and 3) to contribute to strengthening district capacity for emergency preparedness and response. Reflecting both the diversity of regional humanitarian contexts and the commonality of strategic objectives developed throughout the CAP 2009 process, all projects have been prioritised on a regional basis, according to the weighted importance of the 2009 strategic objectives to which they respond. Thus, in Acholi, the specific context and planned response emphasizes the humanitarian needs of the region’s remaining population of internally displaced persons (IDPs), particularly those of extremely vulnerable individuals (EVIs) who face additional challenges to the achievement of a durable solution to their displacement, as well as for vulnerable groups