Government of Uganda, UNHCR and WFP forced to revise Food Rations for Refugees Amid Funding Crisis (17.08.2016)

Adjumani Refugee Camp

Around 200,000 refugees who arrived in Uganda prior to July 2015 will have their food rations or cash assistance reduced by 50 percent from this week. 

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, August 17, 2016 –  The Government of Uganda – Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) have appealed to donors to urgently speed contributions to the humanitarian response to refugees in Uganda to end a funding shortage that has forced a revision of survival rations.

Around 200,000 refugees who arrived in Uganda prior to July 2015 will have their food rations or cash assistance reduced by 50 percent from this week. Low levels of funding, together with a large number of new arrivals fleeing to Uganda from South Sudan since 7 July, has left the refugee response with no choice but to re-prioritize their focus on those refugees in greatest need. Refugees who arrived in Uganda after July 2015, as well as those who have been identified as particularly vulnerable, such as the elderly, orphans, the chronically ill and those in need of treatment for malnutrition, will continue to receive a full ration.

Refugees receiving full rations are provided with 2,122 calories of food per person per day, in line with the minimum recommended daily allowance, during their first year, decreasing as they become increasingly self-reliant during their time in Uganda. Other refugees receive cash assistance in place of food rations, which also provides them with the opportunity to exercise greater personal choice.

“We are grateful to donors for their unwavering support so far but we appeal to the international community to do more,” said OPM Commissioner for Refugees David Apollo Kazungu.  “People are fleeing because they are afraid for their lives. Our communities are welcoming them and giving them what we can: land and hope for a better future. But our message to the international community is this: we need your help to meet their basic needs until they are able to stand on their own two feet.”

WFP requires approximately US$7 million every month to provide life-saving food assistance to refugees in Uganda. Despite the generous support of donors, the humanitarian response requires an additional US$20million to restore full food rations to refugees for the rest of the year.

“We have done everything we can to avoid this, but we have been left with no option but to reduce food assistance for many of the refugees in Uganda, in order to stretch available resources and prioritize the most vulnerable new arrivals,” said Mike Sackett, WFP’s acting Country Director for Uganda. “We hope that this is temporary, and we are working as hard as we can to raise the resources needed to restore the full level of food assistance for as many refugees as possible.”

The humanitarian response to South Sudanese refugees in Uganda was already severely underfunded before the outbreak of violence in Juba on 8 July, which has since prompted more than 70,000 people to cross the border in to Uganda. New arrivals have spoken of armed groups operating across various parts of South Sudan, attacking villages, burning down houses, murdering civilians, sexually assaulting women and girls and forcibly recruiting young men and boys in to their ranks.

“Never has the international community been more generous in its donations towards refugees,” said acting UNHCR Representative to Uganda Bornwell Kantande. “At the same time, never has the gap between what is being provided and what is needed been larger. We thank the donors for their continued generosity and support, while urging them to further fund humanitarian organizations in order that we may continue providing refugees in Uganda with the life-saving assistance they critically need.”

OPM and UNHCR lead and co-coordinate the response to the roughly 600,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Uganda, and collaborate together with the World Food Programme to provide new arrivals with life-saving food assistance. By the end of 2015, Uganda was the third-largest refugee hosting country in Africa and the eighth-largest refugee hosting country in the world.

A look into the EEA Grants and the Norwegian Grants to the EU Member states; efficiency of bureaucratic procedures is needed!

EAA Norway Grants 2016

This here is the outtakes of a report that we’re released now recently showing the wished aspects of the EEA Grants who are most donations from the Norwegian state. The Norwegian State has had through the EEA and EFTA had a company called COWI too look through the donor-funding and the interviewing of the ones getting the allocated funds.

With this in mind are surely other who have been commenting on the matter as the Report dropped in June 2016, I just got it today. So is it right? This is my take on it and here are the quotes that are significant to me and the process and overlook of the use of funds.

How much money at stake:

“The allocation of funds is channelled through 150 programmes within 32 programme areas in 16 beneficiary countries. For the period 2009-14, approximately 1.8 billion EUR were set aside under the grants. During the same period, the Norway Grants supported 61 programmes in the 13 EU Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 20133 respectively, and the EEA Grants supported 86 programmes in those countries as well as in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The allocation of funds to the countries is based on population size and GDP per capita” (EFTA, P:17, 2016).

The Aim:

“The aim of the mid-term evaluation is to assess to what extent and in which way the EEA/Norway Grants contribute to strengthening bilateral relations between donor and beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:18, 2016).

The Norwegian OAG report in 2013:

“The OAG found that bilateral efforts were not sufficiently planned and communicated at the starting phase of the 2009-14 funding period and that e.g. the key guidance documents were finalised too late” (…) “The audit expects that bilateral relations in the 2009-14 funding period will be better safeguarded than during the previous period given the fact that the current 23 Norwegian DPPs have entered into donor programme partnerships with programme operators in the beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:34-35, 2016).

Joint Research Projects:

“Possibly due to the fact that in the research field, international funding is available for joint research projects from for example the large EU programmes Horizon, etc. This kind of funding is not available to other sectors. The benefits in terms of developing international and EU networks and learning about international initiatives in research are very clear. The EEA and Norway Grants support these processes by being an important contributor and often facilitating a first international cooperation for both parties. However, the evaluation also shows that such networks and cooperation cannot always continue after the expiration of the external funding” (EFTA, P:49, 2016).

Implementation of Norway Grants:  

“A number of countries have decided to use the same system for implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants as they use for the EU structural funds. Programme and project stakeholders find that the structural funds system is too bureaucratic and that the financial rules are too cumbersome. The national system for implementation of structural funds and related procedures may not be very relevant to a partner/bilateral relation focused programme, especially when this programme includes a donor project partner, who has a hard time complying with the checks and balances of EU Member State structural fund programmes. Programmes in the Research and Scholarship sector regret the decision not to use ERASMUS+ procedures” (EFTA, P:56, 2016).

Allocation to the projects:

“99.3% of the total funds have been allocated to the five focus countries, and 42.9% of total programme funds have been incurred to date. The share of incurred funds varies across the five countries from 35.6% in Romania to 56.4% in Estonia” (EFTA, P: 63, 2016).

Pro Momunta Slovakia

One Slovakian project – Project title: Pro Monumenta:

” The project entitled Pro Monumenta is a cooperation between Pamiatkový úrad SR (The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), who is the project controller and Riksantikvaren (The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Environment). The two institutions first established contact back in 2010 based on a Slovak initiative financed by the Ministry of Culture” (…) “The project was implemented from 1 January 2014 and was scheduled to terminate on 30 March 2016. The main goal of Pro Monumenta in Slovakia is to establish and equip three mobile teams with the capacity to identify and repair easy-to-mend defects at historic monuments, which have led or may lead to deterioration (including basic roof repairs, repairs to chimneys, rainwater drains, fixing of lightning conductors). Major damage identified in the project is documented in a monument technical report, which is stored electronically in a common database” (…) “In this case, the Norwegian partner mainly learns from Slovak experiences and approaches to the implementation of such activities. However, the Norwegian partner also supports the project through its human and technical expertise, such as through an expert from Nasjonele Fervardung, who is expected to arrive to Slovakia to conduct workshops for team members on monument conservation and repairs within a given area” (…) “The project is a clear example of the great contextual and bilateral potential of the programme, if properly implemented. According to the assessment by the project coordinators the project impacts are visible both in Slovakia and Norway (establishment of the formal programmes in the project area) and as Mr. Reznik summarized: “The project significantly improved bilateral co-operation between Norwegian and Slovak experts in the area – especially because it focused on an area of the common interest” (EFTA, P: 67, 2016).

How it is in Latvia and Estonia:

“One explanation for this may be found in Latvia, where some stakeholders indicated that since the bilateral objective is included in the MoU, cooperation is therefore embedded at programme level in most programmes. Since most programmes, particularly in Latvia and Estonia, also have a DPP, the programmes automatically focus on the bilateral relations. This may indicate a tendency for the bilateral aspect to become somewhat formalistic, along the lines of ‘we have a DPP therefore our programme adheres to the bilateral objective’, rather than it being a matter of content and mutual results” (…) “In Estonia, for instance, one indicator has been used in half of the programmes, namely the mandatory indicator “Number of project partnership agreements in the beneficiary public sector”. In more than 30% of the Estonian programmes, no indicator has been used, including the two other mandatory indicators “Number of project partnership agreements in beneficiary civil society” and “…in the beneficiary private sector”. These two indicators have both been used in only 10% of the programmes in 2016. Most programmes are required to make use of at least one of the three obligatory indicators, yet if adding together the top three lines of Table 5-6 for each country, it can be seen that some shares do not sum to 100%. This may be explained by the fact that there are programmes that do not require partnerships, and in some programmes it has not been possible to find relevant partners” (EFTA, P: 69-70, 2016).

Overall Conclusion:

“The overall conclusion on the efficiency of EEA and Norway Grants is that a number of dedicated tools to develop bilateral relations at programme and project level have been introduced. Most of these tools directly support the work of the programmes and projects towards developing bilateral partnership relations, shared results, knowledge and understanding and wider effects. DPPs, bilateral funds and donor project partners all support this goal. The main issue for DPPs and donor project partners is securing the availability of a sufficient number of partners to meet the demand. The main hindering factor identified across the programmes and projects is the administrative procedures (complicated, slow and time consuming) in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the systems used by the beneficiary states are very different systems. Another significant factor identified is the time frame of projects, which due to a late start-up of programmes, can have a very short implementation period” (EFTA, P: 117, 2016).

Clarify the reporting of the projects:

“It is recommended that more instruction be given on the expected contents of reporting on the bilateral objective to avoid the current wide variations in reporting practice and style and the non-informative focus on bilateral activities. It is also recommended that the programme reports include the bilateral indicators selected for the programme. It is suggested that the example of one of the focus countries (Estonia) is adopted. In Estonia, the bilateral indicators are annexed to the report, complete with a justification/explanation of why they were chosen” (EFTA, P: 121, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects:

“It is recommended that focus be directed towards the predefined projects under the bilateral national funds. As mentioned above, the predefined projects provide an interesting opportunity for strategic level cooperation. It is unclear whether the callsat national level for smaller cooperation projects provide added value. Therefore, it is recommended that such calls be differentiated, either in terms of topic or timing, from the bilateral funds at programme level in order to for them to serve a real function (demand/meet a need)” (EFTA P: 121-122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects II:

It is also recommended to standardise implementation systems and rules so that every programme does not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (and spend a lot of time doing this). Especially DPPs working on the same programme type in several beneficiary countries could benefit from similar/aligned rules of implementation” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects III:

Particularly, data relevant to monitoring and assessment of the bilateral objective (results) are difficult to extract from some of the reports. Hence, the evaluator recommends that reporting requirements be standardised and clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders (i.e. what content is required under which headings)” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

eea-grants-outreach-event-presentations-7-638

This here proves that actually the monies that going to the Projects are well-used, but those estimates are issued and checked in the same ways, not specifically different between the Educational or other more industrial collaboration between the Donor-Nations and the representatives.

The COWI report are clear on the levels of ability to use the funds, but have questions of finding clear partners for the projects as the allocation of funds is not an issue. That is mostly put on the spot and paid to the partner program either by the direct from Norwegian grants or by the EEA grants that are fuelled by most of the Norwegian donations. Therefore the monies to the nations and projects are arriving.

The indication of the efficiencies and the learning of the projects are different from what type of Norwegian organization is behind the collaborate effort, as much as the donor nation and the projects are proof of the development and goals of the projects that are funded this way. So they are properly examined and not like with this report they are settled with the same systems and with no consideration of the extent or the actual field they we’re prospecting. So the numbers and the proof of results are questionable. Even if the funds are used and the certain results are visible in certain cultural and historical aspects; we can still question the validity of the results be one-fits all like socks when we talking learning-projects, refurbishing old artefacts and even bilateral corporation one set subject.

The indication of that each separate project under the funding have been using lot of time to find ways of implementing the collaborative effort and finding Norwegian partners for the projects funding through the grants; also how they are supposed to work to fulfil the degrees of plans that have to be there to be able to get funding through the EEA and Norwegian Grants. Also the question under how the outsider COWI struggled with understanding and getting the capacity to see the value of some of the results in some reports from the projects as they we’re all written in different ways and different lengths. Show’s the capacity of streamlining the production of reports and the evaluation of the funding through the bilateral projects as the methods of explaining is and can be hard get the data that is needed to tell the story of the projects. Therefore the methods of reporting need to change and maybe even be in one standard, so the EEA, the bilateral partners and the donors can show their success and value for money. Something that the citizens for both the organizations getting the funds and also the donors who needs to prove that the money is not wasted abroad… something that is key reason for the report to show the progress of the grants in the first place. Peace.

Reference:

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) – ‘Mid-term evaluation of the support to strengthened bilateral relations under the EEA and Norway Grants FINAL REPORT’ (June 2016) link: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/17c16170595b473ab59c7edc5c0208a7/2016-evaluering-bilaterale-relasjoner.pdf

Citizens Update by Evan Mawarire. “In the last few day I may have upset some of you…” ‪#‎ThisFlag‬ (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAgd1x1AqtQ

Besigye visits Kagadi on a pilgrimage (Youtube-Clip)

Opinion: Museveni and his axing of civil servants; it is not a quick fix to get the government institutions going!

M7 Tororo UNRA

We all know why all of a sudden all employees of Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) we’re fired, after scandal upon scandal where the prices per meter of road went into the imaginary and also the due diligence on the contracts of the roadworks wasn’t really done by the government institution. Still, resolving the matter with clearing the shop totally is more of a public stunt, than actually making it decent. The first culture of thieving, counterfeiting and all the matters lay in most of the government institutions already. That is being made from the top where the monies are spent on farm equipment for the president instead of pay-rise for the civil servants.

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has lost it. It is evident with the sacking of the medical personnel of the Nakawuku Health Centre III. This is proof of the wilderness of the Executive these days. As the hide and seek of professional manner from the top, down to the lowest civil servant. If the system we’re correct and the salaries made sense than the works would be done proper and the so-called laziness would not needing sanctions. The other reason for the laziness is the loose structure of the health-care and the systematic under-funded health care in Uganda. That is why there is not functioning Cobalt 60 Teletheraphy Machine for the needed Cancer treatment at Uganda Cancer Institute at Mulago Hospital Complex in Kampala. This is just the major proof of a degraded and worrying condition of health-care in general.

The elephant in the room is obvious, it is clearly not the laziness or the Health Care per say. It’s the structures, the funding and in the end the walking budget. The President, the Executive, the one man with a vision, the force of NRM. That man the elephant in the room is President Museveni. He has run the country for 30 years, by this time his vision and his play for making the country sustainable and steady progress should have made these problems obsolete. Instead he has gotten more land and bigger private planes, but not built proper institutions or procedures to check the government institutions. The laws and regulations of the government is loose. Because if it was transparent he could not get away buying giant and expensive helicopters while the hospitals are understaffed and the vaccine programs are only there because of donor-aid directly to the causes.

Magufuli Museveni Tan Oil Pipeline 2016

The reason for the fall of grace and the sackings is that he wants the respect of President John Pombe Magufuli. He has gone directly fired his minister for drinking while in parliament and also corrupt civil servants at the port of Dar Es Salaam not long after he was sworn-in. That perception is that President Museveni tries to get. What he forget his legacy is long sealed in the behaviour and knowledge of what the NRM really is. The Image of Museveni and NRM Regime is intertwining with corruption and embezzlement.

So the claims of fighting this and going against it are more a play of words than real actions. The times he does it is to save face and make sure the donors we’re happy in the end. That is why he has continued with what he doing and how he operate. The monies always end in ways where he manipulate and make sure the riches are around himself and his loyal cronies. So the service delivery is long gone as the NAADs and SACCO’s money all of a sudden disappear together with the steady pace of the all the other government funds that just vanish in thin air.

If you wait on and continue to wait for payment; if your boss waits for his salaries and the budgeted funds for procurement of needed technical equipment does arrive. And even if it comes, it is never on time and never allocated extra funds for the lost times and lost months as the back-pay are troubling enough. The system of this is in tatters as the government are more important for the close knitted staff around the ministers and the State House. While, the rest have to wait and live in oblivion for their service rendered.

With this in mind, the sackings are unfair as the Executive and his cronies have had 30 years to fix the system and build the government institutions. The Government institutions aren’t only the inherited ones from the colonial times and being a protectorate under the British. It has now been made in the image of Museveni. Therefore the vision and image of this laziness and the lack of supervision; is all in all his fault. It is his demeanour and his wish for weak institutions so he could beg for donor funds that is the reason for the lack of control of the health care facilities. It is the build off of poverty, so he can beg and ask for help from the international community. If the country we’re strong and had transparent institutions that worked on already government funds, than the NRM regime wouldn’t need the donor-funds and NGOs supporting the Ugandan Government. Something, President Museveni clearly knows well as he been skimming and eating of the plate for decades and hope for life at this point.

The sackings is the deepest approach of trying to action and act upon the words he sometimes utter to the public. No matter how right or wrong. He knows deep in his heart and in his soul that he is the one behind the massive need for restructuring and rebuilding the Ministry of Health and the Health Care in general. As the counterfeit pills from India and Pakistan isn’t what they say they are and not as effective as the grade A pills. That is something he knows as he takes what he can get and accept it because this make him wealthy and powerful. The legality and novelty of firing own men and woman for laziness proves the little common sense for the destruction of the institutions that knows very well about. But it is better for a few health care personnel to jump on their swords than the Executive. That is the key to this arrangement. President Museveni knew so very well and lives like it doesn’t exist because he is never the issue. The issues are always and will be somebody else than him. He is the one with the vision, the guiding star for all gracious men to follow. Therefore we are supposed to cherish and celebrate his actions. Instead of saying that this actions are really just a spark and proof of his neglect or inactions for decades, that isn’t welcomed; still it is the ice-cold proof. Peace.

#ThisFlagYouth Committee Statement on recent events and the way forward (15.08.2016)

#ThisFlag Statement 15.08.2016 P1#ThisFlag Statement 15.08.2016 P2#ThisFlag Statement 15.08.2016 P3

ThisFlag pastor Evan Mawarire: Zimbabwe will be united by the dreams of our children (Youtube-Clip)

“During a short visit to SA the M&G caught up with Evan Mawarire to discuss the significance of #ThisFlag and what’s next for the protesting pastor” (Mail & Guardian, 2016)

Budget Financing Lies in Balance – Besigye (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbk3H2-A1gU

“Former Forum for Democratic President retired Col Dr. Kizza Besigye casts doubt on government hopes to raise 26 trillion shillings to finance the 2016/2017 national budget. Besigye says the majority Ugandans can’t afford to spend on commodities that result in revenues for government, arguing that some have already cut their expenditure” (NBS TV Uganda, 2016)

Ethiopia: Government and partners launch the mid-year review of Humanitarian Requirements Document (HRD) for 2016 (12.08.2016)

UN Ethiopia 12.08.2016

Chiyangwa Dishes Secrets On Grabbing Cash Business Opportunities – Don’t wait on Mugabe (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73HgDl7wuh0