Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
Book (stand-alone)Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods – Karamoja and Northern Uganda 2019
Also available in:
No results found.This paper examines the parallel but separate trajectories of peace-building, recovery and transformation that have occurred over the past 15 years in northern (Acholi and Lango sub-regions) and northeastern (Karamoja sub-region) Uganda. While keeping in mind the key differences in these areas, we highlight the similarities in the nature of recovery, the continuing challenges and the need for external actors to keep in mind the ongoing tensions and vulnerability that could undermine the tenuous peace. The initial peace processes in both northern Uganda and Karamoja were largely top-down in nature, with little participation from the affected populations. In Karamoja, the Ugandan military started a forced disarmament campaign in 2006. This was the second such effort in five years and was top-down and heavy-handed. Although many observers gave it little chance of success, by 2013 large-scale cattle raids were infrequent, and road ambushes were almost non-existent. Critically, local initiatives eventually emerged in parallel to the top-down disarmament efforts. Prime amongst these were local resolutions adopted in 2013–2014 that created a system of compensation for thefts, enforced by “peace committees.” In northern Uganda, a top-down, politically negotiated peace process between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda ended two decades of fighting in 2006. The internally displaced person (IDP) camps were disbanded, and thousands of displaced people returned to their rural homes, some because they no other option once assistance in the camps ceased. One of the most important factors in recovery in Karamoja has been the growth of markets. Traders were reluctant to bring wares to the region during the period of insecurity, and hence goods were few and prices high. Today, most trading centres host markets on a weekly basis, and shops have consistent inventories. In northern Uganda, the biggest driver of recovery has been the return of displaced people to their homes and the resumption of farming. By 2011, crop production had resumed its pre-conflict status as the primary livelihood in the region. In both locations, however, engagement in markets is limited, and many people remain economically marginalized. Challenges to recovery and long-term stability are similar across the two locations. Both northern Uganda and Karamoja continue to struggle with food insecurity and malnutrition, despite the massive influx of development funds, improved security and expansion of markets. In northern Uganda, the conflict continues to influence household livelihoods. Households that have a member who experienced war crimes are consistently worse off. These continuing problems with food security and nutrition call into question many assumptions about recovery and development. In particular, the idea that peace will bring a natural bounce in economic and household well-being does not appear to hold up in these cases. Additional structural challenges to recovery in both locations include climate change and environmental degradation, poor governance and corruption, limited opportunities for decent work, livelihood transformation and loss, and conflict over land. These factors reinforce each other and make it extremely difficult for average households to develop sustainable and secure livelihoods. External interventions often fail to take into account the local priorities and realities in these areas. Many programmes are place based or focus on rural areas, but the population is in flux. This is especially true for young people. In addition, while many people are doing much better than they were 15 years ago, others are being pushed out of pastoralism and are struggling to achieve diversified and sustainable livelihoods. Overall, while the recent trajectories of recovery in Karamoja and northern Uganda are remarkably similar, the context, livelihoods and challenges in each location are importantly unique. National actors should not seek to derive combined approaches or policies that lump together these two areas. In both cases, the lived reality, history and experiences of the population should be central to designing appropriate, effective and sustainable responses to the ongoing obstacles to a stable peace and full recovery. -
Book (stand-alone)Guide to develop and strengthen national pesticide residue monitoring programmes 2022
Also available in:
No results found.Countries in Asia and the Pacific region recognize the need to have a comprehensive framework for pesticide residue management through science-based risk assessment, management and communication. The framework incorporates a range of functions and activities including pesticide registration, Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) setting, approval of a pesticide product label, farmer education, pesticide control-of-use regulation, food traceability, verification of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), national pesticide residue monitoring programmes, facilitation of trade and market access, traceback investigation and pesticide review. The frameworks tend to be operated as a continuum seeking ongoing improvement in GAP and enhancements to food safety. A sound pesticide residue framework does not rely only on residue monitoring but importantly includes at the very least pesticide registration, chemical control of-use, traceback investigation and a chemical review process. An increasing focus on harmonization of the pesticide risk management framework elements including the setting of MRLs is a key strategy to assist countries in the region. FAO received an official request from the ASEAN Health Cluster 4: Ensuring Food Safety (AHC4) to assist in developing the basis for countries to implement effective pesticide residue monitoring systems which are in line with the overall framework of the ASEAN food safety policy. Noting the broad spectrum of pesticide risk management frameworks present in the ASEAN countries, AHC4 and FAO worked collaboratively to develop this regional guide, which is based on an in-depth situation analysis of the ASEAN countries in terms of their capacities and knowledge levels.The present guide provides practical solutions and management options for countries at different capacity levels to develop or strengthen effective pesticide residue monitoring systems. -
Book (stand-alone)Focus on governance for more effective policy and technical support
Governance and policy support framework paper
2022There are eight years left to reach the SDGs. Agrifood systems transformation is urgently needed if we are to achieve sustainability, resilience and food security and nutrition in a post-COVID world. This desired transformation can only be achieved by strengthening and capitalizing on the knowledge, experience, skills, and capabilities for collective action of a broad range of public and private actors each of whom bring distinctive interests, needs, resources, influence and capacities. “Governance” is the name for this multidimensional capability for effective and inclusive collective action at all levels. In many country contexts, it is the governance bottlenecks that lead to a gap between policy expectations and their outcomes on the ground. For example, a given policy intervention can make a lot of economic sense but if it is perceived as threatening a powerful interest group or not sufficiently considering that group’s interests, it will most probably fail. Understanding the governance – both institutions and political economy – behind existing agrifood systems can thus make or break the success of any policy or technical support work. Bringing together insights from FAO’s rich experience and knowledge and global literature, this paper introduces an operational four-phased framework for analysis and integration of governance analysis and action into formulation and implementation of interventions at country, regional and global levels. It also provides a review of recent trends in expert thinking about governance for sustainable development and highlights FAO’s conceptual contributions to governance in the areas of FAO’s mandate. The increased use of governance analysis in FAO’s work will stimulate iterative collective learning processes and honest evaluation of potential for change thus supplementing technical solutions with approaches based on a solid understanding of practical and political realities on the ground. With its emphasis on continual learning and adaptation, governance analysis will enable FAO to significantly improve the effectiveness of its policy and technical support to Members to achieve sustainable development that leaves no one behind.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.