Thumbnail Image

Forum on forests and peace building: a post-conflict opportunity. Summary report









Also available in:

Related items

Showing items related by metadata.

  • Thumbnail Image
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Brochure, flyer, fact-sheet
    Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods in Karamoja and northern Uganda
    Mind the gap – briefing paper 2: Bridging the research, practice and policy divide to enhance livelihood resilience in conflict settings
    2019
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    This briefing paper accompanies a report that examines the parallel but separate trajectories of peace-building, recovery and transformation over the past 15 years in northern (Acholi and Lango subregions) and northeastern (Karamoja) Uganda. Parallels between these areas include a history of marginalization from the central state, underdevelopment and endemic poverty, and vulnerability to climate change and cross-border incursions. This is the second in a series of three briefing papers that form part of the Mind the gap – Bridging the research, practice and policy divide to enhance livelihood resilience in conflict settings project, a collaboration between FAO and the Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Brochure, flyer, fact-sheet
    FAO´s role in supporting the implementation of the Comprehensive Rural Reform for the realization of peace in Colombia 2016
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    FAO has played an important role in supporting the Colombian Government in the implementation of comprehensive rural development. Along with the European Union and civil society organizations, FAO has been asked by the Government to help implement the Peace Accord 1 regarding the Comprehensive Rural Reform. While the peace accord was not approved in the recent plebiscite, integrated rural reform remains as a priority government policy. The session will discuss the content of the Comprehensive Rural Reform (that was part of the Peace Agreement 1), strategies to promote comprehensive rural development and the role of FAO and other partners in supporting this process and scaling up ongoing related initiatives, with a view to strengthening the link between peace and food security. Consequently, the discussion will focus on the following themes: a. Access to land and tenure security and their relevance to build the nueva ruralidad in Colombia, particularly to strengthen family agricultur e and ultimately, promote food security. b. The integration of the Voluntary Guidelines into the new policy and institutional framework regarding land, forests and fisheries to promote the Comprehensive Rural Reform, including the strengthening of the National Land Agency. c. How the international community (i.e. the UN system, donors and partners) can effectively contribute to the development of the Comprehensive Rural Reform and of territorial development plans and ultimately, to strengthening peace in Colombia.

Users also downloaded

Showing related downloaded files

No results found.