Thumbnail Image

Forced Displacement in Sub-Saharan Africa

Land Governance: Land and Forced Displacement









Also available in:
No results found.

Related items

Showing items related by metadata.

  • Thumbnail Image
    Booklet
    Towards durable solutions: Sustainable reintegration of the forcibly displaced
    Rebuilding agricultural livelihoods and rural communities
    2023
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    This brochure provides an overview of FAO’s approach to supporting the sustainable reintegration of the forcibly displaced. It is part of a series of briefs on durable solutions, which highlight key approaches to forced displacement programming and policy, including tailored approaches to partnerships, data and evidence, with a view to achieving durable solutions to forced displacement including when conditions allow for a safe and dignified return. FAO, with its expertise in rebuilding resilient rural agricultural livelihoods in forced displacement contexts, can play a fundamental role in ensuring the sustainable reintegration of returnees into rural communities. FAO’s actions to support returnees’ reintegration in rural areas at individual, community and structural levels are explored, emphasizing the crucial role of protection-sensitive approaches and the importance of conflict-sensitivity, in order to strengthen food security and nutrition, self-reliance, inclusion, gender equality and social cohesion.
  • 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
    Book (stand-alone)
    Woodfuel supply and energy demand assessment for Borno State, Nigeria (2013–2018)
    Assessing changes in woodfuel availability and multi-sectoral challenges associated with woodfuel in displacement settings
    2019
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    Globally, the number of conflicts is increasing which is the main cause of much of the recent deterioration of the global food security situation.  This situation is exacerbated by climate related shocks. Since 2009, a combination of man-made and natural disasters has disrupted livelihoods, threatened food security and forcibly displaced millions of people in northeast Nigeria. The conflict, in northeast Nigeria, takes on a central role in the ongoing food crisis by severely curtailing the ability of populations to access land and other natural resources such as woodfuel, the central object of this analysis. Access to energy is a precondition to food security, both are often highly constrained during crises. The ways in which energy is produced and used, can aggravate the vulnerability of populations to a number of risks and challenges by exposing them to malnutrition and other health conditions, reduced resilience to natural hazards and to environmental degradation, a disproportionate work burden for women, protection risks, conflicts and unsustainable livelihood activities. FAO, UNHCR and WFP have been promoting the multi-sectoral Safe Access to Fuel and Energy approach (SAFE) in the context of forced displacement to support an effective response and to contribute to building the resilience of vulnerable populations. The starting point of such a response in northeast Nigeria is this woodfuel supply and energy demand assessment, which provides a baseline for designing comprehensive interventions that take into account the energy needs of affected populations. The desired outcome of the SAFE approach is to “satisfy the fuel and energy needs for cooking, heating, lighting, and powering in a safe and sustainable manner, without fear or risk to health, well-being, and personal security of crisis affected populations”. The SAFE approach could make an effective and significant contribution to improve food security and nutrition, and ensure the sustainable management of natural resources. In addition, it will positively affect livelihoods, women and youth empowerment, protection and health risks. By taking adequate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, the SAFE approach will also help to increase the resilience of vulnerable populations in the face of natural hazards and disasters, and contribute to peaceful coexistence between IDPs and local communities.

Users also downloaded

Showing related downloaded files

No results found.