a b s t r a c tNatural and human induced disasters are a threat to food security, economic progress and livelihoods in Uganda. However, we have limited knowledge regarding the putative role of the human rights dimension to the impact and management of such tragedies. In this article we assessed the present policies, legislation and institutional capabilities to ascertain whether they could assure the right to adequate food during disaster situations in Uganda.Using purposive sampling, 52 duty bearers working in institutions deemed relevant to food security, nutrition and disaster management were interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Relevant provisions from policy, legislation, institutional budgets and records of Parliament provided the context for analysis.The most important concern coming from the analyses of the information retrieved were inadequate preparedness mechanisms and capabilities. Whereas Uganda's Constitution proclaims the right to adequate food, and the need to establish a contingencies fund and commission responsible for disaster preparedness and management, they had not been instituted. Implementation of relevant policies appeared slow, especially with regard to assuring adequate relief food as a State obligation. Legislation to guarantee funding and institutionalisation of necessary disaster preparedness and management capabilities was not in place. An ambitious 5-year Uganda Nutrition Action Plan adopted in 2011 had not yet been funded by mid-2013, implying a reality gap in nutrition programming. Budget architecture and financing to disaster management have in effect fallen short of assuring adequate relief food as a human right.Due to capacity constraints, an approach of humanitarian relief may be entrenched in contradiction of State obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. To stay ahead of the potential threats, the Government with support of the Parliament and relevant partners need to enact legislation to appropriate budget resources needed to institute a mechanism of capabilities to implement the constitutional and policy provisions on the right to adequate food and disaster management.

In 2010, a landslide in Bududa, Eastern Uganda, killed about 350 people and nearly 1000 affected households were resettled in Kiryandongo, Western Uganda. A cross-sectional survey assessed household food insecurity and diet diversity among 1078 affected and controls. In Bududa, the affected had a lower adjusted mean score of food insecurity than controls – 9·2 (se 0·4) v. 12·3 (se 0·4) (P<0·01) – but higher diet diversity score (DDS) – 7·1 (se 0·1) v. 5·9 (se 0·1) (P<0·01). On controlling for disaster and covariates, recipients of relief food had higher food insecurity – 12·0 (se 0·6) v. 10·4 (se 0·3) (P=0·02) – whereas farmers had higher DDS – 6·6 (se 0·2) v. 5·6 (se 0·3) (P<0·01). Household size increased the likelihood of food insecurity (OR 1·15; 95 % CI 1·00, 1·32; P<0·05) but reduced DDS (OR 0·93; 95 % CI 0·87, <1·00; P=0·04). Low DDS was more likely in disaster affected (OR 4·22; 95 % CI 2·65, 6·72; P<0·01) and farmers (OR 2·52; 95 % CI 1·37, 4·64; P<0·01). In Kiryandongo, affected households had higher food insecurity – 12·3 (se 0·8) v. 2·6 (se 0·8) (P<0·01) – but lower DDS – 5·8 (se 0·3) v. 7·0 (se 0·3) (P=0·02). The latter reduced with increased age (OR 0·99; 95 % CI 0·97, 1·00; P<0·05), lowest education (OR 0·54; 95 % CI 0·31, 0·93; P=0·03), farmers (OR 0·59; 95 % CI 0·35, 0·98; P=0·04) and asset ownership (OR 0·56; 95 % CI 0·39, 0·81; P<0·01). Addressing social protection could mitigate food insecurity.

BackgroundDespite the instruments on the right to adequate food adopted by the United Nations, there exists limited information on how this right is perceived. Following a major 2010 landslide disaster in the Bududa district of Eastern Uganda and the resettlement of some affected households into the Kiryandongo district in Western Uganda, we surveyed both districts to explore perceptions about the right to adequate food among households with different experiences; disaster-affected and controls.MethodsWe deployed qualitative and quantitative techniques to a cross-sectional survey. The index respondent was the head of each randomly selected household from the landslide affected communities and controls from a bordering sub-county. Data was collected by interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Structured entries were tested statistically to report associations using Pearson’s Chi-square at the 95% CI. Information from FGDs was transcribed, coded, sequenced and patterned. Findings from both techniques were triangulated to facilitate interpretations.ResultsAnalysis included 1,078 interview entries and 12 FGDs. Significant differences between the affected and control households (P < 0.05) were observed with: age; education level; religious affiliation; existence of assets that complement food source; and having received relief food. Analysis between groups showed differences in responses on: whether everyone has a right to adequate food; who was supposed to supply relief food; whether relief food was adequate; and preferred choice on the means to ensure the right to adequate food. FGDs emphasized that access to land was the most important means to food and income. Affected households desired remedial interventions especially alternative land for livelihood. Despite the provision of adequate relief food being a state’s obligation, there was no opportunity to exercise choice and preference. Comprehension and awareness of accountability and transparency issues was also low.ConclusionThough a significant proportion of participants affirmed they have a right to adequate food, relief food was largely perceived as insufficient. Given the high regard for land as a preferred remedy, a resettlement policy is of the essence to streamline post-landslide displacement and resettlement. Information materials need to be assembled and disseminated to stimulate awareness and debate on the right to adequate food.

No abstract

BackgroundThe majority of Ugandan children face vulnerability and malnutrition. As a State Party to international human rights treaties, Uganda has legal obligations of guaranteeing the fundamental rights and the best interest of the nation’s children. Despite being protected under international and national law, Uganda is not providing adequate child protection, including safeguarding children’s food security. Numerous privately owned and unregulated children’s homes face this problem. The overall aim of the study was to examine to what extent children’s homes’ operations are consistent with the right to adequate food, nutritional health and wellbeing of children.MethodsWe performed a qualitative role- and capacity analysis of duty bearers with human rights duties towards children living in children’s homes. We studied three groups of duty bearers: caretakers working in private children’s homes, State actors working in government and its institutions, and non-State actors working in civil society organizations. A human rights based approach guided all aspects of the study. An analysis of the roles, performance and capacities of duty bearers was employed, with individual face-to-face structured qualitative in-depth interviews, self-administered structured questionnaires, and a structured observational study, as well as a desk review of relevant literature.ResultsThe State of Uganda’s efforts to respect and realize its obligations towards children living in children’s homes is inadequate. There are numerous capacity gaps among the duty bearers, and the concepts of human rights and the best interest of the child are not well understood among the duty bearers.ConclusionThe efforts of the State of Uganda to realize its human rights obligations towards children in children’s homes are lacking in important areas. Hence the State does not fulfill its minimum obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure all children freedom from hunger. There is a need for capacity development at all levels in the Ugandan state and the international society to delimit capacity gaps in order to realize these human rights’ obligations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12914-018-0156-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.