Humanitarian Aid

and Civil Protection

Assessment Location Kotido and Kaabong Districts (Karamoja sub-region, Uganda)

Ecological/Livelihood Zones Assessed Arid / Agro-pastoral, Agricultural and Urban/Peri-urban
# of Focus Group Discussions 36
# of Key Informant Interviews 40
Assessment Date 15-26 July 2013
Poverty rate: 80%1
Sub-region Statistics
Population with certain degree of food insecurity in 2011: 80%2

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Findings Figure 1: Priority Resilience Characteristics

900
Hazards: Drought and associated food shortages,
800
malnutrition and famine were perceived by the focus
700
groups as the most common hazards facing the districts
and affecting most if not all the households in the 600
communities. Communities cited the 2010-2011 drought 500
as the most recent crisis period to be considered in the 400
CoBRA assessment. 300

Priority Characteristics of Resilience: Overall, 200

productive farms, education, and peace and security 100
were repeatedly identified by the focus groups as the 0
most important characteristics of a resilient community
ms

on

ty

dit

on

ts
ns

ck

ck

ty
en
erd

an

GA
rke
uri

uri
sto

sto
ma
ati

ati
cre
far

ym
um
(Figure 1). While this ranking was fairly consistent across

dI
kh
sec

sec
ma
uc

nit
live

ve
hu
ve

plo
to

rh

ifie
oc
Ed

r li
Sa
nd

od
all gender/age/livelihood groups interviewed, a few for
cti

to
ss

r fo

for
Em
est

ers

r fo
du

ea

ce

Fo
xx
are

te
Liv

are
differences are noteworthy. Youth placed a greater

Div
Ac

ce

te
Pro

ac

Wa
hc

Wa
Ac
hc
Pe

emphasis on education, access to markets and access to

alt

alt
He

credit because of their interest in commercial activities, He

and routes out of traditional pastoral lifestyles. Agro/
pastoral groups focused on productive farms, whereas peri-urban groups placed greater emphasis on peace and security
and access to credit.
Communities’ Attainment of Resilience Characteristics: Figure 2 shows the aggregated attainment scores of the resilience
characteristics illustrated in Figure 1 for all gender/age/livelihood
Figure 2: Priority Resilience Characteristics Attainment
groups on a radar diagram. Characteristics have been grouped
Score by SLF Categories
according to the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) categories. Physical
Characteristics were scored on average 4.8 and 1.9 out of 10 for the 10
current and the most recent crisis period respectively, demonstrating 8
the communities’ low ranking on the achievement of resilience both 6
in normal and crisis periods. Social characteristics, predominantly
4
peace and security, received the highest score, though this is related Human
Social
to the recent improvement in the security situation, which could also 2

deteriorate quite rapidly. There was little variation in the attainment 0

scores between livelihood and intervention groups. Current year

Interventions that Build Resilience: Table 1 outlines the most highly Crisis year

ranked current interventions contributing to the communities’ resilience Full score

as well as the future interventions to enhance their resilience further.

The ranking closely reflects the prioritised resilience statements. Natural Financial

Table 1: Highly Ranked Interventions that Build Resilience

Type of Intervention Current or recent provision Further or future provision Total score
Water
22 11 33
Water source improvement or improved storage capacity
Education
Bursaries, scholarships or construction/refurbishment of school 19 14 33
facilities including boarding facilities
Health
19 10 29
Improvements to health services, staffing or facilities

1 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2011). Uganda Humanitarian Profile.
2 Government of Uganda (2012). Uganda Humanitarian Profile 2012.
Interventions that facilitate access to clean water for human use were highly rated. Bursaries, scholarships and boarding
schools that support secondary education and above, along with improvements to health facilities, were also ranked highly.
Characteristics of Resilient Households: The five most commonly cited characteristics of resilient households include:
• Households that have a large herd size (26 out of 36 groups);
• Households that earn a certain level of income (19 out of 36 groups);
• Households that have a large farm (18 out of 36 groups);
• Households that have a business or diversified income generating activities (16 out of 36 groups); and
• Households in which a member has employment/wage labour (10 out of 36 groups).

Key Informant Interview (KII) Findings

Education level: The majority of resilient households (66%) had members who had completed primary education, and 34% had
members who had completed secondary education or above.3
Diversified Income Sources: Most households interviewed (98%) reported multiple income sources including members in
employment and/or with a business interest. Most resilient households (95%) also mentioned that they maintain income from
and/or farm agricultural. Business activities include grain and livestock trading, shops and petty trading, charcoal and brick
production, and renting of equipment or land, among others. Trading in cereals and livestock, by buying when prices were
low and selling when they rise, seems a very common route to raising the capital required for another business activity, such
as brewing or petty trading. The most frequently cited past/future Interventions that had contributed/will contribute to build
resilience was those relating to agricultural inputs, followed by education and the expansion of savings and credit opportunities.

Recommendations
• The high priority was given to a relatively small set of indicators for building resilience, namely productive farms, education,
peace and security, access to credit and livestock herds. Many of these are not always immediately considered part of
disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies, as well as factors that require a long-term commitment to investment. Hence a
broader conception of DRR is required if resilience is to be built.
• The ultimate success or impact of resilience interventions should be assessed on the extent to which they build and
diversify income and assets either directly or indirectly, and the sustainability and adaptability of alternative income sources
must be carefully vetted.
• The community perspectives may not be statistically significant but were proven to be “realistic” through the local CoBRA
results review/validation process. Due consideration must be paid to the communities voice and perception, and their
needs and priorities must be incorporated into local climate-resilience related planning, decision-making and programme/
project processes.
• The consistency in community comments on resilience characteristics suggests that a few key indicators can be identified
to monitor resilience trends in Karamoja more systematically; for example, percent of households with at least one member
completing secondary school, and percent of households with access to sufficient water all year. Some of these indicators
are already being measured as part of on-going data collection exercises.

CoBRA Field Assessment Steps and Questions Addressed

FGD Step 1. Agree on the definition of resilience: What does a ‘resilient’ community
look like? What are the main hazards or shocks facing the community? Resilience Definition
FGD Step 2. Identify resilience characteristics: What does a ‘resilient’ community look
like? What are the characteristics of a resilient community?
C C C C C
FGD Step 3. Prioritize resilience characteristics: What are the three most important
characteristics of resilience in the community, ranked by importance? C C C C C C
FGD Step 4. Rate the community’s progress in attaining the priority resilience
statements: On a scale of 0 to 10, to what extent has this community achieved each of
these characteristics in the current period and in the last crisis period?
FGD Step 5. Identify the households in the community that have achieved (fully or
partially) the resilience characteristics and list their common features and attributes
FGD Step 6. Identify interventions that have contributed to household resilience:
What interventions have helped to enhance households’ level of resilience, and what P P P P P
additional/future interventions would help to build resilience further?
KII with nominated resilient households: What factors or characteristics have contributed
to your household’s resilience? How did your household become resilient? Why do you
think your family coped better with shocks and crises affecting the community? What
interventions do you think would best build wider resilience in this community?

3 The literacy rate in Karamoja/Kotido is limited to 21 percent (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2012).

Project contact: Yuko Karauchi (Project Manager) Francis Opiyo (Project Coordinator)
[email protected] [email protected]

For more information: http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/drought-online/

Printing: UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, ISO 14001:2004-certified
D1 No.: 13 - 54469/200 Copies April 2014