A Hobbled Democracy. The Kenya General Elections 1992

On 29 December 1992 the first multi-party elections since 1966 were held in Kenya. This report provides a critical assessment of the circumstances surrounding that event. The irregularities and problems encountered in the run-up to the elections and in the balloting and counting phases cast very serious doubts indeed on their freeness and fairness. The evidence adduced, the bulk of it credible and corroborated, even if part of it may be merely circumstantial or impressionistic, will go a long way towards supporting such a conclusion. However, the multi-party elections, despite flaws and irregularities, no doubt signify that Kenya is moving in a democratic direction. The run-up to the election and the period of political fermentation before that time, the campaign, and the elections themselves have created a wider democratic space in Kenya. The embryo of a new democratic political culture is discernable; from it there is likely to emerge a genuinely democratic practice. Yet, there will continue to be setbacks and hurdles to be overcome. The report concludes on a self-critical note. Whereas the institution of election observing is worth defending, a minimum of professionalism is required on the part of election observers in the discharge of their duties. Inadequate attention has thus far been devoted to specifying and operationalising a set of criteria to be satisfied in order to enhance the professionalism of election observing

Food insecurity, dietary diversity and the right to adequate food among households in landslide-prone communities in Eastern Uganda: A cohort study

We assessed food insecurity, dietary diversity and the right to adequate food among households in communities in Eastern Uganda that were affected by major landslides in 2010 and 2018. A prospective cohort study was applied to select 422 households during May-August (the food-plenty season) of 2019. In January-March (the food-poor season) of 2020, 388 households were re-assessed. Socio-demographic, food security, dietary diversity and right to adequate food data were collected using structured questionnaires. Four focus groups discussions and key informant interviews with 10 purposively sampled duty-bearers explored issues of food insecurity, dietary and the right to adequate food. The affected households had significantly higher mean (SE) food insecurity scores than controls, both during the food plenty season: 15.3 (0.5) vs. 10.8 (0.5), and during food-poor season: 15.9 (0.4) vs. 12.5 (0.0). The affected households had significantly lower mean (SE) dietary diversity scores than controls during the food plenty season: 5.4 (0.2) vs. 7.5 (0.2) and during the food poor season: 5.2 (0.2) vs. 7.3 (0.1). Multivariate analyses showed that the disaster event, education and main source of livelihood, were significantly associated with household food security and dietary diversity during the food-plenty season whereas during the food-poor season, the disaster event and education were associated with household food security and dietary diversity. During both food seasons, the majority of affected and control households reported to have consumed unsafe food. Cash-handout was the most preferred for ensuring the right to adequate food. Comprehension and awareness of human rights principles and state obligations were low. The severity of food-insecurity and dietary diversity differed significantly between the affected and control households during both food seasons. Moreover, the right to adequate food of landslide victims faced challenges to its realization. There is need for policy and planning frameworks that cater for seasonal variations, disaster effects and right to adequate food in order to reduce landslide victims’ vulnerability to food insecurity and poor dietary diversity. In the long-term, education and income diversification program interventions need to be integrated into disaster recovery programs since they are central in enhancing the resilience of rural livelihoods to shocks and stressors on the food system

Food as a human right during disasters in Uganda

Natural 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

Occurrence of key natural disasters in Uganda, 1900–2020.

Occurrence of key natural disasters in Uganda, 1900–2020.</p

Households’ perceptions about food and nutrition security, diet diversity and the right to adequate food^a.

Households’ perceptions about food and nutrition security, diet diversity and the right to adequate fooda.</p

STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of <i>cohort studies</i>.

STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies.</p

Characteristics of the participating households^a.

We assessed food insecurity, dietary diversity and the right to adequate food among households in communities in Eastern Uganda that were affected by major landslides in 2010 and 2018. A prospective cohort study was applied to select 422 households during May-August (the food-plenty season) of 2019. In January-March (the food-poor season) of 2020, 388 households were re-assessed. Socio-demographic, food security, dietary diversity and right to adequate food data were collected using structured questionnaires. Four focus groups discussions and key informant interviews with 10 purposively sampled duty-bearers explored issues of food insecurity, dietary and the right to adequate food. The affected households had significantly higher mean (SE) food insecurity scores than controls, both during the food plenty season: 15.3 (0.5) vs. 10.8 (0.5), and during food-poor season: 15.9 (0.4) vs. 12.5 (0.0). The affected households had significantly lower mean (SE) dietary diversity scores than controls during the food plenty season: 5.4 (0.2) vs. 7.5 (0.2) and during the food poor season: 5.2 (0.2) vs. 7.3 (0.1). Multivariate analyses showed that the disaster event, education and main source of livelihood, were significantly associated with household food security and dietary diversity during the food-plenty season whereas during the food-poor season, the disaster event and education were associated with household food security and dietary diversity. During both food seasons, the majority of affected and control households reported to have consumed unsafe food. Cash-handout was the most preferred for ensuring the right to adequate food. Comprehension and awareness of human rights principles and state obligations were low. The severity of food-insecurity and dietary diversity differed significantly between the affected and control households during both food seasons. Moreover, the right to adequate food of landslide victims faced challenges to its realization. There is need for policy and planning frameworks that cater for seasonal variations, disaster effects and right to adequate food in order to reduce landslide victims’ vulnerability to food insecurity and poor dietary diversity. In the long-term, education and income diversification program interventions need to be integrated into disaster recovery programs since they are central in enhancing the resilience of rural livelihoods to shocks and stressors on the food system.</div

People killed by landslides in Bududa district of Eastern Uganda, 1900–2020.

People killed by landslides in Bududa district of Eastern Uganda, 1900–2020.</p

The polyscopic landscape of povert research. "State of the art" in International Poverty Research. An overview and 6 in-depth studies.

In August 2004 the Research Council of Norway announced tenders for a “State-of-the-art”report within international poverty research, with special focus on institutions and rights. TheResearch Council wanted the report to give an overview over what is the present state ofknowledge in the field, indicate where the frontiers of research are, identify what the mostpressing needs for new knowledge are, and suggest how Norwegian expertise can contributeto poverty research in the South. The size of the report is limited to 100 pages.The Comparative Research Programme on Poverty (CROP) was successful with itstender. The contract (Project No. 168080/S30) with the Research Council was signed by bothparties during the second half of October 2004, and the contract period was set to 4 months.The final report was to be delivered 1.05.2005 at the latest.The project description provided by CROP for the tender competition takes as itsstarting point that, within the framework of such a report, it is at present not possible to givemore than a limited overview of the frontiers of international poverty research. Povertyresearch comprises a vast area of different scientific disciplines and interdisciplinaryapproaches, within clearly opposing paradigms. No common platform has been establishedfor the scientific evaluation of the field in general, and the validity of presented researchresults is often difficult to judge as some of the research is mixed with political interestsand/or particular moral values.In this situation CROPs proposal was to use its own knowledge base to1) give an overview of where a selection of major approaches to poverty research arepresently located in the field of international science and present some of thecurrent paradigmatic approaches, and2) single out five topics for in-depth case studies to present frontiers of researchwithin different areas of international poverty research and define new questions tobe explored, and3) use this material to say something about what are the most pressing needs for newknowledge in international poverty research and how this may be reflected infuture studies in the South.The project is designed to meet the requirements of the Research Council which is tofocus on institutions and rights and contribute to knowledge development of specialimportance for poverty reduction and national welfare strategies in the South.CROP hereby presents the Report from the project. It has been developed in close cooperationwith scholars in the South and other members of the CROP international network ofpoverty researchers, see Appendix B. Very special thanks go to the main collaborators whohave taken charge of the case studies. The results of their work appear in chapters IV-IX.CROP, however, bears the sole responsibility for the contents of the Report