2006年-世界发展银行全球_The_Northern_Uganda_Social_Action_Fund___Community_Reconciliation_and_Conflict_Management_Empower_Communities_in_a_Post-Conflict_Setting_5页_258kb

Summary of the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF)

Core Content

The Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) is a five-year, US$100 million initiative implemented since 2003 by the World Bank in collaboration with the Ugandan government. The project aims to address poverty and promote development in the post-conflict region of Northern Uganda by leveraging community value systems and fostering participatory, inclusive, and sustainable approaches. It is structured around four main components: Community Reconciliation and Conflict Management (CRCM), Community Driven Initiatives (CDI), Vulnerable Groups Support (VGS), and Institutional Development (ID).

Main Components and Their Roles

1. Community Reconciliation and Conflict Management (CRCM)

• Objective: Create an enabling environment for sustainable development by promoting community peace, reconciliation, and conflict resolution.
• Approach: Combines traditional and non-traditional methods, including:
  • Traditional mechanisms: clan leaders, inter-tribal dialogues, cleansing of returnees, counseling for ex-abductees and affected communities.
  • Non-traditional methods: participatory rural appraisals (PRA), sports and drama for youth, and support to civil society organizations (CSOs).
• Results:
  • By March 2006, 548 CRCM sub-projects were funded, promoting social cohesion.
  • Monthly Community Sub-project Management Committee (CPMC) reporting is in place, though challenges remain with cohesion and participation.
  • Traditional institutions have shown willingness to involve communities, but face capacity and sustainability issues.
• Challenges:
  • Sustainability concerns due to the emergence of new institutions.
  • Need to adapt CRCM strategies to include these new entities.
  • Low technical capacity and unclear roles among stakeholders.

2. Community Driven Initiatives (CDI)

• Objective: Improve access to socio-economic services and empower communities through small-scale projects.
• Key Achievements:
  • By March 2006, 263 borehole sub-projects served over 15,780 households.
  • 32 pit latrine blocks served 1,152 households.
  • 321 education sub-projects benefited 6,966 pupils and 34,830 family members.
  • 37 health facilities (27 centers and 10 staff houses) served approximately 195,000 people.
• Impact: Enhanced service delivery and community empowerment.

3. Vulnerable Groups Support (VGS)

• Objective: Support vulnerable groups such as returnees, ex-combatants, and children affected by conflict through targeted interventions.
• Sub-Projects:
  • 1,992 in income generation.
  • 355 in time- and labor-saving technologies.
  • 92 in vocational skills training.
  • 161 in family support.
  • 33 in counseling.
• Beneficiaries:
  • 5,277 orphans.
  • 1,724 foster parents.
  • 45,307 youths.
  • 5,216 female-headed households.
  • 31,318 internally displaced people (IDPs).
  • 4,931 elderly.
  • 2,242 people with disabilities.
  • 6,865 HIV/AIDS infected or affected persons.
  • 2,370 formerly abducted children.
• Impact: Improved livelihoods and social inclusion of vulnerable groups.

4. Institutional Development (ID)

• Objective: Strengthen local governance and promote collaboration between the state, civil society, and communities.
• Approach: Operates within a decentralized framework, with local governments responsible for project implementation, field appraisals, and sub-project approvals.
• Impact:
  • Communities are empowered to identify and prioritize development needs.
  • Local governments are becoming more responsive to community demands.
  • A Public-Private Partnership model is emerging, enhancing the potential for deeper decentralization.

Rapid Results Initiative (RRI)

• Purpose: Accelerate project implementation by mobilizing communities to generate sub-projects within a short timeframe.
• Process:
  • A 100-day initiative involving workshops with key stakeholders.
  • Identified challenges included slow community mobilization, poor NGO involvement, and unclear roles.
  • Set a target of generating 1,214 sub-projects within 55 days.
• Outcomes:
  • Over 1,214 sub-projects were submitted for funding.
  • The RRI approach helped in learning by doing and aligning short-term actions with long-term goals.
• Lessons Learned:
  • Sustaining the momentum of RRI is essential.
  • Political support from local governments is more critical than from the central government.
  • The approach has helped in addressing lagging components.

Collaboration with Other Operations

• Uganda AIDS Control Project (UAC): NUSAF took over the funding of HIV/AIDS affected communities, adopting successful operational strategies.
• National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and World Food Program (WFP): Collaboration is vital for supporting agricultural and productive sub-projects.
• Amnesty Commission: Ensures reintegration of ex-combatants through additional support beyond the Commission's mandate.

Conclusion and Challenges

• The NUSAF project is progressing, but faces several challenges:
  • High demand for sub-projects from communities.
  • Need for stronger monitoring and supervision by local staff.
  • Political instability and ongoing conflict in the region.
• The project has demonstrated the importance of community participation, reconciliation, and institutional development in post-conflict settings.

Key Information

• Funding: US$100 million.
• Duration: Five years (2003–2008).
• Sub-Regions: West Nile, Acholi, and Karamoja.
• Stakeholders: Communities, local governments, civil society, NGOs, and traditional institutions.
• Focus Areas: Poverty reduction, conflict resolution, service delivery, and institutional strengthening.