Since independence, Uganda has experienced a history of conflict and violent uprisings, including the ongoing insurgency in the north of the country. This paper from Saferworld examines the extent to which armed conflict and violence are being addressed through, and have been integrated within, development frameworks in Uganda. It focuses primarily on the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) of the Government of Uganda (GoU).
Whilst the GoU and donors both recognise the need for the development effort to address conflict and armed violence, they need to translate this recognition into concrete action. The GoU’s limited progress in this area may reflect its limited capacity and lack of commitment to addressing the causes of conflict. It may also reflect the limitations of using technical measures to address essentially political issues. Notwithstanding, the PEAP provides a reasonable framework for integrating conflict issues into the development process. Thus, the GoU, civil society and donors must co-operate to ensure a coherent approach to addressing conflict throughout Uganda through support to the PEAP.
Donor relations with the GoU are characterised by high levels of harmonisation with the PEAP. Most donors align assistance with government priorities via budget support and the Uganda Joint Assistance Strategy (UJAS). Meanwhile, donors are also seeking to address conflict and armed violence within new development programmes and strategies. Nevertheless, whilst conflict and security issues are recognised as a high priority in the PEAP – with Pillar 3 dedicated to Security, Conflict Resolution and Disaster Management (SCD) – there remain some issues of concern:
- The GoU has established SCD as a new sector with a secretariat in the Office of the Prime Minister. Some observers feel that this hinders the mainstreaming of these issues across sectors.
- Donors’ decisions to provide most assistance via budget support reflect confidence in the GoU. Concerns over democratisation and GoU commitment to conflict resolution in the north call into question the basis for this confidence.
- The needs of conflict-affected areas in the north are addressed largely through donor-funded projects separate from the PEAP. This risks undermining the GoU’s role in service provision and reinforcing perceptions of government neglect there.
- Donors are doing little to encourage the integration of conflict and armed violence issues across sectors. Potential for conflict in areas other than the north is not being adequately addressed due to the lack of a systematic approach to conflict-sensitivity.
To address these issues, the GoU should make conflict prevention and peacebuilding central to its poverty reduction strategies. It should build capacity to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches to development, strengthen the coherence between different government ministries on conflict and security issues, and undertake further research, including a conflict assessment. Civil society should monitor progress in implementing Pillar 3 of the PEAP. It should also engage in dialogue with donors, conduct research and advocacy on conflict and development, and provide practical support to the GoU. For their part, donors should:
- ensure that the GoU’s approach to conflict prevention and peacebuilding are central to decisions on budget support to Uganda
- ensure that donor assistance strategies address the links between conflict, armed violence and development and are informed by conflict analysis
- support efforts to implement Pillar 3 of the PEAP, by establishing the SCD sector, mainstreaming actions to address conflict across sectors, pursuing other entry points on initiatives to support the GoU, and evaluating the sustainability of technical assistance
- strengthen joint analysis and monitoring of conflict and armed violence among donors to inform assistance strategies, dialogue and programming.
