In this draft paper and posting by Esteban Sacco of UN OCHA, he uses some recent survey data to challenge expectations about the return process of the roughly 1.5 million internally displaced people in northern Uganda:
I automatically like anything that questions the general orthodoxy and received wisdom, especially in northern Uganda. I also think he takes the right approach in talking about incentives to return:
While I don't doubt that his central point--that some people may stay in the camps and commute a few km each morning to farm--I have to admit that I expect this to be the minority case.
One, from my field work, probably the principal reason there has been almost no movement since January 2007 is that the materials for building homes are not there. The grasses people use for their roofs typically dry in late October and November (maybe later this year because of the heavy rains). We saw a good chunk of households--maybe 10 percent--take their chances and move to a resettlment camp or their village last November, December and January. The peace talks were still new and fragile at the time, and these movers were presumably the optimists and the daring (or maybe the most desperate). My personal prediction is that we will see mass movement to villages and resettlements sites this December and January.
Two, to my endless surprise there seems to be some sort of super-bond between the Acholi I have met and their land, and an almost universal desire to return to pre-war ways of life. In all my field work, I can hardly find a single adult who says that they won't 'return home'--a euphemism for building a hut in the midst of their fields. They laugh at the thought of doing otherwise. Now, it's ironic that I of all people am appealing to unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence with little sense of proportion (given my usual skepticism of this approach). In my defense, Jeannie Annan, Eric Greena and I are planning a more in-depth survey and study with UNHCR right now.
I am all in favor of giving people the option to stay in camp locations and 'commute', and thus making the camp sites more habitable. I am worried, however, that this will detract from the need to increase service provision (access to clean drinking water and schools, for instance) in the villages and return areas. I am also worried that the commute option plays into the northern development strategy that Museveni and Salim Saleh have been advocating for years--their so-called 'urbanization' of the Acholi. While I don't subscribe to a lot of the anti-Museveni conspiracy theories, it does seem plausible that they would like to see more big agri-business on northern land. Might the local government be keen to go along with this commuting approach and focus on service provision in camps over villages if given the choice?
The overall finding of this study challenges the notion of “return” as requiring movement and therefore suggesting that return may take a different shape than physical movement. Since many IDP's camp locations are in close physical proximity to their places of origin, it's possible that they could “return” to farm and build in their original home, but remaining at the current location that would allow them to take advantage of services there. Given the large amount of data showing that distance from camp areas to home areas is very small, it seems reasonable to dispute the idea that complete movement will be the only (or even the primary) mode of “return”.
I automatically like anything that questions the general orthodoxy and received wisdom, especially in northern Uganda. I also think he takes the right approach in talking about incentives to return:
Why are they not moving out? When looking at the incentives and disincentives to leave the camps to return the answer seems clear. Disincentives like commuting to work and the feeling of being home may be overridden by access to health services, school facilities and safe drinking water, a sense of security given by nearby government security forces, access to transport, communication, market opportunities and a thriving social life.
While I don't doubt that his central point--that some people may stay in the camps and commute a few km each morning to farm--I have to admit that I expect this to be the minority case.
One, from my field work, probably the principal reason there has been almost no movement since January 2007 is that the materials for building homes are not there. The grasses people use for their roofs typically dry in late October and November (maybe later this year because of the heavy rains). We saw a good chunk of households--maybe 10 percent--take their chances and move to a resettlment camp or their village last November, December and January. The peace talks were still new and fragile at the time, and these movers were presumably the optimists and the daring (or maybe the most desperate). My personal prediction is that we will see mass movement to villages and resettlements sites this December and January.
Two, to my endless surprise there seems to be some sort of super-bond between the Acholi I have met and their land, and an almost universal desire to return to pre-war ways of life. In all my field work, I can hardly find a single adult who says that they won't 'return home'--a euphemism for building a hut in the midst of their fields. They laugh at the thought of doing otherwise. Now, it's ironic that I of all people am appealing to unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence with little sense of proportion (given my usual skepticism of this approach). In my defense, Jeannie Annan, Eric Greena and I are planning a more in-depth survey and study with UNHCR right now.
I am all in favor of giving people the option to stay in camp locations and 'commute', and thus making the camp sites more habitable. I am worried, however, that this will detract from the need to increase service provision (access to clean drinking water and schools, for instance) in the villages and return areas. I am also worried that the commute option plays into the northern development strategy that Museveni and Salim Saleh have been advocating for years--their so-called 'urbanization' of the Acholi. While I don't subscribe to a lot of the anti-Museveni conspiracy theories, it does seem plausible that they would like to see more big agri-business on northern land. Might the local government be keen to go along with this commuting approach and focus on service provision in camps over villages if given the choice?
1 comments:
I concur with Chris' obsevations. To answer your questions whether the District leadership may buy that idea of developing the IDP camps to allow 'near settlers' commute ? The answer is no. Reasons the alleged scheme emerged several years ago ochestrated by the then pro-NRM district chairmen of Ochora, Ojwee and Lapolo in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader in collusion with State House and Saleh if you wish. In fact this was the reason they opted for Iron sheet to build in camps 'to prevent fire outbreak' and partly explained 'the constant fire outbreaks in camps-mystery fire' during this era. The displaced persons suspected this plot and voted out all these leadership,since consoled as RDC.
On the Sacco study, i applaud him for opening new frontiers. It might appear a wild speculation, but two decades of insurgency, mass atrocity and long displacement, warrants exploring all conceivables. To ignore the fact that many 'born camps' would not want to leave the 'lazy' camp lifestyle is to fail a comprehensive strategy. But to generalise that to the surviving 'elders' or 'land owners' is an overstatement-The Acholi believes 'odo ma boo pi goyo twol' meaning 'long rods/stick can not kill a snake'. In fact the idea of waking up and walking to far farmlands/gardens was considered laziness in Acholiland and this explains why a family would build a hat in distant farmlands to stay during cultivation.
Of course, as usual, the study ignored the significant number of 'urban IDPs'(those in towns,trading centres and those across Karuma in Bweyale and Masindi generally). These are groups stressed by the sky rocketting cost of living (Sudan factor)plus other urban life hardships. Also with the recurring fear of land grabing, everyone would want to esatblish a physical presence, as opposed to remote control. Oola Steven - oolalawyer@yahoo.com
Post a Comment