A situational analysis of priority disaster hazards in Uganda: findings from a hazard and vulnerability analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa have not conducted a disaster risk analysis. Hazards and vulnerability analyses provide vital information that can be used for development of risk reduction and disaster response plans. The purpose of this study was to rank disaster hazards for Uganda, as a basis for identifying the priority hazards to guide disaster management planning. METHODS: The study as conducted in Uganda, as part of a multi-country assessment. A hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis was conducted in a focus group discussion of 7 experts representing key stakeholder agencies in disaster management in Uganda. A simple ranking method was used to rank the probability of occurance of 11 top hazards, their potential impact and the level vulnerability of people and infrastructure. RESULTS: In-terms of likelihood of occurance and potential impact, the top ranked disaster hazards in Uganda are: 1) Epidemics of infectious diseases, 2) Drought/famine, 3) Conflict and environmental degradation in that order. In terms of vulnerability, the top priority hazards to which people and infrastructure were vulnerable were: 1) Conflicts, 2) Epidemics, 3) Drought/famine and, 4) Environmental degradation in that order. Poverty, gender, lack of information, and lack of resilience measures were some of the factors promoting vulnerability to disasters. CONCLUSION: As Uganda develops a disaster risk reduction and response plan, it ought to prioritize epidemics of infectious diseases, drought/famine, conflics and environmental degradation as the priority disaster hazards.

A descriptive analysis of the institutional frameworks for disaster management in Uganda: structures, functions and gaps.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient documentation of the institutional frameworks for disaster management and resilience at different levels in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this study was to describe the institutional framework for disaster management in Uganda, and to identify actionable gaps at the different levels. METHODS: This was part of a multi-country assessment in which 6 countries in Eastern Africa developed and applied a common tool. The assessment was qualitative in nature employing a mixed methods approach including review of documents, interviews with key informants from agencies involved in disaster management in Uganda, group discussions with stakeholder and synthesis meetings of the assessment team. FINDINGS: The Office of the Prime Minister is the lead agency for disaster management, but management of disasters of a technical nature is devolved to line ministries (e.g. epidemics by the Health Ministry and Epizootics by the Agriculture Ministry). A new policy spells out disaster management structures at national, district, sub-county, and village levels. Key challenges included coordination, more focus on prevention than risk reduction, differences in capacity between sectors and inadequate inter-sectoral collaboration. The new policy and structures have not yet been rolled out to districts and sub-district levels, and districts lack a line item budget for disaster capacity building. CONCLUSIONS: The institutional framework for disaster management in Uganda needs to be strengthened at all levels through initiation of the relevant structures, training, and resource allocation so that they develop disaster management plans.