Action points based on findings

·         Support the capacity of survivor organizations that have been shown to have a critical role in assisting survivors to access mainstream services and programs despite the limited capacity of these groups.

·         Commit the necessary resources for the implementation of the recently passed Uganda Building Control Law to eliminate barriers to access for survivors and other persons with disabilities.

·         Sustain existing physical rehabilitation centers by dedicating sufficient national resources or by mobilizing international assistance to continue activities previously supported by international organizations.

Victim assistance commitments

The Republic of Uganda is responsible for a significant number of landmine survivors, cluster munition victims, and survivors of other explosive remnants of war (ERW) who are in need. Uganda has made commitments to provide victim assistance through the Mine Ban Treaty and as a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Casualties Overview

In 2013, the Monitor identified seven casualties in Uganda, all from ERW.[1] Five of the casualties occurred in a single incident in northeastern Uganda; a boy was killed and four others were injured when a grenade exploded. All casualties were male and all were civilians.[2]

The seven casualties identified in 2013 represented an increase from the four reported in 2012.[3] Following a peak of about 150 casualties recorded per year during 1996–1997, the number of annual casualties has decreased significantly; since 2003, casualties have been 21 or fewer per year.[4] The most recent antipersonnel mine casualty reported occurred in November 2012; Uganda declared itself mine-free in December 2012.[5]

The total number of mine/ERW casualties in Uganda is not known. At least 2,770 casualties (531 killed, 2,239 injured) had been identified by December 2013.[6] Of the people injured, 1,818 occurred in northern Uganda and the remaining 420 were in the west.[7] All casualties in the west were recorded as injured; if any were killed, they were not recorded. This was due to the fact that data collection has been mainly carried out by local survivors’ organizations whose primary interest is identifying survivors. As such, it is certain that people have been killed by mines/ERW in western Uganda who have not been recorded.[8]

Cluster munition casualties

A 2006 survey of mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) casualties in Gulu district determined that 3% of recorded casualties (1,387 at the time) were caused by cluster munition remnants. Five other suspected submunition casualties were reported in 2006.[9] As of the end of 2013, no additional casualties caused by cluster munition remnants had been identified since 2006.

Victim Assistance

There are at least 2,239 mine/ERW survivors in Uganda.[10]

Victim assistance since 1999[11]

When monitoring of victim assistance began in 1999, most victim assistance services were provided by international organizations responding to the needs of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees based in northern Uganda. Services were mainly limited to emergency medical care, trauma response, and physical rehabilitation services. Most services were free for mine/ERW survivors. However, long distances and a lack of affordable transportation prevented some 50% of survivors from accessing needed care in that year.

The formation of the Uganda Landmine Survivor Association (ULSA) in 2004 increased opportunities for peer support and survivor-led advocacy, though ULSA’s activities were limited due to its dependence on scarce external funding. However, by the end of 2011 ULSA had supported the development of dozens of local survivor associations in western and northern Uganda.

With the significant reduction in violence in northern Uganda in 2006 and progress towards peace in neighboring countries, several international organizations closed or reduced their programs in Uganda between 2008 and 2010, transferring the responsibility to provide victim assistance services to relevant government ministries. At the same time, mine survivors who were IDPs returned home to other parts of the country, increasing the need for updated surveys and victim assistance services in those areas.

Through the end of 2013, the impact of the departure of several international organizations from northern Uganda, including the ICRC’s physical rehabilitation program, continued to be felt and there were gaps in physical rehabilitation, economic inclusion, and psychological support as well as the means to access all services. As a result, there were more survivors in need of services than there had been some 10 years before.

Throughout the period, victim assistance coordination was very limited. Uganda developed a national victim assistance plan in 2008 which was revised in 2010 and extended by two years to 2014. In 2011, the National Intersectoral Committee on Disability was formed and included a mandate to coordinate victim assistance.

Victim assistance in 2013

In 2013, survivors faced increasing challenges to access services. The withdrawal of international support for victim assistance in Uganda continued with the closing of the victim assistance program by Handicap International (HI) that had begun in 2010 and was focused on facilitating access to existing programs and services in the area of health, rehabilitation, psycho-social support, and livelihood in western and northern Uganda. The capacity of local and national organizations was also weakened in 2013 as several groups lost funding or other support from international organizations. The government assumed greater responsibility for some services, particularly physical rehabilitation, but was unable to fill the gaps left by the program closures.

The Intersectoral Committee on Disability, convened by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD), and the National Disability Council both met infrequently in 2013 due to a lack of funding for coordination. On 31 December 2013, the Uganda Building Control Law was passed, making obligatory the accessibility standards that were launched in 2010.

Assessing victim assistance needs

In 2013, the MGLSD worked with the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) to prepare for the inclusion of disability-related questions for the national census to be carried out in August 2014.[12] This was an outcome of efforts in 2012 to design a standard data collection tool on disability with specific sections asking for information on mine/ERW victims. MGLSD, with technical support from HI, coordinated contributions from the Ministry of Health Disability Desk, National Disability Council, UBOS, the National Union of Disabled Persons Uganda (NUDIPU), ULSA, and Community Based Rehabilitation Association (COMBRA) in the design of the data collection tool.[13] In 2013, a focal point to manage the data collected was identified for training.[14] Uganda’s Comprehensive Plan on Mine Victim Assistance 2010–2014 sought to establish a database on disability by 2011.[15]

In 2013, ULSA collected information on survivors and their needs in several counties within the districts of Amurru, Nwoya, Pader, and Agago, all in northern Uganda. All data collected was shared with other stakeholders.[16] The Kasese Survivors’ Group collected and shared data about survivors on an ongoing basis.[17]

In 2009, Uganda collected baseline data to identify the needs of survivors and the gaps in services in four districts in northern Uganda.[18] Through the same survey, all disability-related services and providers in mine-affected districts were mapped.[19]

Victim assistance coordination[20]

In 2013, MGLSD convened two meetings of the Intersectoral Committee on Disability to develop and test a monitoring tool to be used to evaluate the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Action on Victim Assistance 2010–2014.[21] Representatives of the Ministry of Health, National Council for Disability, NUDIPU, ULSA, and several disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs) took part in exercises to validate the monitoring tool.[22] The Intersectoral Committee on Disability met less frequently than in previous years, as did the National Disability Council, due to a lack of funding. No coordination meetings were convened from the third quarter of 2013, through August 2014.[23]

As of April 2014, the evaluation of national victim assistance plan had not begun; it was to begin once funding was mobilized.[24] Little progress was seen in the plan’s implementation by survivors in western and in northern Uganda.[25] ULSA reported that government efforts to implement the plan seemed to be “lacking” and mainly attributed progress to the activities of civil society groups, such as ULSA, HI, and Association of Volunteers in International Services (ASVI).[26] A representative of the MGSLD cited a lack of funding, lack of knowledge of survivors’ rights, and the limited capacity of survivor organizations as challenges to the plan’s implementation.[27]

Monthly meetings of leaders of DPOs, including ULSA, were convened by NUDIPU to share information about ongoing activities and look for opportunities for collaboration. As one outcome of these meetings, DPOs and the National Council for Disability proposed a strategy to support ULSA in urging the government to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2014.[28]

Uganda provided updates on progress in and challenges to victim assistance at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Geneva on 4 December 2013.[29] Uganda did not report on victim assistance at meetings of the Convention on Cluster Munitions during the reporting period. Uganda did not submit a Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for 2013; its last Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report (for 2011) did not provide information on victim assistance.[30]

Inclusion and participation in victim assistance

ULSA was included in meetings of the Intersectoral Committee on Disability.[31] However, with the decreased frequency of meetings, there were fewer opportunities for survivors to participate in the coordination and planning of victim assistance.[32] Survivor leaders took part in developing the monitoring tool for the victim assistance plan.[33] Survivors met with members of parliament through breakfast lobbying meetings organized by ULSA.[34]

Representatives of ULSA participated in monthly meetings of NUDIPU and, at the regional level, representatives of local survivor associations participated in district-level meetings of NUDIPU.[35]

Survivors and persons with disabilities were involved in the identification and assessment of survivor needs and in supporting other survivors in accessing medical, rehabilitation, and economic inclusion services.[36] Survivors were involved in training sessions on various legal instruments designed to protect and promote their rights.[37]

Service accessibility and effectiveness

Victim assistance activities[38]

Medical care

In 2013, the Ministry of Health trained village health teams in emergency first aid. Additional improvements to healthcare were planned through the Health Sector Strategic Investment Plan III 2012–2015 but a lack of funding for the implementation this plan impacted the availability of services for landmine survivors and other persons with disabilities.[39]

ULSA, Watoto Church, and some local survivor groups assisted survivors in accessing medical care, including corrective surgeries.[40]

Physical rehabilitation

In 2013, the accessibility and availability of physical rehabilitation decreased. Following the closure of international programs, including the end of ICRC support in 2012, there was little assistance available to pay for transportation and lodging costs, as well as the fees for services. The least expensive prosthetic device was estimated to cost $125, well beyond the means of the average person living in rural Uganda. These costs presented unsurmountable obstacles to care for most survivors.[41] In western Uganda, survivors were forced to travel to northern and eastern Uganda for prosthetics when the breakdown of the orthopedic casting oven at the Buhinga Orthopedic Workshop made the production of prosthetics impossible.[42]

In 2012, the Ministry of Health assumed responsibility from international organizations for supplying materials and components at several rehabilitation centers. However, government-purchased materials were of a lower quality, affecting the quality of prosthetic devices,[43] and the Ministry of Health indicated that it was “struggling to sustain services.”[44]

ULSA assisted a limited number of survivors to access physical rehabilitation in 2013; beneficiaries included a nearly equal number of males and females.[45]

Psychological support

Professional mental health care was available in major hospitals for those patients who were seen to be in need of this assistance.[46] Most survivors who received some psychological support received this through survivor groups. ULSA and local survivor groups continued to provide this assistance in both northern and western Uganda with new survivor groups organized by ULSA in the Acholi subregion of northern Uganda.[47]

MGLSD produced a guide for trainers in psychosocial support and 64 community development and rehabilitation officers received training.[48]

By 2013, inclusive sports were more widely available with many groups of persons with disabilities participating.[49]

Social and economic inclusion

In 2013, MGLSD revised the guidelines for its special grants for persons with disabilities to improve the ability of survivor groups to access these grants.[50] Previously, it had been found that survivor groups either did not apply or did not qualify for grants. As a result of the revised guidelines and outreach, 24 survivor groups in western and northern Uganda were successful in applying for income-generating grants.[51]

ULSA provided business-training workshops to survivors in northern Uganda; both HI and ULSA provided grants to survivors for income-generating activities in western and northern Uganda. However, these efforts were seen to be very limited compared to the need for such assistance.[52]

In 2013, teachers received training in inclusive education and a government budget line was dedicated to the purchase of needed equipment for students with disabilities.[53] However, during the year most schools in the country were not prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities.[54]

Laws and policies

The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, but it was not enforced and discrimination was common.[55] The Uganda Human Rights Center received complaints of discrimination in employment, access to transportation and other public services.[56] The review of the Disability Act 2006 to ensure harmonization with the CRPD was completed by the end of 2013 with the 2006 Act found to be aligned.[57] However, DPOs organized to cite various shortcomings in the current law.[58]

On 31 December 2013, the Uganda Building Control Law was passed, making obligatory the accessibility standards that were launched in 2010.[59] In western and northern Uganda, as well as in Kampala, some visible changes were noted in 2013 to make the physical environment accessible, such as to schools and post offices.[60] However, a study conducted by architects in Kampala in August 2013 found that 95% of the buildings in the city were inaccessible to persons with special needs, most lacking ramps or elevators.[61]

At a policy level, physical rehabilitation was to be adapted to the specific needs of men, women, and children but such adaptations were not visible within rehabilitation centers.[62]

Uganda ratified the CRPD on 25 September 2008.