Rukundo Peter M, Iversen Per O, Andreassen Bård A, Oshaug Arne, Kikafunda Joyce, Rukooko Byaruhanga
Department of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Kyambogo University, Kampala, Uganda.
Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2015 Apr 25;15:9. doi: 10.1186/s12914-015-0047-x.
Despite the instruments on the right to adequate food adopted by the United Nations, there exists limited information on how this right is perceived. Following a major 2010 landslide disaster in the Bududa district of Eastern Uganda and the resettlement of some affected households into the Kiryandongo district in Western Uganda, we surveyed both districts to explore perceptions about the right to adequate food among households with different experiences; disaster-affected and controls.
We deployed qualitative and quantitative techniques to a cross-sectional survey. The index respondent was the head of each randomly selected household from the landslide affected communities and controls from a bordering sub-county. Data was collected by interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Structured entries were tested statistically to report associations using Pearson's Chi-square at the 95% CI. Information from FGDs was transcribed, coded, sequenced and patterned. Findings from both techniques were triangulated to facilitate interpretations.
Analysis included 1,078 interview entries and 12 FGDs. Significant differences between the affected and control households (P < 0.05) were observed with: age; education level; religious affiliation; existence of assets that complement food source; and having received relief food. Analysis between groups showed differences in responses on: whether everyone has a right to adequate food; who was supposed to supply relief food; whether relief food was adequate; and preferred choice on the means to ensure the right to adequate food. FGDs emphasized that access to land was the most important means to food and income. Affected households desired remedial interventions especially alternative land for livelihood. Despite the provision of adequate relief food being a state's obligation, there was no opportunity to exercise choice and preference. Comprehension and awareness of accountability and transparency issues was also low.
Though a significant proportion of participants affirmed they have a right to adequate food, relief food was largely perceived as insufficient. Given the high regard for land as a preferred remedy, a resettlement policy is of the essence to streamline post-landslide displacement and resettlement. Information materials need to be assembled and disseminated to stimulate awareness and debate on the right to adequate food.
尽管联合国通过了关于获得充足食物权的相关文件，但对于这一权利的认知情况，现有信息有限。2010年乌干达东部布杜达地区发生重大山体滑坡灾害，部分受灾家庭重新安置到乌干达西部的基延东戈区后，我们对这两个地区进行了调查，以探究不同经历的家庭（受灾家庭和对照家庭）对获得充足食物权的认知。
我们在横断面调查中采用了定性和定量技术。指标受访者是从受山体滑坡影响社区中随机抽取的每户家庭的户主，以及来自相邻次县的对照家庭的户主。通过访谈和焦点小组讨论（FGD）收集数据。对结构化条目进行统计测试，以使用95%置信区间的Pearson卡方检验报告关联。对FGD的信息进行转录、编码、排序和归纳。将两种技术的结果进行三角验证以促进解释。
分析包括1078份访谈条目和12次FGD。在年龄、教育水平、宗教信仰、补充食物来源的资产存在情况以及是否收到救济食品方面，受灾家庭和对照家庭之间存在显著差异（P < 0.05）。组间分析显示在以下方面的回答存在差异：是否每个人都有获得充足食物的权利；应由谁提供救济食品；救济食品是否充足；以及确保获得充足食物权的首选方式。FGD强调获得土地是获取食物和收入的最重要方式。受灾家庭希望得到补救干预措施，特别是用于生计的替代土地。尽管提供充足的救济食品是国家的义务，但人们没有机会行使选择权和偏好权。对问责制和透明度问题的理解和认识也很低。
尽管很大一部分参与者确认他们有获得充足食物的权利，但救济食品在很大程度上被认为是不足的。鉴于土地被高度视为首选的补救措施，重新安置政策对于简化山体滑坡后的流离失所和重新安置至关重要。需要收集和传播信息材料，以提高对获得充足食物权的认识并引发相关讨论。
