CAO (Chairperson)

2. CAO (Chairperson) DDPRC (Secretary) RDC DISO Mayor / Town Clerk Head of Production Head of Education Head of Water & Sanitation Head of Probation IOs CBOs LC5 DPC District Planner National Programme Heads Head of Health Head of Works UN Agencies NGOs IDP Reps

4. DISTRICT LEVEL REVIEWS COLLECTIVE OBSERVATIONS • Coordination of Districts. Each district works directly to the Ministry for Disaster Preparedness and Refugees in Kampala. Disasters are not constrained to district boundaries; therefore the ability of the district to manage a disaster in isolation is limited. Each district relies on national level direction.. • Recommendation. It is recommended that there is a regional level coordination structure which should sit between district and national levels.

5. Communication between districts. For inter-district planning and implementation there might be requirements for districts to liaise directly with each other to find local solutions. Recommendation. It is recommended that communication is improved between neighbouring districts. Mechanisms should be put in place which allow for districts to liaison directly with each other in times of a disaster and for collective planning. DDMCs should be given the authority to implement this. Communications within districts. Where plans exist they have not always been communicated to the stakeholders of the plan. Key individuals and organisations were often unaware of their role in a disaster management situation. Recommendation. All personnel who have a specified role within the plan need to be told of the existence of the plan, and be involved in its design. The plan should be communicated to all stakeholders (including the police and UPDF) and neighbouring districts.

6. DDMC Structures. Districts have different DDMC structures. This could lead to difficulties in implementing a plan and coordinating across districts. • Recommendations. It is recommended that the DDMCs have a standard structure (even if there is currently nobody available to fill a post). This structure should be based on a model recommended (and enforceable) in the National Policy • Communication to the civil community. The majority of the local population were not aware of any disaster management plan. • Recommendation. DDMCs should inform the local population that they are the lead for disaster planning, that they have a plan and how it would be implemented. They should inform the local population of their roles during a disaster. This could be achieved through regional radio broadcasting, or through engagement with village elders, which would allow the communities to disseminate the information themselves

7. Disaster Preparedness. There is limited activity taking place in disaster preparedness. Some programmes are being run by IOs and NGOs (WFP have a number of significant cross district programmes) to assist with disaster preparedness. • Recommendation. DDMCs need to engage in disaster preparedness before a disaster strikes. This should include engagement with all organisations involved in disaster preparedness. • Financing disaster preparedness. Disaster preparedness requires advance funding. Some districts have calculated the cost of developing a disaster capability but do not have access to funds. • Recommendation. DDMCs should be supported by a national funding scheme.

8. Plan design and development. Whilst the National Disaster Management Policy is still in draft form, some of the districts use this as a reason for not developing their own plans. • Recommendation. In the absence of national direction, DDMCs should prepare their own plan. Districts should liaise in order to benefit from joint ideas and not “re-invent the wheel”. • Planning capacity and expertise. There is limited disaster management planning capacity and expertise. • Recommendation. DDMCs should seek formal training in disaster planning and management. All stakeholders in a district plan need to be educated on what their role in a disaster is, how to undertake that role and how their part relates to the wider disaster management plan. • Reactive Planning. Planning processes are reactive; little preparedness has taken place. None of the districts reviewed had tested their own plan or run a simulation exercise. • Recommendation. The DDMCs need to test their plans rather than relying on individuals’ knowledge and experience once a disaster strikes. • Rehabilitation. There appears to be little if any planning towards rehabilitation. • Recommendation. The DDMCs need to consider a post disaster rehabilitation strategy.

9. Lessons Learnt Process. Despite recent experience in disaster management there is no lessons learnt process to assist planning for future disasters. • Recommendation. Following a disaster the DDMCs should have a method for capturing relevant information that will assist in updating plans and processes. • Best Practice. There is no mechanism in place for sharing best practice; as with lessons learnt, there is a great deal of knowledge and experience which is not documented. • Recommendation. It is recommended that an informal forum (eg. best practice workshop) is established which allows for open dialogue between districts and allows the DDMCs to identify best practices for their districts.