Food Policy
Volume 49, Part 1, In Progress (December 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03069192

Food as a human right during disasters in Uganda
Peter Milton Rukundoa, b, Per Ole Iversenb, Arne Oshaugc, Lovise Ribe Omuajuanfoc, Byaruhanga Rukookod, Joyce Kikafundae, Bård Anders Andreassenf
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.009
Open Access
Highlights
:: Implementation of relevant constitutional and policy provisions on the right to adequate food and disaster management in Uganda appeared slow.
:: There is a reality gap since supportive policies and plans are not financed by the national budget in anticipation of external assistance.
:: Specific legislation to fund and institutionalize disaster preparedness and management capabilities was lacking.
:: Due to capacity constraints, an approach of humanitarian relief was being entrenched in contradiction to State obligations on the right to adequate food.
:: Human rights capacity development is paramount.
Abstract
Natural and human induced disasters are a threat to food security, economic progress and livelihoods in Uganda. However, we have limited knowledge regarding the putative role of the human rights dimension to the impact and management of such tragedies. In this article we assessed the present policies, legislation and institutional capabilities to ascertain whether they could assure the right to adequate food during disaster situations in Uganda.
Using purposive sampling, 52 duty bearers working in institutions deemed relevant to food security, nutrition and disaster management were interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Relevant provisions from policy, legislation, institutional budgets and records of Parliament provided the context for analysis.
The most important concern coming from the analyses of the information retrieved were inadequate preparedness mechanisms and capabilities. Whereas Uganda’s Constitution proclaims the right to adequate food, and the need to establish a contingencies fund and commission responsible for disaster preparedness and management, they had not been instituted. Implementation of relevant policies appeared slow, especially with regard to assuring adequate relief food as a State obligation. Legislation to guarantee funding and institutionalisation of necessary disaster preparedness and management capabilities was not in place. An ambitious 5-year Uganda Nutrition Action Plan adopted in 2011 had not yet been funded by mid-2013, implying a reality gap in nutrition programming. Budget architecture and financing to disaster management have in effect fallen short of assuring adequate relief food as a human right.
Due to capacity constraints, an approach of humanitarian relief may be entrenched in contradiction of State obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. To stay ahead of the potential threats, the Government with support of the Parliament and relevant partners need to enact legislation to appropriate budget resources needed to institute a mechanism of capabilities to implement the constitutional and policy provisions on the right to adequate food and disaster management.

Politics & technology: U.S. polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture
P.K. Freemana, R.S. Freelandb, ,
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.008
Highlights
:: UASs to enter US airspace by 2015.
:: Agriculture within the U.S. is posed to substantially benefit from UASs.
:: State “Ag-Gag” laws and privacy bills attempt to regulate UAS use.
:: The economic impact of ag drones is currently moderating legislation.
:: Local restrictions may cause short-term turmoil for UAS use.
Abstract
Many industry observers foresee that agriculture worldwide is posed to substantially benefit from the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), commonly known as drones. Industry special interests predict that 80% of domestic sales of UASs in the U.S. will be for agriculture. However, some fear that the public anxiety of the UAS operating in U.S. airspace could stall their introduction, a move that would potentially place some of American farmers’ production practices at an economic disadvantage. Currently, this public policy controversy is influencing UAS integration into U.S. agriculture, with the potential of spilling over internationally.
This project examines the nature of the current debate surrounding the UAS within the U.S., analyzes the impact on agriculture from the legislation considered, discusses policy options to ameliorate the controversy, and describes the factors that will likely determine UAS operations within the U.S. The information was obtained from government documents, academic research, industry studies, nonprofit organizations, and media reports. An analysis was done using these data on how UAS legislation may affect agriculture.
Popularized images of the silent-kills overseas using militarized UASs, safety concerns, and a fear of privacy invasions were found to generate intense opposition to their domestic integration. Spurred by the FAA’s congressional mandate to fully integrate UASs into the nation’s airspace, a significant number of bills, particularly in state legislatures, have been introduced in an attempt to regulate UAS use. Although geared toward privacy protection and law enforcement, some laws may adversely affect agriculture because they create legal uncertainty and/or they sweepingly ban or highly curtail local UAS operations. Possible solutions have been proposed: (1) reducing the legal uncertainty regarding UASs, (2) adopting an industry Code of Conduct and Safe Practices, and (3) producing a consensus on UAS regulations among diverse groups through an open discussion of how to balance UAS operations with safeguards on privacy and property rights. The perceived economic potential of the UAS, particularly in agriculture, combined with the lobbying power of the UAS industry, strongly suggest that policy will eventually be developed that will allow the use of this technology for agriculture in U.S. airspace.