By Bazio Doreen

Adjumani District is preparing for another round of development investments under the second phase of the Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP II), but concerns over financial accountability, incomplete infrastructure and weak community management are raising questions about whether lessons from the first phase will translate into better results.

The concerns emerged on Friday, November 6^th, 2026, when a delegation from the World Bank, Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), Ministry of Local Government and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) visited the district headquarters to assess its preparedness for DRDIP II.

The meeting brought together district political and technical leaders, representatives from UNHCR Adjumani, OPM Adjumani and the Resident District Commissioner’s office, among other stakeholders.

DRDIP II is a five-year Government of Uganda programme implemented through OPM, with US$328 million in World Bank financing. It targets approximately three million people, including one million refugees, in refugee-hosting and transit communities.

The programme seeks to address the social, economic and environmental pressures associated with displacement through investments in community infrastructure, essential services, livelihoods and environmental restoration. It also seeks to strengthen peaceful coexistence between refugees and host communities.

For Adjumani, a major refugee-hosting district, the stakes are high.

What did Shs 57 billion deliver?

Presenting the district’s performance under DRDIP I, District Desk Officer Gulam Abubaker reported that Adjumani implemented 386 sub-projects valued at UGX 57,070,801,129/= benefiting 139,263 people.

The investments included: 60 classrooms, 1,080 desks and 264 latrine stances. These interventions improved the classroom-to-pupil ratio from 1:110 in 2019 to 1:72 in 2023, the desk-to-pupil ratio from 1:7 to 1:5 and the latrine-to-pupil ratio from 1:79 to 1:60 respectively.

Other education investments included two science laboratories, ten dormitories, three examination halls and 14 teachers’ houses.

At Alere Secondary School, the science laboratory intervention was followed by the school attaining fourth position in science performance among 22 secondary schools in the district. The dormitories also supported increased enrolment at Mungula and Maaji Secondary Schools.

In the health sector, DRDIP I supported five outpatient departments, three general wards, one maternity ward, one drug store and an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

At Adjumani Mission Health Centre III, admissions reportedly increased from 171 to 532 following the construction of a general ward, while Maaji Health Centre II registered a reported 30 per cent increase in health-seeking behavior after the construction of an outpatient department.

The project also constructed 144 kilometers of roads, one bridge and two markets, alongside 12 water taps, 4.3 kilometers of water pipelines and a 60,000-litre water tank.

Environmental and livelihood interventions included 1,043 acres of woodlots, 30 acres of ecosystem restoration, 35 acres of irrigation, 26 solar installations in institutions and 3,038 improved cook stoves.

Under the livelihoods component, 47 Village Revolving Funds (VRFs), 107 Common Interest Groups (CIGs) and four Special Interest Groups (SIGs) received support. Collectively, the groups generated UGX 8.5 million in revenue, including UGX 4.7 million in profit.

While these figures demonstrate the scale of investment, the district’s own assessment identified gaps that could undermine the sustainability of the achievements.

Three components, different development priorities

Adjumani began preparations for DRDIP II on March 17, 2026, identifying proposed investments across the program’s three components.

Under Component One, covering community infrastructure and social services, the district identified 98 proposed sub-projects costed at UGX 135.3 million.

Component Two focuses on environmental and natural resource management, with Adjumani earmarking 4,400 acres for ecosystem restoration.

Component Three targets livelihoods and economic opportunities. Proposed interventions include 30,000 chicks, 11,250 acres of soya and simsim, 1,800 acres of maize, 720 acres each of coffee and cocoa, support to 50 business groups, 36 demonstration plots, 11 tractors, 11 value-addition groups and 11 micro-scale irrigation groups.

The proposals are intended to improve community services, restore degraded environments, increase agricultural productivity and strengthen economic opportunities for refugees and host communities.

However, the scale of the proposed investments raises questions about how beneficiary selection, financial management, technical support and market access will be handled to ensure that the interventions produce lasting results.

Accountability and sustainability concerns

During the assessment, district leaders and development partners raised concerns about weaknesses experienced under DRDIP I.

Participants reported that some beneficiary groups received project funds and subsequently became inactive or disappeared, while others lacked formal registration and adequate financial management capacity.

Failure to follow procurement procedures, sometimes influenced by local political interference, was also identified as a challenge.

The meeting further highlighted groups that had been identified but never received support, discrepancies in beneficiary information recorded in the project system and difficulties monitoring community bank accounts.

Participants called for stronger beneficiary verification, formal registration and financial literacy training before funds are disbursed.

They also questioned the practice of transferring funds directly to community groups where members lack adequate financial management skills, recommending a review of the approach to strengthen oversight while maintaining community ownership.

The district called for greater involvement of its procurement unit in awarding contracts, improved coordination between OPM and district authorities, and clear communication whenever implementing partners are engaged through memoranda of understanding.

Contractor performance was another concern, particularly companies taking on several sub-projects but failing to complete them within agreed timelines.

The nearly completed abattoir under DRDIP I, reportedly standing at 90 per cent completion, was identified for follow-up.

Participants also demanded that equipment for previously constructed infrastructure be put to use, inactive project bank accounts be closed and mismanaged funds recovered.

Adjumani Resident District Commissioner, Toko Swaib, specifically called for the recovery of mismanaged funds in Maaji Settlement.

Other recommendations included: prioritizing persons with disabilities, linking supported business groups to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) for product certification, and strengthening risk management and market access.

OPM promises stronger safeguards

Eng. Francis Okello, Civil Engineer for DRDIP II at OPM Kampala, said contracts for the new phase were expected to be awarded in February 2027.

He said five per cent of the funding allocated to each sub-project would be reserved for operation and maintenance to support the functionality and sustainability of completed investments.

Okello added that infrastructure designs would incorporate sustainability measures and beneficiary groups would undergo capacity-building before funds are disbursed.

Key project personnel would also receive training on implementation policies and expectations.

He said OPM was working on operational funding and Project Implementation Funding Frameworks (IPFs), which were expected to be shared with benefiting districts before the end of November 2026.

On contractor accountability, Okello said contractors who failed to deliver under DRDIP I had been blacklisted and would not be considered for new contracts.

OPM would also write to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury regarding unspent project balances that had been swept back into the Treasury.

The district’s Chief Administrative Officer was tasked with writing to the Permanent Secretary, OPM, seeking support to fully equip the ICU constructed under DRDIP I.

Okello further said the CAO and District Desk Officer should profile previous woodlot beneficiaries to explore opportunities for carbon financing. He added that a risk management plan was already in place.

World Bank stresses peaceful coexistence and inclusion

Davina Roselyn Vusia, Forced Displacement Specialist at the World Bank, said peaceful coexistence between refugees and host communities should remain central to DRDIP II because addressing displacement-related development challenges is the program’s primary purpose.

She urged the district to prioritize beneficiary groups from the first phase that remain active, strengthen project data and information management, and support refugees to access land for productive activities.

Koma Stephen, Commissioner for District Inspection at the Ministry of Local Government, called for clear roles and responsibilities among implementing stakeholders to improve coordination and accountability.

He encouraged refugees to participate in environmental restoration, particularly tree planting and fruit growing, noting the pressure on natural resources caused by demand for firewood in settlements.

Stephen also called for greater utilization of community-based organizations and refugee-led organizations, while urging groups to avoid forged documents and practices that could undermine donor confidence.

Francesco Rubino, FAO Project Coordinator, emphasized the need to fast-track IPFs, harmonize DRDIP II with other government programmes and clarify activities that districts can implement directly and those requiring external technical support.

He also highlighted market access and private-sector participation as essential to ensuring that supported livelihood groups become economically sustainable.

The accountability test ahead

With contracts expected in February 2027, Adjumani has an opportunity to address the shortcomings of DRDIP I before the next phase moves into implementation.

However, several questions remain important for public accountability: Will previously supported groups be assessed to establish which are still functional? Will incomplete projects and unused equipment be addressed before new investments are undertaken? How will beneficiary selection, procurement and financial management be monitored? And will refugees and host communities have a meaningful role in deciding and overseeing projects that affect their livelihoods?

The district’s preparedness will also depend on adequate operational funding. Abubaker disclosed that limited operational resources had prevented the district from cascading project orientation to sub-counties, a gap that could affect community awareness and participation if not addressed.

Ultimately, DRDIP II must move beyond counting approved projects, funds disbursed and infrastructure constructed. Its success should be measured by whether schools, health facilities, roads and livelihood enterprises remain functional, whether public resources reach intended beneficiaries and whether refugees and host communities experience lasting improvements in their lives.

For Adjumani, the next phase is not simply another opportunity to spend development funds. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that lessons from a UGX 57 billion investment can produce stronger accountability, inclusive development and more sustainable results.

END