- South Sudan Situation: Uganda Refugee Response Plan - Midyear Update, Jan-Jun 2017
- UNICEF Uganda Humanitarian Situation Report - 1-30 September 2017
- FEWS NET Uganda: Key Message Update, September 2017
Appeals & Funding
- Uganda: 2017 Refugee Humanitarian Needs Overview - South Sudan, Burundi and DRC Refugee Response Plans
- 2017 South Sudan Regional Refugee Response Plan Revised (May 2017)
- Horn of Africa cross-border drought action plan 2017: Required response to safeguard livestock-based livelihoods in cross-border areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Uganda, March – June 2017
- Humanitarian Action for Children 2017
- East Africa: Armyworm Infestation - Mar 2017
- Tanzania: Earthquake - Sept 2016
- South Sudan: Cholera Outbreak - Jul 2016
- Uganda: Yellow Fever Outbreak - Apr 2016
- Uganda: Measles Outbreak - Aug 2013
- Uganda: Cholera Outbreak - May 2013
- Uganda: Floods - May 2013
- Uganda: Marburg Fever Outbreak - Oct 2012
- Uganda: Ebola Outbreak - Jul 2012
- Uganda: Landslides - Jun 2012
The Annual Report meets DFID’s obligation to report on its activities and progress under the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. It includes information on DFID’s results achieved, spending, performance and efficiency.
The Annual Report meets DFID’s obligation to report on its activities and progress toward the Millennium Development Goals under the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. It includes information on DFID’s results achieved, spending, performance and efficiency. The audited statutory accounts include spend against Parliamentary Estimate, and a statement of DFID’s assets and liabilities.
By 2012–13, DFID had achieved the following results*:
This review has focused the UK's bilateral aid programme in fewer countries so we can target our support where it will make the biggest difference and where the need is greatest.
1. The Multilateral Aid Review was commissioned to assess the value for money for UK aid of funding through multilateral organisations. Forty-three organisations were assessed. Nine were deemed to offer very good value for money, sixteen to offer good value for money, nine to offer adequate value for money, and nine to offer poor value for money for UK aid.