A research agenda for Uganda RAPs: the outcome data the sector still does not have

1. From instruments to outcomes

The legal record can show that a notice was issued, an award made and a payment signed — the events Uganda's constitutional and statutory framework governs. [1][2] The safeguard question is broader: whether people were able to restore living standards and whether the project can demonstrate that outcome. [3] Uganda needs linked evidence that follows the same person and household through each stage.

That evidence must be ethical and privacy-protective. A research gap is not permission to publish personal registers or allegations; it is a reason to design anonymised, consent-based studies that can answer questions the current project file cannot.

2. Ten questions worth funding

Priority questions include: how tenure affects inclusion; whether district rates achieve replacement cost, given that section 77 directs depreciated replacement cost for rural buildings while the lender measure forbids depreciation; [2][3] how notice timing affects distress sales; who controls compensation within households; which grievances are never reported; which controls detect manipulation; how temporary impacts are restored; which livelihood measures produce durable outcomes; when monitoring should end; and how delay is distributed across claimant groups.

Each question can be answered with a combination of registry data, documents, interviews and outcome measures. Some of the documentary inputs are obtainable as of right: the Access to Information Act provides a route to records held by public bodies, [6] and the Inspectorate of Government publishes on accountability matters. [5] None is answered by a payment total alone.

3. The infrastructure for credible research

Projects should preserve stable identifiers, versioned decisions, source documents, consent records, grievance restrictions and outcome baselines — substantially the record IFC's handbook expects a completion audit to be able to examine. [4] Public reporting can then use aggregate and anonymised results while independent researchers can test methods and assumptions.

4. Conclusion

The strongest next step for Uganda is not to declare that RAPs work or fail. It is to build the evidence that lets affected people, public institutions, lenders and practitioners distinguish a completed transaction from a completed resettlement outcome.