Surviving Every Crisis, Escaping None: Rethinking Resilience in Uganda

Surviving Every Crisis, Escaping None: Rethinking Resilience in Uganda

This question sat at the heart of discussions during the validation of the RANA Resilience Study from the 11 – 12 August, 2026, which brought together 45 partners in Kampala, Uganda to reflect on findings from the community dialogues that were held  in Moroto, Terego, Bududa, and Bwaise in February this year. The conversations uncovered not only how communities navigate climate shocks and health crises, but also the systemic challenges that continue to keep vulnerability in place.

The study findings drew on community perspectives from pastoralists, refugee-hosting districts, landslide-prone areas, and urban informal settlements. While the findings themselves are insightful, the most powerful moment of the validation was seeing the people behind the data represented in the room. Community representatives shared their lived experiences, challenged assumptions, and added depth to the evidence gathered during the study. Their contributions reinforced that  resilience is shaped by the realities, aspirations, and daily struggles of people living with multiple and overlapping risks. 

Key insights from the field

• One of the study’s most striking findings is that communities often show remarkable resilience despite persistent systemic challenges. Families, local leaders, savings groups, health workers, and informal support networks continuously find ways to respond to shocks ranging from droughts and floods to disease outbreaks and livelihood disruptions. Yet these coping mechanisms often mask deeper weaknesses in the systems meant to support them. 
• While information and early warning systems often exist, communities may lack the resources, infrastructure, or institutional support needed to act on that information. Similarly, health and local government systems frequently operate in a reactive mode, leaving little space for long-term preparedness and risk reduction. 
• The study also found that communities frequently absorb the failures of governance, financing, and service delivery systems, making institutions appear more functional than they actually are. This finding is closely linked to what the study describes as the “resilience trap.” Across all four study sites, communities repeatedly face crises and receive short-term support that helps them recover, but rarely addresses the underlying causes of vulnerability. As a result, people survive one shock only to remain exposed to the next. 
• Despite their diverse contexts, Moroto, Bududa, Terego, and Bwaise revealed common patterns. Local governments often carry responsibility without adequate authority or resources. Investments tend to prioritise emergency response over prevention and preparedness. Communities receive warnings about risks but frequently lack the means to act on them. Participation is encouraged, but decision-making power often remains out of reach for those most affected. 

• Communities consistently emphasized the need for stronger systems that can anticipate and reduce risks before disasters occur. 
• The findings distinguish between coping, adaptation, and transformation. Coping helps people survive immediate shocks. Adaptation helps them adjust to future risks. Transformation, however, requires changing the institutions, policies, financing systems, and power structures that create vulnerability in the first place. 

 

Perhaps the most compelling takeaway from the study is the need to rethink what we mean by resilience. As development practitioners, policymakers and community leaders, our challenge is to move beyond helping communities cope with crises and instead create the conditions that allow them to thrive. This means shifting investments closer to communities, strengthening local institutions, integrating climate, health, livelihoods, and social protection efforts, and treating community organisations as essential civic infrastructure.