An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Copyright © 2016 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA All rights reserved. First printing: May 2016 Manufactured in the United States of America. Cover photo: Influx of South Sudanese refugees in northern Uganda Photo credits: © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, or its affiliated organizations, or to members of its board of executive directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. ii Contents Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Refugees in Uganda.................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Refugees in Uganda: A Historic Overview .................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives ................. 7 Evolution of Uganda’s Refugee Law and Policy ........................................................................................... 8 Current Legal and Policy Framework ............................................................................................................ 9 Political and Geographical Factors Influencing the Ugandan Legal System Governing Refugees ....... 17 Chapter 3: Development Programs ........................................................................................... 19 Refugees and National Development Plans .............................................................................................. 19 Self-Reliance Strategy .................................................................................................................................. 20 Development Assistance to Refugee-Hosting Areas ................................................................................ 21 Settlement Transformative Agenda ............................................................................................................ 23 The Refugee and Host Community Empowerment Strategy ................................................................... 24 The Koboko Partnership .............................................................................................................................. 26 Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................................................... 27 Social Structures and Interactions ............................................................................................................... 27 Access to Services ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Economic Opportunities and Livelihoods .................................................................................................. 33 Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 49 Appendices A Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 53 B Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 71 References .................................................................................................................................. 81 Contents iii Figures A.1 Distribution of Respondents by Household Size (percent)................................................................. 59 A.2 Percentage Distribution of Refugees by Educational Attainment and Gender ............................... 59 A.3 Average Duration of Stay Among Refugees by Nationality................................................................ 60 A.4 Nature of Household Shelter Across the Settlement Areas................................................................ 61 A.5 Distribution of Employment Status....................................................................................................... 63 A.6 Analysis of Barriers Faced by Refugees to Job Recruitment by Gender........................................... 63 A.7 Job Search Skills by Gender (percent).................................................................................................. 64 A.8 Employability Skills Training Acquired ................................................................................................. 64 A.9 Average Monthly Income of Refugees by Settlement Area and Refugee Status............................. 65 A.10 Average Refugee Monthly Earning by Gender and Settlement Area ............................................... 65 A.11 Percentage of Household Receiving Additional Income by Source of Income and Gender........... 66 A.12 Effect of Refugees on the Local Labor Market .................................................................................... 67 A.13 Means of Job Search Used to Get Current Job .................................................................................. 67 A.14 Refugees Suffering from Work-Related Issues .................................................................................... 68 A.15 Distribution of Crime and Safety by Settlement Area ........................................................................ 68 Map 1.1 Refugee Hosting Locations in Uganda................................................................................................... 1 Tables 1.1 Refugee Population by Location and Nationality.................................................................................. 2 4.1 Top Five Livelihoods by Nationality of Refugee .................................................................................. 36 4.2 Key Barriers to Seeking Employment................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Distribution of Refugees by Occupation, Education, and Gender.................................................... 39 4.4 Top Five Crimes as a Share of Total Crimes in Uganda in 2009.......................................................... 40 4.5 Determinants of Female Labor Market Participation in Uganda........................................................ 41 4.6 Estimated Marginal Effects for the Determinants of Access to Land for Refugees.......................... 45 4.7 Estimated Marginal Effects for the Determinants of Access to Credit for Refugees........................ 47 A.1 Distribution of Respondents by Settlement Area and Gender.......................................................... 58 A.2 Distribution of the Respondents in Different Settlement Areas by Age Cohort and Gender......... 58 A.3 Employment Status by Nationality of Respondents............................................................................ 60 A.4 Distribution of Employment Status by Settlement and Gender ........................................................ 61 A.5 Distribution of Occupation of Refugees by Settlements and Gender .............................................. 62 A.6 Percentage Distribution of Refugee Access to Different Services by Settlements .......................... 62 A.7 Reported Violence Across Settlement Area ........................................................................................ 68 iv Contents Acknowledgments This study was prepared by a World Bank The team is grateful for constructive and insight- team led by Varalakshmi Vemuru, comprising ful comments from peer reviewers Eric Le Borgne, Yonatan Y. Araya, formerly with the World Bank, Vikram Raghavan, and Rahul Oka; and support and Endeshaw Tadesse in collaboration with a from Diarietou Gaye, Kanthan Shankar, Alexandre consultant team led by Dr. Charles Kalu Kalumiya Marc, Christina E. Malmberg Calvo and Robin and comprising of Dismas Nkunda, Dr. Faisal Mearns from the World Bank. Buyinza, Joseph Okumu, and Karoline Klose. The report was made possible by funding and The Bank team is grateful to Mr. David Apollo other support from the FCV CCSA and the World Kazungu, Commissioner, Department of Bank’s Global Program for Forced Displacement. Refugees, Office of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda; Neimah Warsame, Disclaimer UNHCR Representative, Uganda; and their The views expressed herein are those of the teams and staff for planning and coordinating authors and do not necessarily represent the views the study team field visits and extensive of UNHCR, the World Bank, its executive directors, meetings with a range of stakeholders. The or the governments they represent. Bank and the consultant teams would like to thank the representatives of the refugees as Washington, DC well as government officials, donor agencies, May 2016 nongovernmental organizations, and civil society leaders for their valuable time and inputs. Acknowledgments v Abbreviations and Acronyms COBURWAS CO-Congolese, BU-Burundi, RWA Rwanda and S-Sudan LFPR Labor force participation rate NGO nongovernmental organization OAU Organization of African Unity ReHoPE Refugee and Host Population Empowerment UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees vi Abbreviations and Acronyms Executive Summary Background. For several decades, Uganda has Uganda, followed by the South Sudanese at been generously hosting refugees and asylum 39.4 percent. seekers from the conflict-affected countries in its neighborhood, especially the Democratic Republic Uganda’s refugee laws are among the most of Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Rwanda, and progressive in the world. Refugees and asy- Burundi. Since achieving its independence in lum seekers are entitled to work; have freedom 1962, the country has been hosting an average of of movement; and can access Ugandan social approximately 161,000 refugees per year. As of ser- vices, such as health and education. But December 2015, there were over 477,187 refugees refugee-impacted areas are at risk due to underly- and 35,779 asylum-seekers in Uganda in nine host ing poverty, vulnerability, and limited resilience districts located mainly in the northern, southern, to shock further exacerbated by the presence of and southwestern regions of the country. The refugees. The government of Uganda, in collabo- refugees come from 13 countries, including the ration with the United Nations High Commissioner Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, for Refugees (UNHCR) and partners, has taken Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and Eritrea. Congolese steps to strengthen the self-reliance and resilience account for 41.7 percent of total refugees in of refugees and their host communities. Sudanese Refugees in Uganda © UNHCR Executive Summary vii Refugees in Uganda are either self-settled or live in refugees. The study employs qualitative and quan- organized settlements that cover approximately titative research methods and covers refugees 350 square miles of land set aside by the govern- in rural and urban sites in Uganda. The study’s ment of Uganda. Many refugees, especially in the primary focus is on the socioeconomic impact of northern districts, are in protracted displacement, Uganda’s refugee law on the refugees themselves. and the Ugandan constitution prohibits the natu- This focus and the tight timeframe did not allow ralization of an offspring of a refugee, even if he the team to assess the socioeconomic impact of or she is born in Uganda and even if one parent is the presence of refugees on host communities. Ugandan. Some refugees have the option of return- That would require a separate and broader study. ing to their country of origin, and some can resettle in a third country—often in the West, but doing so Policy analysis. The Uganda Refugee Policy, is expensive and not viable at a large scale. embodied in the 2006 Refugees Act and 2010 Refugees Regulations and lauded as one of the Study context. Uganda’s development approach most generous in the world, has many impressive to refugees offers important domestic and inter- aspects: (1) opening Uganda’s door to all asylum national lessons. The World Bank, in collaboration seekers irrespective of their nationality or ethnic with the Office of the Prime Minister, the govern- affiliation, (2) granting refugees relative freedom ment of Uganda, and UNHCR Uganda, undertook of movement and the right to seek employment, an assessment with the overall objective of ana- (3) providing prima facie asylum for refugees of lyzing the evolving refugee policy and practices certain nationalities, and (4) giving a piece of land in Uganda to: (1) better understand how well the to each refugee family for their own exclusive policy framework has contributed to the refugees’ (agricultural) use. One significant limitation of the well-being and self-reliance; (2) identify key areas legal framework is that it does not provide the of policy and practice that can be better imple- permanent solution of citizenship for refugees who mented to enhance social and economic benefits can neither repatriate nor be resettled elsewhere. for refugee and host communities; and (3) identify In the absence of voluntary repatriation or third- lessons from Uganda’s experience to inform the country resettlement, refugees in Uganda remain design and implementation of the Settlement as such for life, a fate shared by their children and Transformative Agenda and the Refugee and even their grandchildren. Refugees can, how- Host Population Empowerment (ReHoPE) strategy ever, vote, and be elected at the village level, per as well as the policy dialogue in other refugee- Section 46(3) of the Local Government Act and the hosting countries. constitution. This study includes a legal and policy analysis and The 2006 Refugees Act and 2010 Refugees a socioeconomic impact assessment, the former Regulations. The 2006 Refugees Act and the complementing the latter. The impact of legal 2010 Refugees Regulations embody key refugee and policy frameworks on the refugee situation in protection principles and freedoms: (1) the right to Uganda are analyzed, as are the social and eco- own and dispose of movable property and to lease nomic impacts and the contribution of the cur- or sublease immoveable property; (2) the right rent policy framework on these outcomes for the to engage in agriculture, industry, and business; viii Executive Summary to practice one’s profession; and to access formal Development initiatives. The government of and informal employment opportunities; (3) the Uganda, in collaboration with UNHCR and other right to economic, social, and cultural benefits, partners, has conducted a number of develop- including access to elementary education, protec- ment initiatives benefiting refugees and host tion of intellectual property rights (e.g., copyright communities, including the 1998 Self-Reliance protection for musicians and artists), and the Strategy; the Development Assistance to issuance of a United Nations convention travel Refugee-Hosting Areas program; the Settlement document for the purpose of travel outside of Transformative Agenda—part of the National Uganda; (4) entitlement to receive fair and just Development Plan II; and the ReHoPE strategy. treatment, without discrimination; (5) the right to The government of Uganda has included refugee seek asylum and not be refouled; (6) the freedom issues in its national development planning as part of movement, subject to “reasonable restrictions’’ of the draft National Development Plan II (NDP II on the grounds of national security or public order; 2015/16–2019/20), led by the Office of the Prime (7) the right of freedom of association, although Minister for the government of Uganda. this is limited to nonpolitical associations, nonprofit associations, and trade unions; (8) the principle of Social impacts. Refugees and their host commu- family unity; (9) East African Community nationals nities remain vulnerable due to underlying poverty as asylum seekers are entitled to all the rights and and vulnerabilities exacerbated by weak basic privileges normally enjoyed by other East African social services delivery, poor infrastructure, and Community citizens as conferred by the East limited market opportunities. However, refugees African Community treaty of cooperation and its located in rural settlements, whether on commu- protocols; and (10) refugees are registered and nity-owned or gazetted lands, are able to access provided identification and travel documents. basic services, receive physical protection, and are provided land to cultivate for self-sustenance. The regulations are limited in their application Refugees with some income or ability to fend and/or understanding of some settlements, such for themselves are self-settled in urban centers, as: (1) the requirement that refugees residing in where they rent lodging. A commendable level of gazetted rural settlements obtain administrative peaceful coexistence is evident between refugees permits to leave and return to their designated and host communities in all of the settlements, an settlements is helpful to refugees without identity observation confirmed by host population local documents, but might limit economic opportuni- leaders, refugee welfare councils, government ties for others; (2) there is ambiguity about refu- officials from the Office of the Prime Minister and gees participating in profit-making associations, the district and local level, implementing part- which is currently constraining their market inter- ners, and UNHCR. Intermarriages are reported actions and resulting in a poor return for produce in many settlements, contributing to improved and products; and (3) there are considerable relationships. obstacles to receiving travel and identification documents, particularly with regard to costs and The ability of refugees to access social services, delays. participate in economic activities, and socially interact among themselves and with their host Executive Summary ix communities has been facilitated by Section 30 of This integration has improved access to services, the Refugees Act, which provides for freedom of especially to host community areas neighboring movement within Uganda for recognized refugees. the settlements, contributing to improved relation- To promote peaceful coexistence, the government ships among refugees and host communities. The of Uganda and UNHCR adopted a policy of pro- host population appreciates the approach and viding the host community with 30 percent of all acknowledges the significant improvement in the services intended to benefit the refugees, with the services, especially the availability of drugs and other 70 percent being given to the refugee com- health personnel, schools staffed with teachers, munity. The provision of water has proved critical. and better roads. In 1999, a coordinated system for the provision of health, education, water, sanitation, and select One cause of hostility between the communities community services was designed to address dis- is the suspicion that the government favors the parities between the provisions in refugee settle- refugees at the expense of its own citizens. Land ments and the host communities. management in settlements poses the biggest challenge to authorities with respect to host Education services are split into three sections: pri- populations and refugees. Both accuse the mary, secondary, and tertiary. Free primary educa- other of grazing animals on their lands, which tion is provided at locations within the settlements. leads to the destruction of crops. The forced School infrastructure and equipment as well as the eviction by the Office of the Prime Minister of recruitment and compensation of teaching staff are local citizens occupying gazetted settlement handled by UNHCR and other international agen- land in Kyegegwa was legal, but it was not cies. The curriculum, however, remains a challenge handled in a humane way, which led to substantial because study materials and instruction language friction. The issue was addressed when the Office are at odds with those of the refugee countries. of the Prime Minister agreed to provide conces- Secondary education requires tuition and other sions to the host community by handing over two fees that refugees are unable to afford. They square miles of degazetted land to the Kamwenge remain dependent on support from UNHCR, which local authority to settle some of its residents. can only support a small number of students. Economic impacts. The economic opportunities Water has been provided through the construction for refugees in terms of employment (formal and of water sources for both refugees and host com- informal) and access to productive capital varies in munities, depending on the availability. With the rural and urban areas in Uganda. Over 78 percent support of UNHCR and other international non- of refugees in rural settlements are engaged in governmental organizations, first-line settlement- agricultural activities compared with 5 percent level health facilities and centers are functioning, in urban areas. The main crops grown are maize, adequately equipped with drugs, medical per- beans, sorghum, cassava, potatoes, groundnuts, sonnel, and ambulances. More serious medical and bananas. Animals reared include goats, cattle, conditions or surgeries are referred to government pigs, poultry, and rabbits. Crop surpluses attract or private hospitals in the refugee-hosting district, Ugandan traders to the refugee settlements, either at the regional or national level. operating as a direct supply chain. The refugee x Executive Summary labor force participation rate (LFPR) is an average Refugees are mainly engaged in occupations that 38 percent compared with Uganda’s 74 percent. provide little income, social protection, or job security. Twenty-eight percent of female refugees A breakdown by nationality indicates that are involved in agriculture, trade, or are self- Congolese refugees have the highest participation employed; their participation in the formal rate at 57 percent, specifically 16 percent in the sector is low—only 9 percent. Initiatives such formal sector and 41 percent in the self-employ- as community savings groups and women savings ment sector, whereas Ethiopians have the lowest and credit groups have provided female refugees rate at 7.7 percent, all from the self-employment with seed money to start businesses. Women sector. These figures indicate an overall low rate reportedly face constraints with respect to access of economic integration among refugees, particu- to land, credit, employment, and self-employment larly those from Ethiopia. A comparison with the opportunities. LFPR of their countries of origin—the Democratic Republic of Congo at 72 percent and Ethiopia at There is economic interdependence among 85 percent (WDI data 2014)—confirms their low refugees and between refugees and host commu- economic integration rates in Uganda. nities. Traders from both communities dealing in agricultural produce such as tomatoes, cabbage, A breakdown by settlement and gender shows rice, and beans get their input supplies from the that Kampala has the highest male LFPR at refugees or from local residents. Refugee trad- 59 percent compared with a female LFPR of ers dealing in manufactured merchandise make 43 percent, whereas Rwamwanja has the high- their purchases from the local wholesale shops or est rate for females at 47 percent compared with in nearby towns. Refugee settlement areas have a male LFPR of 48 percent. A variety of nonfarm attracted the attention of Ugandan private enter- activities supplement agriculture, including trade, prises, such as the Ugandan telecom companies, which is facilitated by the freedom of movement which launched several initiatives aimed at target- and right to work per the Ugandan Refugees Act. ing refugee users of SMS banking and transfer Business enterprises such as bars, hair dressing, services. For example, Orange Uganda Limited, milling, transportation, money transfers, and retail a provider of telecommunication and Internet are run by refugees. In terms of employability services in Uganda, invested in a large radio tower and economic integration of refugees, almost in the Nakivale settlement to promote its “Orange 43 percent are actively engaged in the labor Money” services. In Rwamwanja and Adjumani, market of their host communities: 12 percent in a number of refugees operate as mobile money the formal sector and 31 percent self-employed. unit agents, providing employment for them and Refugees living in urban areas and rural settle- facilitating other refugees in accessing remittances ments cite unfamiliarity with the language, legal from their relatives and friends within or outside of issues, poor interview skills, discrimination, and a the country. This mobile money is hugely helpful lack of relevant documents as barriers to accessing to refugees trying to meet expenses, including employment. school fees for their children. Executive Summary xi There are a number of key factors that deter- to their land tenure systems, cultural and social mine the likelihood of refugees participating in settings, economic and livelihood opportunities, the labor market: (1) longer duration of stay as and infrastructure status. To ensure impact, the a refugee; (2) level of education (secondary or focus should be on transformative investments postsecondary); (3) hospitality of host community that will address the pressing needs of refugees and its relationship with refugees; and (4) proxim- and host communities alike and that will jump- ity to urban areas, which benefits employment start local economies, such as the water treatment and trade. Access to cultivable land and credit is plant in Nakivale or the feeder roads in Kyangwali. influenced by: (1) the duration of stay as a refugee; Further, a comprehensive approach is needed (2) employment status (self-employed refugees to enhance girls and women’s access to educa- more likely to access land and credit); and (3) tion and livelihoods and to reduce security and registration as a refugee by the Office of the Prime safety risks among them. Returns from agricultural Minister/UNHCR. livelihoods could be greatly improved with better access to input and output markets and techno- Conclusion. As the government of Uganda and logical interventions for improved efficiency and UNHCR strive to reduce poverty and mitigate risk cost-effectiveness. for vulnerable refugees and their host communi- ties, the close involvement of key stakeholders, The freedom of movement ensured by the policy such as district leadership, sector ministries, host framework requires careful facilitation to enable communities, and refugees, is imperative. A shift easier movement in and out of settlement areas, in the philosophy of refugee assistance is also including requisite oversight so that refugees are crucial: refugees should be viewed as economic better able to coordinate and collaborate with actors in charge of their destiny (development host communities on economic activities. Specific approach) rather than as beneficiaries of aid attention and backstopping is needed for urban (humanitarian approach). Integration of social refugees—especially youth—to enable them to services and economic activities will need to be benefit from social and economic opportuni- informed by deeper situational analysis in the nine ties without being exploited or resorting to risky refugee-hosting districts, which vary with respect behaviors. xii Executive Summary Chapter 1 Refugees in Uganda Background December 2015, there were over 477,187 refugees and 35,779 asylum-seekers in Uganda, hosted in Since 1959, Uganda has generously and con- nine districts (map 1.1) predominantly located in tinuously hosted refugees and asylum seekers. the northern, southern, and southwestern regions Since its independence, approximately 161,000 of the country. people per year from neighboring countries have sought refuge in Uganda, mainly because The district of Adjumani hosts the most refu- of persistent conflict and instability in their home gees—23.8 percent of the total refugee popula- countries, especially the Democratic Republic of tion, followed by Nakivale and Kampala districts Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, and Burundi. As of (table 1.1). The refugees come from 13 countries, Map 1.1. Refugee Hosting Locations in Uganda Source: World Bank 2016. Chapter 1: Refugees in Uganda 1 Table 1.1. Refugee Population by Location and Nationality (as of September 30, 2015)a Refugees in Local Number of Population Number Location Refugees Local Population (%) Nationality of Refugees Adjumani 118,418 232,813 50.9 Congo, Dem. Rep. of 206,810 Arua 29,176 785,189 3.7 South Sudan 195,661 Kampala 75,586 1,516,210 5.0 Somalia 32,813 Kiryandongo 44,030 268,188 16.4 Burundi 27,078 Kyaka II 25,384 277,379 9.2 Rwanda 17,292 Kyangwali 41,601 573,903 7.2 Eritrea 9,384 Nakivale 92,787 492,116 18.9 Sudan 2,612 Oruchinga 5,662 492,116 1.2 Ethiopia 2,475 Rwamwanja 62,441 421,470 14.8 Other 960 Total 495,085 Average share 14.1 Total 495,085 a. Refugees account for 1.3 percent of the total Ugandan population of 37.8 million. Source: UNHCR. 2015. including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Despite Uganda’s progressive refugee policy and South Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and the contribution of refugees to local economies, Eritrea. Congolese account for 41.7 percent of refugee-impacted areas remain vulnerable. The total refugees; South Sudanese for 39.4 percent. underlying poverty and vulnerability of refugees and their limited resilience to shocks contributes Uganda’s refugee laws are among the most to higher levels of poverty in refugee-hosting progressive in the world. The 2006 Refugees Act areas. Refugee communities typically suffer from and 2010 Refugees Regulations entitle refugees lower agricultural productivity and greater envi- to the right to work, freedom of movement, and ronmental degradation due to poor climatic and availability of Ugandan social services, including soil conditions and/or overuse. Weak basic social access to documents such as Refugee Identity services delivery and limited market opportunities Cards as well as birth, death, marriage, and educa- are usually due to the remoteness of the com- tion certificates. Refugees are provided with a sub- munities combined with poor infrastructure. Less sistence agriculture plot in gazetted settlements. than 10 percent of rural settlements have access They can own property and enter into contracts, to electricity, including nongrid connections like including land leases. Uganda’s approach has solar lamps. This poor access to clean energy has allowed refugees to positively contribute to their significant environmental impacts because many own and Uganda’s economic and social develop- depend on firewood, and this will likely result in ment, exemplified by the significant volume of further deforestation. Malaria, respiratory tract economic transactions between refugees and infections, diarrhea, and preventable diseases are Ugandan nationals and by the creation of employ- more prevalent among children in refugee-hosting ment opportunities for Ugandan nationals by areas. Global Acute Malnutrition among estab- refugees. lished refugee populations is below 10 percent, 2 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management but stunting is high at about 24 percent, mainly contributing to social cohesion; (5) environmental due to a lack of diversity in the diet; anemia rates protection and conservation of the natural envi- are unacceptably high at about 48 percent for ronment in and around refugee settlements; and infants and 23 percent for nonpregnant women. (6) community infrastructure that progressively The limited resilience among refugees is a result enhances the economic and social infrastructure of the weakness of their community organizations available in refugee-hosting areas in accordance and social capital, a lack of diverse livelihoods, with local government plans and systems. and limited assets and capital to withstand difficult periods (Government of Uganda, UNHCR, and Uganda’s approach to the management World Food Program 2014). of refugees offers important lessons— domestically and internationally. Efforts to The government of Uganda, in collaboration develop the Settlement Transformative Agenda with the UNHCR and partners, has taken a and the ReHoPE strategy—both important devel- number of steps to strengthen the self-reliance opmental initiatives—could build on and benefit and resilience of refugees and their host from the experience and lessons from previous communities. The draft National Development initiatives in Uganda. Countries hosting large Plan II (NDP II 2015/16–2019/20) includes a numbers of refugees in protracted displacement refugee-specific strategy known as the Settlement could also learn from Uganda’s approach. With Transformative Agenda, an initiative led by the this in mind, the World Bank, in collaboration with Office of the Prime Minister of the government of the Office of the Prime Minister of the government Uganda. The agenda aims to achieve: of Uganda and UNHCR Uganda, undertook an assessment of Uganda’s approach to the man- “self-reliance and local settlement for agement of refugees. The overall objective of refugees, and to promote social develop- the study was to assess and analyze the evolving ment in the refugee hosting areas as a refugee policy and practice in Uganda to: durable solution to the refugees’ problems, (1) better understand how well the policy frame- while protecting national and local inter- work has contributed to the refugee’s well-being ests.” (OPM 2015) and self-reliance; (2) identify key areas of policy that can be better implemented to enhance social It has six objectives: (1) land management that and economic benefits for refugee communities; ensures “settlement” land is managed efficiently and (3) identify lessons from Uganda’s experience and sustainably; (2) sustainable livelihoods for to inform the design and implementation of the refugees and host communities that contributes Settlement Transformative Agenda, the ReHoPE to socioeconomic transformation and growth; strategy, and the policy dialogue in other refugee- (3) governance and the rule of law to ensure hosting countries. that settlements are governed in an environ- ment that respects rights and promotes the rule The study is divided into two complementary of law among refugees and host communities; parts: (1) legal and policy analysis and (2) socio- (4) peaceful coexistence with the creation of an economic impact assessment. The first part enabling environment for safety, harmony, and focuses on the Ugandan legal and policy framework dignity among refugees and host communities, as well as various UNHCR initiatives aimed at Chapter 1: Refugees in Uganda 3 improving the situation among refugees in the urban areas, and refugee and host communities country. The social impact analysis focuses on refu- in the rural settlements. Social service providers gee access to social services; interactions in the visited host districts were also interviewed. between refugee groups and between refugee Refugee policy implementation processes were and host communities; and gender issues related observed at points of entry for asylum seekers. to security, safety, and violence. The purpose of The quantitative methods included the multi- this assessment is to examine the positive and nomial logit model for the empirical analysis on negative contributions of the current policy frame- choice of employment. The analysis of the factors work and other factors on social outcomes for that affect refugees’ access to productive capital in refugees. The second part focuses on economic the form of land and credit as a mean of economic activities among refugees and the extent to which integration and self-reliance was undertaken using the current policy framework impacts these out- the dichotomous probit model. comes. Key areas examined are: dynamics around informal and formal employment opportunities, The study covers rural and urban refugee sites including wages and labor; access to skills training in Uganda. The urban areas of Kampala and and jobs; self-employment or small business-based Adjumani were sampled for interviews with self- income-generating opportunities; and ease of settled refugees. The Kampala City sample was access to means of production, including financing larger than that of Adjumani because it hosts more and markets. The analysis focuses on other factors refugees, is a more vibrant commercial center, and that have impacted economic outcomes positively is home to the head office of UNHCR and sev- or negatively, and offers recommendations to eral nongovernmental organizations addressing address them. human rights issues such as the plight of refugees. Adjumani, Nakivale, and Rwamwanja are the rural The study employed qualitative and quantita- sites that were visited. Chanika, Bunagana, and tive research methods. Qualitative methods Nyakabande reception centers are the points of include: (1) exploratory design—document review entry that were visited to observe processes. Rural and content analysis to synthesize the legal and and urban research sites were selected to ensure policy framework governing refugees in Uganda; representation of refugees from different con- and (2) cross-sectional design—administration of texts and countries. Time and cost factors were individual questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and considered. focus group discussions to solicit opinions from a cross-section of resource persons about the Refugees in Uganda: policy framework governing refugees in Uganda, A Historic Overview its impact on their protection, and its enhance- ment of their socioeconomic prospects. Resource Uganda has a long tradition of hosting refu- persons interviewed include local government gees. Before its independence, the country hosted officials, staff from the Office of the Prime Minister, European refugees fleeing conflict and violence. UNHCR, implementing partners in refugee settle- Soon after the end of the World War II, the British ment areas, refugee welfare councils, opinion colonial administration offered refuge to thou- leaders among refugees who are self-settled in sands of Polish nationals. Some were resettled in 4 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management various parts of Uganda; others moved to Tanzania early refugees were largely and spontaneously and even Australia. Uganda hosted refugees from settled in northern Uganda, with some heading other European countries, including Germany, Italy, to urban centers like Kampala and Jinja, where Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, significant communities of Sudanese Nubians France, and Malta (Jallow et al. 2004). The British were already residing. Seventeen years later, in government invited Zionist leaders in Europe to 1972, following the Addis Ababa Accords, most of settle Jewish people fleeing from persecution in the Sudanese repatriated to Sudan. The second the northeastern part of Uganda. major influx of refugees took place in 1959 when about 80,000 refugees came from what was then As a result of its location in an unstable the Belgian United Nations mandate Territory of region, Uganda has been hosting an average Rwanda. To accommodate these refugees, the first of about 161,000 refugees since the 1950s. gazetted refugee settlement was established in In 1955, after the collapse of the Anglo-Egyptian Oruchinga in southwestern Uganda. Following the condominium of the Sudan, the Anyanya rebel- independence of Uganda in 1962, refugees from lion (the First Sudanese Civil War) led to the influx the newly independent states of Rwanda and the of 80,000 Sudanese refugees into Uganda. These Democratic Republic of Congo continued to flow Burundian refugees find refuge in Kashojwa village © UNHCR/Frederic Noy Chapter 1: Refugees in Uganda 5 into Uganda, leading to the establishment of more support themselves. Refugees who continue to gazetted settlements in Nakivale and Kyaka. live in settlements are equipped with a plot of land and tools and have a semblance of self-sufficiency. In the 1990s and 2000s, two major voluntary The Ugandan government and aid agencies pro- repatriation operations temporarily reduced vide basic health and education services to them. the number of refugees in Uganda. Following What all refugees in Uganda lack is a long-term the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the 2005 solution. Many were born in Uganda into refugee Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, large- families, but even second-generation refugees are scale repatriation movements facilitated the volun- unable to obtain Ugandan citizenship because the tary return of Rwandan and Sudanese refugees to constitution prohibits the naturalization of the off- their respective countries, but the ongoing influx spring of refugees even if they are born in Uganda of refugees from neighboring countries such and even if one of their parents is Ugandan. Local as Rwanda, South Sudan, and Burundi has integration beyond the refugee settlements is not increased their numbers in Uganda. Ethnic Hutu part of the government policy. Resettlement to a refugees from Rwanda have replaced their third country—often in Europe, the United States, co-nationals—the Tutsis—and South Sudanese Canada, or Australia—is the preferred option for refugees who had returned home after the many refugees. Resettlement is, however, the most Comprehensive Peace Agreement were forced expensive option and therefore not a viable one to flee back to Uganda following the outbreak for most refugees. of conflict in December 2013. Uganda’s history of refugee protection has not Most of the refugees in Uganda are in a situ- always been impeccable. Based on the fear that ation of protracted displacement with limited self-settled Rwandan refugees would join the prospects for a durable solution. Repatriation is National Resistance Army, in 1982–83, the govern- not an option for many Somali and Congolese ment conducted a mass forcible repatriation of refugees living in Uganda due to the continued thousands of Rwandan Tutsi refugees who were instability in their home countries. Refugees in then residing in the southwestern part of Uganda. Uganda are either self-settled or live in The circumstances surrounding this incident organized settlements that cover approximately are unique, but it remains a sad episode in the 350 square miles of land set aside by the govern- country’s history, a blip in the otherwise stellar ment for hosting refugees. Self-settled refugees record of Uganda as an asylum country. A new set- live in close proximity to Ugandan nationals. Some tlement—Kyaka II—was established in 1984 to host have established businesses, and most are able to Rwandan refugees settled in in national villages. 6 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Chapter 2 Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives This chapter looks at Uganda’s refugee law and The policy framework under which Uganda policy framework, including an overview of their offers protection to refugees and asylum evolution and a description of the salient features seekers is lauded as one of the most generous of existing law. Factors that explain Uganda’s in the world. Refugees and asylum seekers are generous approach to refugees are explored, and entitled to work, have freedom of movement, and development initiatives conducted by the govern- can access Ugandan social services, such as health ment of Uganda and donors to improve conditions and education. Further, under this policy, refu- for refugees are examined. gees are availed with identity documents, such as Agriculture is widely practiced among refugees. © UNHCR Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 7 Identity cards, birth, death, marriage, and educa- another country. People in this situation remain tion certificates. As a policy, all refugees living in refugees in Uganda for life, a fate also shared by settlements are provided with an agricultural plot their children and even their grandchildren, who on which to cultivate crops. Refugees can own have no hope of obtaining citizenship. Refugees property, lease land, and generally harness their can, however, vote and be elected at the village commercial and professional expertise without level per Section 46(3) of the Local Government interference. Because of these factors, Uganda Act and the constitution. offers refugees their best chance for self-reliance. Evolution of Uganda’s Refugee Uganda’s door is open to all asylum seekers. Law and Policy It is lauded for having one of the best refugee law and policy regimes in the world (Owing and Uganda’s national policy and legal framework is Nagujja 2014). According to Jallow et al. (2004) comprehensive in its scope and progressive in “Both in policy and practice, there is a condu- its content. The current policy is clearly influenced cive environment for refugees in Uganda which by the long-term presence of refugees—since the deserves recognition.” Uganda has emerged as late 1940s—but it is also firmly grounded in the a country possessing a very receptive climate for elaborate body of protection principles in interna- refugees and “the place where the rest of the tional and regional frameworks. The development world can learn something about the treatment of policy and law regarding refugees from the of refugees” (Faigle 2015). It is recognized that colonial era to early postindependence to post- while Uganda is experiencing an ongoing “silent colonial modern era legislation, reflected in the emergency” due to a “slow but steady” refugee 2006 Refugees Act, has clearly been progressive. influx, especially from the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and more recently, Burundi, The colonial era law included draconian provi- it has nevertheless kept its asylum door open to all sions. The first colonial era law made no distinc- seeking refuge within its borders, a posture which tion between ordinary aliens and refugees. The Die Zeit has characterized as being both “gener- Aliens Registration and Control Act, enacted ous and exemplary” (Faigle 2015). by the British Colonial Office in 1949, contained draconian provisions for the handling and control- The Ugandan refugee policy is impressive but ling of all aliens in Uganda, regardless of whether limited in one important way. The most impres- or not they were refugees. In principle, this law did sive aspects include: (1) having an open door not apply to Africans, but by issuing a statutory policy to all asylum seekers regardless of nation- instrument, the minister could choose to apply ality or ethnicity; (2) granting refugees relative any or all of its provisions to “any or all classes freedom of movement and the right to seek of Africans,” implying that this would include employment; and (3) providing each family of refu- refugees. gees with a plot of land for their exclusive (agricul- tural) use. But while the legal framework provides Legislation passed in 1960 emphasized control generous support for the integration of refugees, and regulation of refugees, not human rights. it does not provide a permanent solution for those For over four decades, the Control of Aliens who can neither repatriate nor be resettled in Refugees Act of 1960 served as the principal 8 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management domestic legislation regarding refugees, until service, military, and private sectors in their respec- the enactment of the 2006 Refugees Act. The tive countries. colonial era laws were designed for the “proper control” of refugees in Uganda and for “regulat- Current Legal and Policy ing” their “return” to their countries of origin. The Framework emphasis was on “refugee control and regula- tion” rather than on broad human rights and Today, the legal regime for the protection of refu- humane treatment. The laws did not explicitly gees in Uganda is multitiered, comprising three provide the granting of asylum to refugees, but essential dimensions: (1) international conventions the 1960 legislation provided the establishment and declarations, (2) regional agreements, and of “refugee settlements” and the appointment of (3) national legislation and regulations. “commandants” for such settlements for the first time. Commandants were given extensive powers International and Domestic Laws to maintain order in the settlements. They could Governing the Situation of Refugees arrest, detain, and expel refugees without any due in Uganda process if their conduct was deemed prejudicial International agreements. After being admit- to peace and good order or to positive relations ted as a member of the United Nations, Uganda with any other government. They were authorized began the process of agreeing to a number of to seize and dispose of the personal property international and human rights instruments. In of refugees without compensation. They could 1976, it acceded to the 1951 United Nations issue orders that severely controlled the refugees’ Convention relating to the Status of Refugees freedom of movement and freedom to choose and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of where to reside. The law was clearly incompatible Refugees,2 complementary instruments that are with the provisions of the 1995 Ugandan constitu- universal in scope and constitute the legal foun- tion1 as well as with provisions of international and dation for the global protection regime for refu- regional legal instruments to which Uganda had gees. The main objective of the 1951 convention already acceded after its independence. is to ensure that refugees, wherever they may be located, The practice of the law, however, was better than the letter of it. The way refugees in Uganda “are assured of the widest and most liberal were actually treated, even under the 1960 law, possible exercise of the fundamental rights was much more humane and protection-oriented and freedom as are contained in the UN than what the law stipulated. Refugee groups Charter itself (United Nations 1945)3 and in such as Rwandese and Sudanese were able to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights secure some access to employment and educa- (United Nations 1948).” tion opportunities so that when they eventually returned to their homes, they became the back- The 1967 protocol essentially retained the same bone of the new ruling elite, running the civil definition for the term “refugee.” It removed the 1. http://www.statehouse.go.ug/sites/default/files/attachments/ 2. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html. Constitution_1995.pdf. 3. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf. Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 9 Refugees from Burundi fetching water © UNHCR limitation on the personal scope of the 1951 con- is a result of such events, is unable or owing vention “to meet new refugee situations” that had to such fear is unwilling to return to it.” arisen since 1951, and it eliminated the dateline of January 1, 1951, as contained in the convention. The Organization of African Unity conven- Refugee is defined as: tion. Uganda, as a major asylum country and a new OAU member, actively participated in the “A person who owing to a well-founded fear debates and negotiations leading to the draft- of being persecuted for reasons of race, reli- ing and conclusion of the 1969 Organization of gion, nationality, membership of a particular African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the social group or political opinion, is outside Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa.4 their country of nationality and is unable or The United Nations High Commissioner for owing to such fear is unwilling to avail him- Refugees (UNHCR) also participated, but only in self of the protection of that country, or who, an advisory capacity. The convention builds on not having a nationality and being outside existing international protection architecture and the country of his former habitual residence seeks to address aspects and challenges related to 4. http://www.unhcr.org/45dc1a682.html. 10 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management the protection of refugees that are specific to the of communication. The convention underscores African continent and that, as a result, may not be the principle of nondiscrimination in the applica- adequately addressed in existing global refugee tion and implementation of its principles and protection instruments. The main contribution standards, especially in the granting of asylum of the OAU convention is its broadening of the and other basic rights for refugees. It obliges all international legal definition of the term “refugee” African Union member states to cooperate with to include all persons externally displaced due to UNHCR because it is intended to serve not as armed conflict as well as those fleeing political substitute for the 1951 United Nations convention persecution and domination. but rather as its effective regional complement. To facilitate freedom of movement for refugees, The 1969 OAU convention contains a number the OAU convention calls on its member states to of progressive and innovative provisions that issue United Nations convention travel documents were largely inspired by existing human rights to refugees and to recognize same as valid for instruments, including the 1948 United Nations purposes of entry into other member states. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.5 Most African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (the significant is the provision that broadens the African Charter),6 which Uganda ratified again in definition of the term refugee to: 1986 without any reservations, is another notable instrument related to the regional legal framework “[a]lso apply to every person who owing to for refugees. external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights public order in either part or the whole of his (ACHPR). In Article 12(2) and (3), the ACHPR country of origin or nationality is compelled specifically recognizes the right of every individual to leave his place of habitual residence in who risks being persecuted to “leave” their coun- order to seek refuge in another place out- try and to “seek and obtain” asylum in another side his country of origin or nationality.” country. This, language is clearly inspired by 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human The OAU convention also recognizes the right Rights, which recognizes the right of “everyone to seek asylum, and stresses that the granting to leave” his own country and to “seek and enjoy of asylum, being essentially a “peaceful and asylum from persecution” in another country in humanitarian act,” should not be regarded as an Articles 13 and 14, respectively. unfriendly act by another country. It prohibits refu- gees from engaging in subversive acts or activi- The 1995 constitution. The Constitution of ties that are likely to cause tensions among OAU the Republic of Uganda, 1995,7 implicitly excludes member states, whether by use of arms, through refugees from becoming Ugandan citizens, the press, or by radio. The convention could not whether by birth or by registration. Theoretically, have anticipated the advent of the Internet and a refugee could obtain citizenship by naturaliza- accompanying electronic media, but the spirit of tion under Article 13 if the parliament enacted a this provision certainly includes these new forms 6. http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/. 7. http://www.statehouse.go.ug/sites/default/files/attachments/ 5. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Constitution_1995.pdf. Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 11 law permitting it, but politically, this has not been ing of the regulations represented the culmination done. And while it is possible in principle for of a protracted legislative process that began with refugee “foundlings and adopted children” to Uganda’s accession to the 1951 United Nations attain Ugandan citizenship per Article 11, the convention and the 1967 protocol, and was fol- constitution denies refugees who are born in lowed by the ratification of the 1969 OAU conven- Uganda and their children citizenship by registra- tion and the Refugees Act of 2006. This had the tion if the “mother of his or her parents or any of legal effect of incorporating these international his or her grandparents was a refugee in Uganda.” and regional treaties into Uganda’s domestic laws and hence to become legally enforceable by Refugees Act, 2006. After intense lobbying, Ugandan courts. The key provisions of the 2010 particularly by UNHCR, the Ugandan parliament regulations are discussed in the following sections. repealed and replaced the 1960 Control of Alien Refugees Act8 with a more comprehensive and Rights and Obligations of Refugees progressive law—the Refugees Act 2006.9 In The 2006 Refugees Act and the 2010 regula- Uganda, not unlike other common law jurisdic- tions embody key refugee protection principles tions, a treaty does not automatically become and freedoms. They are derived directly from the part of municipal law. The national courts cannot international and regional refugee instruments enforce a treaty until the parliament enacts specific that Uganda ratified without entering reservations. legislation to incorporate or domesticate it. The The 2010 Refugees Regulations were not only passing of the Refugees Act in 2006 and its entry crafted to operationalize the provisions of the into force in 2008 represented a major paradigm 2006 Refugees Act, but also to supplement the shift and was a great step forward. Its provisions same with new and novel provisions where there incorporated all international and regional stan- were gaps. As a result, they contain a number dards for refugee protection as provided in the of provisions that are radical, progressive, or 1951 United Nations convention, the 1967 proto- innovative. col, and the 1969 OAU convention into municipal law, making these instruments a part of Ugandan Property rights and access to land. The 2006 law enforceable by national courts. Refugees Act provides that refugees have the right to own and dispose of movable property and the 2010 Refugees Regulations.10 This model piece right to lease and sublease immoveable property, of subsidiary legislation, issued by the Office of such as land. It provides refugees with the right to the Prime Minister, was published as a statutory dispose of assets and personal belongings from instrument in the Uganda Gazette on February wherever acquired, including while in Uganda. 26, 2010. It constitutes the last major aspect of the The 2010 Refugees Regulations further elabo- three-tier architecture that comprise the compre- rate this point by according refugees residing in hensive legal protection framework for refugees “designated settlements” or “refugee areas” with (international, regional, and national). The gazett- reasonable access to land (not ownership) for the purpose of cultivation or pasturing. Refugees do 8. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/open- not, however, have the right to sell or lease the docpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=544e48d84. land allocated to them “strictly for their individual 9. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b7baba52.html. or family utilization.” Refugees residing outside 10. http://www.refworld.org/docid/544e4f154.html. 12 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management the designated areas may legally acquire lease- and business, whether as workers or proprietors; hold titles, but not freehold, just like other resident (2) practice their profession, provided they are aliens, and they may freely dispose of their occu- properly qualified with recognized certificates; and pancy interest or sublease on commercial terms. (3) access formal and informal employment opportunities wherever available in the country Compared with Uganda, refugee laws of and without the need to first obtain work permits, other countries in the region have less favor- as is strictly required of all who are not East African able provisions regarding property rights. citizens. The 2010 regulations stipulate that refu- The domestic refugee laws of Djibouti, Ethiopia, gees have the right of access to employment on Somalia, and South Sudan make no mention of par with the most favored alien—e.g., East African the property rights of refugees. Even those coun- citizens. Accordingly, refugees are exempt from tries that have provisions dealing with property hefty fees for obtaining work permits, a move rights in their refugee laws have taken different clearly intended to facilitate local integration and approaches. Kenya has explicitly adopted the self-reliance. standard set by the 1951 Convention. Article 16(1) of the 2006 Refugee Act of Kenya provides that The domestic refugee laws of Djibouti, Ethiopia, refugees are entitled to the rights and are subject and Kenya effectively limit refugees’ right to work to the obligations contained in the international by imposing the same restrictions and condi- conventions to which Kenya is a party. Sudan’s tions on them that are applicable to aliens. Often, Regulation of Asylum Act of 1974 provides for reg- however, refugees become a source of cheap, istration of movable property owned by refugees unskilled, casual labor, and a majority of displaced at the time of entry into Sudan. Article 8 stipulates people end up working in the informal economy, that at the time of registration of the particulars of where work is low paying, unpredictable, and a refugee, the particulars of all movable properties exploitative. Article 7 of Djibouti’s Ordinance No. brought by the refugee into Sudan will be regis- 77053/P.R./A.E. du 1977 stipulates that, for the tered so that they will be permitted to take them exercise of a professional activity, refugees are to upon return to his/her country of origin. Article 9 be treated as foreigners living in Djibouti. Article 21 prohibits the ownership of land and immovable of the 2004 Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation pro- property. The act does not explicitly deal with the vides that refugees and their families are entitled right of the refugees to own movable property to the same rights and are subject to the same while they are in displacement in Sudan, although restrictions generally imposed on persons who are it could be implied from articles 8 and 9 that refu- not citizens of Ethiopia. A similar approach was gees can own moveable property provided that taken by Article 16 of the 2006 Kenyan Refugee they cannot take it with them when leaving Sudan Act. It should be noted that, regardless of the legal to return to their own or another asylum country. provisions of the refugee-hosting country, refugees and asylum seekers are usually engaged in informal Access to employment. Uganda struggles with economic activities or employed by households or high levels of unemployment, especially among firms engaged in them. youth. Nevertheless, in yet another generous provi- sion, the 2006 Refugees Act grants refugees the Other social and economic rights. The Refugees right to: (1) engage in agriculture, industry, Act incorporates all of the economic, social, and Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 13 cultural rights to which a refugee is entitled as to Uganda nationals as regards access to medical contained in Articles 17–24 of the 1951 United care and professional treatment.” This is a unique Nations Convention Relating to the Status of and remarkable reflection of Uganda’s “gener- Refugees, to which Uganda acceded without ous and exemplary” (Faigle 2015) policy toward reservations to any provisions—as was done by refugees. some state parties. The law adopts a very favor- able standard of treatment—no less than that The right to seek asylum and nonrefoulement. accorded to other aliens generally. In some The right to seek asylum is the key that enables instances, it even adopts the most favorable a refugee to access all of the other rights and standard—that which is normally accorded to its freedoms recognized under the law. The principle own nationals, including the right to access ele- of nonrefoulement is the logical complement to mentary education at par with nationals; the right the right to seek asylum, as embodied in the 1948 to enjoy the same protection accorded nationals United Nations Universal Declaration of Human with respect to intellectual property rights (e.g., Rights and the African Charter of Human Rights. copyrights for musicians and artists); and the right The principle strictly prohibits the deportation or to be issued a United Nations forcible return of refugees to the countries from convention travel document in order to travel which they have fled due to a well-founded fear. outside of Uganda. All states, therefore, have an overriding obligation not to expel, deport, or forcibly return refugees— Nondiscrimination and equality before the law. whether or not they have been formally recognized Under the law, every recognized refugee is entitled as such—to places where they risk persecution or to receive fair and just treatment without discrimi- where their lives are threatened by generalized nation on the grounds of race, ethnicity, political conflict or lawlessness. Ugandan public officials at or religious affiliation, gender, or membership in border entry points and elsewhere generally main- any particular social group. It may, however, prove tain this obligation; reports of significant breaches problematic to invoke this principle to apply to of this fundamental principle are rare. lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender refugees given the negative stance taken by the Ugandan Freedom of movement. Refugees in Uganda are parliament recently regarding this issue. All refu- entitled to freedom of movement, although they gees are entitled to equal treatment and protec- can be lawfully subject to “reasonable restric- tion before the law and have an unabridged right tions’’ on grounds of national security or public of access to law courts to seek or defend their order. This right is generally maintained for refu- rights and, where necessary, to receive legal assis- gees living in urban areas. But refugees residing tance for doing so. Ugandan refugee law provides in gazetted rural settlements are usually required special protections to refugees and asylum seek- to obtain administrative permits allowing them to ers who are HIV positive. One particular regulation leave and return to their designated settlements. stipulates that HIV+ asylum seekers will not be This is partly to ensure that refugees do not prejudiced in any way with regard to their applica- clandestinely return to their home countries and tion for refugee status in Uganda. Moreover, once then return to the settlements because that could granted refugee status, such persons should be pose a security risk. The requirement for move- “accorded the most favorable treatment accorded ment permits for refugees in settlements will be 14 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management phased out once the refugees have been issued refugees and to family members of recognized identity cards like the nationals. Still, these refu- refugees. gee settlements are not detention camps because refugees can freely interact with their surround- East African Community nationals as asylum ing host communities, with whom they generally seekers. This novel regulation recognizes the live in harmony. Uganda is the only country in reality that in the recent past, Uganda has received the Horn of Africa with a domestic refugee law several thousand asylum seekers from all of its that explicitly provides for the freedom of move- East African Community partners: Kenya, Rwanda, ment for refugees. Ethiopia’s domestic refugee Burundi, and Tanzania. The regulation recognizes legislation, the 2004 Refugee Proclamation, does the legal reality that refugees remain nationals of not provide for freedom of movement in a man- their respective countries of origin and, as such, ner provided by the 2006 Uganda Refugee Act. are entitled to all the rights and privileges normally However, Article 21 gives the Head of the Security, enjoyed by other East African Community citizens Immigration, and Refugee Affairs Authority the as conferred by the East African Community treaty power to designate places and areas where of cooperation and its protocols, especially with refugees and asylum seekers can live. Kenya’s regard to the provisions about freedom of move- Refugee Act 2006 does not explicitly deal with ment and establishment within the community. freedom of movement. Article 16 of the law takes This regulation will surely have positive implica- the approach followed by the Ethiopian Refugee tions for refugee self-reliance and the pursuit of Proclamation (2004), giving the minister respon- durable solutions for this category of refugees, sible for refugee affairs the authority to designate although it risks having the effect of making these areas in Kenya as refugee camps. refugees “more equal than others.” Freedom of association. The Refugees Act rec- Registration and documentation of refugees. ognizes that refugees have a right to freedom of There are detailed provisions in the 2010 regula- association, but this does not extend to political tions designed to operationalize provisions of the and for-profit associations or trade unions. The Refugees Act regarding the registration of refu- restriction on political associations is understand- gees and the issuance of identification and travel able because they could adversely impact the documents, which affects the ability of refugees to local political environment and lead to interfer- exercise freedom of movement for their economic ence in the host country politics, but it is not clear empowerment with regard to opportunities within why refugees should be precluded from forming or outside of Uganda. Newly arrived asylum seek- for-profit associations or trade unions. ers in settlements are expected to report to settle- ment commandants to be registered, after which Family unity. In line with the international and they are entitled to relief assistance. The intermin- regional legal protection frameworks, the isterial Refugee Eligibility Committee determines Refugees Act fully recognizes the principle of the refugee’s status and, once granted, each refu- family unity as a universal fundamental human gee family is allocated a plot of land by the Office right. It contains progressive provisions relating of the Prime Minister and provided with basic to the rights of women and children who are assistance, such as ration cards entitling them to monthly food and nonfood items. Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 15 In Kampala, the approach to handling new arriv- was introduced to minimize impersonations and to als is different. Asylum seekers are expected to safeguard refugee data. report to the Crime Intelligence Office at Old Kampala Police Station to be registered, after Access to Ugandan citizenship. As previously which a card bearing the individual’s registration noted, the 1995 Ugandan constitution implicitly reference number is issued to them. They then excludes refugees from attaining Ugandan citizen- report to the Office of Prime Minister’s Department ship, whether by birth or by registration. of Refugees to have their refugee status deter- mined by the Refugee Eligibility Committee. An Political and Geographical Factors applicant aggrieved by the decision of the com- Influencing the Ugandan Legal mittee can appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board System Governing Refugees within 30 days of receiving notice of the decision. In accordance with Uganda’s judicial system, Factors that influence the generous policy committee and appeals board decisions are framework. The openness and generosity of considered administrative and are appealable to local Ugandan communities toward refugees is the High Court of Uganda. Interviews conducted partly related to the fact that many Ugandans with refugees in Kisoro in June 2015 as part of this have themselves been refugees or internally study, however, reveal that refugees face consider- displaced at one time, including people in govern- able obstacles when dealing with the Ministry of ment positions (Jallow et al. 2004). Even Uganda’s Internal Affairs, the agency responsible for issuing current President Yoweri Museveni fled to Tanzania their travel documents and identification cards, in the 1970s and lived there as a refugee. Another especially in terms of cost and delays. However, the factor often cited regarding the openness of Office of the Prime Minister clarified that refugees Uganda is the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic affini- are not expected to deal with Ministry of Internal ties between Ugandans and many of the refugees Affairs for any document. Refugee IDs are directly from across the border. issued by the Office of the Prime Minister using the Refugee Information Management System; and to A question commonly raised is: Why does Uganda obtain Conventional Travel Documents, a refu- not seem to suffer from “asylum fatigue syn- gee places a request with the Office of the Prime drome” as other countries often do when faced Minister, which is then responsible for following up with chronic refugee inflows, even ones of shorter with Internal Affairs on the refugee’s behalf. duration and magnitude? Indeed, Uganda con- tinues to maintain an open door policy and, over Refugee Information Management System. time, has established what is widely considered The government of Uganda, through the Office to be a liberal and excellent record as a coun- of the Prime Minister, is responsible for refugee try of refuge. Observers seeking to explain this registration and data management in the country. unique and outstanding humanitarian record The government uses the Refugee Information have advanced a number of possible reasons, as Management System to capture and store data explored below. on every refugee received in Uganda. The system 16 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Uganda’s location in the heart of Africa, sur- since ancient times dictates that “empungi” or rounded on all sides by several “trouble spots” is “impunzi” (refugees) are warmly received as broth- significant. To the west is the war-torn region of ers and sisters and are welcome to share even the the Democratic Republic of Congo; to the north, little that hosts may have. the equally war-ravaged parts of South Sudan; in the east, Kenya, which is facing the terror of A number of the country’s successive leaders as the Al-shabaab militia and its own recent inter- well as many officials in the current government, nal political strife; in the south Rwanda, some of including the president, have themselves been whose citizens are still threatened by the former refugees—either before or after assuming power. perpetrators of the genocide who continue to They therefore have a natural empathy for those operate in the Democratic Republic of Congo; who have come to Uganda seeking asylum. Due and, recently, Burundi, which continues to experi- to the insecurity created by the Lord’s Resistance ence violent political opposition to its president’s Army and previous civil wars, Uganda has many “third term.” The shared ethnicity among years of experience dealing with internally dis- communities living along all of these countries’ placed people. In addition, among the local borders is another important contributor, with population, many have been displaced or used to nearly half of Uganda’s 64 constitutionally recog- be refugees themselves, which increases empathy nized indigenous communities having become and generosity among the local population toward administratively divided from their kith and kin by the current refugees. the colonial borders. A crucial factor is that despite its geographical The political ideology of Pan-Africanism, which location amid a rough and turbulent neighbor- was strongly advocated by many of Africa’s postc- hood, Uganda itself has been politically stable colonial leaders, such as Kwame Nkrumah of for decades, especially since the defeat of the Ghana and Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, is con- notorious Lord’s Resistance Army and the con- sidered important by Uganda’s political leadership. sequent return of internally displaced persons in All of Uganda’s postcolonial leaders espoused this northern Uganda to their home villages. Lastly, ideology, especially the current leader, President there is the factor of effective partnership between Yoweri Museveni, who recently declared, the government and UNHCR. This close working relationship dates back to the early 1960s and has “We handle refugees well [in Uganda] matured into a strong and efficient collaborative because we do not believe in colonial relationship for the benefit of refugees. It extends borders. These are Africans; and Uganda is in its scope to all the reception centers and settle- therefore their home.”11 ments located in the remotest corners of the country. This historical partnership has ensured the This ideological posture also conforms to the effective protection of refugees and the formula- African traditional philosophy of “Ubuntu,” which tion of innovative programs for receiving, settling, and integrating them, which has given Uganda its 11. “Statement on the Occasion of the 23rd Summit of the well-deserved global reputation for being a “gen- African Peer Review Forum.” Johannesburg, June 13, 2015: http://www.statehouse.go.ug/media/speeches/2015/06/14/ erous and exemplary” host (Faigle 2015). statement-23rd-summit-african-peer-review-forum. Chapter 2: Uganda’s Refugee Law, Policy Framework, and Development Initiatives 17 Chapter 3 Development Programs The government of Uganda, in collaboration with the main government-led development initiatives United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees addressing the needs of the displaced and host (UNHCR) and other partners, has undertaken communities. a number of development initiatives benefit- ing refugees and host communities, including Refugees and National the 1998 Self-Reliance Strategy, Development Development Plans Assistance to Refugee-Hosting Areas program, the Settlement Transformative Agenda, and the It is rare for refugees to be included and consid- Refugee and Host Community Empowerment ered in a government’s national plans due to the (ReHoPE) strategy. In addition, the government of perception that refugees are temporary visitors Uganda has included refugee issues in its national who will return to their countries of origin sooner development planning. This chapter discusses or later. However, given the protracted nature of Students learn at informal schools in Kashojwa village © UNHCR Chapter 3: Development Programs 19 the refugee situation in many African countries, local governments in the three districts to plan and Uganda has done so. One reason for taking such deliver services to refugees and host communities. a bold step is that the lives of refugees living in At the time the strategy was introduced, Uganda Uganda and those of the people living in the host was hosting 220,000 refugees, the reasons for communities are intricately linked and require a their flight from Sudan were far from resolved, and holistic approach to deal with and plan for their there was little hope of an end to the conflict that needs. would allow for their peaceful return. The govern- ment of Uganda and UNHCR recognized the pro- In 1998, the Ugandan government shifted its policy tracted nature of the conflict and thought it wise toward integration of services provided to people to improve the standards of living of the people of in “its territory” in accordance with the 1995 con- Moyo, Arua, and Adjumani districts, including the stitution and the liberal land settlement policy that refugees. was adopted by the government. The new policy emphasized the need for refugees to be self-reli- The integration of local services under the strategy ant and put in place a land policy supporting that was an important innovation. Before the strategy goal. The decentralization policy gave district and was put in place, services to refugees and host local authorities the power to run local affairs and populations were run in parallel, and the services to decide how each local government could best to the refugees were better funded than those manage and plan for existing populations (nation- to the host population that were run by the local als and refugees), which was particularly relevant administration. Integrating the provision of ser- for regions hosting refugees. Uganda’s National vices to both groups was at the core of the Self- Development Plan contains explicit language for Reliance Strategy because having one population the inclusion of refugees in the planning process receive a higher level of services than another in the belief that refugees can contribute to the living under similar circumstances was viewed as development of their host country until they can morally repugnant and was thought to interfere safely return to their own. with efforts to create and promote coexistence. The strategy benefited refugees and host commu- nities while it strengthened local service delivery. It Self-Reliance Strategy was therefore viewed as a win-win for the Ugandan The Self-Reliance Strategy was introduced in government and UNHCR. 1998 by the government of Uganda and UNHCR in response to the protracted nature of refugee The implementation of the Self-Reliance populations and the need for them to positively Strategy met with successes and shortcomings. contribute to their host countries. It mainly tar- There was significant improvement in the health geted the districts of Moyo, Adjumani, and Arua, sector, although refugees experienced a reduc- which were hosting Sudanese refugees, with tion in medical referrals, possibly partly due to the initial aim of improving and increasing self- increased competition for scarce medical supplies. sufficiency with regard to food and harmonizing According to a midterm review of the strategy’s the use of social services by refugees and host operations, a significant number of host communi- communities. It was also intended to support and ties that had been unable to access refugee health improve the performance and capacities of the facilities felt that they had greater ownership and 20 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management rights to use them than the refugees. One chal- Lessons learned. The Self-Reliance Strategy pri- lenge was the strategy’s multilayered team and the marily targeted three districts—Moyo, Adjumani, implementation arrangements, which complicated and Arua. However, a number of other refugee- the achievement of its intended objective. The hosting districts, such as Kampala, Koboko, first hurdle for the strategy’s implementation was Hoima, Kiryandongo, Isingiro, Kyegegwa, and essentially a shift from a relief to a development Kamwenge, were not part of the strategy. And approach, which required personnel who could while the strategy was mainly focused on food and handle the shift in operational modalities. The service delivery to refugees and host communities, second hurdle involved the abrupt shift of staff it is now clear that focusing on the economic and due to the lack of qualified staff in place among social development of all the refugee-impacted implementing partners who were able to make that districts in Uganda would have provided more mental shift. UNHCR’s role in the development-led dividends and been better aligned with the initiative was complicated by the fact that it did not Uganda National Development Plans. While the have staff qualified in development operations; it Self-Reliance Strategy was a much-needed pro- only had staff qualified in relief and humanitarian gram, its implementation brought to the fore assistance. important lessons to inform future interventions. The roles and responsibilities of the govern- Another impediment to the strategy’s implementa- ment, UNHCR, and local authorities should have tion was the parallel system of support to refu- been specified at the start. Also of concern is the gees by bilateral donors and the United Nations decline in the quality and quantity of services system, which were not in tandem with Uganda’s provided at facilities handed over to local authori- national development plans. At its inception, ties. A final missing element was a lack of credit the Self-Reliance Strategy was conceived as a and financial and technical assistance for income- gradual process, where UNHCR would eventually generating activities within the districts. relinquish its role as initiator and withdraw into its traditional role of supporting relief and humanitar- Development Assistance to ian assistance efforts. Development partners also Refugee-Hosting Areas supported refugee-related work, but these efforts were not aligned with the structural and program- Uganda’s Office of the Prime Minister devel- matic set-up of the strategy. In 2004, the Office of oped the Development Assistance to Refugee- the Prime Minister and UNHCR conducted a mid- Hosting Areas program with the same mandate term review of the strategy to assess its successes as UNHCR’s Self-Reliance Strategy. While the and challenges. The review revealed many posi- Self-Reliance Strategy specifically sought to tive results, including increased food production, improve food self-sufficiency, harmonize social greater access to well-functioning social services services delivery, and support local govern- for refugees and host communities, the provision ment capacity in essential services delivery, the of skills training to refugees and host communities, Development Assistance to Refugee-Hosting and increased contact between the two communi- Areas program was a reaction to the midterm ties on matters of common concern. review of the strategy by the Office of the Prime Minister and UNHCR, which revealed key areas requiring attention. In 2004, in response to these Chapter 3: Development Programs 21 concerns, the Office of the Prime Minister and cash crops, livestock rearing, agro-processing, UNHCR set up a secretariat in the Office of the and improved labor skills (e.g., the Koboko Prime Minister with the mandate to: Partnership, described later in this chapter); “identify a set of interventions, through signif- 4. Coexistence and security for refugees and icant stakeholder consultation, while building host communities considered under the rubric on the [Self-Reliance Strategy] and facilitate of human security is imperative to achieving transition to the next phase SRS-DAR [Self- the well-being of refugees and could possibly Reliance Strategy–Development Assistance lead to refugees and host communities both to Refugee-Hosting Areas program].” embracing the idea of community protection; and After a multistakeholder consultation and based on the successes registered under the 5. A recognition that a search for durable solu- Self-Reliance Strategy, five working pillars were tions for protracted refugee situations requires developed for the Development Assistance to empowering refugee and host communities Refugee-Hosting Areas program: to lead in the improvement of their livelihoods and demonstrate that refugees can also be 1. A significant effort to strengthen Uganda’s agents of change when they are empowered decentralization processes to allow for effective and when they live in harmony with their hosts. governance at the district and local govern- ment level and to ensure that refugees and These pillars helped the government build on host communities are integrated into district previous efforts by taking into consideration the development planning; High Commissioner for Refugees’ Framework for Durable Solutions and Convention Plus 2. Recognition that the Self-Reliance Strategy was Commitments to target development toward all a national initiative—that is was not only for refugee-hosting districts. three districts—and calling for the support of all national efforts in refugee-hosting districts The Development Assistance to Refugee- in the areas of decentralization, poverty reduc- Hosting Areas program targeted eight districts tion, good governance, and peaceful coexis- hosting 500,000 beneficiaries. The first phase of tence between the communities with the hope the operation was in 2004–07 and was reviewed to that such a shift could promote longer-term assess the need for a three-year extension. While social, economic, and political stability, not only significant progress was made in the infancy of in Uganda but also in neighboring countries; the Self-Reliance Strategy and the Development Assistance to Refugee-hosting Areas program, the 3. An outcome of the Self-Reliance Strategy midterm review revealed a number of areas that and midterm review, an understanding had impacted their implementation. A greater of the need for focused support on income- effort in decision making and participatory interac- generating activities, not just food sufficiency, tion was needed among local institutions, which and a recognition that other income-generating pointed to the necessity of strengthening district activities were needed, such as diversifying with capacity to implement strategy programs. There 22 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Burundian refugees collecting water © UNHCR was also a need to formally integrate refugee supply sides; (4) natural resources management, concerns related to socioeconomic development particularly land, bodies of water, and care for the into other government planning processes. The environment; (5) strengthening health services ReHoPE strategy is a response to this concern. used by refugees and host communities; (6) access to education, particularly at the primary level, due The Development Assistance to Refugee- to the protracted nature of the refugee situation; Hosting Areas program was conceived to (7) improved physical access to refugees and host benefit from the implementation of the communities in remote corners of the country; Self-Reliance Strategy. The program targeted (8) security for the host and refugee communities 500,000 beneficiaries in subcounties with refugee and the creation of mechanisms to resolve con- settlements in each of the eight refugee-hosting flicts; and (9) capacity enhancement for district and districts.12 Its implementation was underpinned by local leaders. nine main considerations: (1) improvement of crop production for individual farmers and coordinated Settlement Transformative national-level support; (2) livestock improvement Agenda for local citizens and refugees and training on the benefits of livestock; (3) access to income- Refugees are specifically mentioned in the generating activities, mainly for small-scale traders Uganda National Development Plan II. The to scale up the local economy on the demand and Office of the Prime Minister—the department in charge of implementing government policies— 12. The districts are Arua, Adjumani, Hoima, Kyenjojo, Masindi, was tasked with developing and managing the Isingiro, Moyo, and Yumbe. Chapter 3: Development Programs 23 Settlement Transformative Agenda, a five-year livelihoods for refugees and host communities government-led initiative. Phase 1, which takes that contribute to socioeconomic transformation place in the first year, includes analysis, prepara- and growth; (3) governance and the rule of law tion, and planning. Phase 2, which takes place over to ensure that settlements are governed in an the next three years, involves intensive implemen- environment that respects rights and promotes the tation. Phase 3 is the closing and wrap-up as well rule of law among refugees and host communities; as a year of consolidation and hand-over to local (4) peaceful coexistence through the creation of an or community bodies. enabling environment for the safety, harmony, and dignity of refugees and host communities, contrib- Coordination at the settlement level is spear- uting to social cohesion; (5) protection of the envi- headed by refugee desk officers at the Office of ronment through the defense and conservation the Prime Minister with the involvement of district of the natural environment in and around refugee and local governments, UNHCR, operating and settlements; and (6) community infrastructure that implementing partners, and representatives of progressively enhances the economic and social host and refugee communities. Local govern- infrastructure available in refugee-hosting areas ments, with the support of the Office of the Prime in accordance with local government plans and Minister, play leading roles in the planning and systems. delivery of services to host communities. The Settlement Transformative Agenda is included in The government of Uganda has requested that the National Development Plan II, and an initial the United Nations Country Team in Uganda core financial allocation is expected from the and the World Bank support the Settlement national budget in fiscal 2015/16. The Office of the Transformative Agenda. Through a US$50 million Prime Minister, in conjunction with the ministry of credit, the World Bank is supporting the agenda’s finance, UNHCR, and the United Nations agencies objectives with an operation to address the impact as part of the United Nations Country Team will of the refugee presence on host communities raise funds for phases 2 and 3. in four districts: Arua, Adjumani, Isingiro, and Kiryandongo. The United Nations and the World The Settlement Transformative Agenda’s activities Bank are currently developing the ReHoPE strat- will initially be focused on refugee-affected areas egy with funding from the United Nations–World with settlements on gazetted lands and on explor- Bank Trust Fund, a joint strategic framework for a ing approaches for nongazetted settlements. self-reliance and resilience program for refugees Because gazetted settlements are government- and host communities in Uganda. owned, there is more available farmland in areas reserved for refugees, and the economic oppor- The Refugee and Host tunities and management approach are different Community Empowerment than for nongazetted settlements on community- Strategy owned land. The Refugee and Host Community Empower- The agenda has six main pillars: (1) land manage- ment (ReHoPE) strategy is an effort of the ment to ensure that settlement land is managed in government of Uganda, UNHCR, the United an efficient and sustainable manner; (2) sustainable Nations Country Team in Uganda, the World 24 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Bank, and other development partners to thereby contributing to socioeconomic growth increase and strengthen the Self-Reliance and increased individual income; (2) improve deliv- Strategy and the resilience of refugees and ery of social services such as education; health; host communities. It builds on the past steps and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in refu- taken toward these goals and aligns interventions gee hosting areas; (3) create an enabling protec- with country-level development plans. As was pre- tion environment that promotes the full enjoyment viously noted, the Self-Reliance Strategy enjoyed of rights for refugees to live in safety, harmony, successes and experienced some shortfalls, which and dignity with their host communities and the led to a shift to the Development Assistance to natural environment; (4) encourage social cohesion Refugee-hosting Areas by the Office of the Prime and peaceful coexistence through the inclusion of Minister in 2006. As a follow-up initiative to the refugees and host communities in development Self-Reliance Strategy framework, UNHCR is interventions; and (5) prepare refugees for solu- designing the ReHoPE strategy, with the goal of tions when/if they return home through the build- developing a coordinated strategy to transform ing of knowledge, skills, and capacity. and transition interventions in Uganda’s refugee- impacted districts from a humanitarian to a devel- The successful achievement of ReHoPE objec- opment approach. tives hinges on a multipronged approach. ReHoPE seeks a strong partnership with other development The United Nations Country Team in Uganda will partners and national and local governments, with be focused on the economic and social develop- an emphasis on consulting women and men from ment of the nine refugee-impacted districts in impacted districts—both refugees and host com- Uganda during this five-year initiative. ReHoPE munities, instituting equal standards for services is seen as an investment framework and tripar- to hosts and refugees, utilizing national systems tite working relationship between the govern- and service providers whenever possible, avoiding ment of Uganda, the United Nations Country parallel project management systems, and strongly Team in Uganda, and development partners. It supporting women’s empowerment and gender draws inspiration from the National Development equality. The ReHoPE strategy envisions “a joint Plan II (2015/16–2019/20) and the Settlement program” at a cost of up to US$350 million over a Transformative Agenda framed under the United five-year period. The effort would involve United Nations Development Assistance Framework— Nations agencies, multilateral development banks, UNDAF 2016–20. ReHoPE will support the coordi- the government of Uganda, development partners, nation and effective alignment of the planning and and the private sector. joint programing in the nine refugee-impacted districts. ReHoPE has another ingredient embedded in its design. Uganda hosts refugees from several ReHoPE seeks to ensure that refugees in Uganda countries in the region. For each of these situa- are protected and can live in safety and with tions, except for the South Sudanese refugees, dignity in their host communities in order to attain there is a regional security mechanism in place progressive solutions for all. The five goals and for peace and security—the Framework of Hope: objectives of ReHoPE are: (1) foster sustainable Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework livelihoods for refugees and host communities, for the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Chapter 3: Development Programs 25 Region, the High Commissioner’s Global Initiative Associazione Centro AiutiVolontari would help for Somali Refugees,13 and the Comprehensive implement the project by targeting 750 refu- Strategy for the Rwandan Refugee Situation.14 gees and 1,500 host community farmers and The refugees’ countries of origin remain conflict- providing them three years of training in agri- affected and, therefore, the return of refugees may cultural skills. UNHCR would finance the construc- not be possible in the medium-term, which means tion of the utilities essential for such trainings. The the refugee situation is protracted. Office of the Prime Minister and the local govern- ment in Koboko would secure more arable land for refugees and host communities to practice modern The Koboko Partnership agriculture and improve their socioeconomic status. The Koboko Partnership is an example of how collaboration between the Office of the Prime Kato Eco Farming, the other implementing Minister, UNHCR, and implementing partners partner, would provide agricultural inputs, can help generate socioeconomic benefits machinery, maintenance, and fuel. It would act for refugees and host communities. A memo- as a guarantor for a loan to 750 refugees and randum of understanding was signed between develop market linkages for agricultural produce. the Office of the Prime Minister, UNHCR, the The third phase of the project would link these local government of the Koboko district, and efforts to ReHoPE by attracting support from the implementing partners Associazione Centro private sector and development partners. Indeed, AiutiVolontari and Kato Eco Farming Limited for a the lessons learned from the Koboko Partnership three-year initiative to strengthen socioeconomic will be a useful barometer for the ReHoPE program resilience among Congolese refugees currently and the Settlement Transformative Agenda to mea- living in the Koboko district. The partnership sure and assess cooperation among the govern- seeks to deliver commercial-scale agriculture and ment, the United Nations, implementing partners, broader local economic development support to and the private sector in enhancing the socioeco- refugee-hosting areas. nomic well-being of refugee and host communities while promoting social cohesion between them. The key themes of Koboko Partnership are: The Koboko model thus serves as a good model strengthen socioeconomic resilience of commu- from which ReHOPE and Settlement Transformative nities, sustainably increase household incomes, Agenda can borrow for the implementation of their and utilize the economic cooperation between five years of planned activities in the nine refugee- refugee and host communities to foster peaceful hosting districts. coexistence. 13. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/527b8f7d6.html. 14. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f33a1642.html. 26 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Chapter 4 Socioeconomic Impacts Uganda has progressive legal and policy frame- Social Structures and Interactions works that entitle refugees to the right to work, The legal regime in Uganda allows for enhanced freedom of movement, and access to Ugandan social interaction between refugees and host social services—each of which has socioeconomic communities. The Refugees Act 2006 (Part V) impacts. This chapter explores the socioeconomic and the Refugees Regulation 2010 (Part XI) provide situation of refugees, interactions with their host for the rights and obligations of refugees; their communities, and the role and impact of Uganda’s integration into host communities; the inclusion of refugee law and policy framework in determining their concerns in country development plans; the outcomes. A refugee from Burundi tills a plot of land © UNHCR Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 27 adoption of refugee children; and affirmative High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who action in favor of women, children, and persons were consulted during this assessment. with disabilities. The overall relationship between refugees Refugees located in settlements are able and the host communities is amicable. The two to access basic services and easily receive populations coexist peacefully, and intermarriage needed security protection. The settlements between the groups is evident, further improving are organized in a way that acknowledges inher- relationships. Intermarriages have made communi- ent tensions and conflicts among the refugees. cation between the groups easier because refugee For example, the Nuer and the Dinka from South spouses teach their national spouses their lan- Sudan as well as other refugees from Rwanda and guages and vice-versa. Refugees living in Nakivale the Democratic Republic of Congo are housed a have been attempting to learn Lunyankole, the safe distance from one another, as are individuals language spoken by the local citizens. harboring animosity toward one another. However, the government does not deliberately attempt In Adjumani, the refugee situation is protracted. to settle all refugees according to their ethnic Settlements in the Adjumani district are the divisions. Rather, every attempt is made to foster result of negotiations with host communities for coexistence among the groups. In Nakivale, for land. The relationship between the refugees and example, the Banyamulenge live alongside other the host population has been largely peaceful. Congolese; in Adjumani, Dinka and Nuer families Local integration has occurred, especially among live together, including in the Rhino Camp, where refugees from the Madi tribes of South Sudan, a single incident between Dinka and Nuer youth partly due to their long stay in the area. Mungula I, over a Premier League soccer match was quickly contained. Mungula II, and Miriyei, where some refugees have settled for over ten years, are among the oldest Refugee–Host Community Relations settlements in Uganda. Refugees entering Uganda are often well Social cohesion is derived from the United informed about Uganda’s amicable treatment Nations Convention, and specifically from social of refugees as compared with other East relationships among refugees and between African countries. Uganda is frequently a refugee and host communities. It is guided by preferred destination for refugees because of the friendliness of the host population and the provisions of the Refugees Act on Personal Status, provision of social services and security. Indeed, which also informs marriages. In practice, mar- a commendable level of peaceful coexistence riage between refugees and Ugandan nationals is evident between the refugees and host has been subject to Ugandan law, which provides communities in all settlements in Uganda, an for the cultural norms and practices to apply in observation confirmed by local leaders of the circumstances that do not favor refugees or where host communities, refugee welfare councils, refugees are needy. This has led marriages to skew officials from the Office of the Prime Minister to mainly female refugees marrying male Ugandan and district and local governments, imple- nationals. There is, however, protection under menting partners, and the United Nations section 33 of the Refugee Act that protects the 28 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management rights of women, particularly with regard to social, committees, which included representatives from cultural, economic, and civic issues. both populations. Refugees with some income, who are The biggest challenge to authorities with capable of taking care of themselves, are respect to host populations and refugees is self-settled in urban centers where they rent land management in settlements. Access and housing. Many refugees in Adjumani Town and use of land threatens peaceful coexistence among Kampala City mention prior connections and refugees of the same or different origin as well as a fear of living in settlements—based on past with nationals. In Nakivale, refugees and nation- experiences in other refugee camps—as reasons als accuse each other of grazing animals on the for residing in urban areas. Others are seeking other’s land, destroying crops. The forceful evic- employment or education for themselves, their tion by the Office of the Prime Minister of the local children, or their siblings. citizens who had occupied the gazetted settle- ment land of Rwamwanja was legally permissible Hostilities between refugees and host popula- but inhumanely conducted, taking place even as tions have been recorded in a few instances. negotiations were underway with the local authori- In Nakivale and Rwamwanja, hostilities arose due ties of Kamwenge district. The incident fostered to a suspicion that refugees were being favored much anger in host communities, including by the government of Uganda at the expense of protests. The Office of the Prime Minister agreed its citizens. In 2013, a settlement commandant to provide concessions to the host community by was killed by members of the host population in handing over two square miles of degazetted land Rwamwanja while reclaiming land from them to to the Kamwenge local authority to settle some of settle Congolese refugees.15 Otherwise, concerted its residents. Harmony is gradually being restored efforts continue to build peaceful coexistence among the residents. between refugees and host communities in these settlements. The government of Uganda and Relationships Between Refugee Groups UNHCR adopted a policy in Rwamwanja of pro- Interactions between different groups of viding the host community with 30 percent of all refugees in settlements are at a functional level, services provided to refugees—who received the but they can also serve as opportunities for remaining 70 percent.16 Water, a scarce resource psychosocial support. Relationships among in Rwamwanja, was provided to host communities refugees are usually the result of frequent with additional boreholes in the settlement and interactions, whether voluntary or need-based. surrounding areas that were easily accessed by the Interactions can include dispute and conflict host communities. This played an enormous role resolution or receiving services, such as access to in unifying refugees and the host population, and markets, water, education, and health. An example was reinforced by the formation of wat er source of a refugee social organization in Rwamwanja is the Umoja farmers group, which ploughs fields, harvests, and sells crops as a group, dividing the 15. Interview with Settlement Commandant Rwamwanja on June 25, 2015. 16. Interview with Sub-Program Manager Lutheran World Federation Rwamwanja on June 23, 2015. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 29 proceeds among themselves.17 Income from Access to Services selling produce eases the financial stress of group members. Such groups could be supported The main social services provided to refugees with tailored training programs of the necessary in settlements are health, education, water, skills and knowledge to transform agriculture from sanitation, and community services. The ability the current subsistence model to a profit-generat- of refugees to access social services in general, ing activity. participate in economic activities, and socially interact among themselves and their host commu- The relationship between refugees from the nities is facilitated by Section 30 of the Refugees same country of differing ethnicities, particu- Act, which provides recognized refugees freedom larly the Democratic Republic of Congo and of movement within Uganda. This freedom may South Sudan, is outwardly peaceful. There are be reasonably limited, but sometimes restrictions no observed substantive conflicts; the groups are challenged for being needlessly restrictive. coexist without provoking one another. However, Social services were provided to refugees and most South Sudanese refugees in Kampala report host populations in two parallel systems (Garimoi insecurity in camps and settlements caused by and De Brouwere 2005) until a coordinated tribes with whom they had personal conflicts who system was designed in 1999 to address dispari- were also living in the settlements in Adjumani or ties between them and the difficultly faced by the Kiryadongo. district in coordinating and supervising them. As a result of this strategy, health, education, and Some refugee groups have maintained social water services were integrated, and parallel service and cultural norms and distinctions within systems for refugees and the host population were settlements. The Dinka of South Sudan reportedly eliminated in Arua, Moyo, and Adjumani districts. do not entertain the idea of intermarriage due to the lack of commonality of their cultural practices Medical Team International is currently imple- with that of other ethnic groups. The Dinka are menting health services in refugee settlements. predominantly cattle keepers, unfamiliar with First-line health facilities and centers are functional agriculture.18 Further, there is mutual suspicion at the settlement level, and any referrals of serious among the Dinka, the Nuer, and other ethnic medical or surgical conditions are made to govern- groups regarding political issues in their home ment or private hospitals in the refugee-affected country of South Sudan, which is not conducive to district or region. Health centers are usually located intermarriage. in gazetted or recognized settlements and camps. They are open to local residents and adequately equipped with drugs, medical personnel, and ambulances through the support of UNHCR and other international nongovernmental organiza- tions (NGOs). Staffing costs are met by UNHCR. 17. Interview with Refugee Welfare Council I Kikurura B on June Medical Team International provides health 21, 2015. services in Rhino Camp, Adjumani, Nakivale, and 18. Focus group discussion with male youth Boroli in Adjumani on June 27, 2015. Oruchinga; African Humanitarian Action provides 30 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management health services in Rwamwanja and Kyaka II; Action UNHCR, which can only support a small number of Against Hunger provides services in Kyangwali; students. and Real Medicine Foundation provides services in Kiryandongo. Refugee schools also serve host communities. The Bujubuli Primary School, for example, which The government of Uganda provides primary was established in 1984 by UNHCR for refugee education to refugees under the provision students in Kyaka II, serves refugee and host of the Refugees Act requiring that refugees populations in the area, realizing social integra- receive the same treatment as nationals. This is tion at school. Social integration among school consistent with the 1951 Refugee Convention on children has been problematic only in cases Education,19 which states: with extremely diverse student bodies, such as the Kashojwa Primary School in Nakivale, which “[t]he Contracting States shall accord to teaches multiethnic students from Rwanda, the refugees the same treatment as is accorded Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Burundi, to nationals with respect to elementary Ethiopia, and Uganda. The refugee students there education.” tend to restrict their interactions to their own ethnic group. Education services can be divided into three parts—primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary COBURWAS Learning Center—a day care, education is provided in the settlements free nursery, and primary school—was established in of cost, emulating Uganda’s Universal Primary the Kyangwali refugee settlement in the Hoima Education policy. The costs for the infrastructure, district. It was started and is run by the refugee equipment, and the recruitment and payment of community, as its name reflects: CO = Congolese, the teaching staff for these settlement schools BU = Burundi, RWA = Rwanda, and S = Sudan. are funded by UNHCR and other international The learning center provides quality education to agencies. The government of Uganda provides vulnerable children and to the host community. the curriculum for all the settlement primary Orphaned children enroll for free and are given schools, and refugee children also benefit from school uniforms and two decent meals per day. Universal Primary Education funding. However, The learning center is increasing access to quality the study curriculum, instruction language, and education by opening up student hostels near the materials present a challenge because refugees best schools in the region and providing food and come from countries with quite different educa- accommodations to children from surrounding areas. These efforts have removed the geographi- tional environments. And while the government cal barriers keeping vulnerable students from of Uganda, with the support of UNHCR, has attending school. In addition to regular academic succeeded in providing primary education, but work, students are trained to be responsible com- secondary education remains challenging due munity leaders and entrepreneurs, and they are to tuition and other fees that refugees cannot empowered to start initiatives that tackle commu- afford. They remain dependent on funding from nity problems. The learning center helps address 19. http://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf. the social and economic needs of less privileged Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 31 and gifted children by offering financial scholar- Health services. The integration of health services ships from the primary to the university level to is clearly felt at the facility level, where both refu- students who would otherwise be unable to attend gees and host populations receive services without school. discrimination. Refugee settlements have first-line health units; referrals are made to government or The COBURWAS Technical Center, also in the NGO-supported hospitals. Under the integrated Kyangwali refugee settlement, provides techni- arrangement, health workers are recruited and cal and social entrepreneurship skills to youth. posted to health units in the refugee settlements Intended to empower trainees to be job creators by the government of Uganda, and UNHCR pays and innovators, the technical center offers train- them an incentive. UNHCR and the government of ing in tailoring and traditional crafts, computers, Uganda equip the health facilities with drugs and masonry, carpentry, and joinery. To further encour- other medical equipment. Implementing teams age self-reliance, trained youth begin workshops such as Medical Team International ensures the of their own, training others so they can work in delivery of such support on behalf of UNHCR. On groups. CIYOTA opened a community micro- another note, under the 30 percent arrangement, finance operation in the Kyangwali refugee settle- implementing partners can provide drugs to the ment for income-generating projects such as health facilities of the host community even when agribusiness and social enterprises such as recre- there are no refugees accessing health services ation centers, Internet cafes, and phone-charging from it. stations. CIYOTA offers agriculture loans to farm- ers to meet family expenses while they wait for the Education services. The integration of education best market for their produce. Community microfi- services was proposed as an alternative to the nancing offers business loans to people who want separate schools that had been set up for refu- to start small businesses or expand existing ones. gees and local residents, which were exclusively attended by each group with minimal interaction Integration of Social Services between them. Education is an expensive social Structural integration of services and service provi- service. It is not accessed on demand like health sion was undertaken to cover refugees and their services, and it must be handled delicately. The host populations due to the increased demand government of Uganda is primarily responsible for services such as health and education; it also for education at the primary level; the Windle provided an opportunity for the local integration Trust on behalf of UNHCR has assumed respon- of refugee and host communities. Among the sibility at the secondary level. Nakivale, one of integrated services are health, education, and the first established settlements, has a second- water. There has been an initiative by the service ary school that was built by UNHCR, which also providers to extend 30 percent of services recruits and pays teachers. Students from the intended for refugees to the host population. host population are required to pay fees of 79,000 But it is sometimes difficult to quantify services to Ugandan Shillings, but students from the refugee ensure 70 percent retention for the refugees, such population only pay a development fee of 47,000 as in the case of health provision when both popu- Ugandan Shillings. The government of Uganda lations have access to one health facility. supports supervision and ensures the quality of 32 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management education; after screening vulnerable refugees, discriminate with the emergence of new groups, Windle Trust sponsors them. such as clubs and sports teams. Water services. Water is provided through the Service integration in the primary schools has construction of water sources for refugees and also had negative impacts. Under the Uganda host communities, depending on availability. Once curriculum, lower primary education uses thematic a water source is identified, a borehole is sunk education that requires teaching be conducted in and the entire community surrounding it becomes the area’s local language. Lunyankole is the local the beneficiary. Implementing partners have also language in Nakivale, where at least five ethnic made efforts to provide water sources to host pop- groups reside. As a result, many refugee children ulations in their own communities. In Rwamwanja, drop out of school at the lower primary level if 14 boreholes were drilled, 10 underground tanks they cannot afford to go to a private school. On constructed, and 10 spring wells protected for the the whole, only around 43 percent of all refugee host population.20 children attend primary school even though it is free, and a much lower percentage attends sec- Implication of service integration on coexis- ondary school, which is not. Nevertheless, educa- tence of groups. Refugees who believed that tion remains a key prerequisite for self-reliance UNHCR funding was for their exclusive use were and effective integration. initially unhappy about the integration of services; they felt that host communities were benefiting There are disadvantages to the integration of from their suffering. However, the integration of services. The remuneration paid to NGO health services has improved access to services, espe- staff in the settlements is higher than government cially to host community areas close to settle- staff of comparable qualifications and responsibili- ments, contributing to improved relationships. ties. This was observed to be a demotivating The host population appreciates the approach factor among those strictly paid by the govern- and acknowledges the significant improvements in ment, despite the fact that the health workers at health services, such as the availability of the settlements are on contract while the others drugs and health care workers; education, are under the civil service, which is permanent and such as schools with available teachers; and pensionable. improved roads. The education sector, especially primary Economic Opportunities and schools, has built strong social cohesion. The Livelihoods integration of students in Kyaka II and Adjumani Economic opportunities for refugees in Uganda classrooms foster amicable coexistence between vary in terms of formal and informal employ- refugee children and their peers from the host ment and access to productive capital from rural population. These friendly relationships can to urban areas. Other key determinants include endure and help overcome the tendency to legal status, level of education prior to and since becoming a refugee, employment status 20. Interview with The Lutheran World Foundation’s Sub-Program Manager Rwamwanja on the June 22, 2015. and experience prior to becoming a refugee, Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 33 integration training, household size, marital status, mailo21 land, according to the 1995 Ugandan technical skills, language fluency, and job inter- constitution. Over 78 percent of surveyed refu- viewing skills. gees in rural settlements engage in agriculture; in urban areas, the figure is only 5 percent. Refugees Employment and Access to in urban areas trade in agriculture products, such Labor Market as food items and basic farm inputs. The main Education is crucial for accessing employment, crops grown are maize, beans, sorghum, cassava, but refugees face considerable constraints. potatoes, groundnuts, and bananas. Animals Despite great efforts by UNHCR and the govern- reared include goats, cattle, pigs, poultry, and ment of Uganda to provide educational services rabbits. Crop surpluses attract Ugandan trad- to refugee children, not all are enrolled in school. ers to refugee settlements, operating as a direct An analysis of the reasons for the nonenrollment supply chain. However, agricultural livelihoods among male and female school-aged children face several challenges. The data show that 52 reveals that 85 percent of respondents could not percent of farming respondents report drought as afford school fees, particularly at the second- the main challenge, followed by pest and animal ary level, and about 7 percent of respondents attacks on crops at 14 percent, crop and animal attributed nonenrollment among girls to security theft at 9 percent, and fire at 1 percent. In addi- concerns about the schools. Other constraining tion, 59 percent of the sample reported suffering factors include overcrowding of classrooms or postharvest losses due to a lack of storage facili- nearby schools (1.4 percent), late registration ties and crop theft. A World Food Program report at schools (3 percent), language or curriculum estimates that postharvest losses reach up to 40 obstacle (3 percent), and child labor (3 percent). percent in Uganda. However, because postharvest handling techniques and storage facilities are On-Farm Livelihoods inadequate, surpluses tend to be sold immediately In the rural settlements, economic activities after harvest at the lowest point in the price cycle. revolve around agriculture and livestock. The loss of potential income contributes to food Evidence shows that refugees are engaged in insecurity and undernutrition among smallholder farming activities on lands allocated to them as farming families, especially during lean seasons well as on leased plots, supporting their self- (WFP 2016).22 reliance in accordance with Article 13 of the United Nations Refugee Convention (1951) and Refugees face two key challenges in market- the Uganda Refugees Act 2006 that allow refugees ing produce. About 66 percent of respondents to access movable and immovable property on par with most aliens. However, refugees cannot 21. Mailo tenure involves the holding of land in perpetuity. It was established under the Uganda Agreement of 1900. It per- permanently acquire land in terms of freehold/ mits the separation of ownership of land from the ownership of developments on land made by a lawful occupant. Additionally, it enables the holder to exercise full power of ownership, subject to the customary and statutory rights of those persons lawful or bonafide in occupation of the land at the time that tenure was created and their successors in title. 22. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/blog/look-food-losses-uganda- and-insights-fao-save-food-programme#.Vvrbd03fP86. 34 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management reported that local traders use faulty scales when that are mainly run by Congolese, Ethiopian, and weighing produce, which shortchanges them. Rwandan refugees include small-scale trading of However, this practice is not refugee-specific— accessories, selling of fabric, retail trading, broker- it is quite common in Uganda.23 Seventy percent age services with countries of origin, tailoring, and of respondents decried the extremely low prices operating very small restaurants and bars. Eritrean offered by local traders for produce, with impli- refugees are primarily involved in running Internet cations for the ability and timing of refugees to cafes and managing money transfers; and Somali become self-reliant. The refugees lose potential refugees are involved in large-scale business, such income to marketing constraints caused by limits as mini-super markets, restaurants, transporta- to their right of freedom of association, which tion services, foreign exchange bureaus, bars, prevents them from joining profit-making associa- garages, and guesthouses. Vulnerable refugees tions. Authorities need to explore options for mar- are involved in less lucrative businesses, such as keting the products of refugees to enable them domestic work—mainly in the homes of fellow get better market prices and earn reasonable refugees. Refugees who are more economically incomes that can then be used for resettlement sound are therefore able to follow a clear liveli- and to meet other socioeconomic obligations. hood plan and have sufficient access to livelihood Addressing these issues is critical to sustaining resources. Kampala, as a capital city, offers a wide agricultural self-reliance for refugees. range of self-employment opportunities in the formal and informal sector. In settlement areas like Nonfarm Livelihoods Nakivale, Rwamwanja, Mungula, and Mirieyi, there Another main activity for refugees in settle- are many potential business opportunities, such as ments is trade. Because refugees enjoy the wholesale shops, retail businesses, food vending, freedom of movement and right to do work and mobile money, among others. There is no sig- granted by Article 17 of the United Nations nificant difference across settlements with respect Refugee Convention (1951) and Section 64 of to self-employment: refugees throughout Uganda the 2006 Ugandan Refugees Act, an average are engaged in similar small businesses, such as about 10 percent of male refugees and a relatively tailoring, local brewing, operating restaurants, higher 47 percent of female refugees are involved food vending, selling charcoal, domestic work, in trade. In Kampala, about 75 percent of male retail and whole trade, mobile money businesses, and 90 percent female refugees are engaged in construction, transport, and boda-boda (motor- trade. In addition, a variety of nonfarm activities cycle taxi). Table 4.1 shows the top five livelihoods supplement agricultural livelihoods in the settle- pursued by each nationality in the settlements and ment areas, including diverse businesses run by in Kampala.24 refugees, such as bars, mills, transportation ser- vices, money transfer services, and retail shops. Jobs Refugees actively engage with the labor market Refugees in Kampala City are engaged in a in terms of employment and economic interac- wide range of economic activities. Enterprises tion. Nearly 43 percent of respondents are actively 23. http://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/organisa- 24. http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/other/refugee- tion-of-collective-marketing-activities-by-small-scale-farmers.pdf. economies-2014.pdf. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 35 Table 4.1. Top Five Livelihoods by Nationality of Refugee Nationality Rural Livelihood Percent Urban Livelihood Percent Congolese Farming own plot 46 Vendor (no shop) 19 Farm worker for others 21 Seller clothes, textile, and 16 accessories Construction workers 5 Tailor 10 Small shop 3 Brokerage 6 Worker for INGO/UN 3 Hair/beauty services 4 Somali Seller clothes, textile, and 16 Restaurant 18 accessories Restaurant 11 Small shop 13 Small shop 10 Fast-food stand 10 Fast-food stand 10 Vendor (no shop) 6 Med-large shop 5 Taxi/mini-bus 5 Household chores for others 5 Teacher 5 Rwandan Farming own plot 48 Vendor (no shop) 14 Farm worker for others 18 Seller clothes, textile, and 12 accessories Motorcycle taxi 4 Fast-food stand 8 Bar/café 4 Small shop 8 Middleman for crop trade 3 Craft-making 6 South Farming own plot 54 Sudanese Brewery 11 Vendor (no shop) 8 Worker for international 4 nongovernmental organization/ United Nations Small shop 3 Teacher 3 Source: University of Oxford Refugees Study Centre (2014). engaged in the labor market—12 percent in the certified prevents qualified refugees from engag- formal sector and 31 percent self-employed. This ing in formal job searches. Refugees who were can be attributed to the 2006 Refugees Act, which previously employed in their home countries are allows refugees to work. Only a small number of more likely to find a job than other refugees, but refugees are engaged in occupations requiring a this category of refugees comprise only 8 per- higher skill level, such as the provision of educa- cent of the survey sample, representing a small tional or health services, due to the differences of impact when compared with the broader refugee academic qualifications and limited proficiency population. in English. The difficulties faced in acquiring their degrees and having their academic documents 36 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Table 4.2. Key Barriers to Seeking Employment (Percentage of Respondents) South and Barriers Urban Southwest North Language 10 27 10 Legal 7 5 11 Interview skills 7 8 10 Discrimination 5 10 7 Relevant documents 21 17 21 Source: Author tabulation from field survey, June 2015. There is a wide variation among refugee nation- times perceive discrimination when other issues alities in terms of formal sector engagement. are actually hampering their ability to secure jobs. By nationality, the data show that Burundian At other times, discriminatory behavior by employ- refugees are the most active in the formal sector ers may not be perceived as such. Ten percent of (18 percent); and that Congolese dominate the survey respondents noted implicit discrimination self-employment sector (41 percent), followed between locals and refugees: if a refugee has the by Rwandans (39 percent), and Burundians (35 same level of education as a local resident, the percent). Ethiopians have negligible formal sector job will more likely be given to the local resident. participation rates. The low rate of integration This finding is in line with those of Rydgren (2004) among Ethiopians and Eritreans is due to the fact which notes that recruitment practices discriminate that most refugees are directly involved in crop against minorities and that employers might focus farming or agro-related businesses, and as tradi- on English language requirements; qualification- tional animal keepers, Ethiopians and Eritreans do assessment procedures; and soft skills, such as not have those skills. The highest percentage of having a positive attitude, getting along with economically active male refugees in the formal coworkers, and demonstrating good communica- sector is found in Kampala (24 percent), followed tion skills with customers. An analysis of average by Nakivale (16 percent), Rwamwanja and Mungula monthly incomes by settlement area and refugee (15 percent), and finally Mirieyi (3 percent). status reveals that nationals receive higher aver- age monthly incomes than refugees. Kampala has A number of barriers constrain the ability of the highest average salary of Shs 440,857 (US$250 refugees to seek employment. Common equivalent) for nationals and Shs 347,882 (US$175 obstacles cited by refugees living in urban and equivalent) for refugees. settlement areas include unfamiliarity with the language, legal issues, inadequate interviewing Refugees employ numerous strategies when skills, discrimination, and a lack of relevant docu- seeking employment. Respondents who were ments (table 4.2). The presence of discrimination is currently employed cited door-to-door job notoriously difficult to assess, and the perception searches as the most common way of acquiring of discrimination depends on culturally determined a job. Sixty-two percent of employed women and sensitivities and expectations. Refugees may at 48 percent of employed men found work this Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 37 way. Sixteen percent of employed women and Gender Dimensions 30 percent of employed men found work through Female refugees face discrimination in their a Ugandan acquaintance. Eleven percent of economic pursuits. The level of women’s partici- employed women and 8 percent of employed pation in the formal sector is very low, averaging men found work through local organizations, and about 9 percent compared with 35 percent for 2 percent of employed women and 3 percent of Ugandan women employed in nonagricultural men found work through religious institutions. sectors (WDI 2016). The self-employment level is Only an average of 3 percent found work through higher at 28 percent. Fifteen percent of women in international organizations. The door-to-door Mungula reported being engaged in the formal technique is pronounced due to the freedom of sector; in Mirieyi, none did. In terms of self- movement provided to refugees by the Uganda employment, women are the most economically Refugees Act 2006. active in Rwamwanja at 34 percent, followed by Kampala at 33 percent, Nakivale at 32 percent, Refugees are exposed to work-related hazards. and Adjumani at 22 percent. Self-employment Sixty percent of refugee workers report back or opportunities for female refugees can be attrib- joint pain, 14 percent report respiratory problems, uted to a number of initiatives, such as women’s and 13 percent report that they have sustained credit groups that help women get seed money to work-related injuries. Six percent of working refu- start businesses and save money through commu- gees report having suffered burns and fractures. nity savings groups. About 40 percent of women In addition to health problems and exposure to report being involved in a group compared with risk at work, survey participants reported unfair job 13 percent of men. circumstances that they were forced to tolerate, including pressure to accept low and late payment Skills acquisition by refugees has been facilitated of wages; long working hours; no breaks; and in by NGOs. An analysis of the beneficiaries reveals a small number of cases, physical abuse. Despite that 30 percent of women acquired sewing skills, their right to work and freedom of movement, and 30 percent of men acquired brickmaking skills. most refugees are hired for manual jobs, such as Twenty-three percent of men and 18 percent of land cultivation, brickmaking, and domestic work. women acquired agricultural skills; and 14 percent Because of the limited availability of alternative of men and 10 percent of women acquired carpen- employment, refugees must accept their employ- try skills. Thirty-five percent of women acquired ment conditions. These incidents are no different other skills, such as bookkeeping, art, and design, from those related to nonrefugees/local popula- compared with 27 percent of men. The acquisition tion. Unfortunately no reliable data is available, of skills by refugees is a result of the UNICEF edu- but according to Ugandan authorities, mortality cation programs, which provide training in the form and injury rates due to work-related hazards are of adult learning. InterAid–Uganda’s training center very high in Uganda25 at Kabusu in Kampala provides beginning English language lessons; vocational training, including tailoring and brickmaking; and instruction in music, dance, and drama, among other offerings. 25. Media interview. State Minister for Labor, Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana. http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/ Many-Ugandans-dying-of-occupational-hazards--- govt/-/688334/2296922/-/vvmkauz/-/index.html. 38 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Table 4.3. Distribution of Refugees by Occupation, Education, and Gender (percent) Education Male Female level Agriculture Education Trade Others Agriculture Education Trade Others No education 52.6 10.5 36.8 0.0 60.0 3.3 35.0 1.7 Primary 71.4 2.0 18.4 8.2 46.4 7.1 46.4 0.0 Secondary 56.9 3.9 31.4 7.8 29.6 6.8 59.1 4.6 Vocation 52.9 5.9 29.4 11.8 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 University 33.3 16.7 44.4 5.6 37.5 0.0 62.5 0.0 Total 57.8 5.8 29.2 7.1 45.6 5.9 46.8 1.8 Source: Author tabulation from field survey, June 2015. Refugees are mainly engaged in occupations activities, in most cases, they are still in control of that provide little income, social protection, the decision making in the home, and they usually or job security. However, this condition is shared use the money from selling the crops on alcohol, by the local population because over 82 percent leaving female refugees in a state of vulnerability of the population is engaged in agriculture in from which becoming self-reliant is quite difficult. Uganda. Industry employs 5 percent of the labor force, and services account for the remain- Incidence of Crime ing 13 percent. The minimum working age is 18, Refugee settlements are plagued with crime but many children work out of economic necessity and violence. Crime rates vary across the settle- and because school fees are so high. Most chil- ments: 78 percent of survey respondents in dren work in the informal sector. Wages in Uganda Nakivale report that they have been the victim are extremely low, and most workers supplement of a crime; this is followed by Rwamwanja at their incomes with second jobs and family farming 71 percent, Mirieyi at 68 percent, Kampala at (OECD).26 63 percent, and Adjumani—the lowest—at 56 percent. Across the settlements, sexual violence Table 4.3 demonstrates the occupation distribu- is the most common type of reported violence at tion of refugees. Fifty-eight percent of male refu- 39 percent, followed by burglary at 30 percent. gees are engaged in agriculture, while only The least commonly reported crime is fraud, at 6 percent are engaged in education-related 3 percent. Burglary rates are highest in Rwamwanja activities and 29 percent in trade. Forty-six at 52 percent, followed by Mirieyi at 47 percent percent of female refugees are engaged in agri- and Adjumani at 33 percent. Sexual violence rates culture, 6 percent in education, and 47 percent in are highest in Nakivale at 56 percent, followed trade. Female refugees report that even though by Kampala at 45 percent, and Adjumani at men are less likely to be involved in agricultural 33 percent. Theft rates are highest in Mungula at 26. https://www.oecd.org/employment/50423364.pdf and 25 percent; assault rates are highest in Adjumani Nordic Consulting Group (2011), End Review of the Project at 33 percent; and fraud rates are highest in – Strengthening Women Entrepreneurs in Uganda “Enterprise Uganda”, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/46/47399575.pdf. Rwamwanja at 10 percent. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 39 Table 4.4. Top Five Crimes as a Share Economic Interactions Between of Total Crimes in Uganda in 2009 Refugees and Host Communities Share of Total Crimes There is economic interdependence among Type of Crime (percent) refugees and between refugees and host com- Theft 27 munities. Refugee and host community traders Assault 17 dealing in agricultural products such as tomatoes, Sexual violence 8 cabbage, rice, and beans get their input supplies Robbery 7 from refugees or from local residents. Traders Child-related offense 5 dealing in manufactured merchandise purchase Total number of crimes 103,592 from local wholesale shops or from nearby towns, in 2009 such as Mbarara, Fortportal, Gulu, Arua, and even Source: Uganda Police Force: http://www.upf.go.ug/ (2009 data). Kampala. These trading activities link refugee settlements with other traders in Uganda and Crime is a common occurrence in Uganda, affect- with the international markets from which they ing both local and refugee poulations. Common purchase merchandise for retail sale. Traders also types of crime include theft; residential break-ins; supply the refugee settlements with supplies for strong-armed robberies; pick-pocketing; financial retail businesses. A number of refugee-run fraud involving credit cards, personal checks, and businesses were started with seed money from counterfeiting; skimming (a practice to capture operating NGOs in line with Article 18 of the personal identification information from ATM United Nations Refugee Convention (1951). In terminals); sexual assaults; murders; and shoot- this regard, Uganda is doing better than other ings. Violence surged in Northern Uganda during refugee-hosting countries because a large propor- the early part of 2014. Gulu was beset with violent tion of refugees in urban areas are self-employed. crime. Boda boda drivers (motorcycle taxi drivers) were being killed—almost on a daily basis—by Refugee settlement areas have attracted the unknown thugs. Lira experienced a violent crime attention of Ugandan private enterprises. wave against business owners, prompting the Ugandan telecom companies have launched sev- inspector general of police to replace the city’s eral initiatives aimed at targeting refugee users of police leadership and to personally travel to the SMS banking and transfer services. For example, town to help relieve the community’s angst (U.S. Orange Uganda Limited, a provider of telecom- State Department 2016).27 Table 4.4 shows the top munication and Internet services in Uganda, five crimes committed in Uganda as reported by invested in a large radio tower in the Nakivale the Ugandan police force. It should be noted that settlement to promote its “Orange Money” police may underreport crimes because there are services. In Rwamwanja and Adjumani, a number only a limited number of agents).28 of refugees operate as agents of mobile money units, which provides employment and facilitates refugees accessing remittances from relatives and friends within and outside Uganda, greatly helping refugees with issues such as paying their children’s school fees. 27. https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails. aspx?cid=17446. 28. Uganda Police Force: http://www.upf.go.ug/ (2009 data). 40 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Determinants of Labor Force Participation participation in the formal and self-employment Several factors determine formal and self- areas in Uganda (table 4.5). The marginal effects employment opportunities for refugees. Two of selected factors for being formally or self- model formulations were attempted to examine employed in reference to the base category the factors that determine refugee labor-market of unemployed are seen for the estimated Table 4.5. Determinants of Female Labor Market Participation in Uganda Model 1 Model 2 Formal Labor Formal Labor Market Self-Employment Market Self-Employment Variables ME P-value ME P-value ME P-value ME P-value Refugee duration 0.015 (0.000) 0.008* (0.089) Literacy (Yes=1, N=0) 0.010* (0.081) 0.033** (0.023) Female education (RC: No education) Secondary 0.008** (0.045) 0.058** (0.032) 0.044 (0.145) 0.028* (0.053) Postsecondary 0.031** (0.012) 0.099*** (0.000) 0.035* (0.091) 0.084* (0.077) Married (Yes=1, No=0) 0.087 (0.325) 0.045** (0.012) 0.005 (0.669) 0.012* (0.057) Gender (Male=1, 0.008*** (0.000) 0.002 (0.162) 0.004* (0.084) 0.033* (0.048) female=0) Age of household head 0.052* (0.071) 0.022** (0.028) Age squared of -0.066 (0.533) -0.005* (0.083) household head Former experience 0.006* (0.066) 0.001** (0.024) 0.055 (0.358) 0.142 (0.921) Ugandan experience 0.042** (0.027) 0.002* (0.069) Number of school-going -0.008** (0.023) 0.013* (0.058) -0.055 (0.312) 0.074 (0.355) children Sick -0.002* (0.063) -0.120 (0.188) -0.009* (0.099) 0.412 (0.120) Registered refugee 0.078 (0.945) 0.017* (0.058) 0.001 (0.438) 0.028** (0.044) Payment method Daily 0.002** (0.045) 0.015 (0.944) 0.003* (0.077) 0.033 (0.233) Weekly 0.012* (0.055) 0.007 (0.778) 0.029 (0.341) 0.087 (0.523) Monthly 0.001 (0.286) 0.056 (0.147) 0.048 (0.947) 0.099 (0.217) Urban area (Yes=1, 0.020** (0.034) 0.051*** (0.000) 0.005* (0.091) 0.023** (0.021) No=0) Hospitality 0.024** (0.012) 0.011* (0.089) 0.007* (0.066) 0.047* (0.052) Crime -0.044 (0.147) 0.001 (0.245) 0.047 (0.181) 0.058 (0.478) Received training on 0.005* (0.056) 0.033 (0.146) 0.002* (0.014) 0.025 (0.230) job searching Log likelihood -345.6 -288.0 No. observations 308 306 Wald chi-square 76.75 (0.000) 54.8 (0.000) Standard errors in parentheses * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Note: RC is the reference base category. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 41 multinomial model. An important finding is that employed: 23.2 percent are self-sufficient, duration of stay plays an important role in a 4.1 percent are on the way to self-sufficiency, refugee’s ability to be self-employed in Uganda, 10.5 percent struggle to survive and 3.5 per- but it has no significant effect on formal wage cent lost their self-sufficiency. In short, being employment. The findings in table 4.5 indicate self-employed offers better chances to that for every additional year a refugee stays, the attain self-sufficiency than being employed.” likelihood of their being self-employed increases by about 0.8 percent, possibly suggesting that Therefore, the government of Uganda, UNHCR, the longer refugees stay, the more they become and other stakeholders should devise the means accustomed to the local environment, enhancing to progressively scale back food handouts to their self-reliance in local communities. refugees who have stayed in the country for a long time, supporting employment opportunties and Also, according to a 2009 UNHCR study, refugees thus encouraging their self-reliance. in Uganda prefer self-employment to employment for reasons mainly related to language issues, Education. Education levels, particularly second- which can create the conditions for abuse and ary and postsecondary, play an important role in exploitation in the form of low, inadequate, and the labor participation of refugees. Refugees with unreliable compensation. The longer refugees a secondary education are about 0.8 percent remain in the country, the more likely they are to more likely to be formally or self-employed, and find networks to help them become independently refugees with postsecondary education are about employed (Macchiavello 2003). 3 percent more likely to be formally or self- employed compared with those with no educa- In the UNHCR study sample, 16.2 percent of tion. In model 2, a postsecondary education employed individuals lost their jobs compared increases the likelihood of working by about with only 2.8 percent of self-employed individuals. 4 percent; secondary and postsecondary Being self-employed in the Kampala labor education increases self-employment by 3 and market—namely owing a business, no matter how 8 percent, respectively. The implication of these small—offers refugees the best chance for a good findings is that education and training have the income and more control over the continuity of potential to enhance skills and thereby increase their businesses, which then enhances their ability the chances of refugees being employed. Policy to succeed. measures to enhance refugee training to attain at least postsecondary education are therefore criti- Finally, the study presents evidence that self- cal for enabling their entry in the labor market and employed refugees are more successful than their becoming self-reliant. employed refugees: Marital status. Being married increases the “Of the working self-employed individuals: probability of a refugee being self-employed 26.1 percent are ‘self-sufficient,’ 15.5 percent by 1–5 percent. Just being married has implica- are on the way to self-sufficiency, 7.7 percent tions for acquiring a job. Male refugees are about struggle to survive, and 2.8 percent lost their 0.8 percent more likely to be engaged in formal self-sufficiency. By comparison, among the employment and 3 percent in self-employment 42 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management than their female counterparts compared with the Frequency of payment of wages. Daily and unemployed base category. The finding shows weekly payment of wages has a significant impact gender-biased labor participation rates among on formal labor participation, by about 0.2 percent refugees, with female refugees being disadvan- and 1 percent, respectively; monthly payments taged—pointing to the need for specific measures have no effect, implying that it is difficult for aimed at empowering female refugees to realize refugees to find permanent jobs. The descriptive self-reliance. evidence revealed that most working refugees do so without a contract of any kind, which caries the Age. Age impacts female participation in the risk of being exploited. Being a registered refugee formal labor market. One additional year of age increases the likelihood of self-employment by increases the probability of participating in the 2–3 percent, but it has no effect on formal formal labor market by 5 percent and increases the employment. chances of being self-employed by 2 percent. The estimated marginal effect on age squared is nega- School-going children. The number of children tive and statistically significant. It shows that, after attending school reduces the likelihood of a a given age, the probability of acquiring formal woman participating in the formal labor market by employment decreases by 1 percent. This finding about 0.8 percent; it increases rate of self-employ- explains the inability of older refugees to acquire ment by about 1 percent. new skills that can enable them meet the formal job requirements in Uganda. The findings reveal Ill health. Predictably, illness has a significant that age has an important implication on female decreasing effect on refugee participation in refugee participation in self-employment. formal employment, reducing formal job participa- tion by 0.2–1 percent. Experience. Refugees with previous job experi- ences in their countries of origin are more likely to Urban refugees. Refugees in urban areas are be formally or self-employed. One year of former more likely than those in rural areas to be formally experience increases the likelihood of being or self-employed by 2 and 5 percent, respectively. formally employed by 0.6 percent and self- The marginal effects in model 2 reveal that refu- employed by 0.1 percent. It is important to note gees residing in urban settlements are 0.5 percent that refugees with job experience in Uganda are more likely to be formally employed than those in more likely to participate in the formal labor rural settlements and 2 percent more likely to be market or be self-employed by 4 and 0.2 percent, self-employed. Uganda is an agro-based economy, respectively. Job experience in Uganda that with over 80 percent of the population employed required proficiency in the English language in the agriculture sector. This explains why there trumps home-country experience for refugees. is less wage-based employment in rural refugee This result is not surprising because refugees are settlements, where farming is the main activity. constrained by a lack of English proficiency, which Many refugees work on family farms allocated to limits their entry in the formal labor market. The them by the Office of the Prime Minister. Some failure of employers to recognize the academic work on neighboring farms. Efforts are needed to qualifications of refugees further inhibits their settle refugees in urban areas as a more feasible entry in the labor market. means of promoting their self-reliance. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 43 Hospitality. The hospitality of local host communi- the large influx of refugees during the 2012 ties has a real impact on the potential participation Congolese emergency and the 2013 South of refugees in the formal labor market and on their Sudanese emergency, the size of the land allo- being self-employed relative to being unemployed. cated to refugees was reduced to a plot size of The estimated marginal effect shows that the hospi- 20 x 30 meters for residential areas and 50 x 50 tality of the host community is likely to increase the meters for arable land. Despite this, many of the employability of refugees by about 2 percent for respondents reported having not received arable formal employment and 1 percent for self-employ- land but instead were allocated a residential plot. ment compared with host communities exhibiting The duration of the refugee presence in Uganda a lack of hospitality. Hospitality was analyzed with significantly influences the probability of access- the aim of exploring the components of hospitality ing community land by about 7 percent compared from the characteristics of the host communities with 1 percent for accessing gazetted land in the in refugee settlements areas. Refugees and locals settlements. Refugees utilize allocated land for were asked closed interview questions about their crop production and animal rearing to comple- perceptions and interactions with locals. ment their food rations and to sell any surpluses to meet their other basic needs, such as salt, soap, Job-search training. Training refugees in job- and clothing. This is enabled by their freedom search skills increases their likelihood of participat- of movement and right to work, enshrined in the ing in the formal labor market by 0.2–0.5 percent Refugees Act of 2006. compared with those who do not received train- ing. This result indicates the need to provide this Duration of stay. Among the factors determining type of training and job information to refugees to access to land is the duration of stay of the refu- increase their chances of being absorbed into the gee, which increases use by about 1 percent for labor market. each additional year, and the educational level of the refugee, with secondary education increasing Access to Productive Capital the likelihood to access community land by about Land 4 percent (table 4.6). Access to land in the context of refugees in Uganda refers to the ability of refugees to use Marital status and size of household. Marital allocated land for residential and cultivation status significantly increases the probability of purposes in order to enhance self-reliance rather gaining access to land compared with unmarried than being considered a legal right. The data show refugees by about 2 percent for gazetted land and that about 49 percent of respondents in Nakivale 6 percent for community land. With other factors and Rwamwanja are using gazetted land, and remaining constant, heads of households who are 73 percent of respondents in Adjumani, Mirieyi, married are about 4 percent more likely to access and Mungula are using community land for land. Household size increases the likelihood of cultivation, compared with 1.8 percent of urban access to land by about 2 percent for community respondents. The official land allocation by the land use and 1.8 percent for the full sample model, Office of the Prime Minister’s is 50 x 50 meters which can be explained by the greater sense of per household for residential and agriculture responsibility married refugees feel to meet the purposes. However, since December 2013, after demands for additional food for their households. 44 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Table 4.6. Estimated Marginal Effects for the Determinants of Access to Land for Refugees Gazetted Land Community Land Full Sample Variables ME p-val ME P-value ME p-val Refugee duration in years 0.008** (0.021) 0.023** (0.004) 0.009* (0.052) Marital status (married=1) 0.022* (0.081) 0.064** (0.003) 0.043*** (0.000) Female 0.005* (0.067) 0.123* (0.079) 0.071** (0.016) Age of household head -0.041 (0.159) -0.023* (0.064) -0.013 (0.333) Age squared of household head 0.017* (0.087) 0.091** (0.029) 0.084* (0.056) Employment status (RC: unemployed) Wage employment 0.062 (0.411) 0.008* (0.064) -0.023 (0.764) Self-employment 0.031* (0.071) 0.012*** (0.000) 0.031** (0.004) Education (RC: no education) Primary 0.055 (0.419) 0.036 (0.621) 0.038 (0.653) Secondary 0.029 (0.158) 0.041* (0.075) 0.077* (0.099) Postsecondary -0.148 (0.108) -0.053 (0.607) -0.142 (0.244) Household size 0.016 (0.104) 0.022** (0.024) 0.018* (0.087) Registered refugee 0.013* (0.057) 0.067** (0.035) 0.042*** (0.008) Hospitality 0.226 (0.135) 0.052* (0.087) 0.110** (0.038) Crime -0.049 (0.391) -0.036 (0.549) -0.061 (0.379) Land rent -0.041 (0.128) -0.112** (0.025) -0.094*** (0.001) Settlement area (Urban=0, rural=1) 0.015** (0.004) 0.027*** (0.001) 0.129* (0.063) Observations 202 134 457 Log likelihood -111.91 -68.43 -183.6 chi2 53.81 (0.000) 22.95 (0.085) 141.4 (0.000) Pseudo R2 19.23 26.00 28.12 P-values in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Note: RC reference base category. Gender of head of household. The importance Age of head of household. The age of the head of the gender of the head of household in of household has a significant effect on access accessing land is seen as significant in the settle- to land. The marginal effect on age is negative ment areas. The estimated marginal effects and statistically significant regarding the use of demonstrate that male-headed households have community land, while age squared is positive for access to about 1 percent more gazetted land gazetted and community land use. This means and 13 percent more community land than those that young refugees are less likely to access com- that are female-headed households. These results munity land, but the probability of access to land highlight the gender discrimination that exists increases by about 2 percent for gazetted land regarding access to productive resources, which and 9 percent for community land for each addi- impacts self-reliance among refugees. tional year. Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 45 Employment status. Employment status influences as was done in Mungula, Mirieyi, and Adjumani, access to land. Refugees who are self-employed where 30 percent of all services are targeted to have a 3 percent higher probability of accessing host communities. gazetted land and a 23 percent higher probability of accessing community land than those who are Refugee status. The registration status of unemployed. Refugees with additional sources of refugees by the Office of the Prime Minister/ income increase their probability of land access by UNHCR influences their access to land in settle- approximately 16 percent in the full sample com- ment areas. The estimated marginal effects show pared with unemployed refugees. The interviewed that being a registered refugee increases access host community explained that refugees are usually to gazetted land by 1 percent and community more creative and have good local networks in the land by 8 percent, a finding in line with the 2006 host community. They want more land from which Ugandan Refugees Act’s article on land access, to profit and generate additional income. Through which gives refugees the right to rent land under the local village structures of operating NGOs, the lease arrangements. Rents for land also influences government and partner organizations could put access to land in settlement areas. The estimated in place measures to allow enterprising refugees to marginal effects show that a unit increase in land acquire more land so they can advance their self- rent reduces access to community land among reliance and support their fellow refugees by involv- refugees by 11 percent and among overall respon- ing them in cultivation. This finding has important dents by 9 percent. This finding highlights that policy implications for the Ugandan government living in a rural settlement influences access to and all stakeholders. Particular attention should be land. The estimated marginal effects show that paid to programs providing refugees with rel- living in rural settlements increases access to evant short-term skills training that allows them to community land by 11 percent. become self-employed in fields such as high-yield farming, tailoring, brickmaking, and sewing. Credit Access to credit is a critical element with regard to Hospitality of host community. Another very quality and timely inputs for refugees needing to important factor affecting the probability of refu- make investments in agriculture. Credit is also criti- gees’ accessing productive capital is the hospi- cal for initiating self-employment ventures, includ- tality of the host communities. It increases the ing small-scale activities and enterprises. In the likelihood of a refugee acquiring community land absence of needed collateral, and with a poor net- for farming by 5 percent across all sites and acquir- work of financial institutions and the remoteness ing any kind of land by 11 percent compared with of settlement areas, the credit supply is limited. host communities hostile to refugees. This finding Access to credit among refugees is influenced by a means that host communities that are receptive to number of factors, discussed below. refugees enhance the probability that the refugees will be self-reliant. The government of Uganda’s Duration of stay. Male refugees’ access to credit strategy to be more sensitive to refugees and host is significantly influenced by the duration of their communities is critical to fostering better refugee- stay in the host community; there is no effect for host community relations and to extending ser- female refugees. For each additional year the vices provided to refugees to host communities, male refugee stays, the probability of his accessing 46 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Table 4.7. Estimated Marginal Effects for the Determinants of Access to Credit for Refugees Male Female Full Sample Variables ME p-val ME p-val ME p-val Refugee duration in years 0.004* (0.084) 0.004 (0.232) 0.005 (0.205) Employment status (RC: unemployed) Wage employment 0.051*** (0.001) 0.061*** (0.004) 0.982 (0.178) Self-employment 0.037*** (0.001) 0.025*** (0.002) 0.093* (0.086) Marital status (RC: married=1) 0.024* (0.096) 0.030 (0.602) 0.008* (0.059) Age of household head 0.004 (0.780) 0.002 (0.887) 0.200 (0.979) Age squared of household head -0.070 (0.707) -0.052 (0.780) 0.025 (0.886) Gender (male=1, female=0) 0.027* (0.087) Education (RC: no education) Primary 0.007 (0.941) -0.000 (0.800) 0.146 (0.115) Secondary 0.032** (0.023) 0.012** (0.046) 0.007 (0.918) Postsecondary 0.090** (0.032) 0.023* (0.079) 0.073* (0.059) Household size 0.010 (0.290) 0.011 (0.261) 0.013 (0.104) Registered refugee 0.068 (0.243) 0.066 (0.233) 0.023 (0.808) Hospitality of host community 0.069 (0.213) 0.111** (0.046) 0.115** (0.044) Crime -0.082** (0.013) -0.012** (0.030) -0.066 (0.202) Home area (RC: rural) 0.011** (0.016) (0.030) (0.581) 0.041** (0.046) Land access 0.002** (0.020) (0.051) (0.338) 0.042** (0.030) Observations 159 151 85 Log likelihood -59.26 -52.69 -18.01 chi2 23.13 (0.000) 26.88 (0.000) 49.05 (0.000) PseudoR2 16 20 56 P-values in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Note: RC reference base category. credit increases by approximately 0.4 percent compared with the unemployed, which is quite (table 4.7). Length of stay does not affect a wom- instructive of the need for the government of an’s ability to get credit at all. Uganda, UNHCR, and the donor community to support qualified refugees seeking jobs to pro- Employment among male refugees. Wage mote their self-reliance. employment and self-employment among male refugees significantly increases the probability of Education. The estimated marginal effects for their accessing credit by about 5 and 3 percent, credit access clearly articulate the importance respectively, compared with those who are unem- of education in increasing the probability of ployed; for female refugees, the probability a household accessing credit. Table 6 shows increases by 6 and 2 percent, respectively. Across that the attainment of higher education has an all study sites, wage employment increases the increasing effect on access to credit. A male head probability of access to credit by about 9 percent of household with a postsecondary education Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Impacts 47 (vocational or university) is about 9 percent more factors remaining constant. This finding highlights likely to access credit than one with no education; the gender discrimination in terms of accessing a secondary education increases the likelihood productive resources, which increases the female of accessing credit by 3 percent. A female head refugees’ exposure to risk. Local women’s savings of household with a postsecondary education and credit associations need to promote greater is about 2 percent more likely to have access to access to credit for women, using seed money credit than one with no education; a secondary from operating NGOs. Vocational training and education increases the likelihood by about 1 skills-enhancement efforts should be supported. percent. Primary education has no effect on credit access compared with the base category of no Hospitality. The hospitality of the host community education. The policy implication of this finding increases the probability of a refugee accessing is that the government of Uganda, UNHCR, and productive capital. If a local community is friendly, all stakeholders should enable access to higher it increases the likelihood that a female refugee education for refugees. Unlike urban refugees will access credit by about 11 percent; for the full in Kampala and other towns, access to second- sample, it increases the probability by 12 percent. ary and postsecondary education for most refu- High crime rates reduce the probability of a male gees living in rural settlements remains a huge refugee accessing credit by about 8 percent. This challenge. finding points to the need for the government to ensure compliance and rule of law in refugee set- Gender. The gender of the head of household tlement areas. UNHCR, stakeholders, and NGOs is another important determinant of refugee operating in host communities, in coordination access to credit in Uganda. The estimated mar- with the Ugandan police force, should focus on ginal effects in model 3 show that a male-headed measures to reduce crime rates with community household is about 1 percent more likely to access sensitization and refugee self-governance through credit than a female-headed household with other the welfare councils and block leaders. 48 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Chapter 5 Conclusion Uganda is widely recognized for its liberal and seekers humane treatment, generally respects their progressive refugee policy and legal frame- civil rights, and ensures that they are treated in a work, which embeds international conventions sensitive and dignified manner, especially women, and declarations, regional agreements, national children, the elderly, and the disabled. legislation, and regulations. For decades, Uganda has maintained an open-door policy for anyone Uganda’s policy and legal framework provides seeking asylum, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, refugees with significant rights, including free- or religion, and other than a few isolated incidents dom of movement. This is an important enabling mainly related to sensitive security issues, the right for refugees to exercise their socioeconomic country has adhered to its principles. In law and rights, including the provision of travel and identity practice, Uganda accords refugees and asylum documents and the right to seek work without Children at play in refugee settlement © UNHCR Chapter 5: Conclusion 49 paying fees for a work permit, as is required of leaves many refugees in a protracted refugee state other aliens. Freedom of movement allows refu- when the durable solutions of return or resettle- gees to access employment opportunities and ment are not possible. actively participate in the labor force in wage- and self-employment situations. Urban refugees Coordinated—and where possible integrated— are able to lease land and own property. The delivery of basic education, health, water, provision of land for the habitation and cultivation and other community services have provided of refugees enables cultivation for self-sustenance host communities with numerous benefits. by refugees, but the principles of association Integration at the planning, financing, and man- that restrict refugees from profit-making unions agement levels is underway, but given how adversely affects their ability to interact with the crucial education—especially at the secondary market and receive a good return on their agricul- and postsecondary level—is to a refugee’s abil- tural produce, which leaves them susceptible to ity to access gainful employment, and given the exploitation by unscrupulous traders with regard current limitations of education delivery beyond to prices and weighing at the marketplace. the primary level, a more concerted effort is needed by the government of Uganda and the The settlement approach adopted by Uganda United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is quite progressive. Refugees stay alongside (UNHCR). COBURWAS, a community-initiated local communities in designated settlements on integrated education model offers some useful gazetted or community lands, fostering interac- ideas. Similarly, while primary health care is well tion between refugee and host. The proximity has organized, there is a great need for investments enabled the integration of basic services, includ- from the government of Uganda at the district and ing education, health, water, and other community regional levels to meet the needs of referral medi- services. Thirty percent of provided services are cal services for refugees and nationals. Investment earmarked for the host community; the remaining in skills and vocational training are essential to 70 percent are aimed at refugees. The service inte- improving the employability of refugees and gration has improved access to services, especially nationals; this will require a concerted effort. by host communities that neighbor settlements, Focused attention is also needed to address improving relationships among refugees and host gender-based discrimination in accessing land, communities. The host population appreciates the credit, input and output markets, and employment integrated approach, acknowledging the great opportunities. improvement in services, especially in health care, with an increased availability of drugs and health The Settlement Transformative Agenda and the workers; in education, with improved availability of Refugee and Host Population Empowerment teachers in schools; and better roads. (ReHoPE) strategy offer excellent opportuni- ties to design and implement a developmental The policy framework has limitations. An impor- approach that builds on past achievements tant limitation of an otherwise progressive refugee and addresses challenges related to the Self- policy and legal framework relates to the inability Reliance Strategy and Development Assistance of refugees to acquire Ugandan citizenship regard- to Refugee-Hosting Areas program. Close less of how long they remain in the country. This collaboration between the Office of the Prime 50 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Minister and UNHCR, the key operational enti- livelihood opportunities, and infrastructure status. ties, is crucial, as is the active involvement of The programs should be tailored to meet the dif- key stakeholders, such as district leaders, sector ferentiated needs of refugees on settlements in ministries, host communities, and refugees in the gazetted lands in the southern and southwestern planning and implementation phases. Capacity districts, on community lands in the northern and building of local government administrations is northwestern districts, and those self-settled in needed to ensure that local development plan- urban areas. To ensure impact, the focus should ning effectively addresses refugee-related issues. be on transformative investments to address the Recruitment of qualified staff oriented toward and pressing needs of refugees and host communities knowledgeable about an implementation culture and investments that will jump-start local econo- that is shifting from a relief/humanitarian approach mies, such as a water treatment plant in Nakivale to a development one is required. A change in and feeder roads in Kyangwali. A comprehensive the philosophy of refugee assistance is needed: approach is needed to address gender-based refugees should be viewed as economic actors in discrimination in education and livelihoods and charge of their destinies (development approach) reduce the security and safety risks faced by rather than as beneficiaries of aid (humanitar- women and girls. Returns from agricultural liveli- ian approach). The Self-Reliance Strategy and hoods could be greatly enhanced with improved Development Assistance to Refugee-hosting access to input and output markets and techno- Areas program offer critical lessons that should be logical interventions for improved efficiency and considered, but other than a midterm review of cost-effectiveness. the Self-Reliance Strategy, which informed the cre- ation of the Development Assistance to Refugee- A few modifications to policy implementation Hosting Areas program, no proper evaluation of can help refugees. The freedom of movement the initiatives seems to exist. A thorough evalua- ensured by the policy framework needs to be tion of both is essential to inform the Settlement carefully implemented to enable refugees to move Transformative Agenda and the ReHoPE program. in and out of settlement areas more easily. This would include requisite oversight so that refu- Programming should be informed by a deeper gees can better coordinate and collaborate with situational analysis of the nine refugee-hosting host communities on economic activities. Specific districts where the Settlement Transformative attention and backstopping will be required to Agenda and ReHoPE will be implemented. enable urban refugees, especially youth, to benefit Specific focus needs to be on land tenure sys- from social and economic opportunities without tems, cultural and social settings, economic and being exploited or engaging in risky behavior. Chapter 5: Conclusion 51 Appendix A Methodology Study Design Study Area The study employed qualitative and quantitative This study was carried out at numerous rural research methods. The qualitative aspect and urban refugee sites in Uganda. Kampala employed exploratory and cross-sectional and Adjumani urban areas were sampled for descriptive study designs. For the exploratory conducting interviews with self-settled refugees. design, a document review was conducted The Kampala City sample is larger than that of involving a content analysis technique synthesiz- Adjumani because more refugees live in Kampala ing the legal and policy framework that governs City than anywhere else in the country. This is refugees in Uganda. The cross-sectional design largely because it is a vibrant commercial employed the administration of individual center and home to UNHCR’s head office as questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and focus well as several nongovernmental organizations group discussions that solicited opinions from a that address human rights issues, including the cross-section of resource persons on the policy plight of refugees. The rural sites visited were framework, its impact on the protection of Adjumani, Nakivale, and Rwamwanja. Points of refugees, and the enhancement of their socio- entry visited for observation of the process were economic prospects. Resource persons inter- reception centers in Chanika, Bunagana, and viewed include: officials from local govern- Nyakabande. ment, the Office of the Prime Minister, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees The selection of the rural and urban research sites (UNHCR); implementing partners in refugee was based on time and cost implications while settlement areas; refugee welfare councils; opin- taking into account that refugees are not a homo- ion leaders among refugees who are self-settled geneous social class: they have different income in urban areas; refugees in urban and rural areas; levels and countries of origin. and the host communities they live alongside. Social service providers in host districts were also Qualitative Data interviewed to gauge their perceptions on the integration of services. Observations of policy Sampling Technique implementation processes were conducted at A multistage sampling technique was used to points of entry for asylum seekers. For the most determine the target group for participation. part, the methodology approach is informed by Purposive sampling was used at an earlier stage to the literature review relevant to the Ugandan refu- identify the sample frame from the sample popu- gees (see appendix B). lation, which included refugee welfare councils, refugees living in settlements, host communities, Appendix A: Methodology 53 local officials in host communities, staff from Discussions were conducted at the institutional the Office of the Prime Minister working in the level with UNHCR officials and one team leader settlement camps, and staff from UNHCR and from the settlement areas, one settlement com- nongovernmental organizations (implementing mandant from each settlement camp, one resident and operational partners) carrying out humanitar- desk officer from each refugee settlement area, ian activities for refugees in selected settlements. three representatives from each refugee welfare With regard to the Office of the Prime Minister, the committee, and two settlement-level local council focus was on senior settlement officers, resettle- officials from the host communities. Interviews ment desk officers, and settlement commandants. were also conducted with 40 opinion leaders from With regard to UNHCR, implementing partners, among self-settled refugees and with 10 from and nongovernmental organizations, the focus the host communities, six heads of school, three was on team leaders and program officers. In host people in charge of health centers in refugee- districts, interviews were conducted with senior hosting areas, and one program officer from each personnel in the social services sectors of educa- implementing and operating partner that provides tion, health, and community services as well as social services in each of the three settlement local council executives at the settlement level. areas visited. A sample design should be based on a population Urban refugees were engaged at the commu- with fairly accurate statistics, but it has long been nity level to get a sense of how refugee policies recognized that the collection of accurate data on support and enhance the lives of refugees in displaced populations faces formidable obstacles, settlements. including refusal to participate out of a sense of fear. And with the steady influx of refugees in The collected qualitative data were coded by Uganda, no accurate official statistics exist. theme and condensed for content analysis. The resulting data were summarized, categorized for Qualitative data collection employed in-depth interpretation, and used for reporting. Analyses of interview, focus group discussion, and observation the legal and policy documents were conducted techniques. In-depth interviews were conducted and integrated into the main report. in the form of narratives, using interview guides for individual informants to gather data from 320 Quantitative Data key informants with the help of 10 field assistants. Focus group discussions were conducted with The assessment administered questionnaires to 12 groups of female refugees and 12 groups of individual sampled respondents using semistruc- male refugees. Of the 12 groups in each gender tured instruments. The questionnaire included bracket, six comprised adults; the remaining 12 questions on household background, education, comprised adolescents. Two focus group discus- employment, wages, working conditions, access sions, one for male and one for female participants to productive capital (land and credit), access in each age bracket were held at each selected to social amenities, safety, and other sources of refugee settlement and the respective host household income. community. 54 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Study Sample was paid to the consistency of responses obtained The field survey covered 500 respondents and the ease with which responses were elicited. comprising 350 refugee respondents and Anything in the questionnaire that was unclear was 150 host-community respondents from corrected. To ensure its validity and that it met the refugee settlements in rural and urban areas. required standards, the study questionnaire was The refugee settlements in rural areas include iteratively refined. Nakivale, Rwamanja, Mungula, Mirieyi; the urban areas included Adjumani Town Council The questions were presented to heads of and Kampala. A convenient sampling technique households who at the time of the interviews were was adopted whereby preidentified refugee economically active and aged 15 or older, which is and local communities were targeted in the the working age group in Uganda. Economically settlement areas; it was then expanded using active people are those of working age who a snowball approach. The questionnaires were contribute or are available to contribute to the completed through one-on-one interviews with production of goods and services. Employed and heads of households or their spouses from the unemployed refugees and local residents con- different groups: Congolese, South Sudanese, stitute the economically active population. This Rwandese, and Burundians. Interviews for population is measured in relation to a brief refer- these groups were conducted by five bilingual ence period known as the currently active or labor assistants. Three of the five assistants were force. It gives a measure of the number of persons themselves refugees. They targeted male constituting the supply of labor at a given point in and female refugees and local residents of time. working age who were either looking for work or were employed. The questionnaire captured issues related to gender experience among male and female Prior to the field data collection, the findings refugees, challenges with regard to registration, of the literature review were compiled and ease of accessing job information, the reasons for used to guide the design of the questionnaire the failure of many to access formal jobs, types of and fieldwork of the study. The sampling design employment, access to training, access to land, was also informed by the fact that Ugandan and access to and cost of credit, among others. refugees hail from a variety of neighboring We also investigated whether there is discrimina- countries. The respondents from the communities tion based on the formality status of refugee as were approached using a snowball technique well as any gender-based discrimination regarding that began with their own networks. The sample country of origin and level of education. is purposive rather than representative of the refugees involved. Theoretical Framework for Empirical Analysis Data Collection Tool The present study follows a model of unordered The design question was pretested on a sample choices where the individual i will compare the population in the field to make the questions different levels of utility associated with various clearer. The data collection was completed at the choices and then choose the one that maxi- end of June 2015. During the pretest, attention mizes his or her utility Uij among the utilities j Appendix A: Methodology 55 (Combarnous 1999). For the individual i, the utility another. So, if one assumes a lack of entry barri- of choice j is given by: ers, people will choose jobs on the basis of their respective comparative advantages, regardless of (1) U ij = β ' X ij +ε ij whether they are pecuniary or nonpecuniary. From equation 1, X is a vector of observed indi- Data Analysis and Empirical Strategy vidual characteristics, +ε ij vector of unknown isij the U ij = β ' X Before data analysis, the collected data was U ij = β 'and parameters, X ij +ε ij a random error term. The cleaned, sorted, coded, and entered, resulting in utility function is composed of a stochastic compo- the final data set used in the analysis. The analysis nent, which is a function of the observed individual is done using STATA software. To realize the pro- characteristics, and a nonstochastic component, posed study objective, we used simple descriptive which is a linear function of observed variables. statistics, including frequencies, means, standard The probability that the individual i will participate deviation, graphical analysis, and cross tabula- in the labor market when employed in sector j tions, among others. is the probability that the utility of the sector j is higher than that associated with the other seg- This forms the basis for the empirical analysis ments, which is given by the following expression: that involves estimation of a variant of regres- sion models for factors that affect employment (2) P (U ij −U ik ) for k ≠ j ; j , k = 0, 1, 2 of refugees, land access, and access to finance. The empirical analysis includes a set of explana- Equation 2 implies that the probability that the tory variables proposed from the literature, such individual i will participate in the labor sector j is as pre- and postmigration education levels, age, the probability that the differential random com- registration status, family size, access to credit, ponents is higher than the difference between the duration of stay, previous employment status, local nonrandom components; this is given by: language proficiency, acquired skills, and location of the refugees. (3) P ( X β j −β k ) > ε k −ε j for k ≠ j ; j , k = 0, 1, 2 Analysis of Determinants of The maximization of the underlying utility function Employment Choices produces individual decisions as a function of an average reservation wage and an average disutility The present study uses a multinomial logit model of labor. It can be assumed that people weigh to determine the economic activities for the refu- the costs and the pecuniary and nonpecuniary gees and local residents in the resettlement areas. benefits associated with the different segments To provide more insight on economic integration of the labor market before choosing the one that and self-reliance of refuges in Uganda, we offers the greatest utility (Al Aynaoui 1996). examined the determinants of employment choice among refugees and local residents in Thus, the desired wage and the disutility of labor refugee resettlement areas in Uganda by estimat- vary according to the choices made. A person ing a multinomial logit model. This gives us the chooses a specific job even if the benefits that it marginal effects of being employed in formal offers are less advantageous than those offered by employment or informal employment (self- 56 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management employed) compared with being unemployed. whether refugees have access to land and credit In this case, the use of the multinomial logit model or productive capital. In this case, the sample is is justified by the fact that people must choose split between agricultural and nonagricultural between three alternatives that are mutually exclu- employees to ascertain access to land by refugees sive. In other words, choosing an employment and local residents in the resettlement areas. Here, category excludes the possibility of being we want to know whether refugees derive their employed in another employment category at livelihoods from agriculture-related activities. This the same time. If we consider those who take part is analyzed using a dichotomous probit model. in the labor market, it can be assumed that each Using such models, we classify refugees into two individual “i” will have to choose between three groups: those that have access to land or credit alternatives (j=0, 1 and 2: namely be formally and those with no access. We then estimate the employed, self-employed, or unemployed). We probability that a refugee belongs to either group then calculate the predicted probability of each as a function of the observable characteristics, and outcome. We estimate the following model: this yields insightful findings with relevant policy Xiβ j implications. The basic model proposed for this e (4) Pr(Yi = j | X i ) = j = α + β j X i +ε i analysis is given by the following expression: ∑ k =1 eX i β In this model, Yi is the dependent variable mea- (5) Rf _ access i = α + β X h +φ X c + vi suring the outcome for individual i, and j indexes each outcome of employment status (formal From Equation 6, Rf _ access denotes access to employment (j=1) self-employment (j=2), and land or credit of refugee i. The first estimation unemployment (j=3). For identifiability, unemploy- focuses on the factors that determine access to ment is set as the reference category so that the land, and the dependent variable Rf _ access = 1 parameters can be estimated from the multinomial and zero determine otherwise. The second esti- logistic model. For the estimated model, we mation examines the factors that affect access of report the marginal effects or the relative risk refugees to productive assets, mainly credit, with ratio because coefficients from a logistic model Rf _ access = 1 if refugees have access to credit, are hard to interpret and have no meaning. and otherwise zero. From model 6, household Random factors, as well as unobservable factors characteristics Xh, which explain the model, are Xiβ j influencing employment decisions are captured by household size, marital status, premigration e Yi = j | X i ) = j the= α + βterm error j X i + ε i . The sign, magnitude, and statisti- education, postmigration education, registration ∑k =1 eX iβ cal significance of the coefficients will provide status, on-the-job training, marital status, house- information about the relevance of different fac- hold size, and children under age 5, among others. tors affecting the employability of refugees in In addition, Xc represent the community character- Uganda. istics (land tenure system, residence) that explain the model, while vi is the normally distributed error Access to Agricultural Land and Finance term. The study provides insight on access to produc- tive capital in the form of land and credit as a The main independent variable for the empirical means of economic integration and self-reliance model includes age and age squared and the among refugees. Our objective is to examine refuge stay duration as indicator variable for Appendix A: Methodology 57 Table A.1. Distribution of Respondents by Settlement Area and Gender (percent) Gender Adjumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja Male 38 42 29 47 50 60 Female 62 58 71 53 50 40 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Field survey June 2015. duration or number of years in the host country. Table A.1 presents the sample composition of our We also include a variable for current job status as respondents for this study by age and gender in an indicator of accumulated job skills that would the different settlement areas. Our study sample increase one’s economic integration. consisted of local residents and refugees who arrived in Uganda at least six months prior. Education level is used as a categorical variable The refugee sample consisted of individuals (no education, primary, secondary, and post- from seven countries: Rwanda, Burundi, the secondary education) to capture the different Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, skill levels. In addition, we include a variable of Eritrea, and South Sudan. Data in table A.1 shows perceived hospitality of the local community to that more female refugees were sampled, as high examine how much it affects the promotion of the as 71 percent in Mirieyi, 62 percent in Adjumani, economic integration of refugees. A categorical 58 percent in Kampala, and 53 percent in Mungula; variable for marital status is included to examine in Rwamwanja, more men were sampled. the effect of household responsibility and need to search for a job. We include the dwelling status The distribution of respondents by age cohort is of refugees to capture the different employment presented in table A.2. The sample is grouped into opportunities between rural and urban areas. We four cohorts: (1) young, ages 15–19; (2) youth, ages also include the gender of the head of household, 20–24; (3) adult, ages 25–64; and (4) elderly, ages crime rates, and land rent rates to capture the land 65 and older. Over 69 percent of respondents from value in the settlement areas. all of the settlements were adult men and women. Table A.2. Distribution of the Respondents in Different Settlement Areas by Age Cohort and Gender (percent) Age Adjumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja group Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Young 0 4 2 3 7 0 5 0 0 4 2 0 Youth 19 8 9 14 7 15 15 0 6 9 8 20 Adult 69 85 87 79 87 85 80 91 91 86 86 77 Elderly 13 4 2 3 0 0 0 9 3 1 5 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Field Survey June 2015. 58 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Figure A.1. Distribution of Respondents by Household Size (percent) 16 12.83 12.83 13.03 14 12.22 11.02 10.82 12 9.62 10 Percent 8 6.41 5.81 5.41 6 4 2 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Household size Source: Field survey June 2015. Only a small number of sampled refugees were more. These results have strong implications in under 19 years old, and few were above age 65. In terms of the cost of caring for refugees, demon- Adjumani, however, the elderly (ages 65 and older) strating the need for refugees to become self- are better represented (13 percent) because the reliant and be economically integrated with local refugees have been living there for over 15 years. communities. Figure A.1 provides more insight on the household Figure A.2 presents the distribution of education size of the respondents. Most households have at level among refugees, focusing on gender least five members. About 12 percent of house- differences. Analysis of the education profile of holds have seven members, 13 percent have eight the refugees and host communities reveal that members, and, 10.8 percent have 10 members or education levels among refugees are generally Figure A.2. Percentage Distribution of Refugees by Educational Attainment and Gender 40 37 Male 35 33 33 33 34 Female 30 27 29 Overall 25 25 Percent 20 15 15 9 10 9 5 6 5 3 3 0 No education Primary Secondary Vocational University Source: Field Survey June 2015. Appendix A: Methodology 59 Figure A.3. Average Duration of Stay Among Refugees by Nationality 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Percent 8 8 6 6 6 5 4 4 2 0 Burundi Congo, Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Rwanda Somalia Sudan Dem. Rep. Country of origin Source: Field Survey June 2015. low, and there are gender inequalities across all challenges in accessing education, especially at education levels. About 37 percent of women the postsecondary level. have no education compared with only 15 percent of men. Analysis of average years of refugees by nation- ality (figure A.3) shows that Burundian refugees Thirty-four percent of men have a secondary edu- have stayed an average of 15 years, followed by cation compared with only 25 percent of women Rwandian refugees at 13 years, and Sudanese (figure A.2). Fewer women complete a post- refugees at 11 years. secondary education (vocational school or university) than men. This finding also indi- In terms of shelter in the study areas, overall refu- cates that refugees continue to face significant gees in settlements stay in temporary households with mud walls and floors and polythene roofs Table A.3. Employment Status by (figure A.4). However, about 89 percent of urban- Nationality of Respondents (percent) based refugees in Kampala reside in rental houses, with only 4 percent living in temporary housing. In Self- Country Unemployed Employed employed Adjumani, about 27 percent of the respondents Burundi 47.5 17.5 35.0 live in rented houses. Congo 42.8 16.5 40.8 Eritrea 62.5 12.5 25.0 Labor force participation by nationality of Ethiopia 92.3 0 7.7 respondents was analyzed to provide insight Rwanda 68.2 13.3 18.5 into the employability and economic integration Somalia 55.6 5.6 38.9 of refugees in host communities (table A.3). Sudan 62.6 11.1 26.3 Overall, about 43 percent of survey respondents Uganda 25.9 25.9 48.2 are actively engaged in the labor market— Total 57.2 12.8 30.5 12.8 percent in the formal sector and 30.5 percent Source: Field Survey June 2015. 60 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Figure A.4. Nature of Household Shelter Across the Settlement Areas 100 Church 80 Friend’s house Rented house Makeshift shelter Percent 60 Tents 40 Temporary house made of mud walls and floors with polythene roofs 20 0 Adumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja Overall Source: Field Survey June 2015. self-employed. More Burundian refugees economic integration among Ethiopians and, to a (17.5 percent) are active in the formal sector lesser degree, Eritreans. than any other group; the lowest participation rate in the formal sector is among Ethiopian Table A.4 presents an analysis of economic activities refugees at 0 percent. across settlements. The data reveals divergent experiences among refugees: Kampala has the The Congolese dominate the self-employment highest rates of male refugees active in the sector at 41 percent, followed by Somali Rwandans formal sector at 23.9 percent; followed by Nakivale at 39 percent, and Burundians at 35 percent. In at 16.2 percent; Rwamwanja at 15.4 percent; terms of self-employment, Ethiopian refugees Mungula at 15 percent; and Mirieyi, the lowest, have the lowest rates of self-employment at at 3 percent. The level of female participation 7.7 percent. This finding indicates a low rate of observed in the formal sector is very low, averaging Table A.4. Distribution of Employment Status by Settlement and Gender (percent) Male Female Self- Self- Settlement Unemployed Employed employed Unemployed Employed employed Adjumani 63.3 13.3 23.3 70.8 7.7 21.5 Kampala 41.3 23.9 34.8 57.1 9.5 33.3 Mirieyi 53.3 12.5 31.3 81.1 0.0 18.9 Mungula 52.0 15.0 33.0 57.1 14.3 28.6 Nakivale 55.9 16.2 27.9 59.3 8.8 31.9 Rwamwanja 51.7 15.4 32.9 53.2 12.7 34.1 Total 52.9 16.1 30.5 63.1 8.8 28.1 Source: Field Survey June 2015. Appendix A: Methodology 61 Table A.5. Distribution of Occupation of Refugees by Settlements and Gender (percent) Male Female Agriculture Education Trade Other Agriculture Education Trade Other Adjumani 76.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 81.5 12.5 12.0 0.0 Kampala 4.6 11.4 75.0 9.1 3.4 3.4 89.8 3.4 Mirieyi 82.7 08.2 9.1 0.0 86.5 7.7 5.9 0.0 Mungula 80.0 0.1 10.0 10.0 90.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Nakivale 78.3 2.2 13.0 6.5 64.6 8.3 25.0 2.1 Rwamwanja 82.1 0.0 10.3 7.7 69.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 Total 67.2 4.3 22.9 5.6 65.8 5.3 29.0 0.9 Source: Field Survey June 2015. Table A.6. Percentage Distribution of Refugee Access to Different Services by Settlements Access to Adjumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja Overall Education 86 75 71 95 81 72 72 Health 98 84 85 90 95 95 92 Clean water 81 79 85 93 77 75 80 Market 48 26 24 49 17 19 26 Security 67 66 53 84 73 64 68 Electricity 21 71 4 12 5 3 21 Source: Field Survey June 2015. about 9 percent, compared with 28 percent who are clean water, but only 26 percent have access to the self-employed. market. Another issue of concern is poor access to clean energy. Table A.5 presents the occupations of refugees by settlement and gender. Over 78 percent of Figure A.5 presents types of employment for all surveyed refugees in rural settlements are working respondents. The participation of men engaged in agricultural activities compared with in employment without a contract compared with only 5 percent in urban areas. In Kampala, about women in very high, but it is comparable across 75 percent male refugees and 90 percent female other employment types. refugees are engaged in trade. A small number of refugees are engaged in occupations that An analysis of the barriers faced by refugees look- require higher skills, such as educational services. ing for jobs (figure A.6) reveals that the language barrier is the main obstacle to recruitment at Table A.6 presents the status of access to selected 23 percent among women and 19 percent among services in different settlement areas. Seventy-two men, followed by a lack of academic evidence at percent of refugees in all settlement areas have 19 percent among women and 18 percent among access to primary education, health services, and men. The least-cited reported factor is legal 62 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Figure A.5. Distribution of Employment Status (percent) 100 91 Male 80 Female 64 58 60 Percent 51 49 42 40 36 20 9 0 Temporary, Permanent No contract Contract flexible work Source: Field Survey June 2015. Figure A.6. Analysis of Barriers Faced by Refugees to Job Recruitment by Gender (percent) 2.9 All Others 4.4 1.3 Female 7.2 Male Legal barriers due to refugee status 2.2 12.6 7.1 Discrimination 6.6 7.6 Lack lack of evidence of education 17.9 18.8 and experience 17.0 19.1 Language need for reference 14.5 23.2 7.9 Interview process 8.3 7.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 Source: Field Survey June 2015. barriers among women at 2 percent and among Figure A.8 shows that 30 percent of women men at 7 percent. acquired sewing skills, while 30 percent of men acquired skills in brickmaking. Twenty-three per- Figure A.7 presents the distribution by gender cent of men and 18 percent of women acquired for different job search skills acquired by respon- agricultural skills, and 14 percent of men and dents. Cover letter writing was the most commonly 10 percent of women acquired carpentry skills. acquired skill, followed by CV/resume writing and Thirty-five percent of women and 27 percent of interviewing skills. men acquired other skills, such as bookkeeping, arts, and design. Appendix A: Methodology 63 Figure A.7. Job Search Skills by Gender (percent) 60 Male 50 49 45 Female 40 38 All Percent 30 29 24 24 22 23 19 20 14 10 8 5 0 Cover letter writing CV writing Interviewing skills Others Search skills Source: Field Survey June 2015. Figure A.8. Employability Skills Training Acquired 40 35 35 30 30 30 30 25 27 Percent 23 Male 20 21 21 Female 18 15 14 16 All 13 10 10 8 5 5 0 Skilled Carpentry Sewing Brick making Others agricultural Type of skills acquired Source: Field Survey June 2015. Wages and Benefits Looking at average wages from a gender perspec- Figure A.9 presents average monthly income tive by settlement (figure A.10), results show that by settlement area and refugee status. Overall, urban refugees in Kampala and Adjumani earn Ugandan nationals have higher average monthly more than their counterparts in rural settlements. incomes than refugees across all settlements. In addition, average monthly wages are lowest in Kampala reports the highest average salary of Shs the Mirieyi settlement, with female refugees being 440,857 for nationals and Shs 347,882 for refugees. paid less than their male counterparts. 64 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Figure A.9. Average Monthly Income of Refugees by Settlement Area and Refugee Status (in Shs) 166,168 Rwamwanja 93,181 Nationals Refugees 150,000 Nakivale 103,478 410,000 Mungula 312,500 90,000 Mirieyi 82,000 440857 Kampala 347,882 374,285 Adjumani 150,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Thousands Source: Field Survey June 2015. Figure A.10. Average Refugee Monthly Earning by Gender and Settlement Area (in Shs) 143,111 Overall 185,593 Female 98,333 Rwamwanja 87,000 Male 90,000 Nakivale 121,000 112,000 Mungula 120,000 50,000 Mirieyi 82,000 328,333 Kampala 342,181 180000 Adjumani 324,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Thousands Source: Field Survey June 2015. Appendix A: Methodology 65 Figure A.11. Percentage of Household Receiving Additional Income by Source of Income and Gender Male Female 80 69 70 60 60 59 60 53 51 53 52 53 49 Percent 50 47 47 48 47 40 40 41 40 31 30 20 10 0 Retirement Partner’s International Return Remittances Savings UNHCR none Total pension family in from from family home private business Type of skills acquired Source: Field Survey June 2015. The low wages of refugees are often compli- refugees are often involved in large-scale busi- mented with alternative sources of support nesses, such as mini-super markets, restaurants, (figure A.11). Overall, 53 percent of female transportation services, foreign exchange bureaus, refugees reported additional sources of income hair dressing saloons, auto repair shops, and guest compared with 47 percent of male refugees. houses. Most vulnerable refugees are involved in Around 69 percent of female refugees and less-lucrative businesses, such as domestic work, 36 percent of male refugees stated that they mainly in the homes of fellow refugees. The main get additional income from remittances from conclusion from this finding is that richer refugees their families. Sixty percent of male refugees and come into exile with a clear livelihood plan and 40 percent of female refugees reported retirement with good access to livelihood resources. pensions and internal organizations as additional sources of income. More female refugees The main crops grown by refugees are maize, (51 percent) than male refugees (49 percent) beans, sorghum, cassava, potatoes, groundnuts, reported savings as additional income. and bananas. Animals reared include goats, cattle, pigs, poultry, and rabbits. Plot farming has been Livelihoods Activities promoted in all the rural settlement areas as a self- Refugees in Kampala are engaged in a wide range reliant strategy because within five years, refugees of economic activities, including petty trading are expected to sustain themselves with agricul- of accessories, selling clothing materials, retail tural crops grown on individually allocated plots trading, brokering with their country of origin, provided by the Office of the Prime Minister. tailoring, and running mini-restaurants and bars. The Congolese and Rwandan refugees are mainly Figure A.12 presents the effect of refugees on involved in the running of mini-restaurants and local labor markets. Overall, 27 percent of respon- bars. Refugees who are mostly from Eritrea run dents reported that the refugee influx has esca- Internet cafes and money transfer services; Somali lated the unemployment problem, 19 percent 66 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management Figure A.12. Effect of Refugees on Survey results reveal the ways that working refu- the Local Labor Market gees acquired their current positions. The most common method reported by respondents for Increased labor supply— searching for a job was a door-to-door search, 0.28% followed by a Ugandan acquaintance. Local Increased organizations and religious institutions are also Do not know— unemployment— important. Only 3 percent found work through 37.78% 27.22% international organizations. In addition to health problems and exposure to risks at the workplace, surveyed respondents Effect on reported a number of unfair job circumstances wage levels— that they were forced to tolerate, including pres- 15.28% sure to accept low wages, long working hours, Creation of working without breaks, and late payment of more jobs— wages (figure A.14). Only a very small number 19.44% of respondents report being physically abused Source: Field Survey June 2015. at work. Statistics on refugees victimized by crime across believe refugees may lead to the creation of new the different settlements is presented in figure jobs (especially among NGOs), and 15 percent A.15. Overall, 73 percent of respondents reported believed that refugee influx impacts wages. Thirty- having been the victim of a crime. By settlement, eight percent say that they do not know. 78 percent of respondents from Nakivale reported Figure A.13. Means of Job Search Used to Get Current Job 70 62 60 54 50 48 Male Female Percent 40 All 30 30 24 20 16 11 9 10 8 6 9 7 5 3 2 3 3 1 0 Ugandan Door-to-door Local Religious International Other acquaintance inquiry organization institution organization Means of getting current job Source: Field Survey June 2015. Appendix A: Methodology 67 Figure A.14. Refugees Suffering from Work-Related Issues (percent) 45 38.82 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 16.45 15.13 15 13.82 9.87 10 5.92 5 0 Verbal abuse Late payment Nonpayment Working without Working for Nature of breaks or rest long hours work is risky or hard Work-related issues suffered Source: Field Survey June 2015. Figure A.15. Distribution of Crime and Safety by Settlement Area (percent) 100 44 37 32 42 22 44 27 80 No 60 Yes Percent 40 56 63 68 58 78 71 73 20 0 Adumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja Overall Settlement Source: Field Survey June 2015. Table A.7. Reported Violence Across Settlement Area (percent) Adjumani Kampala Mirieyi Mungula Nakivale Rwamwanja Overall Burglary 33 14 47 38 19 52 30 Mugging 0 9 7 25 0 5 6 Assault 33 18 25 25 22 10 19 Fraud 0 5 8 0 0 10 3 Sexual violence 33 45 11 13 56 24 39 Other 0 9 2 0 3 0 3 Source: Field Survey June 2015. 68 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management being the victim of a crime, followed by 71 percent Ethical Considerations of respondents from Rwamwanja, 68 percent from Because of the somewhat sensitive nature of Mirieyi, and 63 percent from Kampala; the lowest this research, researchers took steps to address rates of crime are in Adjumani. potential ethical issues. Respondents and partici- pants were fully informed of the entire purpose Table A.7 summarizes the evidence on reported of the research, and their consent was received in violence across the settlement areas. Overall, advance of conducting interviews. When neces- sexual violence was the crime reported the most sary, the reporting of the findings (verbatim data) at 39 percent, followed by buglary at 30 percent; were treated confidentially. Permission was sought fraud was the least-reported crime at 3 percent. from the Office of the Prime Minister and proto- By settlement, burglary rates are highest in cols were strictly followed in the field to ensure Rwamwanja at 52 percent, followed by Mirieyi at that all authorities involved were comfortable with 47 percent, and Adjumani at 33 percent. Sexual the researchers’ presence. violence is worst in Nakivale at 56 percent, fol- lowed by Kampala at 45 percent, and Adjumani at 33 percent. Muggings are most common in Presentation of Findings Mungula at 25 percent; assault is most common in The study findings were presented at a stake- Adjumani at 33 percent; and fraud is most com- holders workshop organized in Kampala with mon in Rwamwanja at 10 percent. UNHCR staff, UNDP, the Office of the Prime Minister, World Food Program, the World Bank, refugee representatives, and members of the Ugandan parliament. Appendix A: Methodology 69 Appendix B Literature Review Origins of Uganda’s Progressive Protracted Refugee Situations Refugee Policy and Durable Solutions Uganda is lauded as having one of the best Uganda is faced with a large number of refugees refugee regimes in the world (Owing and Nagujja caught in protracted situations, unable to return to 2014): “Both in policy and practice, there is a their countries of origin, sometimes for decades. conducive environment for refugees in Uganda Three main durable solutions are described in the which deserves recognition” (Jallow et al. 2004). literature for protracted refugee situations: repa- One explanation given is historic—Uganda hosted triation, integration, and resettlement (Svedberg refugees during World War II (Jallow et al. 2004), 2014). In the case of many of the Somali and reflecting the country’s long tradition of hosting Congolese refugees residing in Uganda, repatria- refugees. tion is not an option due to continued instability in their home countries. Resettlement to a third The often-described openness and generosity country, often in the West, is the preferred option of local communities toward refugees is related for many refugees (Faigle 2015), however, as to the fact that many Ugandans have themselves Svedberg writes: been refugees or internally displaced in the past, including people in government positions, such “this is the most expensive option and as President Museveni (Jallow et al. 2004). There due to the low percentage of the total are also cultural and ethnic affinities between number of refugees resettled to a third Ugandans and many of the refugees from neigh- country, not a viable large-scale solution.” boring countries, facilitating the integration of (Svedberg 2014) refugees into Ugandan society (Jallow et al. 2004). The best examples of integration in Uganda The Office of the Prime Minister is in charge of are self-settled refugees living in the vicinity of refugee affairs in Uganda, reflecting the national Ugandans. Many have established businesses importance of the issue by the government. The and are able to support themselves (Omata and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Kaplan 2013). However, these refugees are self- (UNHCR) serves as the international lead agency, settled because integration beyond the refugee supported by numerous implementing partners, settlements is not government policy. Refugees including nongovernmental organizations. unable to return to their countries of origin or resettle elsewhere continue to live in refugee settlements, each equipped with a plot of land and tools. Ideally, they are self-sufficient and their Appendix B: Literature Review 71 health and education services are provided by integration of services for the refugees the Ugandan government and aid agencies. What with those of the nationals.” (OPM and these refugees lack is a long-term vision for their UNHCR, 1999) futures. Many refugees were born in Uganda into refugee families, making them second-generation Reduction in Humanitarian Funding refugees (Faigle 2015). They are unable to obtain In 2005, UNHCR published the Handbook for citizenship because the Ugandan constitution Self-Reliance as part of a global policy of push- prohibits the naturalization of the offspring of a ing for durable solutions for refugees (UNHCR refugee, even if born in Uganda and even in the 2005). Self-reliance is described as developing case of Ugandan–refugee mixed marriages.29 and strengthening refugee livelihoods and reduc- ing their vulnerability and dependency on exter- Providing long-term solutions for refugees in nal aid (UNHCR 2005). However, Hunter (2009), protracted situations is enormously challenging, Meyer (2006), and Kaiser (2005, 2006) describe the particularly for countries adjacent to countries motivation behind the push toward self-reliance experiencing conflict, where the number of and the development of the Self-Reliance Strategy refugees is overwhelming. and the Development Assistance to Refugee Hosting Areas program in Uganda as two-fold: a The Policy of Self-Reliance and policy decision by the government of Uganda and Local Integration and Critiques UNHCR that considers what is in the best interest of the refugees and an acknowledgment of the By the late 1990s, Uganda’s refugee policy reality that funding for protracted refugee crises embraced the concept of self-reliance, defined as: has been decreasing since the late 1990s. “to find durable solutions to refugee prob- “One of the major difficulties UNHCR lems by addressing refugee issues within faces in prolonged displacement is dimin- the broad framework of government policy ished donor interest in supporting these and to promote self-reliance and local long-term refugees.” (Jacobsen 2005) integration of refugees through promoting social development initiatives in hosting UNHCR funds have been declining since the areas.” (OPM and UNHCR, 1999) inception of the Self-Reliance Strategy so the pre- vious system of hand-outs could not be continued. A conscious effort was made to move from relief Therefore, some saw the Self-Reliance Strategy to development programming. The goals of the as an offloading and exit strategy on the part of Self-Reliance Strategy were described as: UNHCR (Jallow et al. 2004). “to empower refugees and nationals Integration of Local Services in the area to the extent that they will Another important innovation that the Self- be able to support themselves; and to Reliance Strategy aimed to bring about was establish mechanisms that will ensure the integration of local services. Previously, the services for refugees and the local population ran 29. http://www.statehouse.go.ug/sites/default/files/attach- in parallel. Unlike the local population, refugee ments/Constitution_1995.pdf. 72 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management populations were cared for by aid agencies, which However, the midterm review of the Self-Reliance often had more resources than local govern- Strategy (Jallow et al. 2004) points out that such ments. Many refugee settlements are located in successes are conditional based on the contin- poor and remote areas in Uganda, and at times ued support of government institutions by relief this has led to local populations having poorer agencies to provide for the additional demand; access to and delivery of services than refugees. otherwise, districts would be left with additional Orach and De Brouwere (2004) observed maternal responsibilities and no additional resources. The mortality in the host population in the Adjumani midterm review was also positive about the effects district of northern Uganda being 2.5 times higher that service integration can have on reducing ten- than among refugees settled in the same area sions between refugee and host populations: (Orach and De Brouwere 2004). This led to ten- sions among the groups because local Ugandans “In fact there is evidence to suggest that were envious of refugees when they saw World cohesion and cooperation has increased Food Program trucks loaded with relief supplies since the introduction of service sharing. It is drive past them and into the refugee settlements reported that nationals now have a greater (Dryden-Peterson and Hovil 2004). By integrat- feeling of ownership and right of use [of the ing the two systems, the government of Uganda facilities built and maintained with funding was also hoping to benefit from the aid flows to support of UNHCR].” (Jallow et al. 2004) refugees through the strengthening of the local systems rather than the building up of parallel Successful Cases of Self-Reliance structures. In the early 2000s, after the implementation of the Self-Reliance Strategy had begun, the midterm Successful Cases of Service Integration: review found increased self-reliance among refu- Education and Health Care gees in the northern region with regard to food Orach and De Brouwere (2006) describe examples self-sufficiency (Jallow et al. 2004). Refugees were of successful integration in the health sector, provided with agricultural land by the Ugandan where care significantly improved for the local authorities and given training, tools, and seeds by population. However, for refugees, they observed aid agencies. There was an increased emphasis a significant reduction in referrals (Orach and De on self-reliance, paired with a gradual reduction Brouwere 2006). Possible reasons for this are a of food rations. In addition, to earn additional change in the referral guidelines under the new income, refugees could apply in groups for larger management since the systems were integrated, plots of land. Furthermore, there were initiatives or human, financial, transportation, or logistical to train refugees in nonagricultural income- resource limitations associated with the process generating activities, such as vocational training of restructuring health services and catering for hairdressers and tailors, as examples, to both populations (Orach and De Brouwere but the focus was on agricultural activities 2006). Dryden-Peterson and Hovil (2004) describe (Svedberg 2014). successful integration in the education sector in primary schools, where refugee children and host population children are educated together. Appendix B: Literature Review 73 Critiques of the Self-Reliance and Local movement exists for refugees living in settlements. Integration Approach According to Hovil (2014), freedom of movement In its early stages, the Self-Reliance Strategy was exists, but Norris (2013) observes restrictions. In criticized for being too focused on agriculture, the Kyangwali and Nakivale settlements, Norris with not enough effort toward developing alterna- (2013) observed that refugees registered within the tive livelihoods (Jallow et al. 2004). Providing every settlements required permission from the camp household with a plot of land did not automati- commandant of the Office of the Prime Minister cally lead to self-reliance if the refugee had no to leave the premises, regardless of reason—such agricultural background, if the plot was too small as work, education, or trading. Uganda is gener- due to rising numbers of refugees in the area, or ally lauded as having one of the best refugee if the soil was too degraded due to overuse and regimes in the world. The Refugees Act permits lack of space for crop rotation (Werker 2002). The refugees to settle anywhere in the country, but the success of the approach also varied depending on UNHCR humanitarian assistance programs are still the quality of soil available in the different geo- pegged to the settlements (Owing and Nagujja graphic locations of Uganda. Critics of the Self- 2014), which means that if refugees want access Reliance Strategy and Development Assistance to the support services of relief agencies, they to Refugee-Hosting Areas approaches are often have to settle in one of the designated settle- associated with the Refugee Law Project of ments. Critiques against the settlement approach Makerere University. Authors such as Werker (2002) comes from Meyer (2006), Kaiser (2006, 2005), and and Meyer (2006) see the system as flawed for mul- Hovil (2014), who states, “Refugee settlements are tiple reasons, one of them being the settlement expensive and inefficient, and restrict the ability of policy: the settlements are often remote, making refugees to enjoy their rights while in exile.” Hovil trade difficult due to high trade transaction costs. suggests a deepened local integration approach In the view of Meyer (2006) self-reliance and local in which humanitarian assistance is provided integration is impossible as long as refugees are through local government structures “in order grouped together in settlements separated from to promote rather than undermine the organic the host population, often in remote locations a process of interaction between refugees and host long distance from outside markets and trade communities.” However, to date, solutions to the opportunities beyond the settlements, but there logistical challenges of such an approach have not are also nationals living in such areas. Self reliance been developed. and local integration are not concomitant aspects in refugee management. Relief to Development: The Need for Organizational Change Freedom of Movement and Critiques Another critique of the implementation of the of the Settlement Approach Self-Reliance Strategy and the Development Uganda is one of the only countries with both a Assistance to Refugee-Hosting Areas program legalized UNHCR-sponsored refugee settlement was that the relief agencies assigned with the task policy and a self-settlement policy (Bonfiglio lacked the necessary capacity and qualified per- 2010). Opinions differ as to whether freedom of sonal to make the shift from relief to development 74 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management work. The midterm review of Self-Reliance contribute positively to the economy and create Strategy points out that UNHCR—the initiative’s jobs for the local Ugandan population. main implementation and steering partner—did not have the required development expertise; it “We show a refugee community that is continues to employ experts in relief and humani- nationally and transnationally integrated, tarian work rather than development (Jallow et al. contributes in positive ways to the national 2004). This also points to a structural problem with economy, is economically diverse, uses regard to how to move from relief to development and creates technology, and is far from in terms of organizational expertise and capacity uniformly dependent on international of partners and involved institutions. Another chal- assistance.” (Betts et al. 2014) lenge at the outset of the Self-Reliance Strategy was that bilateral donors and the United Nations Betts et al. (2014) describe how some refugee system had parallel systems for the support of farmers produce food surpluses, which are sold refugees and support to Uganda’s national devel- beyond the camps and even to neighboring opment, while a key assumption was that for the countries, contributing to Uganda’s exports. Self-Reliance Strategy to be successful, support from traditional development partners would Refugees as Entrepreneurs take the place of UNHCR’s relief-oriented funding The studies of Norris (2013), Betts et al. (2014), (Jallow et al. 2004). After some initial problems in Omata and Kaplan (2014, 2013), and Omata (2012) the first years (Jallow et al. 2004), the two systems further highlight the entrepreneurial potential of have also become more integrated on the donor refugees. Drawing on cross-border trade connec- side as they and the United Nations development tions or seed funding received through remittances system include refugee populations in their devel- from relatives abroad, there are many examples opment planning (United Nations 2009). of refugees turning into entrepreneurs. Betts et al. (2014) show that refugees not only play an impor- Refugee Economies in the 2000s: tant role in cross-border trade, but also trace their An Optimistic Outlook trade networks of import and export as far as China and Dubai. On the Ugandan market, refugee In recent years, a new body of literature has entrepreneurs are valued providers of goods and evolved from the Oxford University Humanitarian services, positively contributing to the economy. Innovation Project focused on “refugee econo- Refugees’ consumption further stimulates domestic mies.” The concept of refugee economies is demand in Uganda (Betts et al. 2014). In addition, used to represent the entire resource allocation quantitative work by Betts et al. (2014) provides system relating to a refugee community. It looks evidence that refugee entrepreneurs not only at refugees’ economic lives holistically and from create jobs for fellow refugees, but in many cases the standpoint of the people themselves (Betts et also employ locals. Among urban refugee entre al. 2014). Studies by Betts et al. (2014) and Omata preneurs, 40 percent of those they employ are (2012) depart from the traditional “refugees as Ugandans, countering the myth that refugees only a burden for the host country” narrative and employ fellow refugees from their home countries come to the conclusion that refugees in Uganda (Betts et al. 2014). Appendix B: Literature Review 75 The Role of the Private Sector Among the Somali refugees interviewed in Omata (2012) and Omata and Kaplan (2013) focus Kampala, this number was even higher at 54 on the role of the private sector for refugees percent, with a monthly average sum per house- achieving self-sufficiency—an often-neglected hold receiving remittances of US$115 (Betts et al. area of research on refugees. The authors point 2014). Many refugees use this capital to start their out that settlements do not exist as autonomous own businesses. This is particularly significant in systems; they are integrated with the local and light of the fact that remittances—not only from wider national economy. There is evidence that, the home countries of refugees but also from even in the settlements where refugees have been Ugandan’s working abroad—have surpassed deemed self-reliant through agricultural subsis- Uganda’s main export—coffee—to become the tence, farming alone appears to be insufficient greatest source of foreign exchange (Mulumba at enabling refugees to achieve economic sus- and Olema 2009). tainability (Omata and Kaplan 2013). Omata and Kaplan describe the case of Kyangwali settlement Different Degrees of located on fertile land: Self-Reliance among the Diverse Refugee Populations “often described as the ‘food basket of Hoima’, refugees nonetheless emphasized An abundance of studies exist on the different the limited income-generating capacity subgroups among Uganda’s refugee population, of their farming activities. They instead charting out significant variations concerning the highlighted the centrality of nonfarm- degree of self-reliance achieved (Norris 2013; ing livelihoods and of linkages with the Omata and Kaplan 2014). Ugandan private sector as a key differen- tiating factor in improving their economic Self-Settled Refugees status.” (Omata and Kaplan 2013) Early research about refugee economies, such as by Omata (2012), focused on self-settled refu- Therefore, other businesses, such as small shops or gees in Kampala. Meyer (2006) and Kaiser (2006) garages, are also found in the settlements. Omata describe the self-settled refugees as those most and Kaplan (2013) observed a lively interaction successful at integration and self-reliance, but between Ugandans and the refugee community, many still barely make ends meet (Omata 2012). with Ugandans coming to the refugee settlements These refugees must be self-reliant because they to sell products, purchase produce, or shop for live outside the system, leaving them no choice. other items. If they are not registered, they are drawn to urban areas despite the lack of support from UNHCR and Remittances the Office of the Prime Minister due to the more Remittances received by refugees from relatives diverse opportunities for income-generation activi- abroad are a form of foreign direct investment ties beyond agriculture and shorter distances to that helps Uganda with its trade balance. Betts et markets. Furthermore, in many cases, self-settled al. (2014) found that 30 percent of Kampala-based refugees in Kampala and other urban centers have refugees interviewed were receiving remittances. an urban, more educated background or possess 76 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management stronger social networks to draw on (Kaiser 2006), population, refugees do not have extended family and they see themselves as having more opportu- networks to fall back on during a crisis, nor do they nities in cities than in the rural settlements. have much in the way of assets to buffer external shocks, such as a house, animals, or land. Support New Arrivals is therefore still needed in cases of external Omata and Kaplan (2014) published a study com- shocks, such as droughts, floods, and conflicts. paring a relatively new settlement, the reopened As the miderm review of the Self-Reliance Strategy Rwamwanja, with older more established settle- points out: ments—in this case Kyangwali. They conclude that “A major limitation in the conceptual newly arrived refugees are less self-reliant and that approach [of the Self-Reliance Strategy] their livelihoods lack diversification. They describe is to assume that progress towards a process by which refugee livelihoods become self-reliance was a linear process over more diversified over time. time and it did not factor in the effects of drought and other shocks.” Differences among Nationalities (Jallow et al. 2004) Studies by Norris (2013) and Betts et al. (2014) describe noticeable differences in the livelihood In addition to times of external shocks and crises, strategies of different refugee nationalities and there are certain subgroups of refugees, such as their degree of success in achieving self-reliance. female-headed households, the disabled, the In her fieldwork, Norris (2013) found the Somali sick, and the elderly, who need continued support refugee population to be the most successful because they cannot provide for themselves. In entrepreneurs, followed by Eritreans and Omata and Kaplan’s study (2013), disabled people, Ethiopians, who run small shops or cafes. Betts orphans, elderly people, the chronically ill, widows, et al. (2014) found the South Sudanese, female-headed households, and recent refugee Congolese, and Rwandans were more involved in arrivals were consistently identified by respon- agricultural activities. Omata and Kaplan (2013) dents as the “poorest” and least self-sufficient describe the wide social networks Somali refugees groups (Omata and Kaplan 2013). often have to be among the factors contributing to their success, including in many cases receiv- Gender Aspects ing the seed capital for opening a business from Omata and Kaplan (2013) describe how the abroad in the form of remittances from family and poorest groups are often forced to employ friends in industrialized countries. negative coping strategies. For example, among the Congolese, Rwandan, and Burundi refugees Continued Support for Vulnerable they spoke with in Nakivale, widows were identi- Populations fied as the key group involved in commercial sex, Despite the successes of the Self-Reliance while orphaned children typically either begged Strategy, refugee populations still suffer from a or pursued small errands (Omata and Kaplan higher degree of fragility due to lower levels of 2013). Norris (2013) describes extensive sexual resilience. In most cases, unlike the host violence faced by refugee women in settlements, Appendix B: Literature Review 77 particularly if widowed or unmarried. Sebba (2006) “The talk about self-reliance when the describes early marriage or prostitution as people are not equipped for that living is a common survival strategies. hoax. For PWD [People with Disabilities]’s self-reliance is a far dream.” (Owing and Refugees with Disabilities Nagujja 2014) Conflict often leads to more people being affected by a disability as a direct or indirect consequence According to Owing and Nagujja (2014), there was of war. In addition, conditions for people with a decrease in support for refugees with disabilities disabilities tend to worsen through displacement. since UNHCR handed over some of the services to The social support network they normally depend local institutions. For people with disabilities, land on is no longer there. Omata and Kaplan (2013) provision is insufficient, especially if they cannot found people with special needs and the elderly farm it themselves. Difficulties in accessing jobs to be heavily engaged in begging. According to and employment also persist. Depending on the their findings, these vulnerable refugees are not disability, refugees with disabilities might require able to meet their basic livelihood needs: “This continued support to obtain clean water, firewood, is often directly tied to their limited access to inter- and access to water, sanitation, and hygiene facili- nal and external markets and a limited capacity to ties. Long distances to obtain such vital resources diversify their income sources” (Omata and Kaplan can pose insurmountable challenges to refugees 2013). Owing and Nagujja (2014) quote a refugee with disabilities, reducing the length and quality of saying, “Being a refugee with a disability is almost their lives. a sure sentence to a life of poverty.” Often they are even worse off than local people with disabili- Geographical Spread of Studies ties since in many cases they cannot rely on a big family or community network for support. In addi- The studies of the late 1990s and early 2000s tion, national federations or help groups are often assessing or critiquing the self-reliance approach designed to help nationals with disabilities, not mainly focused on the South Sudanese refugee refugees (Owing and Nagujja 2014). On the other population in the area of Moyo in northwestern hand, the midterm review of the Self-Reliance Uganda (Meyer 2006; Jallow et al. 2004). This was Strategy found that, in rural settings, due to exist- the geographic focus area of most studies at that ing support services provided by aid agencies, time because the Self-Reliance Strategy approach vulnerable groups inside refugee settlements are started there, targeting the South Sudanese better cared for than those from the local popula- refugees. tion (Jallow et al. 2004). In more recent studies, the Oxford Humanitarian Despite provisions for vulnerable groups (Jallow Innovation Project (Betts et al. 2014) and research- et al. 2004), the Self-Reliance Strategy is described ers such as Omata (2012), Omata and Kaplan in some of the literature as having had a nega- (2013), and Norris (2013) focused on self-settled tive effect on the livelihood situation of refugees refugees in Kampala and refugee settlements with disabilities. In the words of a refugee with located in the conflict-free and more fertile south. disabilities: The question is: to what extent have these factors 78 An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management influenced the findings of the recent studies in Methodology of Studies being more optimistic (Murray 2015)? Likewise, the The majority of studies used literature review, studies must be considered in the context of their observation, interviews, key informant interviews, time. At the time of the Self-Reliance Strategy questionnaires, and focus group discussions midterm review, northern Uganda was still plagued (Kaiser 2006; Meyer 2006; Jallow et al. 2004; by insecurity: Owing and Nagujja 2014). Orach and De Brouwere (2004, 2006) used data from health facilities. “The northern districts of Uganda are Omata (2012), Omata and Kaplan (2013, 2014), poorer than the rest of the districts, and Betts et al. (2014) used extensive quantitative are marginalized and plagued by insecurity, surveys, the latter collecting answers from more displacement and under-development” than 1,500 refugees. (Jallow et al. 2004) Ten years later, Uganda has become more secure and has experienced stable economic growth. The success of the Self-Reliance Strategy and the Development Assistance to Refugee-Hosting Areas program also depends on such external factors. Appendix B: Literature Review 79 References Al Aynaoui, J. P. K. 1996. “Une investigation du lien pauvreté- Kaiser, T. 2005. “Participating in Development? Refugee marché du travail dans le contecte du Maroc.” Revue Protection, Politics and Developmental Approaches to Région et Développment 3. Refugee Management in Uganda.” Third World Quarterly Betts, A., L. Bloom, J. Kaplan, and N. Omata. 2014. 26 (2): 351–67. “Refugee Economies: Rethinking Popular Assumptions,” ———. 2006. “Between a Camp and a Hard Place: Rights, Humanitarian Innovation Project, University of Oxford. Livelihood and Experiences of the Local Settlement System http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/other/refugee- for Long-Term Refugees in Uganda.” The Journal of economies-2014.pdf. Modern African Studies 44 (4): 597–621. Bonfiglio, A. 2010. “Learning Outside the Classroom: Non Macchiavello, Michela. 2003. “Forced Migrants as an Formal Refugee Education in Uganda.” Research Paper Under-utilized Asset: Refugee Skills, Livelihoods, and 193, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Achievements in Kampala, Uganda.” Working Paper 95, Combarnous, F. 1999. “La Miseen Oeuvre du Modèle Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit, UNHCR. http://www. Logisstique Multinomial Emboètèdans” (Determination: unhcr.org/3f818aa04.pdf. The Role of Sample Selection and Non-Pecuniary Factors).” Meyer, S. 2006. “’The ‘Refugee Aid and Development’ Oxford Economic Papers 41, 573–94. Approach in Uganda: Empowerment and Self-Reliance of Dryden-Peterson, S., and L. Hovil. 2004. “A Remaining Hope for Refugees in Practice.” Research Paper 131, United Nations Durable Solutions: Local Integration of Refugees and Their High Commissioner for Refugees, New Issues in Refugee Hosts in the Case of Uganda.” Refuge 22 (1): 26–38. Research, Geneva. Faigle, P. 2015. “Die Landgabe.” ZEIT Online (May 27). Mulumba, D., and W.M. Olema. 2009. “Policy Analysis Report: http://www.zeit.de/feature/uganda-fluechtlinge-land- Mapping Migration in Uganda.” IMMIS—African Migration schenkung. and Gender in Global Context: Implementing Migration Garimoi, Orach C., and Vincent De Brouwere. 2005. Integrating Studies. Refugee and Host Health Services in West Nile Districts. Norris, Karen J. 2013. “Livelihood Security Among Refugees in Uganda: Oxford University Press. Uganda: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Physical Security Hovil, L. 2014. “Conflict in South Sudan: Refugees Seek Implications.” Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection Protection in Uganda and a Way Home.” International 1686. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1686. Refugee Rights Initiative. Omata, N. 2012. “Refugee Livelihoods and the Private Sector: Hunter, M. 2009. “The Failure of Self-Reliance in Refugee Ugandan Case Study.” Working Paper Series 86, Refugee Settlements.” POLIS Journal 2 (Winter). Studies Centre, Oxford Department of International Jacobsen, K. 2005. The Economic Life of Refugees. Kumarian Development, Oxford University. http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/ Press. files/publications/working-paper-series/wp86-refugee- Jallow, T., J. Tournée, A. Mwesigye, H. Schierbeck, F. Kasahura, livelihoods-private-sector-uganda-2012.pdf. R. Mayanja et al. (2004). “Report of the Mid-term Review: Omata, N., and J. Kaplan. 2013. “Refugee Livelihoods in Self-Reliance Strategy (1999–2003) for Refugee Hosting Kampala, Nakivale and Kyangwali Refugee Settlements: Areas in Moyo, Arua and Adjumani Districts, Uganda.” Patterns of Engagement with the Private Sector.” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Working Paper Series 95, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford Government of Uganda. Department of International Development, University of Oxford. References 81 ———. 2014. “UNHCR/Oxford Humanitarian Innovation Project Rydgren, Jens. 2004. “Mechanisms of Exclusion: Ethnic (HIP) Joint Rwamwanja Livelihood Study.” United Nations Discrimination in the Swedish Labour Market.” Journal of High Commissioner for Refugees, University of Oxford, Ethnic and Migration Studies 30(4): 697–716. Refugee Studies Centre, Humanitarian Innovation Project. Sebba, K. R. 2006. “Land Conflicts and Their Impact on OPM (Office of the Prime Minister) and UNHCR (United Refugee Women’s Livelihoods in Southwestern Uganda.” Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 1999. “Strategy New Issues in Refugee Research Paper 127, United Nations Paper on Self-Reliance, Self-Reliance for Refugees Hosting High Commissioner for Refugees, New Issues in Refugee Areas in Moyo, Arua and Adjumani Districts 1999–2003.” Research, Geneva. Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda, United Nations Svedberg, Erik. 2014. “Refugee Self-Reliance in Nakivale High Commissioner for Refugees, Kampala. Refugee Settlement, Uganda.” Independent Study Project Orach, C. G., and V. De Brouwere. 2004. “Postemergency (ISP) Collection. 1778. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/ Health Services for Refugee and Host Populations in isp_collection/1778. Uganda, 1999–2002.” The Lancet 364: 611–12. United Nations. 2009. “United Nations Development ———. 2006. “Integrating Refugee and Host Health Services Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2010–2014.” United in West Nile Districts, Uganda.” Health Policy and Planning Nations, Kampala. 21(1): 53–64. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Owing, E., and Y. Nagujja. 2014. “Caught Between a Rock 2005. Handbook for Self-Reliance. Geneva: United Nations and a Hard Place, Challenges of Refugees with Disabilities High Commissioner for Refugees. and Their Families in Uganda.” In Crises, Conflict and Werker, E. 2002. Refugees in Kyangwali Settlement: Constraints Disability: Ensuring Equality, edited by D. Mitchell and V. on Economic Freedom. Refugee Law Project. Kampala: Karr, Routledge. Makerere University. 82 References