Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda Results from the Uganda Refugee and Host Communities 2018 Household Survey Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda Results from the Uganda Refugee and Host Communities 2018 Household Survey Acknowledgments Informing the Refugee This report was a joint collaboration between the World Bank and the Government of Uganda (GoU), particularly the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) and the Uganda Policy Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). The report was written by a core team led by Carolina Mejia-Mantilla (Senior Econo- mist), comprised by Besufekad Alemu (Consultant), Jo- Response in hanna Fajardo (Consultant) and Nobuo Yoshida (Lead Economist). The authors acknowledge contributions from Gildas Bopahbe Deudibe (Consultant), Aieshwarya Uganda Davis (Consultant), and Vincent Ssenonno (UBOS). The report was prepared under the supervision of Carlos Felipe Jaramillo (Country Director for Ken- ya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Eritrea), Antony Thompson (Country Manager for Uganda) and Pierella Paci (Prac- tice Manager). The authors benefitted from excellent © 2019 The World Bank Rights and Permissions comments from Varalakshmi Vemuru (Lead Social De- 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 The material in this work is subject to copyright. Be- velopment Specialist) and Joanna P . De Berry (Senior Telephone: 202-473-1000; cause The World Bank encourages dissemination of Social Development Specialist) and from discussions Internet: www.worldbank.org its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole with Tara Vishwanath (Lead Economist) and James or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full Muwonge (UBOS). Also, comments from presentations Some rights reserved attribution to this work is given. in the World Bank, OPM and Comprehensive Refugee This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. Response Framework (CRRF) secretariat helped to en- The findings, interpretations, and conclusions ex- Attribution hance the report. Special thanks to Stephen Baryahir- pressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2019. wa (UBOS) for all the efforts to make the data collec- views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda. tion a success. or the governments they represent. The World Bank Results from the Uganda Refugee and Host Commu- does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included nities 2018 Household Survey. © World Bank.” This work was mostly funded by the State and Peace- in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, building Fund (SPF), a global fund to finance critical and other information shown on any map in this work All queries on rights and licenses, including subsid- development operations and analysis in situations of do not imply any judgment on the part of The World iary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Pub- fragility, conflict, and violence. The SPF is kindly sup- Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or lications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, ported by: Australia, Denmark, Germany, The Nether- the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; lands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, The United King- e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. dom, as well as IBRD. Photo credit cover: Dorte Verner Photo credits: World Bank Design: .Puntoaparte Bookvertising 4 5 Main Refugees are an untapped source of labor. Currently, 3 out of 4 refugees are unemployed, which represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Activating refugees into the local labor messages markets would contribute to the local economy and benefit the country. Skills formation and training geared towards unemployed refugees should take into account their characteristics in terms of education, occupational background and access to land. It is vital to stimulate labor demand in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. The latter is especially important, as it also helps to diversify economic activities away from weather shocks. Enhancing the productivity of refugees already engaged in economic activities can help increase their income. Half of refugees that are engaged in an economic activity reports chang- ing occupations since they arrived to Uganda, and less than 5 percent have received some skills or job training. In addition, most refugees engaged in agricultural production do not use improved agricultural inputs and rely on rainfall. Ensuring access to high quality agricultural inputs, accom- panied by extension services, can help increase incomes from agricultural production of refugees with access to land (mostly through using rights). Similarly, investments in water management can not only enhance their income, but also reduce their vulnerability to weather shocks. For more recently arrived refugees with lower access to land, programs geared towards skills training may Despite feeling secure and welcome, the refugee population in Uganda lives in precari- yield higher wage returns. ous conditions. About half of the refugee population in the country (48 percent) are living in pov- erty. Refugees in the West Nile experience the highest rate at approximately 60 percent, linked to the fact that recent refugees tend to be poorer. Food insecurity is high for both refugee and hosts in the Southwest and West Nile regions. It is important to continue the support to continue supporting programs aimed at alleviating poverty and food insecurity, particularly among recent refugees. In addition, certain segments of the refugee population, such as children (0-15 years Investing in access to basic services in host communities will contribute to their of age), require particular attention. development and contribute to a peaceful coexistence of both populations. There are no major differences between host communities and refugees in the West Nile and Southwest regions regarding access to basic services. However, in some instances and particularly in West Nile, refugees report more favorable access rates compared to host communities. Ensuring access for all, through the appropriate financial and institutional resources, will not only contribute to a more peaceful relationship between refugees and hosts, but it will also close the gap between refugee-hosting regions and the rest of the country. It is important to ensure the self-reliance of refugees and enhance their ability to gen- erate income. Aid dependence among refugees is high, about 54 percent report that aid is their main source of income. While aid reliance goes down with tenure, it is still the main source of “Use your knowledge and your heart, to stand up for those income for 37 percent of refugees that arrived more than 5 years ago. Refugees in West Nile are more dependent on aid than those in the Southwest, partly because they arrived more recently. who can’t stand, speak for those who can’t speak, be a Aid dependency highlights the need to enhance the income generating ability of refugees from the very beginning. Policies designed to improve refugee self-reliance can capitalize on Uganda’s beacon of light for those whose lives have become dark.” receptivity to refugee employment and enterprise. Julie Andrews Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank 6 7 Introduction Demographic Wellbeing Access to profile indicators services Page 9 Page 22 Page 32 Page 48 The livelihood Economic Conclusions Annex of refugees and social and host integration communities Page 62 Page 78 Page 88 Page 94 Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank 8 9 Chapter 1 Introduction “It is the obligation of every person born in a safer room to open the door when someone in danger knocks.” Dina Nayeri Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 5 10 11 One Equally important, the report provides a compre- Comparisons across the different regions provide Informing hensive description of the livelihoods of both refu- valuable lessons. The data used in this report are not gees and host households. It provides information on only representative of the refugee and host populations the main sources of income, including aid and economic of Uganda as a whole, but also of the refugee and host activities, studies host and refugee engagement in the populations of the West Nile and Southwest region.1 Uganda’s refugee local labor market with an emphasis on how refugee la- This allows to explore whether the refugee approach has bor conditions (sectors and occupations) have changed worked differently in the two areas, and to a lesser extent, since they arrived in the country, and briefly examines evaluate how much pressure the recent influx exerted in self-employment in terms of agricultural activities and the Northern region. Moreover, it allows an exploration household enterprises. The results constitute valuable of how all the socio-economic profile varies depending response moving information to design and develop programs with the on the tenure of refugees (time since they arrived in the aim to increase the self-reliance of refugees, and to country). This is particularly important in drawing lessons guide specific actions that can help increase the income and adapting the refugee response to ensure an overall derived from economic activities (in both wage-employ- sustainable solution. In addition, the household survey is forward ment and self-employment). A sustainable response to based on the official survey that the GoU uses to monitor refugees requires the peaceful cohabitation of refugees the wellbeing of its population, so the results are mostly and host communities, thus the report provides some comparable to official statistics. indication of the degree of socio-economic integration of refugees in their communities. It describes several ar- eas in which refugees participate and contribute to the local economy, looks at some of the safety perceptions refugees have, and presents several indicators of the 1. Also of the host population in Kampala, but it is not clear that social integration of refugee families. refugees in Kampala had had an important effect in the capital. The recent refugee influx is testing Uganda’s ap- in its refugee response. The successful implemen- proach to managing refugees. Uganda’s legal and tation of the approach could result in the socio-eco- policy framework regarding refugees is one of the nomic development of refugee-hosting areas, and in most progressive of the world and is often referred as the strengthening of the local institutional capacity. a model to follow. However, the recent refugee influx Moreover, improving the self-reliance and integration that doubled the number of refugees in the country of refugees into the local communities could generate in less than three years represents a challenge for positive spillover for the rest of the country. This way, the institutions, programs and mechanisms in place. Uganda will continue to be a model to the international The recent arrivals have put additional pressure on community on how to face these types of situations. the public services delivery system, and to some cen- tral elements of the response approach, such as land This report analyzes the living conditions, well- availability for refugee use. Without the adequate re- being and socio-economic profile of refugees and sponse, the prolonged and steady refugee influx rep- host communities in Uganda in order to inform resents a challenge for the sustainability of Uganda’s this policy response. More specifically, it analyzes the approach (FAO 2018). wellbeing of refugees and hosts in terms of monetary poverty, food security, housing conditions and vulner- Ensuring the success of Uganda’s refugee re- ability to shocks, and examines their access to basic sponse is crucial. The influx is aggravated by the fact services -mainly education, health and water and sani- that refugee hosting areas were already vulnerable tation and to a lesser extent, financial services. More- due to underlying poverty, limited resilience to shocks, over, it analyzes the main demographic characteristics limited capacity of local institutions, and low levels of of both refugees and hosts, which allows the identifica- human capital. The sudden and dramatic increase in tion of particularly vulnerable groups. This information the population of these areas, particularly in the North, is crucial for the targeting of social programs, aiming puts pressure in the public service delivery systems to improve the living conditions of refugees and hosts, and existing infrastructure. More than ever, it is import- and identifies specific sectors for which investments ant to support and inform the Government of Uganda should be prioritized. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 5 12 13 Two Background Uganda is currently the third largest refugee-host- der come from Burundi, Somalia, Rwanda and Eritrea (see The majority of refugees in Uganda live in settle- Adjumani, about 45 percent in Moyo, and 28 in Yumbe ing nation in the world, after Turkey and Pakistan, Figure 1c). Refugees coming from South Sudan are fleeing ments. Refugees are concentrated in 13 districts -out (see Figure 1d). Therefore, for these districts, there are and the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa (see Figure the intense civil war that broke after the country's indepen- of all 127 districts in total- including the capital city of significant challenges in the provision of high-quality 1a). By February 2019, the country was hosting around dence from Sudan, while insecurity and ethnic violence are Kampala. Six of these districts, namely Adjumani, Arua, public services, such as education, health and water/ 1.2 million refugees distributed mostly in the North- the main drivers of the influx from DRC. The current com- Koboko, Moyo, Lamwo and Yumbe are located in the sanitation services; not only because of the magnitude ern and Western part of the country.2 The large bulk of position changed considerably from that observed before Northern region or West Nile region. There are five dis- of phenomenon, but also because they are some of the the refugee influx took place between 2015 and 2017, the South Sudan crisis; in December 2015 DRC nationals tricts in the Southwest that host refugee settlements: poorest and less developed districts within Uganda.5 when the number of refugees in the country almost accounted for 41.7 percent of total refugee population fol- Kiryandongo, Hoima, Kyegegwa, Kamwenge and Isin- Thus, it is important to provide these hosting districts doubled as a result of the crisis in South Sudan. In lowed by South Sudan nationals at 39.4 percent.3 Going giro (see Figure 1d). Within these districts, refugees with the adequate financial and institutional resources, 2018, while the inflow from South Sudan stabilized, forward, the South Sudan peace agreements signed in are organized in 30 settlements (24 settlements in particularly for those in which the proportion of the ref- refugees moving from the Democratic Republic of Con- November 2018 predict no large inflows from this country the West Nile and 6 settlements in the Southwest). ugee population is relatively high. go (DRC) increased moderately. In the past 5 months, in the short term. However, recent agreements have been Refugees residing in Kampala do not reside in settle- between October 2018 and February 2019, the coun- shown to be fragile and the situation may change rapidly.4 ments, and, as will be discussed in detail throughout try welcomed an average of 17 thousand refugees per the report, have a different profile from other refugees month (see Figure 1b). in Uganda. 5. For example, the poverty headcount rate for Adjumani and Yumbe The majority of refugees come from neighboring 2. UNHCR (2018a), 2017 Global Trends Report: http://www.unhcr. The West Nile region hosts around 750 thousand respectively reached 38 and 30 percent in 2016/17 according to countries, reflecting the political instability that org/5b27be547. refugees and, in some districts, refugees repre- a recent poverty maps exercise conducted by UBOS. These poverty has characterized the region. More specifically, around 3. World Bank (2016). sent almost half of the total population. Districts rates are considerably higher than the national poverty rate of 21 65.5 percent of refugees in Uganda come from South Su- 4. https://www.npr. org/2018/11/08/665386800/will-south-su- in West Nile host nearly 65 percent of the total ref- percent for that same year. The poverty maps exercise combines dan, around 26.6 percent from the DRC, and the remain- dans-new-peace-agreement-hold-this-time. ugee population (see Figure 1d). Moreover, refugees household survey data (UNHS 2016/17) with Census data (2014) to account for a very large proportion of the total popu- derive poverty estimates at low levels of administrative units, which lation in some of the districts: close to 47 percent in otherwise cannot be obtained with household data only. An important initiative that is being considered by the GoU is to include the refugee population as part of the total district population when determining the local allocation of resources in the budget cycle. This measure can help to alleviate the pressure for hosts districts and ensure the provision of high-quality basic services for both the host and refugee populations. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 1 14 15 SOUTH SUDAN Figure 1. Snapshot of the Refugee Situation in Uganda Moyo Source. a) UNCHR (2018a), b-d) UNCHR website (https://data2.unhcr.org/en/country/uga) 45% 10% 1a. Number of refugees in several countries 2017 2016 Lamwo 23% Turkey 3% Pakistan Adjumani 47% Uganda 16% Lebanon Arua 16% 13% Germany Iran Yumbe Bangladesh 28% 18% Sudan Ethiopia Kiryandongo 17% Jordan 5% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Koboko Number of refugees (millons) 2% 0.1% 1b. Refugees over time in Uganda Kikuube 1.24 13% 1.22 Number of refugees (millons) 1.21 8% 1.22 1.19 Kampala 1.20 1.18 4% 1.18 5% 1.15 1.16 1.14 Kyegegwa 21% 1.12 7% Oct. 18 Nov. 18 Dec. 18 Jan. 19 Feb. 19 KENYA 1c. Refugees by country of origin Kamwenge 14% South Sudan 65.5% 5% DCR 26.7% Burundi 3% Isingiro Somalia 2.2% 19% 9% Others 1.4% District Rwanda 1.2% 1d. Proportion of refugees by district % of total population % of refugee population RWANDA Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 1 16 17 Three Uganda’s approach There are some limitations to the Uganda refugee response approach. One significant limitation of the legal framework is that it does not provide a permanent to refugee solution of citizenship for refugees who can neither re- patriate nor resettle elsewhere (World Bank 2016a). The children of refugees born in Uganda (and even if one parent is Ugandan) and their future offspring, are also not entitled to citizenship. A second limitation of the management approach is that movement in and out of settlement ar- eas is not easy, which could be negatively affecting the economic integration of refugees. In addition, despite the fact that for some districts, the refugee population constitutes almost half of the total population, the fiscal transfers they receive do not take this into account. As mentioned, the GoU is considering to change this in or- der to provide these districts with the necessary means to respond to the pressing needs. Uganda’s approach to hosting refugees is one of essential to minimize disparities in access to basic the most generous and progressive of the world. services and avoid tensions between the communities. Established in the 2006 Refugees Act and 2010 Refu- gees Regulations, Uganda’s approach to refugee hosting Refugee response is an integral part of the recent has been repeatedly praised as an example of refugee National Development Plan. Considering the volatile response policy (UNICEF, 2018).6 Overall, the regulatory political environment of the region and the fact that framework embodies the following key refugee protec- many are in a protracted refugee situation (those that tion principles and freedoms: i) property rights and ac- have been in exile for five or more years), the GoU has cess to land, ii) right to access employment and engage included the refugee response in its National Develop- in income generating activities, iii) right to access public ment Plan (NDP II 2015/16–2019/20). The underlying social services including education and health, iv) free- rationale is that refugees can contribute to the devel- dom of movement and association7,8 and v) the right to opment of host areas, but that this requires a compre- documentation and equality before the law. hensive and multi-sectoral approach over many years. Under this framework the GoU has developed many programs targeting both refugee and host commu- nities. Many of the development initiatives conducted 6. Uganda’s legal refugee protection is in line with international con- by the GoU, supported by UNHCR and other partners, ventions and declarations (the 1951 United Nations convention, the have focused on promoting the self-reliance of refu- 1967 protocol), regional agreements (the 1969 OAU convention), as gees, strengthening the resilience and service delivery well as national laws and regulations. of host communities, and promoting a peaceful coex- 7. Uganda is the only country in the Horn of Africa with a domestic istence between the two communities.9 Promoting the refugee law that explicitly provides for the freedom of movement self-reliance of the refugee population and establishing for refugees. a sustainable source of livelihood that would progres- 8. This is limited to nonpolitical associations, nonprofit associations, sively reduce the need for humanitarian aid, is a central and trade unions. part of Uganda’s refugee response. Moreover, efforts 9. Some of these include the Self-reliance Strategy, Development to strengthen the local institutional capacity and en- Assistance to Refugee Hosting Areas, Refugee and Host Community hance service delivery in hosting areas are considered Empowerment Strategy ReHoPE, and the Koboko Partnership. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 5 18 19 Four the 2014 Uganda Population and Housing Census, was Between the first and second stages, a household Survey used to determine the samples for the host and refugee listing operation was carried out in all selected populations of Kampala, and the host populations in PSUs outside Kampala. For the listing operation, all West Nile and Southwest.12 The second one is a newly selected PSUs were visited and the residential house- developed sampling frame for the refugee population in holds were located with their address and the name instrument the West Nile and Southwest regions (see Annex 9.1 for of the household head was recorded. In the second details). stage, for each selected PSU, ten households were selected from the newly established list using a sys- Given the nature of the survey, the sample is strat- tematic sampling approach. Household selection was ified by three separate domains. The first domain performed in the field prior to the main survey and in- is the host population in the regions of West Nile and terviewers only interviewed selected households. This South West. The second is the refugee population in the means that no replacements or changes to selected The findings presented in this report are based in timate poverty figures that are comparable to the offi- regions of West Nile and Southwest, and the third, the households was allowed in the implementation stage the 2018 Uganda Refugee and Host Communities cial ones. The data was collected during the months of refugee and host population in Kampala. A total of 221 in order to prevent bias.13 Household Survey (URHS). The URHS was a collab- June and July 2018 by UBOS. primary sample units were allocated to the three differ- orative effort between the Office of the Prime Minister ent domains. For each domain, the sample was obtained With this design, the survey selected 2,209 residen- (OPM), the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), and The survey is representative of the refugee and based on a two-stage stratified sample of households. tial households, distributed geographically across 13 the World Bank.10 The survey questionnaire is com- host community population of Uganda at the na- In the first stage, PSUs were selected using a Proba- districts of Uganda covering all three strata as de- prehensive and follows closely the official survey that tional level. Moreover, it is representative of the refu- bility Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling method. For scribed in Table 1. For Kampala, it included the districts the GoU uses to monitor the wellbeing of the popula- gee and host population in the regions of West Nile and the host communities and Kampala, before the selec- of Kampala and Wakiso, for West Nile it included the dis- tion and measure poverty -the UNHS (Uganda Nation- South West, and the city of Kampala.11 The host popula- tion of the PSUs, district EAs were sorted by residence tricts of Adjumani, Arua, Moyo, Yumbe, Koboko and Lamwo, al Household Survey). It provides information on the tion is defined as the native population in districts where type (urban/rural), district sub-county, parish, village and and finally, for Southwest it included Hoima, Kamwenge, demographic composition of households, household refugee settlements are situated. The survey used two EAs. For Kampala, only EAs that contained more than Isingiro, Kiryandongo and Kyegegwa. characteristics (including access to basic services), different sampling frames. The first one, based on the ten refugee households according to the 2014 Census and the socio-economic traits of its members (educa- list of Enumeration Areas (EAs) and the information of were considered. With this sorting and PPS for the se- tion, health, labor, etc.). In addition, it includes data on lection of PSUs, implicit stratification by residence type 12. The Uganda Population and Housing Census which was conduct- the country of origin of refugees, the date of arrival, was achieved. For the refugee settlements, EAs were ed on August 2014 (UPHC 2014). whether they are registered or not, their integration into 10. More specifically, the Poverty and Equity Practice. sorted based on the Settlement, Zone, Block, Cluster, 13. In some cases, all ten households in the PSU refused to re- the socio-economic landscape and their perceptions. 11. It must be noted however, that the number of refugee households Village, EA and by dominant country of origin. The latter spond. That is why it was decided to add 10 additional PSUs to the Moreover, the consumption and income modules are in the Kampala was less than originally intended. So the the results for was intended to ensure that PSUs with refugees coming refugee strata. Their first stage weights were determined as if they comparable to those in the UNHS, which allows to es- refugees in Kampala require a more careful interpretation. from different countries of origin were selected. had been part of the first stage selection. Box 1. Sampling weights The sampling weight for a given PSU i in a district j was calculated using the following standard formula: The formula is standard for a two-stage sampling meth- odology that considers both the results of the listing exercise, in terms of the number of households in each kj Ni,j m mi,j’ PSU, and the number of households for which the sur- wi,j=1/ Nj Ni,j’ m vey was successfully completed. Furthermore, a post stratification adjustment was made only for the refugee domain required to make the sampling weights consis- tent with the number of households for each district. Where Nj refers to the total number of households in district j, kj refers to the number of PSUs in district j, Ni,j The adjustments were needed because the results of refers to the number of households in PSU i in district j, Ni,j’ refers to the number of households in PSU i in the listing exercise differed significantly from the quick district j after listing, m refers to the number of sample households per PSU, and mi,j’ refers to the number of counting of households and population completed sample households in PSU i in district j for which the survey was successfully collected. during the sampling frame preparation. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 1 20 21 Table 1. Geographical Distribution of Sampled Households Source. UBOS Domain District Households Response rate Non-response rate Domain District Households Response rate Non-response rate Kampala Kampala 349 79.1% 20.9% West Nile Lamwo 100 88.0% 12.0% Wakiso 80 88.8% 11.3% Southwest Hoima 180 92.8% 7.2% West Nile Adjumani 180 94.4% 5.6% Kamwenge 170 94.1% 5.9% Arua 190 86.8% 13.2% Isingiro 180 93.3% 6.7% Moyo 100 95.0% 5.0% Kiryandongo 120 90.0% 10.0% Yumbe 360 94.2% 5.8% Kyegegwa 140 91.4% 8.6% Koboko 60 88.3% 11.7% Total 2,209 90.0% 10.0% Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Introduction Chapter 5 22 23 Chapter 2 Demographic profile “Refugees didn’t just escape a place. They had to escape a thousand memories until they’d put enough time and distance between them and their misery to wake to a better day.” Nadia Hashimi Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Demographic profile Chapter 2 24 25 SOUTH SUDAN All Overall, the majority of refugees come from South 100% 3% 3% Sudan and the Democratic 2% Republic of Congo, but there are marked differences depending on the area. West Nile 17% About 64 percent of refugees in our sample reside in the West Nile, 30 percent in Southwest and the rest in Kampala. Con- sistent with the refugee population trends described in Section 1, most refugees in our sample come from South Sudan (75 percent) and from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, 17 percent) (see Figure 2a). Refugees tend to settle in areas closer to their country of origin and with a similar ethnic composition (UNICEF 2018). That is why it is not surprising that the large ma- jority of refugees in West Nile are from South Sudan, while in the Southwest region, they are predominantly (around 70 percent) Congolese. As expected, in the case of Kampala the background is more mixed, albeit around 47 percent of refugees in our Kam- pala sample are from Somalia. Figure 2. Characterization and Age Profile of Refugees Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 6% 13% 2a. Country of origin of refugees 27% 75% Uganda 65,5% 8% 4% Kampala 8% 21% KENYA 47% Southwest South Sudan DR of Congo Burundi 67% Somalia Others RWANDA Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Demographic profile Chapter 2 26 27 Recent refugees coming from South Sudan reside in Refugees are younger than hosts, particularly in the West Nile. Overall, respondents are less than 15 West Nile in particular, about 58 percent of the refugee population is below the age of 15. Interestingly, about West Nile, while earlier cohorts, particularly from DRC, years old, with about 48 percent of hosts and 56 per- 61 percent of refugee men are under 15 years old, cent of refugees falling in this age group (see Figure while around half of refugee women fall in this category reside in the Southwest. 2c). In Kampala, most hosts are between 25 and 64 (see Figure 2d). This may reflect the fact that some of years (40 percent), in contrast with other regions for the older men either stay behind in the country of origin The average tenure of refugees in the country is 2.8 years, ure 2b). Given that the former reside mainly in Southwest which most hosts are less than 15 (49 percent). In the or were victims of conflict. but this varies depending on the place of residence and while the latter in West, the average tenure for these areas country of origin. The average number of years since arrival are very similar, at 4.8 and 2 years, respectively. In Kam- 2c. Age group by region Under 15 years 15 - 24 years 25 - 64 years Above 64 years in Uganda is about 5.1 years for refugees from DRC, and pala, the average tenure for all groups is 4.1 years and about 2.1 year for refugees from South Sudan (see Fig- for those coming specifically from Somalia was 3.3 years. Hosts (% of population) All hosts 48 20 29 3 2b. Tenure of refugees (number of years since arrival) 1. Kampala Kampala 35 23 40 2 South Sudan 9.7 years West Nile 49 21 27 3 DR of Congo 5.3 years Southwest 49 19 28 4 Burundi 2.8 years Somalia 3.3 years Refugees (% of population) Others 4.3 years All refugees 57 19 22 2 All 4.1 years Kampala 41 26 34 1 West Nile 59 19 20 2 2. West Nile Southwest 55 16 26 3 South Sudan 2.0 years DR of Congo 1.9 years 2d. Age group by gender Under 15 years 15 - 24 years 25 - 64 years Above 64 years Burundi - Hosts (% of population) Somalia - Others 2.4 years Women 46 20 30 4 All 2.0 years Men 49 20 28 3 3. Southwest All regions South Sudan 3.2 years Refugees (% of population) DR of Congo 5.1 years South Sudan DR of Congo Burundi Burundi 3.5 years Women 53 18 27 2 2.1 years 5.1 years 3.4 years Somalia - Somalia Others All Others 10.6 years Men 61 20 17 2 3.3 years 6.6 years 2.8 years All 4.8 years Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Demographic profile Chapter 2 28 29 Almost all refugees are registered with the Gov- the long waiting times (58 percent) and the distance to There are slightly more women than men in ref- High dependency ratios make refugee households ernment of Uganda.14 About 95 percent of refugees registration center (24 percent). In the case of Kampala, ugee settlements and a little over 50 percent of vulnerable. The dependency ratio, defined as the ratio are registered with the GoU, and the rate is slightly high- the most common reasons for not registering are long households are female headed. While the propor- of children (0 to 14 years old) and senior (65+ years er for those who have been in the country for 5 years waiting times (78 percent) and unawareness of the reg- tion of females for refugees is similar to that for hosts, old) household members to the working-age household or more (at 97.4 percent). This is a positive result as istration process (14 percent). The latter suggests that female headed households among refugees are more members (15-64 years old), is large for refugees at refugee registration is vital to appropriately quantify, lo- information campaigns in the capital city could contrib- prominent (see Figure 3a and Figure 3b). Overall, 1 in 1.7. Given that South Sudanese refugees are younger calize, and target response programs and assistance. ute to increase the registration of refugees. 2 refugee households are female headed, compared to than the rest, the dependency ratio in West Nile is even Registration rates are lower in Kampala, for all refugees less than 1 in 3 host households. This pattern is mainly higher at 1.9 (see Figure 3d). Kampala households ex- and by country of origin, given the different profile of the explained by the situation in West Nile, where 62 percent hibit a lower dependency ratio and are not significantly refugees that reside in the capital (as will be discussed 14. It must be noted that survey took place some months before the of households are female-led. Considering that there are different from hosts. Despite households being smaller later) (see Figure 2e). The most common reasons for recounting effort by the GoU in collaboration with UNCHR, which was no major gender imbalances, this suggests that the typ- in the Southwest, refugees in this region have a higher the few instances where no registration is reported are completed in October 2018. ical household composition for many households in this dependency ratio compared to hosts, as they have a region is a female head with young children. Households lower share of working-age members (on average, there 2e. Registration of refugees in Kampala and the Southwest are mostly run by males are 2.2 members ages 15-64 in refugee households, (59 and 65 percent, respectively). In the case of refugee whereas there are 2.7 members in host households). Country of origin Kampala West Nile Southwest households that have been in Uganda for less than 2 years, older male members often stayed in the country Most refugee households (around 73 percent) of origin or were victims of conflict. As time goes by, it experienced changes in the composition of their is expected that males who stayed behind will join their households upon arriving to Uganda. The majority South Sudan 61.2% 96.2% 95.4% families, as suggested by changes in the gender of the of those households who experienced changes, 61.2 household head by tenure. Around 60 percent of house- percent, indicated that between 1 to 5 of the original holds that have been residing in the country between members were no longer part of the household. When 2 and 5 years are female-headed versus 30 percent of asked the reasons why these members were no longer households who have arrived more than 5 years ago. part of the household, most households reported that these members either stayed in their country of origin DR of Congo 85.9% 100% 98.8% Refugee households are larger than host house- (60.7 percent) or were deceased (27.2 percent). holds, except for the Southwest region. Host households have 5.2 members on average, while refu- gee have 5.5 (see Figure 3c). This is observed for West Nile, 5.8 versus 5.3 members for refugees and hosts respectively, and for Kampala, 4.7 versus 4 members. Burundi 100% 0% 99.2% This is true despite the fact that 60 percent of refugees report that members of their household were left behind or deceased. On the contrary, host households in the Southwest, with a mean of 5.5 members, are larger than refugee households, with an average of 4.9 members. Somalia 91.5% - - Other 97.1% 100% 65.8% All 91.3% 96.2% 96.7% Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Demographic profile Chapter 2 30 31 Figure 3. Composition of Households Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 43% SOUTH 3a. Gender composition (Percentage) Males Females SUDAN 35% Kampala 62% Host 46% 54% Refugee 47% 53% All 46% 54% KENYA West Nile West Nile Host 50% 50% Refugee 48% 52% All 49% 51% Southwest Host 47% 3b. Female headed households (Percentage) Refugee 48% 52% All 47% 53% All Hosts Refugees 3c. Household size All Hosts Refugees 4.1 Kampala 4.0 4.7 5.4 West Nile 5.3 31% 5.8 5.4 29% Southwest 5.5 4.9 5.3 41% All 5.2 5.5 All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26% Average number of household members Kampala 24% 34% 3d. Dependency ratio All Hosts Refugees 35% 0.7 Kampala 0.6 0.8 Southwest 29% 1.4 West Nile 1.2 1.9 1.3 Southwest 1.3 1.5 1.3 All 1.2 53% 1.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Ratio RWANDA Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Demographic profile Chapter 2 32 33 Chapter 3 Wellbeing indicators “No one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” Warsan Shire Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 34 35 One Figure 4. Poverty Indicators Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. Poverty incidence West Nile 57% 29% Almost half of the refugee population in Uganda For both refugees and hosts, those that are more 4a. Poverty rates lives in poverty. Around 46 percent of the refugee educated are less likely to be poor. As is well (Proportion of the population) population lives in poverty, which means that they do known, education is strongly correlated with higher con- not have enough resources to satisfy the minimum sumption, and thus, with a lower probability of being Hosts daily calorie requirements and basic non-food needs. poor. Thus, it is not surprising that 1 in 2 refugees with This is considerably higher than the poverty incidence no formal education live in poverty and, in the case of Refugees for the host population (Figure 4a) at 17 percent.15 It hosts with no formal education, 1 in 5 live in poverty Kampala is also higher than the official national poverty rate of (Figure 4c). For a given level of education, poverty rates 21.4 percent reported in 2016/17. This shows that are almost 1.5 times as large (or more) in the West despite the humanitarian aid received, refugees in Nile relative to the Southwest region. For example, 57 Uganda are very poor and require attention. percent of those with no formal education are poor in the West Nile region while in the Southwest region, this A larger proportion of West Nile refugees are poor, proportion is 37 percent. 0% 2% compared to the Southwest region. The poverty rate Southwest All reached 57 percent among refugees in the West Nile, Poverty incidence among refugees declines with while it was 28 percent for refugees in the Southwest tenure in West Nile, but this pattern is not so evi- region (Figure 4a). The same pattern is true for the host dent in the Southwest region. Overall, poverty is higher 46% population: poverty among hosts in the West Nile (29 per- for more recent refugees. While 59 percent of the refugee cent) is also significantly higher than in the Southwest (11 who arrived in the past two years live below the poverty 28% 11% 17% percent). As for Kampala, the poverty estimate for refu- line, this rate is only 22 percent for those that have been gees is not statistically different from zero, while for the in Uganda for 5 or more years. However, a closer look at host population it is only 2 percent, consistent with the of- the rate by region shows that while this trend is clearly ficial poverty estimate of the UNHS 2016/17 of 2.5 per- observed in the West Nile region, this is not the case in cent. This is linked to the higher educational attainment the Southwest, as the rate fluctuates around 28 percent of refugees in Kampala, as will be discussed in Section 4. for all groups of tenure (see Figure 4d). Aid Economic Activities Refugees who depend on remittances for income 4b. Poverty rates by main source of income Other sources Remittances are less likely to be poor than those who depend on aid or on wage/self-employment income. There 15. The URHS contains the exact same consumption module that 22% is little difference on poverty incidence among refugees is used in the UNHS (which is the official survey used to calcu- 16% Hosts who depend on income from economic activities or aid, late poverty), and the poverty rate was estimated by UBOS using 16% 19% at around 38 percent. However, the poverty rate for ref- the same methodology. The only difference that must be noted is ugees depending on remittances is considerably lower, that while for the UNHS the data is collected through a period of 38% 38% at 22 percent (see Figure 4b).16 For hosts, households 12 months, the data collection for the URHS lasted about three Refugees relying on aid experience the highest poverty rate at 22 months (May-July 2018). 22% percent, followed by those that rely on remittances (with 16. Economic activities are employment, sale of assets, enterprises, a poverty incidence of 19 percent). and subsistence activities. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Proportion of the population Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 36 37 4c. Poverty rates by level of education 4d. Poverty rates by tenure Factors that reduce Table 2. Factors Affecting Poverty No formal education Some primary Complete primary Some secondary Complete secondary poverty at the household Poverty reducing West Nile 64% level include having a 26% highly-educated and Higher education level of household head 44% Hosts 27% employed household Being employed West Nile 32% 6% 13% head. In contrast, factors Residing in Kampala contributing to poverty Contribute to poverty 57% 55% increase include, but are 15% Refugees 63% not limited to, a larger Larger households 59% 56% proportion of children Larger proportion of children under under 15, being a refugee 15 years of age Southwest 25% Being a refugee household and residing outside Residing in West Nile the capital. 19% 10% Hosts 12% 4% Southwest 30% By using multi-variate regression analysis, it is possi- ble to identify which socio-economic characteristics contribute to lower the likelihood of being poor and 37% which ones have the opposite effect in our entire sam- 28% 28% ple of households.17 A household with a head who has Refugees 28% some secondary education or above is less likely to be 18% poor compared to households with uneducated heads. 10% Moreover, households whose heads are employed are about 5.5 percentage points less likely to be poor.18 The analysis also suggests that a larger proportion of All 59% children under 15 years of age is also positively as- 23% sociated with poverty, all else equal, given that these individuals are less likely (and actually should be) to 23% engage in economic activities that generate income Hosts 16% (see Table 4 in the Annex). However, this magnitude 7% All 29% is rather small. The probability of being poor increas- 2% es by around 9 to 12 percentage points for refugee households, and is higher for those residing outside 50% Kampala, particularly in West Nile. 47% Refugees 57% 22% 43% 17. See Table 4 in the Annex for the results. 21% 18. In the regression that controls for differences across regions, the effect is calculated as: [exp (-0.056)-1] * 100 = --5.5 (see 0 - 2 years 2 - 5 years 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% regression coefficient associated to any paid work in column 2 Proportion of the population +5 years of Table 4 of the Annex.) Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 38 39 SOUTH SUDAN Overall, female- and West Nile male-headed households are equally likely to be poor. The poverty rate reached 45 percent among refugees coming 26% 53% 5b. Poverty rates by main source of income - Refugees from female-headed households, just 2 percentage points below the rate for refugees coming from male-headed households. How- Aid ever, the gap varies significantly by region. In West Nile, the pov- Economic activities erty rates are 63 percent and 53 percent for refugees from male- Remittances and female-headed households, respectively. This contrasts with the Southwest region, where the poverty rate was 18 percent for 30% 63% refugees from female-headed households, almost a half of that for refugees from male-headed households (Figure 5a.) Poverty by gender incidence also differs by source of income. The overall Hosts Refugees poverty rate for male-headed households that depend mainly on 82% remittances stands at 34 percent and is almost 2.5 times higher than that from female-headed households (Figure 5b). A closer 80% look by region indicates a similar pattern, although poverty inci- dence is more than 2 times higher for male-headed households depending on aid in the Southwest. Figure 5. Poverty by Gender of Head of Household Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 60% 55% Kampala 52% 5a. Poverty rates Famale Proportion of the population Male 45% 43% 7% 0% 43% 43% 40% 40% 37% All 36% Southwest 34% 32% 27% 0% 0% 18% 45% 12% 18% 21% 20% 20% 17% Hosts Refugees 14% 13% 17% 47% 10% 33% Hosts Refugees 0% Hosts Refugees Female Male Female Male Female Male Southwest West Nile All RWANDA Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 40 41 Two Figure 6. Food Security Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. Food Hosts 6a. Food insecurity Refugees 33% Food secure 10% security 5% Moderately food secure 6% Moderately food insecure 15% 15% 47% Severely food insecure 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Proportion of the Households Food security remains a concern for both refugee and lines the need to diversify the sources of income for both host households in Uganda. About 7 out of 10 refugee refugee and host households in Uganda. households in Uganda experienced severe food insecurity, while for hosts the proportion was only 5 out of 10 (Fig- 19. The food insecurity score, also known as the food insecurity West Nile ure 6a). The food security indicator is based on the World experience scale (FIES), takes on a value of 1 (food secure), 2 (mod- Food Program (WFP) guidelines, as in Beegle, Galasso, and erately food secure), 3 (moderately food insecure) or 4 (severely Goldberg (2017).19 Similar levels of food insecurity were re- food insecure). Food insecurity score is 1 if in the past 30 days, ported by FAO (2018), which point that refugee households the household reports not worrying about having enough food, and have lower nutritional outcomes than host households, and reports zero days, within the past seven days, that they: (a) Relied 62% 85% also by WFP (2017), who report that only about 10 percent on less preferred and/or less expensive foods, (b) Limited portion of refugees are food secure using a similar food insecuri- size at meal-times, (c) Reduced number of meals eaten in a day, (d) ty scale. While food insecurity among refugees in Kampala Restricedt consumption by adults in order to feed small children, or (57 percent) is lower than in the Southwest (89 percent of (e) Borrowed food, or relied on help from a friend or relative. Food households) and West Nile (85 percent), it still affects a insecurity score is 2 if the household reports worrying about having considerable proportion of the population. Similarly, while enough food and reports zero days for actions a-e. Food insecurity 6b. Food insecurity by food insecurity for host households is lower than for refu- score is 3 if the household reports ever relying on less preferred region (Proportion of households) gees (62 percent compared to 84 percent), it is still a chal- and/or less expensive foods and b-e are zero. Food security score is lenge, particularly outside Kampala (Figure 6b). This under- 4 if the household reports any days for b-e. Hosts Refugees Kampala All 47% 57% Southwest 62% 65% 89% 84% Note: groups moderately food insecurity and severe food insecurity together, and also moderate food security and food security together. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 42 43 Three Four Asset ownership Incidence of and housing shocks and coping conditions mechanisms Not surprisingly, ownership of assets is lower among of hosts, and only 15 percent of refugee households own The incidence of agricultural shocks remains high for refugees, particularly outside Kampala. The URHS agricultural land compared to 73 percent of hosts (Figure both refugee and host households outside of Kam- collected information on the ownership of 14 assets that 7b). As expected, land ownership varies considerably be- pala. In line with the findings of FAO (2018), agricultural include land (agricultural and non-agricultural), livestock, tween the Southwest and West Nile, which reflects both shocks are the most common type of shock for all house- house, vehicles, appliances and some personal items. On the availability of land and the tenure of the refugees that holds, reported by 52 and 42 percent of refugee and host average, refugee households own 3 out of these 14 as- reside there. households respectively. The incidence is higher for the sets (20 percent of the assets), whereas host households Southwest region compared to West Nile and particular- tend to own almost 5 (35 percent of the assets). While Refugee households own less non-agricultural land ly for host households - incidence of 72 percent versus this pattern is also observed within each region; in Kampa- compared to hosts, but there is little difference in 45 percent (Figure 7a). The high vulnerability of Ugandan la ownership is higher: refugee and host households own the ownership of a house or appliances. Host house- households to weather shocks and agricultural house- on average 4 (27 percent of assets) and 4.5 assets (32 holds are about 4 times more likely to be non-agricultural holds has been highlighted many times before (World percent of assets), respectively (Figure 7a). Overall, refu- landowners than refugees (Figure 7b), as expected. The Bank 2016b, Ssewanyana and Kasirye 2013, Hill and gees have comparatively less productive assets (livestock, ownership of refrigerator, furniture and other appliances is Mejia-Mantilla, 2017) and it requires both investments in land, and solar panels) than hosts. Around 11 percent of not very different between refugee and host households, the agricultural sector (water management, extension ser- refugee households own livestock compared to 38 percent with the exception of mobile phones; 68 percent of hosts vices, etc.) and expanding the set of non-agricultural ac- households versus 53 percent of refugee households. Not tivities from which households can derive income. Health surprisingly, asset ownership for refugees increases with shocks are the second most common problem faced by the number of years since arrival. This is particularly true both refugees and hosts, particularly in the Southwest, for land ownership as well as most assets, and therefore, where 1 in 4 host households and 1 in 5 refugee house- consistent with the findings of WFP (2017). holds report such a shock. Unlike asset ownership, dwelling conditions depend Most households, irrespective of refugee status, more on the household’s region of residence than relied on savings, the help of family/friends, and its refugee status. In Kampala, the most common type changed cropping practices when faced with an ag- of dwelling is muzigo (56 percent for refugees and 64 for ricultural shock. Moreover, in the Southwest region, ref- hosts, see Figure 7c), the most common type of roof ma- ugee and host household tend to use the same coping terials are iron sheets, wall materials are burnt stabilized mechanism. There, refugee and host households respond bricks, and the floor materials are cement or concrete (and to droughts, livestock disease and input cost variability tiles in the case of refugees). Huts are the most common by relying on savings. Households in West Nile were more dwelling type in West Nile (77 percent for refugees and 71 prone to resort to the help of friends and family (Figure percent for hosts) and most have thatch roofs, walls of 7b). It is clear that there is space to introduce alternative unburnt bricks, and floors of rammed earth. Finally, in the mechanisms to better assist households cope with this Southwest, houses are the most common dwelling type (71 type of shocks, particularly because they tend to be covari- percent for refugees and 74 percent for hosts), with iron ate (affecting family and friends in the vicinity). sheets roofs, walls of mud, and floors of rammed earth. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 44 45 Figure 7. Asset Ownership and Living Conditions Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 30% SOUTH 7b. Asset ownership Hosts Refugees SUDAN 100% 34% 86 Percentage of householding 81 80% 73 18% 71 69 60% 53 43 38 36 KENYA 40% 31 West Nile 26 29 15 12 15 14 20% 10 11 8 11 5 7 5 6 4 6 2 3 0% Agricultural Land Appliances Bicycle Furniture Jewelry Livestock Mobile Motorcycle Non-Agricultural Land Occupied House Radio Refrigerator Solar Panel Television 7a. Asset index (Percentage of households) 7c. Type of dwelling House Tenement (Muzigo) Other All Room in house Hut Hosts 22% Refugees 8% Hosts 64% Kampala 6% 24% 9% Refugees 56% 32% 11% 32% 25% 1% Hosts 2% 27% West Nile 71% 2% 18% All Refugees 34% 77% Kampala 5% 36% 32% 74% 10% Hosts 5% 22% Southwest 9% 1% 71% 12% Refugees 6% 7% Southwest 4% 35% 47% 6% Hosts 11% 33% 2% All 33% 4% Refugees 5% 20% 51% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Households RWANDA Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 46 47 Figure 8. Shock Incidence and Coping Mechanisms Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 8a. Incidence of shocks Agricultural shocks Death shocks Economic shocks 8b. Most common coping mechanisms used for agricultural shocks (past 12 months) Health shocks Theft/Conflict shocks Other shocks 1. Kampala 2. West Nile 3. South-West All 4% 5% Shock Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees 3% Hosts 12% 7% 6% Help by Help by Help by Help by Relied on Relied on friends or friends or friends or friends or relatives savings savings relatives relatives relatives 4% Drought Refugees 11% 17% 2% 0% 25% 50% 75% Involuntary Cropping Cropping Cropping % of households dietary Other practice practice practice Other changes changes changes changes 2. West Nile Floods 45% 11% 5% Hosts 6% 2% Cropping Cropping Cropping Cropping 6% practice Other practice practice practice Other All Crop pest and changes changes changes changes 44% disease 6% 52% 3% Refugees 6% 17% 1% 10% Help by Help by 4% Relied on Relied on Relied on Hosts Other friends or friends or 9% savings savings savings 0% 25% 50% 75% Livestock relatives relatives 4% % of households disease 9% 3. Southwest 72% 25% 4% Help by 42% Relied on Relied on Relied on Hosts 10% friends or Other Other savings savings savings 10% 5% High input relatives 13% costs 2% Refugees 9% 49% 21% 5% 2% Refugees 14% 9% 9% Relied on Relied on Relied on Relied on Relied on Other 11% savings savings savings savings savings Low output price 0% 25% 50% 75% 0% 25% 50% 75% % of households % of households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Wellbeing indicators Chapter 3 % of households 48 49 Chapter 4 Access to services “If you’re in the luckiest one per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.” Warren Buffett Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 50 51 Figure 9. Access to Basic Services Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. One Access to 9a. Access to water, sanitation and electricity Acess to improved water Acess to improved sanitation Acess to electricity Kalampa basic services 86% Hosts 93% 89% 96% Refugees 100% 100% There are some instances in which host house- Figure 9a). Interestingly, access to electricity21 for both holds have lower access to basic services com- refugee and hosts is higher than the national average pared to refugee households. This is a reflection of 40 percent reported in the UNHS 2016/17, which West Nile of both the progressive refugee hosting framework of could be linked to some specific initiatives in West Uganda and, also, of the humanitarian response to the Nile. At a regional level, access to improved sanitation 76% influx. For example, access to improved water20 is rel- is low for both the West Nile and Southwest, but es- Hosts 19% atively high for refugees at 94 percent versus 66 per- pecially for the latter. Only 14 percent of host house- 32% cent for hosts. Similarly, 39 percent of refugee house- holds and 8 percent of refugee households report holds have access to improved sanitation while this having access to improved sanitation facilities. This is the case for 26 percent of hosts households (see is important, as access to sanitation could contribute 95% in improving the health and nutrition outcomes of both Refugees 46% populations. Notably, access to improved water in the 50% West Nile is high, at 76 and 95 percent of host and refugee households, respectively. Southwest 20. The World Health Organization (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring 53% Programme) defines ‘improved’ sources of drinking water as includ- Hosts 14% ing piped water into the dwelling, piped water into a yard/plot, a 6% 52% public tap or standpipe, a tube well or borehole, a protected dug well, a protected spring, bottled water, and rain water. 21. Electricity sources include national grid, solar, or community/ 92% thermal plant. 8% Refugees 43% All 66% Hosts 26% 49% 94% Refugees 39% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 52 53 Two Education 9b. Net gross enrollment rates in 9c. Completion rates for Primary and Secondary levels Primary and Secondary levels Net Gross Secondary Primary Refugees Secondary 9% 9% 19% Refugees For both host and refugee populations, primary Both refugees and hosts report elevated costs 65% Primary 14% school enrollment is high while secondary school as the main constraint to stay in school. Overall, 131% enrollment is low. The majority of school-age children for children between 4 and 18 years old, 36 percent of are enrolled in primary school, such that the net prima- refugees and 61 percent of hosts report high costs as ry enrollment rates22 stand at 65 percent for refugees the main reason for leaving school. The second most and 68 percent for hosts. This is partly the result of important reason in the case of refugees (and the main Uganda’s policy in which refugee children can access reason for those in Kampala at 60 percent) is crisis education in the same conditions as Ugandan children. or war. Moreover, unwillingness to continue attending Hosts Nonetheless, there are several challenges for both refu- school is also a common reason for refugees (11.3 per- gee and host children accessing primary education. For cent) and hosts (17.5 percent) alike, as well as in the 21% Secondary 27% instance, there is a of lack of resources to insure quali- West Nile (28.5 and 15.8 percent for hosts and refu- 33% ty education and there is a problem of overaged student gees, respectively) and Southwest (10.1 and 17.5 per- enrollment, which contributes to low progression rates cent for hosts and refugees, respectively.) Interestingly, Hosts into secondary level (World Bank, 2016b). As a result, only 7.3 percent of refugees in the Southwest listed net secondary school enrollment23 is remarkable low differences in school systems as one of the reasons 68% in both cases: 9 percent for refugees and 21 percent for leaving school, a factor also mentioned by UNICEF Primary 34% 124% for hosts (Figure 9b). Similar findings are reported by (2018). Another barrier described by UNICEF (2018) but UNICEF (2018). not captured in our survey is language of instruction. In Uganda, primary school curriculum is taught in either For both populations, high primary enrollments the host community’s language or English, while most rates are not translated into high primary comple- refugees speak French, Lingala or Swahili. tion rates, and the figure is significantly lower for All refugees. Only 14 percent of young refugees between 15 and 17 years old completed primary education, 15% while the corresponding number for hosts is 34 per- 22. This is the ratio of children of official school age who are en- Secondary 20% 29% cent (see Figure 9c). Not surprinsingly, secondary com- rolled in primary school to the population of the corresponding of- pletion rates are lower in both cases: only 9 percent of ficial school age for primary school, which is 6-12 years in Uganda. refugees between 21 and 23 years of age completed 23. This is the ratio of children of official school age who are enrolled in All secondary education versus 27 percent for hosts.24 secondary school to the population of the corresponding official school 68% Low completion rates are usually a consequence of a age for secondary school, which is 13-18 years in Uganda. Primary 25% low or delayed entry into a given level of education, 24. Following UNESCO, completion rates indicate the proportion of 125% high drop-out or repetition rates, late completion, or a children and adolescents who have completed a level of education by combination of these factors. These rates, particularly the time they are 3 to 5 years older than the official age of entry into for refugees, reflect very low levels of human capital. the last grade of that level of education, either primary or secondary. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 54 55 9d. Highest level of education level of household head Refugees in Kampala are No formal education Some primary Complete primary Some secondary Complete secondary more educated, while 1. Kampala the contrary is true for Hosts the West Nile and South- 2% west regions. 10% 11% 37% 40% Most host and refugee household heads completed some primary school, around 41 and 35 percent re- Refugees spectively. In Kampala, 64 percent of refugee heads 8% completed secondary school, compared to 40 percent 9% 4% for hosts and compared to just 4 percent of refugee 15% heads in the other two regions (Figure 9d). Moreover, 64% refugee adults in Kampala present literacy rates above 91 percent, similar to hosts. Thus, as will be discussed later in Section 5, they have a different labor profile 2. West Nile than refugees in the other regions. On the contrary, refugees in the West Nile and Southwest regions have Hosts low levels of education and a high proportion of refu- 23% gee heads that have never attended formal education, 42% 23 percent and 20 percent, respectively. This should 11% 13% be considered in the design of any livelihood or skill 11% development program for these two areas. Refugees 36% 36% 8% 16% All regions 4% 3. Southwest 19% 41% Hosts Hosts 13% 14% 20% 49% 13% 15% 9% 7% 34% Refugees 35% Refugees 6% 34% 39% 17% 3% 20% 9% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Proportion of household heads Proportion of household heads Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 56 57 Three Four Health Financial There are no major differences in illness preva- lence between refugees and hosts, but refugees seem to have slightly better access to health refugee hosting framework. In addition, health NGOs and humanitarian organization are also available in ref- ugee settlements, resulting in differences in the type of services care. About 31 percent of hosts and 28 percent of health facilities that hosts and refugees use. In Kam- refugees report having some illness in the 30 days pala, refugees and hosts mostly use private health preceding the survey (Figure 10a). The incidence of services. While hosts in the Southwest and West Nile Access to financial services for refugees is lim- of refugees receive any form of credit. This is much illness is relatively similar for hosts and refugees in and refugees in the Southwest use government health ited, particularly in the West Nile region. About lower than the 56 and 27 percent, respective rates, Kampala (22 and 19 percent, respectively) and the facilities, refugees in West Nile use services provided 37 percent of refugees have a loan (either person- reported by refugees in the Southwest. West Nile (26 and 23 percent, respectively). However, by the humanitarian health response (UNICEF 2018). al, from friends/relatives or from money lender), in refugees in the Southwest region reported a higher About 82 percent of hosts and 89 percent of refugees marked contrast with hosts at 60 percent. Personal In the case of refugee households, the use of fi- illness incidence (42 percent), compared to hosts (37 consulted a healthcare provider when sick (Figure loans and loans from friends are the most common nancial services increases with tenure. Older refu- percent). This observation in the Southwest region is 10a). As expected, the proportion of those who paid source of loans for both refugees and hosts (Fig- gee cohorts exhibit higher access to financial services. corroborated by the findings of UNICEF (2018). for a consultation was low, 7 percent of refugees and ure 10c). Another source of financial resources for About 10 percent of refugees who arrived in Uganda 20 percent of hosts paid for the services received. In hosts and refugees is credit, either as goods credit less than 2 years ago have a personal loan, in com- The presence of health NGOs makes free health- the Southwest and West Nile regions, access to health- or services credit. Both groups report a similar rate parison to 20 percent refugees who arrived more than care slightly more accessible for refugees. Access care is higher for refugees than hosts, while required of access to services credit. However, these averag- five years ago. Similar trends are observed for loans to health care services is mostly free in Uganda, and payment is two to three times lower. Relative to refu- es mask important differences across regions. The from friends and goods credit. These findings show refugees have the right to access the facilities avail- gees in other regions, for refugees in Kampala access use of financial services is very low in the West Nile, that there is potential to enhance the access to finan- able for Ugandan nationals, as part of the welcoming to healthcare is lower and payment is required more especially for refugees. For West Nile, only 1 in 5 ref- cial services for refugees particularly the recent ones often, consistent with higher usage of private health ugee households have a loan and less than 1 in 10 residing in the West Nile region. facilities in the capital. With the exception of Kampala, healthcare cen- ters are somewhat more accessible to refugees. Overall, most refugees (75 percent) and hosts (65 percent) must travel between 0 and 3 kms. to reach Both groups report a similar rate of access to a healthcare center when they are sick (see Figure 10b).25 Less than 9 percent of refugees in the West services credit. However, these averages mask Nile and Southwest regions must travel more than 5 kms. On the contrary, almost 30 percent of refugees important differences across regions. The use in Kampala travel more than 5 kms. Interestingly, be- sides mild illnesses, refugees listed low availability of of financial services is very low in the West Nile, medicines (19 percent) and bad staff attitude or long especially for refugees. For West Nile, only 1 in 5 wait times (14 percent) as some of the main reasons to not seek healthcare. Hosts, on the other hand, re- refugee households have a loan and less than 1 in 10 ported high costs (16 percent) and long distance (14 percent) as some of the reasons for low consultation. of refugees receive any form of credit. This is much lower than the 56 and 27 percent, respective rates, 25. A similar conclusion is reported by UNICEF (2018). reported by refugees in the Southwest. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 58 59 Figure 10. Health indicators and access to financial services Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 10b. Distance to health center (if sick in past 30 days) 10a. Health Indicators 0 to 3 kms 3 to 5 kms 5 to 8 kms + 8 kms Had any illness, past 30 days Access to healthcare if sick, Paid for healthcare if consulted, past 30 days past 30 days Kampala Kalampa Hosts 72 12 6 9 22% Hosts 72% 44% Refugees 69 3 14 14 19% % of Households Refugees 78% 25% West Nile West Nile 83% Hosts 63 25 6 6 Hosts 26% 16% Refugees 77 15 5 4 23% Refugees 87% 7% % of Households Southwest Southwest 37% Hosts 83% 19% Hosts 66 17 4 12 42% 93% Refugees 74 23 1 2 Refugees 5% % of Households All 31% All Hosts 82% 20% Hosts 65 20 5 10 28% Refugees 89% 7% Refugees 49 18 4 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Households % of Households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 60 61 10c. Access to Financial Services Kampala West Nile Southwest All Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Loans 67.4% 91.0% 54.5% 19.4% Loans 62.4% 56.2% 60.3% 36.7% Personal Loan 27.6% 47.5% 30.1% 11.8% Personal Loan 24.3% 17.1% 26.6% 16.0% Loan from Friends 40.4% 42.3% 12.9% 5.8% Loan from Friends 20.4% 19.8% 20.3% 13.0% Loan from Relatives 3.9% 2.3% 4.7% 0.5% Loan from Relatives 6.1% 7.5% 5.4% 3.0% Loan from Money Lenders 2.4% 0.0% 12.8% 3.2% Loan from Money Lenders 16.9% 12.4% 13.9% 6.1% Credit 30.5% 32.0% 17.4% 9.2% Credit 17.7% 26.9% 19.1% 16.6% Goods Credit 30.5% 26.1% 16.9% 7.0% Goods Credit 16.2% 26.9% 18.1% 15.0% Services Credit 11.0% 22.8% 0.5% 2.3% Services Credit 2.8% 0.0% 3.0% 2.9% Other financial services 3.5% 0.6% 4.1% 0.0% Other financial services 5.7% 2.1% 4.9% 0.7% Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Access to services Chapter 4 62 63 Chapter 5 The livelihood of refugees and host communities “A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out.” Tony Blair Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 64 65 Figure 11. Main Sources of Income Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. Refugees depend on aid for their livelihood, particu- and 80 percent of refugees receive aid in the form of larly recent arrivals. Approximately 54 of the income of free healthcare assistance (see Figure 11d). There is 11a. Sources of income by region - Hosts Agricultural income Enterprises Aid refugee households comes from aid, mainly in the form also a prevalence of food and nutritional assistance, and (% of households) of healthcare assistance and in-kind food and household a large proportion of refugees in West Nile and South- Wages Remittances Other sources items (see Figure 11b). On the other hand, wage and ag- west receive a significant amount of aid in the form of riculture account for 24 and 54 percent of the income of food vouchers, cash for food, and in-kind food account. 0.2 host households respectively (see Figure 11a). There are Seventy-two percent of refugees in West Nile receive in- 1.6 5.7 marked differences by region: 74 percent refugee house- kind food assistance, while 45 percent of refugees in the holds in Kampala derive their income mainly from remittanc- Southwest region receive cash for food vouchers (see 10.4 es, in stark contrast to those in the West Nile and South- Figure 11d). This is at odds with the high levels of food west regions, which have a high reliance on aid as the main insecurity reported by refugees in both areas. It could be source of income (66 and 46 percent, respectively). While the case that the assistance is insufficient or that they dependence on aid declines considerably for refugees with resort to sell it in order to fulfill essential non-food items. West Nile longer tenure in Uganda, it remains a significant source of 21.2 income for the earlier cohorts. For refugee households that There is a clear division of labor among organiza- have been in Uganda for less than two years, 61 percent tions providing aid to refugee and host communities. 60.9 rely on aid, while for those who arrived five or more years Sources of aid vary between host and refugee communi- ago, that figure is 37 percent (see Figure 11c). ties, with hosts receiving a predominant share of aid from NGOs, government, and other sources, while international The majority of refugees report receiving health- organizations usher to refugees. For refugee communities, care assistance, in-kind food and household items. UNHCR is the organization that provides most of the food However, there are significant variations on the predom- assistance (except in-kind food aid) and household items inant types of aid received across regions. Healthcare assistance. The WFP provides food in-kind for the majority assistance for both host and refugee communities is of refugees. Different NGOs, the Ugandan government, and 0.9 predominant in the West Nile and South-West regions. other sources aid in the healthcare needs of both refugees 5.1 For these two regions, approximately 40 percent of hosts and host communities (see Table 5 in the Annex). 25.0 0.5 49.1 2.2 9.0 Kampala 6.4 19.7 Southwest 19.8 62.1 All 0.3 54.2 23.9 9.6 9.6 2.3 Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 66 67 11b. Sources of income by Agricultural income Enterprises Aid 11c. Sources of Income by tenure +5 years 2 - 5 years 0 - 2 years region - Refugees (% of households) Wages Remittances Other sources Entrepreneurial 5% 5% Activities 6% 13% 2.9 Wage 7% 7.2 36% 9.1 18% Agric Activities 14% 7% 6.5 37% Aid 57% 61% West Nile 8.2 27% Remittances 15% 13% 66.1 0,4% Other Sources 0,4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of Households 11d. Type of aid received last month Food Voucher Food in-kind Cash for Food Assistance Free Healthcare Assistance 0.5 Household Items 3.7 9.6 Kampala Southwest 0% 0% 12.1 1% 1% Hosts 5% Hosts 15% 9% 37% 0.5 5% 3% Kampala 20.1 5% 41% 5% 45% Refugees 9% Refugees 35% 9% 83% 45.5 74.1 9% 49% Southwest 12.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of Households % of Households 4.3 West Nile All 0% 0% 17.5 1% 1% Hosts 10% Hosts 12% 41% 35% 2% 3% All 21% 25% 7% 17% Refugees 72% Refugees 57% 80% 76% 11.2 10.2 6.2 16.6 53.9 1.9 66% 57% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of Households % of Households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 68 69 One Labor market One in five refugee households owns a non-agricultur- al enterprise, which shows promising signs of entre- preneurship. This rate is lower than hosts, as 27 percent of host households report engaging in a non-agricultural enterprise, but the gap is not that sizable (see Figure 12e). Most of these non-agricultural enterprises are related to re- tail, transportation/storage or food services activities, fol- lowed by manufacturing. Within Kampala, refugees involved in non-agricultural enterprises have more profitable enter- prises compared to hosts: the monthly profit for refugees Refugees are an untapped potential source of la- are paid employees at a rate of 55 percent. This suggests is $550 UGX, which is more than two times that of hosts bor within Uganda. As mentioned, under the country’s that one of the reasons why unemployment is so high for ($249 UGX, as seen in Figure 12f).28 This profitability is progressive hosting approach, refugees have freedom of refugees in Kampala is because they are likely queuing for likely related to the higher education levels of refugees in movement and the right to work. Thanks to this 28 percent better quality wage-employment jobs for which they are qual- Kampala. In the Southwest and West Nile regions, hosts de- of refugees are employed. While the resulting 72 percent ified.26 For the West Nile and Southwest regions, only 1 in 4 rive higher monthly profits from non-agricultural household unemployment rate is higher than that among hosts, at 36 of the employed refugees are wage-employed. This is a sim- enterprises relative to refugees. In general, profits increase percent, this is a major achievement. Refugees in Kampa- ilar proportion to wage employed hosts in the two regions: with refugee tenure, perhaps as a result of the individual la report being unemployed 79 percent of the time, com- 21 percent in West Nile and 19 percent in Southwest (see understanding the local context better and having a greater pared to hosts who report unemployment 45 percent of Figure 12c). This is consistent with the fact that the differ- number and higher quality connections. Profit for refugee the time. The West Nile reports the largest unemployment ences between refugees and hosts in these two regions are households is still considerably lower after accounting for gap: 78 percent of refugees report being unemployed com- less marked than between refugees and hosts in Kampala. the place of residence and several characteristics of the pared to only 36 percent of hosts. Unemployment was low- household head, such as education, gender, age and among est in the Southwest region for both refugees and hosts, Among the wage employed, refugees earn wages that others (see Table 7 of the Annex). with unemployment rates of 50 percent and 33 percent are 35 to 45 percent lower compared to hosts, even respectively (see Figure 12a). when considering the workers' observable character- istics. As expected, the more educated refugees that trav- The profile of unemployed refugees is crucial in de- el to the urban region of Kampala, earn much higher wages 28. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the refugee sample in Kam- signing programs aimed at improving their ability to than those in other regions. Within the wage employed, pala is small. generate income and enhance their resilience. As refugees in Kampala earn income that is 3.5 times that of expected, unemployment rates are lower for early arriving refugees in West Nile and 4.5 that of refugees in South- refugee cohorts, suggesting that as time goes by, refugees west (Kampala $2,354 UGX, West Nile $676 UGX, and are able to better assimilate to the economic conditions of Southwest $524 UGX, see Figure 12d). Throughout Ugan- the host country. For those who just arrived or have been da, refugees earn lower wages than hosts, even after ac- in Uganda less than two years, the unemployment rate counting for the observable characteristics of the workers. was 77 percent; while for those who have been in Uganda This was tested through several Mincer equations, which for 5 or more years, it was around 54 percent (see Figure in addition to being a refugee, account for the worker’s 12b). In general, unemployed refugees are young (average gender, age, education level, and region of residence (see age of 25 years) and with low levels of education (more Table 6 in the Annex) as covariates to explain the wage than half only completed some primary education). In ad- levels of employed individuals.27 The results suggest that, dition, before arriving to the country 45 percent worked in even after accounting for these characteristics, refugees agriculture and around 23 percent in services and sales. earn around 40 percent less than hosts. All these characteristics must be considered in the design of skills training programs with the objective of engaging refugees in sustainable productive activities. 26. Recall that in Kampala refugees are on average more educat- ed than hosts (around 64 percent completed secondary education, In terms of status in employment, wage employment versus 40 percent of hosts). However, more detailed analysis and is more prevalent in Kampala. While refugees in Kam- a larger sample (in Kampala) would provide a more comprehensive pala exhibit the highest unemployment rate, of those em- picture of the labor conditions for refuges in the capital. ployed, about 3 out of 4 are paid employees. Interestingly, 27. These also consider a Heckman correction adjustment, which is this rate is considerably higher than hosts in Kampala, who identified by the functional form of the error term. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 70 71 Figure 12. Labor Market Indicators Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 12d. Hourly wages by region of residence Hosts Refugees 12a. Employment Unemployed Employed $2.698,86 Hosts Kampala $2.354,16 Kampala 55% 45% $1.348,89 West Nile West Nile 36% 64% $676,25 Southwest 33% 67% $1.079,78 Southwest $523,99 Refugees Kampala $0 $500 $1.000 $1.500 $2.000 $2.500 $3.000 79% 21% West Nile 78% 22% 12e. Non-crop farming enterprise ownership (% of households) Yes No Southwest 50% 50% Hosts 26% 26% 27% 12b. Unemployment by time in country Unemployed Employed 37% Kampala West Nile Southwest All 53% 74% 74% 73% 23% 32% 46% Refugees 0 - 2 years 2 - 5 years +5 years 54% 21% 16% 19% 22% 77% 68% Kampala West Nile Southwest All 78% 79% 84% 81% 12c. Employment status by Refugee Status and Region Self-employed Paid employee Hosts 12f. Monthly Profit (UGX) of all household enterprises Hosts Refugees Kampala 45% 55% $249 Kampala West Nile 79% 21% $550 Southwest 81% 19% $146 West Nile $29 Refugees Kampala 25% 75% $185 Southwest $60 West Nile 75% 25% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Southwest 76% 24% Thousands Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 72 73 Figure 13. Sector and Occupation of Employed Population Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 13a. Current industry by refugee status Hosts Refugees For both host and refugee communities, agriculture Half of employed refugees report a change of occupa- is the main sector of employment followed by small tion since arriving to Uganda. Those who previously were Activities of households 1% as employers 1% trade (services). Out of those employed, 7 out of 10 in more specialized occupations, such as managers and pro- hosts and 1 out of 2 refugees work in the agriculture in- fessionals, were less likely to change occupations. These dustry. Approximately 13 percent of employed hosts and specialized occupations, which required higher human capi- 12% Other Services 21 percent of employed refugees work in the wholesale tal investments or skills training prior to moving, seem to be 12% trade and transport industry (see Figure 13a). In terms valued in Uganda. More than half of refugees reported their Wholesale and retail trade, of regional differences, those residing in Kampala (both current occupation to be a continuation of their previous oc- transportation and storage, 13% refugees and hosts) work mainly in retail trade and related cupation for the following groups: managers (67 percent), pro- accommodation and food 21% activities, which is explained by the urban status of Kam- fessionals (85 percent), technicians (51 percent), and skilled service activities pala relative to the other two regions. Nonetheless, retail agriculture (61 percent). In general, refugees in Kampala were 1% trade and related activities is the second most important relatively more likely to continue their previous occupations Construction 3% sector in the West Nile and Southwest regions. (63 percent) compared to West Nile (49 percent) and South- west (45 percent). This is consistent with the fact that Kam- Manufacturing, mining and 4% pala receives the majority of the educated refugees, which are quarrying and other industrial 10% the ones with more specialized occupations (see Figure 13c). activities There is an urgent need for skills and job training Agriculture, forestry 68% among refugees. Only 8 percent of all refugees have re- and fishing 52% ceived skills or job training, and this rate varies between regions. Refugees in Kampala received skills or job training 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 34 percent of the time, while refugees in the West Nile and % of employed Southwest regions received training only 5 to 7 percent of 13b. Current occupation Hosts Refugees the time (see Figure 13d). These programs are especially important for those who reported changing occupations, but of this population, only 4 percent received job and skills 0% Managers training. Moving forward, programs targeted at this group 1% should consider that only 44 percent have some primary 5% education, 41 percent have a background in agriculture, and Professionals 4% 55 percent reported access to agricultural land. 1% Technicians It may also be the case 2% that recently arrived Service 13% and sales 21% refugees, who are more Skilled 57% agricultural 42% likely to have little to no Craft and 4% access to land, relative related trades 9% to earlier refugees, and Elementary 16% occupations 19% are unemployed at higher 3% Others rates, would benefit the occupations 4% most from such training. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of employed Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 74 75 13c. Changes in occupation Different Occupation Same Occupation Two Agricultural 49% West Nile 51% activities 67% On average, half of refugees have access to land. As 35 percent, respectively) (see Figure 14c). This is probably mentioned in Section 1, refugees in Uganda are granted linked to the fact the land is more scare in West Nile, and access to plots of land for residential and agricultural use the size of the plots are smaller (UNICEF, 2018). depending on the land availability at the time of arrival. Due 37% to the recent large influx of refugees, the average size of the Agricultural production remains rudimentary for both plots granted has decreased over time (FAO, 2018). Also, refugee and host households. Almost 100 percent of Kampala given the geographical concentration of recent refugees, ac- refugee and host households in agriculture are engaged in cess to land varies by region. In the Southwest, 2 out of 3 rainfed agriculture, which of course makes them vulnera- refugee households have access to land, while the ratio is 1 ble to weather shocks, such as the drought that affected 63% out of 2 refugees for the West Nile region (see Figure 14a). the country in 2016/17 (the URHS was conducted one Among refugees with access to land, about 20 percent own year later and right after favorable conditions). In addition, 45% the land while 80 percent have use rights; the proportions there is basically no adoption of improved inputs such as Southwest 55% are reversed when considering host households. Tenure is fertilizer and pesticide, despite the fact that they have a 49% All 51% associated with ownership of the plot. For refugees who ar- vast potential to increase crop yields, as shown in Bold rived 5 or more years ago, 4 out of 10 have ownership rights et al. (2017). More than 9 in 10 of both refugee and host to their plot, while 6 out of 10 have use rights. However, households reported not using fertilizer or pesticide as an only 1 out of 10 recent refugee households (who’ve been in input for production (see Figure 14d), consistent with the Uganda less than two years) own a plot, while the remaining findings of Hill, Mejia and Vasilaky (2018). These results have use rights (see Figure 14b). show that there is space to increase the agricultural pro- ductivity of both refugee and host households engaged 13d. Receipt of skills or job training No Yes The large majority of refugees with access to land in agricultural activities by making sure that a combina- grow crops for their self-consumption and a little tion of high-quality inputs and the appropriate extensions more than half sell part of their crop production. This services are available.29 In addition, water management 7% 5% 8% shows that refugee households are making use of the (which include irrigation projects) could increase their resil- land provided to them and underlines the importance of ience to weather shocks. For those refugees with access 34% crop production for their livelihood. A lower proportion of to land, increased productivity due to better inputs, may Kampala West Nile Southwest All households, around 40 percent, raise livestock for their lead to more revenues and decreased use of land solely own consumption, which is not surprising given that live- for self-consumption. 66% stock is usually a more land intensive economic activity 93% 95% 92% than growing crops. Selling of crops and livestock is less common for refugees in West Nile (30 and 18 percent, 29. World Bank (2018) presents a thorough analysis of the challeng- respectively) compared to refugees in Southwest (79 and es and opportunities of the agricultural sector in Uganda. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 76 77 Figure 14. Agricultural Activities Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. 14c. Agricultural activity Sells livestock Sells crop Consume livestock Consume crop 25% 14a. Access to land (% of households) Hosts Refugees 55% Refugees 40% 94% All 43% 1. Kampala 85% Hosts 45% 95% 8% 0% 35% 79% Refugees 47% Southwest 2. West Nile 98% 91% 49% 86% Hosts 54% 50% 98% 3. Southwest 18% 30% 88% Refugees 36% West Nile 89% 66% 38% 83% Hosts 36% All 92% 79% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Households 51% Rain as main water source Does not use fertilizer 14d. Agricultural inputs use Does not use pesticide Use of own seedlings 99% 97% Use rights Own Refugees 98% 14b. Most common land status 33% All Refugees 98% 95% Hosts 98% 52% +5 years 57% 43% 100% 98% 2 - 5 years 81% 19% Refugees 98% Southwest 51% 98% 96% 0 -2 years 90% 10% Hosts 98% 59% 99% 96% Refugees 98% West Nile Refugees 81% 19% 14% 98% 93% Hosts 98% Hosts 18% 82% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank The livelihood of refugees and host communities Chapter 5 78 79 Chapter 6 Economic and social integration “Keep Going, your hardest times often lead to the greatest moments of your life. Keep going. Tough situations build strong people in the end.” Roy T. Bennett Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Economic and social integration Chapter 6 80 81 Figure 15. Economic Integration 15b. Usual place of purchase of non- Market/ shop in settlements Refugees are part of and Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. durable goods Market/shop outside settlements contribute to the local 15a. Usual place of purchase of durable goods Other economies. Market/ shop in settlements As noted by Betts et al. (2014), the public perception Market/shop outside settlements that refugees are economically isolated is not true, Did not buy Other SOUTH and refugees participate in the local economy. Approx- SUDAN imately 20 percent of refugees in the West Nile and West Nlie Southwest regions purchase their non-durable goods 1. Kampala in local markets outside the settlement (see Figure 15% 81% 84% 19% 15b).30 Similarly, a slightly lower proportion, 18 and 17 29 35 1% 0% percent respectively purchase their durable goods in Hosts 27 markets outside the settlement (see Figure 15a). In 10 Host Refugees KENYA both cases, refugees are promoting the local trade and contributing to the local economies of the districts in 42 which they reside. Understandably, close to 60 percent 17 Refugees 20 of refugee households did not purchase any durable 21 goods in the last year (compared to 35 percent of host households), which reflects not only their low acquisi- 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% tion power but also the sense of uncertainty associat- % of households ed with this condition. 2. West Nile 30. As expected, the longer the tenure of refugees, the more inte- grated they are to the local economy: while 13.8 percent of recent 4 refugees (arrived less than 2 years ago) purchase their non-durables 60 Kampala Hosts 34 outside the settlement, this proportion is 21.6 percent for refugees 52% 64% 2 that have been in Uganda five or more years. 37% 10% 11% 27% 15 18 4. All Refugees 65 Host Refugees 2 South-West 24% 78% 9 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 75% 20% % of households 2% 2% 54 Hosts 35 Host Refugees 3 3. South-West 8 53 19 Hosts 38 1 RWANDA 18 Refugees All 61 21 Host Refugees 17 3 Refugees 62 0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 24% 74% 3% 79% 19% 3% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of households % of households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Economic and social integration Chapter 6 82 83 Refugees generate jobs for Ugandan nationals. Another way in which refugees contribute to the lo- while those in the Southwest hire mostly Congolese. Overall, the South Sudanese made up 51 percent There are also positive cal economy is through job creation. About 1 in 5 of refugee enterprise employment (see Figure 15c). signs of social integration employees of the refugee enterprises were Ugandan This is a notable example of how an open approach nationals. For Kampala, the proportion is much high- to refugees can benefit the host country and it indi- between refugees and host er: around 3 in 4 employees of the refugee enterpris- cates the potential economic benefits of a scenario es are Ugandan. As expected, refugee enterprises in in which the refugee population is well integrated into communities, particularly the West Nile hire mostly workers from South Sudan, the host society. in Kampala. 15c. Nationality of employees of Refugee Household businesses In addition to the economic integrations (which can be perceived as inevitable), refugee households report that Uganda DR of Congo Somalia Kenya their children interact with Ugandan children. Around 60 percent of refugee households in the West Nile and South Sudan Burundi Rwanda Other Southwest regions report that their children have Ugan- dan friends with whom they share recreational spaces (Figure 16a). In general, social bonds between refugee Kampala South-West and host children were much more common in Kampala. 94% 89% Eighty-four percent of refugee households in Kampala reported that their children had Ugandan friends and 2% 4% shared recreational spaces with Ugandan children (see Hosts Hosts Figure 16a). There are variations in the patterns of so- 4% 4% cial bonding between Ugandan children and certain ref- 3% 1% ugee nationalities. Somali and Burundi refugee families 4% 8% reported their children have more interaction with Ugan- dan children (75 and 67 percent, respectively), relative 73% 13% 20% to South Sudanese and Congolese families (58 and 53 12% 45% percent, respectively) (seeFigure 16b). While these are 4% positive signs of social integration, according to the UN- Refugees Refugees 3% 1% 4% HCR, more than half of host communities stated that they do not interact with refugees mainly because of a 11% 13% lack of common language and lack of refugee neighbors in their day-to-day lives (UNHCR, 2018b). West Nile All 85% 88% 2% 1% 1% Hosts Hosts 1% 13% 8% 18% 20% 65% 51% 11% 1% Refugees Refugees 1% 17% 16% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Economic and social integration Chapter 6 84 85 With the exception of those in Kampala, refu- report participating in women’s associations. While this 16b. Social relationships of 16c. Participation in social groups refugee children by country gees participate in social groups, which can play is lower relative to hosts (27 percent and 20 percent, Agricultural or livestock Business association an important role in the implementation of refu- respectively), these groups could be an important tool association/cooperation gee programs going forward and can help build a moving forward as avenues for productive and educa- Village and loan Women’s group well-balanced coexistence. Around 13 percent of ref- tional interventions targeted at refugees in the West Nile ugee households participate in agricultural or livestock and Southwest regions. In addition, incentivizing the af- 56% 62% association (VSLA) Kampala associations, a slightly higher proportion than host filiation of refugees to these types of association can households (11 percent). This practice is more com- contribute to further socioeconomic integration. Related 1% mon in the West Nile region, where 17 percent belong to to this is the evidence that refugee households headed South Sudan 7% Hosts such associations (see Figure 16c). Moreover, 14 per- by women or young persons are more entrepreneurial, 1% 8% cent of refugee households report belonging to a village more likely to participate associations, and training pro- savings and loan associations (VSLA), while 9 percent grams (FAO, 2018). 3% Refugees Figure 16. Refugee social 52% 54% 3% integration Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. West Nile West Nile DR of Congo 13% 24% Hosts 2% 14% 59% 54% 67% 67% 17% 14% Refugees 1% 9% Burundi 16a. Social relations of refugee children South-West by region 12% 36% Hosts 77% 75% 1% Kampala 8% 8% Somalia 17% Refugees 2% 12% 84% 84% Southwest All 69% 69% 11% 27% Hosts 2% 20% Other 60% 57% 13% 14% Children in household have Refugees 1% Ugandan friends 9% Children share recreational Children in household have Children share recreational 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% spaces with Ugandan children Ugandan friends spaces with Ugandan children % of Households Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Economic and social integration Chapter 6 86 87 Figure 17. Refugee Perceptions 17b. Perception of interactions with Ugandans by region Most refugees feel Source. Author’s calculations using URHS. secure and welcomed in 17a. Feelings of Safety by Region - Refugees Receptive Neutral/Indifferent Non-receptive Hostile No interaction Uganda, a reflection of the (% of population) Secure/safe Somewhat secure/safe country’s overall openness Somewhat unsecure/unsafe Unsecure/unsafe towards their presence. Kampala 98 2 85 Around 84 percent of all refugees reported feeling se- 1. Kampala 14 cure or safe living in the country, with similar propor- 1 tions when looking at the different regions. The high West Nile 72 21 4 2 2 0 proportion of refugees reporting positive feelings of safety and security may be due to self-reflection on the extremely difficult and hostile circumstances from 83 which they came (UNHCR, 2018b). On the other side of the spectrum, a small proportion of refugees, 5 per- 9 2. West Nile Southwest 80 8 1 11 cent in West Nile and close to 1 percent in Southwest, 3 reported feeling unsafe (see Figure 17a).31 This might 5 be related to the fact that 6 percent of refugees resid- ing in the region report that the interaction with Ugan- dans is hostile/non-receptive, the highest of all regions 86 (see Figure 17b). This is consistent with the fact that 9 17c. Perception of interactions with Ugandans by Country 3. Southwest refugees who arrived from South Sudan had the least 5 likelihood to report feeling positive reception from host Receptive Neutral/Indifferent Non-receptive Hostile No interaction 1 communities (72 percent) (see Figure 17c). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (% of population) % of households 31. Among those feeling unsafe, the main reasons were economic South Sudan 73 20 4 22 (60 percent) and social in nature (40 percent). All DR of Congo 80 6 14 Burundi 82 16 2 84% 10% Somalia 95 5 4% 3% Other 85 15 Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Economic and social integration Chapter 6 88 89 Chapter 7 Conclusions “Since refugees are a global problem, the search for solutions must also be global.” Gil Loescher Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Conclusions Chapter 7 90 91 Uganda’s progressive approach to hosting refu- Despite feeling secure and welcome, the refugee Ensuring the self-reliance of refugees should be gees is a model to follow for countries around the population in Uganda lives in precarious condi- at the core of policies and programs. Refugees in world facing similar situations. Uganda is welcom- tions. About half of the refugee population in the coun- Uganda primarily depend on aid: about 54 percent re- ing to refugees and the current framework offers many try (48 percent) are living in poverty, and poverty is high- port that aid as their main source of income. Reliance rights including freedom of movement, the right to work, est in the West Nile region where close to 60 percent of on aid goes down for earlier cohorts: aid is the main the right to access public social services and access refugees are poor. Food security remains a concern for source of income for 37 percent of refugees that arrived to land (if feasible). This has contributed to refugees both refugee and host households, despite the fact that more than 5 years ago, while the same is true for 62 having good access to basic services, such as primary the majority report having received in-kind or food vouch- percent of recent refugees (arrived less than two years education and health care, as well as feeling safe and er aid. 7 out of 10 refugee households experienced se- ago). In any case, the heavy reliance on aid, even after welcome in the country. In addition, refugees participate vere food insecurity, while 5 out of 10 host households an adjustment period of five years, underlines the need and contribute to the local economy, and help create jobs experienced the same. Food insecurity is higher for both to enhance the income generating ability of refugees for Ugandan nationals. Nonetheless, the recent massive refugee and hosts in the Southwest and West Nile re- from the very beginning. While this has been the inten- influx of refugees since 2016 has placed pressure on gions, but even those in Kampala report levels of food tion of the refugee response framework all along, there hosting areas, and the sustainability of the approach insecurity (combining moderate and severe) above 40 is a need to intensify the efforts to make the goal of requires a renewed focus on building their self-reliance. percent. These results underscore the importance of hu- self-reliance a reality. As mentioned, this would not only manitarian help, particularly for recent refugees. benefit refugees but also contribute to local economy. A successful implementation of Uganda’s pro- gressive refugee framework has the potential to The demographic characteristics of refugee Refugees are an untapped source of labor. Program contribute to the development of hosting areas. households make them vulnerable. Refugee house- or policies with the aim to activate them into the labor On the one hand, improving the self-reliance and inte- holds have high dependency ratios, with about 1.7 de- market should consider that unemployed refugees are gration of refugees into the local communities would pendent members for every non-dependent member. young (average of 25 years old), have low levels of ed- be beneficial to the local economies, generating posi- In West-Nile, this figure almost reaches 2 dependent ucation (70 percent of them have no formal education tive spillovers. On the other hand, investments in ser- members for every non-dependent member, mainly ex- or have some years of primary education but did not fin- vice delivery and infrastructure in these districts can plained by the high proportion of under 14 years of age ish),and that the large majority used to work in agriculture enhance the living conditions of the host population. members. In addition, more than half households are (45 percent) and in services and sales (22.7 percent). In In addition, a successful refugee response requires female headed. This is particularly true for the more addition, they should consider that 50 percent of refugee building institutional capacity at the local level, which recent refuges in the West Nile region, where 2 out of 3 households have no access to land at the moment, par- can only contribute to the overall development of host- households are headed by females. Refugees are also ticularly in the West Nile, where, understandably, land is ing areas, some of which have traditionally lagged younger than hosts. Around 56 percent of refugees are scarcer. This calls for innovative solutions to enhance the behind the rest of the country. One crucial way to below the age of 15, and around 25 percent are young- livelihoods of unemployed refugees, which include skills support the refugee response is to provide timely and er than 5 years of age. This group represents a partic- formation and training, cooperative initiatives, and pro- relevant information to inform the design, implemen- ularly vulnerable group that requires special attention, moting the demand for labor supply (in both agricultural tation and monitoring of its policies and programs. as the first years of life are essential to the formation and non-agricultural activities to diversify economic activ- That is exactly the essence of this report. of human capital. ities away from weather shocks) in these areas, which in turn requires the promotion of private sector initiatives. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Conclusions Chapter 7 92 93 Training and skills programs are also crucial for Investing in access to basic services in host com- Host communities in West Nile present similar (and self-employed and wage-employed refugees. Self-em- munities will contribute to their development and in some cases slightly better) levels of non-mone- ployment is more prevalent among refugees, except for to a peaceful coexistence of both populations. In tary wellbeing compared to those in the Southwest, Kampala, and over half of employed refugees (which in- some instances, such as with access to improved wa- but a higher incidence of poverty. While poverty inci- cludes both self and wage employment) changed occu- ter, improved sanitation and electricity, refugees report dence is higher for the host population in West Nile com- pation since arriving to Uganda. Overall, only 8 percent of more favorable access rates.32 In addition, health care pared to that in Southwest, as has historically been the refugees have received some type of skills or job training, center are slightly more accessible to refugees, both fi- case, they present similar levels of wellbeing in terms of and this proportion is only 4 percent for those that re- nancially and in terms of geographical proximity. Impor- non-monetary indicators, including food security. Despite port changing occupations. As with the unemployed, the tantly, this puts the spotlight to the large infrastructure the pressure of the sizable refugee influx in recent years, majority of those that changed occupations used to work and service delivery needs of hosting communities in the host population in West Nile reported better access to in the agricultural sector (44 percent) and the services the West Nile, and of both the refugee and host com- improved water, slightly better access to improved sanita- and sales sector (32 percent). The entrepreneurial poten- munities of the Southwest. Moreover, it also raises the tion, similar rates of enrollment at primary and secondary tial of refugees is apparent with one in five households question of how to make this service delivery sustain- levels, as well as similar access to health care services. owning a non-agricultural enterprise which, importantly, able in the long run, where the involvement of humani- Perhaps one area in which host communities in West Nile are generating jobs for Ugandan nationals. Skills and tarian organizations is high. lag behind those in the Southwest is access to electricity. job training are then crucial for employed refugees to en- At the same time, labor market indicators for both host hance their self-reliance and improve the productivity of population show similar patterns. their economic activity. Enhancing agricultural productivity and investing Social groups and associations represent a tool in water management may increase the wellbeing in implementing refugee programs and initiatives, of refugees and hosts. The large majority of hosts outside Kampala. Around 13 percent of refugees and refugees with land access, engage in crop produc- participate in agricultural (or livestock) associations, tion, and to a lesser extent in livestock activities. The 14 percent in savings groups and 9 percent in wom- purpose is not only self-consumption, but in some cas- en’s associations. While participation is lower than for es commercialization. However, less than 5 percent of hosts, these associations can play an important role in households engaged in agricultural activities use fertiliz- implementing refugee programs such as skills training, er or pesticides, despite tremendous potential increas- extension services and mentoring programs, and can es in yields. Ensuring access to high quality agricultural also promote the socio-economic integration of refu- inputs and extension services can definitely improve the gees into their host communities. This will ensure that agricultural income of both refugees and hosts. In addi- going forward refugees will continue to feel safe and tion, both refugees and hosts rely on rain as the main welcome by Ugandans, as is currently the case. water source, which causes high levels of vulnerability to weather shocks. Investment in water management and irrigation projects in these areas will not only increase self-reliance but can also help reduce the high levels of 32. As pointed out by UNICEF (2018) while access to water among food insecurity observed. refugees is high, the long waiting times remain an issue. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Conclusions Chapter 7 94 95 Chapter 8 Annex “To be called a refugee is the opposite of an insult; it is a badge of strength, courage, and victory.” Tennessee Office for Refugees Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Annex Chapter 8 96 97 One Sampling frame of Table 3. Distribution of EAs, Households and Population by Settlements Settlement Number of EAs Number of Households Est. population refugee population Alere 2 Ayilo I 4 33 500 2,960 4,640 16,654 Ayilo II 20 2161 17,288 Baratuku 4 435 3,135 Boroli 7 1,836 11,251 Elema 4 166 830 Maaji I 1 174 607 The 2014 Uganda Population and Housing Census EA Frame Create enumeration areas based on the number of Maaji II 30 3093 19,513 was not designed to support a sampling design for refugee households at the lowest administrative unit. settlements, given that during the mapping exercise areas Maaji III 22 2717 9,126 with refugee settlements were considered special areas and The mapping exercise also made use of existing satellite Mirieyi 4 500 4,640 were not included in the delineation exercise. Thus, there imagery provided by UNHCR. These were used to delineate was a need to develop a new sampling frame for refugee blocks with the help of GPS and create Enumeration Areas Mungula I 4 585 7,871 population in Uganda (in the West Wile and South West do- (EAs) within each settlement. During the mapping exer- Mungula II 4 275 935 mains). To obtain such sampling frame, a mapping and quick cise, the teams identified the administrative units where Nyumanzi 39 3,533 26,025 counting exercise were undertaken. each block fell and possible land marks within/around the settlement were used to identify the boundaries of each Oliji 4 250 1,480 block. Where the satellite imagery allowed, household Mapping exercise numbers were identified on the image, and in cases where Olua I 5 664 4,648 the structure did not appear on the image, GPS was used Olua II 4 548 8,220 Though the office of the Prime Minister keeps records on instead. For settlements where no satellite images were Pagrinya 43 5,260 25,161 the total number of individuals per refugee settlement, no available, sketch maps were drawn on the topographic detailed information is available at the lowest administrative base maps to produce the EAs within the area. Agojo II 8 1,035 4,384 units of a settlement. In addition, settlements have different Rhino Camp 57 10,669 53,090 arrangements depending on the size and date of establish- Imvepi 44 7,078 32,598 ment. Thus, a mapping exercise was conducted to: Household Palorinya 115 11,222 63,278 Establish the administrative structure of listing Bidibidi RC 247 66,900 286,563 all settlements. Lobule 8 874 3,439 Establish the number of households at the lowest A quick counting or listing was undertaken to establish Palabek 52 6,874 22,211 administrative unit of each settlement. the number of households within each EA. The following information was specified: name of settlement, name Kyangwali 27 11,344 32,682 Develop a sampling frame based on the of the zone, name of the block, name of the cluster, Rwamwanja 101 17,495 60,361 administrative structure of the settlements. name of the village, total number of households (and That is: settlements, zones, blocks, clusters, total population) per village, enumerations areas, and Nakivale 129 18,262 69,603 and villages. number of households per enumeration area. All villag- Oruchinga 16 1,813 7,125 es with less (or equal) than 250 households were taken Identify refugee settlements in which refugees and Kiryandongo 43 10,686 35,636 as an equivalent of an EA while those with more than host communities were residing together. 250 households were subdivided into separate EAs. Kyaka II 41 8,062 46,050 Update the available satellite maps and demarcate The final result of the mapping and listing exercise is 1,120 197,971 879,044 them based on the lowest administrative units. depicted in Table 3. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Annex Chapter 8 98 99 Two Dependent variable: Poverty indicator (1 if poor) (1) (2) (3) (4) Factors affecting poverty Industry of work = Activities of households as employers and extraterritorial organizations -0.00434 0.0253 -0.101** (0.0403) 0.0422 Table 4. Factors Affecting Poverty Source. Own calculations based on URHS Land ownership or access (0.0286) (0.0426) (0.0488) -0.0852** -0.0860* Dependent variable: Poverty indicator (1 if poor) (1) (2) (3) (4) Any crops sold, Jul-Dec 2017 (0.0404) (0.0439) 0.111*** 0.170*** 0.125*** 0.0817** Refugee -0.0489 -0.0462 -0.0183 (0.0340) (0.0281) (0.0300) (0.0347) Non-agriculture business owner (0.0332) (0.0351) (0.0378) 0.165*** 0.210*** 0.235*** 0.158*** Region of current residence = West Nile -0.0343 (0.0253) (0.0318) (0.0328) (0.0403) Main source of income = Economic activities -0.0203 -0.0108 0.0297 -0.0341 (0.0426) Region of current residence = Southwest (0.0237) (0.0300) (0.0311) (0.0395) 0.0237 Main source of income = Other sources 0.0103* 0.0115* 0.0101 0.0110 (0.0878) Number of regular and usual HH members (0.00609) (0.0069) (0.00660) (0.00774) 0.00616 Main source of income = Remittances -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0002 -0.0005 (0.0469) Share of females in HH (0.0004) (0.0005) (0.0005) (0.0006) -0.0562** -0.0197 Employed 0.001*** 0.0020*** 0.0015** 0.0014** (0.0273) (0.0279) Share of HH members aged 0-15 -0.0005 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0007) -0.0179 -0.0483 -0.0165 0.0431 -0.00108 -0.0054** -0.005** -0.0046* Constant Share of HH members aged 65+ (0.0814) (0.0770) (0.0809) (0.0976) (0.0006) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) Observations 1,694 1,779 1,599 1,185 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 Age of household head R-squared 0.137 0.202 0.177 0.145 -0.0009 (0.00110) (0.00115) (0.00135) -0.0569* -0.0461 -0.0486 -0.0672* Robust standard errors in parentheses Coefficient significant at *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10% confidence level. Marital status of HH head = Married polygamous (0.0312) (0.0325) (0.0346) (0.0380) -0.00416 0.0192 -0.0104 -0.0170 Marital status of HH head = Divorced/ Separated (0.0412) (0.0412) (0.0430) (0.0501) Three Marital status of HH head = Widow/ Widower 0.0193 (0.0434) 0.0115 0.0309 (0.0467) 0.0245 0.0239 (0.0502) 0.00938 0.0570 (0.0619) 0.00278 Type of aid by organization Marital status of HH head = Never married (0.0338) (0.0346) (0.0348) (0.0382) Table 5. Type of Aid by Organization 0.0760** 0.0816** 0.0623 0.0799* Gender of HH head = Male (0.0360) (0.0359) (0.0387) (0.0474) Kampala West Nile South-West All -0.00561 -0.00315 -0.0244 -0.0362 Education Level of HH head = Some primary (0.0349) (0.0361) (0.0380) (0.0453) -0.0437 -0.0147 -0.0271 -0.0359 Type of aid Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Education Level of HH head = Complete primary (0.0440) (0.0454) (0.0478) (0.0545) -0.116*** -0.110*** -0.127*** -0.150*** Education Level of HH head = Some secondary Food Voucher UNHCR UNHCR WFP UNHCR - UNHCR WFP UNHCR (0.0399) (0.0411) (0.0429) (0.0514) -0.161*** -0.149*** -0.160*** -0.175*** NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, Education Level of HH head = Complete secondary Cash for Food (0.0353) (0.0371) (0.0393) (0.0492) Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Assistance Industry of work = Manufacturing, mining and quarrying 0.0425 other other other other and other industrial activities (0.0593) NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, Food in-kind Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, WFP Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, WFP -0.149*** Industry of work = Construction other other other other other (0.0409) NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, Industry of work = Wholesale and retail trade, -0.0709** Free Healthcare Religious Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, Gvmt, transportation and storage, accommodation and food Assistance organization other other other other other other other service activities (0.0352) NGO, NGO, NGO, NGO, 0.0106 Household Industry of work = Other Services Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Gvmt, UNHCR Items (0.0431) other other other other Robust standard errors in parentheses Coefficient significant at *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10% confidence level. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Annex Chapter 8 10 0 101 Four Five Wages regressions Profits regressions The sample in the following models consists of employed individuals aged 14-64. The dependent variable are log The sample in the following regressions consists of all households with businesses. The dependent variable is log wages in Ugandan UGX. profits in Ugandan UGX. Table 6. Correlation Between Refugee Status and Wages Table 7. Correlation Between Refugee Status and Enterprise Profits (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) Variables OLS Heckman MLE: Heckman MLE: Variables OLS Heckman MLE: Heckman MLE: Wages Selection Profits Selection -0.362*** -0.429*** -0.355*** -0.444** -0.790*** -0.246*** Is refugee, using s1aq15 = 1, Refugee Is refugee, using s1aq15 = 1, Refugee (0.0881) (0.102) (0.0623) (0.184) (0.247) (0.0854) -0.463*** -0.452*** -0.732** -0.610* Region of current residence = 2, West Nile Region of current residence = 2, West Nile (0.115) (0.117) (0.285) (0.320) -0.575*** -0.579*** -0.242 -0.215 Region of current residence = 3, Southwest (0.108) (0.110) Region of current residence = 3, Southwest (0.307) (0.322) 0.0696*** 0.0966*** 0.128*** Age 0.00310 -0.00582 -0.00577* (0.0237) (0.0244) (0.0186) Age of HH head (0.00795) (0.00905) (0.00309) -0.000695** -0.00103*** -0.00163*** Age squared 0.0979 0.0229 (0.000293) (0.000326) (0.000250) Marital status of HH head = 2, Married polygamous (0.315) (0.103) 0.00303 -0.169 Marital status = 2, Married polygamous 0.145 -0.0503 (0.201) (0.118) Marital status of HH head = 3, Divorced/ Separated 0.128 0.110 (0.324) (0.131) Marital status = 3, Divorced/ Separated (0.142) (0.131) 0.127 0.0463 Marital status of HH head = 4, Widow/ Widower -0.375* -0.177 (0.414) (0.118) Marital status = 4, Widow/ Widower (0.207) (0.192) 0.380 -0.266* Marital status of HH head = 5, Never married -0.130 0.233** (0.367) (0.154) Marital status = 5, Never married (0.118) (0.107) 0.269 0.351 0.0704 Gender of HH head = 1, Male 0.0470 0.0856 0.325*** (0.300) (0.240) (0.101) Gender = 1, Male (0.0865) (0.104) (0.0670) 0.0976 0.0630 Education Level of HH head = 1, Some primary 0.336*** 0.330*** (0.324) (0.272) Highest Education Level = 1, Some primary (0.111) (0.112) 0.438 0.467 0.525*** 0.525*** Education Level of HH head = 2, Complete primary Highest Education Level = 2, Complete primary (0.351) (0.308) (0.127) (0.129) 0.756** 0.713* 0.780*** 0.759*** Education Level of HH head = 3, Some secondary Highest Education Level = 3, Some secondary (0.376) (0.367) (0.143) (0.148) 0.657 0.544 1.388*** 1.376*** Education Level of HH head = 4, Complete secondary Highest Education Level = 4, Complete secondary (0.455) (0.431) (0.129) (0.130) -0.0302 -0.573*** Any children less than 15 yo = 1 Any children less than 15 yo = 1 (0.107) (0.0907) 5.009*** 4.250*** -2.922*** 11.31*** 8.936*** -0.606*** Constant Constant (0.480) (0.656) (0.356) (0.642) (0.664) (0.207) Observations 5,015 5,015 5,015 Observations 1,985 1,985 1,985 R-squared 0.444 R-squared 0.162 Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank Annex Chapter 8 102 103 References Beegle, K., Galasso, and Goldberg (2017). “Direct and in- Hill, R., and C. Mejía-Mantilla. (2017). “With a Little Help: UNICEF (2018). “Child Poverty and Deprivation in Refugee-Host- direct effects of Malawi's public works program on food Shocks, Agricultural Income, and Welfare in Uganda.” ing Areas: Evidence from Uganda.” Kampala, Uganda. security.” Journal of Development Economics, Volume Policy Research Working Paper 7935, World Bank Group, 128, September 2017, Pages 1-23 Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group. January. Word Food Program WFP . (2017). “Analysis of Refugee Vulnerability in Uganda And Recommendations for Im- Betts et al. (2014). “Refugee Economies, Rethinking Hill, Ruth, Carolina Mejia and Katya Vasilaky (2018). “Van- proved Targeting of Food Assistance.” Development Popular Assumptions”. University of Oxford, Refugee ishing Returns? Potential and Constraints in Input Pathways. November draft. 127 pp Studies Center and Humanitarian Innovation Project. Adoption Among Small-Holder Farmers in Uganda”, Policy Research Working Paper No. 8627, World Bank, World Bank (2016a). An assessment of Uganda’s Progres- Bold, T., Yanagizawa-Drott, D., Kaizzi, K., & Svensson, J. Washington DC. February 2018. sive Approach to Refugee Mangament. In collaboration (2017). Lemon Technologies and Adoption: Measure- with UNCHR. World Bank Group, Washington DC. ment, Theory and Evidence from Agricultural Markets Ssewanyana, Sarah, and Kasirye, Ibrahim. (2013). “The in Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Dynamics of Income Poverty in Uganda: Insights from World Bank (2016b). The Uganda Poverty Assessment Re- the Uganda National Panel Surveys of 2009/10 and port 2016: Farms, cities and good fortune : assessing Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Na- 2010/11”, EPRC, Occasional Paper No. 35. poverty reduction in Uganda from 2006 to 2013. World tions (2018). Analyzing Resilience for Better Targeting Bank Group. Washington DC. and Action: Food Security, Resilience and Well-Being UNHCR (2018a). Global Trends in Forced Displacement in Analysis of Refugees and Host Communities in North- 2017. The UN Refugee Agency. World Bank (2018). Closing the Potential-Performance Di- ern Uganda, FAO Resilience Analysis Report No. 12. vide in Ugandan Agriculture. World Bank Group, Wash- UNHCR (2018b). Joint Multi-Sector Needs Assessment: ington DC. Identifying Humanitarian Needs Among Refugee and Host Community Populations in Uganda, August 2018. Informing the Refugee Policy Response in Uganda World Bank