Refugee Economies in Uganda: What Difference Does the Self-Reliance Model Make?

Refugee Economies in Uganda: What Difference Does the Self-Reliance Model Make? Alexander Betts Imane Chaara Naohiko Omata Olivier Sterck Refugee Economies in Uganda 1 © N. Omata © N. Omata Host community house in Nakivale 2 Refugee Economies in Uganda Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Methodology 8 3. Regulatory Framework 11 Mobility 12 Employment 14 Transaction Costs 16 4. Assistance Model 18 Income 19 Food Security 21 Remittances 26 Social Protection 27 5. Refugee–Host Interaction 29 Perceptions and Opinions 30 Winners and Losers 31 6. Conclusion 34 Recommendations Relating to Uganda 35 Recommendations for Global Policy 37 7. Appendix 39 Published by the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2019. Designed by the University of Oxford Design Studio. Printed by Oxuniprint. Citation: Betts, A. et al (2019), Refugee Economies in Uganda: What Difference Does the Self-Reliance Model Make? (Oxford: RSC). Cover photo: Burundian refugees find refuge in Kashojwa village, Nakivale settlement, Uganda. © UNHCR/Frederic Noy Refugee Economies in Uganda 3 Executive Summary • Uganda’s refugee policies have been widely recognised are in the same region and host refugee populations as among the most progressive in the world. Through from the same countries. The comparison can also its self-reliance model, it allows refugees the right to help answer questions of broader interest like ‘what work and freedom of movement. It has sustained this difference does the right to work actually make?’ approach virtually since independence despite currently hosting more refugees than any other African country. • Drawing upon quantitative and qualitative research, including a survey of over 8,000 refugees and host • Uganda’s model has three core elements that distinguish community members in urban (Kampala and Nairobi) it from most other refugee-hosting countries. First, and camp (Kakuma and Nakivale) contexts, we its regulatory framework: it lets refugees work and provide a nuanced account of the impact that different choose their place of residence. Second, its assistance aspects of the Ugandan model have on particular model: it allocates plots of land for refugees to groups in relation to particular welfare outcomes. cultivate within its rural settlements. Third, its model We focus on outcomes for Congolese and Somali of refugee–host interaction: it encourages integrated refugees. The data in the report is representative of social service provision and market access. our focus populations and selected sites but not for all • This report explores the question: what difference does refugees or host communities in Uganda and Kenya. Uganda’s self-reliance model make? How do its different • We argue that there is a need to go beyond a elements influence welfare outcomes for refugees and romanticised view of the Ugandan model, and for host communities? These questions matter both identify the conditions under which particular self- for Uganda and for refugees around the world. Given reliance policies actually lead to improved welfare that Uganda’s model has become an exemplar for outcomes. The picture that emerges is mixed. It development-based approaches to refugees, an evidence- based understanding of the conditions under which shows that aspects of the Ugandan model are highly self-reliance policies lead to enhanced welfare outcomes effective for some populations, but that other aspects matters for policy, programming, and advocacy. may be less effective than is commonly assumed. • Assessing the impact of the self-reliance model is • On the positive side, refugees in Uganda enjoy greater methodologically challenging. It relies upon being able mobility, higher incomes, lower transaction costs for to compare outcomes for refugees and hosts within economic activity, and possibly more sustainable sources the model with refugees and hosts outside the model. of employment than those in Kenya. However, refugee In order to do that, we compare welfare outcomes for employment levels in Uganda are surprisingly lower refugees and host communities in Uganda with those compared with either refugees in Kenya or Ugandan in neighbouring Kenya. We choose this comparison nationals, educational access is more limited, and our because the countries have contrasting legal and data raises questions about the viability of current policy frameworks relating to refugees, and yet both land allocation practices as the basis for self-reliance. © N. Omata © N. Omata Host community in Nakivale, Uganda 4 Refugee Economies in Uganda Kisenyi, Kampala © N. Omata • One of the biggest advantages of the Ugandan model who arrived before 2012. Third, although Congolese comes from the country’s regulation. Freedom of refugees who have access to land do better than those movement appears to result in higher levels of mobility. who do not, and more land is associated with better This enables refugees to adopt economic strategies food security outcomes, subsistence agriculture is that might not otherwise be possible, including inherently limited as a pathway to high income levels. split-family strategies. Mobility is particularly • Aside from land allocation, levels of assistance in important for Somalis whose commercial activities Uganda and Kenya are broadly comparable. This are often connected to national and transnational suggests that the most important explanation for supply chains. In Kenya, refugees are working and refugees in Uganda’s generally better welfare outcomes moving outside the camps. However, they incur far is the different regulatory environment rather than higher transaction costs as a result of doing so. the assistance model. Indeed, in some areas, notably • In terms of employment, overall levels are surprisingly education, there is evidence that public service higher among refugees in Kenya than Uganda. However, provision may actually be weaker in Uganda than in Kakuma, this is largely due to the availability of in Kenya. For example, in regression analysis and international organisation and NGO-supported controlling for other variables, being in Nakivale ‘incentive work’, whereas refugee employment in Nakivale is associated with three years less education than comes from self-employment in agriculture and market- being in Kakuma for refugees who arrived before based sources, and hence may represent more sustainable the age of sixteen. This may be partly due to the sources of employment. In Nairobi, the difference may greater involvement of the international community reflect that the city offers a larger labour market. in parallel service provision in Kenya compared with direct national government provision in Uganda. • Refugees in Uganda generally have higher incomes than those in Kenya, even though there is not a • In terms of refugee–host interaction, host communities significant difference between the surrounding in Kenya are slightly more likely to have positive host communities. However, there is one notable perceptions of refugees than in Uganda. This is exception: Congolese refugees in Nakivale are worse especially the case for the Turkana around Kakuma off than Congolese in Kakuma. This pattern reflects and ethnic Somali Kenyans in Eastleigh. In both cases, that Congolese in Nakivale are mainly engaged the difference seems to be based on a perception that in subsistence agriculture, while Congolese in their presence brings a positive economic contribution, Kakuma are mainly employed as incentive workers notably through employment. In the camp context, by NGOs. Somalis generally engage in commercial this difference may be because whereas the economic activities, and are able to earn higher incomes across activities of refugees and hosts are complementary in our research sites in Uganda than those in Kenya. Kakuma, refugees and hosts undertake similar economic activities in Nakivale, making competition more likely. • The allocation of plots of land for cultivation is a defining feature of the Ugandan model. However, our • Overall, the report provides strong support for the value data calls into question the sustainability of the current of ensuring that refugees have access to the right to work approach. First, the approach does not benefit all and freedom of movement. However, it offers a nuanced communities: although many Congolese households account of the aspects of the Ugandan model that lead to take up the opportunity to cultivate land, Somalis improved welfare outcomes and those that do not. Based refrain from agricultural activity. Second, there is on these insights, we outline a series of recommendations insufficient land for newly arrived refugees: the for refugee policy in Uganda and globally. overwhelming majority of land is cultivated by families Refugee Economies in Uganda 5 1. Introduction Uganda is widely regarded as having one of the most progressive refugee policies in the world. Despite currently hosting more refugees than any country in Africa, it allows refugees the right to work and significant freedom of movement. This self-reliance model contrasts with many other refugee-hosting countries in the region, which often require refugees to live in camps, and deny them access to labour markets. Ever since the Nakivale settlement, Africa’s oldest refugee of Uganda, the United Nations, the World Bank, and other camp, opened in 1958, Uganda has provided refugees with partners. plots of land in rural settlements, allowing them to engage in subsistence farming. Vibrant and entrepreneurial markets Although policy labels

Load more