Basic Needs and Market Assessment

Transcription

1 Basic Needs and Market Assessment Uganda, Moyo District, Palorinya Settlement and Host Community December 2017 With the participation of Save the Children and DanChurchAid Refugee shelter in Palorinya settlement, December 2017 School supplies vendor in Belameling trading centre, Palorinya settlement April 2018

2 Table of Contents List of Tables... 3 List of Figures... 3 List of Acronyms... 4 Acknowledgements... 5 Executive Summary... 6 Background... 8 Assessment Objectives... 8 Target Population & Methodology... 8 Assessment findings I. Household profile of respondents Refugees Host community II. Basic needs assessment findings Overview of needs and priority ranking Refugees Host community Access to income Refugees Host community Access to cash through mobile money Gaps in Health Care Gaps in Food Security Gaps in access to potable water Cash feasibility and appropriateness Preference for cash Market functionality Range of expenditures for basic needs: Findings for refugees III. Education and teacher employment: findings Main challenges Poor and insufficient infrastructure Financial barriers to education Overcrowding and Absenteeism Challenges faced by teachers Teacher Employment Effect of Humanitarian Aid on Education Other Findings IV. Firewood: findings V. Credit and Financial Services: findings Access to credit for both refugee and hosting communities Credit lending institution available for refugees Credit lending institution available for host communities Recommendations Conclusions Summary of findings and recommendations Recommendations for further analysis to be conducted Annexes Annex 1 Refugee Household Questionnaire Basic Needs (administered through ONA) Annex 2 Host community focus group discussion questionnaire Page 2

3 List of Tables Table 1 List of tools used and number of informants for each sector assessed... 9 Table 2 Most pressing basic needs for refugees and host community Table 3: Health care services and commodities Access and Satisfaction reported by host community Table 4 Change in Demand reported by Konyo-Konyo and Moyo markets traders Table 5 Price trends for key commodities Table 6 Range of expenditures for Basic Needs in Palorinya Table 7 Cost of complementary food basket to meet required nutritional requirements Table 8 Cost of complete food basket meeting nutritional requirements List of Figures Figure 1: Number of refugees per district in Northwest Uganda and localization of Moyo district.. 6 Figure 2: Basic needs (first priority) refugees report to have the most difficulties meeting in the next three months and consider a priority for assistance Figure 3: Refugees main reasons for inability to cover most pressing basic needs Figure 4: Schools and Markets accessible to refugees in and around Palorinya settlement Figure 5: Access to food commodities Figure 6: Basic needs (first priority) host community reports to have the most difficulties meeting in the next three months and consider a priority for assistance Figure 7: Main source of income in South Sudan Figure 8: Main source of income in Uganda for refugees Figure 9: Main source of income in Uganda for host communities Figure 10: Sources of cash for the host community Figure 11: Main methods for accessing cash in South Sudan then in Uganda Figure 12: First cash access method for host community Figure 13: Refugees concerns for meeting health care needs Figure 14: Reported price changes within past 12 months (as per December 2017) Figure 15: Remoteness and travel time to access firewood for refugees Figure 16: Types of available credit lending institutions known by refugee households Page 3

4 List of Acronyms ATM Automated Teller Machine BNA Basic Needs Analysis CaLP Cash Learning Partnership CRRF Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework DCA DanChurchAid DRC Danish Refugee Council EFSVL Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods EMMA Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis FGD Focus Group Discussion HH Household HC Host Community ID Identification KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices KII Key Informant Interview LC5 Local Council Chairman MEB Minimum Expenditure Basket MPG Multipurpose Cash Grant MTI Medical Teams International NGO Non-Governmental Organization OPM Office of Prime Minister OSM OpenStreetMap ReHope Refugee and Host Population Empowerment RI Relief International RUFI Rural Finance Initiative SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization SC Sub-County SCI Save the Children International SS South Sudan UGX Ugandan Shilling UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNOCHA United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs USD United States Dollar VSLA Village Savings and Loan Associations WaSH Water, Hygiene and Sanitation Page 4

5 Acknowledgements The author, Marie Boulinaud, Relief International s Cash Program Advisor, would like to thank the field team for all their efforts in gathering relevant and meaningful information, as well as Alex Gray Regina Omlor, Amy Parker and Emma Stevens for their support in the writing and editing of this document. The author would like to express special thanks to South Sudanese refugees living in Palorinya settlement and host communities of Moyo district, who, despite an assessment fatigue caused by numerous and regular interviews and focus group discussions conducted by different agencies, willingly accepted to respond to our questions and to participate in our focus group discussions. The author is also grateful to all key informants who contributed to the depth of data that this report shares. Finally, the author would like to thank Save the Children Uganda, DanChurchAid, Oxfam, Mercy Corps and CESVI for their contribution to the overall initiative (that included the assessment in Palabek settlement, published in another report written by Oxfam) and their trust. The author would also like to express special thanks to Alexandre Gachoud, Oxfam EFSVL advisor, who delivered a market assessment training to all assessments team leaders. Page 5

6 Executive Summary Relief International (RI) and partners 1 conducted a Basic Needs and Market assessment in December 2017 in Palorinya settlement and the wider Moyo district in Uganda. As of January 2018, Palorinya was hosting approximately 165,587 refugees (UNHCR, 2018). The assessment targeted both South Sudanese refugees residing in Palorinya refugee settlement and their host community (see figure 1 for localisation of Moyo district). The assessment s main focus was Basic Needs and the gap in their coverage among refugees and the host (2018) communities. In addition, a Market assessment methodology was followed to further study the following sectors: 1) Education and teacher employment, 2) Firewood as cooking fuel, 3) Access to credit and financial institutions, as well as assess general market functionality in and around Palorinya settlement, in an effort to analyse cash feasibility in this area. A total of 88 refugees, 120 host community members and 10 key informants were interviewed in order to better understand basic needs coverage and gaps for both refugee and host communities in addition to issues around firewood as cooking fuel and access to financial services. Teachers, head teachers and the District Education Officer were also interviewed to better understand issues around the education system with a focus on teacher employment. Additionally, five traders and two financial institutions managers were interviewed to respectively understand market functionality and products offered by those institutions. The assessment s tools which, for the Basic Needs section took inspiration from the Basic Needs Assessment Guidance & Toolbox (first draft, 2017) piloted by Save the Children in Nigeria and Ethiopia included focus group discussions (FGDs), household survey questionnaires and key informant interviews (KIIs). Key findings Figure 1: Number of refugees per district in Northwest Uganda and localization of Moyo district. Source: UNHCR 1. Basic Needs: both refugee and host communities are experiencing difficulties in meeting their basic needs, especially their need for food and health. Lack of energy resources (cooking fuel) also poses great challenges to refugees and host communities alike. 2. Food assistance has positive effects in terms of cereals price in the markets and availability of food in general. However, those effects are due to the sale of food assistance, which indicates an inadequacy of in-kind food distribution as an assistance modality and people s preference for cash. 1 Save the Children and DanChurchAid Page 6

7 3. All basic commodities can be found in the markets in Moyo district and in Palorinya settlement. Markets are functioning despite numerous challenges. 4. Essential services are available, but are over-crowded and insufficient to cover the needs of both refugee and host populations. 5. The education system and school infrastructure suffer from overcrowding; facilities are inadequately equipped to handle the influx of refugees. Refugee teachers face significant barriers to enter the employment market. 6. Fire Fuel/Firewood: Absence of an alternative source of energy for cooking-fuel is creating high demand for firewood. This high demand negatively impacts the peaceful coexistence of refugee and host communities in addition to causing severe forest degradation. 7. Access to Credit: Despite the availability of institutions and loan products, refugees report having very limited access to credit due to collateral requirements. 8. Feasibility of Cash Programming: The markets in both communities are generally wellsupplied and functioning. Interviewed members of neither communities had experienced humanitarian aid delivered through cash programming at the time of the assessment However, they note that insufficient income and a lack of cash sources are the main challenges towards meeting their basic needs. The functionality of mobile phone networks (i.e MTN and Airtel), the presence of mobile money operators and a functioning market suggest high feasibility for cash programming. In general, findings confirm that Palorinya settlement and Moyo district are underserved and necessitate an increase in humanitarian and development assistance. Page 7

8 Background The Republic of Uganda has one of the most progressive refugee policies in the world. The National Development Plan II, the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and the Refugee and Host Population Empowerment (ReHoPE) Strategic Framework outline the need to build resilient and self-reliant communities, whereby host and refugee populations are empowered to achieve social and economic development. In Uganda, while refugees are still initially placed in settlements, they have the right to freedom of movement and employment within the country. As of October 2017, Uganda hosted 1,381,207 refugees and asylum seekers in the country, of which 1,034,106 were from South Sudan 2, with expected continued influxes in The country has received a historic single largest refugee influx from South Sudan with a total of 674,033 new refugee arrivals in Uganda between July 2016 and March Palorinya settlement in Moyo district hosted 184,701 refugees as per October 2017, for an estimated host population of 137,489 persons 3. A context of chronic poverty and underdevelopment in Moyo district worsens the situation for the refugees and the host communities alike. Assessment Objectives The assessment s main objective was to assess uncovered basic needs of refugees and host population and to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of a cash and market-based response (including multi-purpose cash grant). The assessment additionally assessed three critical markets for the refugees and host populations: education, firewood and financial services, with the aim to draw recommendations for short-term and mid-term livelihoods and essential services support (for both communities), in an attempt to inform a strategy linking humanitarian and development needs. The ultimate objective is for the results to inform response analysis and program design recommendations for all participating agencies and for the wider sector. Initial sharing of findings and response analysis discussions took place with all participating agencies in Kampala after the primary data collection on December 11 th, Target Population & Methodology The assessment focused on Palorinya settlement and Moyo district s host communities. Data was collected in all three zones of Palorinya settlement and in the host community in Itula, Gimara, Metu sub-counties and Moyo Town Council in Moyo district. The primary data collection was conducted from November 29 th to December 5 th, 2017, with triangulation and updates conducted between January and April The assessment was comprised of two components: a Basic Needs assessment and a Market assessment. The Basic Needs assessment took inspiration and used questionnaires from the 2 UNHCR OPM (2017) Uganda Refugees and Asylum seekers as of 1 October National Housing census 2014, Government of Uganda. Page 8

9 Basic Needs Assessment Guidance & Toolbox (Save the Children, CaLP, DRC, Mercy Corps and UNOCHA, first draft, 2017) piloted by Save the Children in Nigeria and Ethiopia. The Market assessment used tools adapted from the Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis (EMMA) methodology and from UNHCR s Multi-Sector Market Assessment: Companion Guide and Toolkit. The Market assessment focused on the following critical markets: education (with a focus on teacher employment), firewood and access to credit and financial services with general information on market functionality gathered through marketplace questionnaires in order to inform cash assistance feasibility and appropriateness. Market actors (retailers selling vegetables, dry food commodities and hygiene items) in Konyo-Konyo market in Palorinya and in Moyo Town council market were interviewed. The marketplace approach also used observation to assess market infrastructure and general condition and availability of basic needs commodities. The Basic Needs assessment was essentially conducted through household surveys and FGDs, while the Market assessment on education, firewood and credit and financial services used FGDs and KIIs. Therefore, the Basic Needs Assessment gathered both quantitative and qualitative data, while the Market Assessment only gathered qualitative data. The Basic Needs Assessment was complemented by one Key Informant Interview with the District Health Officer. While Education is considered a Basic Need, the Market Assessment has focused on the teacher s employment market and the education supporting environment. Table 1 shows the number of survey questionnaires and interviews conducted in all areas and identifies the key informants interviewed. Focus Tool Number Basic Needs Education Firewood Financial Services/ Access to Credit FGD questionnaire refugees 4 with a total of 42 participants (16 male / 26 female) FGD questionnaire host community HH survey questionnaire refugees HH survey questionnaire host community KIIs FGDs with teacher in settlement schools and host community KIIs 7 with a total of 62 participants (35 male / 27 female) (District Education Officer, 3 Head Teachers) 5 with a total of 43 participants (29 male / 14 female) 2 (District Environmental Officer/District Forest Officer and National Forest Authority) FGDs 4 with a total of 42 participants (32 male / 10 female) KIIs 2 (Moyo SACCO, Rural Finance Initiative) Market Place Marketplace questionnaires 5 (3 in Moyo town market and 2 in Konyo-Konyo) Health KII 1 District Health Officer General KII 1 Local Council 5 (LC5) Chairman Table 1: List of tools used and number of informants for each sector assessed After an adapted 5-days EMMA training conducted by OXFAM EFSVL global advisor, during which critical markets were selected, participating agencies split the assessment in two geographical Page 9

10 areas: Mercy Corps and CESVI, under the lead of Oxfam, went to Lamwo district and DCA and SCI, under the lead of Relief International, went to Moyo district. As a result of diverging methodologies, it was decided to develop two distinct reports. Limitations The sample size cannot be considered as a representative sampling of neither refugee nor host communities. However, the use of both qualitative and quantitative tools such as focus group discussions, household questionnaires and key informant interviews, allowed for triangulation of findings and reliability of data. It is considered however that geographical coverage of the assessment has been wide enough to represent the general situation of the whole of Palorinya settlement and the wider Moyo district. Some discrepancies can be found between findings for the refugees and for the host community as different softwares (i.e. Kobo for the host community and ONA for the refugees) have been used for the survey, with a few questions asked slightly differently. Page 10

11 Assessment findings I. Household profile of respondents Refugees Among the Basic Needs survey s respondents, 71% were married and living with their spouse, 16.5% were married but not living with their spouse and 12.5% were single. Households interviewed had on average 1.7 children under five living in the household, with an average of 7.4 members per household. The highest education level of the head of household was primary school for 50% of respondents; secondary for 42%; tertiary for 4%; and for the remaining 4%, the head of household has not been to school. Refugees interviewed arrived in Uganda between December 2016 and February 2017, and most of them fled from Kajo-Keji and Morobo in South Sudan. Eighty percent of households interviewed have primary school-aged children and 12.5% (two families) out of those 80% were not sending at least one of their primary school-aged children to school because of high fees (one family) or sickness (the other family). All refugees surveyed were sending at least one child to school. All families surveyed who have a secondary school-aged child (70% of respondents) were regularly sending their child(ren) to school. 71% of households have at least one family member with special needs (i.e. a disabled member, with chronic illness or an unaccompanied minor) disaggregated as follows; 25% have at least one disabled member, 28% have at least one member with chronic illness and 29% have at least one unaccompanied minor (not related to them) in their household. A few households had up to three members with special needs. Host community Among the Basic Needs survey s respondents, 96% were married and living with their spouse, 2% married but not living with spouse and 2% were single. Households interviewed have on average 1.5 children under five in the household, with an average 8.6 members per household. The highest education level of the head of household is primary school for 37% of respondents; secondary for 45%; tertiary for 13%; for 2.5%, the head of household has not been to school and the remaining 2.5% did not know. 2.6% (one family) of respondents were not sending at least one of their primary school-aged children to school because of a reported problem with the school. All families who have a secondary school-aged child send the child to school, and the same was found for tertiary school-aged children. 15% of the households had a family member with a disability and 29% had a family member with chronic illness. Page 11

12 II. Basic needs assessment findings 2.1 Overview of needs and priority ranking Respondents were asked to prioritize their most pressing basic needs. Both refugees and host communities reported health care services and food commodities as top priorities. For refugees, medicine, firewood and potable water are also unmet and important needs, as summarized in table 2. Hygiene items come as the third top priority need. MOST PRESSING BASIC NEEDS (SEE FURTHER BREAKDOWN IN FIGURE 2 BELOW) RANKING Refugees Host Community 1 Health care services Food commodities 2-5 Medicine, Firewood or alternative energy, Food, Health care services Potable Water (equal weight) 6 Hygiene Items Table 2: Most pressing basic needs for refugees and host community Refugees When asked about their top priority sector for assistance, 20% of refugees listed health care services as their first priority, followed by food commodities, medicine, potable water and energy commodities (for 12% respectively), with 8% identifying hygiene commodities as their first priority, as illustrated in figure 2 below. Shelter/housing services (money to pay rent, etc.) 4% Energy commodities for heating, cooking (ie fuelwood 12% Education services (transport, fees, teachers, etc.) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, Shelter material (to repair roof etc.) 4% 4% 4% Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) 12% Household commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, Access to hygiene/sanitation facilities (latrines, 4% 4% Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, 8% Drugs and medicines 12% Health care services (Health staff, centre, etc.) 20% Food commodities (Staple and non-staple, etc.) 12% Figure 2: Basic needs (first priority) refugees report to have the most difficulties meeting in the next three months and consider a priority for assistance Further findings show a significant need for replacing or repairing household and shelter items that were received upon arrival of refugees between December 2016 and February 2017 (e.g. cooking utensils, tarpaulin, water containers) and are now worn out or not functional anymore. Page 12

13 The main reason for not being able to meet these basic needs is the lack of purchasing power. 88% of refugees report having an insufficient income to be able to economically access their basic needs, as shown in figure 3 below. It was observed that in-kind food items (with other items such as Plumpy Nut) distributed by aid agencies are being sold in the largest market in the settlement (Konyo-Konyo market) an indicator of a need for cash or the inappropriateness of assistance provided. For the three goods or services identified as a priority for assistance, what are the main reasons why you can't cover/meet this basic need? 4% 4% 13% Insufficient money/income/resources to purchase/access goods or services Physical and logistical constraints to access markets/service providers Insecurity hindering access to markets/service providers 88% Insufficient goods/services/infrastructure or facilities available locally Figure 3: Refugees main reasons for inability to cover most pressing basic needs Access to basic needs for refugees Most basic needs commodities are accessible in Konyo-Konyo market, with a return journey for residents of Zones 2 and 3 costing an average of UGX 11,000 (USD 3 4 ). Two smaller markets also provide essential commodities: Belameling in Zone 1 (for a return journey cost of UGX 2,000 (USD 0.5) for residents of the same zone) and Kinyiba in Zone 3, as illustrated in the map (figure 4) below. 4 The exchange rate used throughout this report is 1USD=UGX3686. Page 13

14 Figure 4: Schools and Markets accessible to refugees in and around Palorinya settlement (adapted from UNHCR, 2017) Page 14

15 Food commodities are accessible to refugees, albeit at different distances according to one s area of residence. 71% of refugees access food commodities locally (between 5 to 45 minutes of travel); 21% mainly access food commodities in-house from their own production; 4% only have remote access (more than 45 minutes of travel); and the remaining 4% only have very remote access (more than two hours of travel), as shown in figure 5 below. Refugees are overwhelmingly not satisfied with the quality of food commodities they find in the nearby markets, only a few respondents mentioned being satisfied most of the time. Access to Food Commodities (Staple and non-staple, etc.) 4.0% 4.0% 20.8% In-house (0-5 min) Local (5-45 min) Remote (>45min) Very Remote (>2h) 70.8% Figure 5: Access to food commodities Health care services are accessible locally (between 5 to 45 minutes of travel) to 71% of refugees. For 8%, they are accessible in the immediate vicinity (less than 5 minutes of travel), but 17% of refugees have to travel for more than 45 minutes. For 4%, health care services are virtually inaccessible (more than 3 hours of travel). Those health services accessed by refugees are mainly those run by NGOs such as MTI, RI or Healing Kadi Foundation in Palorinya settlement. Hygiene commodities are available to refugees either within 5 minutes (42%) or locally within 45 minutes travel distance (54%). Similarly, the majority of refugees (79%) are able to access education commodities locally. However, 13% reported having to travel more than two hours to access education commodities. Figure 4 above (p.14) shows that a number of primary schools are available and accessible to refugees in Palorinya, however there is only one accessible secondary school, Itula Secondary School near Zone 1. Host community Food commodities and health care services are the primary basic needs where the host community experiences gaps in coverage. For 68%, food commodities was the top priority, and for 24%, it was health care services (see figure 6 below). Page 15

16 Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) 3% Health care services (Health staff or facility, etc.) 24% Food commodities (Staple and non-staple, etc.) 68% Education services (transport, fees, teachers, etc.) Drugs and medicines 3% 3% Figure 6: Basic needs (first priority) host community reports to have the most difficulties meeting in the next three months and consider a priority for assistance Access to basic needs for host communities All basic needs commodities are accessible to host communities (HC) from different trading centres: Dongo in Palorinya, Lefori in Itula sub-county (SC) and Obongi weekly market in Gimara sub-county. Costs of transportation for households living in Itula SC range from UGX 5,000 (USD 1.35) for Dongo trading centre to UGX 30,000 (USD 8) to access Lefori trading centre. Those markets are mostly visited by the host communities. For 69% of HC respondents, food commodities can be purchased locally (between 5 to 45 minutes of travel), 21% access food commodities in-house from their own production and for 8%, food commodities can only be purchased very remotely (more than 2 hours of travel). Host communities are mostly satisfied with the quality of food commodities they find in the markets. The assessment findings could not allow for explaining this difference in satisfaction between refugees and host communities with regard to food commodities found in markets. Health care services are accessible locally (between 5 to 45 minutes of travel) for 85% of host communities, albeit with frequent shortages of medicine reported in health centers. The main health centers accessed by host communities residing around Palorinya are Itula Health Centre III and Dongo Health Centre III. Host communities are in general highly unsatisfied by the quality of services given in health centers. Hygiene commodities are also accessible locally for 66% of the host communities interviewed. Education commodities are accessible locally for 71% of host community respondents. These low rates are explained by the remoteness of some villages, located far from trading centers. 2.2 Access to income Refugees Most refugees (83%) report not having a regular and predictable source of cash income. For the 17% who report having a regular and/or predictable income, the source of income is casual labour, self-employment (e.g. firewood and agricultural product sales) or skilled salaried employment (e.g. in health or education sectors). Only 20% report having no source of income at all. Twenty five percent reported not having any member of household contributing to the household income. Fifty percent of the refugees interviewed mentioned having one member of the household contributing to the household income, while the remaining 25% mentioned having two members bringing in an income. None of the respondents reported that minors were contributing to household income. Page 16

17 Access to official credit and loans is very limited for refugees (none reported having access to credit), albeit food is sometimes purchased on credit. Source of income in South Sudan For 70%, casual labour was the main source of income in South Sudan, for 16.7% it was selfemployment and 12.5% had their main source of income coming from skilled and regular employment (see figure 7 below). The main secondary source of income was self-employment. Main source of income for Refugees in South Sudan 12.5% Casual Labour (agriculture, construction, domestic work) 16.7% Self-employment (petty trade, firewood sales, agriculture product sales) 70.8% Skilled and regular employment (with salary, i.e. in health, education or any other sector) Figure 7: Main source of income in South Sudan Source of income in Uganda In Uganda, for the refugees, casual labour (e.g. in farms or on construction sites) is still the primary source of income (54% of respondents), with both skilled employment and self-employment being the primary source for 12.5% respectively, as illustrated in figure 8 below. It is worth noting that more than 20% could not report a main source of income (12.5% responded they had no regular source and 8.3% responded that the question was not applicable to them for the same reason). In comparison, all respondents could report a main source of income when they were in South Sudan. For those having a secondary source of income (63% of respondents), self-employment is the main one. Main Source of income in Uganda for Refugees 12.5% 12.5% 8.3% 54.2% Casual Labour (agriculture, construction, domestic work) Self-employment (petty trade, firewood sales, agriculture product sales) Skilled and regular employment (with salary, i.e. in health, education or any other sector) No regular income generating activities 12.5% Not applicable Figure 8: Main source of income in Uganda for refugees Page 17

18 Only 46% of the surveyed refugee households were able to estimate their current family income. For those who estimated an amount, figures suggest an average monthly family income of UGX 59,600 (USD 16). Host community For host communities, casual labour equally constitutes the main source of income (84% of respondents), followed by self-employment at 11% (e.g. selling agricultural products or petty trade) while only 5% of host community respondents had their primary source of income coming from skilled or regular salaried employment (see figure 9 below). Self-employment is the main secondary source of income, indicating entrepreneurial mind-set within the host community. Main Sources of Income for Host Community 11% 5% Casual Labor Self-Employment 84% Skilled & regular employment Figure 9: Main source of income in Uganda for host communities The average monthly family income for host communities is UGX 136,500 (USD 37), more than twice the refugees average family income. Income comes from employment of different kinds as illustrated by figure 9, but this constitutes only 52.8% of the sources of cash for host community members. Savings, unofficial loans and other 5 means represent almost half of the sources of cash, as illustrated in figure 10 below. It can be noted that the host community reported a small proportion of cash source (0.70%) coming from the sale of humanitarian aid, which was not reported by refugees (but observed on markets). The average debt amount for a family is of UGX 53,256 (USD 14.5). Reasons for taking out a loan are numerous and range from purchasing agriculture inputs (for 76% of borrowers), supporting a business (for 35% of borrowers), paying school fees and related expenditures (for 24%) and supporting basic needs for the family (for 18%). 5 The other category has not been specified by enumerators conducting the assessment. Page 18

19 Sources of Cash for Host community 17% Work, sales, employment 1% Savings 13% 0% 53% Safety nets (pension, insurance) Official Loan (financial or micro-credit institution) Figure 10: Sources of cash for the host community Almost sixty percent of respondents in the host community indicated that the refugee influx changed income sources or the way they access cash. When asked to explain this change further, the majority of responses described an overall positive trend that the influx created employment opportunities. Other reported changes include the increase in the availability of essential services such as schools and health centers as well as an increase in the demand of food and non-food commodities, which has increased host community s opportunities for selling agricultural and fish products. 2.3 Access to cash through mobile money Refugees 16% Unofficial Loan or credit (from trader, relative or community person) For 50% of refugees, mobile money transfer was the first method of access to cash in South Sudan, followed by hand-to-hand cash for 29%. Since their arrival in Uganda, the main methods for accessing cash has not changed for refugees, however an increase should be noted in the proportion of mobile money transfer which becomes the first method of access to cash for 75% (compared to 50% in South Sudan), as illustrated in figure 11. This suggests that the introduction of a cash-based assistance through mobile money transfer would not meet any significant barrier regarding the technology and acceptability itself for a majority of refugee households. First Method to Access Cash in South Sudan First Method to Access Cash in Uganda 12.5% 29.2% 4% 4% 50% Mobile phone money transfer Hand to hand Official money transfer systems ATM and/or Bank No applicable 16.7% 4% 4.3% 75% Figure 11: Main methods for accessing cash in South Sudan then in Uganda Mobile phone money transfer Hand to hand Official money transfer systems ATM and/or Bank Page 19

20 Host community Similar to the refugees surveyed, 75% of host community respondents primarily access cash via mobile phone transfer, 18% from hand-to-hand and 8% from ATM or bank, as illustrated in figure 12. Financial inclusion is therefore more advanced in the host communities, albeit minimal. First Method to Access Cash for Host Community 8% 18% Mobile phone money transfer Hand to hand 74% ATM and/or Bank Figure 12: First cash access method for host community Phone ownership and mobile network availability for both communities The assessment found that the vast majority of individuals from both communities own a mobile phone. During the focus group discussions participants tended to report lower phone ownership in their communities (rate of ownership reported by host communities varied between 25% and 75% depending on FGDs and the majority of the refugee groups reported that about half of their community members own a phone). However, during the household survey, 87% of the host community and 83% of refugees reported having a mobile phone 6. Telecommunication networks available to the host communities include MTN (reported as the most reliable network in the area, used by 92% of respondents), Airtel (mentioned in three host community FGDs as available) and Africell (mentioned in two MTN Mobile money service in Palorinya, April 2018 host community FGDs). Refugees report accessing MTN mainly (all refugees interviewed reported using at least MTN), but also Airtel (mentioned in all refugee FGDs but not by everyone) as well as MTN and Airtel mobile money transfer systems. The presence of several MTN and Airtel money transfer agents in Konyo-Konyo market also testifies to the availability and proximity of these services. To access mobile money, an identification (ID) card is needed; refugees can use their UNHCR ID card. The main issues both communities reported with regards to using mobile phones are illiteracy and the difficulties that elderly community members face with technology. 6 This discrepancy might be due to the small number of individual households surveyed or lack of willingness to share having a phone during a FGD. Page 20

21 2.4 Gaps in Health Care Across both groups, findings show significant gaps in health care services. When asked to specify the gap, both communities reported lack of medical staff and available medicine, inadequate services, high costs for medicine, treatment and transportation as well as poor health care facilities. Refugees All refugees have theoretical access to free health care services and medicine provided by government and humanitarian actors in Palorinya settlement (e.g. Relief International, MTI, Healing Kadi Foundation). Nonetheless, coverage is reported to be insufficient for the level of needs. When asked about their level of concern to meet basic health care needs, only 21% of refugees responded that they did not worry at all about meeting their health care needs. Almost 80% feel to some extent worried about their health and the ability to access services needed (see figure 13 below for details). Refugee's concerns for meeting health care needs 13% 4% 21% 1= I don't feel worried at all about meeting this need 2= I feel worried but we should be able to cope 12% 3= I feel worried for some or all family members and I'm not sure we will be able to cope 50% 4= I feel worried for the health of some or all family members 5= I feel worried for the life of some or all family members Figure 13: Refugees concerns for meeting health care needs Among main issues reported, are a lack of: health care facilities, medical staff in existing facilities, medicine in the clinics and health centers run by humanitarian actors combined with poor infrastructure (infrastructure is temporarily built with tarpaulins and wood poles) and absence of emergency units. Consequently, refugees turn to private facilities and often pay for health care and medicine. Refugee women usually prefer giving birth in health centers when possible and accessible. Furthermore, when asked about their feelings towards access to hygiene commodities, 16.7% of refugee respondents felt worried about their own health or that of their family should no additional assistance be received in the coming months. Page 21

22 Host communities The assessment confirmed that the refugee influx has put particularly high pressure on the health care services available to the host population of Moyo district. Generally, host communities are highly unsatisfied with health care services provided in the district, with complaints such as the lack of medicine, the lack of medical staff and the lack of beds in health facilities for patients. Table 3 summarizes how members of the host community assess the current availability, level of difficulty for accessing medicine and health services and level of satisfaction with those, which is poor on all aspects. Health Care Services availability and satisfaction Good/Service Availability Difficulty to obtain Satisfaction Medicine Only rarely (86%) Very difficult (57%) Rarely/never satisfied (57%) Health Care Services Only rarely (57%) Very difficult (57%) Rarely/never satisfied (71%) Table 3: Health care services and commodities Access and Satisfaction reported by host community Host community women usually prefer giving birth in their sub-county health centre or in Moyo hospital. However, costs for a delivery is very high while compared to the average income (which is of UGX 136,500 (USD 37)): indeed, a normal delivery costs on average UGX 30,000 (USD 8) and a delivery with complication costs on average UGX 270,000 (USD 73), with costs of transportation also being high for most households, participants having reported paying on average UGX 18,000 (USD 5) for ambulance fuel. Fifty-five percent of host community respondents reported that health care services they access were provided by governmental institutions, 24% by NGO or community assistance and 21% from private institutions. Fifty-one percent of respondents mainly purchase medicine from the private sector, 27% access them from governmental institutions and 22% access them primarily from NGO or community assistance. This confirms that the host community benefits from health services provided by humanitarian actors in Itula sub-county, however level of satisfaction is poor overall. 2.5 Gaps in Food Security The assessment found that both communities experience a level of food insecurity as they report applying different negative coping strategies to meet their basic food needs. As an illustration, limiting portion sizes at meal times is applied two or more days per week by the majority of refugees and host community families alike. Refugee food security situation Food assistance is the main food source for 58% of refugees; however, whilst all refugees should theoretically be receiving food assistance, own production was the main food source for 38% of the respondents. Four percent of the respondents reported the natural environment as their main source of food. Findings related to own production confirm that refugees produce food out of their allocated plot of land while stressing the dependence of refugees on a satisfactory rainy season and their vulnerability to food insecurity during the lean season. During the assessment, refugees were observed preparing the maize harvested on their plot and having it grinded in the nearby mill Page 22

23 ran by a refugee. The importance of own food production can be compared with the percentage of refugees reporting accessing food in-house, which was 21%. Refugees reported dedicating an average amount of UGX 81,364 (USD 22) per month for food purchase (in addition to the food assistance received on a monthly basis), in addition to an average amount of UGX 10,705 (USD 3) for cooking fuel (almost exclusively firewood) which amounts to UGX 92,069 (USD 25) (for an average monthly family income of UGX 59,600 (USD 16)), which could suggest that food is purchased on credit from local traders. Despite gaps in food security, thanks to food assistance received and the food produced, only 25% of refugees reported that their access to food commodities was insufficient to cover all their family needs. For 62.5%, access to food commodities is sufficient, and for 8.3% this is largely sufficient. Sixty-two and a half percent of refugees didn t feel worried at all about being able to meet this need in the coming months, however the remaining 37.5% did report feeling worried. Host community food security situation Almost all surveyed host community members (95%) reported that their main food source was their own production, albeit reporting facing severe difficulties meeting their basic food needs yearround. Almost 70% of respondents considered access to food commodities a priority for assistance, as reported in section 2.1 above. Furthermore, 50% of the respondents reported limiting portion sizes twice per week, 39% reported relying on help from friends or relatives twice per week and 29% reduce the number of meals eaten in a day at least twice per week. Moreover, when asked about potential food shortages, half of all respondents expressed feeling worried about being able to meet their food needs over the coming months. Host community respondents were asked about the actual expenditures for food and cooking fuel, but also, following the BNA methodology, the ideal amount they would have to spend for each category to fully cover their needs. When asked about the monthly costs for food and cooking fuel, focus group participants reported spending an average amount of about UGX 574,000 (USD 156) whereas household survey respondents gave an average ideal amount of approximately UGX 327,000 (USD 89) for the same items, this discrepancy could be explained by the small number of household surveyed individually. With an average monthly family income only amounting to about UGX 136,500 (USD 37), this could also suggest that food is purchased on credit or that numbers reported were for all participants the ideal amount they would like to spend to fully cover their needs. 2.6 Gaps in access to potable water Refugees and host communities report that water, specifically potable water, is difficult to obtain, particularly during the dry season. Refugees report that potable water is only rarely available and very difficult to obtain. Even when water is available, households and refugees, in particular, face barriers to transport it due to a lack of jerrycans and other safe containers. Only 8% of refugee households reported accessing potable water within their immediate vicinity, whilst 71% reported having local access (at a distance of between 10 to 45 minutes), and 21% could only access potable water remotely (at a distance of more than 45 minutes). Refugees report that items such as jerry cans and other household items were not distributed to all households in an equal manner. Page 23

24 The host community (HC) also expressed concerns regarding access to safe drinking water as almost half of all survey respondents (47%) reported feeling worried about water shortages and being unsure they will be able to cope. Seventy-six percent of HC respondents reported purchasing water from the private sector; 19% reported accessing it thanks to NGO or community support. Surprisingly no household reported getting potable water from natural resources. Both refugees and host communities requested more boreholes to be established in their vicinity. 2.7 Cash feasibility and appropriateness Preference for cash Refugees Refugees were asked about their preference in terms of assistance modality for each category of basic need. During FGDs, 50% of refugee respondents shared preferring cash assistance to meet food needs, access firewood or charcoal as well as hygiene items and communication commodities; all refugees mention preferring in-kind assistance for household and education commodities and potable water, 50% of refugees preferred in-kind assistance for meeting their food needs; all refugees reported during FGDs preferring improved services for the provision of health care and education services, over cash or in-kind. During household surveys, results were slightly different, as 100% of refugees reported preferring in-kind for food commodities, 20% reported preferring cash assistance for health care services, against 60% preferring receiving service provision assistance for the same category, and 20% in-kind. Fifty percent of refugee survey respondents preferred cash assistance for hygiene items, while the other half preferred in-kind. One hundred percent preferred cash assistance for accessing hygiene and sanitation facilities, for education commodities and services as well as shelter and housing services. More results per category can be found in the graph (figure 14) below. Figure 14: Preferred modality of assistance per category of basic need Refugees reported the lack of income as their main reason for not being able to cover their basic needs consistently, which demonstrates an issue of economic access and therefore suggesting Page 24

25 cash as an appropriate modality option for meeting basic needs, Despite a low rate of preference for some categories of basic need like food that can be explained by the lack of familiarity with this modality of assistance. Host communities When asked the same question for their two priority needs, 36% of host community (HC) respondents preferred receiving cash for food assistance over in-kind, against 32% who preferred in-kind assistance for food (it should be noted that for most HC respondents, cash assistance was not a well-known modality of assistance, which may affect responses and findings here). For their second priority need, i.e. health care, 42% of HC respondents would prefer receiving cash assistance over other modalities (29% would prefer in-kind assistance and the same percentage would prefer service provision) Market functionality Two main markets for refugees and host communities were visited: Konyo-Konyo in Palorinya and Moyo market in Moyo town council. Konyo-Konyo was established in January 2017 following the creation of Palorinya settlement and the influx of refugees from South Sudan. It is now a major market where all basic needs commodities can be found. It is operating daily and traders are primarily refugees from South Sudan. Moyo market is a major market mainly for host communities but also for refugees when they can afford to get to Moyo town. It is an old market created in 1940 and is operating daily. Market infrastructure Konyo-Konyo lies on bare clay soil which gets muddy and swampy during the rainy season. This constrains trade during the wetter months of the year, i.e. April to November (with a peak in August). Roads leading to the marketplace are also made of clay soil and are poorly maintained, constraining access for big trucks, especially during the rainy season. There is no proper space for vehicles to park, and there is a lack of sanitation infrastructure. There are no concrete buildings: most traders are operating from containers or from temporary stalls made of clay soil, wooden poles and iron sheets or tarpaulins (see photos below). Page 25

26 General merchandise store in Belameling trading centre, Palorinya Settlement A few vendors are selling their products directly on the ground on a tarpaulin, like vegetable and dried fish vendors (see photos below). Dried fish vendors, Konyo-Konyo market, Palorinya settlement Page 26

27 Vegetables vendor, Konyo-Konyo market, Palorinya settlement Moyo town market has a better infrastructure, but fish and vegetable sellers were also seen selling items from tarpaulin on the ground due to limited space and concrete market stalls. Refugees impact on markets In addition to Konyo-Konyo, two secondary markets (trading centers) can be found in Palorinya settlement, i.e. Belameling and Kinyiba (see map (figure 4) p.14). Another weekly market takes place every Monday, situated in Ndirindiri village in the settlement. Customers of these market are primarily refugees. All basic needs commodities can be found in those markets, but refugees also visit some weekly markets outside the settlement, as reported by traders of Moyo town market and Lefori market. A mix of refugee and host community traders can be found trading a wide range of goods in these markets. Ugandan traders from other parts of the country took advantage of the refugee influx to come and do business in the settlement area. Traders therefore report higher competition now compared to before the influx. The refugee influx has also caused an increase in demand for most core goods. In particular, demand for firewood, food items and vegetables had increased within the past 12 months at the time of the assessment (December 2017). The change in demand was lower for fish and meat as well as hygiene items due to the higher costs of these items and the low purchasing power of the refugees (see reported changes in table 5 below). However, the presence of humanitarian agency staff has created an increase in demand for fish, meat and fruit, in particular from hotels and restaurants catering for these customers. Has the demand for key goods changed within the past 12 months? Response No Yes Firewood 1 4 Fish and Meat 3 2 Food commodities (staple) 5 Hygiene items 2 3 Vegetables 5 Table 4: Change in Demand reported by Konyo-Konyo and Moyo markets traders Page 27

28 Correlating with an increase in demand is an increase in prices. All traders noted an increase in the price of firewood, due to high demand, scarcity of supply, and overcutting of trees. Figure 14 below illustrates price changes as reported by traders for different categories of commodities. P R I C E C H A N G E S O F K E Y C O M M O DITIES W I T H I N T H E P A S T 1 2 M O N T H S Price stayed the same Price went down Price went up H Y G I E N E I T E M S F I S H F I R E W O O D E D U C A T I O N I T E M S C E R E A L S Figure 14: Reported price changes within past 12 months (as per December 2017) Price trends Prices of key commodities increase and decrease according to seasons, as illustrated in table 6 below. Prices of cereals rise during the lean season from March to June when harvests stocks are exhausted, and fall during the harvest season from August to October. The presence of food aid commodities in markets in the settlement also decreases prices as refugees sell the commodities at a low price to traders. Prices of vegetables are low during the rainy season when refugees and host communities grow a range of vegetables, and increase during the dry season from December to March. Meat and fish prices are high during the dry season. Prices of fish are high between October and January due to lower amounts of catch as rivers and streams get shallow, and seasonal ponds present during the rainy season disappear during the drier months. Category of commodity Cereals/grains Vegetables Meat Fish (fresh) Fish (dry) Price trend High Low High Low High High High Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lean season Harvest period Rainy season Table 5: Price trends for key commodities Main constraints Major constraints faced by traders in those markets are the lack of enough capital to make investments, the poor roads that become almost impassable during rainy months, the lack of permanent infrastructure of the market places, the lack of access to crop commodities (due to a low production of agricultural commodities in the area) and lack of refugees purchasing power. Page 28

29 The presence of a food and items aid economy is harmful for the traders when refugees sell their in-kind goods directly to other refugees or to host communities at a very low price with which traders cannot compete Range of expenditures for basic needs: Findings for refugees The version of the BNA methodology used in this assessment gathered households perspectives on the minimum expenditures that would be required in order to satisfy all their basic needs. It was not intended to be a method to estimate the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB), which instead is contained in the Facilitator s Guide for Response Options Analysis and Planning (ROAP) (Save the Children, CaLP, DRC, Mercy Corps and UNOCHA, 2017). This approach entailed asking respondents about the current and ideal amount needed to cover each category of need for their household (note that average household size of refugee respondents is 7.4 and 8.6 for host community but costs per household have been rounded to give an average per household disregarding the household size). Consequently, the assessment team has used a combination of the results from the questions on amount spent and ideal amount per category and developed a Range of expenditures for Basic Needs based on these findings, with triangulation from market prices and other assessment findings. Table 7 below details the cost for each category of basic needs, for a total MEB value of UGX 343,610 (USD 93). Findings come from refugees and host community respondents alike, as costs of living are similar to both groups, but are valid for a refugee family receiving food assistance in kind, as this value has not been taken into account. 7 For more information on Konyo-Konyo and Moyo town markets and trade trends, see Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation, WFP Uganda (2017) Market Assessment report Koboko, Palorinya and Imvepi settlements. Page 29

30 Basic needs commodities and services Food commodities costs without food assistance cost Cost per month per HH in UGX Cost per month per HH in USD Comments 138, This includes intake of animal protein (dried fish): see below in table 8 Grinding mill 10, At a rate of UGX 100 per kg, for 100kgs per month for a household Health commodities (medicine) 19, Anti-malarials and other drugs are frequently not available in health centers, that explains why even refugees report expenditures in that category Health care services (medical consultation and care, etc.) Household commodities (utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) Hygiene commodities (clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) 21, , One sauce pan costs between UGX 15,000 and 30,000 (refugees reported needing to replace theirs) depending on size and a mattress or blanket cost UGX 55,000 each 24, Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) Shelter material (to repair roof etc.) Shelter/housing services (money to pay rent, etc.) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, books, etc.) Education services (fees, teachers, exam contributions etc.) Energy commodities for heating, cooking (i.e. fuelwood or charcoal, lightning and charging) Communication commodities (phone, credit, etc.) 8, Most households report zero cost but some report higher costs so an average cost of 8,182 13, , About half of refugees report a rent to pay, which is a surprising findings given landlords are not supposed to claim a rent from refugees. This information could therefore be further investigated by more household surveys or focus group discussions. 14,394 4 Average per month: the bulk of expenditures happens at beginning of school term or school year 21, Average per month: expenditures often all at once at beginning of school term or during exam period 10,705 3 Main cooking fuel used is firewood 8, Transport services 12, TOTAL COST PER MONTH (excluding value of food assistance basket) 343,610UGX 93 AT A RATE OF 1USD = 3686UGX, TOTAL EQUALS 93USD PER MONTH PER HOUSEHOLD Table 6 Range of expenditures for Basic Needs in Palorinya Page 30

31 The costs of a complementary food basket to meet the required kilocalories and other nutrition requirements is of UGX 138,000 (USD 37), as illustrated in the table 8 below, created using the NutVal calculator tool. Food basket of 2118kcal/prs/day meeting protein, fat, calcium and iron Price per daily requirements 8 DAILY RATION Kilo par HH/mth Price/kg month g/person/day UGX UGX MAIZE MEAL, YELLOW, WHOLE GRAIN SORGHUM CORN SOY BLEND (WFP SPECS.) OIL, VEGETABLE (WFP SPECS.) BEANS, DRIED FISH, DRIED ,000 POTATO, SWEET, ORANGE ,000 CASSAVA, FRESH ,000 LEAVES, DARK GREEN, e.g. SPINACH Cost of complementary food basket to meet required kilocalories and other nutrition requirements 138,000 Costs in USD (1USD = 3686UGX) 37 Table 7 Cost of complementary food basket to meet required nutritional requirements If food distributions were to stop, the price of a complete food basket meeting nutritional requirements (without corn soy blend and with more cooking oil, equivalent to 2,122kcal per person and per day) would be UGX 220,500 (USD 59.8), as illustrated in table 9 below. Food basket of 2122kcal/prs/day meeting protein, fat, calcium and iron daily requirements DAILY RATION Kilo par HH/mth Price/kg Price per month g/person/day UGX UGX MAIZE MEAL, YELLOW, WHOLE GRAIN ,500 SORGHUM ,000 COOKING OIL BEANS, DRIED ,500 FISH, DRIED ,000 POTATO, SWEET, ORANGE ,000 CASSAVA, FRESH ,000 LEAVES, DARK GREEN, e.g. SPINACH Cost of complete food basket meeting nutritional requirements 220,500 Costs in USD (1USD=3686UGX) 59.8 Table 8 Cost of complete food basket meeting nutritional requirements 8 Due to differences in rations received across refugees and inconsistencies due to WFP pipeline issues, amounts of food items per person and per day have been rounded for the sake of NutVal calculation. Page 31

32 III. Education and teacher employment: findings Influx of refugees in Moyo district has affected the education system on multiple levels. The overarching challenges identified are 1) overcrowding of schools and inadequacy of school facilities which in turn affects the quality of education, 2) difficulty of physical access to schools during rainy season due to flooded roads, and 3) lack of qualified teachers and low and/or irregular pay. Challenges faced are similar for both communities. 3.1 Main challenges Poor and insufficient infrastructure A temporary classroom in Itula Secondary School, Palorinya Teachers and families alike reported a lack of a sufficient number of schools, classrooms and lodging to accommodate all pupils and provide accommodation for teachers. This affects both communities in and around Palorinya and across the district. In addition to the lack of building infrastructure, a challenge reported by teachers and families was the lack of latrines and hygiene facilities, as well as drinking water facilities, which is of particular concern for adolescent girls. When facilities do exist, the conditions are inadequate to accommodate the high number of pupils. Teachers report that there are not enough desks or chairs for students and that latrine facilities are completely insufficient for the number of pupils if they exist. Parents and teachers complain about the lack of fencing around schools. Lack of playgrounds in school compounds has also been reported. Teachers of Belemeling primary school complained about the absence of any water source in the school compound. Only one secondary school is available to refugees, Itula Secondary School (see photo), which was founded in 1996 by the community to cater for refugee students at the time. It became a government school in 2005, and due to repatriation, dropped to only 105 students in However, by 2017, 241 nationals and 2,184 refugee students were registered, overwhelming the capacity of the school. Due to long distances between home and the school, inability to afford school fees and the absence of free school meals, the number of registered refugee students dropped to 1,429 at the end of 2017, for a total of 1,670 students attending the school (State of Affair of the school, Itula Secondary School, 2017). The head teacher shared that they would hire additional teachers if they had financial means to pay them. Respondents from Obongi village in Gimara sub-country (near Palorinya, see map page 14) requested for a secondary school to be established in their sub-county. The lack of accommodation for teachers poses a particular issue as teachers have to travel long distances to school and due to poor road infrastructure and flooding during rainy season, schools become hard to reach for most teachers in the district. This exacerbates the problem of teacher absenteeism. Page 32

33 A few community schools have been established by refugee teachers who teach children within Palorinya settlement, either voluntarily or with support from education partners (mainly Windle Trust International). The assessment team interviewed teachers who reported being qualified graduate and diploma teachers (grade 5 and 7) teaching without contract or compensation. Like in other schools, teachers reported to struggle with overcrowding and inadequate classroom equipment (e.g. pupils not having desks and sitting on the floor) Financial barriers to education Despite education being officially free, hidden costs and financial barriers to education do exist. Pupils families are being asked to pay for contributions in order for the schools to function i.e. to pay the teachers, to pay for supplies for exams and to pay for school meals when they are provided, to an amount ranging between UGX 5,000 to UGX 150,000 per term or an average amount of UGX 63,000 (USD 17) per term. Focus group discussion respondents in both communities reported exam fees to be at UGX 50,000 (USD 13.68) per term at secondary school. Additionally, at the beginning of the school year, parents have to purchase school supplies, school bags, uniforms and shoes which cost at least an average UGX 72,000 (USD 19.5) in upfront costs (a school bag costs in average UGX 32,000, a school uniform UGX 20,000 and school shoes also cost in average UGX 20,000). For other school supplies, an average of UGX 10,000 (USD 2.7) per month should be added. This can be compared with the average monthly family income of refugees which is only of UGX 59,600 (USD 16). The cost of education therefore poses challenges for parents (both refugee and host population) who have few and unstable income sources as outlined above. To meet those costs, parents from both communities reported taking credit at the beginning of each school term to pay all education-related expenditures and fees. In general, school enrolment data collected in this assessment is positive, however, the inability to cover school-related costs has negative impacts on students attendance at schools and drop-outs have been reported part-way through the year or before exams when additional fees are levied. From the school side, schools are partly reliant on this additional income to pay teacher salaries (as a complement to government budget) and cover running-costs, therefore if these costs are not met, there are negative impacts on teacher motivation and the general functionality and management of the schools Overcrowding and Absenteeism In schools visited during the assessment, the issue of overcrowding essentially stemmed from the high numbers of refugee children. In Itula Secondary School for example (pictured above), refugees constitute 85% of all pupils (241 Ugandan pupils vs 1,429 South Sudanese pupils) and in Orinya Primary School, refugees make up a share of 91% of all pupils. In most schools across the district, there is a significant lack of teachers leading to high teacher: pupil ratios (in a range of 1:100 to 1:150 in most schools). To cope with these high pupil figures, some teachers report splitting the school day and operating in shifts which forces teachers to teach the curriculum in half the usual time. While all education key informants (head teachers and the District Education Officer) unanimously and independently reported that there is not an appropriate number of schools to accommodate refugee children, the assessment also found a resistance on the government s part to build more schools as their major concern is the schools unnecessary existence after the return of refugees to South Sudan. The Moyo Local Council Chairman indicated that the vast majority of refugee Page 33

34 children attend only a small number of schools and that redistributing them equally across all schools within the district could be a potential short-term solution. In contrast to the major burden of overcrowding, it was found that the schools with high numbers of refugee pupils experience long periods (up to two weeks) of student absenteeism in which particularly refugee pupils are not attending school. It was reported by key informants that they leave school to collect food distributions and only return to take exams Challenges faced by teachers Teachers face motivation challenges due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, low and/or irregular salaries and short-term contracts in community schools. Refugee teachers are reportedly most of the time hired as volunteers in community schools and do not get paid. During rainy season, teachers report being unable to physically access schools as roads get flooded. Salary disparities within the same schools are an issue, as teachers paid by INGOs get a higher salary, which demotivates others. Another challenge faced is the poor quality and low quantity of teaching and learning materials like maps, posters or laboratory equipment. The absence of school libraries or computers has also been reported as important gaps for providing quality education. Teachers reported feeling that education is not a priority for the host community in Itula sub-county, and is not highly valued by parents. 3.2 Teacher Employment Refugee teachers face significant barriers accessing employment as a teacher in Uganda, primarily because they either lack proper documentation of their teacher qualification or experience difficulties being accredited to teach in Uganda. This is exacerbated by the widespread belief that South Sudanese education is of lower quality and that therefore refugee teachers are unable to handle the Ugandan curriculum. Furthermore, school budgets in Moyo district are extremely limited and while many more teachers are needed (e.g. a primary school head teacher shared that he had 25 teaching vacancies), there are very few financial means to recruit qualified teachers and there would not be enough classrooms to accommodate them. Those who are employed, both Ugandan and South Sudanese teachers, are often being paid irregularly and experience uncertainty with regards to their employment contract. Furthermore, Palorinya is a hard-to-reach area and thus costly for teachers to work in. 3.3 Effect of Humanitarian Aid on Education The assessment has found five key areas where humanitarian aid has impacted the education system in Moyo district. These have positive, negative and mixed implications: Positive implications: Key informants report that humanitarian aid has helped to support the construction of new classrooms and sanitary facilities as well as salary top-ups for head teachers. Negative implications: Food assistance in the form of distributions reportedly leads to refugee pupils being absent to collect the family ration. Furthermore, NGO-funded schools tend to be more attractive to teachers as the salary payment tends to be more timely and reliable than the payments received from government schools, and of a higher amount. This leaves government schools less competitive as employers. Page 34

35 Mixed implications: Observations have shown that NGO actors in Moyo assist teachers in overcoming the issue of transportation by providing bus services to and from school. It is a costly intervention and likely to be unsustainable in the long term if donor funding ends / reduces. Parents from host communities have reported being able to pay school fees with food items due to the in-kind food distributions that are being sold at low market prices. Similarly, school authorities have started to introduce lunch for teachers as they are able to obtain low cost food items from the settlement markets. 3.4 Other Findings A broader issue identified through the assessment is that of high numbers of idle out-of-school youth who are neither engaged in school nor in the employment market. Further, young people lacking opportunities, income sources or vision for their future face a potential risk of early marriage or becoming involved in illegal activities. It was reported that idle youth engage in charcoal making, which is an accessible income-generating activity but illegal at scale 9. 9 Forest Reserves Order 1998, National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, Forest Act 1947, Uganda Forest Policy Page 35

36 IV. Firewood: findings Firewood constitutes the primary source of cooking -fuel for both communities, with charcoal being the seldom-used alternative, because of its higher cost. Both groups report primarily harvesting firewood themselves in nearby woodlots and forests. This practice puts extreme pressure on Uganda s forest resources and forest depletion is one of the major challenges faced by host communities and refugees alike. Those who decide to purchase firewood, however, face additional barriers as the market price for firewood has risen sharply over the past 12 months (see figure 14 p.28). A bundle of firewood that lasts for one to two days costs between UGX 3,000 and UGX 5,000 (around one US dollar). Travel time to acquire firewood is reportedly very challenging. Almost 30% of refugee respondents reported that energy commodities are almost non-accessible (i.e. a travel time of three hours or more) and 16.7% reported a very remote access (i.e. more than 2 hours of travel distance), as shown in the figure 15 below. The average distance travelled for refugees to harvest firewood is 4kms. Remoteness and Travel Time to Access Firewoord for Refugees 4% 29% 33% In-house (0-5 min) Local (5-45 min) Remote (>45min) Very Remote (>2h) Almost not accessible (>3h) 17% 17% Figure 15: Remoteness and travel time to access firewood for refugees Physical access is less of a challenge for host communities who travel shorter distances (on average slightly less than a kilometre) and do not fear physical assaults (unlike refugees see below), however host community members reported a hazardous harvest due to snakes, scorpions and other wild animals encountered on the way. Not only is the scarcity and high demand leading to high prices, it also creates fierce competition and high tensions between host communities and refugees. The host population seeks to leverage this business opportunity by selling firewood to refugees and often physically hinder refugees from harvesting themselves to force them to purchase firewood. Indeed, refugees unanimously report experiencing severe hostility, including physical and sexual assaults, while entering forests and woods to harvest firewood, a situation particularly serious for refugee women who report being attacked by men armed with guns 10. Additionally, refugees also consistently reported being 10 Focus group discussion with ten refugee women in Palorinya, zone 2, December 1 st Page 36

37 harassed by forest guards and being asked for financial contributions to access forests or in order to avoid getting their firewood confiscated on the way out. While forest depletion has been reported as a main concern by both communities, there is a limited knowledge of sustainable forest management. There were no reported awareness sessions conducted, either on tree species that could be cut or on sustainable harvesting methods. Both communities however, know that only branches should be cut. The national forestry policy bans burning of wood for charcoal-making at large scale 11 but it is allowed at household level. Village level environmental committees do exist but they are not active due to a lack of resources. Fuel Efficient Stoves have been distributed by Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in the settlement, but they present a number of challenges (e.g. due to lighting or the cooking position) and are only part of the solution. More than half of refugees (54%) shared being worried about not being able to cover their cooking fuel need if the situation does not improve. Fifty-two percent of host community members interviewed also share this concern. Fuel efficient stove constructed by a refugee woman, Palorinya settlement As a result of the level of concern and sense of urgency, refugees interviewed requested alternatives to firewood and charcoal for cooking fuel and are open to testing alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on firewood. Refugees suggested getting briquettes made from bio-waste or getting solar-powered stoves 12. Both communities are open to establishing tree nurseries or planting trees, but are concerned about the lack of water in the area or the wrong timing of seedlings distribution. 11 Forest Reserves Order 1998, National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, Forest Act 1947, Uganda Forest Policy Focus group discussion with twelve refugee men in Palorinya, zone 2, December 1 st Page 37

38 V. Credit and Financial Services: findings 5.1 Access to credit for both refugee and hosting communities While the assessment found that informal and formal financial services and credit lenders exist for refugees, the data shows that refugees have very limited access to credit compared to the host population. Only 12.5% of refugees reported having access to enough credit to meet their needs, compared to 61% of the host community. In both communities, it appears to be easier for men to access credit than for women as 58% of refugees and 71% of host community members reported that men can more easily access credit than women. The collateral required by official financial institutions is a barrier for refugees or poor Ugandans to take out a loan, in particular since, oftentimes, this collateral is a land title, which neither poor host communities nor refugees have. December to February are the peak times in terms of the need for credit for both communities, which correlates with two seasonal events: the dry season (from December to March) and the beginning of the first school term late January/early February. The main reason why refugees experience difficulties accessing credit is that formal financial institutions such as Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations ( SACCOs ), or banks typically require assets, collateral or other documentation that refugees commonly lack. Moyo s SACCO, however, reported to provide loans to refugees who are registered with the institution and that its clientele does include refugees while not specifying their exact share. Host community members reported that it is necessary to provide identification, proof of income as well as collateral security to register. Main SACCO products include loans for school fees, agriculture, business, and emergency health treatments. Other offers include boda-boda (motorcycle) loans as well as laptop loans. As a response to the refugee influx, Moyo s SACCO extended its loan periods from 12 to 18 months and also reduced the compulsory savings rate of 20% to 15%. However, it remains unclear if this has helped refugees access loans. 5.2 Credit lending institution available for refugees Generally, informal lenders appear to be more accessible to refugees: as an illustration of this, 36% of refugee households named better-off individuals as available credit lenders in their community (see figure 16). Of the 32% that responded other, 60% indicated that there are, in fact, no credit lending opportunities for them and the remaining mentioned informal savings groups which they also identified as their best source of credit. Traders have also been mentioned as available credit lending individuals by 23% of respondents. Page 38

39 Types of available credit lending institutions/individuals mentioned by refugee households 3% 6% 32% 23% MFIs Cooperatives Traders Better-off individuals Other 35% Figure 16: Types of available credit lending institutions/individuals known by refugee households The assessment identified one formal credit institution in Palorinya settlement (Morobi village, Zone 2) called Rural Finance Initiative (RUFI) which is particularly geared towards serving South Sudanese refugees (reporting that 90% of its clients are refugees). RUFI is a South Sudanese microfinance institution (MFI) that was created in 2008 in South Sudan. In February 2017, RUFI registered in Uganda in order to follow its clients to Moyo. A large share of refugee household survey respondents (38%) are from Kajo Keji where RUFI has four branches. RUFI reported to not require collateral from refugees and to operate under tier 4 regulation which means that there is no requirement for savings (however, this information contradicts with an information handout distributed by RUFI where compulsory savings are listed). While RUFI does not fund start-up capital, the majority of loans taken are for business purposes and the typical loan amount taken per client lies between 300,000 and 1,000,000 Ugandan Shilling (USD ). RUFI s average weekly loan disbursement is about UGX 12 million (USD 3,200) with an average of 10 new clients per week. While 47% of the households interviewed in Palorinya do know RUFI and specifically mentioned it as an institution that gives loans to people in need in the settlement or surrounding area, none shared having contracted a loan with them. Only one refugee shared having borrowed money from a savings group. 5.3 Credit lending institution available for host communities Members of the host community were all aware of accessible financial institutions in their community and named Moyo SACCO, Itula SACCO in Dongo village, Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) as well as traders as credit lending options. The top three credit lenders available reported by the host community are SACCOs, savings groups and better-off individuals, with SACCOs being their best source of credit because of easy access. No host community respondent mentioned official loans as a source of cash but mentioned unofficial loans represent an average 12.6% of their sources of cash. Page 39

40 Recommendations The following recommendations are made based on the findings of this assessment. They do not represent an exhaustive list of response or programme recommendations or options to address the findings of this report. However, they are presented as recommendations which should be considered in the future development and design of refugee response programmes in Palorinya settlement and Moyo district. Provide Cash-based assistance to refugees to meet basic needs Findings show that the main reason for an inadequate coverage of refugees basic needs is insufficient income. Additionally, findings show that a varied range of goods can be found in the main market and several other trading centers and weekly markets can be found in and around Palorinya settlement. Cash transfer should therefore be considered as a relevant and adequate modality of assistance to respond to gaps in basic needs. This should be complemented by assistance in the form of support for the provision of improved essential services (e.g. health and education services). All informants mentioned paying school fees of an amount ranging between UGX 50,000 to UGX 100,000 (from USD 13 to USD 27) per term, therefore school is not free in Uganda: this is to be considered when designing programs including education as a part of basic needs assistance. Findings also show that some refugees tend to take credit at the beginning of the school term to pay for education-related expenditures and fees, and those not able to cover those expenditures face barriers to school attendance. Consequently, cash transfers can be appropriate in meeting the high costs of school attendance. Transfer frequency and amounts should align with school terms and exam periods. More multipurpose cash transfers and less food and other in-kind assistance would stimulate the local economy and allow refugees to access the commodities and services of their choice. Cash transfer patterns could be considered as follows: one initial transfer of a higher amount to allow beneficiaries to improve or replace their shelter material and other household items followed by regular (monthly or bi-monthly) cash transfers of a smaller amount, with top-ups at each beginning of school term. The provision of smaller and monthly cash transfers would enable refugees to better meet their basic needs on a monthly basis. Cash for work should be considered as a viable programming option targeting idle youth and active men and women looking for sources of income. In addition to providing income to vulnerable households to support them to meet their basic needs, essential public or community infrastructure could be constructed, repaired or rehabilitated through cash for work schemes (such as schools and WaSH facilities, shelters and latrines for People with Special Needs, water points, water and irrigation trenches, waste management structures, etc.). Provide and promote alternative energy sources Findings highlight the urgent need to address the firewood issue. Providing an alternative cooking fuel is a solution to reduce the risk of violence and abuse faced by refugees when harvesting firewood, to lessen intra-community tensions, and to prevent further environmental degradation. Page 40

41 A combination of fuel efficient stoves and alternative energy sources should be provided to refugees to mitigate protection and environmental risks. A number of local entrepreneurs have developed biomass briquettes (made of animal dung and/or crop residues) that can be distributed to refugees for piloting their adequacy and acceptance. Fuel-efficient stoves produced by local micro-enterprises could also be provided to a large number of refugees. Voucher-based distribution can be used to pilot use of different kinds of briquettes and stoves. In a subsequent phase, the creation of micro-enterprises can be facilitated for the local production of those alternative solutions to firewood and traditional cooking methods. In parallel, the establishment of women s farmers groups should be considered for the production of raw materials for the briquettes (e.g. maize, sorghum or cow dung). Promote firewood production through tree plantations and nurseries Tree Nurseries The National Forest Authority, Sub Counties, host communities and refugees should be supported to rehabilitate or establish and manage tree nurseries in order to produce fast-growing tree species that can be used as a source of energy. Market-based solutions should be sought as much as possible, through for instance, the provision of vouchers to targeted groups for access to tree seedlings from nurseries. Access for refugees to nurseries managed by host communities and viceversa could foster peaceful cohabitation of the two communities. Mixed groups of nurseries managers could also be formed. Tree planting can be promoted through agro-forestry on refugees plots and host communities agricultural plots as another solution and soil preservation technique. The ownership of trees and the land tenure regime should be made clear to avoid conflicts around land ownership once trees are planted. Another important factor to consider for tree planting and agro-forestry to be successful is the timing of distribution of tree seedlings, as it was noted by one informant that tree seedlings are brought during the wrong season therefore do not survive. Organise community dialogues to mitigate social tensions In addition to providing alternatives to firewood harvesting in the settlement s surrounding forests and woodlots, community dialogues should be conducted to mitigate tensions and foster a peaceful cohabitation between refugees and host communities. Rehabilitate and maintain essential services infrastructure Roads need to be improved to accommodate for a long rainy season. The poor conditions of roads and trenches leads to roads flooding during the wetter months, which disrupts trading, education and impedes refugees and host communities accessing their basic needs. Buildings and services in health centres and schools (e.g. sanitation and hygiene facilities, classrooms) need to be improved as it is likely refugees will stay in Palorinya for the foreseeable future. There is an urgent need for more teacher accommodation, which would attract teachers in the area and would mitigate absenteeism due to long distances to travel to schools. Support school functioning costs In addition to infrastructure construction and rehabilitation, support should be provided to schools for their functioning costs to alleviate this burden put on parents via fees. Annual or termly Page 41

42 capitation grants could be provided to primary and secondary schools to cover the recruitment and salaries of teachers, school improvements and teaching and learning materials. Increase support to VSLA groups and enhance financial inclusion Financial inclusion could be improved through strengthening existing or creating new Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) for the refugees and host communities alike. This could be complemented by the provision of business and financial skills training given to both communities in the same course to foster social cohesion. VSLAs can also be strengthened to become SACCOs. Raising refugees awareness about accessible credit institutions offerings and conditions, such as RUFI, should also be considered by humanitarian and development actors. Identify, map and utilise existing skills in the refugee population South Sudanese refugees come with existing skills from training and education they obtained in South Sudan. It would be of strategic value to map skills and capacities available in refugee communities and tap into those resources. Some refugees have had vocational training in South Sudan (e.g. beads making, tailoring) but do not know how best to use those skills. South Sudanese teachers accreditation should also be facilitated and pathways should be explored and created to ease access to employment for those teachers. Increase livelihoods opportunities for idle youth There is a need to increase livelihoods opportunities for idle youth, through creation of market facilitation and linkages and provision of vocational training in sectors that are in demand. Refugees asked for support in poultry and livestock rearing however an assessment of the valueadd of those activities and other potential options should be first conducted. Page 42

43 Conclusions Summary of findings and recommendations Findings confirm that refugees face significant gaps in the coverage of their basic needs. Given the market conditions, humanitarian actors should consider transitioning to more cash-based and market-based solutions for food and other basic needs assistance. The host community also faces numerous challenges related to basic needs coverage, reflective of the fact that Moyo district is an under-served and under-developed district as compared to other wealthier districts. Therefore, assistance should continue to target both refugees and vulnerable host communities, in recognition of needs faced by both communities, but also to foster a peaceful cohabitation in the long term. Improving the quality of education provided and increasing the number of teachers and classrooms, as well as addressing the financial barriers to education, should be considered a priority. Financial inclusion should be enhanced through the scale up of cash-based and marketbased programming, and programmes aiming at specifically increasing financial inclusion. The issue of firewood used as an energy source is an urgent one that needs consideration and actors should prioritise investment in response solutions such as the provision of alternative energy sources or tree planting at scale. Relief International hopes that this assessment report and its recommendations will inform a strategy of assistance that will take into consideration the multifaceted drivers and factors of poverty and vulnerability, and the importance of consideration of market-based solutions as well as environmental protection. Recommendations for further analysis to be conducted The assessment also identified information gaps and further analysis that should be considered to understand needs and opportunities: Technical and vocational training centres: availability of those centres in Moyo district and curriculum proposed, costs of each training, needs for support; market-demand assessment Mapping of skills and professions in the settlement and potential skills development, accreditation and employment pathways; An assessment of the performance impact of long absenteeism of refugee children attending food distributions should be considered by education partners; Alternative cooking fuel: there is a need to better understand offers of local enterprise and the relevance and appropriateness of different options; Conduct Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) survey to understand potential uptake of the briquette as an alternative cooking fuel and all challenges linked to that uptake. This will inform potential scaling up. Page 43

44 Annexes Annex 1 Refugee Household Questionnaire Basic Needs (administered through ONA) Pre-screening question: (tick boxes) Interviewee participates voluntarily and is informed that the interview is completely anonymous A. General A1. Date of interview A2. District A3. Settlement: Palabek Palorinya A4. Enumerator name: B. Family profile B1. Age years B2. Sex of Respondent Male Female B3. Marital status of respondent (Tick 1 only) Married and living with husband or wife Married but not living with husband or wife Widowed Single (not married) B4. # of family members currently living and sleeping under one roof # male 0-4 years old # female 0-4 years old # male 5-11 years old # female 5-11 years old # male years old # female years old # male years old # female years old # of male >60+ # of female >60+ Total Household members (SUM) B5. When did you arrive in Uganda from South Sudan? (give month and year) B8. How many of your family school aged children are attending school regularly? Mark 0 if none Pre- Primary school Primary school Secondary school University B9. How many of your family school aged children attended school regularly in South Sudan? Mark 0 if none Pre-Primary school Primary school Secondary school University Total children school aged Total attending regularly school If not all children of that age going to school, why not? Total children going to school in SS B6. Number of family members with special needs (mark 0 if none) # with disability # chronically ill people/critical medical conditions # separated minors (related to the family, i.e. nephew) # unaccompanied minors (not related, i.e. orphan) # pregnant or lactating women Total household members with special needs (SUM) B7. What is the highest education level of the head of household? (Tick 1 only) No schooling Primary school Secondary school University I don t know Page 44

45 C. Income and Cash access C1. How many members of your household contribute to the household income? >18 years old: <18 years old: Don t know Refuse to answer C2. What were/are your family member s main regular income generating activities? (Rank top three options 1=Main Source, 2=Secondary Source, 3=Tertiary Source) Refuse to answer Before (in SS) Casual labour (agriculture, construction, domestic work) Precise which: Skilled and Regular employment (regular activity with salary i.e. in health, education or any other sector) Precise: Self-employment (petty trade, firewood sales, agriculture product sales, etc.) Precise which: No regular income generating activities Other Specify: Now Casual labour (agriculture, construction, domestic work) Precise which: Skilled and Regular employment (regular activity with salary i.e. in health, education or any other sector) Precise: Self-employment (petty trade, firewood sales, agriculture product sales, etc.) Precise which: No regular income generating activities Other Specify: C3. How do you commonly access or receive cash? (Rank 1 st, 2 nd, 3rd) ATM/Bank Official money transfer systems (Western union, etc.) Unofficial money transfer system (hawala/trader etc.): Explain the mechanism: Before (in SS) Now C7. Now, can you give us an estimation of your total family income per month before and now? (local currency: ) Don t know Refuse to answer Before (in SS) (precise Now (precise currency) currency): C8. What are the sources of cash allowing you to face daily expenditure (give percentage % total shd be 100)? Work, sales, employment Savings Safety nets (pension, insurance) Official Loan (financial institution, micro-credit institution) Unofficial Loan or credit (trader, family, friend or community person giving loans) NGO/community support (Cash, vouchers) Sale of humanitarian aid (in kind goods) No cash sources available Other (Specify) Total (must be 100) If no loan (official or unofficial) mentioned, please go to C15 directly If loan or credit have been mentioned in the previous question: C9. Can you give us an estimation of your total family debts? (local currency: ) Refuse to answer Try to probe for interest rates and calculate the total amount to be repaid C10. What was the initial purpose of taking a loan or credit? C11. In the end did that help you for this initial purpose? Yes No (explain why yes or why not) C12. Where do you get your loan or credit from? (Give name of institution and place: multiple answers possible) C13. Can you explain the terms and conditions of your credit or loan? (repayment, interest rate, in kind or cash, documentation needed, proof of income needed, etc.) Mobile phone money transfer Hand to hand (from whom? ) Other (precise: ) C4. If you can t access cash through the same mechanism now, explain why? (lack of documentation, lack of knowledge, no access, etc.) C5. Do you have a mobile phone? Yes No C.6 If yes, what mobile network provider do you use? C14. What happens if you are paying late? C15. Are you able to access enough credit to meet your needs? YES NO C16.If no, what prevents you from accessing more credit? C17.Who in the HH can most easily access credit (man/woman)? Page 45

46 C18. Are there particular months or events in the year when you need credit the most? C19. List all institutions or types of individuals that give credit to the people in need in the settlement or its vicinity (even the ones you haven t borrowed to)? Probe: MFIs, Cooperatives, traders, better-off individuals, etc. C20. What is the best source of credit for you and why? C21. How often in the PAST 30 DAYS have members of your family relied on any of the following actions to meet basic needs? (1=Never, 2=Once in the month, 3=Occasionally (few times a month), 4=Weekly, 5=More than weekly) Using Savings Buying goods/services on credit Borrowing money from family/friends Selling family assets (jewellery, phone, furniture) Spending less money on other needs Selling productive assets/means of transport Taking jobs that are high risk, illegal and/or socially degrading Begging Sending children family members to beg Removing children from school Yes one child Yes more than one child No C22. How often in the PAST 7 DAYS have members of your family relied on any of the following actions to meet basic food needs? (1=1 day, 2=2 days, 3=3 days, etc.) Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods Find new ways to maintain and store food so that it could be reused Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative Gather wild food, hunt, or harvest immature crops Limit portion size at mealtimes Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat Reduce number of meals eaten in a day D. Basic needs D1. In the current situation, is your access to the following basic goods or services enough to meet the basic needs of your family members? Read each out loud, then rate them from 1-5 1: Largely sufficient to cover all our family needs 2: Sufficient to cover all our family needs 3: just enough/barely enough family members and I m not sure we to cover all our family needs will be able to cope 4: Insufficient to cover all our 4: I feel worried for the health of family needs some or all family members 5: Totally insufficient to cover all our family needs D2. If no additional assistance is provided to your family in the following basic goods or services, are you worried about the consequences of shortages for your family in the next three months? Read each out loud, then rate them from 1-5 1: I don t feel worried at all about meeting this need 2: I feel worried but we should be able to cope 3: I feel worried for some or all 5: I feel worried for the life of some or all family members List of basic needs D1 D2 Food commodities (Staple and non-staple, etc.) Health care services (Health staff or facility, etc.) Drugs and medicines Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) Hygiene/sanitation facilities (latrines, shower, etc.) Household commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) Shelter material (to repair roof etc.) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, books, etc.) Education services (transport, fees, teachers, etc.) Energy commodities for heating, cooking, lightning and charging Communication commodities (Phone, credit, etc.) Shelter/housing (money to pay rent, etc.) Transport services Other (Specify: ) TOTAL Add any additional comment made by the respondent on the above questions: Page 46

47 D3. How far is the nearest place where you commonly access these basic goods and services? Also, could you tell us who provide you with these at this place? Combine answers about distance and type of provider, i.e. A5 is Local distance (10-45mn) and provided by local/national authorities Distance (time) Service/good/facility provider: A: In house (0-10min) B: Local (10-45min) C: Remote (>45min) D: Very Remote (>2H) E: Almost not accessible (>3H) Food commodities (Staple and nonstaple, etc.) Health care services (Health staff, or facility, etc.) Drugs and medicines Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) Access to hygiene/sanitation facilities (latrines, shower, etc.) Household commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) Shelter material (to repair roof etc.) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, books, etc.) Education services (transport, fees, teachers, etc.) Energy commodities for heating, cooking (i.e. fuelwood or charcoal, lightning and charging) Communication commodities (Phone, credit, etc.) Shelter/housing services (money to pay rent, etc.) Transport services 1: From nature/natural resource 2: Own production/good 3: Purchase from private/professional/ market 4: NGO/community support 5: Local/national government D.4. How much Ugandan shilling does your family dedicate each month to cover the following basic goods and services? Now (Local currency) If no expenses indicate 0 D5. What would be the IDEAL minimum amount required per month to cover the basic needs of all your family members without compromising your health, assets and dignity? If this is not relevant, indicate 0 Page 47

48 Other (Specify: ) Total (local currency) D7. From the following list, what are the basic needs you will have the most difficulties meeting in the next three months and that you consider a priority for assistance? Rank 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd? Basic needs Food commodities (Staple and nonstaple, etc.) Health care services (Health staff or facility, etc.) Drugs and medicines Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) Access to hygiene/sanitation facilities (latrines, shower, etc.) Household commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) D8. For the three goods or services identified as a priority for assistance, what are the main reasons why you can t cover/meet this basic need? Select from the following list: A. Insufficient money/income/resources to purchase/access goods or services B. Physical and logistical constraints to access markets/service providers, e.g. distance, roads blockades, etc. C. Insecurity hindering access to markets/service providers D. Social discrimination hindering access to markets/service providers E. Insufficient goods/services/infrastructure or facilities available locally F. Insufficient traders supplying the area G. Insufficient assistance or support provided by government/community H. insufficient diversity of good and services I. Insufficient skills and competencies of service providers J. Insufficient safety or reliability of provided goods or services Rank order 1 st reason 2 nd reason 3 rd reason In kind D9. For each good or service you mentioned as a priority, which type of assistance would you favour to help you meeting this basic need? You can choose between cash, in-kind aid or service provision. Rank 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd preferred option Service provision Cash Page 48

49 Potable water (incl. containers, treatment, etc.) Shelter material (to repair roof etc.) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, books, etc.) Education services (transport, fees, teachers, etc.) Energy commodities for heating, cooking (i.e. fuelwood or charcoal, lightning and charging) Communication commodities (Phone, credit, etc.) Shelter/housing services (money to pay rent, etc.) Transport services Other (Specify: ) Page 49

50 Annex 2 Host community focus group discussion questionnaire Access to Basic needs and services and cash acceptance FGD questionnaire This questionnaire should be administered to a group of 10 to 15 people, ideally separating women and men This questionnaire is to be used in host communities Date: Name Enumerator: District: Sub-county: Village: Introduce yourself, explain that we are trying to get a better understanding of their needs and challenges met and whether cash assistance could meet their needs (Emphasize that no expectation should be raised) PART I: ACCESS TO BASIC NEEDS AND SERVICES FOR EACH BASIC NEEDS or SERVICES LISTED IN THE FIRST COLUMN, ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS in TABLE BELOW 1. What is the name of the place where this is accessible to your community (for food or livelihood items, put the name of the market or shop and name of location or name of village/town for school or health facility, put nature if directly accessed in nature or name of forest for firewood) 2. What are the transportation costs to access this place (for a return journey)? 3. Can women and men physically and safely access these markets / shops or places (according to road conditions, security, etc.) at all times? 4. If not at all times, precise when it is NOT accessible and WHY 5. Precise availability of each kind of products or service 6. Precise accessibility in terms of cost for HHs 7. Mention how satisfied are HHs in general with the quality of products or services provided Table 1 (Question 1 to 7): Access to basic needs and services Basic needs Q1. Name of the place where this is accessible to this community (put the name of the market or name of village/town for school, health or other facilities and infrastructure; for Q2. Transport cost from your home (return journey) Q3. Physical and safe access at all times? Q4. If not all times: when not possible? Q5. Are these goods and services always available? Q6. Sometimes goods or services are available locally, but we can t access them, because they are too expensive. We would like to know if your community faced difficulties in the last days or months in obtaining or purchasing [goods or Q7. Are you satisfied with the quality of products or services offered there? Page 50

51 Food commodities (Staple and nonstaple, etc.) Health commodities (drugs, etc.) Health care services (Health facilities or informal health care) Potable water Households commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) Firewood or Charcoal (circle which one more used) firewood try to indicate location as precisely as possible) Men and boys Y / N Wom en and girls Y / N WHEN not accessible? (precise month) WHY NOT (e.g. floods, river too high, etc.)? 1 = Yes, all the times 2 = Most of the times except 3 = Only rarely services] from local providers, markets or facilities. 1: Very easy to purchase/obtain/access 2: Easy to purchase/obtain/access 3: Sometimes difficult to purchase/obtain/access 4: Very difficult to purchase/obtain/access 1: Always satisfied with quality of [good or service] 2: Most of the time satisfied with quality of [good or service] 3: Sometimes unsatisfied with quality of [good or service] 4: Rarely satisfied with quality of [good or service] 5: Never satisfied with quality of [good or service] Page 51

52 Transport services (to go to school or to market or health facility) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, etc.) Education services=schools (with teacher) Communication commodities (Phone, airtime, etc.) Other: Precise N/A N/A 8. NOW, if all the food eaten by one household was purchased in the local market, how much would it cost to feed a typical household a good diet for 1 week, including fuel for cooking? Approx: (local currency) for 1-week household food 9. Do you think there could be a shortage of cooking fuel (wood, charcoal) in the near future? 1. If yes, why? 2. What can be done to prevent the risk of depletion? 10. Can you describe issues with education services in more details (availability of teachers, quality of infrastructures, latrines in schools, access, costs, etc.)? Page 52

53 9. Can you describe issues with health services in more details (availability of medical staff and nurses, quality of infrastructures, access, costs, cultural barriers, etc.)? 10. Where do women in this community usually give birth (Public hospital, health centre, home)? 11. Do you know how much this costs (normal delivery vs C-section vs delivery and birth with medical complications plus basic baby kits for first days after birth) (Try to get an amount, even approximate)? 12. For challenges mentioned above (in the table with all basic needs) in terms of availability, accessibility or quality, what do you think should be done to improve the situation? Part II: COMMUNITY s ACCESS TO CASH Access to and decisions regarding cash 13. Can all community members normally access cash? Yes No (If not all members, describe the issue) 14. Are there any differences between the ways community groups access cash? Explore issues of gender, age, literacy, wealth, ethnicity, etc. 15. Who normally makes decision over the use of cash within households? Page 53

54 16. NOW, are there any functional money transfer systems that usually can transfer or deliver cash (such as banks, money lenders, traders, post offices, remittance companies and/or mobile phone companies) that are in an acceptable distance (walking or by local transport) to this community? Yes No Don t know (please circle) If Yes put mechanisms / structures names in Table 2 below. If No or Don t know go to Question What do men and women need to access the money transfer mechanisms (ID cards, documents, mobile phones, etc.)? Put answers in Table 2 below. 18. Do most men and women have these documents needed to access the money transfer mechanisms? 19. What do people like and dislike about these mechanisms? Explore issues of physical access, user-friendliness, security, fees, services provided, etc. Table 2 (Question 16 to 19): Functional Money Transfer Systems Q16. Money transfer systems within an acceptable distance 1. Q17. What is needed to use the money transfer system (ID card, mobile, bank account, etc. - list) Q18. Do most men and women have these documents needed to access the money transfer mechanisms? 1. Yes 2. No (explain) 19. What people like about this mechanism 19. What people DON T like about this mechanism Do you know any institutions or individuals that give loans or credit to the people in need in your village or surrounding (even the ones you haven t borrowed to)? (Give name of institution and place: multiple answers possible) Probe: MFIs, Cooperatives, traders, better-off individuals, etc. Page 54

55 21. Do you know what are the conditions for accessing these loans or credit? (documentation needed, proof of income needed, etc.) 22. Do you know the terms and conditions of these loans or credit once contracted (repayment, interest rate, special conditions, etc.)? C. Mobile phone technology 23. What proportion of the community population owns/uses mobile phones? All (100 per cent) Many (75 per cent) Half (50 per cent) Few (25 per cent) None (0 per cent) (You can use proportional piling to get an idea of percentage of population) 24. List the mobile phone companies with a satisfactory network coverage in the area 25. Which network is the most popular and for what reasons? 26. Does any community group face specific difficulties in handling and using mobile phones (e.g., elderly people, illiterate people, women)? If yes, which difficulties? D. Previous experience and preferred modality of assistance The aim of this section is to understand community s opinion about previous experiences with humanitarian cash transfers and learn about the preferences of the community. 27. Has the community received any humanitarian assistance in the form of cash transfers in the past? Yes No (go to Q.26) 28. If yes, which were the technical details and positive and the negative aspects of this type of assistance? Explore whether cash recipients were men or women, the amounts and the regularity of payment, how it worked and what people liked and disliked. 29. For each basic needs, do they have any preference regarding the modality (cash, in-kind or improved services)? Fill the table below ranking priorities Page 55

56 Rank (1 st most important and urgent to less important and urgent) Basic needs Preferred modality of assistance (cash, in-kind or improved services) Reasons for urgency Reasons for preference of modality Food commodities (Staple and nonstaple, etc.) Health commodities (drugs, etc.) Health care services (Health facilities or informal health care) Potable water Household commodities (Utensils, pots, mats, blanket, mosquito net, cooking set, etc.) Hygiene commodities (Clothing, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers, etc.) Firewood or Charcoal (circle which one more used) Transport services (to go to school or to market or health facility) Education commodities (uniforms, shoes, stationaries, etc.) Education services=schools or child centers Communication commodities (phone, airtime) Other: Page 56

57 US: UK: reliefinternational Page 57 RI Assessment - Uganda 2017