9 Land access and population densities

Transcription

1 9 Land access and population densities Several information sources have been combined for the task of describing the situation in the agricultural sites. Some of the bodies of information result from regular surveys that the HCR or its partners conduct; that means principally population censuses, WFP agricultural survey and, in the case of the Adjumani District, preliminary mapping of the agricultural sites by LWF. These sources provide valuable information on the population structure, the nature of crops and on the surface areas cultivated. However, as analysis of these data proceeded, several unknowns appeared, which made understanding of the agrarian situation difficult or incomplete. For this reason complementary investigations were subsequently conducted. These, giving particular priority to mapping and aerial photograph interpretation, led to detailed measurement of surface areas involved and offered the possibility of defining the limits and constraints of the system put in place for aiding the refugees. These studies were conducted on the Rhino Camp sites with the DED s assistance and, in a less detailed way, in the Adjumani District. 9.1 Methods Land demarcation The land allocated to refugees has been mapped with the aid of a detailed GPS survey at each agricultural site 1. Two types have been distinguished: land assigned to agriculture and land for residential areas. This straightforward distinction does not necessarily mean that the whole of the land given over for agriculture is cultivable (there may be rocky areas, swamps). By the same token, 50 to 60% of a residential area might be used as household gardens for cultivation. The boundary surveys for each site were performed with the participation of the sites representative authorities and local land officials. Because the refugees and national populations are living in close proximity, land farmed by local people can sometimes be included within the polygonal areas delimited by the survey. Conversely, it cannot be excluded that plots cultivated by refugees on land belonging to local people might not have been recorded. To avoid such ambiguities which, after the event, affect the accuracy of the measured surfaces, it would be desirable to conduct this site-boundary demarcation before installing the refugees. From this point of view, the approach adopted by the HCR s partners has not been the same for the two sites. In Rhino Camp, precise boundary demarcation of each agricultural site was not beforehand. Therefore it is the sum of the plots allocated to the refugees which afterwards defines the agricultural site. In such a situation, it is not surprising that the site is not an enclosed polygon of land (see the example of de Waniange below). The GPS points are then transferred into the computer and integrated in the GIS. Joining up the points or, if preferred, the digitisation of the contour of each site, was 1 This survey was conducted in September/December 2002 for Rhino Camp and in May/June 2002 for the sites in the Adjumani district. 57

2 carried out directly on screen. Calculation of the surface areas is obtained by simply making a request in the database The utilisation of crop yield assessment for agricultural sites as a whole For several years, a regular survey has been conducted on the sites in order to assess agricultural production, the surface areas cultivated and yields. It takes place twice a year in the two farming seasons, but, because of the unpredictability of the first season (April/June) only the results of the second (August/December) can be used. The avowed intention of this survey is to assess, for each site, the degree of food selfsufficiency. The results of this the form part of the set of criteria taken into account for determining the amount of food aid that needs to be dispensed each year. The sampling arrangements, like the survey method adopted can vary between the two districts and from one year to the next. One of the reasons for this variation lies in the diversity of partners involved in performing this survey and the size of the budget package invested, which is variable. Moreover, doubts persist concerning interpretation of the results for a sample of farmers With the aim of obtaining more accurate and detailed measures, it was decided to make GPS measurements of the plots of a sample of farmers chosen from a list of people questioned as part of a general crop yield assessment (YCA). This operation was run in February and March 2002 in the two sites but only the results obtained in Rhino Camp were usable. Measurements were made on cultivated plots of 199 families in Rhino Camp. As for the agricultural sites as a whole, these data were subsequently transferred and integrated in the GIS and each plot was digitised. The objective of this study was to test the possibility for more effective use of the YCA; in particular by means of: mapping and detailed measurement of cultivated land surfaces, the link between the agricultural statistics and the demographic data (see below) the link between the yield data and the soils map/land use map utilisation of refugee censuses The HCR carries out regular censuses of the refugee populations whose protection it undertakes. In Uganda, the last census was done August The results are archived and updated in a database (FBARS) a copy of which was supplied to us in April This information was integrated in the GIS, the link between the refugees and their installation point was established. In the same way, a link was also created between the demographic database and the sample of farmers whose plots were measured (se above). Among other things, the liaison between demographic and geographical data (agricultural sites, plots), is useful for mapping the population structure (sex-ratio, ethnic group, origin, and so on). 58

3 9.2 The refugee population of Rhino Camp: main demographic characteristics. Age Rhino Camp Age structure of the refugee population, end of year 2001 > % 13% 11% 9% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% Female Male Source: UNHCR: fbars refugee population data base, as of April Arua the population figures The last population census conducted in August 2001 counted refugees settled in Rhino Camp. Of this total, males and females are distinguished (see table 1 in the appendix). Overall, the sex ratio is balanced (1.09). However, an analysis by age group reveals some wide differences (see the table and age pyramid). Among refugees below 25 years of age, there are far more boys or young men than girls or young women. In the year age-group in particular, 2345 boys are counted for only 1435 girls. This feature signifies some demographic imbalances among the refugee populations. Separation of families, men fleeing from military conscription, excessive infant mortality among girls are some of the factors that explain such lack of equilibrium. Furthermore it is an extremely young population. Refugees over 45 years represent only 4.1% of the total population. War and a very low life expectancy go some way to explain this. But it cannot be excluded that some members of the family and in particular the old might have stayed in the Sudan. The reduced size of the family and the high number of one-parent families in all cases confirms the extent of these demographic imbalances. However, the relative deficit in the 0-4 year age-group does not seem to be linked as might be thought to a sudden recent fall in birth-rate. 59

4 Detailed analysis of dates of birth simply show that births have been under-registered since the last census ethnic grouping and refugee origins. Four ethnic groups represent 80% of the Rhino Camp population. Most numerous are the Kakwa, followed by the Pajulu, the Kuku and the Dinka. The remaining 20% of the population are divided between 15 or so ethnic groups of a few dozen to a few hundred people. Geographically, only the latter are concentrated in a more restricted number of sites; the larger groups populations are spread among all the sites (see the map). Table : etnic groups Ethnic Rhino Camp % group Madi 410 1,7% Kuku ,3% Acholi 772 3,1% Dinka ,2% Bari 661 2,7% Lotuko 41 0,2% Langi 8 0,0% Kakwa ,8% Pajulu ,6% Nuer 18 0,1% Muru 438 1,8% Zande 151 0,6% Lokoya 37 0,2% Other 233 0,9% Abukaya 244 1,0% Baka 445 1,8% Mundari 113 0,5% Lugbara 301 1,2% Kaliko 527 2,1% Other or not 534 2,2% Total % 2 Births in 2002 were excluded from the age pyramids in order not to skew their interpretation. 60

5 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Number of refugees by ethnic group and settlement, April 2002 Udupi Siripi Ariwa V Ariwa IV Ariwa II Yelulu A r u a Population size Ethnic group 1,200 1, Total : 24,600 refugees Kakwa : 10,800 (44 %) Pajulu : 4,300 (18 %) Kuku : 3,000 (12 %) Dinka : 1,500 (6 %) Acholi : 800 (3 %) Bari: 700 (3 %) Kaliko : 500 (2 %) Others : 3,000 (12 %) Agulupi Simbili II Simbili I Ariwa III Katiku Ariwa I Terego Odobu II Wanyange I Uriama Odobu I Wanyange II Tika IV Tika III Tika V Tika VI Tika II Tika I Kakwa Acholi Pajulu Kuku Dinka District boundary Bari Kaliko Others or not indicated Ocea Madi Eden II Eden IV Eden I Eden III Matangacia II Matangacia III Olujobo II Ossa I Olujobo I Ossa II County boundary Sub-County boundary Matangacia I Kaligo II Parish boundary Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. Rhino Camp Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Sub-County Headquarter Main roads A d j u m a n i Rhino Camp Printed as of April 2002 A3RCfbRefTotSet.WOR Kilometers Ogoko Processed by R. Zaiss Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base as of April 2002, Arua. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

6 family size The average family size is extremely small. With a total of 8524 families, it is 2.9 persons per family unit. Many people live alone; with 2710 cases, they represent 31.7% of the total number of families. Families of five persons, usually considered as average size, represent only 9% of the total and large families of more than five people also have a low score (10.6%). The distribution according to family size is practically the same at all the sites (map). Number of families in function of the family size Family Rhino Camp size ,7% ,9% ,4% ,0% ,1% ,6% ,4% ,6% ,6% ,0% ,1% >=13 1 0,0% TOTAL ,0% one-parent families Age of the head of family in one parent families Age Female Male Female Male ,0% 0,0% ,1% 0,1% ,1% 0,1% ,7% 1,1% ,2% 2,3% ,4% 4,1% ,2% 5,7% ,5% 4,4% ,0% 3,3% ,0% 2,7% 61

7 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Number of households by settlement, April 2002 Udupi Siripi Ariwa V Ariwa IV Ariwa II Yelulu A r u a number of households Simbili II Odobu I Single households Single parent households Other households District boundary County boundary Sub-County boundary Parish boundary Village boundary Total : 8,540 households single : 2,710 (32 %) single parent : 3,540 (41 %) others 2,290 (27 %) Verification of boundaries ongoing Agulupi Simbili I Ocea Ariwa I Ariwa III Odobu II Katiku M a d i Eden II Eden IV T e r e g o Wanyange I Eden I Matangacia II Eden III Matangacia III Matangacia I Uriama Wanyange II Tika IV Tika III Olujobo II Tika V Tika VI Tika II Tika I Olujobo I Ossa II Ossa I Kaligo II The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. Sub-County Headquarter Rhino Camp Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Main roads A d j u m a n i Rhino Camp Printed as of April 2002 A3RCfbHHMonoParental.WOR Kilometers Ogoko Processed by R. Zaiss Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : Fbars refugee data base, Arua. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub County maps, Final copies as of December Entebbe. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

8 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Number of households by family size and settlement, April 2002 Udupi Siripi Ariwa V Ariwa IV Ariwa II Yelulu A r u a number of households Simbili II Odobu I Family size Agulupi Simbili I Ariwa III Katiku Ariwa I Odobu II T e r e g o Wanyange I Uriama Wanyange II Tika IV Tika III Tika V Tika VI Tika II Tika I 7-13 District boundary County boundary Sub-County boundary Parish boundary Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing Ocea M a d i Eden II Eden IV Eden I Eden III Matangacia II Matangacia III Matangacia I Olujobo II Olujobo I Ossa II Ossa I Kaligo II The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. Sub-County Headquarter Rhino Camp Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Main roads A d j u m a n i A3RCfbHouseholdsFamilysize.WOR Kilometers Ogoko Rhino Camp Processed by R. Zaiss Printed as of April 2002 Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : Fbars refugee data base, Arua. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub County maps, Final copies as of December Entebbe. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

9 ,8% 1,6% ,8% 0,7% ,8% 0,7% ,2% 0,1% ,1% 0,1% > ,1% 0,1% TOTAL The category of one-parent family was identified by statistical treatment. Individuals living alone were excluded from the total and subsequently only families characterised by the absence of the husband or wife were considered; Individuals living alone were excluded from the total and subsequently only families characterised by the absence of the husband or wife were considered; this was the case whatever Age Rhino Camp Age structure of family heads of single-parent families, end of year 2001 > % 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Female Male Source: UNHCR: fbars refugee population data base, as of April Arua the size of the family or whether or not grandparents or relatives were present. The 3539 one-parent families constitute another large category with 41.5% of the total number of families. This population of refugees represents 54.8% of the total population of Rhino Camp (see table in the appendix). Although the data do not point to any explanation of the absence of the father or the mother (absence, separation, death), it is interesting to observe that most of these families are run by young women 62

10 Age Rhino Camp Age structure of single households, end of year 2001 > % 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Female Male Source: UNHCR: fbars refugee population data base, as of April Arua between 20 and 34 years of age (pyramid); in total, there are 2580 of them as against only 959 men. The proportion of one-parent families is practically the same in all the sites (map). Persons living alone Whether minors or not, persons living alone are a frequent feature of refugee populations. In the case of Rhino Camp, 2710 individuals are in this situation (table in appendix). They are predominantly young, between 15 and 24 years and the great majority are male. There again, this population is distributed homogeneously over all the sites (map) the active population Concerning the question we are primarily interested in here, agriculture, for the active population we have defined a section of population between 15 and 54 years. For a total population of refugees, 6104 men and 5604 women belong to this category, i.e. 43.9%. This population is, however, very unequally spread according to family size. Thus out of 2710 people living alone, 2396 refugees (i.e. 88.4%) are between 15 and 54 years old and, out of these numbers, 1829 are men (against 567 women). For families of two people or more, this ratio subsequently reverses. More women are generally counted (5037) than men (4275). Furthermore, and quite logically, the proportion of active people in the family is smaller the larger the family. The proportion of children under 15 oscillates between 50 and 65% in the families consisting of 63

11 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Number of single households by sex and settlement, April 2002 Udupi Siripi Ariwa V Ariwa IV Ariwa II Yelulu A r u a single households (number) Simbili II Odobu I Sex male female District boundary County boundary Sub-County boundary Parish boundary Village boundary Total : 2,710 single households Male : 1,996 (74 %) Female : 714 (26 %) Verification of boundaries ongoing Agulupi Simbili I Ocea Ariwa I Ariwa III Odobu II Katiku M a d i Eden II Eden IV T e r e g o Wanyange I Eden I Matangacia II Eden III Matangacia III Matangacia I Uriama Wanyange II Tika IV Tika III Olujobo II Tika V Tika VI Tika II Tika I Olujobo I Ossa II Ossa I Kaligo II The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. Sub-County Headquarter Rhino Camp Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Main roads A d j u m a n i Rhino Camp Printed as of April 2002 A3RCfbFamilysize1sex.WOR Kilometers Ogoko Processed by R. Zaiss Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : Fbars refugee data base, Arua. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub County maps, Final copies as of December Entebbe. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

12 between 3 and 7 individuals, which decreases the proportion of active people in the family. In addition, childcare, motherhood and keeping on top of domestic activities (water, wood supplies, cooking, sundry maintenance) are all elements which contribute to constraints to a regular attendance in the fields. It is clear that there can be no automatic link between family size and extent of the land cultivated. The work-force that is truly available and can be mobilised is indeed therefore an essential element in agricultural activity and, from the point of view of food self-sufficiency, large families with several children very young or at school appear to be some of the more fragile categories. Family male female size Total >54 Total > >= Total In conclusion, detailed analysis of demographic data reveals a population that is extremely heterogeneous and can be divided into several groups. Household type Number of households Refugee population size Total Male Female Single % % % 714 3% Single-parents % % % % Others % % % % TOTAL % % % % Persons on their own, one-parent families and normal nuclear families amount to population categories with a specific sex ratio and whose behaviour and aims can only differ.small family units, a great ethnic diversity, highly variable sex ratio and proportion of active people depending on the family structure are other factors to take into account for gaining a measure of how a population of refugees can never be reduced to a few global figures. This heterogeneity is a significant fact and all the maps 64

13 clearly convey it. It is perfectly comparable from one site and another and indeed it is within a site that it is expressed. In other words to take just one example each of these sites is found to have a practically identical proportion of people living alone (most of whom are men) and one-parent families (usually under a woman s responsibility). In such situations, it is useful and important to encourage the social services of the HCR and its partners to examine censuses in detail and use them to the utmost in order better to adapt the humanitarian aid programmes and protection actions to the needs and living conditions of each category of population. 9.4 The agricultural sites in Rhino Camp Mapping of the sites brings out the fact that their distribution is quite even. The distance between two sites is nearly always less than 5 kilometres. However, four groupings can be distinguished in which sites are either contiguous or extremely close (2 to 3 km): - in the North-West, a first group made up of the sites of Simbili, Ariwa, Ngurua, Kiriadaku, Mariaba, Aligoi, Siripi and Yelulu - in the North central part, the sites of Wanyange and Odobu - in the North-East the sites of Tika, Olujobo and Ossa, - finally, south of the trail leading from Ocea to Ossa, the sites of Eden, Matangacia, Walope and Kaligo. The total surface area occupied by the Rhino Camp sites is 4730 ha, dividing into 3910 ha of agricultural land (cultivated or not) and 820 ha of land assigned for habitation and infrastructure (often with small domestic gardens). The surface area of the sites is very variable. The 41 sites have an average area of 115 ha. The most extensive are located in the first grouping, the smallest in the last one. Moreover it will be seen that there is a certain correlation between the surface area of sites and the population pressure population densities in the agricultural sites and the problem of land With 41 sites and an average of 603 inhabitants per site, the map of the population counted indicates numbers which are quite similar from one site to another (map). However, the surface areas are so different that the population density per site is bound to vary. A first observation is quite evident: the population in the agricultural sites is not proportional to the total surface area of these same sites (see table in the appendix). 65

14 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Number of refugees by settlement, April 2002 Udupi Siripi Ariwa V Ariwa IV Ariwa II Yelulu A r u a Population size 1,200 1, Number of settlements: 41 Total: 24,600 refugees Mean: 600 refugees Standard Deviation: 210 District boundary County boundary Sub-County boundary Parish boundary Agulupi Simbili II Simbili I Ocea Ariwa I Ariwa III Odobu II Katiku M a d i Eden II Eden IV T e r e g o Uriama Wanyange II Odobu I Tika V Tika VI Tika IV Tika II Tika III Wanyange I Tika I Olujobo II Eden I Olujobo I Matangacia II Ossa II Ossa I Eden III Matangacia III Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing Matangacia I Kaligo II The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. Sub-County Headquarter Rhino Camp Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Main roads A d j u m a n i Rhino Camp Printed as of April 2002 A3RCfbRefTotSet.WOR Kilometers Ogoko Processed by R. Zaiss Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base as of April 2002, Arua. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

15 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi Y u m b e Population densities (refugees) by settlement, 2001 Siripi Yelulu A r u a Refugee population density (per square kilometer) Simbili I Ariwa IV Simbili II Ariwa I Ariwa II Ariwa V 900 to 2, to to to to 400 Ariwa III Odobu II Odobu I Tika V Tika IV Tika VI Population size : 24,000 refugees Total area used : 47.2 km² Density : 510 refugees per km² Agulupi Katiku Wanyange I Tika III Wanyange II Tika II Tika I Olujobo II Ocea Olujobo I Swamp Eden I Ossa I Seasonal Swamp Water Eden II Eden IV Eden III Matangacia II Matangacia III Ossa II District boundary * Kaligo II Main road Sub County Capital Matangacia I Walope Kaligo III * Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile * The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative Rhino Camp A d j u m a n i Printed as of April 2002 A3RCfbRefTotSetDensity.WOR Kilometers * It was not possible to demarcate the area of Kaligo III due to scattered cultivation. The settlement is not represented on this map. Processed by R. Zaiss Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base, Arua. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

16 With an average of 0,3 hectarea per refugee the density of population never should 360 RHINO CAMP REFUGEE AREA Relation between the refugee population size and the agricultural and residential area of the settlements Area of the settlement in hectars Odobu I Siripi 240 Mariaba Olujobo I 210 Kiriadaku Simbili I Ngurua Olujobo II Ocea 180 Ariwa I Tika I 150 Ariwa II Yelulu 120 Eden IV Odobu II Ariwa V Tika VI Wanyange II 90 Matangacia I Simbili II Ariwa IV Aligoi Tika III Eden I Tika II Wanyange I Tika IV Matangacia II Ariwa III Kaligo II Tika V Eden III Kaligo I Ossa I Eden II Agulupi Katiku Walope Ossa II Matangacia III refugee settlement 0.3 ha per refugee 0.15 ha per refugee 0.45 ha per refugee It was not possible to demarcate the area of Kaligo III due to scattered cultivation. The setlement is not represented on this chart. refugee population size of the settlement Population size : 24,000 Total area : 4,700 ha Area per refugee : 0.2 ha Source : DED/IRD : GPS land demarcation of refugee settlements, December UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base, Arua. exceed 333 inhab/km², which, considering the environmental conditions is already excessive to the extreme 3. Analysis of the density graph and map shows that this analysis is far below the reality of the situation. Only the agricultural sites of Simbili I, Siripi, Kiriadaku, Mariaba Ariwa I and Odobu I belong to this category. In all the other sites, the density is very largely exceeded. The sites of Agulupi, Katiku, Waniange, 3 In the hypothesis, of course, that all the land allocated can be allocated. 66

17 Yelulu, Tika IV and V, Kaligo and Walope (among others), with over 700 inhab/km², highlight the gap between the rule of 0.3 ha/refugee and reality. The map of land surfaces which are theoretically available for each refugee inevitably reflects the unequal spread of the population. Only the sites Simbili I, Siripi, Kiriadaku, Mariaba, and Odobu I thus respect the avowed criterion of 0.3 ha/refugee whereas the average for the whole of the sites is only 0.16 ha per refugee. For all the other sites, the areas of land allocated to the refugees are much more limited and, in the smallest, become derisory (Matangacia, Walope, Ossa, Tika IV and V). Consequently, whereas with refugees, the total surface area of all agricultural land put together should not be less than 7400 ha, at the very minimum 3490 ha is lacking. This land deficit poses an extremely serious problem seeing that it has been asserted repeatedly that each refugee newborns included effectively receive a plot of 0.3 ha. Two hypotheses which can be complementary will therefore have to be verified: either the method for land attribution and determination of surface areas is not rigorous enough; or an unspecified number of refugees do not claim any land Making best use of agricultural surveys of agricultural sites The analysis of surveys the HCR and its partners conduct each year confirm that the surface area of farming lots is smaller than it should be. In 1999 and 2000, the investigators estimated that there was a surface area representing respectively 58 and 51% of that which was in theory allocated to refugees. areas cultivated Year Agric land allocated (ha) Area cultivated (ha) Sources : Crop yield assessment Rhino Camp, DED. The reasons for the difference between the land surfaces assigned and those under cultivation, or for the inter-annual variation in the surface areas are not explained in the reports. The whole question is in fact to know if the land has indeed been allocated and, if that is so, to understand why the refugees do not use it in its entirety. Yet, as has been seen, the land surfaces occupied by the sites make it materially impossible to keep to this rule. It is therefore quite natural that the extent cultivated is far smaller. With 3102 ha cultivated in 2001, an average surface area per refugee of about 0.12 ha would be obtained, an estimate more in line with those (0.14 ha) resulting from the survey of 199 refugee families (see below). 67

18 RHINO CAMP Ngurua Kiriadaku Mariaba Aligoi DED crop yield survey second season 2001 Types of primary crops surveyed Siripi Yelulu Primary crops Simsim Bullrush millet GODO Ground nuts Rice Serena Sorghum Sorghum Cassava Cowpeas Area covered by the GPS crop yield assessment (1 1 kilometer grid ) Swamp Water Refugee settlement boundary Main roads Seasonal Swamp Simbili I Agulupi Ariwa IV Ariwa II Simbili II Ariwa I Ariwa V Ariwa III Katiku Ocea Eden I Odobu I Odobu II Tika V Tika IV Tika VI Wanyange I Tika III Tika II Wanyange II Tika I Olujobo II Olujobo I Ossa I Eden II Matangacia II Ossa II Eden IV Matangacia III Eden III Kaligo II Matangacia I Kaligo III Walope Kaligo I Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Albert Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Nile Sub County Capital A3RCDEDCY01_2PrimaryCrops.WOR Kilometers Rhino Camp Sources: Department of Lands and Surveys :Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. DED (2001) : Rhino Camp second season land use and crop yield assessment. Rhino Camp. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub County maps, Final copies as of December Entebbe. GPS surveys by DED and IRD. IRD/UNHCR FRAME database. Processed by R. Zaiss Printed as of April 2002

19 RHINO CAMP CROP YIELD ASSESSMENT relationship of the family size and the area of the sampled agricultural plots 4,2 3,9 3,6 3,3 3,0 2,7 plot size in hectars 2,4 2,1 1,8 1,5 1,2 0,9 0,6 0,3 0, fa m ily size sample plots average area of the sample plots N um ber of fam ilies : 199 median of the sample plots Population size : 679 refugees 0.3 hectars per refugee Total area of the sample plots : 87 hectars Agricultural area per refugee : 0.13 ha Source : DED/IRD : GPS demarcation of sample plots, second season land use and crop yields assessment. UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base, as of April Arua of a sample of farmers On the occasion of the survey conducted in 2001, a sample of 199 farmers was selected. GPS was used to make exact measurements of cultivated plots. These data were combined with the demographic statistics so as to link the size of the family and the population structure to the surfaces calculated. This sample is, in many respects, representative of the total population of Rhino Camp. Out of the 199 families investigated, 103 have only one parent. And most of these are being run by women (74 women as against 29 men). Calculation of the surfaces confirms the global YCA results. The cultivated surface area per refugee is much smaller than the standard size stipulated. On a total of 96 ha for 679 refugees, the average surface cultivated is only 0.14 ha. Moreover, it stands out from this study that the land surface cultivated becomes smaller as the family size increases. In this way, only the «families» consisting of a single person (44 cases) reach the average of 0.3 ha. Next, there is a steady decrease in the average land surface cultivated: 0.22 ha for a two-person family, 0.16 ha for a family of three, and 0.06 ha for those with 6 or more people. In the case of one-parent families, the average cultivated surface is 0.11 ha when it is run by a woman compared with 0.15 ha when it is under the responsibility of a man. This observation shows the major role of the structure of the population and of the work force. We can say then that the larger the family (with, by consequence, a larger number of young children and old people) the smaller becomes the proportion of its members who are active and available for working in the fields. That boils down to saying that the larger the family, the less are the conditions adequate to be able to rely 68

20 WANYANGE II Land tenure T e r e g o Yelulu Plot survey of head of families registered in Wanyange II, September 2002 Surveyed plots Uriama allocated by UNHCR to head of family allocated land borrowed from another head of family Wanyange II borrowed from locals recently taken by locals Land demarcation of refugee settlements, December 2000 Wanyange II refugee settlement area not covered by the plot survey area taken by locals after December 2000 Wanyange I refugee settlement Wanyange I M a d i A3_HOFPlotsStatusQB1002_Wanjange2.WOR Huts local population area outside the refugee settlements area of Wanyange II taken by locals before December 2000 refugees registered in Wanyange II refugees registered in Wanyange I Minor roads Motorable tracks Other tracks and Footpaths County boundary Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing Meters The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. The run of the boundaries is inacurate at this map scale. They should be seen as rough background information. Wanyange Tika Processed by R. Zaiss Printed as of Oct Sources: Quick Bird satellite image, acquired 2 September Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub-County maps, Final copies as of December 2001, Entebbe. DED/IRD : GPS land demarcation of refugee settlements in Rhino Camp December DED/IRD : GPS plot demarcation in Wanyange II, September IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

21 WANYANGE I and II Quick Bird natural color satellite image (Band 3, Band 2, Band 1) sharpened with panchromatic band, acquired September 2, 2002 T e r e g o Uriama Yelulu Situation of plots of head of families registered in Wanyange II GPS survey September 2002 Wanyange II Huts local population refugees registered in Wanyange II refugees registered in Wanyange I Wanyange I M a d i Minor roads Motorable tracks Other tracks and Footpaths Tika County boundary Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. The run of the boundaries is inacurate at this map scale. They should be seen as rough background information. Wanyange A3_DisPopulations_Wanjange1_2.WOR Meters Processed by R. Zaiss Printed as of Oct Sources: Quick Bird satellite image, acquired September 2, Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub-County maps, Final copies as of December 2001, Entebbe. DED/IRD : GPS land demarcation of refugee settlements in Rhino Camp December DED/IRD : GPS plot demarcation in Wanyange II, September IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

22 WANYANGE II Land use of agricultural and residential plots of head of families registerd in Wanyange II T e r e g o Yelulu Plots of head of families registered in Wanyange II (91 hectars) Uriama used for crop production (73%) GPS survey September 2002 under fallow (27%) Wanyange I Wanyange II Huts local population refugees registered in Wanyange II refugees registered in Wanyange I Infrastructure (ongoing) boreholes M a d i primary school Settlement boundaries * Wanyange II Wanyange I * GPS land demarcation December 2000 Tika Minor roads Motorable tracks Other tracks and Footpaths County boundary Village boundary Verification of boundaries ongoing The political boundaries on this map are not authoritative. The run of the boundaries is inacurate at this map scale. They should be seen as rough background information. Wanyange A3_DisPopulations_Wanjange1_2.WOR Meters Processed by R. Zaiss Printed as of Oct Sources: Ikonos satellite image, acquired 24 September Department of Lands and Surveys : Topographical maps 1 : 50,000, different editions, Entebbe. Bureau of Statistics (2002) : Administrative subdivision by village, Sub-County maps, Final copies as of December 2001, Entebbe. DED/IRD : GPS land demarcation of refugee settlements in Rhino Camp December DED/IRD : GPS plot demarcation in Wanyange II, September IRD/UNHCR FRAME database.

23 on agriculture for survival. It is all then more true for one-parent families in which one of the active members is absent or has died. Rhino Camp crop yield assessment second season 2001 sampled refugee population by age classes and family size Family male female size Total >54 Total > Total Sources: DED : Rhino Camp second season crop yield assessment UNHCR : Fbars refugee population data base as of April Arua. If a relation is drawn between the cultivated surface area of 96 ha and the sole active population, the average size of the cultivated land area becomes 0.33 ha/active person. RHINO CAMP CROP YIELD ASSESSMENT number of sampled households and population size by household type Household type Number of households Refugee population size Total Male Female Single 44 22% 44 6% 27 4% 17 3% Single-parente % % % % Others 52 26% % % 88 13% TOTAL % % % % Source : DED/IRD : Rhino Camp second season land use and crop yields assessment, GPS demarcation of sample plots. UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base Arua 69

24 UNHCR : fbars refugee population data base, Arua. In more detail, the same difference is found again between the people living alone (0.46 ha/refugee) and the large families (0.21 ha/refugee) for families of 7 or more people (see table) Area cultivated in relation with the labor force Family size Allocated land Other land Total Area cultivated 1 15,3 3,0 40 0, ,3 0,8 44 0, ,3 2,1 38 0, ,1 0,9 51 0,31 5 9,5 0,5 31 0, ,0 0,3 39 0,26 7 et + 7,7 1,5 45 0, , The problem of fallow land The question of land allocated and land cultivated cannot be understood properly unless the problem of fallow land is considered. Even though uncertainties subsist about the reliability of figures relating to surface areas, the fact that some land is not under cultivation is an indisputable reality. This is a fact observable in the field. And it could help shed light on the question. Indeed, even if the absence of a proportion of the refugees can partly explain the difference between the surface area theoretically assigned and that which is really being cultivated, it is also true that some land proves to be unsuitable for agriculture. In addition, it is known that unceasing use of soils without fallowing drains the land of its productivity. Therefore it is understandable that certain blocks of land abandoned. If this explanation were the good one, it could confirm the necessity to lower the density of the population at the cost of a more balanced distribution of the refugees in space. The few measurements successfully made on the three sites studied on the Ikonos images show that the proportion of land which has not been cultivated or has been left fallow corresponds respectively to 8.5, 17.6 and 13% of the total surface of sites. By taking account of the existence of land impossible to cultivate, the low values of these figures appears to confirm that fallowing is only practised when the soils have lost the essential part of their fertility. Owing to this, the indications are that the non-respect of the rule of 0.3 ha per refugee leads farmers to bring down the extent of land surface cultivated without any real possibility of practising the necessary fallow cycle. In the end, the excessive population load per agricultural site (or the insufficient surface area of sites in relation to the number of refugees) is threatening both the prospect of any true food self-sufficiency and the conservation of the environmental resources. 70

25 TIKA I REFUGEE SETTLEMENT Ikonos natural color satellite image (Band 3, Band 2, Band 1) sharpened with panchromatic band acquired 24 September Meters Location of the image Wanyange II Wanyange I Tika IV Tika III Tika V Olujobo II Tika II Tika VI Tika I Total area covered by the Ikonos image Area classified Refugee settlement Details of the image 1. Residential area 2. Cultivated Land 3. Fallow Land Olujobo I Major Village Ossa I Matangacia II Ossa II Major road A3_321PCIkon01sep24_Tika1.WOR Matangacia III Matangacia I Kaligo II Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Nile Minor road Water Swamp Temporary Swamp Meters Processed by R. Zaiss Source: Ikonos satellite image, acquired 24 September Topographical maps 1 : 50,000. GPS fiels surveys by DED and IRD December IRD/UNHCR FRAME Database.

26 TIKA I REFUGEE SETTLEMENT Landcover classification Ikonos satellite image, acquired 24 September 2001 Tika II Olujobo I Tika I Olujobo II Olujobo II Olujobo I Meters Location of the image Wanyange II Wanyange I Tika IV Tika III Tika V Olujobo II Tika II Olujobo I Tika VI Tika I Total area covered by the Ikonos image Area classified Refugee settlement Major Village Landcover types Cultivated land Refugee settlement boundary Huts Minor road Ossa I Matangacia II Ossa II Major road Residential area Motorable tracks A3_LCClasIkon01sep24_Tika1.WOR Matangacia III Matangacia I Kaligo II Walope Kaligo III Kaligo I Albert Nile Minor road Water Swamp Temporary Swamp Clouds Other tracks and Foothpaths Processed by R. Zaiss Source: Ikonos satellite image, acquired 24 September Topographical maps 1 : 50,000. GPS fiels surveys by DED and IRD December IRD/UNHCR FRAME Database.

27 Settlement GPS land demarcation (in hectars) Population size (3) Agricultural land planted per refugee in hectars Total (1) Residential (1) Agriculture Total Active Total (1) Planted (2) Fallow (2) Pop. Total Pop. Active Tika I ,15 0,32 Tika IV ,07 0,17 Wanyange II ,11 0,24 TOTAL ,11 0, In conclusion - agricultural site surface areas are insufficient for ensuring respect of the allocation rule of 0.3 ha per refugee, - this observation has been confirmed for several years by agricultural surveys - the cultivated land surface per refugee is around 0.15 ha, - the demographic structure of the population points to a very unequal access to agricultural activity, - the survey shows that this depends especially on the size of the family and of the work-force - the cultivated surface area, put in relation with the active population, is around 0.33 ha, - but it can be much higher for people living alone, - the current method for surface-area measurement must be abandoned or improved - the method for measuring plots by GPS gives more consistent results - it should distinguish for each family -, the allocated land surface from that which is in cultivation. 71

28 Major findings Regarding the approach to the environment in UNHCR - Environment must be considered in terms of system in which physical and social components interact in a specific space. - Within UNHCR, environment is mainly conceived in terms of deforestation, reforestation, energy saving and environmental education. Its activities in these matters are generally engaged with implementing partners without any assessment of the reality of the degradation. - In different UNHCR reports, it is stated that the prevention of environmental degradation should be a priority. - Practically, in the poorest countries, and not only in emergency situations, UNHCR does not have the resources to prevent deforestation by providing refugees with construction timber and cooking fuel. - Environmental assessment and monitoring should be closely linked with UNHCR s other usual activities like logistics, camp planning, camp management and protection. - Environmental issues are always related to a specific space in a certain place. That is why at national, local community or individual level, environmental issues are closely related with land accessibility and land ownership. - This approach justifies the use of GIS techniques Regarding the Geographical Information System - GIS is at the same time a geographical database and a decision-making tool. - GIS is a computerised system which integrates localised information coming from different sources: topographical and thematic maps, satellite images and aerial photographs, statistics and field surveys. - This information is often not directly available or is scattered in different places and institutions (UNHCR, Implementing Partners, national authorities, private companies, etc.) Generally the most detailed and accurate information must be collected directly in the field. Data collection can be expensive. - GIS is an interdisciplinary instrument which should relate issues and activities which in UNHCR are generally separated (environment, planning, statistics, ). - GIS operations raise important issues in terms of information sharing and physical location of the GIS which requires that UNHCR define a clear policy regarding his partnership with IPs and local authorities. 72

29 - GIS needs skilled operating personnel, not only to build the database but also to set up specific studies and analyse the information. Geographers, but also agriculturalists, foresters, social scientists and demographers are the normal users of GIS. In the refugee context, logisticians and camp planners must be integrated in GIS activities. - GIS requires specific equipment (hardware and software) Regarding the results Landscape mapping and soils analysis - In the Ugandan context of refugee settlements, soil fertility was a subject of concern for UNHCR implementing partners. A rapid assessment in the field using satellite images and available maps allowed the production of a landscape map describing the main units in terms of soils, topography and land use. Soil samples have been taken in the different units and analysed. The results have been transmitted to the IPs Land use, land cover and deforestation - Using the same method (field survey, satellite images), different maps of the evolution of the land cover have been produced. Human presence in Rhino Camp and Adjumani District is long established. The topographical maps produced in 1960 show that the population was mainly concentrated around the Adjumani trading centre and along the River Nile (Rhino Camp). Not surprisingly, land allocation to the refugees for agriculture had an effect in terms of deforestation. However, a more detailed analysis shows that deforestation did not take place only where refugees are settled but also in other areas. That is a consequence of the arrival of nationals during the same period of time. Adjumani District is divided into two parts: the North, totally occupied by nationals and refugees; the South, totally uninhabited. All the southern refugee settlements are located at the border between these two areas. This intermediate location gives some arguments to refugees regarding security concerns, seeing that they are in the front line in case of any rebel activity Land demarcation and allocation - Effective reception of refugees on agricultural sites requires that they benefit from a minimum of rights on the plot they have been allocated. There is usually only a right of use which the local population grants to the refugees. In no way does it favour permanent installation because the overall objective remains the refugees return to their country of origin. - The methods of allocating land to the refugees have varied depending on the time and the HCR implementing partners responsible for that operation. It also seems that local authorities and the prime minister s office have changed their choice of options. The official surface area granted to each refugee has also been subject to 73

30 variation according to the particular time by 0.2 to 0.3 hectare/refugee. The distribution of population and habitation has been done in two ways: in certain cases, the cluster method has been adopted the refugees are assembled together in residential zones; in other sites, each refugee family lives in the middle of its plot of land. - In some cases, the site boundaries were identified and mapped before installation of the refugees. It was therefore possible to measure the surface area of the site and hence to estimate the theoretical number of refugees that it would be possible to install. In practice, things went differently because it was not taken into account what land surfaces really were suitable for cultivation. In some sites, especially at Adjumani, the presence of rocky zones or hollows at risk of flooding is so restricting that the refugees take on and cultivate land outside the site boundaries - In most cases, in Rhino Camp especially, the site boundaries were not established and mapped prior to the refugees arrival. The land areas were allocated case by case. The consequence of that was increased interweaving between the local population and the refugee population with the risk of seeing a rise in conflicts between the two. - It is essential to use mapping methods at all stages of the process: from the creation and the delimitation of the site, to the identification of the plots allocated. It is the soundest method for ensuring that population densities are not excessive in relation to the available resources and the soil fertility. Furthermore, it goes without saying that the opening up of fresh land for agriculture results first in regression of natural vegetation and a decrease in tree cover Population profile and mapping - Statistical data are generally under-utilised. This is particularly so for refugee census information. Better use of such resources would help improve identification of factors of vulnerability, the true work-force available in families, and so on. Mapping is also necessary for proper representation of population data. It has been seen that environmental protection depends closely on an equilibrium between the population load and density and the resources. Determining what this relationship is boils down to localising this population in space and measuring the surface area it has at its disposal. Other maps are also useful, such as average family size, ethnic distribution, sex ratio, or children under five Uses of the results - Utilisation of the results is observed not to be the same and does not respond to the same objectives at local level in the field, in the HCR office in the capital and at headquarters in Geneva. That raises an essential question that the HCR must answer: a GIS for who? And what is to be done with it? - It is observed that the maps resulting from GISs are often used as an element of proof and demonstration, possibly to persuade of the necessity to engage in certain actions. 74