Baseline Survey Livelihood Support June2017 DCA UNHCR Final Report ADA Kwesioner

Baseline Survey for Project Output and livelihoods Support Assessment
Baseline Survey for Project Output

and Livelihoods Support
Assessment
“Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and

livelihoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese
refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host
communities in Yumbe District in Uganda”
PREPARED BY
EJIBUA SAM ANGUZU
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT (U) LTD
UMA Show Grounds, Lugogo

P.O Box 616 Kampala, Uganda
ejibua@yahoo.com/ejibuas@gmail.com
Tel: +256 772 515 648
Skype: anguzus
©June 2017
June 2017
Acknowledgement
With the rapid increase in refugee population in Uganda due to the influx of South Sudanese
refugees fleeing violence, hunger and break down in service delivery in South Sudan, the
humanitarian needs for refugees in Uganda and especially in Bidibidi settlement continued
to be critical and projected to continue throughout 2017. The need for medium to long term
programmes such as livelihoods to increase self-reliance of refugees to live in safety and dig-
nity with host communities is gradually replacing the emergency activities.
DCA is grateful to be one of the Implementing Partners working with United Nations Ref-
ugee Agency (UNHCR) on the Livelihood interventions in Bidibidi through the the project
“Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods support to conflict-affect-
ed South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host communities in Yumbe
District in Uganda”.
We acknowledge the support and guidance of the Office of the Prime Minister, the district
political and civil leadership in supporting community access and planning interventions and
the different community leadership structures within the settlements.
DCA Uganda Country Programme
ii
June 2017
Table of Content
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................II
TABLE OF FIGURES..............................................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................VI
LIST OF ACRONYMS.............................................................................................VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................VIII
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project focus...............................................................................................................1

1.2 The purpose and scope of the assignment.................................................................1
1.3 The focus of the Baseline data...................................................................................2
1.4 The focus for the livelihood assessment...................................................................2
1.5 Scope of the Baseline Survey and Livelihoods assessment:....................................2
1.5.1 Geographical scope.....................................................................................................2
1.5.2 Time scope.....................................................................................................................2
1.5.3 Content scope..............................................................................................................2
2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................................3
2.1 Data collection methods............................................................................................3

2.2 Data analysis................................................................................................................3
2.3 The sample size and sampling procedure...................................................................3
2.5 Challenges encountered during data collection.....................................................5
3.0 SITUATIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS.......................................................5
3.1 The refugee settlement set up and structure...........................................................5

3.2 Population distribution of the target locations......................................................5
4.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE TARGET RESPONDENTS...........................6
4.1 The age and sex of respondents................................................................................6
iii
4.2 Household Occupations............................................................................................7

4.3 Comparison of education status...............................................................................8
4.4 Household vulnerability status................................................................................9
4.5 Household age comparison.......................................................................................9
4.6 Comparison of productive assets..............................................................................10
4.7 Household source of income....................................................................................10
5.0 THE BASELINE SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.................................11
5.1 Impact indicator 1:.....................................................................................................11

5.1.1 Output 1.1: Sectoral Cash grant to provide livelihood protection....................12
5.2 Impact indicator 2:...................................................................................................................14
5.2.1 Output 2.1 Access to wage earning employment facilitated.................................14
5.2.2 Output 2.2 Access to agricultural/livestock production enabled......................20
5.2.3 Output 2.3: Access to self-employment/business facilitated.................................27
5.2.4 Output 2.4: Access to Financial services facilitated.............................................29
5.2.5 Output 2.5: Access to training and learning enabled..........................................30
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................34

5.1 Conclusion..................................................................................................................34
5.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................34
6.0 ANNEXES......................................................................................................37
Annex I : Schedule of days/Logistical planning.....................................................................37

Annex II : Data Collection tools..................................................................................................38
Structured Survey Questionnaire...........................................................................................38
Key Informant Interviews Guide...............................................................................................44
Focus Group Discussions Guide..............................................................................................45
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................46
iv
June 2017
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Age and sex profiles of respondents.................................................................................6
Figure 2: Household profile of the beneficiaries..............................................................................7
Figure 3: Comparative household occupations.................................................................................8
Figure 4: Comparison of education status.........................................................................................8
Figure 5: Comparison of HH vulnerability levels.............................................................................9
Figure 6: Comparison of ownership of assets...................................................................................10
Figure 7: Comparison of the HH source of income..........................................................................11
Figure 8: Comparison of cash for work projects to undertake......................................................16
Figure 9: Comparative household income..........................................................................................17
Figure 10: Comparison of challenges to improve HH income.........................................................18
Figure 11: Comparison of skills required..........................................................................................18
Figure 12: Comparison of reason for preference of Apiary............................................................20
Figure 13: Comparison of agricultural training and support received..........................................22
Figure 14: Comparison of average yield of basic food crops..........................................................23
Figure 15: Comparison of farming types to carry out on the available plots...............................25
Figure 16: Comparison of accessibility and affordability of food in the local markets.............26
Figure 17: Comparison of challenges in setting up IGAs................................................................28
Figure 18: Comparison of participation in community based financial services.............................30
Figure 19: Comparison of benefits of engaging in farming groups.................................................32
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Categories of target respondents........................................................................................4
Table 2: Population in targeted settlement zones............................................................................5
Table 3: Comparison of number of HH members by age...................................................................9
Table 4: Impact indicator 1.................................................................................................................12
Table 5: Output 1.1............................................................................................................................12
Table 6: Coping mechanisms adopted................................................................................................13
Table 7: Impact indicator 2.................................................................................................................14
Table 8: Output 2.1............................................................................................................................14
Table 9: Potential areas for CfW project.......................................................................................16
Table 10: Comparison of preferences for small businesses and IGAs by gender.........................19
Table 11: Output 2.2..........................................................................................................................21
Table 12: Comparison of challenges affecting yield per acre........................................................24
Table 13: Output 2.3..........................................................................................................................27
Table 14: Comparison of interest in business management skills...................................................28
Table 15: Comparison of average earnings from businesses and IGA...........................................29
Table 16: Output 2.4..........................................................................................................................29
Table 17: Output 2.5..........................................................................................................................31
Table 18: Focus areas for farm group activities..............................................................................32
Table 19: Protection issues to address.............................................................................................33
vi
June 2017
List of Acronyms
CSI Coping Strategy Index

DCA DanChurchAid
FCS Food Consumption Score
FG Food Group
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
HC Host Communities
HHs Households
IGAs Income Generating Activities
KII Key Informant Interview
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
PoCs Population of Concern
PSN Persons with Special Needs
ReHoPE Refugee and Host Population Empowerment strategic framework.
RC Refugee Communities
RWC Refugee Welfare Committee
UCC Uganda Communications Commission
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
VAM Vulnerability Assessment and Monitoring
Wgt Weight
WFP United Nations World Food Programme
vii
Executive Summary
This report highlights the baseline findings of the UNHCR funded project “Increased
self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods support to conflict-affected
South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host communities in Yumbe
District in Uganda” implemented by DanChurchAid (DCA). The project targets to reach
4,940 households of South Sudanese refugees and Ugandan host communities in the ratio
70:30 through livelihood and production activities including multi-purpose cash grants
during the lean season. This report is intended to provide DCA with the required baseline
information for the cash interventions and livelihoods support. The report is also expected
to support DCA in defining the emergency livelihoods strategy and programme.
The baseline survey and livelihood assessment was carried out in 9 villages sampled from
zones 1, 2 and 5 in Bidibidi refugee settlement, Yumbe district. A total of 414 respondents
were reached from households across the 3 zones. These included 292 beneficiaries from ref-
ugee HHs and 122 from host communities. 192 members of the local leadership structures;
the Refugee Welfare Committee (RWCs), parish chiefs and a Community Development Offi-
cer within the host community settings were reached as key informants. Youth and women
group members were reached as well for Focus Group Discussants to triangulate the data
from the surveys.
Demographic profile of respondents

The age profile of the respondents indicates that 38% of those who were surveyed are
in the age bracket 26 to 35 years, 36% are 18 to 25 years, 51% are 36 to 45 years, 4% are
46 to 55 and 7% are above 56 years. 26% are male while 74% are female. 80% of the host
community respondents are married as compared to 75% of the refugees. 67% of the
host community are HH heads, 43% of whom are women as compared to 88% of refugee
community HHs out of which 67% are women. 60% of host community members have
attained primary education as compared to 49% of refugee communities. 20% of refugee
community and 23% of host communities have not attained any formal education. Infants
and young children make up the greatest number of vulnerable members of the HHs with
79% among the host communities as compared to 45% of refugees. 61% of host commu-
nities have the elderly persons as compared to 14% of refugee.
Baseline Survey findings and analysis

The findings are structured around the 2 impact indicators and their respective targets and
the 6 output indicators and their targets.
.1 Impact indicator 1:
Improved food security and protection of Livelihood assets:
The targets under this impact indicator and the output indicators, the baseline findings are:
a coping index of 35.4 and 58% of the targets with acceptable Food Consumption Score. For
the second target, none of the households is receiving livelihood protection cash grant at
the moment.
viii
June 2017
.2 Impact indicator 2 : Build self-reliance and improved livelihood of youth and
women
The baseline findings for indicator 2 reflect the findings for the outputs under this indicator.
These include: None of the youth and women surveyed are engaged in any CfW projects in
the target locations. There is poor agricultural productivity as a result of limited access to
land, poor crop yields, poor agronomic practices, inadequate skills, poor climatic conditions
and inadequate access to tools and equipment. The targeted youth and women are unable
to sustainably run their own business and engage in self-employment due to limited oppor-
tunities, lack of capital, inadequate skills and weak markets.
a. Under output 2.1, the baseline established that; none of the youth and women target-
ed has registered for CfW projects. 8 potential projects that benefit the wider commu-
nity have been identified by the selected beneficiaries. 52% of the target households
earn less than 50,000 per month. None of the youth and women targeted for CfW
projects is attending any business skills trainings and none of the targeted CfW benefi-
ciaries has started small businesses and IGAs.
Under the same output, apiary was found to be a viable IGA among 56% of the bene-
ficiaries. Some of the factors that informed this view include; access to land and for-
age for apiary, passion for apiary, access to market for honey and bee bi products and
knowledge and skills in apiary management.
b. Under output 2.2, the baseline established that; 96.4% of sampled beneficiaries are en-
gaged in agriculture and only 36% have received agricultural related training and sup-
port. 382 out of the 414 beneficiaries have access to some farm inputs. 46% of the tar-
geted HHs are able to produce own crops and generate income despite obstacles such
as limited access to land, lack of farm tools and inputs, harsh climatic conditions, lack of
skills in modern agronomic practices, poverty and lack of information. 54% of the HHs
are unable to produce their own crops and generate income despite the fact that 96% of
HH surveyed are engaged in agriculture.
Under the same output, engagement in agriculture is a big challenge because of limited
access to land for farming. 45% (187 of 414) of the beneficiaries have only less than 30
x 30 m of land for farming, 26% (107 of 414) have 1 acre or more and 25% (105 of 414)
have no land for farming except the compound gardens. As a result of limited land, most
farming rotates around vegetable growing for the refugees.
The local capacity to access and afford food for consumption and sale has been affected
as a result of poor access to land for farming, poor farm yields per acre and the limited
duration households are able to store food for consumption and sale. Limited income
within the refugee and host communities has limited the number of times target ben-
eficiaries are able to access the market to purchase food items. While some households
are able to visit the market, majority of the households spend at least 3,000 shillings on
food per market day.
c. Under output 2.3, the baseline established that 93.5% of the sampled beneficiaries have
not received any training in entrepreneurship and business management, 80% of the
beneficiaries are unable to run IGAs due to lack of requisite skills and startup capital. This
has limited their earning capacities, with 31% earning less than 50,000 per month from
their IGAs, while 55% have no comparable cash earnings at all.
ix
d. Under output 2.4, the baseline established that 62.3% of the sampled beneficiaries are
not participating in financial services groups, despite the fact that 38% are aware of
some financial services and are able to access some of the identified services.
e. Under output 2.5, the baseline indicates that 317 of 414 youth, women and farmers sur-
veyed have not received any training in leadership and life skills, peace and conflict mit-
igation, although 24% of the youth, women and farmers are aware and have received
related trainings. There have been efforts to organize unstructured dialogue sessions in
some villages to address conflicts between refugees and host communities. The findings
indicate that the common causes of conflict between the refugees and host communi-
ties stem from fights over resources such as land, water, food/fruits, firewood, grass and
other local construction materials and some considered anti-social behaviors, restricted
access health, food and educational support from the refugee programme.
The conclusion drawn from the survey is anchored on the realisation that a number of live-
lihood opportunities exist within the refugee and host communities and can be utilised for
mutual benefit of refugees and host communities. Greater livelihood focus should be in ag-
ricultural livelihood opportunities, supplemented by enterprise development and IGAs. The
report draws the following recommendations based on the ReHoPE strategy framework and
focus areas: Place more emphasis in supporting agricultural livelihood opportunities such
as crop production and processing, rearing animals, apiary and aquaculture. It also recom-
mends to build initial capacity of communities and provide support through group based
activities, support the development of business enterprises and IGAs linked to agriculture,
develop multiple skills to address existing skills gaps, organise youth and women in groups,
strengthen financial literacy and community based financial institutions, support the insti-
tutionalisation of protection issues and build linkages with the private sector actors.
x
June 2017
1.0 Introduction
This report presents details of the baseline survey and livelihood support assessment for
the UNHCR funded project “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and liveli-
hoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement
and host communities in Yumbe District” implemented by DanChurchAid (DCA). The report
highlights the background and objectives of the project, the focus of the baseline survey and
livelihood support assessment, the scope, approach and methodology used. It also presents
the analysis of the data and presentation of the results, conclusion and recommendations?
1.1 Project focus
With increasing violence, scarcity of food, and financial instability in South Sudan, many
South Sudanese have been fleeing their country, and seeking protection from neighbour-
ing countries including Uganda. To this day, Uganda hosts 1,252,470 1refugees and asylum
seekers majority of whom are from South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Con-
go and Burundi. South Sudanese refugees make up about 898,864 settled in the districts of
Arua, Yumbe, Adjumani in West Nile and Lamwo District in Acholi Sub region. Yumbe district
alone is home to 272,707 refugees making up 22% of the total refugee population in Ugan-
da. These are settled in five zones of Bidibidi refugee settlement.
DanChurchAid (DCA) has been selected as livelihood implementing partners for UNHCR in
Bidibidi and has received funding from UNHCR for a project in Bidibidi settlement entitled
“Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods support to conflict-af-
fected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host communities in
Yumbe District in Uganda”. The focus of the project is to contribute towards the emergency
response and build resilience among South Sudanese refugees and host communities in
Bidibidi – Yumbe through increased purchasing power and income generating activities.
The project will reach 4,940 households of South Sudanese refugees and Ugandan host
communities through livelihood and production activities including multi-purpose cash
grants during the lean season.
1.2 The purpose and scope of the assignment
As derived from the Terms of Reference reviewed, the overall purpose of the assignment is
to provide DCA with Baseline information for the cash base interventions and Livelihoods
support Assessment for the UNHCR funded project “Increased self-reliance through cash in-
terventions and livelihoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibi-
di refugee settlement and host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda”. The assignment
is also intended to support DCA in defining the emergency livelihoods strategy and pro-
gramme.
The purpose and scope is informed by the following key impact baseline indicators;
a. Reduced use of harmful coping strategies by vulnerable HHs,

b. Improved food and vegetable production by households for consumption and sale,
c. Improved income for youth and women through cash for work activities and
d. % of targeted PoC (18-59) with own business/self-employed by end of project.
1 OPM/UNHCR – Uganda refugees and asylum seekers (May 2017).
1
1.3 The focus of the Baseline data

The baseline data is intended to track progress and improvement in emergency food se-
curity and livelihoods of the targeted groups. This will provide a benchmark to track the 6
project outputs (below) for the project duration:
1. Output 1.1: Sectoral cash grants or vouchers provided

2. Outputs 2.1: Access to wage earning employment facilitates
3. Output 2.2: Access to agriculture and livestock production enabled
4. Output 2.3: Access to self-employment / business facilitated
5. Output 2.4: Access to financial services facilitated (formal and informal)
6. Output 2.5: Access to training and learning enabled
1.4 The focus for the livelihood assessment

The livelihood assessment is intended to support DCA in getting a better understanding
of the current food security, livelihoods and household economic activities carried out in
Bidibidi settlement by the refugee population and the host communities. The assessment
was intended to provide an insight into sustainable livelihoods approaches through agricul-
ture and skills upgrading, IGA start-ups and financial literacy to enhance the incomes of the
refugee and host communities. The assessment also gave consideration social and environ-
mental protection issues as an integral part.
1.5 Scope of the Baseline Survey and Livelihoods assessment:
The scope of the Baseline Survey and Livelihoods Assessment was based on the geographi-
cal, time and the content scope as described below:
1.5.1 Geographical scope
The Baseline Survey and Livelihoods support assessment was carried out in the 3 zones of
Bidibidi Refugee settlement in Yumbe district, where DCA is an IP for livelihood, covering
9 villages spread across all the 3 zones. Within these locations, efforts were made to reach
refugee and host community households, local leadership structures within the refugee and
host communities and other stakeholders.
1.5.2 Time scope
The baseline survey and livelihood assessment ran for a total of 11 days from Sunday 28th
May to 9th June 2017 covering; preliminary preparations, data collection and analysis and
report writing and presentation. The Baseline Survey and Livelihoods support assessment
data collection was carried out from Wednesday 31st May to Saturday 3rd June 2017. During
this period, activities included: training of data collectors, pre-testing the data collection
tools, logistical coordination and scheduling meetings within the settlement zones and
household data collection, interviews and focus group discussions.
1.5.3 Content scope
Both qualitative and quantitative data was used to investigate and analyze the issues that
informed baseline survey and Livelihoods support assessment. These included primary and
secondary data collected from target locations and potential respondents and stakeholders.
Emphasis was placed on the baseline survey and livelihoods assessment focus areas pre-
sented in 1.3 above.
2
June 2017
2.0 Approach and Methodology

The approach adapted for the baseline survey and livelihoods support assessment was both
participatory and non-participatory on one side and statistical and non-statistical on the
other side in order to address different needs:
a) The participatory and non-participatory approaches sought to:

 Address the gaps in information gathering and documentation challenges
considering the information challenges among the refugees and host
community.
b) The emphasis on statistical and non-statistical facts was related to indicators in order
to:
 Provide an objective basis for defining baseline data and practical livelihoods
information.
 Allow generation of necessary information related to the baseline survey and
livelihoods support assessment from the required sources.
2.1 Data collection methods
Data for the baseline survey and livelihoods support assessment was collected
using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods in all the set-
tlement zones:
 Quantitative methods were used for statistical data that was then analysed to
provide measurable benchmarks for the project among the refugees and the
host communities.
 Qualitative data provided non-statistical responses based on current experienc-

es, practices, knowledge and beliefs necessary to provide better insights into the
intervention areas.
 Quantitative and qualitative data collection tools such as; document review
checklists, structured surveys questionnaires, Key informant interview guides
and focus group discussions guide were used to generate both primary and
secondary data.
 Quantitative data was electronically collected using tablets and exported into a
customised excel template for analysis.
2.2 Data analysis
Quantitative data was collected using tablets and smart phones and uploaded into MAG-
PI – a configurable; cloud based mobile data collection and visualisation application. This
data was then exported to MS Excel for graphical presentation and analysis. Qualitative data
was transcribed into MS Word and thematic areas related to the focus areas of the baseline
survey and livelihood assessment. These themes were grouped into sub themes for further
analysis and triangulation with quantitative data.
2.3 The sample size and sampling procedure
A purposive sampling method was used to select the households and respondents during
the baseline survey and livelihoods support assessment. This approach helped compare
households of vulnerable communities and other households within the settlements and
3
guided the survey within the parameters defined for the baseline survey and livelihoods
assessment. Efforts were made to minimize bias and select samples which best represent
the refugee and host communities across all the 5 zones being surveyed. Using the Creative
Research Systems survey software, a sample of 414 will be used based on the target popu-
lation of 2,040 within the settlement zones with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of
error of +/-2%. This sample frame was based on the total number of registered beneficiaries
within the project database and was proportionately distributed across all the 3 targeted
zones as follows:
Zone Total targeted Description of respondents

Zone 1 151  Vulnerable refugee farmer Households
Zone 2 186  Host community farmers
Zone 5 77
Total 414
Besides the above target respondents reached, additional respondents were reached for
qualitative data through interviews and focus group discussions as described below:
Category reached Total

a. Refugee Welfare Committee (RWCs) 09
b. Local leadership structures 06
c. Youth Groups members 85
d. Women group members 94
Total 194
2.4 Description of the categories of target respondents
The tables below describe the categories of respondents reached by location and the meth-
ods used for data collection. A total of 414 respondents were reached across all the 3 set-
tlement zones during the baseline survey and livelihoods support assessment. A detailed
breakdown of respondents by location is given in below.
Table 1: Categories of target respondents
Zone Zone Zone Method of data
S/N Respondent categories reached
1 2 5 collection applied
01 Refugee Community
a. Refugee Community Households 113 132 47 Household survey
b. Refugee Welfare Committee (RWCs) 3 3 3 KII
c. Youth Groups members 15 20 20 FGDs
d. Women group members 12 22 18 FGDs
Sub total 143 177 88
02 Host community
e. Households of host communities 38 54 30 Household survey
f. Local leadership structures 2 2 2 KII
g. Youth Groups members 12 8 10 FGDs
h. Women group members 15 12 15 FGDs
Sub total 67 76 57
Total respondents reached 210 253 145
4
June 2017
2.5 Challenges encountered during data collection

Overall, the data collection and field work during the baseline survey and livelihood support
assessment ran smoothly with the exception of a few incidences:
a) Clashing of activities: the data collection was carried out at a time when other activities
such as; seed distribution, sim card verification were ongoing in the target zones and
this affected the engagements with the refugee and host communities.
b) Language limitations: A number of the data collectors identified from within the settle-
ments faced challenges interacting with host communities during household survey.
This was identified early enough and handled through translators from the host com-
munities and enumerators who were able to speak the local language.
3.0 Situational and Contextual Analysis
3.1 The refugee settlement set up and structure

The settlements in Bidibidi are divided into zones, each containing a specified number of
blocks/villages. Under the overall supervision of the settlement commandant from the of-
fice of the Prime Minister, the different zones are supervised by zonal focal point persons in
close liaison with UNHCR and partnering agencies. Within each block/village, the structures
are supported by the Refugee Welfare Committees (RWC) that is composed of Chairperson,
Vice chairperson, general secretary, vice general secretary, security personnel, education
secretary, environment and production secretary, women representative, youth representa-
tive, food distribution secretary, water and sanitation secretary that are tasked to raise and
address welfare and protection issues of the refugees within the settlement.
3.2 Population distribution of the target locations
There is no accurate data on the current refugee population across the different settlement
zones in Bidibidi settlement in Yumbe district. The registration update provided by UNHCR
2
indicates that, there are a total of 272,206 refugees and 101,570 households in Bidibidi
settlement.
The figures in table 2, below are provided as planning figures for the number of refugees in
each zone, spread across the different blocks/villages.
Table 2: Population in targeted settlement zones

Number of
Settlement Zone Estimated area size Refugee population1
blocks/Villages
Zone 1 14 Not data 56,000
Totals Not data 241,000
2 As of December 2016
5
4.0 Demographic Profile of the Target Respondents

The demographic profile of the target respondents is structured around their age and sex,
household occupations, education status, the household source of income, comparison of
productive assets, household age comparison and household vulnerability status. The sur-
vey covered a total of 414 households surveyed; out of which 71% (292) were refugees and
29% (122) where host communities.
4.1 The age and sex of respondents
The age profile of the respondents (figure 1) indicates that 284 of those surveyed represent-
ing 72% are female while 108 representing 28% are male. 54% of the female are in the youth
age bracket of 18-35 years, while 14% are middle aged and young adults between 36- 55
years. 21% of the male are in the youth age bracket, while 5% are middle aged and young
adults. Whereas the legal definition of youth in Uganda is between 18 and 35 years, the age
at which youth take on responsibility varies and has a bearing on livelihood challenges they
face. This variation is intended to help monitor and assess the stage at which livelihood chal-
lenges are experienced the most and how responses towards them are adapted. The com-
parison of 18 to 25 years and 26 to 35 years should help monitor the livelihood challenges
by these age brackets according to the individual and family responsibilities. 108 (26%) of all
the respondents reached were male while 306 (74%) were female.
Figure 1: Age and sex profiles of respondents
Male
28%
Female
72%
(a)
36 to 55 18 to 35
14%
Female
54%
5%
Male
21%
(b)
In figure 2 below, 80% (98 of 122) of the host community respondents were married as com-
pared to 75% (220 of 292) of the refugee communities. 67% (82 of 122) of the host commu-
nity were household heads, of which 43% were women as compared to 88% (256 of 292)
refugee community household heads, out of which 67% were women. The composition of
the household members indicates that, 26% (32 of 122) of the host community had house-
hold members of less than 5 people and 74% (90 of 122) had household members of more
than 5 to 11people as compared to the refugee community who had the same number 50%
(147 of 292) of household members less than 5 and those of more than 5 to 10 people.
6
June 2017
Figure 2: Household profile of the beneficiaries
88%
100%
80%
75%
74%
67%
67%
80%
50%
50%
60%
43%
26%
40%
13%
12%
20%
8%
5%
3%
3%
0%
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
HH Head
HH < 5
HH > 5
Female HHH
Host Community Refugee Community
4.2 Household Occupations

From the analysis in figure 3 below, it is evident that most of the host communities (71%) are
engaged in agriculture as a source of livelihood and as a dominant occupation, while only
36% of the refugee communities are doing the same. 47% of the refugee communities have
no particular occupation that they engaged in as compared to 1% of the host community.
This is in part attributed to the disparities in availability of land and access to opportunities
among the refugee and host communities.
Besides the above, the host community and refugee communities have the least opportu-
nities in formal employment either within the private sector or the public sector (1% for ref-
ugee and host communities). This is attributed to the limited formal employment opportu-
nities around the settlements and the inadequate qualifications and skills among the target
communities. Only 11% of host communities and 8% of the refugee communities surveyed
are engaged in business, while 11% of host communities and 5% of refugees are engaged
in casual jobs.
Figure 3: Comparative household occupations
None 1%
47%
Others 1%
0%
Cash_for_Work 4%
1%
Agriculture 71%
36%
Businesses 11%
8%
Casual_Jobs 11%
5%
Formal Employemnt 1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Host Community Refugee

7
4.3 Comparison of education status

The survey further established a comparative education status between the refugees and
host communities (figure 4). 60% (73 out of 122) host community members surveyed have
either joined or attained primary education as compared to 49% (143 out of 292) of refugee
communities. 16% of host communities as compared to 26% of refugee communities have
either reached or completed formal secondary education. Only 1% of the host community
and 5% of the refugee community has entered or completed a tertiary level of education.
20% (58 of 292) refugee community and 23% (28 of 122) host community respondents have
not attained any level of formal education.
Figure 4: Comparison of education status
None 23%
20%
University 0%
0%
Tertiary_Institution 1%
5%
Secondary 16%
26%
Primary 60%
49%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
From the above analysis, a bigger proportion of refugee and host communities have not
been able to climb up the education ladder beyond primary education, limiting opportuni-
ties and access to formal wage and employment opportunities for them.
4.4 Household vulnerability status
A comparison of household vulnerability status (figure 5) of the households indicates that
the host community has more vulnerable members of the household than the refugee com-
munity. The greatest being infants and young children, where 79% (96 out of 122) house-
holds of host communities as compared to 45% (161 out of 292) households of refugee
communities. 61% of host communities as compared to 14% of refugee communities have
the elderly, while 56% of the host communities as compared to 7% of refugee communities
have pregnant and lactating mothers.
Figure 5: Comparison of HH vulnerability levels
PWDs 43%
14%
PLW Mothers 56%

7%
Infants and young children 79%

45%
Elderly 61%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8
June 2017
4.5 Household age comparison
As shown in table 3 below, both the refugee and host communities have more household
members between the ages 0 and 10 years and 18 to 35 years as compared to other age
groups. Majority of them across all the age groups are less than 5 household members in
both refugee and host community households. The host communities have a comparatively
more number of household members of less than 5 years and more than 60 years as com-
pared to the refugee communities. Implying, there are more children and the elderly in the
host communities than in the refugee communities.
Table 3: Comparison of number of HH members by age
Age bracket Host community Refugee Community

< 5 Nos % No > 5 Nos % No < 5 Nos % No > 5 Nos % No
Less than 5 105 86% 12 10% 201 69% 2 0.6%
years
5 to 10 years 103 84% 6 5% 174 60% 4 1.2%
11 to 17 years 86 70% 4 3% 151 52% 2 0.6%
18 to 35 years 104 85% 6 5% 210 72% 3 1%
36 to 59 years 84 69% 0 0% 82 28% 0 0%
Above 60 years 69 57% 0 0% 41 14 1 0%
4.6 Comparison of productive assets
The profiled productive assets of the refugee and host communities in figure 6 indicates
some disproportional ownership of assets. These assets were identified based on what the
households can access to better their livelihood within their settlements. 97% of host com-
munity (118 of 122) had access to land as a productive asset; this was known to be commu-
nally owned land across the different settlements, while 91% of refugee community (267
of 292) had access to land as an asset as apportioned within the settlement for the refugee
communities.
79% of host communities (96 of 122) and 70% of refugee communities (204 of 292) have
access to a house or temporary shelter. Although most of the refugee communities still have
temporary shelters, there is a gradual shift from the temporary shelters to mud and wattle,
grass thatched houses, or un burnt bricks and grass thatched houses. Only 3% of the refu-
gee communities have access to livestock such as goats, sheep and poultry as compared to
72% of the host communities, while 5% of the refugee community has access to a bicycle as
compared to 44% of the host communities. 2% of refugee households (6 of 292) have access
to a vehicle as an asset while another 2 % have access to a motorcycle as compared to 7% of
the refugee community.
9
Figure 6: Comparison of ownership of assets
Refugee Host Community
91%
100% 97%
72% 79%
44% 70%
50%
5%
3%
0% 2%7% 2%0%
Bicycle
Land
Live stock
Motor cycle
Vehicle
House
The variations in asset ownership of assets indicated in figure 6 above, reflects the current
state of the refugee and host community livelihood conditions. The improvement and de-
terioration of their livelihood can as well be compared to the acquisition or disposal of their
current assets to improve their livelihoods.
4.7 Household source of income

A comparison of the household main source of income (figure 7) indicates that 98% (119 of
122) host communities and 42% (123 of 292) of refugee communities have agriculture as
their main source of income. 32% of host community and 22% of refugee community have
businesses as their main source of income while 34% of host community and 13% of refu-
gees have casual jobs as their main source of income. A small proportion of host community
(10%) and refugees (7%) indicate that their main source of income is cash for work.
Figure 7: Comparison of the HH source of income
8%
Other 10%
7%
8%
Cash for work 10%
7%
Agriculture 58%
98%
42%
Businesses 25%
32%
22%
Casual Jobs 19%

34%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Combined Host Community Refugee
The findings established that a number of households have multiple sources of income in-
dicated in figure 7 above, considering that agriculture is seasonal. During the dry seasons, a
number of households especially in the host communities are engage in business or casual
work in the trading centres or the urban centres.
10
June 2017
5.0 The Baseline Survey Findings and Analysis

The baseline survey findings are structured around the 2 impact indicators and their respec-
tive targets and the 6 output indicators and their targets. The detailed description of the
baseline survey findings is explained and data graphically presented.
5.1 Impact indicator 1:
Improved food security and protection of Livelihood assets
The food security and livelihood conditions of the targeted vulnerable households are still
poor relative to the conditions in which they are living. This is further exacerbated by the
50% 3reduction of the food rations given to the refugee communities and the lean agricul-
tural season in the communities coupled to the slow pace of implementation of cash grants
and vouchers due to programming challenges as a result of the restrictive regulations of
Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) that has affected mobile money transaction for
refugees.
The purchasing power of the target communities is still low as indicated by the coping strat-
egy index and the average food consumption score. As described in the outputs below, the
changes to measure from the output baseline will include reduction in the use of harmful
copying strategy from the baseline, improvement in the food consumption score and the
number of vulnerable households receiving livelihood cash grants and utilising it to meet
their basic needs.
Table 4: Impact indicator 1
Indicator description Indicator target Indicator baseline

data
70% reduction in use of harmful Vulnerable household
coping strategies by vulnerable coping index of 35.42
HHs
Increased purchasing
Improved purchasing power None of the targeted
power for vulnerable
of 2,040 for basic needs and HHs is receiving liveli-
households during lean
protection of livelihood assets hood protection cash
season for immediate
grant.
basic needs and to Pro-
tect their livelihood Improved food consumption 58% of the target
score (FCS) of at acceptable households with ac-
level for at least 80% of targeted ceptable Food Con-
households sumption Score.3
5.1.1 Output 1.1: Sectoral Cash grant to provide livelihood protection
The cash grants support provided to selected farmers will enhance their livelihood protec-
tion and enable them meet their basic needs. Through the intervention, it is expected that
the vulnerable HHs will significantly reduce on the harmful coping strategies and improve
their food consumption as a result of increased purchasing power. Focus areas to measure
will be reduction in the use of harmful coping strategies and access to protection cash grants
as a precondition for improved food security and protection of livelihood.
3 WFP food rations policy - June 2017

11
Table 5: Output 1.1

Output description Project output target Output baseline data
Selected Farmers will be support- 10% reduction in the Baseline coping strategy
ed with livelihood protection use of harmful coping score is 35.4
multi-purpose cash grant during strategies by vulnera- 58% of the target house-
lean season (for 5 months) to ble HHs holds with acceptable
enable them meet basic needs Food Consumption Score.
while protecting their livelihood 2,040 HHs of PoC None of the HHs of PoC is
production assets and avoid the receiving Livelihood receiving livelihood pro-
used of harmful coping strategy. Protection Cash Grant tection cash grant.
Detailed description of baseline information
.1 Baseline coping strategy score is 35.4

The baseline data for this output is informed by the findings of the baseline survey report
(April 2017) of the ECHO funded “Multi-purpose Cash and protection for South Sudanese
refugees in Bidibidi Settlement, Uganda” on the harmful coping strategies and the current
data on the HHs receiving livelihood protection cash grants.
The 5 coping mechanisms as identified by the World Food Programme 4 coping mechanisms
index still remain valid considering the study targeted the same communities and the con-
ditions have not changed over the last 1 month. The average coping strategy index for the
host and refugee communities was 35.4. The most adopted coping mechanism identified in
the study were as presented in the table 6 below:
Table 6: Coping mechanisms adopted
Severity Weighted
Coping mechanisms for food security needs
Rank CS score
.1 Eating less preferred but less expensive food 1 5.2
.2 Borrowing cash food receiving gifts 2 8.8
.3 Eating wild foods consuming seed stock 3 8.4
.4 Decreasing the no of people to feed 4 4.1
.5 Rationing food 2 9.0
Coping strategy score 35.4
The comparison between the refugee and host communities indicated a slight variation in
the CSI with the refugee community having a CSI of 33.38, while the host community hav-
ing a CSI of 32.26. The negative coping mechanisms adopted by both the refugee and host
communities include; selling their household items, selling foods to provide for other needs,
borrowing from friends as alternative approaches to livelihood, consuming seeds, selling
livestock and exploiting natural resources such as forests, water resources, sand and stones.
The adaptation of negative coping mechanisms by the refugee and host communities was
attributed to the high levels of poverty among the households, poor/weak government ser-
vice structures and uncoordinated community institutions and harsh weather conditions
affecting agricultural activities within the settlements. The refugee community in particular
adopt some of these coping mechanisms when they run out of food rations before the next
food distribution, failure to access other household necessities and the inability to alternate
their daily dietary requirements among others.
4 Coping Strategies Index – World Food Programme field methods manual (2008). 12
June 2017
The resultant reduction in the above negative coping mechanisms, the improvement in the
target population purchasing power and support through the multi-purpose cash grants
will go a long way in improving food security and provision of the household basic needs to
improve their livelihood.
.2 58% of the target households with acceptable Food Consumption Score.
The food consumption score for this baseline has been extracted from the ECHO/DCA proj-
ect baseline (April 2017) that is comparable because the targets were the same and there is
no significant change in the context in which this study was done. According to the report,
the FCS by household indicates variations with 9% of the households surveyed having a
poor FSC (0 to 21), 33% of the households at the borderline of the FCS (21 to 35) and 58%
within the acceptable range (above 35).
.3 None of the HHs of PoC is receiving livelihood protection cash grant.
None of the surveyed household members have been receiving livelihood and protection
cash grants from any agency within the settlements. This is despite the fact that 65% (79 of
122) of host communities and 77% (226 of 292) of refugee community is aware of livelihood
cash vouchers and grants offered by other agencies and 60% (73 of 122) of the host com-
munity households and 71% (207 of 292) of the refugee community households believe
that the livelihood and protection cash grants will be adequate to provide for their basic
livelihood needs. The rest of the households are not sure because they are not well informed
about the grants.
5.2 Impact indicator 2:
Build self-reliance and improved livelihood of youth and women
From the survey findings, the targeted households are still very much dependent on relief
support on the side of refugees and adapting coping mechanisms for their livelihoods on the
side of the host communities. Challenges relating to poor markets, poor agricultural produc-
tion and poverty in the target communities has caused both refugee and host communities
to depend on relief food and non-food items, further deteriorating the livelihood conditions
in these communities due to limited capacity to support the current population. Planned
self-reliance initiatives such as access to wage earnings and employment opportunities
through cash for work activities and improved agricultural production for consumption and
sale and supporting targeted beneficiaries to own business and engage in self-employment
will go a long way in improving the overall livelihood conditions of both the refugee and
host communities and make them more self-reliant over time.
Table 7: Impact indicator 2
Indicator description Indicator target Indicator baseline data

Improved agricultural Improved income for 1,000 None of the youth and women are
production by youth and women through engaged in any CfW projects in the
supporting household cash for work activities. target locations.
own food production Improved food and Poor agricultural productivity as a
and improved vegetable production result of limited access to land, poor
livelihoods for by 2,040 households for yields, poor agronomic practices,
vulnerable households consumption and sale. inadequate skills, climatic conditions
especially women and access to tools and equipment
and youth, through
60% of targeted PoC (18-59) Targeted youth and women unable
Cash for work and
with own business/self-em- to sustainably run own business and
income generating
ployed by end of project. engage in self-employment
opportunities.
13
5.2.1 Output 2.1 Access to wage earning employment facilitated

Support towards self-reliance and improved livelihoods can be achieved through improved
access to wage earnings and employment opportunities within the target communities. Op-
portunities through CfW can increase the community purchasing power by placing more
cash in the hands of the refugees and host communities and eventually strengthen the mar-
kets and improve economic opportunities. The improvement in incomes of the target pop-
ulations, the changes in the livelihood conditions can be a measure of the achievement of
these targets.
Table 8: Output 2.1
Output description Project output targets Output baseline data
1000 youth register and None of the youth and women tar-
working on CfW projects geted has registered for CfW proj-
1000 unemployed youth
ects.
and women from refu-
gees and host commu- 24,000 Man-days for cash for No baseline data available
nity are registered and wok completed
engaged in cash for work 10 of community project that 8 potential projects that benefit
activities for 4 days per benefits the wider communi- the wider community identified by
months for 6 months ty completed. the selected beneficiaries.
(24,000 man-days) to 90% increase in household 52% of refugee and host commu-
raise income for basic income for targeted youth nity households (216 of 414) earn
needs and investment in and women less than 50,000 per month.
income generating activ- 1,000 youth and women in None of the youth and women tar-
ities, while establishing CFW project attending busi- geted for CfW projects is attending
community infrastruc- ness skills training session business skills trainings.
tures beneficial to a wid-
100 of small business and IGA None of targeted CfW beneficia-
er community.
started by CFW beneficiaries ries has started small businesses
and IGAs.

.1 None of the youth and women targeted has registered for CfW
projects.
From the baseline findings, none of the surveyed respondents among the refugees and host
communities has registered for any CfW projects in the target locations although 305 out
of 414 potential beneficiaries indicated that they are aware of cash for work activities and
would be interested to register. 109 out of 414 (26%) do not have no information about CfW
activities. 65% of those surveyed among the host communities are interested in registering
for CfW projects as compared to 77% of the refugee communities. There is inadequate infor-
mation about some of the CfW projects and modalities of registration. This is compounded
by weak structures and leadership gaps among the youth and women.
.2 8 potential projects that benefit the wider community identified by the selected
beneficiaries.
A total of 8 potential projects that can benefit the wider community were identified as possi-
ble CfW projects during the survey. The projects varied from sinking, construction and main-
tenance of community toilets and sanitation, construction and maintenance of schools and
hospitals, raising tree nurseries and planting trees, land opening and demarcation, construc-
tion of market stalls, construction and repair of shelters and homes for PSAs, maintenance of
roads and bridges and setting up recreational facilities.
From figure 8 below, 65% (79 of 122) of host communities and 37% (107 of 2929) of refugee
14
June 2017
communities were interested in construction and maintenance of schools and health facili-
ties. 35% of host communities as compared to 25% of refugees were interested in construc-
tion and maintenance of community toilets and sanitation projects, 43% of host communi-
ties as compared to 32% of refugees were interested in raising nurseries and planting trees.
The project that attracted the least interest was setting up recreational facilities where 20%
of the host community and 10% of the refugee communities expressed interest.
Figure 8: Comparison of cash for work projects to undertake

65%
70%
60%
50% 43%
35% 37% 35% 34%
40% 32%
27%
25% 25% 23%
30% 22% 17% 20%
14% 22% 22%
20% 10%
10%
0%
recreational…
maintenance of…
of shelters for PSAs
Others
Construction and
Land opening
roads and bridges

sanitation and…
Community toilets,
Construction of
and planting trees
Raising nurseries
Raising and repair
Setting up
market stalls
Maintenance of
Some of the projects identified (in figure 8 above) may not have the potential to engage all
the youth and women at the same time, let alone the fact that they may be one off projects
or are rather more seasonal in demand. During the focus group discussions, the following
were found to be potential opportunities from the projects identified:
Table 9: Potential areas for CfW project
S/N Potential project Potential areas of engagement

Construction and mainte-  Labour for sinking the pit latrines
nance of community pit la-  Provision of poles for construction.
1
trines  Provision of bricks and local materials for construc-
tion
Construction and mainte-  Labour for construction and maintenance.
nance of schools and health  Provision of bricks and local materials for construc-
2
facilities. tion works
 Support processes for the construction works.
Raising nurseries and plant-  Raising vegetable seedlings for sale
3
ing trees  Raising tree seedlings for sale
Land opening and demarca-  Labour for land demarcation
4
tion  Poles for land demarcation and fencing
Construction of market stalls  Labour for construction
5
 Provision of bricks, poles and other local materials.
Raising and repair of shelters/  Labour for construction
6
Building homes for PSNs  Provision of bricks, poles and other local materials.
Maintenance of access roads  Labour for construction and maintenance
7
 Provision of bricks, poles and other local materials.
15
Setting up recreational facili-  Labour for construction

8
ties  Provision of bricks, poles and other local materials.
Others – hire of services  Provision of catering services for women.
9
 Provision of other service areas required.
.3 52% (216 of 414) of refugee and host community households earn

less than 50,000 per month.
From the survey findings, 52% of the refugees and host communities earn less than 50,000
per month (figure 9). Although about half of the target beneficiaries earn an average month-
ly income of less than 50,000, it can be concluded that majority of these earn at the lower
quartile considering that the average monthly household expenditure is below 20,000. 31%
(130 of 292) of the refugees and 21% (86 of 122) of the host community beneficiaries earn
less than 50,000 per month and more refugee households (26%) have no reliable monthly
household income than host community’s households (1%).
The survey however reveals that both refugee and host communities do not have access to
household incomes of Ugx 150,000 and above, mainly because of limited economic oppor-
tunities, limited, limited education and skills, lack of information and legal restrictions and
requirements for the refugee communities.
Figure 9: Comparative household income
40% 31%
30% 26%
21%
20%
10%
10% 6%
2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%
0%
50000_to_100000
100000_to_15000
150000_to_20000
None
Less_than_50000
More_than_25000
0
0
In figure 10 below, the refugee and host communities alike face similar challenges in ac-
cessing and improving their household incomes. The most expressed challenges by both
communities is the limited access to education and skills training as reported by 84% of host
communities and 76% of refugee community. The other significant challenges are lack of
information expressed by 71% of host community and 64% of refugee community, limited
opportunities expressed by 67% of host communities and 59% of refugees. The challenges
present an opportunity for support to the refugee and host communities in a number of
areas including: provision of training, exploring avenues for wage earning through cash for
work and other income generating activities.
16
June 2017
Figure 10: Comparison of challenges to improve HH income
Other 29%
17%
Government
14%
restrictions 27%
Limited
67%
opportunities 59%
Lack of
71%
information 64%
Limited
84%
education/Skills 76%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

.4 None of the youth and women targeted for CfW projects is attending business
skills trainings.
From the survey findings, none of the targeted youth and women for CfW projects is attend-
ing any business skills trainings within the refugee and host communities. As highlighted
in figure 10 above, a number of potential refugee and host community beneficiaries have
expressed the need for skills trainings to improve their ability to earn as a precursor to im-
prove their livelihoods. Of all the surveyed beneficiaries, only 121 have received some form
of skills enhancement trainings 30% (36 of 122) of whom are from host community and 55%
(162 of 292) from the refugee communities. Some of the areas they have received trainings
in include; financial literacy by 30% of host communities compared to 29% of refugees, life
skills by 7% of host communities as compared to 5% of refugees and entrepreneurship skills by
7% of the host community.
Figure 11: Comparison of skills required
Refugee Community Host Community
100%
72% 72%77%
80%
51%
60%
37% 38%
30%
40% 21% 19%
14% 13%
20% 7%
0%
Peace and conflict
Others
Leadership and
Financial literacy
Vocational Skills
Entrepreneurship
management
Life skills
skills
From figure 11 above, it is evident that there is more demand for vocational skills among the
registered beneficiaries in the refugee and host communities alike with 77% (94 of 122) of
17
host communities expressing interest as compared to 72% (209 of 292) of refugee commu-
nity. 72% (88 of 122) of the host community expressed interest in entrepreneurship train-
ing as compared to 38% (111 of 292) of the refugee community, while 51% (62 of 122) of
host community expressed interest in financial literacy as compared to 37% (109 of 292) of
the refugee community. From the focus group discussions, it is evident there is little under-
standing about the interrelation between financial literacy, entrepreneurship skills and vo-
cational skills among the youth and women in the refugee and host communities. Efforts to
build a long term and sustainable livelihood strategy through skills training and enterprise
development should focus developing multiple skills and knowledge in these areas.
.5 None of targeted CfW beneficiaries has started small businesses and IGAs.
The survey findings indicate that none of the targeted CfW beneficiaries has started small
businesses and IGAs related to the CfW activities within the refugee and host community
settings, although some of targeted beneficiaries are involved in some businesses and IGAs
in their respective areas. 46% (190 of 414) refugee and host community respondents are
engaged in some small businesses and IGAs within their locations. 31% of these are host
community beneficiaries and 23% are refugee community beneficiaries. Common among
the promising small business and IGAs the youth and women are engaged in include: Farm-
ing – crop production and selling produce, hair dressing, tailoring, building/Construction,
carpentry, Hotel/Restaurant and catering services, transport (Bodaboda), trading in general
merchandise, brick laying.
18
June 2017
Table 10 below highlights some of the small businesses and IGAs identified within the ref-
ugee and host communities and their ranking according to the preference of the potential
beneficiaries surveyed by gender.
Table 10: Comparison of preferences for small businesses and IGAs by gender
Kind of businesses/IGAs HH engaged in Refugee Community Host Community

Farming – crop production and selling  
Hair dressing  
Tailoring 0 0
Motor vehicle/Motorcycle repairs 0 0
Building/Construction  
Carpentry  
Hotel/Restaurant and catering services  
Transport (Bodaboda)  
Trading in general merchandise  
Selling Airtime/Phones accessories 0 0
Mobile money services 0 0
Paramedical services 0 0
Bee keeping 0 
Fish farming 0 0
Poultry farming 0 0
Hand Crafts and mat making 0 0
Brick laying  
Tree planting and selling wood fuel  
Herbalist 0 0
Selling fuel 0 0
The exceptions to the choices of these businesses and IGAs, apart from the gender aspect
of their preference was limited capital to engage in some of the small businesses, access to
land for farming, skills and knowledge in running the business and limited markets for the
items produced.
.6 Apiary as a viable IGA

From the baseline survey findings, 56% (230 of 414) of the respondents indicated that api-
ary is a viable IGA, while 44% (184 of 414) indicated otherwise. Of these, 42% (123 of 292)
where refugee community, while 88% (107 of 122) were host community. Overall, the host
communities indicated a preference for apiary as a viable IGA as compared to the refugee
community. As shown in figure 12 below, 86% of host community have access to land and
forage for apiary as opposed to 11% of refugees, 86% of host community have a passion for
apiary as opposed to 33% of refugee communities and 83% of host community have access
to market for honey and bee bi products as compared to 33% of refugees.
A disproportionately smaller (66%) of the host community have knowledge and skills in api-
ary, 71% are able to manage an apiary as opposed to 25% and 26% of refugees respectively.
19
The general challenge facing both the refugee and host communities in the management of
apiary as a viable IGA is the access to improved bee hives, harvesting gears, challenges with
wild bush fires and inadequate training and support in proper bee keeping technologies.
Figure 12: Comparison of reason for preference of Apiary
86% 83% 86%

100% 71%
66%
80%
60% 33% 33%
25% 26%
40%
11%
20%
0%
Knowledge_skills
Land_forage
Market_for_honey
Passion_for_apiary
Management_of_a
Access to
& biproducts
in apiary
piary
5.2.2 Output 2.2 Access to agricultural/livestock production enabled
Support towards self-reliance and improved livelihoods is possible through improved ag-
ricultural production through supporting household own food production for vulnerable
households especially women and youth. The support to farmers through trainings and in-
puts is expected to contribute to improved crop production and incomes. The improvement
in household yields and incomes can be used as a measure to ascertain achievement of
these targets.
Table 11: Output 2.2
Output description Project output targets Baseline data

2040 Farmers selected and 399 out of the 414 beneficiary
Selected farmers are trained in Agronomic and households are engaged in ag-
supported to form post-harvest management riculture and only 36% have re-
farmers groups (FFS) skills. ceived agricultural related training
and trained in agro- and support.
nomic and post-har- 2040 farmers receive farm- 382 out of the 414 beneficiary
vest management ing inputs through in kind households have access to some
skill. Farmers received or conditional cash grant for farm inputs.
inputs for farming farming.
though in-kind or as
conditional cash grant 70% improvement in HHs 46% (190 of 414) of the HHs are
to procure inputs for own crop production and able to produce own crops and
farming. income. generate income.
20
June 2017
.1 399 out of the 414 beneficiary households are engaged in agriculture and only
36% have received agricultural related training and support.
From the survey findings, 399 out of 414, representing 96% of the beneficiary households
are engaged in agriculture. However, only 36% (150 of 414) have received agricultural relat-
ed training and support. This support has mainly come from NGOs, religious institutions and
government programmes, 64% (264 of 414) of the beneficiary households have not received
any such support. 53% of those who have not received any agricultural training and support
are host community and 68% are refugee community beneficiaries.
From figure 13 below, it can be seen that the refugee and host community alike have re-
ceived very little agricultural training and support. 25% of the host communities have re-
ceived support in form of seeds, fertilisers and farm tools and they have received trainings
in soil erosion control (20%), drip irrigation (19%) and soil fertility management (19%). Only
9% of the refugee community has received support in seeds, fertilisers and farm tools. The
trainings received by the refugees are those that they received while in their home coun-
tries. These covered topics such as crop protection and management (21%), soil fertility
management (21%), land use and management (18%) and drip irrigation skills (13%). A very
small proportion of the host community (6%) and the refugee community (1%) has received
trainings in post-harvest handling and management skills.
Figure 13: Comparison of agricultural training and support received
30%
25%
25% 21% 21%
19%18% 20% 19%
20% 17%
16% 15%
13% 14%
15% 12% 12%
10% 9%
10% 8% 7%6% 8%
6%
3% 2% 3%2% 1% 2%
5% 0%
0%
Soil Nutrient…
Organic farming…
Land use…
Seeds, Fertilizers…
Integrated…
Group based…
Crop protection and…
Integrated Pest…
Soil fertility…
Post-harvest handling
Bee keeping
Soil Erosion control
Drip irrigation
Other
Aware of the fact that 92% (112 of 122) of the host community household and 37% (109 of
292) of the refugee community household are engaged agriculture, and the fact that they
all derive their incomes from agriculture; the limitations in household agricultural engage-
ments and kind of support received as well as the training gaps in agronomic and post-har-
vest management skills provides an opportunity for agricultural support and training for
both the refugee and host community beneficiaries. This will enable improved agricultural/
livestock production and contribute to better household production for consumption and
sale.
21
.2 382 out of the 414 beneficiary households have access to some farm inputs.
The survey indicates that 382 out of 414 representing 92% of sampled respondents have
access to some basic farm inputs such as hoes, rakes, axes, seeds and storage facilities. These
have been accessed through support from NGOs, own purchase and or borrowing from
friends and relatives. 89% (260 of 292) of refugee community have access the basic inputs
mentioned above and only 1% (3 of 292) has access to storage facilities. 100% of the host
community have access to the above farm inputs, but only 3% (4 of 122) have access to Ox
ploughs, 31% (38 of 122) have access to storage facilities.
None of the beneficiary households have access to mechanised tools, irrigation facilities and
proper storage facilities to enhance their productivity and improve yields. From the discus-
sions, it is was established that high levels of poverty, lack of skills and technical expertise,
limited information on improved agronomic practices and lack of support have limited their
capacity to access and utilise such facilities and equipment. By providing farming inputs
through in kind or conditional cash grants, the intervention will enable improved access to
agricultural and livestock production subsequently improving household food and vegeta-
ble production.
.3 46% (190 of 414) of the HHs are able to produce own crops and generate income.
From the survey findings, (figure 14), 46% (190 of 414) of the refugee and host community
households surveyed are able to produce own crops and generate some farm based in-
come. 29% (121 of 414) of these households can produce an average of less than 5 basins
of the basic food items such as cassava, maize, beans, sorghum, vegetables, sweet potatoes,
ground nuts/simsim per production season. 17% (68 of 414) of the beneficiary households
can produce more than 5 to 10 basins of the basic food items above per production season.
53% (64 of 122) of the host community households are able to produce an average of less
than 5 basins of the basic food items mentioned above, while 44% (53 of 122) are able to
produce from 5 to 10 basins. Only 4% (4 o 122) is not able to produce any, meanwhile 20%
(57 of 292) of the refugee community is able to an average of less than 5 basins of the basic
food items, 5% (15 of 292) is able to produce between 5 to 10 basins and 75% (219 of 292) is
not able to produce any.
Figure 14: Comparison of average yield of basic food crops
75%
80%
70%
53% 54%
60%
44%
50%
40% 29%
30% 20% 17%
20%
5% 4%
10%
0%
< 1_5_basins
5_to > 10_
None
basins
Refugee Community Host Community Total
22
June 2017
In order to improve households own crop production and income for both refugee and host
communities, there is need to address the challenges that hinder average yields. From the
findings, both the host and refugee communities face similar challenges in an attempt to
increase their annual yield per acre (table 12). 77% (318 of 414) of the respondents identified
pests and diseases as the greatest challenge faced, while 76% (314 of 414) identified chang-
es in climatic conditions. Other challenges expressed included; poor farming methods, lack
of tools and equipment, lack of skills and inadequate land for farming, especially for the
refugee communities.
Efforts to improve yields per acre and consequently contribute to improved household food
for consumption and sale will need to focus more on controlling pests and diseases, sup-
porting farmers with farming technologies to address challenges related to the changes in
climatic conditions through irrigation, draught resistant varieties and exploring high val-
ue short term crops such as carrots, tomatoes, onions, cabbages, egg plants, okra, simsim,
ground nuts and pumpkins that can be grown on small plots of land and adapt cheap ir-
rigation technologies such as drip irrigation. This can be done alongside other traditional
staple foods such as cassava, potatoes, beans, and maize on fairly larger areas available. The
refugee and host communities can also engage in other agronomic ventures such as poultry
farming, goat rearing, aquaculture and apiary.
Table 12: Comparison of challenges affecting yield per acre
Challenges faced in increas- Refugee Community Host community Total

ing yield per acre Yes % res Yes % res Yes % res
Poor farming methods 51 17% 66 54% 117 28%
Lack of tools/Equipment 126 43% 81 66% 207 50%
Lack of skills 61 21% 20 16% 81 20%
Changes in climatic conditions 192 66% 122 100% 314 76%
Inadequate land 217 74% 14 11% 231 56%
Pest and diseases 199 68% 119 98% 318 77%
.4 Engagement in agriculture
Despite the fact that 96% of households surveyed are engaged in agriculture, access to land
remains a major barrier to agricultural productivity and increased crop and animal produc-
tion (table 10 above). 45% (187 of 414) of the surveyed beneficiaries have only less than 30 x
30 m of land for farming, 26% (107 of 414) have 1 acre or more and 25% (105 of 414) have no
land for farming except the compound gardens within their settlements. 64% (187 of 292)
of those who have access to land less than 30 x 30 m are refugees who also make up all of
those who only use compound gardens because they have no alternative gardens. On the
other hand, 88% (107 of 122) of the host community has access to 1 acre or more and only
11% (14 of 122) have 50 x 50 m and more.
As a result of the unavailable land, the farming types adapted by the refugees and host
communities vary. From figure 15 below, 91% (205 of 292) are able to use the available land
for vegetable growing, as compared to 78% (95 of 122) of the host communities. 31% (90 of
292) of the refugee community are able to engage in poultry farming compared to 67% (82
of 122) of the host communities. 6% (17 of 292) of refugee communities are able to engage
in bee keeping, as compared to 52% (63 of 122) of the host community. 17% (51 of 292) of
the refugee community are able to utilise available land for grazing animals as compared
66% (80 of 122) of the host communities.
23
Inadequate farming land is potentially a hindrance to the refugee community to increase

production and engage in farming that may require mechanisation and irrigation technol-
ogies as compared to the host communities who have access to bigger acreage of land. The
refugee communities can however be organised into Farmers Groups to benefit from joint
mechanisation and irrigation technologies that can benefit larger group of farmers.
Figure 15: Comparison of farming types to carry out on the available plots
Vegetable growing Poultry farming Bee keeping

Animal grazing Don’t know
91%
100%
78%
80% 67% 66%
52%
60%
31%
40%
17%
20% 6% 6%
0%
0%
The variations of access to land have a direct bearing on the duration of time households
are able to store food until the next harvest or distribution. This implies that the amount of
food available for households for consumption and sale is limited because of inadequate
production. The baseline indicates that, only 14% (56 of 414) of the surveyed households
are able to store food for more than 5 months, 7% (28 of 414) are able to store food for 3 to 5
months, 20% (81 of 414) are able to store food for 1 to 3 months and the vast majority, 50%
(207 of 414) can only store food for less than 1 month. For the vast majority, the implication
is long durations of scarcity and pushes them to adapt negative coping mechanism as they
wait for the next harvest or food distribution.
.5 Access and affordability of food for consumption and sale
The effect of the above is also evident in the supply of food in the market as accessibility and
affordability of agricultural products is hampered. From the survey findings, the comparison
of accessibility and affordability of food (figure 16) below indicates a very uneven access to
and affordability of food for the refugee and host communities. This is at the backdrop of
challenges related to access to land for farming, poor farm yields per acre and the limited
duration households are able to store food for consumption and sale.
The most accessible and yet affordable food for most of the refugees (RC) and host com-
munities (HC) is vegetables, since they can grow these around their compounds. The least
affordable and accessible food in the market for both is corn soy blend and milk necessary
for the nutritional health of children. Access to other foods indicates that; 25% of the refugee
community are able to access cassava flour as compared to 48% of the host communities;
22% of refugee community are able to access maize flour as compared to 34% of the host
communities; 27% of the refugees able to access beans as compared to 51% of the host
communities; 21% of refugee community are able to access silver fish and other varieties of
fish as compared to 54% of host communities and 28% of refugee community can access
vegetables as compared to 69% of host communities.
24
June 2017
The food items that are fairly difficult to access for both refugees and host communities
include; meat, sweet potatoes, ground nuts/simsim, milk, eggs and corn soy blend. Fruits
such as mangoes, oranges, avocadoes and pawpaw’s are only accessible during seasons.
The refugees and host communities alike face the same challenges in accessing stable foods
such as cassava flour, beans, maize and vegetables.
Figure 16: Comparison of accessibility and affordability of food in the local markets
80%
64%
70%
60%
50%
30%
40% 27%
25%
23%
19%
19%
19%
18%
30%
17%
17%
16%
15%
15%
14%
13%
11%
11%
10%
20%
9%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
1%
10%
0%
0%
Maize flour
Eggs
Sweet Potatoes
Fish
Meat
Maize grains
Ground_Nuts/Simsim
Milk
Vegetables
Shorgum
Beans
Corn-Soy blend
Cassava(Flour/Fresh)
Fruits
RC_Affordable HC_Affordable RC_Accessible HC_Accessible
The main challenges faced by both refugees and host communities in accessing and being
able to afford food in the local market are; poverty, high prices and limited land for farming.
89% (367 of 414) of the surveyed respondents attribute the challenges of accessing food
to poverty, 89% (368 of 414) attribute it to high prices in the market and 53% (220 of 414)
attribute it to limited land for farming. Other reasons given include; distance to the market
(26%), lack of jobs (29%), soil infertility (32%), low supply (37%) and delayed delivery of food
rations (27%).
Limited income within the refugee and host community households has a bearing on the
frequency of households in the market to purchase required food items. The findings indi-
cate that only 7% (31 of 414) of the surveyed respondents are able to visit the market on a
daily basis and 49% (204 of 414) visit the market once in a week. 24% are however able to
visit the market twice a week and of these, 40% (164 of 414) spend at least 3,000 shillings on
food and 44% (184 of 414) spend at least 5,000 shillings or more on food items and other es-
sentials. 48% of the refugee community households are able to spend at least 3,000 per mar-
ket day as compared to 20% of the host community, 22% of the refugee community are able
to spend at least 5,000 as compared to 19% of the host community, while only 12% of the
refugee community can spend more than 5,000 as compared to 51% of the host community.
25
5.2.3 Output 2.3: Access to self-employment/business facilitated

Supporting access to self-employment and business as part of developing self-reliance will
be critical for the intervention. As indicated in the outputs, this will be facilitated through
trainings, support through start-ups in order to increase household incomes. This will be
seen in the viable self-employment and business ventures developed improvement in in-
comes and changes in the livelihood status of the target beneficiaries.
26
June 2017

800 youth selected and trained
93.5% (387 out of 414) of the
in Entrepreneurship and busi-
target beneficiaries have not
ness management skills. received any training in en-
800 Youth and women trepreneurship and business
interested in starting management skills.
up small enterprises are
700 youth and women support- 79.95% (331 out of 414) of the
selected and trained on
ed with IGA startup capital. targeted beneficiaries are un-
basic entrepreneurship
able to run IGAs due to lack of
skills, financial literacy
startup capital.
and business planning.
65% increase in households 55% (229 of 414) of the target
income from IGA established beneficiaries have no busi-
nesses and IGAs to earn from.
Detailed narration Detailed description of baseline information

.1 93.5% of the target beneficiaries have not received any training in entrepreneur-
ship and business management skills.
The baseline indicates that 93% (387 out of 414) of the target beneficiaries have not received
any training in entrepreneurship and business skills management. 94% (272 of 292) of these
are from the refugee community and 93% (113 of 122) are from the host communities. This is
a clear indication of the skills gaps required to establish and run a sustainable small and me-
dium enterprise among the refugee and host communities. To achieve the desired impact
of this intervention, the need to further assess the skills gaps among the refugees and host
communities in enterprise development with a focus on entrepreneurship skills, financial
literacy skills and vocational skills is important.
In table 12 below, 37% (109 of 292) of refugee communities have expressed interest in re-
ceiving trainings in financial literacy, 38% (111 of 292) are interested entrepreneurship skills
training while 72% (209 of 292) are interested in vocational skills training to support busi-
ness startup, management and development. Meanwhile, 51% (62 of 122) of host communi-
ty have expressed interest in financial literacy skills, 72% (88 of 122) have expressed interest
in entrepreneurship skills and 77% (94 of 122) are interested in vocational skills for business
and enterprise development.
Whereas the interests expressed seem to be subject specific, to achieve a wholesome busi-
ness management competence, the different skills areas should be treated holistically be-
cause of the interrelations between them.
Table 14: Comparison of interest in business management skills
Entrepreneurship and business man- Host community Refugee community

agement skills required Number % tage Number % tage
Financial literacy 62 51% 109 37%
Entrepreneurship skills 88 72% 111 38%
Vocational Skills 94 77% 209 72%
27
.2 79.95% of the targeted beneficiaries are unable to run IGAs due to lack of startup
capital.
From the baseline findings, 80% of the targeted beneficiaries are unable to run IGAs due
to lack of startup capital and support. As indicated in figure 17 below, 56% (233 of 292) of
the refugees indicate that they don’t have access to startup capital, while 55% (229 of 292)
indicate they are limited by the poverty levels in the settlements. 24% (98 of 122) of the host
communities indicate they have no access to startup capital, while 26% (107 of 122) site
poverty as a limiting factor to set up an IGA.
Figure 17: Comparison of challenges in setting up IGAs
Refugee Community Host community
56%
60% 55%
32% 24%
40% 12% 26%
20% 24% 14%
0% 13% 4%
Lack of skills
Lack of capital
Poverty
opportunities
Absence of
Limited market
With more than 96% of the beneficiary households engaged in agriculture, focusing more
support in the IGAs tailored towards agribusiness and general merchandise will enhance the
benefits of the interventions within the host and refugee communities. Service areas such
as restaurants, communication and transport (bodaboda) also have a potential to develop
with time.
.3 55% of the target beneficiaries have no businesses and IGAs to earn from.
From the baseline findings, 55% (229 of 414) of the target beneficiaries have no businesses
and IGAs to earn from. Even among those that have means of earning, 31% (128 of 414)
earn less than 50,000 per month from their IGAs. 48% of the refugees and 7% of the host
community do not have any IGAs and businesses to earn from. This implies that majority of
the target beneficiaries have little or no access to small businesses and IGAs to earn from.
Although 31% (128 of 414) of the target beneficiaries have an average monthly income of
less than 50,000 per month, it can be concluded that majority of these earn at the lower
quartile considering that the average monthly household expenditure is below 20,000 for
the majority. Of the 12% (51 of 414) who earn between 50,000 to 100,000, 16% (66 of 292)
are the refugee community who earn less than 50,000 per month and 6% (25 of 292) earn
between 50,000 to 100,000 per month.
28
June 2017
Table 15: Comparison of average earnings from businesses and IGA
Average earning from Business/ Refugee Community Host community

IGA # resp % resp # resp % resp
Less_than_50000 66 16% 62 15%
50000_to_100000 25 6% 26 6%
100000_to_150000 1 0% 3 1%
More than 150,000 2 0% 0 0%
None 198 48% 31 7%
The disparity between earning abilities of the host community and refugee communities is
premised on access to means of production such as land, natural resources and opportuni-
ties available to them, however, both the refugee and host communities face the same chal-
lenges affecting their means to earn and improve household income. These are; lack of skills,
lack of capital, household poverty, absence of opportunities and limited market for goods
and services. Therefore support towards establishing own business and or self-employment
through start up kits is critical but should be addressed with other challenges mentioned
above, lest the start-up kits and capital is diverted to solve other emergent issues affecting
livelihood of the households.
5.2.4 Output 2.4: Access to Financial services facilitated
As part of the process of building own businesses and supporting self-employed initiatives
at the end of end of project, facilitating access to financial services is vital. This will be seen in
the level of participation, skills, knowledge and attitudes developed by the refugee and host
communities over time through group based activities and training.
600 of women and youth 258 out of the 414 of targeted
600 Trained youth and
participating in communi- beneficiaries are not partici-
women are supported to
ty-based (VSLA) groups pating in the set up and devel-
form VSLA groups to raise
opment of financial services
income for IGAs
groups
.1 38% of beneficiaries have access to financial services and financial services groups
Only 38% of the respondents reached indicate their involvement in community based VSLA
groups. 258 out of the 414 of targeted beneficiaries representing 62% of the respondents
are not participating in the set up and development of any community based financial ser-
vices groups in the host and refugee communities.
74% (307 of 414) of the target respondents indicate that none participation above stems
from the lack of awareness of financial services and support structures, limited knowledge
and skills and lack of funds to join the groups. However, for those participating, the prom-
inent financial services mentioned include; mobile money services, micro finance support
services, financial literacy training, access to loans and credit and Village Savings and Lend-
ing Associations (VSLAs). 29% (118 of 414) are aware of VSLA activities within the refugee
and host communities and 38% (156 of 414) are involved in group activities, savings and
access to credit facilities within their respective locations.
As indicated in figure 18 below, 25% (75 out of 292) of the refugee communities are involved
in the set up and development of financial services groups as compared to 67% (81 of 122)
29
of the host communities. 70% (205 of 292) of the refugee communities are not involved in
any community based financial services groups as compared to 30% (36 of 122) of the host
communities.
Figure 18: Comparison of participation in community based financial services
Active participation of the refugee and host communities in sustainable community based
VSLA groups needs to be developed around knowledge and skills in managing these groups,
building relationships of trust and confidence among participating members and continu-
ous support, follow up and backstopping of the group activities to strengthen group cohe-
sion.
5.2.5 Output 2.5: Access to training and learning enabled
With evident need for acquisition of skills in entrepreneurship, vocational skills and finan-
cial literacy to support business startup, management and development to enable develop-
ment of small and medium enterprises and promote self-employment in the long run, the
lack of skills affecting average household yield per acre and therefore affecting availability
of food for consumption and sale indicates the need for training and support in agricultural
related ventures, small and medium enterprise development and building social networks
and harmonious co-exist among the refugees and host communities.

396 of Youth, women and 76% (317 of 414) youth, women
The targeted benefi- farmers trained on Lead- and farmers surveyed have not
ciaries (Farmers, Youth ership and group dynamic received any training in lead-
and women) are sup- skills ership and life skills, peace and
ported to improved conflict mitigation.
leaderships skill, prob- 32 villages dialogue ses- Unstructured dialogue sessions
lem solving and sus- sions held on peaceful organized in some villages to
tainable management co-existence address conflicts between refu-
of natural resources. gees and host communities.
30
June 2017

.1 76% of youth, women and farmers surveyed have not received any training in
leadership and life skills, peace and conflict mitigation.
The baseline findings indicate that 317 of 414 representing 76% of the youth, women and
farmers surveyed have not received any training in leadership and life skills, peace and con-
flict trainings necessary to support leadership, problem solving and sustainable manage-
ment of natural resources within the refugee and host community settings. Only 24% (97 of
414) of the youth, women and farmers surveyed have received some training in leadership,
life skills, peace and conflict management through non-governmental organisations and
government programmes in the past. 32 of 122 representing 26% of the host community
members have received and trainings in leadership skills and group dynamics, but none has
undergone any training in peace and conflict mitigation. Meanwhile 65 of 292 representing
22% of the refugee community have received some trainings in leadership, life skills, peace,
conflict mitigation and group dynamics trainings for a peaceful co-existence from NGOs
back in their home countries.
45% (186 of 414) of the youth, women and farmers surveyed within the targeted locations
expressed interest in undergoing the above trainings for a peaceful co-existence between
the refugees and the host communities. Out of these, 70% (86 of 122) where the youth,
women and farmers from the host communities, while 22% (65 of 292) where from the ref-
ugee communities. The arguments advanced by the vast majority of the host community
members is the opportunities that the refugee programme has brought within their com-
munities and therefore the need to tap into the economic opportunities that comes with
hosting refugees, while some of the refugee community members understand the need for
peaceful co-existence because of access to land and other natural resources that can sustain
their stay within the refugee settlements.
Some of the areas cited by the refugee and host communities that call for empowerment
through trainings include; cases of managing gender based violence, child care and protec-
tion, harmonise co-existence, self-management and control, group farming and building a
strong social network within the camps and host communities.
.2 Trainings in leadership skills and group dynamics
The significance of leadership skills trainings, group dynamics and peaceful co-existence
is seen in the kind of groups that the refugee and host communities have started build-
ing. 70% (290 of 414) of the youth, women and farmers surveyed indicated that they are a
member of a farmer group. Out of these, 66% (194 of 292) are members within the refugee
communities, while 79% (96 of 122) are members within the host communities.
Figure 19 below highlights some of the benefits indicated by the surveyed beneficiaries of
engaging in farming groups. 40% of the refugee community and 22% of the host communi-
ty identify with gaining from group farming. Only 1% of the refugee community think they
can benefit from group marketing as compared to 6% of the host community, 2% of refugee
community identify with benefiting from VSLAs as opposed to 14% of host communities. 9%
of refugee community identify with training and social support as compared to 8% of host
community. None of the refugee community identify with accessing credit facilities within
the groups as compared to 5% of the host communities.
31
Figure 19: Comparison of benefits of engaging in farming groups
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
40%
Group farming 22%
1%
Group marketing 6%
2%
VSLA 14%
9%
Training and social support 8%
0%
Accessing credit facilities 5%
3%
Others 3%
The variations in the responses between the host community and refugee communities
across the different aspects as illustrated in figure 18 relates to knowledge gaps, lack of skills
and trust and confidence among group members. The table 16 below illustrates areas iden-
tified as focus areas to address support to farm group within the refugee and host commu-
nity settlements.
Table 18: Focus areas for farm group activities
Focus areas Issues to address

Group farming a. Support with farm inputs
b. Provision of labour for farming
c. Management farm inputs and products
d. Protection and safety of group farms
e. Group knowledge and skills in choice of farming.
Group Marketing a. Market information for groups
b. Costing of farm items and products
c. Access to the market
VSLAs a. Trust and confidence among members
b. Group cohesion and norms
c. Safety of group funds
Training and Social Support a. Knowledge and skills
b. Building social networks and protection hubs
c. Access to training facilities/services
Accessing credit facilities a. Information on credit facilities
b. Group capacities to access and utilize credit
.3 Unstructured dialogue sessions organized in some villages to address con-

flicts between refugees and host communities.
There have been unstructured dialogues sessions between the refugee communities and
the host communities over clashes that arise between them. These have been facilitated
32
June 2017
through the refugee welfare committees and the local government structures in the host
communities. The limitations to these dialogue sessions according to the local authorities
has been failure to implement issues discussed and resolved during dialogue meetings and
failure to follow up on issues reported, thus further escalating the conflict between the ref-
ugees and host communities.
The common causes of conflict between the refugees and host communities stem from
fight over resources (land, water, food/fruits, firewood, grass and other local construction
materials), theft, and failure to access health, food and educational support from the refugee
programme. When asked to prioritize the issues by gender, the youth, women and farmers
surveyed pointed out the following issues as most important in resolving any conflicts be-
tween the refugees and host communities.
Table 19: Protection issues to address
S/N Issues to address Priority by gender

01 Security concerns and protection of refugees and

members of the host community.
Safety of property, assets and family/communal
02 
sources of livelihood.
Defilement and rape cases reported and not ad-
03 
dressed by the authorities responsible.
Equal/shared access to social services such as
04 education and health to both refugees and host 
communities.
Equal/shared support to vulnerable members of
05 
the host community.
Control of consumption of alcohol, drugs and
06 conduct during social events such as discos and 
video shows.
Public hygiene and proper maintenance of the
07 environment across both refugee and host com- 
munity settings.
Compensations for crops destroyed, farm lands
08 taken up and displacements while opening up 
roads, markets and recreational grounds.
From table 19 above, the social concerns around protection issues affect women and men
differently and therefore should be treated likewise. From the findings, the overall impact of
failure to address protection concerns has a direct bearing on children and women in both
refugee and host communities. Their vulnerability need to draw attention of all stakeholders
to ensure that the above issues are given urgent attention and focus.
33
5.0 Conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
A number of livelihood opportunities exist within the refugee and host communities and
these can be tapped to mutually benefit both sides. From the survey findings, the most via-
ble livelihood focus is agricultural related opportunities, supplemented by small and medi-
um enterprise development and income generating activities. The off farm activities can be
engaged in off farming season and in the evenings when the markets are busier.
For these opportunities to sustainably benefit the host and refugee communities, a struc-
tured response and support towards enhancing productivity, income and skills is essential.
The focus of the project “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods
support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and
host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda” is in line with the UNHCR/OPM ReHoPE Stra-
tegic Framework and the government of Uganda refugee asylum policy to build sustainable
livelihoods based on: modernized agricultural practices and improved market linkages,
market-driven technical skills and small-scale enterprise. Through developed markets, the
project is also capable of addressing community and system resilience based on dialogue
and peaceful co-existence of refugees and host communities.
With focus on building markets and improving sustainable livelihood through cash inter-
ventions for both refugees and host communities, it is important that community struc-
tures are developed to address the growing conflict over resources between the refugees
and host communities for a peaceful co-existence. This will require more engagement of
the refugee welfare committee structures and interface with the district and sub county
level political and civil leaders.
5.2 Recommendations
The following are recommended for action from the findings of the baseline survey and
livelihood support assessment. These are based on the focus areas of the Refugee and Host
Population Empowerment (ReHoPE5) strategic framework. These recommendations will
seek to contribute to the following components of ReHoPE strategic milestones:
Achieving modernized agricultural practices and improved market linkages, market-driven
technical skills and small-scale enterprise.
.1 Place more emphasis in supporting agricultural livelihood opportunities:
Considering that most host community households are engaged in agriculture and the ref-
ugee communities have a predominantly agricultural background. Focus on agricultural
livelihood opportunities will be less time consuming and easily adaptable venture for both
communities despite the challenges of access to land and climate change. This will require
investment in high value and fast growing foods such as vegetables for both refugee and
host communities and staple food crops for the host communities because of land accessi-
bility. It will also require building collaborative arrangements between the host and refugee
communities on land use, training both communities in specific agricultural value chains
to benefit the target communities and improve agricultural practices to mitigate the chal-
lenges of limited land, effects of harsh climatic changes on agricultural production, invest-
ment in crop and livestock disease management in order to sustainably support livelihood
efforts.
5 UNHCR global appeal (2015).

34
June 2017
.2 Build initial capacity of communities and provide support through group based
activities
The group based support and activities should provide a platform for training, resource ex-
ploitation and initial exploration of agribusiness opportunities within the target locations.
These may include identification and exploration of agricultural value chains, access to mar-
kets and market information, experience sharing and land utilisation between the refugee
and host communities. Such an approach provides a good platform for the youth and wom-
en in the refugee and host communities to engage in as they are already mobilized into
groups and may eventually grow into cooperatives especially for the host communities.
.3 Support development of business enterprises and IGAs linked to agriculture:
With the identification and development of agricultural value chains and the upcoming
markets as a result of the cash interventions, efforts should be made to support the devel-
opment of small and medium business enterprises linked to agriculture for the youth and
women within the target communities. This will supplement agricultural activities and pro-
vide much needed services otherwise sought out in other major towns. Some of these ven-
tures may include; setting up flour mills, stocking and selling produce, grinding and pack-
aging groundnut/simsim paste, growing and selling vegetables, fish ponds, poultry farms,
goat rearing, bee keeping and general merchandise.
.4 Develop multiple skills to address existing skills gaps:
For improved community capacity to address livelihood issues; there is need to develop
multiple skills among the refugee and host communities. This will require a more holistic
approach to cover local artisan skills, life skills, entrepreneurship, financial literacy, numeracy
and literacy skills to enhance knowledge and community capacity to sustainably engage in
business and improve general livelihood conditions within the refugee and host commu-
nities. These skills should focus on areas of interest for small and medium enterprises such
as farming, hairdressing, tailoring, motorcycle repairs and maintenance, building and con-
struction, carpentry, restaurant and hotel services, transport, trading in general merchan-
dise, bee keeping, apiary and tree planting as indicated in table 10 above.
.5 Organise youth and women in groups:
To be able to benefit from cash for work initiatives as alternative avenues of earning wages
and income in the refugee and host communities, youth and women need to be organised
and structured into groups. Having an organized structure within community to engage in
the cash for work ventures will give more credence to the cash for work process and cause
the target communities to better organize themselves to deliver the CfW projects and im-
prove societal response towards protection and welfare issues affecting them in the long
run. These organised groups can also be the initial avenues of engaging in dialogue and
interactions for improved social cohesion between the refugees and host communities.
.6 Strengthen financial literacy and community based financial institutions:
With the cash interventions taking shape, it will be important for the programme to inculcate
into the refugee and host communities the required discipline to be financially indepen-
dent. This can be done through initiating village savings and lending associations (VSLAs),
especially among the youth and women groups established and working through financial
institutions to improve access to financial services within the target communities and the
district as a whole. Through this, the intervention will be equipping refugees and host com-
munities with skills and knowledge to address their livelihood challenges upon return or
cessation of support from agencies.
35
.7 Support the institutionalisation of protection issues:
This may require collaborative efforts with all agencies for ease of reporting, referral and fol-
low up across agencies and into the communities through the refugee welfare committees
and other community structures established.
.8 Build linkages with the private sector actors
The anticipated cash vouchers in the refugee and host communities is going to interest a
number of private sector actors to engage with the refugee and host communities over time.
The programme should build relationships with actors in the areas of production inputs, af-
fordable technologies for improved agricultural production and access to markets for farm
products. The private sector actors can also be engaged in supporting capacity building es-
pecially in the areas of quality management and value addition for locally produced agricul-
tural and livestock products.
36
June 2017
6.0 Annexes
Annex I : Schedule of days/Logistical planning

Total days and
Planned activities Deliverables
N Schedules
3 days Planning and preliminary preparations
a) Travel day for consultant to the field  Inception
1 Sunday 28 May to b) Desk review and preliminary study
th
report
Tuesday 30th May c) Inception planning and management
2017 meetings.
d) Finalization and validation of tools for
data collection.
e) Orientation of data collectors to be
engaged.
3 days Data collection and analysis
a) Field data collection; interviews, discus-  De-brief
2 Wednesday 31st May sions, surveys and observations report
to Friday 2 June
nd b) Data cleaning and compilation and high-
2017 c) Management de-brief and highlights of lights
issues emerging
5 days Reporting
a) Data analysis  Final
3 Monday 5th to Friday b) Report writing copy of
9th May 2017 c) Incorporation of feedback and final sub- baseline
mission of the report survey
report
Logistical planning and resources required
N Resources re- Number of Activities planned for

quired days
a. Orientation and training in data collection
tools.
1 Data Collectors 4 days
b. Pre-testing tools
c. Data collection
a. Mobilisation of respondents for pre-testing
Community Mo- tools
2 4 days
bilisers b. Mobilisation of respondents for data col-
lection
a. Transport and coordination during training
of data collectors.
3 Vehicle (s) 4 days
b. Transport and coordination to the field
during data collection.
Training venue a. Training and orientation of data collectors.
4 2 days
and logistics
37
Annex II : Data Collection Tools

Structured Survey Questionnaire
Introduction:
This Structured Survey Questionnaire guide is intended for data collection during the Base-
line Survey of the project “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods
support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and
host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.”
Target Respondents: The survey will be administered to the households and beneficiaries
within the refugee and host communities in zone 1, 2 and 5.
Confidentiality and consent
This survey is intended for the purpose of generating information for the baseline survey
and livelihoods assessment of the “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and
livelihoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settle-
ment and host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.” Information obtained in this sur-
vey will be strictly used for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes of the project. No
reference will be made to the identity of individuals engaged in this survey during and after
the survey. We kindly request your consent to proceed with this survey.
(Ensure consent is granted and informed before proceeding with survey).
Preliminary Information
Name of
Date of interview
Interviewer
Zone #/ Tank #/ Biometric

Sub County Village Number
Marital
Age Sex
Status
HH Head Y N Number of Children Total HH
Current status Refugee Education

Current occupation
Host Community level
Vulnerable mem- Infants and

Elderly PLW Mothers PWDs Women
bers within HH young children
Age of HH 11 to
<5 5 to 10 18 to 35 36 to 59 ≥ 60
members (yrs) 17
38
June 2017
What productive as- Live Motor

Bicycle Land Vehicle House
sets does the HH own stock cycle
Main source of Casual Cash for
Businesses Agriculture Other
income for HH Jobs work
1) Agriculture and livestock production activities

a) Is your household engaged in agricultural activities?
Yes No
b) Who provides labour for agricultural activities and food production?
Domestic
Husband/Wife Children Hired labour Others
workers
c) What farm tools, facilities and equipment do you own/Have access to?
Hoes/Rakes/ Oxen & Irrigation Storage Tractor / None

Axes etc ploughs tools facilities Others
d) What is your source of seeds and farm implements for farming?
Storage from Borrow

Support Own
previous from None
from NGOs purchase
season friends
e) Which of the following crops/animals do you produce for sale and consumption?
Food Crops/Animals Produced for sale Produced for consumption

 Cassava
 Maize
 Beans
 Sorghum
 Sweet potatoes
 Ground nuts/Simsim
 Fruits
 Leafy Vegetable
Animals
 Cow
 Goats
 Sheep
 Poultry (Chicken, ducks)
 Apiary (bee keeping)
 Pigs
 Fish farming
f) Is bee keeping a viable IGA activity you can engage in?
37
Yes No
g) Why would you consider it viable/not viable for you?
Yes No
 I have a passion for bee keeping and honey processing
 I have enough knowledge and skills in bee keeping
 I have access to market for honey and other bi-products
 I have access to land and forage for bee keeping.
 I can manage the challenges of bee keeping very well
h) What is your average yield per acre?
Crops Yield in basins (Bags)

≤ 1 – 5 basins 5 to ≥ 10 basins
Cassava
Maize
Beans
Sorghum
Vegetables
Sweet potatoes
Ground nuts/Simsim
What challenges do you face in improving yields per acreage?
Poor Changes Inade-

farming Lack of tools/ Lack of in climat- quate
meth- Equipment skills ic condi- land
ods tions
i) How much land is available for the household for farming?
≤ ≥ ≥ 1 acres
50x50 50x100
30x30 100x100
j) Are you able to carry out farming in small plots of land? What kind of farming can
you engage in?
Vegetable Poultry Bee Animal Don’t

growing farming keeping grazing know
k) For how long are you able to store food items before the next harvest?
< 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 5 months > 5 months
l) How accessible/affordable are the following food items in the local market?
Crops Accessible Affordable
38
June 2017
.1 Cassava (flour/Fresh)
.2 Maize flour
.3 Maize grains
.4 Beans
.5 Sorghum
.6 Fish
.7 Meat
.8 Vegetables
.9 Sweet potatoes
.10 Ground nuts/Simsim
.11 Fruits
.12 Milk
.13 Eggs
.14 Corn – Soy blends
m) How frequently do you visit the market?
Once a Thrice a Never vis-

Twice a week Daily
week week ited
n) How much do you spend on food items per market day (Average daily rate)?
< 1,000 1,000 – 3,000 3,000 - 5,000 >5,000 Not sure
o) What challenges do you meet in accessing food for consumption?
Distance to Lack of Limited Soil infer- High Low

the market jobs land tility prices supply
p) Are you a member of a farming group/association
Yes No
q) What activities is the farming group/association engaged in?
Group Group Training and Accessing

VSLA Others
farming marketing social support credit facilities
2) Self-employment and access to IGAs and business opportunities

a) Is any member of this HH engaged in economic activities as a source of income?
Yes No
39
b) What kind of business/IGAs are you engaged in?
Business/IGA engaged in /×

.1 Farming – crop production and selling
.2 Hair dressing
.3 Tailoring
.4 Motor vehicle/Motorcycle repairs
.5 Building/Construction
.6 Carpentry
.7 Hotel/Restaurant and catering services
.8 Transport (Bodaboda)
.9 Trading in general merchandise
.10 Selling Airtime/Phones accessories
.11 Mobile money
.12 Paramedical services
.13 Bee keeping
.14 Poultry farming
.15 Fish farming
.16 Hand Crafts and mat making
.17 Brick laying
.18 Tree planting and selling wood fuel
c) What is your average earning from your IGA and business opportunities?
100,000 to 150,000 to 200,000 to More than

< 50,000 50,000 to 100,000
150,000 200,000 250,000 250,000
d) What limits you from productively engaging in self-employment and business

opportunities?
Lack of Lack of Absence of Limited

Poverty Other
skills capital opportunities market
3) Wage earnings and employment facilities
a) Is any member of this HH engaged in any formal or wage employment?
Yes No
b) In which sector are you able to access formal or wage employment

opportunities?
Private sec- Public Religious Private sector
NGOs Other
tor - business sector institutions - Agriculture
c) What are the main sources of wage earnings and employment for youth and
women within the settlement and host communities?
40
June 2017
Formal em- Cash for

Casual Jobs Businesses Agriculture Other
ployment work
d) What is the average earning from wage earnings and employment opportunities?
50,000 to 100,000 to 150,000 to 200,000 to More than

< 50,000
100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 250,000
e) What challenges do women and youth face in accessing wage and formal employ-
ment opportunities?
Limited education/
Lack of information Limited opportunities Other
Skills
4) Access to cash grants and vouchers

a) Are you aware of cash grants and vouchers available within your zones/settlements
Yes No
b) What kind of activities are you able to engage in for cash grants/vouchers?
Cash for work activities /×

.1 Community toilets, sanitation and waste management
.2 Construction and maintenance of schools/health facilities
.3 Raising nurseries and planting trees
.4 Land opening
.5 Raising and repair of shelters for PSNs
.6 Construction of market stalls
.7 Maintenance of roads and bridges
.8 Others
c) How would this cash/voucher be accessed to you?
Mobile money services Cash Service vouchers
d) Is the cash/voucher able to provide for your basic needs?
Yes No
5) Access to financial services and support

a) Are you aware of any financial services/support structures within your
settlement?
Yes No
b) What kind of financial services are accessible to you
Mobile Micro finance Financial Access VSLAs Others

money support training to loans
41
c) How are you involved in accessing these financial services?
Group set up and Business sup- Savings and access to

development port and set up credit
6) Availability of training and learning opportunities
a) Are you aware of any agricultural/skills training and learning opportunities

available for youth, women and PWDs?
Yes No
b) Have you received any training to enhance your skills and capacity in IGA/Wage/
Formal employment?
Yes No
c) In what areas have you received trainings in?
Financial Entrepreneur- Leadership Peace and conflict Vocation-

literacy ship skills and Life skills management al Skills
……………………………………………………………………………………………
...
d) In what areas do you need training to support your skills enhancement
Financial Entrepreneur- Leadership Peace and conflict Vocation-

literacy ship skills and Life skills management al Skills
e) Have you or your group/association ever received any agricultural related training
and support over the last one year?
Yes No
f) If yes, who did you receive the support from?
NGO pro- Church based Local govern- Friends

Other
grammes institutions ment structures and family
g) In what areas have you received agricultural related trainings and support?
Training area /×

.9 Drip irrigation
.10 Land use management and land husbandry
.11 Soil Erosion control
.12 Soil Nutrient management
.13 Integrated Pest management
.14 Soil fertility improvement
42
June 2017
.15 Organic farming technologies

.16 Crop protection and management
.17 Integrated crop/livestock and trees farming
.18 Bee keeping
.19 Post-harvest handling
.20 Group based savings and marketing
.21 Others
P) Have these trainings helped you or your group or association to increase or im-
prove on yields per acreage?
Yes No
43
Key Informant Interviews Guide
Introduction:
This Key Informant Interview guide is intended for data collection during the Baseline Sur-
vey of the project “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods sup-
port to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host
communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.”
Target Respondents: The interviews will be administered to the Community leaders with-
in the refugee and host communities, Non-Governmental Organisations within the settle-
ments, Local government representatives in the host communities and the representatives
of the host communities within the refugee and host communities in zone 1, 2 and 5.

This interview is intended for the purpose of generating information for the baseline sur-
vey and livelihoods assessment of the “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions
and livelihoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee
settlement and host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.” Information obtained in this
survey will be strictly used for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes of the project.
No reference will be made to the identity of individuals engaged in this survey during and
after the survey. We kindly request your consent to proceed with this survey.
KII Focus areas Interview Questions

1) Possible activities for cash grants and vouchers.
2) Areas and opportunities for wage earning and employment for

the youth.
3) Areas of engagement in agriculture and livestock production.
4) Opportunities for accessing and utilizing financial services.
5) Areas of training needs and support for youth and women.
6) Protection issues within the refugee and host communities.
7) Environmental protection concerns
44
June 2017
Focus Group Discussions Guide
Introduction:
This Focus Group Discussions guide is intended for data collection during the Baseline Sur-
vey of the project “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and livelihoods sup-
port to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee settlement and host
communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.”
Target Respondents: The target group for the FGDs will be the youth and women groups
within the refugee and host communities in zone 1, 2 and 5.

This discussion is intended for the purpose of generating information for the baseline sur-
vey and livelihoods assessment of the “Increased self-reliance through cash interventions
and livelihoods support to conflict-affected South Sudanese refugees in Bidibidi refugee
settlement and host communities in Yumbe District in Uganda.” Information obtained in this
survey will be strictly used for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes of the project.
No reference will be made to the identity of individuals engaged in this survey during and
after the survey. We kindly request your consent to proceed with this survey.
FGD Focus areas Guiding questions for discus-

sions
1) Possible activities for cash grants and vouchers.
2) Areas and opportunities for IGAs among the youth

and women.
3) Areas of engagement in agriculture and livestock

production.
4) Opportunities for accessing and utilizing financial

services.
5) Areas of training needs and support for youth and

women.
6) Protection issues within the refugee and host com-

munities.
7) Environmental protection concerns and possible

activities.
45
Bibliography
.1 Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refu-
gees (UNHCR) (March, 2017).The South Sudan Emergency Response in Uganda
gees (UNHCR) (2015). Refugee and Host Population Empowerment strategic framework
gees (UNHCR) (Mary, 2017). Uganda refugees and asylum seekers
.4 United Nations Development Programme (2013), Livelihoods & economic Recovery in

Crisis situation.
.5 Project-Description_DCA_UNHCR 2017_16-03-2017_FINAL_revised 05-04-2017
.6 Reev Consult International (February 2017): Livelihoods Socio-Economic Assessment in

the refugee hosting Districts.
.7 World Food Programme (2008), Coping Strategy Index; Field Methods Manual, Second
Ed.
.8 World Food Programme – Vulnerability analysis and Mapping (WFP/VAM) - 2008, Food
Consumption Analysis.
(Footnotes)
1 Based on planning figures of UNHCR, January 2017
2 Echo project baseline and livelihood assessment report - 2017
3 Echo project baseline and livelihood assessment report - 2017

June 2017

Baseline Survey Livelihood Support June2017 DCA UNHCR Final Report ADA Kwesioner

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Baseline Survey Livelihood Support June2017 DCA UNHCR Final Report ADA Kwesioner

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Baseline Survey for Project Output and livelihoods Support Assessment

Baseline Survey for Project Output

“Increased self-reliance through cash interventions and

UMA Show Grounds, Lugogo

DCA Uganda Country Programme

1.1 Project focus...............................................................................................................1

2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................................3

2.1 Data collection methods............................................................................................3

3.0 SITUATIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS.......................................................5

3.1 The refugee settlement set up and structure...........................................................5

4.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE TARGET RESPONDENTS...........................6

4.1 The age and sex of respondents................................................................................6

4.2 Household Occupations............................................................................................7

5.0 THE BASELINE SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.................................11

5.1 Impact indicator 1:.....................................................................................................11

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................34

Annex I : Schedule of days/Logistical planning.....................................................................37

Figure 1: Age and sex profiles of respondents.................................................................................6

Figure 2: Household profile of the beneficiaries..............................................................................7

Figure 3: Comparative household occupations.................................................................................8

Figure 4: Comparison of education status.........................................................................................8

Figure 5: Comparison of HH vulnerability levels.............................................................................9

Figure 6: Comparison of ownership of assets...................................................................................10

Figure 7: Comparison of the HH source of income..........................................................................11

Figure 8: Comparison of cash for work projects to undertake......................................................16

Figure 9: Comparative household income..........................................................................................17

Figure 10: Comparison of challenges to improve HH income.........................................................18

Figure 11: Comparison of skills required..........................................................................................18

Figure 12: Comparison of reason for preference of Apiary............................................................20

Figure 13: Comparison of agricultural training and support received..........................................22

Figure 14: Comparison of average yield of basic food crops..........................................................23

Figure 17: Comparison of challenges in setting up IGAs................................................................28

Figure 18: Comparison of participation in community based financial services.............................30

Figure 19: Comparison of benefits of engaging in farming groups.................................................32

Table 1: Categories of target respondents........................................................................................4

Table 2: Population in targeted settlement zones............................................................................5

Table 3: Comparison of number of HH members by age...................................................................9

Table 4: Impact indicator 1.................................................................................................................12

Table 5: Output 1.1............................................................................................................................12

Table 6: Coping mechanisms adopted................................................................................................13

Table 7: Impact indicator 2.................................................................................................................14

Table 8: Output 2.1............................................................................................................................14

Table 9: Potential areas for CfW project.......................................................................................16

Table 11: Output 2.2..........................................................................................................................21

Table 12: Comparison of challenges affecting yield per acre........................................................24

Table 13: Output 2.3..........................................................................................................................27

Table 14: Comparison of interest in business management skills...................................................28

Table 15: Comparison of average earnings from businesses and IGA...........................................29

Table 16: Output 2.4..........................................................................................................................29

Table 17: Output 2.5..........................................................................................................................31

Table 18: Focus areas for farm group activities..............................................................................32

Table 19: Protection issues to address.............................................................................................33

CSI Coping Strategy Index

Demographic profile of respondents

Baseline Survey findings and analysis

a. Reduced use of harmful coping strategies by vulnerable HHs,

1 OPM/UNHCR – Uganda refugees and asylum seekers (May 2017).

1.3 The focus of the Baseline data

1. Output 1.1: Sectoral cash grants or vouchers provided

1.4 The focus for the livelihood assessment

2.0 Approach and Methodology

a) The participatory and non-participatory approaches sought to:

 Qualitative data provided non-statistical responses based on current experienc-

Zone Total targeted Description of respondents