Uganda's Refugee Hosting Challenges

Introduction

Over a period of time, Uganda has become a home to more than one million refugees (Goldstein, 2018). Uganda has allowed refugees to come in despite itself not being a developed nation when many developed nations are restricting intake of refugee populations from around the world. Having taken in a significant number of refugees, the Ugandan government has found itself hard pressed to ensure social protection and security to the refugees as well as to adjust the refugees in refugee camps. Space being of the essence to this exercise, the approach so far has been to adjust the majority of the refugees in rural settlements, which may not provide refugees with adequate opportunities for earning livelihood (Kalyango, 2017). Refugees may also be perceived to be a drain on national resources as the government needs to provide for the refugees which may stress the social and economic resources of the state (Hovil, 2007 ). The state is responsible for also providing employment to refugees, which may present its own set of social and economic challenges to the state (Jacobsen, 2006). There may be little employment to offer, or interests of the locals may conflict with those of the refugees in the context of employment; at the same time, unless employment is provided, there is no income generated for the refugees, and they become a burden to the state as the state now has to provide money to the refugees and also a host of services, which put an economic stress on the state. In general, protecting the interests of the refugees is an exercise that may constantly see the host state trying to balance the protection of the refugees with the interests of the state and its local populations. Protection of refugees has social and economic costs which ultimately put pressure the host country’s socio-economic infrastructure (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). This is the reason why states at times adopt prohibitive measures in order to deter influx of refugees in large numbers because it is not possible to take care of the large number of refugees. Due to the pressure exerted on the states providing refuge, some scholars also believe that such states must be sympathised with for their hosting of large populations of refugees (Bailey, 2004). The impact of refugee influx may be felt the most in urban host communities as these communities have to usually take in a larger number of refugees, which may pressurise the resources available to the community (Crisp, et al., 2009). Such pressures put refugees and local residents at opposing centres at times and creates to conflicts between them or at the very least create social and economic conditions that are not acceptable to the local residents. This happened with the influx of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which caused massive increases in food and fuel prices and also led to pressures on the housing market and public services (Crisp, et al., 2009). Another issue that may be involved here is that of refugees posing some risk for the security of the host state; at times there can be perceptions that refugees are posing risks to the security which may also add to the local tension around refugees in the host state (Bailey, 2004). This is a complex issue because while refugees are themselves impacted by the security risks that have made them refugees in the first place, they may also be perceived to increase security risks for the host state (Crisp, et al., 2009; Hovil, 2007 ). Due to such perceived security risks, refugees are sometimes contained at specific camps and restricted in their movement (Crisp, et al., 2009). An example of perceived security threats from refugees and its impact on the refugee settlement can be seen in Egypt, where prior to 1995, refugees been given significant freedom with regard to right to education, and employment but severely curtailed these rights after the assassination attempt on the president by Sudanese extremists (Grabska, 2006).

Consequently, it has so happened that a significant number of refugees internally migrate to the cities in Uganda looking for livelihood and work opportunities (Kalyango, 2017). Even if refugees manage to find work in the rural areas, they are attracted to move to the cities because of the higher wages that they receive in the cities and more opportunities for work (Kalyango, 2017). Compared to the rural environment, urban environments provide more options and opportunities, which is one the reasons why refugees move to the cities (Kalyango, 2017). The purpose of this research is to investigate the extent to which the Ugandan government has managed to help urban refugees in Uganda seek livelihood and adequate social protection. The principal areas that this research has considered at some depth include the connection between rural and urban refugees, securing of livelihood of urban refugees, social mobility within settlements, and the role of the Ugandan government and their strategy for dealing with the influx of refugees. Although there is now a significant body of literature on different aspects of lives of refugees in Uganda; there is still a gap in the literature on the second mobility issue of refugees. Literature on the challenges and opportunities faced by urban refuges and the inefficiencies of the settlement system which settlements violate the rights and privileges of both refugees and their hosts is useful for providing an insight into the loves of refugees in Uganda. This dissertation contributes to that growing body of literature by providing insight into nuances on how the reception of refugees has been in Uganda, as well as exploring the issue of second mobility within the Ugandan refugee displacement.

Research methodology

This research has been conducted with qualitative research methodology. A qualitative research methodology allows the researcher some flexibility in the research design and it is appropriate for research studies which are multi-layered in terms of data and information, and where qualitative research methodology will allow the researcher to explore the different perspectives or different layers of data to answer the research questions (Collins, 2010). Qualitative methodology can be used in conjunction with an interpretivist research philosophy, which allows the researcher to interpret the data further; it can also be used in conjunction with positivist research philosophy where the researcher accepts the data as it is found (Saunders, et al., 2012). In this research qualitative research is used with positivist research philosophy. The research design includes data collection from literature review and questionnaires that were put to two participants (Creswell, 2013). There is no inclusion of quantitative data in this research, rather the data remains qualitative in nature. The literature review helped the researcher gain insight into the current literature on refugees and Ugandan regime on refugee rights. The primary data gave insight into the participants’ opinions and experiences with relation to the refugee regime in Uganda. This research was conducted by collecting secondary data from books and journals, empirical primary studies published in books and peer reviewed journals, and government reports. The overarching research question that this research sought to answer was whether the Ugandan government supports refugees that come to Uganda in their right to livelihood and social rights, especially in the context of refugees who choose second mobility. This section on introduction is followed by a section on literature review. The other substantive sections of this dissertation are related to policies and practices being implemented in Uganda to enhance livelihood opportunities and social protection and second mobility and the Ugandan government role in managing refugees within the country. These sections are followed by sections on discussion and conclusion.

Literature Review

Uganda is one of the topmost hosts for refugees as it takes in more refugees than most countries in the world. Literature also indicates that by and large Uganda has a positive track record in providing refuge and rights to the refugees, although there are some negatives also in how Uganda approaches refugee protection. With regard to this track record, the following observation indicates the way in which Uganda in general has approached refugee protection:

“In comparison to other countries, Uganda’s progressive refugee policies and willingness to take in and host refugees has been standing out as an impressive example in the global humanitarian context for decades. The Ugandan model has made large strides in respecting refugee rights by letting people cross borders, granting access to safe areas, permitting refugees to move around freely, work and cultivate land. Such rights are rarely granted in other countries of first asylum, where refugees are typically seen as competition for jobs and scant resources…. However, the accuracy of Uganda being depicted as a refugee paradise have also been questioned. The main critique regards Uganda focusing on settlements instead of integrating the refugees into host communities, as well as seeing repatriation as the only durable solution and neglecting the voices of both refugee and host community” (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019, p. 8).

As noted in the observation above, while Ugandan model deserves some praise for its giving of certain rights to the refugees, such as the rights to land cultivation, there are some areas of concern as well. Apart from the concerns that are mentioned in the observation above, there are other concerns that are relevant to understanding the approach of the country. The concern that this dissertation focuses on is related to the migration of refugees from the rural settlements to the urban areas. Refugees relocating to urban centres instead of staying out at rural settlements is a phenomenon that is commonly witnessed not just in Uganda, but in other countries with refugee populations as well (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). There are a variety of reasons why refugees move from rural settlements to urban settlements, some of which are explained by Kobia and Cranfield (2009). One of the reasons may be that refugees may have come from urban centres in their countries of origin and may have no familiarity with rural living and agriculture (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Such refugees may not have the skills and the experience to work and live in the rural environments, and when faced with the prospect of living in a rural settlement, they may be attracted to live in urban settlements (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Literature indicates that there has been a gradual shift out of farming as a principle method of livelihood for refugees coming into Uganda (FAO, 2017). Not only are refugees shifting away from agriculture for work opportunities, there is a shrinking of agricultural space as well because the expansion of refugees as well as the local population, has left lesser and lesser land accessible to refugees. Therefore, there are relevant reasons for why refugees move out of rural settlements. Refugee families cannot support themselves through farming anymore. Another reason for refugees to move to urban centres may be that they may be in requirement of money and may want to send money back home from time to time. In order to make more money, refugees may be attracted to the opportunities of work afforded in the urban centres (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Related to this reason, it has been said that there is a natural connection between refugee camps and urban centres as refugees may choose to leave camps for the purpose of work opportunities for sending remittances to family members (Macchiavello, 2004). Refugee camps are often places that have scarcity of money and opportunities to earn money and it may be natural for people living in these camps, to relocate to urban centres where both jobs and money are available (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). A third reason why refugees may choose to relocate to urban centres is not economical but social in nature. Refugees often find lives in camps to be full of boredom as there is not much to do; in this situation, refugees may face feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, even hardships in the camps (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Moving away from the camps to the urban centres may be a way for the refugees to escape this life of boredom, hopelessness and hardship. Urban centres also offer better forms of communication with family members who may be in the country of origin or elsewhere because internet facilities and communication facilities may be more accessible in urban centres (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). For this reason as well, refugees in rural camps may prefer to move to urban centres as this would allow them better opportunities to communicate with their family members.

For refugees with families, there may be specific reasons why they choose to relocate to urban centres. Urban centres offer better services in the field of education and health as compared to the camps in rural areas, where the provisioning in these respects may be scanty (Macchiavello, 2004). Urban centres may have a choice of schools for refugee children, better hospitals, and options for recreational and other activities, which refugee families may find to be attractive and useful (Macchiavello, 2004). In such cases, the choice to move to urban centres may be solely guided by personal factors of the refugees’ lives. From the brief discussion on the different reasons why refugees may choose to relocate to urban centres, one may note that the overarching reason or the commonality between all these reasons is that life in urban centres is thought to be better in some ways, or that the refugees make a conscious decision to shift to the urban centres because they believe that in some ways they would be better off living in urban centres rather than staying in rural camps. This is not to say that life in urban centres is easier for refugees, because this shift to urban centres comes with its own set of challenges. Refugees will often find it hard to get assistance outside of the camps in the same way as the office of the UNHCR provides them within the camps; on the other hand, in the urban centres refugees will have to navigate certain aspects of urban life, such as, opening bank accounts, on their own as no such assistance may be available to them (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Furthermore, in the absence of laws protecting the refugees’ working conditions, employers in urban centres may be exploiting the refugees, paying them lesser than the minimum wage, making them work in conditions that are not acceptable otherwise, and in general providing conditions of work that are oppressive or exploitative. In the absence of laws or proper enforcement of laws, refugees may not even have the option to report to the authorities. In Uganda, the 2006 Ugandan Refugee Law provides a number of rights to ensure that refugees receive social protection. Refugees can settle in any part, although if they choose to live outside of camps they lose their relocation assistance. This means that while their movement and residence is not restricted to the camps, they do have to compromise of their security in urban areas because they cannot get assistance from the authorities if they are living outside the camps. Despite these challenges, it has been revealed in research that even settlements are not easy to navigate and live in for refugees and therefore, there are a significant number of refugees who have chosen to leave the settlements and instead move to urban areas, especially in Kampala, where they find more opportunities to work and make money; at the same time, there is little research or statistics on the actual number of self-settled refugees in Uganda (Hovil, 2007 ). Those who have chosen to live outside of the settlements however, do not have a legal status and that impacts the level of support that they can get (Hovil, 2007 pp. 600-602).

International law protects the rights of refugees to freedom of movement within the country of refuge. This right is protected by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is expected that the states that are parties to these conventions will be in accordance with the international law, however, it is not necessary that all states will implement the provisions of the international law. States may recognise people as refugees as per the provisions of the international law and may still not provide or protect all the rights that refugees have under the international law. Protection of the rights of refugees is important because they are vulnerable in different ways. Refugees are vulnerable to tensions with local communities when they become more self-reliant as the local population may resent their success, especially if there is an employment conflict between refugees and local populations (Campbell, 2006). Refugees can face xenophobia and discrimination due to these reasons as well (Campbell, 2006). Refugees are also vulnerable to exploitation form landlords who may cajole them into paying higher rent. Due to these reasons, refugees may feel more insecure in the urban spaces although for economic or personal reasons they may choose to live in urban spaces (Grabska, 2006). Urban spaces can therefore be complex areas for refugees to navigate as they are offered lesser protection by the UNHCR and face more challenges in urban spaces. An insightful statement on how urban refugees are positioned in the larger scheme of things is provided by Dryden-Peterson (2006) below:

“Urban refugees are predominantly self- settled, living outside of formal assistance structures and often unable to access their rights of protection through either the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or through host governments. Their living conditions are overcrowded and squalid; and while usually they are not poorer or better off than the citizens in whose midst they live, they persist without legal status, without support networks, and often as victims of xenophobia. Due to their 'invisibility' in rapidly urbanizing spaces where their legal status is often undetermined, refugees in urban areas of the global South are a particularly understudied population” (p. 381- 82).

As noted in the statement above, urban refugees are vulnerable due to a variety of reasons; they are not within but are outside the formal protection of UNHCR; their living conditions that are not desirable; they do not have any legal status; and they are often victims of xenophobia. Due to these reasons, there is a need to protect the rights and interests of the refugees living in urban environments. This protection has to by and large come from the national governments of the host states because the UNHCR protection is applicable only in settlement camps. Outside the settlements camps, there are no support networks for the refugees. This puts a greater responsibility on the host governments to consider and respond to the social and economic problems that are faced by refugees in urban environments. International law, particularly, the UNHCR has recognised the peculiar and difficult challenges that are faced by refugees in urban environments (UNHCR , 1995; UNHCR , 1997; UNHCR, 2003). The UNHCR has been consistently noting the problems and challenges with conditions of life for urban refugees and proposing ways in which these conditions can be bettered with the help of the host governments. Since 1995, the UNHCR has been involved in this process; it was in that year that the UNHCR published a discussion paper outlining principal issues of concern regarding work with refugees in urban areas (UNHCR , 1995). Following this discussion paper, the UNHCR adopted a new policy related to urban refugees in 1997 (UNHCR , 1997). The concerns noted in the discussion paper of 1995 and the subsequent policy statements are briefly discussed here to provide an overview of the UNHCR concerns and policies with respect to the urban refugees. One of the chief concerns that the 1995 UNHCR discussion paper stated related to the lack of mandate to assist refugees outside of the settlement camps, which gave rise to the question “as to how broadly the organization should interpret its mandate to protect” (UNHCR , 1995, p. 2). This is a dilemma for the UNHCR because it is operating in the host state and cannot be seen to be going outside its scope of operations in that state. This led to the UNHCR declaring in the 1997 policy that UNHCR's assistance should be reduced to a minimum in the urban areas so that refugees are encouraged to promote self-reliance and also avoid dependency on the UNHCR and the host government to provide resources (UNHCR , 1997). The 1997 UNHCR policy also noted that urban refugees can become problems for host states and therefore their settlement in urban areas should be discouraged (UNHCR , 1997, p. 1). At the same time, the policy stated that the obligations of the UNHCR to provide international protection to refugees is not affected either “by the location of the refugees or the nature of the movement to that location” (UNHCR , 1997, p. 2). This is admittedly a confusing statement in that the 1997 policy document discourages urban settlement of refugees, and conceptualises them as ‘problems’ and also seeks to extend the protection of UNHCR to urban refugees at the same time. Due to this, the 1997 policy was criticised by non-governmental organization partners even while the policy was being drafted as acknowledged in the policy document itself (UNHCR , 1997, p. 3). The UNHCR avoided creating too much of a controversy over the policy by explaining in the cover letter to the policy itself that the policy statement is a work in progress and may be revised later once more feedback is received related to it (UNHCR , 1997, p. 3).

The 1997 policy was reviewed by the UNHCR's Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This led to the compilation of another draft document entitled the 'Protection, Solutions and Assistance for Refugees in Urban Areas: Guiding Principles and good Practice', which called for the withdrawal of the 1997 UNHCR policy and replacing it with a version of these guiding principles and good practice (EPAU, 2003). The guiding principles and good practice presented are the responses to the criticism levelled at the 1997 policy, and these particularly emphasise on 'the need for a protection focus' and outline the particular protection threats encountered by urban refugees, including the issues related to police detentions, forced prostitution of refugee girls and women and other such issues (EPAU, 2003). There are other recommendations that are made by the Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit. One of these was to evolve creative approaches for assisting urban refugees while recognising the vulnerabilities of the refugees in the urban areas (EPAU, 2003). It was also suggested that “a level of engagement which goes some way beyond providing the minimum level of support for the shortest possible time” (EPAU, 2003, p. 8). At the same time, it was suggested that there should be a promotion of self-reliance so that durable solutions can be evolved for urban refugees (EPAU, 2003). Thus, self-reliance programmes for urban refugees are suggested, as are (advocacy for national legal frameworks that allow urban refugees to exercise civil and socio-economic rights, and support for cultural, social, recreational rights of the refugees (EPAU, 2003).

Policies and practices being implemented in Uganda to enhance livelihood opportunities and social protection

Research studies that are based on the practices of the Ugandan government with regard to refugees, and the experiences of the refugees with these practices reveal the ways in which these practices are implemented and experienced by the refugees. It may be noted that framework protection and assistance to refugees is provided in the international context by the UNHCR as well, but policies and practices adopted by host governments are considered to be critical for achieving the level of protection that is envisaged by the UNHCR in the international framework (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). In general, host governments do consider displaced people living in camps or settlements as prima facie refugees who are to be provided assistance; but no such recognition may be provided to those refugees who are displaced in urban areas and therefore, cannot be provided assistance (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Uganda does have legislation which provides a framework for legal protection of refugees. Uganda has seen a major influx of refugees from different strife stricken parts of Africa and has developed progressive refugee policies over a period of time. These policies have been shaped through a broad strategy of engagement with international community and a desire to the reputation of the nation as a country that is open to refugees and humanitarian work (Hovil, 2018). Part of the engagement with the international community is also driven by the access to external development and humanitarian aid that has come into Uganda due to its refugee policies (Hovil, 2018). In general, there is a perception about Uganda that it has developed progressive refugee policies over a period of time (Hovil, 2018). A brief discussion of the policy and law development in Uganda is considered below in order to provide some insight into how the law in Uganda has developed over a period of time. Uganda has been receiving refugees into its territory since the 1950s when refugees began to come into Uganda from Sudan. In order to respond to the refugee crisis in Uganda, the 1955 Control of Refugees from the Sudan Ordinance was enacted (Hovil, 2018). After this Ordinance, when Uganda finally formalised its independence, the Control of Alien Refugees Act (CARA) was enacted in 1960. This legislation was based on a restrictive approach of control and not protection as per which authorities were given wide discretionary power, to deal with refugees. Under this policy, the Rwandan refugees that entered Uganda in early 1960s, were increasingly confined to designated camps so as to ensure that any political intentions that the refugees may have were neutralised (Hovil, 2018). Control of Alien Refugees Act (CARA) 1964 is a legislation that was enacted in Uganda in the early 1960s as a response to the growing influx of refugees; it was considered that the CARA is inconsistent with international standards on protection of refugee rights (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). One of the criticisms of the legislation was that it was not strictly applied (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). On the other hand, critics also note that the Act has led to some realisation of civil and socio-economic rights of the refugees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Some of the important features of this law is that it regulates delivery of assistance, which for the most part is the aid provided to the refugees living in a designated settlements, that are invariably rural and isolated locations (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Therefore, the law does not actually provide protections in that regard to self-settled urban refugees and the principal beneficiaries under the law remain refugees in designated settlements.

Uganda did not ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol until 1976. In 1987, Uganda also ratified the OAU Refugee Convention of 1969 as well. There were some contradictions between Control of Alien Refugees Act (CARA) 1964 and the international conventions, such as, tight restrictions on refugees’ freedom of movement under the Ugandan law was contrary to the international law obligations of Uganda obligations under the conventions. It had ratified in 1976 and 1987. Some shift in the Ugandan policy and practice with respect to refugees came about in 1999, when along with the UNHCR, the government started implementing a Self-Reliance Strategy (SRS) for refugees (Hovil, 2018). SRS has been promoted by UNHCR since the early 1980s, under the refugee aid and development approach, that seeks to make refugees self-reliant and not burden on the host state. The SRS seeks to transform refugees into agents of development and not be mere beneficiaries or burden on the resources of the host state (Hovil, 2018). During this period, the Ugandan government had also implemented the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, which seeks to eradicate mass poverty by 2017, and the SRS was seen as a strategy that could complement the domestic plan of the Ugandan government (Hovil, 2018). SRS has been considered to be a method by which host states can integrate services provided to refugees and existing public service structures in a way that makes refugee settlements into self-reliant areas. The government can allocate land to refugees, provide them access to government health and education services by integrating domestic services with UNHCR services (Hovil, 2018). The premise is that poor and developing host states can provide services to the refugees that they are supporting in their nations by integrating their own public services with the services or the programmes of the UNHCR (Hovil, 2018). As part of implementation of SRS in Uganda, the government took some steps that are part of the SRS strategy. The refugees were allotted small plots of land and also food rations. The rations were not to be provided on a permanent basis as the idea was to take refugees towards self-reliance by allotting them plots of land on which they could grow food, therefore the idea behind rations was to provide them rations on an annual decreasing basis and to make refugees “self-reliant” within four years, after which food rations could be stopped because refugees should no longer need to receive aid (Hovil, 2018). By the 2000s, problems in the SRS policy began showing, especially as there was no link between the self-reliance objective and freedom of movement, such as through access to markets, which made it impossible for people living inside settlements to actually become self-reliant. The situation became such that under SRS international community decreased aid over time under the perception that refugees were becoming more self-reliant, but the lack of freedom of movement and access to markets meant that refugees were not able to achieve self-reliance but were left much poorer due to the lack of aid (Hovil, 2018). The observations noted below provide an insight into the problems associated with SRS in Uganda in the early 2000s:

“material accessibility is severely limited for most of the refugees we spoke with. There is limited and insecure access to money for basic needs; food is scarce, uncertain, and not usually well balanced. Health care is available, although the follow-up prescription drugs are often unavailable or unaffordable. Moreover, the land and climatic conditions for the refugees in the settlements are inadequate to produce crops sufficient to meet the families’ needs. Education at the primary level seems satisfactory and well attended, but for refugee children to be able to advance to secondary level, substantial creativity and sacrifice on the part of individuals or families was required” (Hovil & Werker, 2001).

The above observations were made after taking questionnaires with refugees living in the settlements and these observations are indicative of how refugees faced a number of challenges and problems in becoming self-reliant in the settlements even after land was allotted to them. This is also an indication of how the laws and policies were not suited to the achievement of the protection of the social and livelihood rights of the refugees in Uganda’s settlements. In other words, there was a need to address the gaps in the law and policy of the time, which eventually happened in 2006 after a new law was enacted to address refugee issues. The Refugees Act 2006 replaced the archaic Control of Alien Refugees Act (CARA) 1964. The new law has introduced a number of changes in the policy and practice related to refugees in Uganda. Moreover, the Refugees Act 2006 is complemented by the Refugee Regulations of 2010. Under the Refugees Act 2006, the definition of refugee is aligned to the international law definitions in 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. After the enactment of this law, there is also an establishment of new administrative structures for addressing refugee issues and services, and there is a clarification of the refugee status determination procedures (Hovil, 2018). It has been said that apart from how the legislation may work on the ground, “on paper the new legislation was more progressive and rights-respecting than the outdated CARA” (Hovil, 2018, p. 6). Importantly, the new policy provides a significant departure from the earlier focus on restricting refugee movements to designated settlements and there is more flexibility on freedom of movement and the right to work (Hovil, 2018). In the context of the present research, this is an important development in the law and policy because now refugees can undertake second migrations to the urban spaces and their movement is not restricted to the rural settlements of Uganda. However, the question is whether policy and practice supports the refugees in the protection of the social and livelihood rights in the more challenging environments of the urban spaces.

It may be noted that Uganda does not have as big refugee populations to take care of as it did earlier because there has been much repatriation of refugees to Sudan and Rwanda, thereby decreasing the burden on the state with respect to refugee populations and there is also optimism related to the increased political stability in other African nations like Burundi, to which a significant proportion of refugee population belongs (Hovil, 2018). In 2009, the refugee population in Uganda had already come down to 140,000 and it has been steadily declining since that time (Hovil, 2018). This may mean that Uganda may have more resources to take care of the refugees that remain in its territory and also that the UNHCR has more funds to provide services and protection to such refugees that remain; however, the opposite seems to have been true as noted by Hovil (2018) that “refugee policy and its implementation were low down on national and international agendas and scarce attention was paid to the significant number of people for whom return was not viable at that point” (p. 7). Therefore, despite the decreasing population of refugees in Uganda, there may still be challenges for the refugees in terms of their social and livelihood rights. In the next parts of this section, the dissertation will discuss the nature of challenges that are faced by the refugees and the policy and practices adopted by the government to meet these challenges. The challenges taken up for discussion relate only to social and livelihood issues and not to any other challenges. Thus, the discussion is limited to the context of social and livelihood challenges only. One of the areas that refugees in Uganda have faced a consistent challenge, even in Kampala and other cities, is that of access to education. Access to education for their children remains one of the most critical issues with respect to the social and livelihood rights of the refugees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Changes brought to education policy in Uganda have led to increase in number of children studying in schools but have also made education expensive, which becomes prohibitive cost for the refugees to put their children in school. Ugandan government introduced Universal Primary Education in January 1997, which exempts four children per family from paying primary school fees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This led to the increase in the number of Ugandan children enrolled in primary school. These are however not applicable to Kampala, where urban schools charge high school fees, making access to the national education system in Kampala out of reach for refugees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Research has indicated that a significant proportion of refugee children do not have access to schools in Kampala due to the high fees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Therefore, this is indicative of the problems and issues that refugees face with respect to the schooling of their children in Kampala.

One study provided an in-depth investigation into the Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre, which is a community-based organization in Uganda that is initiated by refugees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This study explored the livelihood strategies that are employed by urban refugees, especially in the education sphere (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This study explored issues of self-reliance amongst the refugee community and also explored the ways in which strategies adopted by refugee communities led to the promotion of self-reliance and individual and community development for the refugees (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre is an initiative that demonstrates how refugees instead of being burdens on the state and its resources, can actually be agents of social change for their own communities as well as the local communities that have hosted them (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). The issue of refugees being a burden on local communities is an important one because much of the support that the refugees get in their local communities depends on how far the refugees do not feel like a burden for the local communities. The government plays an important role in this because the local communities may feel that they are being treated unfairly by their own governments for accommodating the refugees (Hovil, 2018; Campbell, 2006). The government also plays a role in this area by ensuring that proper procedures are being followed in vetting refugees. Data from the questionnaires of the two participants indicates that there are gaps in the government process of vetting; Participant 1 says that it (vetting) “is very very poor, besides, they are poorly taking through legal obligations and they end up being nuisance to the indigenous community.” This response is very insightful about the relations between the local communities and the refugees. Participant 1 says that because the vetting process of the government is very poor, the refugees can sometimes become a nuisance for the local communities. This perception is not borne out by the response of Participant 2 who says:

“To begin with, when the refugees arrive in Uganda, they have to report for registration, and there after await Refugee status determination questionnaire, which the Refugee Eligibility Committee (REC) holds. After then each family is allocated a piece of land and basic needs like food and other items, plus ration cards that will entitle them to monthly food rations. In case of protection related issues, these are reported to the UNHCR staff in the settlement.”

Participant 2 does not say that the vetting process is poor, rather the impression given is that the refugees report for registration and wait for their status to be determined by the REC after which they get allocated land and food and ration cards. However, it may be that the discrepancy between the accounts of Participants 1 and 2 is due to the different experiences that they have found in the system. It may be inferred from these responses that those refugees who get involved in the registration process go through a vetting system after which they receive certain benefits via the UNCHR. It can also be inferred that there are refugees who do not go through this vetting process. These refugees may find themselves within local communities that are not welcoming to them. Finally, it may be said that many of the urban refugees fall into the second category because most of the urban refugees are not in the registration system and may not have been vetted at all by the government. These may be refugees who have come into Uganda and chosen not to be a part of the registration or to live in refugee camps, or these may be refugees who have left their camps without permission of their camp in charge. The underlying point that is significant here is that there are instances of conflicts between the interests of the refugees and the local communities. In the light of these conflicts, the experiences of urban refugees like the ones in the Kampala Urban Refugee Children’s Education Centre can be understood. The experience of the Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre can be linked to the literature (particularly in the UNHCR) on self-reliance and development of strategies that help refugees to become independent (UNHCR , 1997; EPAU, 2003). In the literature developed by the UNHCR in 1995 (UNHCR , 1995), and 1997 (UNHCR , 1997), as well as the review of this literature (EPAU, 2003), it is seen that emphasis is laid on the need to make refugees self-reliant so that they do not pose burdens on the host states. The Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre provides an example of actual refugee initiatives that are aimed at making refugees more self-reliant and less dependent on the state assistance. However, this case also indicates the problems and challenges that refugee communities face in taking up such initiatives. Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre faced a number of problems and challenges in trying to set up the centre for refugee children. These challenges are discussed briefly to provide an insight into the lack of support from the authorities and the state and the difficulties faced by such initiatives. The Kampala Urban Refugee Children's Education Centre first became operational in 2000. In 2001, the authorities threatened to close the school because as per the law a gathering of 30 children without official permission is prohibited (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This led to the centre starting the process for obtaining a licence for the school, which was a problem because the centre did not have an adequate school building, without which a school cannot obtain a licence (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). The Kampala City Council provided its building initially and this allowed the centre to get a licence. The centre however has had to shift to different premises as the school cannot afford to buy or lease a building since it provides free education to refugee children and does not have fee funds for operations (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). The school faced further problems when the Church from where they were operating closed them down as parishioners were suspicious of the activities of the foreigners (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). This indicates the problems of xenophobia that refugees may face in urban environments. The school ultimately because there was little support and much to challenge them in the context of legal and administrative difficulties (Dryden-Peterson, 2006).

Another challenge that is faced by refugees is that of livelihood opportunities. In order to meet this challenge, different policies and practices may have been adopted by the government, one of which as discussed earlier was the SRS. Part of the model adopted in this context was concerned with the allocation of land to the refugees within settlements. In order to meet this requirement, the government acquired land from villagers and this process itself brought local and refugee interests into a conflict which also needs to be discussed here. It has been noted that in order to meet the international and local pressure to address refugee rights and interests, sometimes there is a deliberate or inevitable ignorance of voices of host communities and local authorities (Hovil, 2018). An example is seen in the acquisition of land for refugee settlements, which “is often taken for granted and presented as a straightforward process in which local communities simply give up their lands out of solidarity with refugees and ostensibly with the hope that new settlements will enhance development and stimulate economic growth” but in reality presents a number of problems, not the least of which is related to the feelings of the locals themselves who may not be happy about the acquisition and whose grievances may not be addressed by the government in a way that leads to more clarity for them (Hovil, 2018, p. 14). It has been pointed out that the gaps in the process of acquisition has left many local populations sceptical of the intentions of the government and fearful of whether they would get their land back or not (Hovil, 2018). Moreover, the transparency of the process is also suspect (Hovil, 2018). With respect to this, the conflict between the local communities and the refugees’ interests is explained in terms of the bargaining power of the local communities as well as follows:

“What should also be acknowledged is that in the process of policy-making, the bargaining power of host communities, as that of the refugees themselves, is low: while international actors have the funds and the government has the capacity to sanction the policy that international actors want to see implemented, host communities and refugees have neither economic resources nor sufficient political leverage to influence the policies that are meant to benefit them” (Hovil, 2018, p. 14).

Therefore, there are genuine concerns on both sides which may have an impact on how refugees are treated and how their rights are protected. The interests of the local communities also play a part in this equation as these interests are also relevant to whether and to what extent services and resources are to be made available to the refugees. With the freeing of the limitations on the refugees since the passage of the Refugees Act 2006, refugees can move to urban locations unlike in the past when refugees lived inside settlements and they had to seek permission from the Camp Commandant, who was the administrative head of the settlement before they could move out of the camps (Hovil, 2018). Despite this change in policy, the important question still remains as to whether the policy and practice of the Ugandan government supports the refugees in the urban areas especially in context of the livelihood rights of the refugees. The discussion so far has clarified that refugees have several challenges in the urban environments, with regard to education, livelihood and subsistence. In dealing with these challenges, refugees need support, which may be provided by the international donors or through the services offered by the government. Refugees living in urban areas like Kampala may find support in donors, who may provide funds for the refugees’ social and economic needs (Omata, 2012). However, research also shows that long term displacement of refugees leads to donors losing interest and this may also impact the UNHCR funding for long-term refugees (Omata, 2012). Donor funding being an important aspect of economic assistance for refugee programmes there are a number of instances when the programmes are shelved due to lack of adequate funding (Omata, 2012). For the urban refugees, this means that there is even lesser support because the programmes that can be run for refugees are run for the refugees living in the settlement camps. This leaves urban refugees in a situation where they have minimum support from the host state or the UNHCR. Other than that, refugees are encouraged to be self-reliant, but this also comes with its own set of challenges in the employment market in the urban centres of Uganda, as is discussed below. Many of the self-settled refugees in urban areas than try to find work in the formal or informal sector in Kampala, in order to financially support themselves (Omata, 2012). One research that was conducted in order to understand the livelihood strategies of self-settled refugees in Kampala, and the level of their engagement with local markets and business communities found that there are a number of issues that come in the way of getting meaningful employment in the formal and even informal business sectors of Kampala, due to which there is a need for the development of innovative schemes of employment for the self-settled refugees in the urban centres of Uganda (Omata, 2012). This study employed 86 questionnaires with refugees in Kampala and based on the data collected from these questionnaires, the researcher concluded that the majority of the refugees were self-employed and only a small number of refugees were employed in the formal sector as teachers, language instructors or car mechanics (Omata, 2012). Interestingly, the researcher also found that refugees are also divided into three groups based on their socio-economic profile and these are: surviving, managing, and thriving. The majority of the refugees fall in the first group, which is that they are just surviving while being involved in informal subsistence, like casual labour jobs and only a small portion of refugees are thriving, that is, they are either entrepreneurs, or they are owners of registered businesses (Omata, 2012).

Yet another social problem that refugees face in Uganda is related to health services (Komakech, et al., 2019).

Second mobility and the Ugandan government role in managing refugees within the country

It has been suggested that unlike what is portrayed in literature, the settlement of long term refugees in Uganda is not unproblematic and that there are areas that need to be addressed in this context (Kaiser, 2006). In this section, the dissertation will discuss how the Ugandan government has responded to the different aspects of refugee management in the country, with a focus on settlements and protection of social and livelihood rights. Secondary and primary data informs this section of the dissertation. Primary data is collected from questionnaires with two participants, both of whom are involved in work related to refugees in Uganda. In order to keep their personal data from publication, the participants will be referred to as Participants 1 and 2 throughout this section. Refugees coming into Uganda are usually fleeing from conditions of violence, human rights violations and economic and social problems in their own countries. Questionnaire data has helped to locate the causes for migration of refugees into Uganda, which is useful in understanding their background and the history of their migration. When asked as to the reasons why refugees have come into Uganda, Participant 1 noted the reasons as “fleeing from wars in their original countries. In addition, some flee due to violation of human rights.” Participant 2 noted that refugees come into Uganda as they are fleeing “politic rifts between armed forces; search for jobs and political asylum; inter-tribal conflicts; and famine and diseases due to poor health facilities. Clearly, the predominant reasons for the migration of the refugees into Uganda are conditions of war, and conflicts. Refugees who are fleeing for their lives when they come into Uganda are likely to enter Uganda in conditions of economic distress as well because of their sudden flight from their own countries. Moreover, there are refugees who are also fleeing famine or are looking for jobs and political asylum. Most of these refugees make hard journeys into Uganda from their home countries. Questions raised to the participants on how refugees got into Uganda led to interesting insights. Participant 1 said that most of the refugees come to Uganda by trekking in large numbers. Most of these refugees are poor people from across the border. Some refugees manage to come into Uganda by public and or private vehicles and for some refugees there are inter-government arrangements for transportation. Participant 2 said that most refugees “get into Uganda through road transport especially use of bus while others enter using boats through Lake Albert.” Therefore, there are refugees who come into Uganda using boats as well. The conditions in which refugees come into Uganda as expressed by the participants in this research have shown than refugees are coming into Uganda under stressful conditions. Most of the refugees are poor, escaping conditions of violence and human rights violations, or famine. It can be surmised that most of these refugees need time to adapt into the new situation of their lives in a new country. Participant 1 noted that if land and food are available for the refugees, they adapt faster and usually within a year. This may be linked to the livelihood requirements of the refugees and the fact that if livelihood is provided to them, then they can adapt faster to the new country. Participant 2 points at something similar, only more detail is provided:

It is normally not easy to quickly adapt to the new environment, as there are a number of challenges faced but Uganda being a friendly and welcoming host country, many refugees find themselves coping in for example engaging in different income activities and children engaging in Education (Participant 2).

Participant 2 seems to be elaborating on the point made by Participant 1 that there is a link between livelihood and adapting within a new environment. Two challenges that are specifically noted in this statement by Participant 2 are related to income and education for children. Later in this section, this dissertation considers how far the government of Uganda supports the refugees in this area and how far the refugees are trying to self-sustain themselves in their livelihood needs. At this point it may also be noted that there may be a thinking that refugees are accommodated in Uganda by the government for the purpose of their “safety and security; shelter and health” (Participant 1). Therefore, there may be a conscious effort on the part of the government and the UNHCR that they want to provide these things to the refugees who come to Uganda. Participant 2 also noted that the most important reason for accommodating refugees in Uganda is “to save life, and give the victims a second chance to live. It is also important because it helps to offer the children a bright future since they are able to attend school amidst the destruction they have encountered.” Therefore, in the wider consciousness in the society as to why refugees are being accommodated in Uganda, an important reason is to provide them with a better life as compared to what they have left behind. Seen from this perspective, it may seem a little unfair if refugees are not allowed to move outside the camps or opt for second mobility to move from rural to urban areas for achieving better access to livelihood rights. On a question as to how far the government provides assistance to refugees to achieve livelihood rights, Participant 1 said:

“Office of Prime minister provides land to every family, on this land they can have shelter and carry out farming. Organisations empower the victims into self-employment for example tailoring skills, brick laying and many more.”

This indicates that efforts are made by the government to provide shelter and land for farming to the refugees. This much was indicated in literature as well, which showed that Ugandan government does provide land and food to the refugees when they come into Uganda in an effort to make them self-sufficient; however, this is done in rural areas only and within rural refugee camps (Hovil, 2007 ). Participant 2 also noted that refugees are “easily provided shelter and food by government.” This will also go on to show that the major efforts taken by the government are in the rural camps. This does not solve the issues that lead refugees to opt for second mobility. A qualitative research study based in Uganda’s refugee settlements, Kaiser (2006) found that the UNHCR-supported refugee settlement system in Uganda is not as successful as it has led to the denial of the freedom of movement of refugees, which has implications for the rights of refugees to social and economic protections. There are problems in refugee management both the formal settlement system as well as the informal out of settlement situations. Both the groups of refugees, that is, those refugees who live within the settlements and those that live outside the settlements face considerable challenges (Kaiser, 2006). Within the formal system, refugees receive registration and recognition of status as refugees as per the provisions of the international law and the UNHCR policy, however, these refugees are either denied the rights to move and work freely outside the settlements or they are not supported when they do choose second mobility by moving to the urban areas for residence and work purposes (Kaiser, 2006). Those who do not live in the settlements are not usually accorded the refugee status that is provided under the international law, however, they may be able to move more freely in the urban areas and look for work in the informal sector (Kaiser, 2006). Despite these differences, there is a very complex and interconnected dynamic between the refugees within and outside the formal system than is usually revealed in the studies as reported by Kaiser (2006). Both set of refugees face challenges that are common in the sense of being socio-economic in nature. Refugees that live within the settlements may have some support from the UNHCR and the government services but they may not be able to capitalise on this support because of lack of proximity to markets, and other unfavourable conditions (Kaiser, 2006). In the urban environments, refugees have access to markets and employment but the conditions of life and work may be challenging and unsuitable as already discussed in the previous section in some detail. Refugee livelihoods in rural settlements and urban settlements both face serious challenges and in these challenges the experiences of both groups of refugees can be commonalised. From the discussion above, we may surmise that encampment and self-settlement both provide significant challenges for refugees, which need to be responded by the government of Uganda. The government has for the most part, has tried to respond to these challenges by emphasising on a policy of refugee settlement under the mechanism of the Self Reliance Strategy of the UNHCR. As per this, the emphasis has been on the encouragement to refugees to support themselves with minimal external support in rural settlements (Kaiser, 2006). In urban environments, there is a lack of policy because there has been a greater emphasis on making refugees settle within the formal settlements in rural areas (Kaiser, 2006). In either case, the refugees have not been able to receive the kind of support and environment in which their social and economic rights can be safeguarded. Kaiser (2006) used a case study of Sudanese refugees in Uganda, who were settled in Arua, Moyo, Koboko, Yumbe, Adjumani, Masindi and Hoima Districts, to explore the experiences of the refugees with the policy of the Ugandan government. Apart from the rural settlements, Kaiser (2006) also spent time in urban, peri-urban areas to explore the experiences of the self-settled refugees in these areas. Therefore, there is insight into both the rural and urban conditions of life for refugees in Uganda. First, with regard to mobility for refugees, the general system in Uganda is that when refugees arrive in Uganda, they should register with the government authorities, and then proceed to live within the formally organised refugee settlements established by the government (Kaiser, 2006). The issue with second mobility arose for Uganda’s refugees because the government recognised refugee settlements are in remote and marginal areas that do not provide access to markets and care therefore not suitable from the context of livelihood of the refugees. Moreover, the settlements are generally closer to the international border which can be problematic from the perspective of security (Kaiser, 2006). The government has its own perspectives on why the settlements are placed where they are as there are issues of national security, space provision and repatriation which drive the government to establish camps in remote areas closer to the international border (Kaiser, 2006).

Encampment comes with legal recognition as refugees but also limits the rights of the refugees to move freely outside the refugee camps without the permission of the settlement authorities. Refugees can thus be granted travel permits if they wish to travel out of the settlements. Due to such restrictions, a situation arose in Uganda, where many refugees who came to Uganda would not register themselves with the government and would rather choose to remain outside the settlement system. This has been explained as follows:

“In practice, it is evident that significant numbers of refugees in Uganda evade the settlement framework by failing to register their presence as refugees, or by illegally leaving the settlements after they have done so. The status of such ‘self-settled’ refugees in Uganda is uncertain. They are unrecognised as refugees by the GoU, nor are they recognised or supported by UNHCR. As ‘aliens’ rather than refugees, they occupy a precarious and ambiguous status, enjoying neither the rights of Ugandan citizens (unless they are able to acquire identity documents and ‘pass’ as nationals), nor the protection and limited material support of refugees in settlements” (Kaiser, 2006, p. 604).

Clearly then there is a problem with respect to second mobility because refugees may not be entirely happy with the settlement life and either they fail to register themselves as refugees with the government or they wish to move to urban areas so that they are able to have access to labour market and other economic and social protections that they may not be able to get in the settlements. The question is how the Ugandan government deals with these requirements and responds to these. With regard to health services for refugees, the Ugandan government has managed this area of refugee protection through an integrated approach (Komakech, et al., 2019). This approach is directed by the Uganda National Integrated Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities and the Global Strategy for Public Health 2014–2018 of the UNHCR (Komakech, et al., 2019). Under this approach, the health services provided to the refugees and the host communities of Uganda have been integrated under programmes and interventions designed under the approach (Komakech, et al., 2019). The National Health Policy and Health Sector Development Plan 2015/6–2019/20 has led to the formulation of the delivery of services with an integration model for health services implemented by the Ministry of Health for Uganda (Komakech, et al., 2019). The deliverables are organised through a district level system supported by aid agencies (Komakech, et al., 2019). There are four areas that are combined within the approach, which include the accreditation and alignment of health facilities and workers under the standards established by the Ministry of Health, strengthening of the district level services capacity, managing and coordinating the responses, and realigning aid agencies for the purpose of providing the health care services to the refugees (Komakech, et al., 2019). Both public and private health facilities have been involved in this process. However, the services are by and large provided in the rural settlements and no such services are provided in the urban settlements. The integration model has also been criticised (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). One of criticisms of the integration model is that using the aid received for the purpose of services of refugees, the government is using the aid to enhance its national systems. The allegation is that by using the aid for enhancing the integration of nationals into the refugee service delivery system, the country helps itself while it keeps blocking the integration of the refugees (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). Therefore, the allegation is that Ugandan government is using the aid that it receives for the purpose of refugee protection and provision of services for the delivery of national services to its local populations as well. This perception is not helped by the recent scandals related to the refugee camps in Uganda. In 2018, some scandals relating to UNHCR camps in Uganda have been unearthed which have indicated that the numbers of refugees in the camps have been highly inflated, indicating corruption and fraud in the camps (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). Scandals relating to the missing foreign aid sums have also come to the fore, which have reflected poorly on the existing systems of refugee funding and its use in Uganda (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). An internal audit produced by the UN in November 2018 regarding the Uganda operations of the UNHCR has also revealed fraud, theft of funding amounts, sexual exploitation and abuse by the UNHCR and collaborating personnel in Uganda (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). Land allocation, fuel management, and food and non-food items rationing have all been revealed to have been marred by corrupt practices (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). Consequently, there has been withdrawal of donor funding (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). With regard to the recognition of refugees in Uganda, the government has implemented a new initiative in collaboration with the UNHCR, which relates to the use of Biometric Identity Management System [BIMS] for registering and verifying the identities of refugees (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). The system uses face, iris and fingerprints data of the refugees coming into Uganda (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). This new policy has been implemented in Uganda for the purpose of providing stable IDs to the refugees that can help them to participate in the socioeconomic aspects as well as to include them in the digital sense (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). BIMS has also been proposed as a method through which assistance and access to financial services can be provided to the refugees in Uganda (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019). The government has carried out a verification exercise in the country in order to verify the identities of all the refugees in Uganda using biometric data (Johansson & Ljungek, 2019).

One research study explores the actual experiences of the refugees with the BIMS when they come into Jordan (Shoemaker, et al., 2019). The study finds that the refugees are faced with many challenges with regard to the humanitarian identity systems including the lack of knowledge of the institutional systems and processes that will be used to manage their personal data and the security of that data (Shoemaker, et al., 2019). Another issue is the lack of agency for the refugees with regard to data because they may not be given choices about the data collected (Shoemaker, et al., 2019). At the very least, systems like BIMS place individuals at a point where they have to give their personal data without understanding institutional processes for security of their data and the privacy of the information that they provide but at the same time their desperation for assistance from the host government puts them in a place without choice as to providing data (Shoemaker, et al., 2019). Refugees can also contribute to the host country in different ways. Participant 1 says that refugees contribute to the economy of Uganda because the “abled ones are renting houses, paying fees and tuition to schools and institution, thus improving somehow economic development.” Participant 2 says that “When most refugees get to settle down, they open up small business around the country. These businesses are a source of revenue to the state and some are a source of employment to the nationals.” These responses indicate that the refugees in Uganda are contributing to the economy of Uganda by participating in the market either through paying for the services they are taking or through opening up businesses in the country, which can contribute to the economy of Uganda as well as provide employment. This viewpoint is also expressed in response to another question posed to the participants, which was related to the relevance of the rise of refugees in urban and rural areas to Uganda as a country. Participant 1 responded that refugees help to broaden the market for the commodities produced in Uganda and also impact the provision of employment to the Ugandan citizens. Participant 2 noted that “Refugees increase tax base of the country, through their income generating activities, they are a source of labour to the country and also can be a source of security to the country.” Both the responses point out to the possible benefits of increase in the numbers of refugees for the country. Although there are conflicts between the refugees and local communities over the distribution of resources in the country (these are discussed towards the end of this section), there are also a number of benefits that are acknowledged with respect to the increase of refugee population in the country. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that the refugees are self-reliant so that they do not come into conflict with the local communities over the distribution of resources and employment opportunities in the country. Refugees need to be self-reliant because this can reduce the burden on the host communities and the government. The question is whether there are any strategies that are in place for building a development-minded, more resilient and self-reliant communities for the refugees. This question was posed to the participants in this research. In a response to this question, Participant 1 says: “It’s very little, or not even there, instead some local community have a lot of regret since foreigners are more understood and catered for by the government than the local indigenous people.” This is very insightful of the conflicts that can happen between local communities and the refugees. Local communities may perceive government schemes made for the refugees as discriminatory to them or they may feel that the government is more caring towards the refugees and not to them. Local indigenous communities may be more negative towards the refugees where they think that the local indigenous community’s needs and aspirations are being treated as secondary to those of the refugees. Although the strategies for refugees may be focussed more on the needs of the refugees, the lack of such strategies as pointed out in the response of Participant 1 is more related to the absence of strategies that may help to balance the interests of the local communities with those of the refugees. Two points are significant in this response: first, that the participant is of the opinion that there are no strategies in place with regard to the management of the refugees, and second, that the absence of strategies are the reasons why local communities are negative towards refugees because they feel that the needs of the refugees are more catered to by the government than the needs of the local communities. In other words, the strategies that are in place are related more to the rights and the needs of the refugees. This premise is also borne out by the response of the Participant 2, who says: “Policies have been put in place that allow refugees to work freely, and allow them access to basic services, like education, health and many more. The policy also allows them to own assets.” There is a discrepancy in the responses given by the two participants. While one says that there are no strategies in place and therefore, there are tensions between refugees and the local communities, the other says that there are strategies that are put in place for providing access to refugees. There may also be a discrepancy due to the government support being given only in the rural camps where strategies may be in place, whereas there are no such facilities in place in urban camps where the refugees have more or less to depend on themselves to become self-reliant. The experience with the Kampala Refugee Camp also reflects on the same.

One point that stands out in the above discussion is that there is a possibility of tension between local communities and refugees, where the local communities may perceive that their interests are being subordinated to the interests of the refugees or where the local communities and refugees come more in contact with each other with respect to the services and commodities offered by the government. This has implications in the urban spaces where refugees may vie for the same jobs and opportunities as the local community members, which may lead to concerns of conflict over resources between the two. The concern may also be linked to the number of refugees that can be absorbed in the urban cities of Uganda. A question asked to the participants for the questionnaires with respect to this concern was whether there are any initiatives or frameworks set in place to mitigate challenge when and if they arise, such as, influx of refugees. Participant 1 said that there is a Ministry of Disaster Preparedness and Refugee, which responds to the situations of this kind. Participant 2 further notes that while there are no durable solutions to such situations if and when they arise, the “UNHCR promotes three durable solutions for refugees as part of its core mandate and these are voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement.” These solutions do not relate to disaster management, although these solutions may be put to use when there is unmanageable number of refugees coming into Uganda.

Discussion

Uganda has emerged as one of the highest refugee takers in the world. It is generally accepted that Uganda accepts more refugees than most countries in the world. One of the findings of the literature on Uganda’s experience with refugees has been that Uganda has a positive track record in providing refuge and rights to the refugees (Kalyango, 2017; Hovil, 2018). In general, refugees in Uganda have access to many rights and participation in the resources of the country, even though Uganda is not a developed country in itself. That is a significant finding about Uganda and its regime on refugees when compared with the recent trend seen in many developing countries refusing to take in more refugees, while Uganda has taken in more than one million refugees over a period of time (Goldstein, 2018). Issues of social protection and security to the refugees are important in the light of the above finding which shows that Ugandan government has given refuge to a significant proportion of the world’s refugee population. Once these refugees have been taken in, as per the international law as well as the domestic law in Uganda, certain rights have to be protected for the benefit of the refugees. One of the findings of this research study is that space for adjustment of refugees is a major issue for the Ugandan government, and for the better part, the government has responded to the issue of refugee settlement in the context of space with the approach of adjusting the majority of the refugees in rural settlements. In terms of second mobility, in this context, mobility of refugees from rural settlements to urban spaces, the problem with the Ugandan government’s approach so far is that the policy of adjusting refugees in rural camps does not allow refugees adequate opportunities for earning livelihood (Kalyango, 2017). Apart from this, there are other reasons why the refugees choose to move from rural settlements to urban spaces. Some of these reasons have been identified in this research study. While a significant number of refugees internally migrate to the cities in Uganda looking for livelihood and work opportunities (Kalyango, 2017); there are other social reasons why refugees may choose to leave their rural camps for urban spaces. One of the reasons why refugees choose to do so is because compared to work in the rural areas, they are offered higher wages in the cities and more opportunities for work (Kalyango, 2017). Urban spaces are also preferred because they may provide more options and opportunities, which to those refugees who are educated and have experience in different areas of work may be attractive (Kalyango, 2017). Refugees may also choose to relocate to urban areas because they may be more familiar and comfortable with urban environments as these are the areas in their own countries where they may have migrated from; such refugees may have little or no experience with farming and rural living (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). Therefore, a social reason for second mobility to urban spaces may be the better utilisation of the skills of the refugees in an urban environment as compared to rural environments (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009).

In Uganda, there has been a definite shift away from farming as a principle method of livelihood for refugees coming into Uganda (FAO, 2017). Land as a resource being increasingly stressed due to the shrinking of space also does not offer adequate opportunities for refugees as well as local communities. Moreover, as both literature review and the responses to the questionnaires have indicated, refugees are coming in great numbers to Uganda and there is stress on the resources, especially land for giving to the refugees. Refugees may also choose to move to urban centres because of requirement of money which may be fulfilled because of the opportunities of work afforded in the urban centres (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). The natural connection between refugee camps and urban centres as noted in literature may therefore be one of the reasons why refugees have chosen second mobility in Uganda (Macchiavello, 2004). Education for children and health related services being better accessed in urban environments, refugees also tend to move to urban centres in order to access these (Macchiavello, 2004). Urban centres offer better choice of schools for refugee children, better hospitals, and options for recreational and other activities, which refugee families may find to be attractive and useful (Macchiavello, 2004). The above discussed are the principal reasons why refugees choose second mobility in Uganda. The overarching reason or the commonality between all these reasons is that life in urban centres is perceived to be better and the refugees have reasons to believe that were they to be living in urban centres, they would be better off. However, as this research has found, life in Uganda’s urban centres is much more challenging for the refugees. The shift to urban centres comes with its own set of challenges. The underlying reason for this is that Uganda has so far focussed or emphasised on providing assistance and support only to those refugees that are living in the rural camps. Refugees living in the urban areas will often find it hard to get assistance outside of the camps. The office of the UNHCR generally does not provide such assistance outside the camps, and the government of Uganda does not assist those who are living outside the camps. There are a number of areas where the refugees find themselves impeded in accessing assistance, including opening bank accounts, accessing schools for their children, and accessing medical care (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009).

One of the crucial findings in this research, which was indicated both in the literature review as well as the responses to the questionnaires is that there is often tension between refugees and the local populations. This tension is observed both in the rural and urban areas. In the rural areas, the tension is due to the allocation of land to the refugees which the government may have to acquire from the local populations. This may present a set of grievances for the local populations due to which they may think of refugees in a negative sense. In the urban spaces, the conflict or tension may be linked to access to employment opportunities in which the local populations may find themselves competing with refugees. Literature also indicates that refugees may be perceived to be a drain on national resources as the government needs to provide for the refugees which may stress the social and economic resources of the state (Hovil, 2007 ). This is also reiterated in the responses to the questionnaire in which the participants have said that refugees may be seen to be burden to the local communities or that the local communities may feel that their government is more caring towards the refugees and not them. In general, protecting the interests of the refugees is an exercise that may constantly see the host state trying to balance the protection of the refugees with the interests of the state and its local populations. Literature does indicate that protection of refugees has social and economic costs which ultimately put pressure the host country’s socio-economic infrastructure (Kobia & Cranfield, 2009). As the responses of the questionnaire shows, local communities do have grievances against their governments or refugees in Uganda. This is the reason why states at times adopt prohibitive measures in order to deter influx of refugees in large numbers because it is not possible to take care of the large number of refugees. In Uganda, this research finds that the Ugandan government has tried to respond to the conflict between refugees and local communities by restricting movement of refugees in urban spaces through their law and policy. In Uganda, the 2006 Ugandan Refugee Law provides a number of rights to ensure that refugees receive social protection, however, these rights are dependent on the residence of the refugees. Although refugees can settle in any part of Uganda, if they choose to live outside of camps they lose their relocation assistance. This means that while their movement and residence is not restricted to the camps, they do have to compromise of their security in urban areas because they cannot get assistance from the authorities if they are living outside the camps. This makes second mobility in Uganda from rural camps to urban spaces, prohibitive in nature. Despite this, refugees do make the choice to leave rural camps for the reasons discussed earlier, and because rural settlements are not easy to navigate and live in for refugees. A significant number of refugees have chosen to leave the settlements and instead move to urban areas, especially in Kampala, where they find more opportunities to work and make money (Hovil, 2007 ). Those who have chosen to live outside of the settlements however, do not have a legal status and that impacts the level of support that they can get. Responses to questionnaires do indicate that some strategies are in place in Uganda for assisting refugees, however, literature indicates that most of these strategies are applicable in the rural settlement context and refugees do forgo many of the benefits when they choose to move to urban spaces.

Conclusion

To conclude, on the question of the Ugandan regime on refugees and the protection of the rights of the refugees, this research finds that the Ugandan model indicates many rights being made accessible to refugees that are not seen in many other countries. In Uganda, refugees are being granted access to work and cultivate land. Right of movement is not curtailed and second mobility is allowed under the law. Refugees are also free to access jobs and other resources. However, the laws of Uganda tend to support refugees in rural camps more than they support refugees in urban spaces. This is due to the conscious decision of the government to restrict access to urban spaces so as to avoid conflicts and tensions between refugees and local populations with respect to access to employment opportunities. Therefore, the principal critique with respect to Ugandan regime on refugees is that it focusses on protecting the rights of those who are living in settlements and not providing the same level of support to those refugees who are migrating to urban spaces. This research has found that the refugees who live in the urban spaces of Uganda have significant challenges with respect to access to many services and assistance from the UNHCR as well the Ugandan government. The Ugandan government has made changes to its laws focussing on ensuring that it complies with the international law on the rights of refugees. The policy of the UNHCR, which is an important indication of the international law in this area, clearly supports the need to make refugees self-reliant. In this context, the laws and policy of Uganda are in line with the international law. The refugees in rural settlements are given land and food rations for a limited period so as to encourage self-sufficiency and self-reliance. However, many refugees who come from urban backgrounds and have no prior experience in farming will be faced with significant challenges in becoming self-reliant in this respect. Therefore, there are obvious problems with the policy of the Ugandan government in helping refugees achieving self-reliance simply by being provided land parcels by the government. Such refugees may have no choice but to move to urban centres in order to truly achieve access to livelihood and attain self-reliance. Therefore, there needs to be more support for the refugees in urban environments. There are many significant respects in which Ugandan law and policy on refugees rights is commendable. However, with respect to second mobility, there is a need to reconsider policy so as to achieve the objectives of providing adequate livelihood and social rights to refugees coming into Uganda.

Bibliography

Bailey, S., 2004. Is Legal Status Enough? Legal status and livelihood obstacles for urban refugees. s.l.:The Fletcher School, MALD Thesis.

Campbell, E. H., 2006. Urban Refugees in Nairobi: Problems of Protection, Mechanisms of Survival, and Possibilities for Integration. Journal of Refugee Studies , 19(3).

Collins, H., 2010. Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. Lausanne: AVA Publishing.

Crisp, J., Janz, J., Riera, J. & Samy, S., 2009. Surviving in the City – A review of UNHCR’s operation for Iraqi refugees in urban areas of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. s.l.:United Nations High Commissioner for refugees Policy Development and valuation Service.

Dryden-Peterson, S., 2006. ‘I find myself as someone who is in the forest’: Urban refugees as agents of social change in Kampala, Uganda. Journal of refugee studies , 19(3), pp. 381-395.

EPAU, 2003. Protection, Solutions and Assistance for Refugees in Urban Areas: Guiding Principles and Good Practice, draft, Geneva: UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit.

FAO, 2017. Evidence on internal and international migration patterns in selected African countries. s.l.:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Grabska, K., 2006. Marginalization in Urban Spaces of the Global South: Urban Refugees in Cairo. Journal of Refugee Studies , 19(3).

Hovil, L., 2007 . Self-settled Refugees in Uganda: An Alternative Approach to Displacement?. Journal of Refugee Studies , 20(4).

Hovil, L. & Werker, E., 2001. Refugees in Arua District: A Human Security Analysis, Kampala: Refugee Law Project Working Paper No. 3.

Kaiser, T., 2006. Between a camp and a hard place: rights, livelihood and experiences of the local settlement system for long-term refugees in Uganda. The Journal of Modern African Studies , 44(4), pp. 597-621.

Komakech, H., Atuyambe, L. & Orach, C. G., 2019. Integration of health services, access and utilization by refugees and host populations in West Nile districts, Uganda. Conflict and health , 13(1), p. 1.

Johansson, K. & Ljungek, F., 2019. Global Solution, Local Inclusion? A study of digital IDs for refugees in Uganda. pp. 4-37.

Macchiavello, M., 2004. Livelihoods Strategies of Urban Refugees in Kampala. Forced Migration Review, p. 20.

Omata, N., 2012. Refugee livelihoods and the private sector: Ugandan case study, Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.

Shoemaker, E. et al., 2019. Identity at the Margins: Examining Refugee Experiences with Digital Identity Systems in Lebanon, Jordan, and Uganda, Ghana: Compass.

UNHCR , 1995. UNHCR's Policy and Practice Regarding Urban Refugees, A Discussion Paper, Geneva: UNHCR.

UNHCR, 2003. 2003 Global Refugee Trends: Overview of Refugee Populations, New Arrivals, Durable Solutions, Asylum-seekers and Other Persons of Concern to UNHCR.' , Geneva: Population Data Unit, UNHCR.