Baseline Report for the Teso Youth and Women's Livelihoods Project, Uganda

Individual Household Method (IHM) Teso Youth and Women's Livelihoods Project Baseline Report

Uganda: Kapelebyong in Teso region 13th-16thNovember 2019

Clement Raphael Banda (M&E Advisor) and Simon Longa (Evaluation Advisor)

Table of Contents: Table of Contents: ................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................iii Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Main Highlights of Findings and proposed next steps ............................................................. 5 1.0. Introduction and Background ...................................................................................... 8 1.1. Project Geographical Coverage and local context ........................................................ 8 2.0. Methodology-The IHM Approach ................................................................................ 9 2.1. The IHM Survey ........................................................................................................ 10 2.2. Village Selection/Sampling Method: .......................................................................... 11 2.3. Household Interviews ............................................................................................... 11 3.0. Study Findings: DI/AE, SToL, Income Sources and Food security ................................ 13 3.1. Definitions of Key concepts of the IHM approach ...................................................... 13 3.2. Household Profiling: Demography ................................................................................. 16 3.3. Household Profiling: Assets and Disposable Income ...................................................... 17 4.0. Household Disposable(DI/AE), SToL and Income by Source ....................................... 21 4.1. Household Disposable(DI/AE) and SToL – Adukait Village .......................................... 21 4.2. Sources of Household Food and Cash Income in Adukait Village ............................... 23 5.0. Households Food Security ......................................................................................... 25 6.0. Main Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 25 7.0. Annexes : Contextual Information ............................................................................. 28 7.1. Annex : IHM Assessment Team ................................................................................. 29

ii

Acknowledgements SHA Uganda extends its gratitude to the donor United Kingdom Aid(UKAID) for making funds available towards the realisation of the Increased household income and livelihood security for women and youth in Teso, North East Uganda overarching project objective and at the same time providing funds for the benchmarking of important impact level indicators using the Individual Household Method(IHM).

SHA Uganda further would like to appreciate its project partners, all national and district stakeholders who participated in this Individual Household Method (IHM) livelihood baseline study at different levels including preparation, both contextual and individual household data collection exercises, and during the document reviews.

The assessment and report would not have been possible without the contribution and support of enumerators who worked very well under the supervision the Self Help Africa (SHA) Evaluation Advisor and the M&E Advisor(Zambia), and the logistical support from the Project Manager and the in-country Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, all of whom worked tirelessly.

Special thanks go to the women, men and youths of Adukait village – in Kapelebyong Subcounty, Kapelebyong District for their willingness to participate in the assessment.

iii

Acronyms CSA: Climate Smart Agriculture DI: Disposable Income DI/AE: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent EfD: Evidence for Development HH/s Household/s IHM: Individual Household Method KCals: Kilocalories LHZ: Livelihoods Zone M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation SHA: Self Help Africa SToL: Standard of Living SWAPP: Saving with a Productive Purpose UKAID: United Kingdom Aid UGX: Ugandan Shilling VSLA: Village savings and Lending associations WHO: World Health organisation

4

Executive Summary The UK Aid Match Teso Youth and Women's Livelihoods Project is a two-year project with funding from the UK Aid, which is being implemented in Teso, North East Uganda. The project is targeting 1000 smallholder households with a deliberate focus on women, youths and people living with disabilities. The overall project objective is to achieve increased food, nutrition and income security of 1000 smallholder households of Teso North by May 2021.

To measure the project outcomes over the life of the project, the project started off by establishing baseline information for indicators that will be used as a basis for assessing the project performance. The project adopted the Individual Household Method (IHM), a practical tool developed by Evidence for Development, which is designed to obtain reliable estimates of income from individual households for purposes of monitoring, evaluation and where appropriate, improving programme interventions.

Hence, the IHM baseline survey was conducted between 13th -16th November 2019 in Adukait village, Kapelebyong Subcounty in Kapelebyong District. It covers the agricultural year August 2018 – July 2019 and included a total of 113 households.

The IHM baseline study was conducted to establish baseline data on the following project outcomes indicators:

• average change in disposable household income (expected to double) •

% of households with access to sufficient food through the year.

Highlighted below are summarised key findings on each of the above survey objectives and proposed next steps.

Main Highlights of Findings and proposed next steps Average household disposable income (per quintile 1&2) The average household disposable income(Per adult equivalent) for the lower quintiles(1&2) stands at UGX120,532.08(£25.31) whereby the 1st quintile accounts for UGX21,087(£4.43); 2nd quintile UGX219,977.17(£46.20);3rd quintile UGX542,770.59(£113.98); 4th quintile UGX1,253,991.18(£263.34); 5th Quintile UGX4,896,417.83(£1,028.25). It is worth pointing out that the household disposable incomes for those falling in the lower quintiles1(1&2) are below the total cost of the minimum requirement for non-foods(Minimum SToL threshold) which is at UGX377,400(£79.25). Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose between purchasing a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household.

1

Quintiles are socioeconomic categorisation of households based on the disposable income per adult equivalent.

According to IHM, the dataset is divided in 5 quintiles, whereby Quintile 1 represent the poorest of the poor, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 the in between and quintile 4& 5 the better off households.

5

Minimum food intake per adult equivalent based on 2,100 kilo calories per person per day/sufficient food throughout the year Overall findings of the study demonstrate that 6% (7HHs)of households were unable to meet their minimum food energy requirements during the reference year in Adukait village. Large household sizes, limited productive labour, poor soil conditions and limited land contributed to the inability to produce adequate food income from householders’ own crops (the main source of household food in the sampled villages). However, 94% of households surveyed met their minimum food intake requirements during their reference year and can be said to be food secure as they are able to meet their food requirements either by their own food production or through purchasing.

Meanwhile on 6% of the households were food insecure and on average, experience 3 months of difficult especially between April and July.

Disposable income below minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 21% (24HHs) of households in Adukait village did not have sufficient cash income to cover the cost of the basic minimum for non-food items to ensure a minimum standard of living and avoid social exclusion. These households were thus described as below the minimum standard of living threshold during the reference year.

Proportion of Households above minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 79% (89 HHs) of all households in Adukait village, Kapelebyong Subcounty had sufficient cash and food income to both cover household energy requirements and to purchase basic non-food items within the minimum local standard of living basket. These households were thus described as above the minimum standard of living threshold. This meant the majority of households within the sampled villages were able to meet their minimum food and non-food needs, such as education, health care, clothes, soap and paraffin.

Broad Conclusions Although the majority (94%) of households can meet their minimum food intake, still a few (79%) are able to pay the costs of basic non-food items. Implying that 21% of the households do not have sufficient disposable income and are struggling in making a choice between meeting household food energy requirements and that of the non-food needs, hence, at risk of being socially excluded as to a larger extent these would fail to meet the cost for non-foods.

Furthermore, these households are to a larger extent most likely to fall vulnerable if hit by a shock or stress that affect the source of livelihoods.

Generally, the households in this area are to a larger extent dependent on crops for their food(98%) thus less of these crops find their way to the market for cash income, hence, much of the crop production is mainly for consumption. Employment which includes agricultural labour and petty trade constitutes the main sources of cash income as opposed to farming (crops and livestock/livestock products) implying less diversification with regards to sources of cash income.

Nearby communities are pastoralists, implicating that the area is equally potential for livestock 6

production, hence the need to explore the livestock potential in the area as a possibility to diversify both household cash and food income in this regard. The proposed interventions of the project especially as regards to “Output 1: Increased skills and knowledge of 1,000 smallholders to benefit nutritionally and economically from diversified agricultural production” need to emphasize equally the aspect of livestock.

Next Steps – Proposed Interventions Summarized below are proposed interventions.

What was found Limited asset endowment

Proposed Intervention

How and Why

base

•

Promoting SWAPP (saving with a productive purpose) and any such that would be key in addressing the limited asset endowment in the community.

SWAPP has provided an effect model of wealth accumulation through productive assets i.e. under the Community connector project

•

Train farmers in SWAPP and or other interventions aimed at enhancing the capacity of the farmers to Accumulate key productive assets such as livestock, land and others, while at the same time create wealth.

Households with Low disposable income and those below the standard of living threshold (mainly Quintile 1&2)

•

Enhanced Access to financial services (credit, loans, savings for a purpose, insurance and payment services) i.e. like linkages to financial institutions, VSLAs, equity financing, Improve access to extension through linkage to agro dealers and government extension, etc Promotion of reduction in postharvest loss practices e.g. enhanced linkages with private sector actors in order increase volume for sale Strengthening collective market engagements CSA promotion given the flooding elements of the area .

•

One of the challenges faced by the smallholder farmers in this area is lack of access to adequate disposable income and especially inform of cash.

Though (94%) households are able to meet their food energy requirements, when one looks at cash income coming from own crop and livestock production, which are supposed to be their main income sources, there is limited cash income being generated from these sources. Much of what is produced is consumed by the households and extraordinarily little is sold for cash on the market.

Hence, assisting these households increase production and productivity would help them have enough for food and surplus for the market.

Promote. interventions that would assist diversifying cash income sources.

•

Diversified sources of income at household level (farm and non- farm).

Non-farm including provision of services such as transport, etc. While on Farm – include crops and livestock. small size horticulture interventions, group investments, bee keeping, etc

•

•

• • Limited cash income

•

7

1.0. Introduction and Background The UK Aid Match Teso Youth and Women's Livelihoods Project is a two-year project with funding from the UK Aid, which is being implemented in Teso, North East Uganda. The overall objective is Increasing household income and livelihood security for women, youth in Teso and people living with disabilities, North East Uganda. The project intends to achieve the following measurable changes by May 2021: • • • • •

Outcome: Increased production and returns from smallholder enterprises in Teso Output 1: Increased skills and knowledge of 1,000 smallholder farmers to benefit nutritionally and economically from diversified agricultural production.

Output 2: Increased skills and knowledge of 1,000 smallholders in enterprise development and marketing.

Output 3: Increased capacity of 40 farmer groups (comprising an average of 25 members each) to offer services to their members Output 4: Improved enabling environment for 1,000 women, youth and people living with disabilities to constructively engage with duty bearers on issues that affect their right to food.

1.1. Project Geographical Coverage and local context Figure 1: Map depicting theKapelebyong sub-county Amuria District is a district in the Eastern Region of Uganda.

The town of Amuria is the site of the district headquarters. The town of Amuria is located approximately 45 kilometres (28 mi), by road, north of Soroti, the largest town in the sub-region. The district is composed of three counties of Amuria, Kapelebyong and orungo county/orungo.

The study site was in Adukait Village of Amaseniko parish of Kapelebyong sub-county.

Kapelebyong has a total area of 1217km squared and a projected population of 100,900 with 50,600 female(50.1%) and 50,300 males (49.9%) 8

Livelihood Zone: Kapelebyong lies in one livelihood zone called Eastern Central lowland cassava sorghum and groundnuts zone. According to FEWSNET, Agricultural production serves as the foundation for which households access food and earn cash in this lowland livelihood zone.

Types and Modes of Production- The economy of Amuria District is based on two main activities: subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry. Over 90 percent of the population engage in either or both activities.Despite limited choice of crops, the farmers tend to practice diversification as a strategy to avert risks in agricultural production, which is largely dependent on rains. Cassava, Sorghum, groundnuts being the most grown crops and contributes a larger percentage to both household consumption and the market. Livestock make another major contributor to household food and cash income. The most predominately owned livestock include cattle, goats and chicken.

Main Hazards: The main hazards of the zone are prolonged dry spells and crop and livestock diseases. The degree to which these hazards affect livelihoods and food security varies according to household however the poor will be more at risk of food insecurity as they have fewer resources to draw on immediately after a shock. The poor respond by reducing their food consumption, both the quantity and frequency as well as collecting and consuming wild foods to help lessen their food burden.

2.0. Methodology-The IHM Approach The IHM® is a method for measuring household income developed by Evidence for Development.

In common with other household budget survey methods, the IHM involves the collection of household income data for the purpose of policy development and planning. However, the IHM differs from other approaches in (i) the method of data collection (applying a semi-structured interview, rather than a standard questionnaire format) and (ii) the use of specialised software, which allows data checking and analysis to be conducted in the field. Together these reduce the risk of errors in data collection and allow errors to be identified and corrected.

The steps in an IHM study are as follows: 1.

Before any individual household interviews take place, a preliminary survey is conducted involving community leaders and other local key informants. This allows the team to explain in detail the purpose of the assessment, and to refine key research questions. It provides interviewers with basic information on the local economy and economic activities that subsequently allows them to identify inconsistencies in individual household interviews, and to cross-question where appropriate. The preliminary survey also involves mapping the study area and drawing the sample.

2.

Individual household interviews are kept short (between 45 – 60 minutes) to avoid interviewer/ interviewee fatigue and where possible, appointments are made with households to arrange a time that does not interrupt normal working activities.

3.

On return from the survey site, data is consolidated and entered into the IHM database.

This allows for cross-checking and identification of apparent anomalies in the data which can be discussed with the interviewer and followed up the next day.

9

2.1. The IHM Survey The IHM study was conducted within the period 13th- 16th November 2019. Adukait village in Kapelebyong Sub-County, Kapelebyong district in Teso sub-region was selected for the study.

Adukait village had a total of 166 Households. In the study 120 households were sampled in survey to ensure we would cover the whole spectrum in wealth ranking from poorest of the poor up to the better off. The analysis of the results was only derived from a total of 113 households due to dropouts during data collection with 2 households not available during interviews and an additional 5 households excluded from the data base since the income (food and cash) for those households was not enough to for them to survive.

Ten (10) people comprising of SHA and partner staff participated in the exercise (see Annexes).

The analysis conducted used open IHM software (http://code.google.com/p/open-ihm/).

The overall purpose of the IHM study was to obtain reliable estimates of income sources from individual households and establish the minimum requirements for households to attain locallyestablished standards of living and to guide programming options for the project . The specific objectives of the study were to: 1. Develop a detailed livelihoods’ baseline for the purpose of monitoring the impact of project interventions.

2. Based on the data and analysis, recommend interventions to address the challenges and seize opportunities to improve the livelihoods, food security and nutrition of target beneficiaries.

Furthermore, the IHM survey focused on ensuring quality data collection through rigorous data checking, especially after field work, and referring enumerators to undertake call backs to collect or clarify any missing information within data collection forms. This approach was combined with cross-checking food and income sources and comparing them with household size in order to quickly conclude whether households met their disposable income and standard of living thresholds. The conversion of local weights and measures into standard units was also standardised to avoid over-estimation. Finally, constructive feedback was provided in general and to specific enumerators when this was needed to ensure rigour in data collection and find solutions for individual interviewing problems.

The first day of the field work started with a general classroom-style training on data collection using IHM tools. Contextual information which included village maps; seasonal activities and food consumption calendars; understanding of the local cost of living, and employment, trade and market information was collected on the first day by the M&E Coordinator-Uganda. The remaining time was dedicated to data collection focusing on household demographics, assets, crop and livestock production, other cash income, wild foods and transfers.

10

2.2. Village Selection/Sampling Method: The project lies within one livelihood zone, eastern central lowland cassava sorghum and groundnuts zone2. The sampling and village selection were done within this zone. When a village/household are part of the same LHZ means that the individual households in this area have similar economic possibilities. In the event of an agriculture-related stress situation: drought, floods, pests and/or diseases smallholder farmers face similar risks and have similar coping strategies.

•

Step one: Purposeful selection of adukait village on the basis that it had enough beneficiary households and equally a sufficient number of households that were not directly benefiting from the project.

•

The second step: This involved village mapping (see annexes) and allocation of a specific household number to each household in the village who took part in the study. The team targeted 120 households out of the 166 households in the village. The 120 targeted households were picked randomly, and in the event that the picked household was not available, the next close by household that share similarities were interviewed as a replacement. This was done in a participatory approach with the help of key informants within the village, SHA staffs, Government officials and partner staffs who were part of the enumeration team. Contextual information on the crops grown, livestock/livestock products, transfers, employments and main diet was collected simultaneously with the village mapping exercise.

2.3. Household Interviews Interviews were conducted in each of the sampled households of Adukait village. In circumstances when nobody was available for interview, another household was mobilised as a replacement for the affected household. Despite mobilisation, prior appointments and followups in another period, some households were not available.

After the contextual information gathering and village mapping exercise, we calculated a total of 166 households. However, we could only interview 113 households out the 120 sampled households with a drop out of just under 6%, after rigorous data checking we excluded an additional 5 households making a success rate of 90% which is acceptable.

Two experienced IHM practitioners (Assessment leader + One team leader) led the data collection after conducting a 1 days class-room training. Data gathered included household membership by age and sex; the educational attainment of household members; asset holdings; income by source including food and cash remittances from relatives, payments and where applicable other charges for the reference year period(August 2018 to July 2019). Each enumerator conducted 2

FEWSNET

11

three household interviews in the beginning which was increased over the survey period up to four interviews per person per day. Data was entered into the IHM software by the data entry clerk.

Study Limitations (i) Only one of the 12-member survey team had previous IHM experience. Hence, the lack of prior IHM experience and the combination of additional questions to the IHM assessment and two extra two assessments made data collection time consuming. This equally affected time taken in analysis and report writing. (ii)

Some of the enumerators were not part of the training as they went with M&E coordinator to collect contextual information. But these were equally oriented on the key aspects of the interview guide as well as keenly supervised during data collection.

12

3.0. Study Findings: DI/AE, SToL, Income Sources and Food security

3.1. Definitions of Key concepts of the IHM approach A household is a group of people resident in a house who were eating from ‘one pot3’during the reference year.

Household income is made up of food (Kcals) produced, collected from the wild or received as gifts and retained for consumption by the household; and cash (Ugandan Shilling) from the sale of crops and livestock, from employment, remittances or sale of wild foods. In many cases some or all food income is not sold, so no price is available for that food. This means that total household income cannot be calculated only in terms of money. To ensure households can be compared a standard presentation of income per adult equivalent is used.

Household energy requirements is calculated from all household members individual annual food energy requirement, UN reference values (WHO 1985). This is based on the period individuals were actually resident in a household, so periods away from home e.g. at boarding school, doing migrant labour are excluded.

Disposable income The IHM defines disposable income as income remaining after a household meets its food needs from its own production (‘food income’)and when own production is insufficient by purchase at a set price of the local staple food, in this case a combination of cassava and sorghum (table 3) at an average market price. The result is standardised by dividing the disposable income by the number of 'adult equivalents' in the household. The number of adult equivalents is calculated as the total household energy requirement/the energy requirement of a young adult (2,600 Kcals/day).

Most Common and Local Minimum Diet The most common and local minimum diet was derived through both focus group discussions and triangulation with household interviews. Interestingly the minimum diet was similar to labour payment with food in the sampled villages.

Quintiles When data collection is done and as part of the analysis per village, we rank all the households in order of their disposable income per adult equivalent with the poorest of the poor on the left and the better off on the right. This village dataset is then be divided in 5 equal parts called quintiles.

Quintile 1 is representing the poorest of the poor, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 the in between and quintile 4& 5 the better off.

3

When people live and sleep in different buildings, but they are eating and sharing food together on a daily basis they are measured in the IHM as one household

13

Table 2 below is a summary of the characteristics of each of the households in a given quintile.

Table2: Characteristics for the different quintiles of households in the selected village Characteristics for the different quintiles

Quintile 1

• • • • • •

Quintile 2

• • • • • • • •

Quintile 4&5

•

Quintile 3

• • • • •

• •

0-3Acres land access 0-3 poultry mainly chicken; owns almost no goats/sheep; owns no cattle Owns productive assets such as Hoes, Axes, Sickle, etc Sources of labour to the better offs; land clearing, ploughing, weeding, planting, threshing, harvesting etc Sources of include charcoal sales; beer brewing; thatching grass sales Mainly produces for household consumption Not very different from the households in the 1st quintile 2-4 Acres land access 5 above poultry (Chicken); 1-2 goats; no cattle Owns productive assets such as Hoes, Axes, sickle, etc Sources of labour to the better offs land clearing, ploughing, weeding, planting, threshing, harvesting etc Main income sources include; Petty trading; beer brewing; charcoal sales; thatching grass sales 5 and above acres land access 5-10 poultry(Chicken, Ducks, and guinea fowls); 2-5 goats; 1-2 cattle Owns productive assets including; Hoes, axes, Radios, phones, etc Main cash income includes; petty trading, agricultural sales, transport The characteristic of the households in quintiles 4&5 are more less similar Access to larger pieces of land (usually above 5 Acres) Above 10 poultry (Chicken, Ducks and guinea fowls); above 5 goats/sheep and pigs; 5 and above cattle Owns productive assets including Motorbike, ploughs, oxcart, These provides employment to those in lower quintiles (1&2)

Table 3: Minimum Diet Local diet + price (Shilling) Sub-County Kapelebyong

Village Adukait

Local staple Crop Cassava Sorghum

14

% 70 30

Price in Shilling(UGX) Low High 300 500 400 600

mean 400 500

Table 3 shows the local staple diet for adukait village and the local price in Ugandan Shilling. This information is used to calculate the minimum amount of cash needed for a household to top up their own production, when there is not enough produced to fulfil the household’s energy requirements.

Information about the local minimum diet is collected during Focus Group Discussions in the villages.

The standard of living threshold was established in discussion with residents. This is the cost of a basket of goods sufficient to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of living (see Table x).

There is a very slight difference in terms of the standard of living threshold between the different communities in the village.

Table 4: Goods required for Minimum Standard of Living for a household.

Kapelebyong(Adukait Village Soap Body oil School requirements Matches Clothes - adult male above 14 years Clothes - adult female above 14 years Clothes - Child male between 4-14 years

60,000 36,000 144,000 2,400 35,000 40,000 30,000

Clothes - Child female between 4-14 years Total

30,000 377,400

The cost of the minimum standard of living was initially established during collection of contextual information through focus group discussions on various issues such as crop and livestock production, local units of measurements and price information within the main markets. This was validated through specific interviews with relatively poorer households in the sampled villages.

The basic non-food costs are allocated per household based on household size and their composition.

15

3.2. Household Profiling: Demography Below is a graphical representation of the population composition of the households which are selected for the study.

Figure 2: Population pyramid for Households in Adukait Village 75+ 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 -15.0%

Female Male

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Figure 2 above is representing 113 Households of Adukait village, a total of 650 citizens, 341 male (52.5%) and 309 females (47.5%). 45%(291) are aged between 15 and 49 years old, while 6%(39) are aged between 50 and 74, those below 15 years old accounted for 48%(312), while 8(1%) were aged 75 and above. The female headed households accounted for a total of 14 households with an average household size of 5 members per household. While the male headed households were 99 households with an average household size of 6 members per each household. The average age of the community members in this area is relatively a young with mode age group being below the age of 40.

Table 5: Household Demographics- Proportion of Female and Male-Headed Households among Households sampled.

Female versus male Female Average Male Average Total Average headed households # of HH HH size # of HH HH size # of HH HH size female male total Adukait (113) 14 5 99 6 113 5.5 % 12% 88% 100% Table 5 shows that there were 14female-headed households among the households sampled in the village. It is also noted from the results in the above table that the average household size for female-headed households (an average of 5 household members) was not significantly different that of male-headed households whose average was 6 household members was recorded.

16

3.3. Household Profiling: Assets and Disposable Income The main tradable physical assets owned by households in the village include livestock such as cattle, goats and chickens; tradable goods such as hand tools- hoes, pangas and axes, and other economic valuable tradable goods such as mobile phones, bicycles, radios and brewing utensils.

These are presented in figures 3a, b & c for land and tables 6, 7,8 and 9 for tradable assets, livestock, trees and disposable incomes in that order.

Figure 3a: ownership of lowland for all the households in the Village

Land Ownership(Lowland),Kapelebyong Number of Households

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

1-3

18-21

3-6

6-9

9-12

Range of land sizes (Acres) owned

Figure 3b: ownership of upland for all the households in the Village

Number of Households

Land Ownership(Upland) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

12-15

1-3

15-18

3-6

Range of land sizes owned

17

6-9

9-12

Figure 3c: Total ownership of land for all the households in the Village

Number of Households

Total Land Ownership, Kapelebyong 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

12-15

1-3

15-18

24-27

3-6

6-9

9-12

Range of land sizes (Acres) owned

The above figures(3a,3b&3c) show ownership of land(lowland, upland and total land).Figure 5a shows ownership of lowland with 36 (32%) households owning at least between 1 and 3 Acres of lowland. Meanwhile the most (88) of the households in the village owned sizes of upland ranging between 1 and 6 acres (figure 3b). Figure 3c provide the total land(Upland and lowland) owned, and the result show that 7 households do not own any land, 30 households owned between 1 and 3 Acres, while most (45) households own between 3 and 6acres of land. Land ownership is critical to household’s food security and lack of access to land has implications on the general livelihood of the household.

Axe

Hoe

Sickle

Motorbike

Bicycle

Brewing equipment

Mobile phone

Radio

Brick mould

Solar

Battery

Panga

Sprayer

Sewing Machine

Hammer Mill

Television Set

Plough

Table 6: Ownership of assets

Adukait(113) 31 HHs Owning 30 Percentage % 27

242 87 77

16 12 11

6 6 5

74 72 64

10 4 3.5

95 72 64

39 35 31

2 2 2

11 11 10

11 11 10

45 42 37

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

0 0 0

29 29 26

Assets

Table 6 above shows that most of the households have a combination of the smaller agricultural tools to work on the land, this includes hoes(77%), pangas (37%), Axes(27%) and plough(26%).

In terms of mobility, the households in this community have Bicycles and Motorbike with a coverage of 64% and 5% respectively. The results in the table show ownership of mobile phones to be at 64%, while at the same time indicate a relatively low coverage of radio(31%) and TV (0%).

What is worth noting is that generally the tradable asset ownership in this community is relatively low. Henceforth, if these results were anything to go by, it can be deduced here, that considering 18

that this area had suffered many years of conflicts, the community members lost most of their assets, and therefore, are still building up there asset base, and hence, there is need for the project to work at improving either directly or indirectly the household’s asset base over the period of the project. Improvement of the livelihoods through the promotion of ventures that could increase their income which would in turn provide them with an opportunity to increase their asset bases, hence reducing the risk of further depletion of their assets.

Table 7: Ownership of Livestock among Households sampled in the six villages

No LS

Cattle

Goats Sheep

Chicken/ Guinea Fowls

Pigs

Livestock (LS) Ownership

Adukait (113)

17

49

69

91

10

Total number of LS

0

166

211

673

20

Average number of LS owned

0

3

3

7

2

% Total Coverage

15%

43%

61%

81%

9%

Table 7 shows the majority(81%) of households do have Poultry(including chicken and guinea fowls). Meanwhile Sheep and Goats are the next livestock which are owned, with a coverage of 61%. This is followed by cattle which has a coverage of 43 %. Ownership of other livestock, including pigs, turkey and ducks have a relatively low coverage with accounting for less than 10% of the total number of the household in the village. It is worth noting that 15% of the households surveyed did not possess any of the livestock. Livestock was important not only for both consumptions, but equally household income, income from livestock can supplement household cash income and act as a buffer for the household in the event of a shock or stress.

Table 8: Ownership of Trees of economical values among the sampled households Tree Type Total Average #of HHs owning Coverage (%) Eucalyptus

341

31

11

10%

Pine

1

1

1

1%

Acacia

18

2

11

10%

Cordia Africana

3

3

1

1%

The results in table 8 above indicate the main trees that are of economic value in exclusion of fruit trees. On average 21%(24) of the households in the village had at least one of the trees listed above, with 10%(11) of the households owning eucalyptus trees with an average holding of 31 plants per household. Meanwhile the next important tree that was owned was acacia with 19

10%(11) of the households owning on average 2 plants. Ownership of trees such as Eucalyptus was important as it provided the household with endowment that the household would fall back on in the face of a stress or shock that affect other regular sources of household income such as crops and livestock.

Range q1 – q5

Average

Quintile 5

Quintile 4

Quintile 3

Quintile 2

Quintile 1

Table 9: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent split per Quintile Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent (split in quintiles) Uganda Shillings(UGX) Adukait(113) 21,087 219,977 542,770 1,253,991 4,896,418

Euro(4€) 1,386,849 5 – 1,158

Table 9 depicts the disposable income per adult equivalent split across different quintiles (quintile 1 representing the poorest of the poor to quintile 5 representing the better off). The results above show a huge difference in average disposable income between households in lower quintiles(1&2) with those in quintile 1 having an average disposable income of UGX21,087(£4.43) and those in quintile 2 having an average disposable income of UGX219,977(£46.20) which is over ten times that of households in quintile 1. It is worth pointing out that the household disposable incomes for 24 households(21%) falling in the lower quintiles(1&2) are below the total cost of the minimum requirement for non-foods(Minimum SToL threshold) which is at UGX377,400(£79.25).

Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose purchase a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household.

4

1Euro is equivalent to 4227.73 UGX

20

4.0. Household Disposable(DI/AE), SToL and Income by Source 4.1. Household Disposable(DI/AE) and SToL – Adukait Village Figure 4a: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent for Adukait village

Figure 4a presents disposable income per adult equivalent (the money remaining to the household after basic food energy needs have been met) and the cost of the non-food items within the minimum standard of living basket (SToL). Those households with income below the minimum standard of living are shown in blue, while those above are shown in red maroon. Note that non-food costs used to set the standard of living are allocated per household based on household size and their composition (gender and ages of the household members). For example, households with higher incomes may fall below the threshold because they have higher costs due to having several school-age children or more adults that increases the cost related to clothing, for instance. Overall 6% (7 households) were unable to meet their minimum food intake compared with 21% (24 households) who were unable to afford the cost of basic non-food items during the August 2018-July 2019 reference period.

21

Figure 4b: Household Disposable income for HHs in lower quintile

Annual HH income(UGX) per Adult Equivalent

Household Disposable income for HHs in lower quintiles(1&2),Adukait Village 420000 370000 320000 270000 220000 170000 120000 70000 20000 -30000 -80000

HH in lowers Quintiles(1&2)

Figure 4b is an enlarged extract of figure 4a representing the 46 poorest households in Adukait village. These are the households falling in the quintiles 1 and 2. In IHM approach, all sample households are categorised into 5 equal parts(quintiles) based on the disposable income of the household sorted from the lowest to the highest. Quintile 1 represents the poorest of the poor, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 and 4 in between and quintile 5 the better off. 17 of the 46 households are living under the absolute minimum standard of living. 7 of them don’t even have enough income to fulfil their households’ energy requirements. The best off household in this graphic (quintile 2) has a disposable income of 360,620 UGX(which is the equivalent of €765(€6 per month per adult equivalent) meaning that depending on the number of adults and those of school going ages, a household in this category would have an average €76 in a year to meet the cost related to non-food needs such as clothes, soap, salt, oil, body lotions, school and health related costs.

5

1 GBP is equivalent to 4703.40 Ugandan Shilling (https://www1.oanda.com)

22

4.2. Sources of Household Food and Cash Income in Adukait Village Figure 5: Sources of Household Food Income(Kcal)in Adukait village quintile 1 & 2

Household Food Income,Adukait Village Annual Household Food Income(Kilocalories)

1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

HHs ranked with the poorest on the left and better offs on the right(Excluding HHs in quintiles 3,4&5)

Crop(KCals)

Employment(KCals)

Livestock(KCals)

Transfer(KCals)

WildFoods(KCals)

Figure 5 presents household income (standardised6) as food (kilocalories) consumed by a household in Adukait village falling in the lower quintiles (1&2) during the period August 2018 – July 2019. Overall results for all households in Adukait village show that the predominant source of household food income in quintile 1 and 2 is own crop production which accounted for 98% of the total household food income, meanwhile, the 2% balance of the household food income is supplemented by a combination of wild food(1.5%), Transfer(0.4%) and Livestock(0.1%). . None of the households had food income from employment and transfers.

An in-depth focus on the results for households in the lower quintiles(1&2) as depicted by the graphic above, it can be observed that the general outlook or food pattern was the same, with own crop production accounting for 97% of the total household food income, which is supplemented by 2% from wild foods and 1% livestock. Over ally, these results show that there is limited agricultural diversification with a high dependency on crop production as opposed to livestock production.

6

Standardised shows the income per adult equivalent instead of the absolute income. The added value from using standardised is that household incomes are comparable

23

Figure 6: Sources of Cash Income (UGX) for households in Adukait Village

Household Cash income(UGX),Adukait village 600000

Cash Income(UGX)

500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0

HHs ranked with poorest on the left hand side and better off on the right hand side crop

employment

livestock

transfer

wildfoods

Figure 6 presents household income(standardised7) as cash (Ugandan Shilling) for households in Adukait village in quintile 1 and 2 during the August 2018-July 2019 reference year. The cash income patterns for these households(quintiles 1&2) indicate that employment, which is predominantly agricultural related(Labour and sell of crops), petty trade and in some case salaried work contributed 57% of the total household cash income, employment was supplemented by cash income from crops at 37%, 3% from livestock and livestock products.

Meanwhile, 1% of the total household cash income could be attributed to transfers.

These results were equally in agreement with the results for all the households across the five quintiles which is indicated that employment(55%) was followed by sales of crops(43.6%) and very insignificant cash income contributions from sales of Livestock(1.2%), sales of Wild foods (0.1%) and Transfers(0.1%).

It can be observed in the graphic that there is one gap, this gap represents a household that do not have any cash income. Cash flow is important to purchase basic non-food items. Forty two households have a cash income of less than 377,400UGX (£79.25) which makes it incredibly challenging for those households to purchase basic non-food items. Hence, at the risk of suffering from being socially excluded.

7

Standardised shows the income per adult equivalent instead of the absolute income. The added value from using standardised is that household incomes are comparable

24

5.0. Households Food Security Table 10: How long did your food from own production last/number of difficult months Average Average number Average number % of households number of of difficult of HHs having without months months either sufficient sufficient cash to food from food year round supplement own own or cash to production production supplement lasting shortfalls.

Adukait (113HHs) 8months 3months 94% (106HHs) 6%(7HHs)

The table 10 represents results on the average number of months food, which is obtained from households’ own production lasted, the average number of difficult months for most households to adequately meet the households food requirement and whether the household had either sufficient food year round or cash to supplement the shortfalls. The table shows that on average, 106(94%)Households in Adukait village can be said to be food secure as they are able to meet their food requirements either by their own food production or through purchasing. meanwhile 6% of the households were food insecure and on average 3 months is the difficult period for most households, as food from own production lasted for 8 months on average.

6.0. Main Conclusions and Recommendations The following are the main summary, broad conclusions and next steps drawn from the results of the survey: Average household disposable income (per quintile 1&2) The average household disposable income(Per adult equivalent) for the lower quintiles(1&2) stands at UGX120,532.08(£25.31) whereby the 1st quintile accounts for UGX21,087(£4.43); 2nd quintile UGX219,977.17(£46.20);3rd quintile UGX542,770.59(£113.98); 4th quintile UGX1,253,991.18(£263.34); 5th Quintile UGX4,896,417.83(£1,028.25). It is worth pointing out that the household disposable incomes for those falling in the lower quintiles8(1&2) are below the total cost of the minimum requirement for non-foods(Minimum SToL threshold) which is at UGX377,400(£79.25). Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose between purchasing a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household.

Minimum food intake per adult equivalent based on 2,100 kilo calories per person per day/sufficient food throughout the year

8

Quintiles are socioeconomic categorisation of households based on the disposable income per adult equivalent.

According to IHM, the dataset is divided in 5 quintiles, whereby Quintile 1 represent the poorest of the poor, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 the in between and quintile 4& 5 the better off households.

25

Overall findings of the study demonstrate that 6% (7HHs)of households were unable to meet their minimum food energy requirements during the reference year in Adukait village. Large household sizes, limited productive labour, poor soil conditions and limited land contributed to the inability to produce adequate food income from householders’ own crops (the main source of household food in the sampled villages). However, 94% of households surveyed met their minimum food intake requirements during their reference year and can be said to be food secure as they are able to meet their food requirements either by their own food production or through purchasing.

Meanwhile on 6% of the households were food insecure and on average, experience 3 months of difficult especially between April and July.

Disposable income below minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 21% (24HHs) of households in Adukait village did not have sufficient cash income to cover the cost of the basic minimum for non-food items to ensure a minimum standard of living and avoid social exclusion. These households were thus described as below the minimum standard of living threshold during the reference year.

Proportion of Households above minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 79% (89 HHs) of all households in Adukait village, Kapelebyong Subcounty had sufficient cash and food income to both cover household energy requirements and to purchase basic non-food items within the minimum local standard of living basket. These households were thus described as above the minimum standard of living threshold. This meant the majority of households within the sampled villages were able to meet their minimum food and non-food needs, such as education, health care, clothes, soap and paraffin.

Broad Conclusions Although the majority (94%) of households can meet their minimum food intake, still a few (79%) are able to pay the costs of basic non-food items. Implying that 21% of the households do not have sufficient disposable income and are struggling in making a choice between meeting household food energy requirements and that of the non-food needs, hence, at risk of being socially excluded as to a larger extent these would fail to meet the cost for non-foods.

Furthermore, these households are to a larger extent most likely to fall vulnerable if hit by a shock or stress that affect the source of livelihoods.

Generally, the households in this area are to a larger extent dependent on crops for their food(98%) thus less of these crops find their way to the market for cash income, hence, much of the crop production is mainly for consumption. Employment which includes agricultural labour and petty trade constitutes the main sources of cash income as opposed to farming (crops and livestock/livestock products) implying less diversification with regards to sources of cash income.

Nearby communities are pastoralists, implicating that the area is equally potential for livestock production, hence the need to explore the livestock potential in the area as a possibility to diversify both household cash and food income in this regard. The proposed interventions of the 26

project especially as regards to “Output 1: Increased skills and knowledge of 1,000 smallholders to benefit nutritionally and economically from diversified agricultural production” need to emphasize equally the aspect of livestock.

Next Steps – Proposed Interventions Summarized below are proposed interventions.

Table1: Next Steps-Proposed Interventions What was found Limited endowment

Proposed Intervention

How and Why

asset

•

Promoting SWAPP (saving with a productive purpose) and any such that would be key in addressing the limited asset endowment in the community. SWAPP has provided an effect model of wealth accumulation through productive assets i.e. under the Community connector project

•

Train farmers in SWAPP and or other interventions aimed at enhancing the capacity of the farmers to Accumulate key productive assets such as livestock, land and others, while at the same time create wealth.

Households with Low disposable income and those below the standard of living threshold (mainly Quintile 1&2)

•

Enhanced Access to financial services (credit, loans, savings for a purpose, insurance and payment services) i.e. like linkages to financial institutions, VSLAs, equity financing, Continue promotion interventions that would assist smallholder farmers to increase crop and livestock production and productivity. I.e. using the revolving model, vaccination, paravet networks through private sector linkages, etc Improve access to extension through linkage to agro dealers and government extension, etc Promotion of reduction in post-harvest loss practices e.g. through linkages with private sector actors in order increase volume for sale Strengthening collective market engagements CSA promotion given the flooding elements of the area .

•

One of the challenges faced by the smallholder farmers in this area is lack of access to adequate disposable income and especially inform of cash.

Though (94%) households are able to meet their food energy requirements, when one looks at cash income coming from own crop and livestock production, which are supposed to be their main income sources, there is limited cash income being generated from these sources. Much of what is produced is consumed by the households and extraordinarily little is sold for cash on the market. Hence improving access to good market would stimulate increased production and productivity amongst the smallholders and ultimately increase liquidity in the medium and long term.

Promote. interventions that would assist diversifying cash income sources.

•

Diversified sources of income at household level (farm and non- farm). Non-farm including provision of services such as transport, etc. While on Farm – include crops and livestock. small size horticulture interventions, group investments, bee keeping, etc

•

•

•

• • Limited cash income diversification

•

27

7.0. Annexes : Contextual Information Contextual information including Employment, Transfers, Crops, Livestock and livestock products are annexed to this report separately. This also include the village map as well as STOL and Diet configuration information.

28

7.1. Annex : IHM Assessment Team Name

Organisation

Role

IHM level

1: Simon Longa

SHA (Zambia)

Supervisor

Level IV

2: Clement Raphael Banda

SHA (Zambia)

Assessment Leader

Level III

3Dorothy Nakesa 4: Esther Agule 5: Joel Kutosi 6 : John Robert Odongo 7: Moses Omenyuk 8: Pamela Elizabeth Akanyo 9: Stella Rose Apolot 10: Joseph Ariko 11: Julius Edanu 12: Moses Ibwah 13: Samuel Emasu

SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA (Uganda) SHA(Uganda) SHA(Uganda) SHA(Uganda)

Assessment Leader Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator

Level IV Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I

29