Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Peace Final Social Assessment Report FOR Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) (P164336) March 15, 2019 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 1 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures .......................................................................................................................... ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background and Context............................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Objectives of the Social Assessment .......................................................................................... 2 1.3. Methodology of the Social Assessment ...................................................................................... 2 1.3.1. Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2. Data Collection Tools .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Scope of the Social Assessment .................................................................................................. 5 2. Description of the Project .............................................................................................................. 8 3. Review of Institutional and Implementation Arrangements, and Legal Frameworks .......... 12 3.1. LLRP Implementation Arrangement...................................................................................... 12 3.2. LLRP Environmental and Social Safeguards Implementation Arrangement .................... 12 3.4. Legal Frameworks: Basis for Social Assessment ................................................................... 19 3.4.1. National Legislation .......................................................................................................... 19 3.4.2. World Bank Operational Policies on Environmental and Social Safeguards ............. 21 3.4.3. Land Tenure and Land Policy ......................................................................................... 23 4. Key Social Assessment Findings ................................................................................................. 25 4.1. Socio-demographic Features of the Population under Study ............................................... 25 4.1.1. Afar Regional State ........................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2. Gambella Regional State .................................................................................................. 26 4.1.3. Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) .......................... 27 4.1.4. Oromia Regional State ....................................................................................................... 29 4.1.5. Ethiopian Somali Regional State ........................................................................................ 30 4.2. Socio-cultural and Economic Context ........................................................................................ 32 4.2.1. Community Institutions ..................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2. Causes of Conflicts and their Traditional Resolution Mechanisms in PAP Areas ............ 35 4.2.3. Grievance Redress Mechanism during Project Implementation ...................................... 43 4.2.4. Livelihood Activities ........................................................................................................... 47 i 4.2.5. Natural Resource Use and Control in the Study Areas ..................................................... 49 4.2.6. Type and Use of Land Tenure ......................................................................................... 50 4.2.7. Livestock Mobility .............................................................................................................. 53 4.2.8. Ethnic Relationships in Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Communities.............................. 54 4.2.9. Crosscutting Issues in the LLRP Communities Involved for this Social Assessment . 55 5. Lessons Learnt ............................................................................................................................. 61 6. Community Consultation on LLRP ........................................................................................... 63 6.1. Introducing Objectives of LLRP for the Community ........................................................... 63 6.2. Community’s Reflections, Concerns and Aspirations on the LLRP .................................... 64 6.3. Summary of Community Consultation ................................................................................... 73 7. Social Development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges, Opportunities and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................................... 75 Disclosure Policies and Procedures .................................................................................................... lxxxiii References ............................................................................................................................................. lxxxiv List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Areas Covered and Number of Community Consulted for this Social Assessment............... 6 Table 2: Profile of Experts and Officials Involved in KII and FGD Sessions for SA Preparation...... 6 Table 3: Institutional Framework ........................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Social development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges, Mitigation Measures, Opportunities, and Budget ................................................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 1: Proposed Institutional Arrangement for Environmental and Social Safeguard Management .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2: Proposed Grievance Redress Mechanisms .............................................................. 46 ii Acronyms and Abbreviations APL Adaptable Lending Program ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lowlands BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development BoPD Bureau of Pastoral Development CAC Community Audit Committee CAHW Community Animal Health Worker CDD Community-driven Development CDP Community Development Plan CIF Community Investment Fund CIG Common Interest Group CPF Country Partnership Framework CSA Central Statistical Agency DP Development Partners DRDIP Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project DRSLP Drought Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Programme EU European Union ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FGD Focus Group Discussion FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia F-PCU Federal Project Coordination and Implementation Unit FSS Food Security Strategy FSC Federal Steering Committee FTWG Federal Technical Working Group GoE Government of Ethiopia GTP Growth and Transformation Plan IA Implementing Agency IDA International Development Association IDDRSI IGAD’s Drought Disaster Resilience Sustainable Initiative IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development IGA Income Generating Activity KDC Kebele Development Committee KFT Kebele Facilitation Team KII Key Informant Interview LFSDP Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project LRP Livelihood Resilience Project LLRP Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MoFEC Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation MFI Micro Finance Institution MOH Ministry of Health MOP Ministry of Peace MoFPDA Ministry of Federal and Pastoral Development Affairs iii MoU Memorandum of Understanding MoT Ministry of Transport MoWIE Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity Ops Operational Policies PAD Project Appraisal Document PAP Pastoral and Agro-pastoral PATC Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Training Centers PAPREG Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research and Extension Group PASACCO Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Savings and Credit Cooperative PASDEP Sustainable Development to End Poverty PCDP Pastoral Community Development Project PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PFS Pastoral Field Schools P/APFS Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Field School PPP Public-Private Partnership RMIP Rangeland Management & Investment Plan R-PCU Regional Bureaus of the Project Coordination and Implementation Unit RPLRP Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Project RPF Resettlement Policy Framework RUSACCO Rural Savings and Credit Cooperative RSC Regional Steering Committee RTWG Regional Technical Working Group SA Social Assessment SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative SDPRP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program SLMP Sustainable Land Management Programme SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region ToR Terms of Reference TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training USAID United States Agency for International Development WCST Woreda Cluster Support Team WoFED Woreda Office for Finance and Economic Development WTC Woreda Technical Committee WoPD Woreda Office for Pastoral Development WB World Bank iv Executive Summary Background and Context The arid and semi-arid low-lands account for 60 percent of land area and comprise 12 to 14 percent of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities that have traditionally been disadvantaged from the mainstream political and economic engagements of Ethiopia and lag behind in most of the socioeconomic indicators. The Ministry of Federal and Pastoral Development Affairs (MoFPDA) is now under the Ministry of Peace (MoP) led by State Minister has successfully implemented three successive phases of Pastoral Community Development Project (PCDP) under an Adaptable Programme Lending (APL) spanning 15 years, which has been jointly supported by the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Building upon the successful Community Driven Development (CDD) experience of PCDP and expanding it to livelihood resilience and commercialization, MoFPDA (the then MOP), in coordination with other line ministries (such as Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Education, etc.) has been designated by the GoE to lead the design and development of a new investment lending operation. It is thus to be seen as a flagship investment leading to a new generation of investments aiming to build livelihoods resilience in the lowland areas of Ethiopia. The Lowlands Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) is an integrated and comprehensive development program planned to be signed among the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The proposed project will be implemented using both a top down and CDD approach along pastoralist and agro-pastoralists routes targeting the Afar, Somali, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella and parts of pastoral and agropastorral communities in SNNPR and Oromia regions with the inclusion of selected 100 Woredas identified based on Woreda-selection criteria. In line with this, the main Project Development Objective is to enhance livelihood resilience, productivity and commercialization systems among lowland communities in Ethiopia. Methodology of the Social Assessment Primary and secondary data collection methods were employed in undertaking the Social Assessment. Qualitative approach was used in order to explore and produce cultural descriptions, uncovering multiple realities and complexities of livelihood activities in the lowland communities in detail. It also enabled to collect subjective information from community members, concerned government officials, and other stakeholders. The methods used to collect the LLRP Social Assessment were: key informant interview, focus group discussions, field observation and community consultations. Secondary data relevant to the issue understudy were collected such as documents developed for the World Bank supported projects in Ethiopia- DRDIP, PCDP, RPLRP, LFSDP, LLRP PAD, World Bank Operational Policies, national project design team document and related studies were reviewed. Scope of the Social Assessment The assessment for implementing LLRP was carried out in five regional states of Ethiopia: Afar, Somali, SNNRP, Oromia, and Gambella, which overall covers 10 Woredas (20 Kebeles), out of 100 selected LLRP Woredas for the implementation of the project. However, Benishangul Gumuz v regional state was not included in the study due to travel restrictions of security in the area. In general, 658 people (196 female and 462 male) participated for this study who are representatives of lowland communities as well as different officials and experts working in relation to the issue under study were participated. Primarily, purposive sampling was used to include the Woredas and accessibility was also used as an additional criterion. Focus group discussions were made using semi-structured checklist with male and female community members, Religious leaders and elders. Attempts were made to include vulnerable community members like female household heads, people with disabilities, the old, and the poor. Key informants such as Development Agents (DAs), woreda experts from different line offices and Kebele chairmen, Pastoral Community Development Program III (PCDP-III) woreda focal persons, experts from Regional Bureau of Environment, Forest and climate, and PCDP-III regional environment and social safeguard specialists were also consulted. Components of the Project Lowland Resilient Livelihood Project has four components, and nine sub-components. Component 1 focuses on integrated rangeland development and management of all-natural resources, in particular rangelands, including dry season, wet season and drought reserves; cattle corridors; wetlands; forest/woodlands; water sources for livestock and people; settlements and areas reserved for crop/fodder production, in addition to small-scale irrigation and water conservation schemes. It will also integrate strategic investment around market infrastructure development as integral part of broader rangeland development. Component 2 aims at offering economic opportunities for women, men and youth in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in order to: (a) enhance and diversify the productivity, production and sustainability of their pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems; (b) create alternative livelihood opportunities for people who move temporally or permanently out of pastoralism; strengthen the targeted value chains, market access, trade and access to financial services. Component 3: Improving Basic Services and Capacity Building among the target communities, using a decentralized Community-driven Development (CDD) approach and by adopting a spatial orientation to infrastructure development and finance investment at various level, community, inter-community, Kebele and Woreda. It also include Knowledge Management, Research and Policy Support to fill the gaps projects lack of documentation and dissemination on lessons learnt and best practices. Therefore, the project will support continuous learning, adaptable knowledge management and communication on innovative tools and approaches. Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation to ensure that the project is managed and implemented efficiently, on time and in accordance with the PDO and Financing Agreement, and its performance and impact are carefully tracked. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements for Safeguards The implementation of the LLRP activities and particularly the environmental and social safeguard will take place through the existing government institutional structures from the federal to the local or community level. It would be centered in the MOFPDA the then MOP that would be responsible for project implementation at all levels of the government’s existing implementation structure for Lowland Livelihoods Resilience Project starting from Federal-Regional State-Zone-Woreda- Kebele to the local communities. These entities and their staffs would have to be able to and ready to implement in the existing 100 LLRP Woredas in Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Ethiopian Somali, Oromia, and Benishangul Gumuz regional states. Accordingly, MoP is the Lead agency for oversight and strategic coordination for project implementation and will establish appropriate oversight and implementation mechanisms to ensure efficient implementation and coordination. vi MOP will within the first six months of project effectiveness establish appropriate oversight mechanisms, which include: a Federal Steering Committee (FSC) responsible for providing oversight and strategic coordination of the project at the Federal Level be chaired by the Minister and comprise decision-makers from line ministries involved in implementation by recruiting Federal Technical Working Group (FTWG) comprises of technical staff from the above mentioned ministries. Regional Steering Committee (RSC) is responsible for providing oversight and strategic coordination at the regional level. Regional Technical Working Group provides technical guidance to the RSC on prioritization of activities and review of proposed strategic projects under each Components of the project. The Woreda Cabinet is comprised of different sector offices and is responsible for direct oversight of project activities and meets on a quarterly basis. The Community Audit Committee provides community level oversight and Service Oversight Committees are established around the provision of specific services. Moreover, project established implementation units are required to ensure smooth project implementation, designated units will be established at the federal, regional, sub-regional (Woreda clusters) and Woreda levels. In some cases, these units will be directly responsible for implementation. There may be regional differences in exact project implementation arrangements, e.g., Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz. The following units will be established by MoP: a federal project coordination and implementation unit will be established to undertake day-to-day activities of the project. Regional bureaus of the project coordination and implementation unit will be established at each of the six regions where the project will be implemented, Woreda cluster support teams will be established as project implementation support units within each region, Woreda support officers; Woreda focal persons and woreda finance officers will be deployed to support the woreda office for pastoral development and the Woreda office for finance and economic development in coordination and financial accountability activities. There will be federal and regional implementation arrangements and MoUs will be signed between MoP and line ministries and other federal level IAs. Furthermore, implementation at Woreda, Kebele and community level where the main thrust of project activities will be implemented through Woreda Sector Offices, Kebele administrations and appointed Kebele facilitation teams. The bodies which will be responsible for the day to day implementation of project activities include: Woreda cabinet, the Woreda technical committee, the Woreda appraisal team, Woreda office for pastoral development, Woreda office for finance and economic development, Kebele development committee, Kebele level technical staffs, Kebele facilitation team, community based technical specialists, and community based management committees. Socio-cultural and Economic Context Community institutions are mechanisms of social order that govern the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community, which promote cultural, social, political and economic aspects of local communities. During this social assessment, in the study areas, commonly, there are informal and formal forms of institutions. Formal community institutions depend on written laws by government. As like other communities of Ethiopia, the lowland communities are governed by government structure starting from federal to Kebele level as mentioned in the implementation arrangement earlier. Participants in all of the Woredas selected for the assessment indicated that in the Pastoral and Agro-pastoral (PAP) communities, concurrent with formal government structure, the community uses the traditional administration system. Besides government structure, there are several formal organizations such as community based organization (CBO) in all regions included in this Social Assessment. Some of the CBOs that are vii commonly mentioned by informants and established by the government up to the Kebele levels in the study areas are like Youth and Women Associations. Informant complained these associations that they are not working properly because of the fact they wanted to maximize their personal interests than for what they stand for. Moreover, Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) were established in PAP communities that have limited access to banks and other financial service providers. Through SACCOs and PASACCOs, PAP communities have been able to jointly save and create revolving loan funds for their members to finance income generating activities, such as, goat and sheep fattening, cattle rearing and processing of meat and dairy products and increasing agricultural production. In this regard, women mentioned in almost all study areas the benefits they got from engaging in these activities. This should be strengthened during the implementation of LLRP. Informal community institutions rely on local communities’ cultures that have distinctive structures or forms. They play important role in shaping the capacities of communities to respond to changes in natural and social systems. Thus, it is imperative to see how local community institutions facilitate or enable interaction between the local communities and external actors. Pastoral and agro-pastoral communities have their own local institutions that are very strong and enable them ease their daily activities. The Balabat system is an informal institution found in all PAP communities in South Omo, for example, in Hamar, Kara, Bashada and Benna ethnic groups where all members of the group are loyal to their respective Bittas/balabat and believe they perform all traditional rituals and religious practices for their members. Some other ritual positions in Hamar and Benna are the bitta, parko, gudili, djilo, and kogo. There are also social positions in these communities such as donza, zarsi, and ayo for mutual solution in political decisions or problems of public concern. Likewise, the Oromo people has their own unique traditional institution named the Gada system, which is based on an age-set system that cross-cuts kinship organization, particularly the Jarsumma/elders institution plays significant role in mediating various problems encountering the community including solving conflicts within their clans and inter-clans as well as with other ethnic groups like the Somali. The same is true for Afar community, for example, co-operation is based on the local community structure of clan, sub-clan, family, etc. the higher units are clan (mela) and the level below it is the local community (kaidoh), and the next lower level is the extended family (dahla), followed by the household (burra). For that reason, the sultanates are clan leaders, Firma or Balabat are community leaders, and household heads that reflect their daily socio-cultural aspects. Within the local community, elders arbitrate disputes, and the overall problems are dealt with the committee members of the grazing associations. The Somali have also their own local traditional institution named as Ugas System for making decision in the Somali ethnic group and it is inevitably recognized by all ethnic groups. Every clan has their own representative that takes messages from the Ugas and passes down to their respective community members. Participants mentioned sultan as a clan leader and followed by Akili. They also mentioned Gudi/elders committee who are clan’s representative and play role in solving problems that encounter the community. In times problems cannot be solved or beyond the capacity of the Gudi, they are brought to the formal government structures. In Gambella, the Anyawa uses Juatut traditional conflict redress mechanism while the Nuer practices Ruach. Participants in all Woredas during the discussions expressed in one way or the other the significances or contributions of various traditional institutions, particularly the local informal institution during the implementation of the forthcoming LLRP. Causes of conflicts and traditional resolution mechanism among PAP communities viii The main causes of conflicts among pastoral and agro-pastoral communities of the lowland areas of Ethiopia selected for this Social Assessment were: Pasture or grazing land, shortage of water, cattle raid and adultery. In all Woredas selected for this SA, drought brought scarcity of grazing land and water resources for their livestock and human being; as a result PAP communities are forced to travel longer distance even crossing their boundaries where they can get available feeds and water. This in turn resulted in the causes of inter-ethnic conflicts that claim life and property. Cattle raid is the outcome of marriage practices of the community among the Hamar and Benna, for a man to marry a girl for bride wealth forced him to loot a nearby ethnic group’s l ivestock. Adultery in some ethnic groups such as the Afar and Somali is not allowed and a cause for conflict. Pastoral and agro-pastoral communities have their own traditional conflict resolution mechanisms even if the approach of solving and managing the conflict differ according to the traditional practice of a certain ethnic group. The traditional conflict management mechanism is through the traditional elders without the involvement of government officials. First of all, elders from the mobile community will approach the host elders and with the permission of the host elders migrating animals are allowed to graze and use the water whenever the mobility is within the same clan. In SNNPR, for instance, the PAP communities of the Hamar and Benna Tsemai manage conflicts by way of the Denb system, which is a local institution that play role in socio-cultural, political and legal aspects. In addition to the traditional inter-ethnic grievance redress mechanisms, the participation of regional, zonal, Woreda and Kebele government officials play vital role in solving conflicts. More than this, the involvement of community committee comprised of elders and balabats from the two conflicting parties take part and try to settle the problem as much as possible by cooling down the family of dead person. The Hamar and Kara ethic group have a tradition of correcting the perpetrators through whipping them seriously using a traditional Baraza stick and pay compensation for the relatives of the dead person. Likewise, clan leaders play a key role in maintaining social order, coordinating social activities, and managing common property resources such as pasture and water where collective action is embedded in Afar culture. The longstanding conflict resolution system of the Afar is known as Makboon, which varies across clans. In the context of Kori and Dubti Woredas, the source of conflict could be grazing land, water; unexpected killing of a person and looting of livestock. Such conflicts may be experienced in intra-clan, inter-clan or inter-ethnic. The conflict may also be among individual pastoralists of households. The tradition of Makabon is helpful in resolving most of the disputes in the Afar community. Through this traditional laws resource conflict, divorce and theft cases are handled. Whenever this traditional law fails to resolve the conflict, the community leaders and the Woreda administrative bodies will handle it together, for example, the issue of sexual abuse of women and any type of death. In Gambella, conflict can be resulted due to cattle theft, unarranged or unapproved marriage and murder crimes. In both circumstances, the role of customary conflict resolution mechanism is essential. For example the process of solving conflicts by elders of the Nuer traditionally called ‘Duol’. Among the Somali pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in Harshin and Gursum Woredas, the traditional conflict resolution system is known as ‘odiyash deganka’. According to this system, when conflict happens, the community informs the clan leader. Clan leaders manage inter-clan and intra-clan conflicts through Ola system by bringing together the two foes in order to reconcile and stop their enmity. If the conflict is with non-Somali ethnic groups, it is handled and settled by the Ugas who is the leader of clans in Somali ethnic groups that has the supreme power and any decision made by the Ugas is automatically accepted by the ethnic group. So, the Ugas together ix with clan leaders are responsible to resolve inter-ethnic conflict. The Oromo have also their own traditional conflict resolution called Jarsuma (conciliation of elderly) which is under the bigger umbrella of the Gada system. Parallel to resolving issues through the Gada system, more specifically Jarsuma, conflicts in the area are resolved through the formal government structures from Kebele to higher judiciary system. Grievance Redress Mechanism during Project Implementation Grievance redress mechanism will be practiced during the implementation of LLRP taking into account context dependent format that consider PAP communities, project beneficiaries and stakeholders redress complaints from the six regions: Afar, Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR, Somali and Benishangul Gumuz. Accordingly, any decision of activities regarding inclusion in the census, eligibility and temporary or permanent loss of their land, assets or sources of income and their compensation. It is thus imperative to consider the denb, odiyash deganka, duol, jarsuma (Gada) and Makaboon systems, to mention a few, in line with the regions context. These traditional institutions as first entry for resolving any complaints often used to solve particularly interethnic conflict through organized committees that are trusted and heard by communities and then the formal project based GRM will be used. Livelihood Activities The main livelihood activities of lowland communities in the study areas depend on livestock production and a limited level of crop production. Livestock production is a practice of traditional and extensive livestock rearing system (cattle, camels, goats and sheep). The agro-pastoralists also make their livelihood out of mixed agriculture, mainly those households residing along the permanent rivers. However, there have been vulnerabilities due to recurrent drought, chronic water shortages, conflicts, market shocks (livestock and cereals price fluctuations), animal and human diseases. There are practices of maize, sorghum and vegetables and fruits production using rain fed and irrigated agriculture and in some areas making and selling of traditional objects, participating in some rituals and performances prepared for tourists. There are other complementary incomes among the households of PAP communities such as traditional bee keeping, fishing, charcoal production, collecting and selling of firewood and petty trading as well as performing low-skilled labor intensive activities mainly by pastoral drop outs. Natural Resource Use and Control in the Study Areas Various kinds of natural resources used by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the Woredas selected for this SA. These natural resources are water, rangelands or grazing land, agricultural lands, forests, wild animals, fruits and vegetables, minerals, and aquatic life. Regardless of the presence of these natural resources in the study areas of lowland communities, there are various factors that threaten their existence due to but not limited to drought, deforestation, soil erosion, expansion and salinity of Basaka Lake and ProsopisJuliflora. The lowland communities take into account land as their main natural resources even if there exists all the time variation across socio-economic groups over how to access and control land. The land tenure system of the PAP communities was absolutely under the customary land tenure system. It is imperative to consider land resource not only in terms of their physical, economic and legal entity but also their socio-cultural values that attached with the local people’s emotion. The result of the study showed that the land tenure system, on the whole, categorized into grazing land and x farm land uses. This means the rangelands used for grazing in the PAP communities are communally owned and governed by customary law and dictates communal land use right. Thus, whenever LLRP requires land for commercial forage seed and forage production, investment in commercial feedlots and slaughter houses, community/privately owned breeding ranches, market centers/shades, it should follow the Ethiopian law and polices as well as relevant World Bank polices. Besides, discussions in the five regions of selected participants revealed that farmland have been used privately as it comprises property inheritance system and patrilocal residence. Water is another natural resource which is used by the PAP communities for livestock and human beings from perennial rivers, short-term rivers, ponds and traditional wells. In most of the study Woredas, there is critical water shortage, particularly during the dry season. This project should address water resource utilization for sustainable development of PAP communities and for growing sorghum, corn, vegetable, and fruit that can immensely complement the dominant means of livelihoods of PAP communities. It also creates diversification of livelihoods and commercialization of resources as well as implements the strategic investment in the larger untapped PAP areas using perennial rivers. The mobility of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists is primarily determined by the quantity and quality of water and fodder availability and the mobility may be short or long distance within ones own ethnic or crossing their boundary. Ethnic relationships in PAP communities consider various ways to create relationships within their own and other ethnic group that plays a vital significance. Understanding inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic relationships in order to keep sustainability of project are relevant. Thus, the PAP communities maintain intra-ethnic relations through a long standing system and make use of clan as a deep-rooted socio-cultural arrangement that institutes the intra-ethnic relations. Inter-ethnic relationships also focus on socio-economic relationships of one ethnic group with the neighboring ethnic groups who identify themselves differently from them in various socioeconomic aspects. This interdependence and essential market network has played a great role in consolidating social bonds of different ethnic groups that share boundary and resources. Vulnerable Groups in the PAP Communities This social assessment found out women, children, the youth, physically challenged people and elderly were considered as vulnerable or disadvantaged groups in the society among the lowland communities. These sections of the community are subjected to cultural influence and ‘harmful traditional practices’. As the project is aimed to empower and involve such community members through community driven demands, it should cautiously target these sections of the community to benefit from the project through proper tracking. Gender inequality Gender equality refers to rights, responsibilities and opportunities that do not depend on whether you are born as male or female rather it should consider, favor and value different behaviors, aspirations and needs of women and men equally. However, gender inequality has been a common practice in the areas in accessing productive resources and basic services. This trend is significantly practical among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. In these communities, women have been marginalized socially, economically and politically, which is attributed to the traditional xi structures, cultural beliefs and viewpoints. This in turn undermined women’s social positions and denied their rights to use and access resources and services although some efforts were exerted by government in improving land use rights of women. Still men are the sole owners of all household and other properties except limited access to low valued properties. It, thus, requires the relevance of participating women in decision-making process during project implementation and empowers women by creating strategies to benefit women 50% of the project and reduce their burden. Community consultation is one of the essential tasks of the Social Assessment that ensure participation of broader number of local communities. Each community is a unique group of people with different needs, priorities and relations to their natural resources. Bringing together and consulting an inclusive selection of the community from various sections of the community such as male, female, elderly and youth as well as stakeholders working in different organizations could get to know diverse perceptions and needs. Considering communities’ priorities and needs of development would, therefore, create efficient implementation of projects that maximize value and minimize costs on an intervention, which in turn, would help the sustainability of a project. It further helps in determining the overall concept and design of a project. In order to conduct community consultation, participants of each selected Kebeles were pre-informed and called to centers of each Kebele. Lowland communities in the five regions have reflected the challenges they have been encountering. They also forwarded their concerns, priorities and aspirations towards the LLRP. The major challenges and mitigation measures forwarded were focusing on recurrent drought and deterioration of grazing land and scarcity of water resources for humans and animals. The mitigation measures for this include allocation of resources and skills for improved rangeland management, soil and water resources development strategies and apply CDD approach to overcome the challenges. The other challenge mentioned was the prevalence of human and animal diseases and should be mitigated through the expansion of health centers. Absence or shortage of market facilities or centers, poor social and economic service providing infrastructures were also mentioned as challenges that can be mitigated through the introduction of market centers to the residents and neighboring areas where the establishment of the market centers will be demand driven and site selection that will be done with the participation of beneficiary communities. Moreover, there might be social risk of inter-ethnic conflict over resource competition which will be mitigated by undertaking a careful conflict situation analysis to underpin the planning process and involve key stakeholders in each Woreda in the planning process including using resource use mapping to show key infrastructure, boundaries and in agreement with all communities on the nature of inclusive use of infrastructure or natural resources. It can also be mitigated by assisting discussions between community representatives of clan leaders, Kebele chairpersons and elders to support peaceful inter-clan and inter-ethnic as well as cross-border relations by supporting regular forums and workshops that promote inter-ethnic dialogue. Besides, there may be vulnerability of livelihoods and absence of livelihoods diversification, which in turn affects the capacity of resilience due to different shocks that will be mitigated by providing alternate livelihoods activities and provide skill training using modalities of organized groups and institutions such as common interest groups (CIG), PASACCOs, RUSACCOs, other non-financial service providers, pastoral cooperatives and individuals, mainly those who left pastoral sector. Furthermore, unemployment of the youth and gender inequalities in resources use rights and women burden in various activities were the challenges and priority areas of the xii communities concern to be solved and suggested to be mitigated through creating employment opportunity for the youth and women in the various services to be provided by LLRP. In addition, seed capital support will be provided, together with financial literacy trainings and also with provisions for developing and applying financial services adapted to lowland PAP communities’ situations. Some social risks that may encounter during project implementation were also identified. These include but not limited to be conflicts on grazing lands that will be mitigated using traditional conflict redress mechanism coupled with formal institutions. The other social risk mentioned was elite capture that will be mitigated by providing controlling mechanism of the elite capture. In this respect beneficiaries should be realistically selected in consultation with representatives of the community. Domestic violence was also raised as another social risk which will be mitigated through awareness creation for male and female representatives of the communities, mainly reducing the risks that arise from overall social, economic, environmental as well as other related impacts. More to the point, culturally sensitive capacity building efforts need to be used at different levels under the project components to clearly define the process, content and mechanism for training. Social risks related to inability to pay minimum contribution for IGAs for vulnerable and historically underserved communities may prevail and unable to join cooperatives due to inability to pay the registration fee should be supported through flexible local level solutions. Limited technical capacities of implementing offices at the Woreda and Kebele levels may also be considered as a social risks and needs consistent and focused capacity building trainings for members of the various LLRP related grassroots committees that will be engaged in the project. Risk of involving one clan more over the other is may also be a risk so it needs to broaden the representation of community members on targeting committees with greater emphasis on women participation. The pattern of mobility of pastoralists may be a risk to benefit them from LLRP so it should be started with community consultation in order to map the human and livestock mobility, and thus, develop well planned spatial development of water infrastructures and rangeland management interventions. Moreover, dependency syndrome on the provision of seed money for women and youth to launch business may be a risk and there should be a strong effort from the beneficiaries in using the seed money for the targeted activities. This would be realistic by making them contribute their share a certain percent, so that they feel ownership of the project. For detailed social development plan see page 62. xiii 1. Introduction 1.1.Background and Context The Ethiopian highlands, accounting for 40 percent of land area but over 85 percent of population, have been epicenter for economic and political power for centuries. The arid and semi-arid low- lands, accounting for 60 percent of land area, 12 to 14 percent of the population of mainly pastoral and agro-pastoral (PAP) communities, have traditionally been marginalized from the mainstream political and economic engagements of Ethiopia. The geographical spread of growth over the past two decades has been disproportionate with more focus on Ethiopian highlands while not adequately covering Ethiopian lowlands. As a result, the majority of the mainly pastoral and agro- pastoral people residing in the lowlands lag behind in most of the social and economic indicators and their livelihoods are highly vulnerable to a multitude of shocks. The Ministry of Federal and Pastoral Development Affairs (MoFPDA) is now under the Ministry of Peace (MoP) led by State Minister has successfully implemented three successive phases of Pastoral Community Development Project (PCDP) under an Adaptable Programme Lending (APL) spanning 15 years, which has been jointly supported by the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). PCDP has, through the Community Driven Development approach (CDD), significantly strengthened community institutions enabling them to develop inclusive community development plans to inform investment priorities at Kebele, Woreda and regional levels, and has improved the access to community demand-driven social and economic services for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in Ethiopia, reaching about 4 million people (or about one third of the population in these areas). The coordination of pastoral and agro-pastoral development is currently being done by MOP. To build upon the successful CDD experience of PCDP and expanding it to livelihood resilience and commercialization, MOP, in coordination with other line ministries (such as Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock; Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Education, etc.) has been designated by the GoE to lead the design and development of a new investment lending operation. While scaling up and continuing the community-led provision of social services under PCDP, this new investment will have a broader focus on livelihood resilience, which implies a broadened approach, incorporating pastoral rangeland and natural resource management, climate change adaptation and mitigation, development of pastoral and agro-pastoral value chains and related alternative livelihoods, nutrition, and job creation. It is thus to be seen as a flagship investment leading to a new generation of investments aiming to build livelihoods resilience in the lowland areas of Ethiopia. The Livelihoods Resilience Project (LRP) is an integrated and comprehensive development program planned to be signed among the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The proposed project will be implemented using both a top down and CDD approach along pastoralist and agro-pastoralists routes targeting the Afar, Somali, SNNRP, Oromia, and Gambella regions with the inclusion of selected Woredas identified based on Woreda-selection criteria. The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to enhance livelihood resilience, productivity and commercialization systems among lowland communities in Ethiopia. The LRP will contribute to a number of Focus Areas and strategic objectives that include promotion of structural and economic transformation through increased productivity and broad-based economic growth, 1 reduction of vulnerabilities and improved environmental sustainability. This is expected to contribute to the GoE’s policies for development of the country’s Arid and Semi -Arid Lowlands (ASALs) 1.2.Objectives of the Social Assessment Social assessment helps make the project responsive to any social development related risks, concerns, including seeking to enhance benefits for poor and vulnerable people while minimizing or mitigating risk and adverse impact. It analyzes distributional impacts of intended project benefits on different stakeholder groups and identifies differences in assets and capabilities to access the project benefit. Development initiatives informed by social assessments alleviate poverty, enhance inclusion and build ownership while minimizing and compensating for adverse social impacts on the vulnerable and the poor. To the extent possible, the project social assessment should build on existing data and analysis relevant to the project. 1.3.Methodology of the Social Assessment 1.3.1. Data Collection Methods Primary and secondary data collection methods were employed in undertaking the Social Assessment. Qualitative approach was used for the SA in order to explore and produce cultural descriptions, uncovering multiple realities and complexities of livelihood activities in the lowland communities in detail. It also enabled to collect subjective information from community members, concerned government officials, and other stakeholders. 1.3.1.1.Primary Data Collection Methods Primary data collection methods were used to collect relevant data for the Social Assessment. The primary data collection methods used during the LLRP Social Assessment was Key Informant Interview (KII), Focus Group Discussions (FGD), Field observation and Community consultations. These are discussed in the following ways. A. Key Informant Interview Key informant interviews were conducted with various stakeholders working at regional, zonal, Woreda and Kebele levels. The interview was done using semi-structured interview guides that focuses on the project’s likely risks, vulnerable groups, and challenges encountered. It also focused on information related to the culture of the community, land tenure systems, physical cultural heritages, inter-ethnic relationship, and the likely impact of LLRP. KII was made at community level with selected community elders, religious leaders, clan leaders, and women. This helped to obtain rich knowledge and experience of local community mainly on socioeconomic features, natural resource use and management, livelihood activities, vulnerable groups, land issues, project sustainability issues, conflict redress mechanisms, and their culture. B. Focus Group Discussion/FGD FGD was another qualitative data collection method from multiple participants representing the community and were made at the local level. It is found valuable to check and crosscheck the information gathered through other methods such as KII and observation. It helped to obtain reliable information particularly from the synergetic effects created during discussion and also 2 gave chance for the participants to ask question for issues that are not clear among each other to reach a consensus. The main objective of the FGD was to see land tenure systems, social networks, community relationships and to assess LLRP impacts on the life of the people under study. Participants of FGDs were composed of women, youths, elders and experts at regional and Woreda level bureaus/offices. It was done to get participants views, experiences and expectations of risk factors, concerns, challenges and benefits of the project. Interview guide question for FGD were prepared on selected topics from the project components for the Social Assessment (See Annex for FGD guide questions). C. Field Observation The consultant also used field observation as a method for this study. This method is used to see the real living condition and livelihood activities of the people and observe the physical cultural heritages on the ground. The social and environmental settings or situations were observed to have good understanding of status and conditions of existing basic social service providing infrastructures such as schools, water points, health institutions, roads, markets, and so on. Accordingly note taking and photographing were important tools used to record observation during field visits. Moreover, observation checklist was prepared and used. D. Community Consultation Community consultations were made with each of the Kebele representative community groups with the aim to solicit their perception and opinions related to livelihoods resilience particularly LLRP objectives, components and sub-components. It also aimed to obtain information on the overall contribution of the project to their life. Two Kebeles were selected from each Woreda to conduct community consultations. 1. The consultation was made with women, men, elders and youths. 2. This was done to explore social and economic risks and impacts of different project activities on the community including vulnerable and marginalized groups, and community livelihood activities. 3. The community consultations were made to obtain the views of the community on major challenges and concerns in relation to LLRP. 4. It was also done to understand the interest and priority areas of the community; voluntary land donation, consultation process, and community participation. The Social Assessment was organized based on the Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation in order to make certain broad community support to LLRP. The GOE also requires. The forthcoming operational steps were considered in the process of organizing the community: o Free: o The purpose of the consultation was communicated o Appropriate days were selected such as nonworking, appropriate time and venue. o During the consultation, participants freely explained their concerns, views, opportunities and challenges, including their suggested recommendations to improve the development outcome of the proposed project based on their context. o Prior: adequate time was given to consulted participants to articulate their concerns, views, opportunities and challenges during the meetings. 3 o Ensuring fair representation of different voices: o In advance communication was made and the team identified the participants of community consultations in collaboration with kebele administration officials and kebele development agents. o Facilitators further organized the participants as women, youths, underserved people, and elders and religious leaders based on the varied interests of stakeholders to facilitate viable negotiation on their concerns and proposals. o Use of Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Mediums: Consultation sessions were made using appropriate/relevant medium of communication (Amharic/Oromiffa/Anyawa/Nuer, Somali, Afar, Hamar, and other local languages as deemed necessary) and using interpreters. All the above mentioned processes and steps has helped the facilitating team to ascertain that there were ‘free’, ‘prior’, ‘informed’ communication and preparation to proceed with the consultation of community members on the proposed LLRP. Moreover, participants in the community consultation were informed about objectives, components and subcomponents and implications of the implementation of the proposed LLRP. Besides, tailored consultation and communication approach on various issues associated with vulnerable groups, underserved peoples, ethnic and occupational minorities were discussed as the context and culture permits. 1.3.1.2.Secondary Data Collection Methods Secondary data relevant to the issue understudy were collected prior to the field data collection and in due course of the Social Assessment. Previous Social Assessment documents that were developed for the World Bank supported projects in Ethiopia, for example, DRDIP, PCDP-3, RPLRP, LFSDP, LLRP PAD, project design team document and related studies were reviewed. Besides, World Bank OPs, National and International Laws and Proclamations and Ethiopian government rules and regulation related to underserved peoples as well as lowland areas of Ethiopia were consulted. Furthermore, various documents related to socio-economic characteristics of project affected population at study Woredas were considered to support the primary data collected using qualitative methods. The major documents reviewed were proclamations and policy documents. Besides, documents related to PCDP projects, works of different researchers and well known organizations were consulted. 1.3.2. Data Collection Tools The consultant prepared and used interview guide questions for FGD, KII and community consultation (see Annex 1, 2 and 3) to collect relevant information from the field. This helped the consultant to be focused while discussing relevant social issues as outlined in the SA ToR. In addition, permission from the participants was secured to use a tape recorder and a photo camera. These tools were useful for the consultant to record and capture every detailed qualitative data during discussion, particularly what is missed while taking notes that later on transcribed and integrated into analysis and finalization of the SA report. Observation checklists were also prepared and used to collect relevant issues related to the topic under study. 4 1.4.Scope of the Social Assessment The assessment for implementing LLRP was carried out in five regional states of Ethiopia, namely: Afar, Somali, SNNRP, Oromia, and Gambella. The data collection was made in 10 Woredas out of 100 selected LLRP Woredas for the implementation of the project as identified by MOP, World Bank and as specified in the TOR. But, it was difficult to carry out fieldwork in Benishangul Gumuz regional state due to restriction of security in the area although there was a plan to go there. In order to realize the objectives of the Social Assessment, sampling of Woredas selection was done with the help of the National Project Preparation Team from MOFPDA (recently merged under MOP). During Woreda selection, consideration was made regarding the security issue as there have been unpredictable conflicts in various areas mainly in the pastoral and agro-pastoral areas of the country. In each of the regions, two Woredas and four Kebeles were selected taking into account the criteria that the Woredas and Kebeles are representatives of pastoral and agro- pastoral livelihood zones of the local communities as well as relatively secured in terms of peace. The selection of the Kebeles were made with the help and consultation of Woreda administrative bodies on the basis of PAP livelihoods conditions of the communities living in the Kebeles in order to meet the objectives of the SA. Table below indicates the regions, Woredas and Kebeles as well as number of participants for the KIIs, FGDs and Community Consultations included in the Social Assessment for Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) in Ethiopia. Overall, 658 (196 Female and 462 Male) participants were included in the SA. Community in this context refers to any group of individuals with a common interest found within a traditional institution. While proposals may be generated that benefit a whole community or even an ethnic group. It is important to realize that the word “community” refers equally to subsets of these larger groups, e.g. women’s group, youth groups, common-interest groups, etc. Thus, the consultation was made in light of this with women, men, elders and youth. These community members reflected their general and specific project related concerns (See detailed concerns, discussions and stakes of the groups consulted under section-6). Regarding the benefits, losses, and voluntary land donation and concerns of the stakeholders’ resolution mechanisms could be stated in the RPF. 5 Table 1: Areas Covered and Number of Community Consulted for this Social Assessment S.n Region Zone Woreda Kebele Number of people Date-data o consulted collection Male Female Total 1 Afar Zone-1 Dubti Debelina Halebiri 21 9 30 October 25- Hankasina Aredo 23 8 31 28, 2018 Kori Guyah 36 15 51 Gulubule 39 9 48 Sub-total 127 41 160 2 Somali Fafen Gursum Araasks 5 28 33 December Gulumorodi 4 27 39 12-15, 2018. Harshin Kebele 01 19 6 14 Farah Liben 17 9 29 Sub-total 45 70 115 3 Oromia West Gumbi Bordode Kenteri 14 6 20 December Harerge Obensale 15 7 22 04-07, 2018. East Fentale Benti 23 8 31 Shewa Gelcha 21 9 30 Sub-total 73 30 103 4 SNNPR South Hamar Kola Kajo 17 8 25 November 27-28, 2018 and Omo Angude 14 3 21 November 30- Benna Tsemai Alka kibo 18 7 25 December 02, 2018. Shaba Argamanda 13 2 15 Sub-total 62 24 86 5 Gambella Nuwer Lare Magok 19 9 28 November Nip Nip 14 6 20 01-04, 2018. Special Itang Dorong 26 7 23 woreda Pokumu 12 8 20 Sub-total 61 30 91 Grand total 360 195 555 Table 2: Profile of Experts and Officials Involved in KII and FGD Sessions for SA Preparation S. Data collection methods and profile of participants no I Key Informant Interview (KII) and FGD Participants Profile of experts and officials Key questions raised Administration Profile # 1. What is your view towards the levels LLRP project? 1 Afar Region President office chief officer, Regional 5 2. How do you evaluate the Rural Livelihood Program officer; development activities in your area? Culture, tourism and heritage 3. What is the existing status of conservation; Regional development health, education, agriculture, learning and knowledge management livestock and market related expert; Regional PCDP M and E services in the area? officer 6 Woreda level Woreda administrators (1x2), 5 4. What are the major challenges Agriculture and natural resources head related to health, education, (1), Woreda finance and economic agriculture, livestock and cooperation bureau (1), Woreda marker related service delivery pastoral development program officer in the area? (1) 5. What are the livelihoods related Kebele level Keble chairmen’s (1x4) and youth 5 challenges faced by the representative (1) community? 2 Gambella Regional level cabinet members 25 6. Could you list down to five Region development priorities of the Woreda Level Woreda administrators and deputy 14 community? administrator (2x2); Lare Woreda 7. Are women actively engaged council members (1x10), on the community’s Kebele level Kebele administrators (1x4) 4 development activities? 3 Oromia Regional Pastoral Affairs Commission 2 8. Are women equally entitled to Region Head, Regional Pastoral Affairs control natural resources and Commission Communication Head. land? Woreda level Woreda administrators (1x2), woreda 6 9. Are you willing to donate your pastoral office head (1x2), Woreda land if it is needed for animal health officer (1) and Woreda community development? planning and budget officer (1) 10. How is land or other asset Kebele level Kebele administrators (1x4), 5 compensation effected? development agent (1) 11. What are the major economic 4 SNNP Region Regional PCDP coordinator, regional 11 activities of the community? ESS officer, Pastoral Affairs Bureau, 12. Is customary law dominant in culture and heritage development your area compared to formal directorate director, regional culture law? and development expert, regional 13. Is there a prevalence of GBV development learning and knowledge and HIV/AIDS in your area? management, regional environment 14. What types of economic protection officer, regional land options are available for youth? certification and registration officer, 15. What development priorities do regional honey production expert, both male and female youths regional special advisor to economic have? sector and head of South Omo pastoral 16. How do you see the affairs department. involvement of civil society Woreda level Woreda administrators (1x2) and 4 organizations in the area? Woreda pastoral affairs officer (1x2) 17. You are cordially invited to suggest if there is any Kebele level Kebele administrators (1x4) 4 additional idea. 5 Somali Region Drought resilience and Livelihood 3 Sustainability Program coordinator, Animal health development directorate director and regional pastoral development directorate director. Woreda level Woreda administrators (1x2), Woreda 5 livestock head (1x2) and Woreda Bureau of Finance and economic cooperation (1) 7 Kebele level Kebele administrators (1x4) and 5 Kebele livestock officer (1) Total 103 2. Description of the Project A. Project Components To achieve the PDO, the Project will combine three complementary layers of investments, provided through the three project components. The Project will build on the long-standing experience of the Pastoral Community Development Project (PCDP III) for inclusive development through CDD oriented service delivery, and the Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Project (RPLRP) and other related projects under the IGAD’s Drought Disaster Resilience Sustainable Initiatives (IDDRSI) framework. Further emphasis will be put on rangeland and natural resource management, livelihood improvement and diversification and market access aspects to enhance the livelihoods resilience dimensions of the interventions. Lowland Resilient Livelihood Project has four components, and nine sub-components that are summarized in the following sections in detail. Component 1: Integrated Rangeland Development and Management This component will support management of the overall rangelands under which the pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems operate. This should encompass the management of all-natural resources, in particular rangelands, including dry season, wet season and drought reserves; cattle corridors; wetlands; forest/woodlands; water sources for livestock and people; settlements and areas reserved for crop/fodder production, in addition to small-scale irrigation and water conservation schemes. It will also integrate strategic investment around market infrastructure development as integral part of broader rangeland development. Sub-component 1.1. Integrated Rangeland Management Planning: The objective is to reverse degradation, manage encroachment, rehabilitate rangelands and enhance production of improved forage. The improved productivity of rangelands and pastures will lead to improved livestock productivity and production and hence contribute to improved livelihoods and resilient rangeland ecosystems. The Sub-component would support four sets of activities: (i) regional assessments of rangeland areas and associated pastoral and agro-pastoral communities, institutions and governance structures, (ii) assessment and inventory of existing investment plans (such as Disaster Preparedness Strategic Investment Plans, Woreda level investment plans etc.) to ensure full alignment of the new with existing plans ; (ii) formulation of the participatory Rangeland Management and Investment Plans (RMIPs) comprising of the following five key components a) natural resource and pasture development; b) water resource development; c) irrigation development, d) market infrastructure (roads, markets (primary, secondary and tertiary), etc and e) other economic infrastructure; (iii) rangeland and pasture improvement monitoring information system; and (iv) capacity building for relevant stakeholders in both planning and implementation of RMIPs. Sub-component 1.2. Supporting Strategic Investments. This sub-component will finance two types of strategic investments identified and prioritized in RMIPs: (i) Rangeland Management and Pasture Improvement initiatives, based on approved RMIPs. These initiatives have more of a natural resource management objective (pasture development, livestock routes, water resources 8 development, soil and water conservation, etc..) and will be implemented through a community participatory approach by considering some elements of the CDD sub-project modality known from PCDP; (ii) Public Economic Infrastructure (including small-scale irrigation), financing larger strategic infrastructure identified in the RMIP. The distinction between (i) and (ii) will be determined by a) the financial size of investment; b) the nature of the activity, c) the complexity of design and implementation which will be detailed out in the project implementation manual. Component 2: Livelihood Improvement and Diversification Component 2 aims at offering economic opportunities for women, men and youth in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in order to: (a) enhance and diversify the productivity, production and sustainability of their pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems; (b) create alternative livelihood opportunities for people who move temporally or permanently out of pastoralism; strengthen the targeted value chains, market access, trade and access to financial services. Sub-component 2.1. Enhance Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Production Systems. This Sub- component aims at improving productivity of the pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems in the targeted rangelands. The entry point will essentially be pastoralists and agro-pastoralists groups, such as pastoral and agro-pastoral research and extension groups (PAPREGs), pastoral and agro-pastoral field schools (P/AP FS). To improve pastoral and agro-pastoral livestock and crop production systems (cattle, camels, small ruminants, poultry; and crops including maize, sorghum, and vegetables), the Project will provide the following support: (i) support to animal health services, including establishing and/or strengthening networks of animal health services: animal health clinics and posts; vaccinations programs, cold chain for vaccines, development of animal disease monitoring and reporting, support to Community Animal Health Workers (CAHW) and exploring and developing public-private partnership (PPPs) for veterinary services; (ii) crop improvement for dryland agriculture including through irrigation and improved water management schemes; and iii) breed improvement for cattle, camels, and small ruminants through support to community-based breed improvement initiatives; support will include training, equipment, improved breeding animals as appropriate. The Project will also strengthen the relevant research and extension systems. The support will consist of (i) support to pastoral and agro-pastoral research and extension groups (PAPREGs), pastoral field schools (PFS), pastoral and agro-pastoral training centers (PATC), and development agents; (ii) on-farm demonstrations to deliver good agricultural and pastoral practices, aimed at improved animal husbandry practices (improved breeds, productivity, forage, feed) and good herd/stock management practices (herd size, herd composition, de-stocking, etc); (iii) on-farm demonstrations aimed at improved crop husbandry practices (use of new varieties, improved inputs, mechanization, adoption of improved water and soil management); (iv) participatory research through the PAPREGs, and v) supporting the decentralized PAP extension and veterinary services provision at Woreda and Kebele levels. Sub-component 2.2 Promoting Livelihood Diversification and Market Access. This Sub- component will (i) support livelihoods development through provision of business development services and technical skills training, and access to rural financial services in particular to youth and women; and (ii) ensure market access and trade. Market opportunity will be principal entry points for this sub-component. Implementation modalities would focus on groups and rural institutions such as common interest groups (CIG), PASACCOs, RUSACCOs, other non-financial service providers, pastoral cooperatives, as well as individuals, in particular youth, women and those who leave the pastoral sector. In addition, partnerships with private sector (wholesale traders, 9 input suppliers, slaughterhouses, veterinary and phytosanitary input suppliers, and other relevant service providers) will be facilitated. Priority value chains of the Project will include: (a) live animals and livestock products; (b) dairy processing and marketing; (c) feed and forage production and marketing; (d) crops (Maize, Sorghum, etc.) and vegetables and e) other IGA such as bee keeping, fisheries, handicraft; mining, natural gum, tourism etc. In order to strengthen market linkages and commercialization, the Project will support (i) development of productive partnerships and agribusiness agreements between buyers and producers; (ii) support to new marketing arrangements such as auctions and out grower contracts, (iii) development and mainstreaming of product standards, traceability and certification systems; and (iv) facilitated multi-stakeholder interactions for value chain development (horizontal and vertical linkages), Business to Business learning routes and business coaching and mentoring. These efforts will have a huge multiplier effect in terms of retaining a good portion of the revenue generated from the livestock value chain within the PAP areas and employment creation for youth, women, skilled labour, TVET and university graduates, etc. Demand for financial services is differentiated by transaction volume of deposits and loans, level of formality and vicinity to the pastoralist household. Depending on the demand structure for financial services, the project strategy for providing improved access to financial services builds on rural pastoralist SACCOs (PASACCOs) for vicinity-based institutions with easy procedures and credit requirements, but generally small loan and voluntary deposit sizes. PASACCOs will facilitate access to finance at village level, will follow and fine-tune the PASACCO development in PCDP II and PCDP III. Where they do not already exist, they will be established and seed capital support provided, together with financial literacy trainings and also with provisions for developing and applying financial services adapted to pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. The next higher market segment with larger transaction sizes, but also stricter procedures and branches often quite a distance away from the household is occupied by microfinance institutions (MFIs) operating in the lowland areas of the six States that make up the project area. At the next layer and for higher loan sizes to micro and small entrepreneurs with investment requirements, MFIs already present will support these financial services requirements. MFIs will be technically supported and assisted in linking up to existing sources of financing. They will also receive technical support for improved linkage downwards to the financial cooperative system that operates at a smaller and more decentralized level. Component 3: Improving Basic Services and Capacity Building Sub-Component 3.1. Provision of Basic Social Services and Infrastructure. This sub- component will support improving access to and utilization of basic social and economic services among the target communities, using a decentralized Community-driven Development (CDD) approach. It will adopt a spatial orientation to infrastructure development and finance investment at various level, community, inter-community, Kebele and Woreda. Sub-component 3.2. Institutional Capacity Building.Considering the weak institutional environment and limited implementation capacity, significant investment will be made to build capacity on the ground. This will be done at five different levels: federal, regional, Woreda, Kebele, and community level with emphasis on the institutions and implementation partners directly involved in the project related activities and basic service provision. This will involve physical capacity, human capacity and system capacity building. The process would start by identifying key institutions (but also others as deemed necessary) that would be involved in the 10 implementation of the project, including research and academic institutions, and undertaking a capacity needs assessment followed by developing a capacity building plan and subsequent financing of the capacity building plan. The objective of this sub-component it to improve capacity for project implementation and any capacity building activity needs to align with the project objectives. This shall include capacity-building support for key public service delivery institutions. Stakeholder institutions will be strengthened to enable them to meaningfully engage with public and private partners, for market access, disease control, and other services for their members. Sub-component 3.3. Knowledge Management, Research and Policy Support. One of the weak links in past programs and projects was lack of documentation and dissemination on lessons learnt and best practices. Therefore, the project will support continuous learning, adaptable knowledge management and communication on innovative tools and approaches. In addition, this sub- component will identify various indigenous knowledge and customary institutions, which expect to play pivotal roles in further strengthening various development activities among pastoral and agro pastoral communities. Considering the need to strengthen the policies on land-use, pastoral mobility, community land certificates and community ownership of rangeland etc., this sub-component will finance technical assistance for evidence-based policy making and community engagement in policy dialogue. It will inform government on pastoral friendly policies consistent with the existing constitution that facilitate improved and resilient PAP livelihoods. The project will support research and capacity building in priority thematic areas of pastoral and agro-pastoral systems. MoUs will be signed with research and academic institutions and higher learning institutions (HLIs) to do specific research on topics such as rangeland management breed improvement to respond to changing climate, rain fed and irrigated agriculture in arid and semi- arid areas, socio-economic research in pastoral areas, etc. In addition, the sub-component will pilot innovations to solve core bottlenecks related to production, processing, marketing and business arrangements in the pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems and value chains (for example, integrated pastoral decision support system, certification and traceability of livestock products, the use of drones to seeding and monitoring of afforestation and grazing units, etc.). Priority will be given to the promotion of external innovative technologies that enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of rangeland management and which (i) provide low-cost climate proof solutions, (ii) are adapted to the needs of youth and women, (iii) contribute to improved nutrition and food security. Core bottlenecks in pastoral and agro-pastoral systems will be identified and requests for proposals will be organized. Innovative pilot projects will be identified, prioritized, prepared and vetted. Proposals would come from private sector, public sector and specialized actors in the targeted livestock, dairy and crop value chain. Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-component 4.1. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation. The purpose of this Sub-component is to ensure that the project is managed and implemented efficiently, on time and in accordance with the PDO and Financing Agreement, and its performance and impact are carefully tracked. Sub-component 4.2. Contingent Emergency Response (US$0 IDA). This sub- component aims to support immediate and rapid response to an Eligible Crisis or Emergency, if and when needed. 11 3. Review of Institutional and Implementation Arrangements, and Legal Frameworks 3.1. LLRP Implementation Arrangement The project will be implemented under the overall responsibility of MoP. It will establish slim, dedicated Project Coordination and Implementation Units (PCIUs) at the Federal and Regional levels, directly accountable for implementation and for coordination. These PCUs will be guided by Federal and Regional Steering Committees and Technical Committees. Implementation will rely largely on existing Government structures and their decentralized Bureaus and Offices. Project activities will form an integral part of sector development plans, as well as development plans as approved by Regional Parliaments. Partnerships will be established with research institutions, universities, private sector and others, and service providers be recruited for strategic support where these may have a comparative advantage and high capacity. The project follows a rangeland approach as the principal entry point and the project will identify rangeland (which might comprise of a cluster of woreda). Fully cognizant of the administrative structure, individual Woredas (which comprises of rangeland) will be the principal implementation unit of the project and will cascade down to Kebele and community levels for implementation. In recognition of the environment with weak capacity and institutions on ground, and in line with the spatial approach of the project, Woreda Cluster Support Teams will be established. They will have a dual mandate in i) providing technical support and capacity building to Woreda implementation; and ii) supporting cross-Woreda and holistic development planning. A project focal point and financial officer will directly support each project Woreda. The detailed implementation arrangements are found in the Project Implementation Manual. Participatory, community driven, bottom-up planning processes will form the basis of project- supported development plans. The project will support the institutionalization of these approaches through capacity building at all levels. The project will in particular continue the CDD approaches in provision of basic services and strengthen holistic planning across administrative boundaries when it comes to natural resource management and commercialization. 3.2. LLRP Environmental and Social Safeguards Implementation Arrangement Governmental institutions at federal, regional, Woreda and Kebele levels are responsible to take key roles on supporting, directing, and monitoring of the proposed program to ensure sound implementation of the required environmental, social and safety management practices during the implementation of the LLRP. The implementation of the LLRP activities and particularly the environmental and social safeguard will take place through the existing government institutional structures from the federal to the local or community level. LLRP would build upon this implementation structure and the built capacity, which include environmental and social safeguard implementation of the safeguard instruments (ESMF, SA, RPF and GMG). LLRP implementation would be centered in the MoP which would be responsible for project implementation at all levels of the government’s existing implementation structure: Federal, Regional State, Zone, Woreda (District), and Kebele (Sub-district). These entities and their staff are generally capacitated and ready to implement in the targeted 100 LLRP woredas in Afar, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR and Ethiopian Somali regional states. In the ESMF, it is suggested the need to establish a dedicated unit under the LLRP Coordination and Implementation Office (GCIO) responsible for the management of environmental and social 12 systems that would be set up three months before program effectiveness. The unit will also have to be structured at RPBs and Woreda/ZPOs (as required) with relevant environmental and social safeguard experts or focal persons. The following figure (figure 2) outlines the proposed institutional arrangement for management of environmental and social issues. The ESMF prepared for LLRP required a sound Environmental and Social Management System Framework measures. The establishment and strengthening of ESMF include preparation and implementation of environmental and social management guideline, staffing, furnished offices, strengthening grievance redress mechanism, developing consultation procedures and format, checklists as well as technical safeguard capacity development activities at all levels (including Kebele level). At Federal level: the overall coordination and implementation of the project will be facilitated by the Federal Ministry of Peace (MoP) in collaboration with other relevant Ministries (e.g. MoAL, MoT, MoWIE, MoEFCC, etc). The MoP will use the organization structure and institutional arrangements established to coordinate and implement all Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project financed by the Government and development partners. The LLRP has its own Federal Steering Committee (FSC) and will use an independent and full responsible Federal Project Coordination and Implementation Unit (F-PCU). The LLRP Support Unit (LLRPSU) within the MoP is the core unit that coordinates the project activities. The MoP is responsible for the day-to-day program management, preparation of annual work plan and progress reports, monitoring/supervision of overall implementation progress; evaluation of program impacts, environmental and social safeguard, financial administration, procurement of goods and services. The Federal Steering Committee (FSC) has high level representations from the MoLA, MoT, MoWIE, MoEFCC, PAPREG and BoPDs of the LLRP regions. The Committee is chaired by the one of the four State Minister in the MoP and will be responsible for (a) establishing policy guidelines and providing overall supervision for project implementation; (b) approving the annual federal and regional work plan, budget and the annual procurement plan; and (c) reviewing the annual implementation performance report to be prepared by the LLRP Support Unit, including environmental and social safeguard; and overseeing the implementation of corrective actions, when necessary. The Federal Technical Committee (FTC) is composed of senior technical staff from MoP, MoLA, MoT, MoWIE, MoEFCC and BoPDs. Representatives from the development partners who are supporting LLRP are members of the committee. The FTC is responsible for providing technical advice to the MoP on coordination and synergies, technical issues of the LLRP and other similar projects, including environmental and social safeguard on the quality of project implementation reports, special study documents on policy, guidelines, documentation of best practices, and M&E reports. The LLRP-PSU will be led by an appointed senior technical staff as Federal Project Coordinator and Implementation at MoP. The unit will be responsible for the day-to-day management of LLRP and will be responsible for (a) preparation of consolidated annual work plan and progress reports; (b) monitoring and supervision of overall implementation progress and evaluation of project impacts; (c) financial administration; including environmental and social safeguard; and, (d) procuring goods and services. 13 Regional: implementation will be led by the Bureau of Pastoral Development (BoPD). BoPD will use regional coordinator recruited for LLRP and responsible for approving annual work plan and progress reports from the Woredas. The reports would then be submitted to the Federal LLRP- PSU. A Regional Steering Committee (RSC) will be formed from heads of relevant sectors to provide guidance and leadership at the regional level. The RSC will meet quarterly to review performance, endorse the quarterly progress reports and provide necessary guidance on project implementation, and endorse the annual plan at the beginning of the fiscal year. Woreda and Kebele level: the implementation of the project will be undertaken jointly by Woreda office for Pastoral Development (WoPD) through the Woreda Technical Committee (WTC), the Kebele Development Committee (KDC), and communities. The WoPD will assign an independent Focal Person who will take the lead responsibility in the overall implementation of the program. The WTC and KDC will assist communities in: (i) developing annual work plan and budgets for submission to the Region for endorsement and integration into the Regions’ work plan and budgets; (ii) facilitating community participation in watershed planning and rehabilitation; (iii) training; (iv)monitoring and evaluation; (v) dissemination of innovations in LLRP. Table 3: Institutional Framework Stakeholders Responsibilities Ministry of Peace in • Provides operational guidance to FPCIU, RPCIU and other implementing collaboration with entities involved to carry out LLRP safeguards activities and report line Ministries (e.g. accordingly to the WB. MoAL, MoT and • Overall responsibility and coordination of the LLRP implementation. MoWIE, MoEFCC) • Ensure timely and effective execution of the activities, and in order to and Federal and monitor progress towards the PDO. Regional Research • Establish one Project Coordination Unit (PCU) at Federal level, supported Institutes, Federal by PCUs at Regional and Woreda levels. Cooperatives • Serve as common coordination bodies of the line ministries being Agency implemented or to be implemented by the other World Bank-financed projects operating in the same regions. Federal Project • Ensure the overall coordination of the project and will be directly Coordination and accountable to the Minister of Peace or his/her representative. Implementation • Advised by the National Project Steering Committees and Project Unit (FPCIU) Technical Committees that WoPD and BoFED will also be established at Federal, Regional and Woreda levels. • The FPCIU will be headed by a National Project Coordinator to be assigned on a full time basis by the MoP; • As the LLRP implementing unit within MoP, coordinates and manages LLRP implementation including all day-to-day safeguards requirements, regularly liaising technically with all partner agencies, NGOs and private Regional Project • Ensure the overall coordination of the project and will be directly Coordination and accountable to the Regional Bureau of Livestock and Fisheries or his/her Implementation representative. Unit (RPCIU) • Advised by the regional Project Steering Committees and Project Technical Committees. • The RPCIU will be headed by a Regional Project Coordinator to be assigned on a full time basis by the RPADO. 14 • As the LLRP implementing unit within RPADO, coordinates and manages LLRP implementation including all day-to-day fiduciary requirements, regularly liaising technically with all partner agencies, NGOs and private sector actors involved in implementation. • Carries out and consolidates safeguards implementation and reporting (assisted by Woreda counterparts). • Implementation of the project will rely on existing Government structures, to assist these structures in implementing the project, partnerships will be established with; a. Private and public service providers, including ATA, b. Private actors, c. Finance institutions and, d. Development partners (DPs) • The role of Regional Bureau of Pastoral and Development Office in addition to the legally designated responsibility will further be defined as it relates with the LLRP through Project Implementation Manual (PIM) which will detail the organizational and technical procedures that will govern the project. • Oversees and ensures appropriate use of LLRP resources by implementing sector entities. Woreda Pastoral • Closely supervises and coordinates planning and implementation of LLRP Development activities in the Woreda; Office • Ensures that LLRP achievements and challenges are discussed at Woreda Council meetings thus providing timely administrative and technical support to LLRP implementation on the ground; • Acts proactively in resolving conflicts whenever these happen during LLRP implementation in coordination with relevant sector offices. Cluster support team and project focal points will be assigned at the woreda levels depending on the convinence to provide support to the respective woredas (3-5). The teams will be based within the Pastoral Development Office of the town deemed most appropriate in the Woreda cluster (for example, based on living conditions and centrality compared to the area to be covered). Kebele level • The kebele administration with the Development Agent (Livestock extension workers) (a) coordinate inputs and interest into the LLRP planning and implementation process; (b) assist in identifying livelihood activities along the LLRP priority value chains; (c) participate in the implementation of the LLRP activities; and (d) participate in site monitoring. • The Development Agent-Livestock extension workers at the kebele level will assist local communities in identifying potential LLRP activities based on their needs and priorities through a participatory planning process. • The DAs at the kebele level will screen grant activities against the eligibility criteria and report screening results to the respective WoEFCCs at Woreda level upon reciving capacity building training as it is allocated in the ESMF. The Community • CAC provides community level oversight, specifically: Audit Committee 1. comparing what is planned by various community institutions and (CAC) processes with what is actually practiced, 15 2. identifying the difference, and 3. reporting on performance. • The CAC’s may meet as often as required and typically more during periods of investment. 16 3.3.Arrangements for Environmental and Social Safeguards The Environmental and Social Safeguard (ESS) is one of the program support section of the Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) with the aim to ensure that subproject activities to be implemented are not only technically, economically and financially viable, but are also environmentally friendly and socially acceptable for the sustainability of the LLRP investments. For the attainment of the LLRP development objective and ensuring environmental and social sustainability the following institutional arrangement will be used. Federal Project Coordination and Implementation Unit (F-PCU)–The F-PCU shall recruit/hire one Environmental and one Social Development Specialist (Safeguards and Gender) who will work closely with regional safeguard specialists, zonal and Woreda focal persons assigned in each of the LLRP implementing regions. The environmental and social safeguard specialists (each one) shall consolidate all compliance and performance monitoring reports collected from the six regions. They will assist in monitoring and closely following up of the effective implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Social Assessment (SA), Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Gender Mainstreaming Guideline (GMG). Besides, they provide the required technical backstopping; review subproject and activity plan, design, cost, and baseline documents to ensure environmental and social factors and mitigation measures are incorporated; prepare monthly and annual work plan; organize annual and monthly review programs; collect and consolidate progress report and send the consolidated report to development partners on a quarter bases. Regional Project Coordination and Implementation Unit (R-PCU): The R-PCU will designate/recruit one environmental and social development specialist (safeguard and gender) who will follow the overall implementation of the ESMF, SA, RPF and GMG at Woreda, Kebele and community level. The regional safeguards team shall undergo training in environmental and social safeguards aspects of subproject preparation, review and approval. They will closely work with the regional infrastructure and rangeland specialists of the region during the planning and construction time to avoid the late occurrence (proactive engagement) of impacts on the environment and the community. They will collect the performance of safeguard activities from the woreda; undergo a detail analysis on the quality of reports, and the implementation of mitigation measures on a specified period. They will review the subprojects referred to the region for ESIA together with the regulatory institution or delegated regulatory authority. A consolidated plan will be sent to the national project coordination unit through the M&E unit and a separate standalone report to the F-PCU safeguards specialists. Zonal Focal Person of the Project: The LLRP at zonal level is led by a steering committee. The Focal person at the zonal level is responsible for the overall coordination and monitoring of the environmental and social safeguard activities at Woreda level. He/she will compile and consolidate quarter and annual implementation progress reports submitted by the Woredas and will send to the R-PCU. He/she will facilitate the implementation of the review process for those subprojects sent to zonal environmental regulatory body for ESIA purpose. Zonal focal persons will support Woredas in properly directing the steps while conducting the ESIA by own human resources at Woreda level and/or by a consulting firm licensed by the MoEFCC or other international entities entrusted for the purpose. 17 Woreda Focal Person of the Project: The woreda focal person is responsible for coordinating the different stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the LLRP activities at grassroot level, kebele and community level. He/she supports Kebele Development Agents in the identification and screening of subprojects. However, for high and medium risk subprojects he/she should request support from safeguards experts either at Zonal or regional levels after screening results. He/she will follow the implementation of mitigation measures that are planned in the ESMP, Social Development Plan (SDP) and RPF. Besides, he/she will play a significant role in facilitating the WTC members to play their respective roles in designing the anticipated potential environmental and social impacts and the mitigation measures subjected to their concerned sector offices. He/she prepare and submit a consolidated report on the performance of the environmental and social safeguard activities along with the M&E. Kebele level implementation: identification and initial environmental and social screening of subproject/activity of the RLLP starts from community and kebele level which are eligible for support. Kebele Development Committee (KDC) and Community Audit Committee (CAC) at kebele and community level, respectively, are responsible to follow up and timely monitor the implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Framework, Social Assessment (including the Social Management Plan), RPF and gender mainstreaming guideline and site- specific plans, such as ESMP and SMP as applicable. They are composed of Kebele chairperson (chair), member of Kebele council, extension workers/teachers (secretary) (at least two), women representatives (two), and elders/clan representatives (two). They ensure that community priority needs are properly addressed in the selection of community for the project; ensure that all social group interests including gender, disabled and minority groups needs are addressed; ensure the proper utilization of resources allocated for community by the LLRP. Empowering communities to identify problems and prioritize project idea according to selection guidelines and local community knowledge is their responsibility. They are also responsible to keep the minutes and list of participants in the general meetings of the community and prepare project proposal with the technical support from concerned experts and submit to KDC; the proper management of project budget disbursed from the woreda to the community for the implementation of approved project. They are also responsible to ensure in kind and cash contributions of beneficiary communities in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness; and monitor the project activities periodically to ensure that they are undertaken as planned, to mention a few. They meet two times in a month. Development Agents at kebele level (Rangeland Management, Natural Resource Management, Pastoral Development, Livestock Development, Irrigation and/or others) have the responsibility to ensure the overall implementation of the ESMF, SA, RPF and GMG by taking capacity building training and with the support of woreda focal points and cluster support teams. 18 Figure 1: Proposed Institutional Arrangement for Environmental and Social Safeguard Management NB: CDD-Community Driven Development, DAs-Development Agents, KDC-Kebele Development Committee and SAC- Social Audit Committee. 3.4. Legal Frameworks: Basis for Social Assessment Under this section discussion will be made about the national legislations and World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies and discussed in the following ways. 3.4.1. National Legislation Various national legislations have been used during the implementation of projects. These can be emanated from the constitution of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia and the policies, strategies, proclamations of the country. This will be discussed in the following sections. i. Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) The Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) provides a number of basic and comprehensive principles that consider social protection and management in the country including the sustainable development. It also recognizes the existence of diverse socio-cultural groups, including historically disadvantaged and underserved communities, pastoralists, agro- pastoralists and minorities as well as their rights to socioeconomic equity and justice. 19 Article 39 also recognizes the rights of groups identified as ‘Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ and defined them as “a group of people who have or share a large measure of common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identity, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” It also portrays their rights up to self-determination-the right to secession; speak, write, and develop their own languages; express, develop, and promote their cultures; preserve their history; and, self-government, which includes the right to establish institutions of the Government in the territory that they inhabit and equitable representation in state and Federal Governments. As aforementioned, most LLRP target communities are from these population groups. Article 54 (1) further states that “Members of the House [of Peoples Representatives], on the basis of population and special representation of minority Nationalities and Peoples, shall not exceed 550; of these, minority Nationalities and Peoples shall have at least 20 seats.” These groups have less than 100,000 members and most live in the ‘Developing Regional States’. Due to limited access to socioeconomic development and underserved status over the years, the Ethiopian government has designated Afar, Benishangul-Gumz, Gambella and Ethiopian Somali as ‘Developing Regional States’ (DRS). Regarding this, the Ethiopian Constitution, Article 89(2) specifies, ‘The Government has the obligation to ensure that all Ethiopians get equal opportunity to improve their economic situations and to promote equitable distribution of wealth among them’. The Ethiopian constitution clearly stipulates in Article 89(3, 4) that, “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development shall receive special assistance. Government shall take measures to avert any natural and manmade disasters, and, in the event of disasters, to provide timely assistance to the victims.” The constitution further states specifically the rights of Ethiopian pastoralists under article 40 (4), that, “Ethiopian pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their own land”. Moreover, the constitution under Article 41(8) states that “Ethiopian pastoralists have the right to receive fair prices for their products, that would lead to improvement in their conditions of life and to enable them to obtain an equitable share of the national wealth commensurate with their contribution. This objective shall guide the State in the formulation of economic, social and development policies.” The 1995 Ethiopian Constitution particularly provided for pastoralists the right to free land grazing and not to be displaced from their own lands without their wish. Besides, article 44 in the constitution stated that all persons who have been displaced or whose livelihoods have been adversely affected as a result of State programmes have the right to commensurate monetary or alternative means of compensation, including relocation with adequate State assistance. From the above discussion, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists as well as disadvantaged communities are considered in the Ethiopian constitution and concede with the World Bank Operational Policies of OP 4.01, OP4.10, OP4.11 and OP 4.12. This will help LLRP to give due attention for the disadvantaged and minority members of the nation during implementation of the project that in turn enables them to meet the intents of operational policies of World Bank social safeguard in a socially and culturally appropriate ways. It is therefore duly recognizing the peculiar characteristics of the underserved and vulnerable groups of the nations in the pastoral and agro- pastoral areas. As reinforced by the constitution of Ethiopia, majority of the target population identify themselves as having the characteristics defined under OP 4.10. 20 ii. Polices, Strategies, and Proclamations of Ethiopia Related to Environmental and Social Issues The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has formulated several development policies, strategies, proclamations, programs and projects to improve the livelihood and to promote sustainable development of Ethiopian people in general and the pastoral as well as agro-pastoral communities in particular. The government has also made certain shift in the thinking of pastoral development from its predecessors by bringing pastoralists themselves to participate in the policy making processes that affect their livelihoods. There are policies that were enacted regarding environmental issues, for example, in 1997, the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia was enacted with the objective to improve and enhance the health and quality of life of all citizens and to promote sustainable social and economic development through the sound management and use of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole. This is to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia was also formulated in the same year to harmonize the natural resources, environmental imperatives and development demands in the country. Additionally, the country had enacted in 2002, the Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation (Proclamation No.299/2002) aimed to facilitate the implementation of the environmental rights and objectives provided by the constitution. It also aimed to maximize socio-economic benefits of the society predicting and managing the environmental effects which a proposed development activity or public instruments might entail prior to their implementation. Policy on Ethiopian women was also enacted in 1993, and its main focus is improving the working and health conditions of women, protecting women from harmful traditional practices. It is also aimed to empower women through enhanced access to education and land as well as other property rights and fostering the involvement in decision making. Furthermore, it underlines women’s contribution to the overall national development considering maximizing their knowledge and skills. The government of Ethiopia has also planned and implemented various rural development policies, strategies, and programs that could enable the achievement of the goals of economic prosperity and poverty eradication. These include the Food Security Strategy (FSS) of 1996, the 2002 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP), Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (2005-2010) that the government has targeted increased assistance to marginalized areas or emerging regions of PAP communities in the last decades and through the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) (2010/11-2014/15) and GTP-2. 3.4.2. World Bank Operational Policies on Environmental and Social Safeguards This Social Assessment was needed to assist and advise the MoP on designing appropriate measures in response to the particular needs of the stakeholders, and determine whether the World Bank social safeguard policies will be triggered by the projects. In addition, the SA aimed to assess the likely negative social impacts arising from the project’s interventions and government 21 programs closely related to these projects and inform strategies to avoid or mitigate any social impacts as required by the World Bank’s social safeguards policies. The World Bank Operational Policies (OP) (2013) pointed out Social Safeguard Issues in Bank- Supported Projects. OP 4.01 (Environmental and Social Assessment): The key objective is to consider potential environmental and social impacts and risks in an integrated manner to promote sound and sustainable environmental and social performance and project outcomes in the context of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). It also helps decision-making by way of appropriate analysis of actions and considering likely environmental and social impacts. The policy provides interim guidance on identifying and assessing social risks and impacts, both adverse and beneficial. EIA is done for projects that fall under World Bank Category A and B or schedule 1 and 2 as per to EIA guideline of the Government of Ethiopia. OP 4.01 addresses a range of impacts on the natural environment such as air, water and land as well as social aspects, human health and safety; physical cultural resources; and trans-boundary and global environmental concerns. Consideration should be taken during LLRP implementation as it involves investments that will be subject to environmental and social screening during the planning stage. It also requires appropriate steps to be taken based on the results of the environmental and social screening process as outlined by the complementary ESMF document. The Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the presence of different socio-cultural groups, including historically disadvantaged and underserved communities, pastoralists, and ethnic minorities, as well as their rights to socio-economic equity and justice which also meets the OP 4.10 criteria. The Bank’s OP 4.10 criteria are used for the screening and identification of IPs in Ethiopia. These are, (i) self-identification as members of a distinct cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories; (iii) customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (iv) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. There is no discrepancy in the provisions of the OP/BP 4.10 about Indigenous Peoples and the various Ethiopian legal frameworks for the people who meet the policy requirement. The objectives stated in OP/BP 4.10 (about Indigenous Peoples1) were to: (a) ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness of indigenous peoples; (b) ensure that adverse effects during the development process are avoided, or if not feasible, ensure that these are minimized, mitigated or compensated; and (c) ensure that indigenous peoples receive culturally appropriate and gender and intergenerational inclusive social and economic benefits. Thus, this OP includes various groups of interest: nations, nationalities and peoples, pastoralists, and national minorities. Moreover, OP/BP 4.12 highlights on Involuntary Resettlement aimed to (a) avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs; (b) assist 1 In Ethiopia, SDP is the operationalization tool for the World Bank OP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Plan. The SDP for the LLRP was prepared based on the Social Assessment and related in-depth consultation with affected underserved people and vulnerable groups to seek their support for the project. The SDP sets out the measures to ensure that: (a) underserved and vulnerable groups affected by the project receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits, and (b) any potential adverse effects are avoided, minimized, mitigated, and/or compensated. 22 displaced persons in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least in restoring them; (c) encourage community participation in planning and implementing resettlement; and (d) provide assistance to affected people regardless of the legality of land tenure. Therefore, OP/BP 4.10, and OP4.12 World Bank Policies guide the preparation and complement this Social Assessment of LLRP and Consultation to identify social issues and economic opportunities for the underserved groups related to the proposed LLRP. Other Operational Polices of World Bank is also triggered: OP/BP 4.11 Physical Cultural resources, OP 4.04 Natural Habitats, OP 4.09 Pest Management and OP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways. 3.4.3. Land Tenure and Land Policy Land tenure is a “system of access to and control overland and related resources” that rules and rights governs the appropriation, cultivation, and use of natural resources on a given space or piece of land (European Union 2004: 2). Hence, land tenure system involves two crucial ideas. These are (i) the rules that govern it; (ii) the means of its institutions. In Ethiopia, the rules that govern land use rights are issued in the form of modern/formal legal statutes, i.e., land policy and the management of land use rights and land use planning. These are instituted through authorities and organizations established by modern/formal legislations (USAID 2009; Crewett et.al 2008; Hussein 2004). Proclamation, No.456/2005 discusses about rural land administration and use. The main aim of the Proclamation is to conserve and develop natural resources in rural areas by promoting sustainable land use practices. In order to encourage farmers and pastoralists to implement measures to guard against soil erosion, the Proclamation introduces a Rural Land Holding Certificate, which provides a level of security of tenure. The MoANR is tasked with implementing the Proclamation by providing support and co-coordinating the activities of the regional governments. Regional governments have an obligation to establish a competent organization to implement the rural land administration and land use law. Accordingly, the REPAs are responsible for rural land administration. The Proclamation states that if a land, that has already been registered, is to be acquired for public works or for investment, compensation commensurate with the improvements made to the land shall be paid to the land use holder or substitute land shall be offered. The Proclamation imposes restrictions on the use of various categories of land, for example wetland areas, steep slopes, land dissected by gullies, etc. The Proclamation addresses the right to hold rural lands; rural land measurements, registration and holding certificate; duration of rural land use right; transfer of land use rights distribution of rural lands; rural land use restrictions; and other related miscellaneous provisions. In addition, according to Proclamation number 455/2005 under Article 2(5), the use of land defined as such by the decision of the appropriate body in conformity with urban structure plan or development plan in order to ensure the interest of the people to acquire direct or indirect benefits from the use of the land and to consolidate sustainable socio-economic development. This Proclamation under article 5 indicated the roles and responsibilities of the implementing agency. Accordingly, under article 5(1) the implementing agency are required to produce the details of information/data about the land under expropriation, for its work and send the same data to the appropriate organs, at least one year before the launch of the project. Under article 5(2), the 23 implementing agencies have the obligation to pay compensation to the landholders in accordance with the definition of landholders stated in this proclamation. This Proclamation under article 8(1- 3) further states a rural landholder whose landholding has been permanently expropriate shall, in addition to the compensation payable, it will be paid for them displacement compensation which shall be equivalent to ten times the average annual income he/she secured during the five years preceding the expropriation of the land provided. In addition, the proclamation highlighted that the woreda administration should confirm the availability of a substitute land which can be easily ploughed and generate comparable income for the landholder, and the compensation to be paid shall only be equivalent to the average annual income secured during the five years preceding the expropriation of the land. As like other socioeconomic groups, land is significant natural resource for the pastoral and agro- pastoral communities in the process of earning life. Land belongs to the state in Ethiopia. The constitution of the federal government under Article 40 (3) evidently point out that the right to ownership of land and all-natural resources is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia. It is articulated that “Land is a common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange”. This means individuals have land use rights that can inherit, donate, lease and rent, however, not mortgaged. The Article further in Sub-article 4 ensures that peasants and pastoralists right to obtain land without payment and the protection against eviction from their possession. Communal land holding is the guiding principle of natural resources management in pastoralist and agro-pastoralist societies and it exhibits a distinctive tenure system in accessing, managing and administering as it is set out in customary institutions (IIRR 2010:39). Thus, the structure of cultural institutions determines the role, status, power relations, rights and duties of individual community members through which societies make use of several strategies to protect their welfare or interest, maintain social order and fulfill their spiritual and material needs. USAID (2009) indicated that ethnic groups operate in a socially recognized territory having exclusive primary land use rights and thus land has got political, economic and socio-cultural dimensions. However, the land policy of Ethiopia does not reflect the common property systems preferring to deal with simple concepts of individual or state property. The state by no means attempted to define and grant land rights to community groups and pastoral lands are still excluded from registration and land deed certification process unlike the agricultural highlands. Based on the counselor of minister proclamation of 455/2005, the regional states have crafted their own regulation and compensation for land and other property; have formulated their land policies and land laws. Among these land laws and policies of the regional states: Oromia Region proclamation 130/2007, and SNNP Region 110/2007, Afar Region 49/2009, Benishangul Gumuz 85/2010, Gambela Region 185/2011, and Ethiopia Somali Regional State 128/2013 are the latest and effect legal framework for the land associated issue at the regional level. Zerfu Hailu, (2013) argued that, there are lower level laws, regulations and directives, developed in all the regions. Federal and regional land administration and land use proclamations provide unlimited period of use right to farmers, pastoralists and semi-pastoralists. 24 4. Key Social Assessment Findings 4.1.Socio-demographic Features of the Population under Study 4.1.1. Afar Regional State Afar regional state is in the north-eastern part of Ethiopia with an area of about 150,000km2 that stretches in the lowlands covering the Awash valley and the Dankil depression. Geographically, it is located between 39o34’ and 42o28’ East Longitude and 8o49’ and 14o30’ North Latitude. The region is bordered with Tigray region to the northwest, Amhara region to the southwest, Oromia region to the south, and Ethiopian Somali region to the southeast. It is also bordered with Djibouti to the east and Eritrea to the northeast. Administratively, the region is divided into 5 zones, 32 Woredas and 401 Kebeles. Afar people belong to the Cushitic-speaking language groups in Ethiopia and the society is structured into clans and sub-clans. Afar regional state is characterized by an arid and semi-arid climate with low and erratic rainfall that has frequently been affected by drought. The north-eastern part of the region is chronically water insecure due to a lack of perennial rivers, leaving the people of Afar largely dependent on ponds and traditional wells for their water supply. The regional government cabinet selected twenty Woredas for LLRP. Two of the Woredas (Dubti and Kori) were sampled for this study. A. Dubti Woreda Dubti Woreda is administratively part of zone 1, and was structured into 14 Kebeles, of which two of them are towns, 8 of them are agro-pastoralist, and 4 of them are pastoralists. It is bordered to the south by the Somali Region, shinille zone, to the southwest by Mille, to the west by Chifra, to the northwest by Kori, to the north by the administrative zone 2, to the northeast by Elidar, to the east by Asayita, and to the southeast by Afambo. The average elevation of this Woreda is 503 meters above sea level. Alongside the Awash are the Dubti Marshes, which are under encroachment by the Tendaho Cotton Plantation, the fields surround the town of Dubti. According to CSA (2007) the Woreda has a total population of 65,342, of whom 34,893 are men and 30,449 women. Most of the population (88.01%) was followers of Islamic religion followed by Orthodox Christians (11.46%). In the Woreda, there are 1 hospital, 3 health center, 12 health posts, 26 schools and 13 Alternative Basic Education (ABE) as it was found from the Woreda administrative office. B. Kori Woreda Kori Woreda is one of the Woredas in Afar regional state of Ethiopia, part of the Administrative zone 1. It is bordered to the south by DubtiWoreda, to the west by Teru Woreda, to the north by Bidu Woreda, to the east by ElidarWoreda. Kori was created by a decision of the Afar Regional state Cabinet on 4 February 2007, separating it from the northern part of Dubti Woreda. The Woreda has 15 Kebeles with an area of 2,869.56 square kilometers and their livelihoods entirely depend on livestock rearing. According to CSA (2007) the total population of the Woreda is 30,652 (16,821 are men and 13,831 women). Almost all of the populations of the Woreda (99.8%) were adherents of Islamic religion. The Woreda has 2 health centers, 8 health posts and 11 schools and 8 ABE as it was found from the Woreda administration office. 25 4.1.2. Gambella Regional State Gambella Regional state (GRS) is one of the hottest regions in Ethiopia, which is located in the western parts and far from the national capital, Addis Ababa about 780 kilometers. The region is bordered with South Sudan in the west and southwest, SNNPR in the southeast, and Oromia region in the east and north east (GRS, Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, 2008). It covers an area of 25,294 square kilometers and 500 meters above sea level. The region comprises of three zones and a home for five ethnic groups: Nuer, Anyawa, Mejengir, Opo and Komo. Baro, Gilo, Alwero and Akobo are the four major rivers that are crossing Gambella region from east to west. Irrigated agriculture can be intensified in the wide fertile areas of Baro, Gilo and Akobo river basins and in the well distributed streams and seasonal floods. Thus, Gambella region has both irrigated and rain fed agriculture potentials suitable for crop, livestock, forest, wildlife and fish production as well as wildlife and tourism development. In the rain fed agriculture, the use of improved varieties together with modern farming techniques can bring unforeseen development achievements. The livelihood of the region depends on mixed farming (the Anyawa and Mejengir) and agro- pastoral among the Nuer people. The region has poor transportation network among the Woredas and telecommunication coverage is very low. Most of the potentially rich agricultural land is untapped since the farming practice is mostly monoculture, and as a result, the region is affected by recurring food shortage. The health, water, sanitation and hygiene coverage are very low. The mean annual rainfall in the region varies from Woreda to Woreda and ranges from 900-1500 mm in the lowland area and 1900-2100 mm in midland Woreda. The annual rainfall has uni-modal occurrence and erratic distribution. The main rainy season in the region is from mid-May to October. Moreover, the mean annul temperature varies from 17.3o C in the mountains to 28.3oC in the plains and the absolute temperature reaches up to 45-47oC in mid-March (GRS, Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, 2008). The regional government cabinet selected eight Woredas for LLRP. Two of the Woredas (Itang and Lare) were sampled for this study and concisely discussed as follows. A. Itang Special Woreda Itang is a special Woreda in the region, an administrative subdivision which is similar to an autonomous area. It is bordered to the south and southeast by the Anyawa zone, to the west by the Nuer zone, to the northwest by South Sudan, and to the north by the Oromia region. Itang Woreda is inhabited by the Nuer and Agnuwa communities. The altitude of the Woreda ranges from 350 to 480 meters above sea level. There are several rivers in which Alwero is a tributary to Baro River and around 10% of the Woreda is forest. A notable landmark is the Gambella National Park, which embraces the Woreda south of the Baro. The economy of Itang is predominantly agricultural. The Woreda has a total population of 35,686, of whom 17,955 are men and 17,731 women; with an area of 2,188.34 square kilometers. Flooding is a serious problem in the Woreda (CSA, 2007). In Itang Woreda, the major ethnic groups found are the Nuer (63.96%), Aynawa (25.17%), and foreigners from Sudan (4.62%), Shita (2.66%), and all other ethnic groups 3.59%. The major languages spoken in this Woreda include Nuer (68.72%) and Anyawa (25.75%). Most of the population (81 .63%) in the Woreda were followers of protestant religion followed by traditional beliefs (7.54%), Orthodox Christian (6.27%), and Catholic (2.62%). B. Lare Woreda 26 Lare is one of the Woredas in Gambella regional state of Ethiopia and included under Nuer zone. It is bordered to the south and east by the Anyuak zone, to the west by the Baro River and to the north by Jikawo River which separates it from South Sudan and to the west by Itang special Woreda. The land of Lare comprises of marshes and grasslands. The Woreda annual average range of rainfall is from 1,900–2,100 millimeters and its elevations ranges from 410 to 430 meters above sea level. Part of Gambella National Park is located in Lare Woreda, which occupies part of the area south of the Baro River. According to CSA (2007), Lare Woredahas 24 Kebeles with a total population of 31,406 (16,145 men and 15,261 women) and the total area covers 685.17 square kilometers. Majority of the inhabitants (86.81%) were followers of protestant religion followed by traditional believers (7.48%), Catholic (2.69%) and Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity (1.79%). The main livelihood activities of the Woreda community are pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. Opportunities for petty trading such as selling grains, stationaries and foods have also expanded with the shift to settlement, which the influx of highlanders has also helped. The main crops that are grown in Lare are corn, maize, sweet potato, sesame and peanuts, which are produced in two farming seasons, using rain-fed and flood-receding farming schemes. An estimated 90 percent of the land is flat and suitable for farming. The Nuer keep mixed herds of cattle, sheep and goats. There are no camels in the region. 4.1.3. Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) SNNPRS is one of the nine regional states in Ethiopia bordered by Kenya in the south, Gambella region in the North West, Oromia region in the north and east, and Sudan in the south west. It is approximately located between 4o.43ٰ-8o.58ٰ north latitude and 34o.88ٰ-39o.14ٰٰ East longitude. Based on ethnic and linguistic identities, the region is divided into 13 Zones. These are sub-divided into 126 Weredas (districts) and 8 special Weredas. Thereare 3678 rural kebeles in the region (Official Websites of SNNPR, http://www.snnprs.gov.et/about.html, accessed on November, 2018). The region covers a total area of 113,539 square kilometers. It enjoys environmental diversity and diverse cultural life. The lowland areas are characterized by arid and semi-arid while the highlands have cool temperate climate and high rainfall. In the region, 80% of the population live in the highland areas while 20% in arid and semi-arid areas (Yohannes, et al 2005). According to the Official Website of SNNPR, 56 ethnic groups are found in the region with diverse and distinct languages, geographies, cultures, identities, survival mechanisms and socio-political histories. In 2007, the population of the SNNPR was 15, 042,531 (CSA 2007). South Omo is one of 13 Zones in SNNPR, which consists of 8 Weredas: South Ari, North Ari, Maale, Hamar, Benna-Tsemay, Dassenech, Nyangatom and Selamago. It is bordered by Kenya in the south, Bench Maji in the west, Konta, Gamo Gofa and Basketo in the north and Borena in the east. Jinka is its administrative town. South Omo Zone comprises 16 ethnic groups, including Ari, Mursi, Bodi, Dime, Nyangatom (‘Bume’), Dassenech (‘Galeba’), Hamar, Banna, Tsamai, Arbore, Maale, Kara, Muguji-Kwego, Baacha, Murle, and Biraile (Epple 2010). It is one of the remotest and sparsely populated areas in Ethiopia. In terms of livelihoods, the highland and middle altitude areas are based on settled and farming activities while the lowland areas support agro-pastoral activities of rearing livestock and crop production (Yohannes, et al 2005). The zone is divided into four agro-ecological zones comprising of highland (0.5%), mid-highland (5.1%), low land (60%) and semi-arid (34.4%). The regional government cabinet selected Nine Woredas for LLRP. Two 27 of the Woredas (Hamar and Benna Tsemai) were sampled for this study and briefly discussed as follows. A. Hamar Woreda The term Hamar (also: Amar Kokke) refers to the land, to the people and their language. ‘Hamar Pe' (the country of the Hamar) is one of the eight Weredas2in South Omo Zone. Geographically, it lies between the Lower Omo and Woito River north of Lake Rudolf and Lake Stefanie. It is approximately located between 40043'-50050' North latitude and 36009'-37039' East longitude. Hamar is bordered by Benna and Kara in the north, Nyangatom and Dassanech in the west, Arbore in the east and Kenya in the south. The Hamar live in thorny bush terrain in the mountains, hills and plains in a scattered ways (Lydall 1993). The topography is characterized by lowlands, midlands, pastoral rangelands and arable highlands. Its elevation ranges from 381-900 meters above sea level. Climatically, rainfall is low and erratically distributed. The annual average rainfall is 764 mm, and the annual temperature of the Wereda ranges from 290C-400C. The total area of the woreda is estimated to be 731,565 hectares: 9,095 hectares cultivated land; 250,709 hectares covered with bushes; 225,434 hectares grazing land; 10,000 hectares forest land; 99,260 hectares irrigable land; and the remaining 137,067 hectares covered by different organizational and residential areas. According to the head of Hamar Wereda Culture and Tourism Office, Hamar Wereda has four ethnic groups: Hamar, Kara, Arbore, and Bashada. Hamar Wereda includes 35 rural kebeles: eleven of them inhabited by pure pastoralists; twenty-one of them by agro-pastoralists; and the remaining three by settled farmers. There are also three smaller towns: Dimeka and Turmi in Hamar, and Tabia in Arbore. Dimeka is the administrative center of Hamar Wereda. Linguistically, the Hamar, Benna, Kara and Bashada belong to the South Omotic language family, and share in many respects socio-cultural and political characteristics (Strecker 1976:17). Even though the culture and language of Benna are very similar with the Hamar and Bashada, they have their own wereda (Benna/Tsamai) with another Cushitic group. While explaining the similarities between Benna and Hamar, Masuda (2009) mentioned the difficulty to distinguish Benna from Hamar, especially concerning their economic activities, dressing styles and other cultural aspects. The only difference he found is the name, location and some ‘cultural traits’. Epple (2010) stated the same for the Bashada, whose main cultural difference is that they produce pots, while pottery is prohibited among the Hamar and Benna. Thus, I also used sources on the Benna and Bashada while reviewing the literature about the Hamar community and culture, taking into account that minor differences between the three groups exist. The Kara speaks a dialect of the Hamar, Benna, and Bashada language and also have some cultural similarities, but are generally more distinct from them. In 2007, the official total population of Hamar Wereda was 59,572, of which 3, 213 were urban dwellers. Of the total, 29, 905 are men and 29,667 are women. In terms of religion, 91.32% of the populations were followers of indigenous beliefs, 3.02%, were Orthodox Christians, 2.4% were Protestants and 2.09% were Muslims (CSA 2007). This shows that the great majority of the Hamar populations are followers of their own belief system, and that conversion to other religions in the area has been very slow, even though missionaries have been there since more than 30 years. 2 Hamar wereda includes also Arbore and Kara. This indicates that the Hamar wereda includes not only the Hamar speaking but also the Kara and Arbore. 28 B. Benna Tsemai Woreda Benna Tsemai Woreda is one of the eight Woredas in South Omo Zone of SNNPR with total land coverage of 254,905 hectares. The Woreda is about 483 kilometers far from the regional center, Hawassa, and 42 kilometers form the zonal administrative city, Jinka. It is bordered to the south with Konso, to the north with Ari, to the West withHamar, and to the East with Maale. Agro- ecologically the Woreda is predominantly semi-arid. Agro-climate zone of the Woreda consists of Kolla (78%), Dry Woyinadega (19%) and Berha (3%). The Woreda is located at an altitude range of 526–1800 above sea level. The Woreda is covered with different variety of vegetation mainly indigenous trees, shrubs, and bushes. The Woreda is endowed with two main rivers of Woyito and Kako. Maize and Sorghum are the two main corps produced in the Woreda. Administratively, in the Woreda, there are four indigenous ethnic groups: Benna (65%), Tsemai (28%) and Birayle (0.2%) and the remaining 6.4% consists of other ethnic groups: Konso, Wolayita, Ari, Maale, etc. The total population of the Woreda is 66,941. The Woreda comprises of 31 Kebeles. Of the total 31 administrative Kebeles in Benna-Tsemai Woreda, the two Kebeles selected for the study are Alka Kibo and Shaba Argamanda. 4.1.4. Oromia Regional State Oromia regional state is the largest region in Ethiopia with a total land area of approximately 353,000 km2. It shares boundary with all regions in the country except Tigray; to the east, it is bounded with the Somali region; to the north, the Amhara Region, the Afar Region and the Benishangul-Gumuz Region; to the west, South Sudan, Gambella Region, and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region; and Kenya to the south. According to CSA (2013) national population projection data from 2014-2017, Oromia regional state has an estimated population of 32, 815,995. Twelve percent of the population in the region accounted for non- Oromo ethnic groups (Amhara, Hadiya, Sidama, etc). Forty-eight percent of the population in the region are adherents of Islam, followed by 30% Orthodox Christians, 18% Protestants, 3% traditional believers, 0.5% Catholic, and 1% others. The economy of Oromia Regional State depends on agriculture, which contributes about 66% of the regional GDP and provides an employment opportunity for more than 89% of the regional population. Mixed farming dominates the livelihood of the region. Oromia accounts for 51.2% of the crop production, 45.1% of the area under temporary crops and 44% of the total livestock population of Ethiopia. Coffee is the main cash crop in the region. The major crops grown in the region are coffee, wheat, barley, teff, sorghum and oil seeds. The region consists of 12 administrative zones and 180 Woredas. LLRP will be implemented in 18 Woredas of the region. Fentale and Gumbi Bordode were sampled for this Social Assessment. A. Fentale Woreda Fentale is one of the Woredas in East Shoa zone of Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia.It has 18 Kebeles.It is bordered to the southeast by the Arsi zone, to the southwest by Boset, to the northwest by the Amhara regional state, and to the northeast by the Afar regional state. The administrative center of Fentale is Metehara. The Woreda includes diverse topographical features ranging in altitude from 2007 meter above sea level at the tip of Mount Fentale to below 1000 meter above sea level in the eastern part of the plains. Located within the East African Rift system, extensive geological activity produces diverse terrain, several hot springs, and Lake Basaka covering more than 35 km2 (Jacobs and Schloeder, 1993). The only major river, the Awash River, passes through Kereyu area. The high salty and acidic concentration in Lake Basaka makes the water unhealthy for livestock and human being. The Oromo who resides in Fentale Woreda are known by Kerayu. 29 They are divided into two major clans called Basoand Dullaha. They are the indigenous inhabitants of the Metahara Plain Mount Fentale area in the Woreda. The area is characterized by hot and semiarid climate. Annual rainfall averages about 500 mm with great variability year to year (Abdulahi 1998). The main rainy season occurs between June and September, and the minor rainy season occurs between February and May. The Kereyu often assess the productivity of the rainy season by the condition of their livestock at the end of the main rainy season which is also a good indicator of their ability to withstand the impending dry season. Owing to varied topographical and hydrological features, the Fentale Woreda exhibits a complex variety of habitat types (Jacobs and Schloeder 1993), generally riverine forest, wooded savanna thorn bush, and grassland. For this study two Kebeles were sampled: Bati and Galcha. B. Gumbi Bordode Woreda Gumbi Bordode is found in West Hararghe zone of Oromia regional state, which was under Mieso Woreda before two years and reorganized and established as a new Woreda having 29 Kebeles. The livelihood of the Woreda depends on agro-pastoralism and pastoralism. Participants during FGD described the main crops that are produced in the Woreda are sorghum, maize, teff, wheat and soybeans. For this study, two (Kenteri and Obensale) Kebeles were selected. 4.1.5. Ethiopian Somali Regional State Ethiopian Somali Regional State is the second largest region in Ethiopia next to Oromia regional State that covers 350,000km2, which is located in south-eastern part of the country. It is situated between 4°and 11’ N latitude and 40 ° and 48’ E longitude. The region is arid and mostly hot (18- 45ºC), mostly plain with an altitude 400-1600 meters above sea levels. The average annual rainfall ranges from 150mm-650mm and has bimodal rainfall. The region is endowed with perennial rivers: Wabi Shebelle, Genale, Dawa and Weyib and seasonal rivers: Erer, Daketa and Fafen. Thus, the region has irrigated and localized rain fed farm potentials. However, low rainfall, high temperature, lack of infrastructure is the major constraints. The development of irrigated agriculture in fertile areas of the above rivers basins and the exploitation of perennial springs, seasonal floods and rain water harvesting elsewhere in the region for irrigated crop and pasture production can be taken into consideration. In the rain fed areas, the use of drought resistant crop varieties together with soil and water conservation techniques can improve farm production. According to CSA (2013) projection, Somali region has a population of 5.3 million with average household size of 6.6. The region consists of 11 zonal administration, 93 districts, 6 city administrations and 1,224 Kebeles. People are primarily dependent on pastoralism. Livestock in the region is both considered as social prestige and means of wealth accumulations. Thus, the region has livestock population of 30,536,000 million heads, encompassing (24%) of cattle, (36.5%) of sheep, (32.2%) of goat, (7.2%) of camel and (1%) of equines (CSA, 2014). The region has 17 rural livelihood zones, generally classified as pastoral, agro-pastoral, riverine sedentary farming and etc. Livestock are the main pillar of livelihoods in Somali region supporting about 86% of the people. It supplies milk and meat for home consumption, and live animals for sale. The regional government cabinet selected thirty-six Woredas for LLRP. Two of the Woredas (Harshin and Gursum) were sampled for this study and discussed as follows. A. Harshin Woreda 30 Harshin is one of the Woredas in Somali regional state of Ethiopia. The Woreda is located in the south-east of Jijiga Zone. It is bordered to the south by Degehabur zone, to the west by Kebri Beyah and to the northwest by Somalia. Harshin is located 130 kilometers far from the Somali regional capital, Jig-jiga and about 730 Kilometers far from Addis Ababa. The Woreda has 30 Kebeles. The area has a semi–arid climate. The Woreda ranges from 1302 to 1700 meter above sea level and it receives annual rainfall that fall from 500 to 600 mm. According to CSA (2007) the total population of the Woreda is estimated to be 80,244, of which 43,869 are men and 36,379 are women. While 8,226 or 10.25% are urban inhabitants, a further 39,275 or 48.95% are pastoralists. In the Woreda, 99.39% of the populations are followers of Islamic religion. In terms of livestock population, the Woreda has 18,725 camel, 15,470 cattle, 12,364 sheep, 7,032 goats, 3,138 horses, 2,440 mules, 112 donkeys, 79,582 poultry, and 12, 770 beehives. The Woreda administrator described that 85%, 10% and 5% of the population are Pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and petty traders, respectively. For this study, two (Faraha Liben and Harshin Kebele 01) Kebeles were selected. Gursum Woreda Gursum Woreda is one of the Woredas in the Somali Regional states of Ethiopia and part of Fafen zone that cover a total area of 937 square Kilometer. The Woreda is bordered to the south by Babille, to the west by Oromia Region, to the north by Ajersagoro, to the east by Jijiga as well as to the southeast by Kebri Beyah. According to CSA (2007) the total population of the Woreda was 27,510, of whom 14,815 are men and 12,695 women. Almost all (98.79%) of the population was followers of Islamic religion.The Woreda is primarily inhabited by obbo (akisho) and gadabuursi ethnic groups. The livelihoods of the community in the woreda depend on pastoralism, agro-pastoralism, farming and urban residents are making a living from formal and informal employment. Its latitudinal location is 9°19'60.00" North and longitudinally on 42°34'59.99" East. For this study, two (Araasks and Golmarodi) Kebeles were selected. 31 4.2.Socio-cultural and Economic Context 4.2.1. Community Institutions Community institutions are mechanisms of social order that govern the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community, which promote cultural, social, political and economic aspects of local communities. During this social assessment, in the study areas, commonly, there are local/informal and formal forms of institutions. Local/informal community institutions rely on local communities’ cultures that have distinctive structures or forms. They play important role in shaping the capacities of communities to respond to changes in natural and social systems. Thus, it is imperative to see how local community institutions facilitate or enable interaction between the local communities and external actors. Formal community institutions depend on written laws by government or other bodies. The two forms of local institutions were existent in the selected study areas of PAP communities and are discussed in the sections below. A. Formal Institutions As like other communities of Ethiopia, the lowland communities are governed by government structure starting from federal to Kebele level. Participants in all of the Woredas selected for the assessment indicated that in the PAP communities, concurrent with formal government structure, the community uses the traditional administration system. Besides government structure, there are several formal organizations such as Community Based Organization (CBO) in all regions included in this Social Assessment. Some of the CBOs that are commonly mentioned by informants and established by the government up to the Kebele levels in the study areas are like Youth and Women Associations. Informant complained these associations that they are not working properly because of the fact they wanted to maximize their personal interests than for what they stand for. Moreover, Savings & Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) were established in PAP communities that have limited access to banks and other financial service providers. Through SACCOs and PASACCOs, PAP communities have been able to jointly save and create revolving loan funds for their members to finance income generating activities such as goat and sheep fattening, cattle rearing and processing of meat and dairy products and increasing agricultural production. In this regard, women mentioned in almost all study areas the benefits they got from engaging in these activities. However, they stated the danger of elite capture for the upcoming project as there have been cases where only few town women organize in various associations and take the supports provided by NGOs in several times. So during implementation of the upcoming project, there should be strengthening of women and partake female to benefit 50% of the LLRP. B. Informal Institutions Pastoral and agro-pastoral communities have their own local institutions that are very strong and enable them ease their daily activities. The Balabat system is an informal institution found in all PAP communities in South Omo, for example, in Hamar, Kara, Bashada and Benna ethnic groups where all members of the group are loyal to their respective Bittas/balabat. The Bittas/balabats perform all traditional rituals and religious practices for their members. They are acknowledged by the community as they are being endowed with some kind of supernatural power. Hence, all of their commands and decisions are accepted without hesitation. Ritual positions in Hamar and 32 Benna are the bitta, parko, gudili, djilo, and kogo. The power of bitta is an inherited status passed from father to the son of his first wife. It is regarded with mystical power rather than political authority. Traditionally, the Hamar had two bittaswho are not chiefs, but rather responsible for the wellbeing of the Hamar land and the people. The parko is ritual assistant and plays the role ofblessing the cattle and chasing sickness from the Hamar and Benna.Each locality has its own gudili who is responsible to perform a ritual for the wellbeing of the field, pasture and forests. Djilo is another responsibility and power given to a person in Hamar and Benna. He is responsible for the cattle to be cared well for and to keep them from being stolen. Kogo is a man who performs rituals for the cattle and is named after the instrument kogo, which means “fire drill”. So it is important to consider these ritual positions in the area while implementing the LLRP. There are also social positions in the Hamar and Benna communities. These are the donza, zarsi, and ayo. A donza is an initiated married man, who has children, and has to prove himself as a responsible person. To take this position, elders of the Hamar and Benna are expected to attest their competence, responsibility and respect to their community and culture in their day to day activities. Zarsi is related to donza, which indicate either an individual donza, who acts together with other donza in the interests of the community or for the actual group of donza, who is called to seek mutual solution for political decisions or problems of public concern. An ayo is elected by the zarsi as public speaker and leading the decision-making process during the public meeting of the Hamar and Benna in their respective territorial segments to negotiate political issues. Here also requires consideration of social positions in the area for smooth implementation of the project in the society. In Hamar and Benna communities, initiation and marriage ceremonies play significant role in the socioeconomic aspects. There are different steps and rituals used in the male initiation ceremony of the Hamar and Benna boys before marriage. A young Hamar man is expected to pass a number of rituals and social processes to become an ukuli (initiate) until the day of his ukulibula (leap over the cattle). After the leap over the cattle, the ukuli becomes a maz3.Unless a Hamar boy is initiated, he cannot become a fully functioning member of the Hamar community, i.e., donza. Females4 also perform initiation rituals. In Hamar community, for a female to become an uta, by moving in, long after sealing marriage legitimize marriage as well as to conceive and bear children. If a girl gives birth to a child before the father performs leaping over the cattle, the child will be considered as “Minji” and killed. This is particularly the case these days in the far away areas of Hamar from the towns of Turmi and Dimeka. However, government officials and NGOs in the area have been working to stop the practice of Minji. The Hamar and Benna community are also known by their cultural dancing named as Evan (night) Gadi (dance) literally means night dance, which is performed every other day during good harvesting seasons. In all pastoralist and agro-pastoralist areas in SNNPR included under this study (Hamar and Benna Tsemai), they have Denb system, which is considered as the central traditional institution. Through Denb system, the PAP communities in the study areas have used to resolve conflicts traditionally. It also helps them to practice religion and politics. The Denb system is also a way of getting rid of 3 Maz is initiated man who has successfully completed his leap over the cattle but not yet married boy of the Hamar. The maz are responsible to help and accompany the ukuli while performing the necessary rituals. 4 Females are known in Hamar by their different status based on whether they are married or not. Such groping are Anza (a girl who has not yet joined her husband), uta (bride who moved in with her husband), andgol (married woman). 33 pain and healing sickness. Denb has its own places reserved for rituals to be performed. Balabats and Donnza play role in mediating the community with Barjo/Bayro (super natural power) to bring them rain, make their harvest good, and have a bright year as well as getting rid of disease and sickness. As it has been known, the Oromo people has their own unique traditional institution named the Gada system, which is based on an age-set system that cross-cuts kinship organization. The Oromo in Fentale Woreda are known by Kereyu that are organized around a patrilineal kinship system. The kereyu has two clans named Dullahaand Baso that are divided into sub-clans, and each sub- clan can be broken down into smaller clans. Each level of this structure is administered through a council of elders headed by a damina/clan leader, who is in charge of various responsibilities from handling home issues of abusing husbands to supervision of herd and pasture management practices, to conflict resolution at different levels. Elder councils at each level of the clan structure oversee the performance of the damina. In Gumbi Bordode Woreda, elderly participants in the community consultation forwarded Jarsumma/elders institution plays significant role in mediating various problems encountering the community including solving conflicts within their clans and inter-clans as well as with other ethnic groups like the Somali. In Afar community, for example, co-operation is based on the local community structure of clan, sub-clan, family, etc. Each clan or sub-clan is highly organized and cohesive. Clan leaders play a key role in maintaining social order, coordinating social activities, and managing common property resources such as pasture and water. Collective action is embedded in Afar culture and they have a longstanding and well established local community institution administered through traditional system. The administration of their traditional system is classified hierarchically. Accordingly, the higher units are clan (mela) and the level below it is the local community (kaidoh), and the next lower level is the extended family (dahla), followed by the household (burra). For that reason, the sultanates are clan leaders, Firma or Balabat are community leaders, and household heads that reflect their daily socio-cultural aspects. Within the local community, elders arbitrate disputes, and the overall problems are dealt with the committee members of the grazing associations. Participants from Dubti and Kori Woredas during community consultation and FGDs expressed that these organizational units show the ties and networks of the community. Similarly, PAP communities of the Somali have also mentioned their own local traditional institution named as Ugas System. The Ugas has the supreme power in making decision in the Somali ethnic group and it is inevitably recognized by all ethnic groups. This is because the Ugas is believed to be educated person and has regular interaction and discussion with each of the clan leaders, especially on issues such as peace and security that harm the community. Every clan has their own representative that takes messages from the Ugas and passes down to their respective community members. During community consultation of PAP communities in Harshin Woreda of Faraha Liben Kebeles as well as Araaks and Golmordi Kebeles of Gursum Woreda, they mentioned sultan as a clan leader and followed by Akili. They also mentioned Gudi/elders committee who are clan’s representative and play role in solving problems that encounter the community. In times problems cannot be solved or beyond the capacity of the Gudi, they are brought to the formal government structures. 34 In Gambella, the original inhabitants are the Nuer, Anyawa, Mejenger, Oppo and Komo. The ethnic groups included in the study Woredas of this SA were Nuer and Anyawa and they have their traditional institutions. For example, the Anyawa uses Juatut traditional conflict redress mechanism while the Nuer practices Ruach. In both Anyawa and Nuer, the composition of members is male and female elders that are recognized by their respective community. Whenever the problem is beyond the traditional redress mechanism, they follow the formal structure of the government from Kebele to the highest level judiciary to solve the prevailing issue. Participants in all Woredas during the discussions expressed in one way or the other the significance or contribution of various traditional institutions, particularly the local informal institution during the implementation of the forthcoming LLRP. 4.2.2. Causes of Conflicts and their Traditional Resolution Mechanisms in PAP Areas A. Causes of Conflicts among PAP communities As it is known pastoralists and agro-pastoralists of Ethiopia are living in the peripheral areas of the country where they are not only bordered with the nations people but also with other countries people. In this respect, it is worthy to see the causes of conflicts as internal and external. In relation to the points of discussion, FGD participants and community consultations among the society under study revealed that there have been recurring conflicts among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities due to various reasons. The main conflicts encountered were usually between ethnic groups residing in their neighboring areas. Even though the conflicts are minimal, there were also internal conflicts within the same clan. Some of the major sources of conflicts in PAP communities selected for this Social Assessment were: pasture or grazing land, shortage of water, cattle raid and adultery. In the PAP communities selected for this SA, shortage of grazing land and water resources were mentioned as the main sources of conflicts. These areas are characterized by arid and semi-arid where there is irregular and low rainfall leading to scarcity of water, grass and bushes. In these areas since recently rainfall has been unpredictable and for very short time. Sometimes the rain does not appear for longer months even in the usual rainy season. Due to this, in almost all PAP areas under the current SA, there was recurrent drought. Consequently, informants during FGDs and community consultation in Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Fentale, Kori and Gumbi Borode and Harshin Woredas described that drought was not only the cause for the death of livestock but also human beings. In this respect, poor families, female headed and children are mostly affected. In order to overcome the problem of grazing land and water resources for their livestock, PAP communities are forced to travel by crossing their boundaries where they can get available feeds and water. It in this situation conflict may occur with the neighboring ethnic groups as traditionally it is known that in the PAP communities, land belongs to a certain ethnic group and that group claims its physical boundaries. In this respect, whenever new comers cross their ideal border, they can enter into conflict. For instance, community consultations and FGDs with Bati and Galcha Kebeles of Fentale Woreda indicated that during the dry season, when grass is scarce, mobility is common among the Kereyu in the area to a far distance in search of pasture, which leads them in conflict with the Afar and the Argoba pastoralists. They also informed the conflict they entered 35 with the Somali due to water and animal feeds. They also mentioned border or boundary conflicts with these ethic groups. Similarly, FGDs with Obensale Kebele of Gumbi Bordode indicated the recent conflict they encountered on land ownership between the Oromos and Somalis in the area. The conflict has claimed human lives and left some people displaced with heavy damages caused to property. Relating to this point, an elderly about 70 years old during the discussion stated the following: We have still border and pasture land conflict and even presented our case to federal authorities but nobody has solved our deep rooted inter-ethnic [Oromo and Somali] conflict in the area…. The conflict has far reaching consequences, we are not able to send our children to school and what is worse is that there are children without parents, which were killed by Somali during the conflicts. Initially, we used to live together, but after the experience of conflict, the Somali moved to the upper part of the Woreda around Gumbi, Chellea and Digeni areas and fight against us. We also defend ourselves as much as we can. Thus, in the process of the conflict, many people died, our property was damaged and we were displaced. The above quote depicts the causes of inter-ethnic conflicts and the negative effects it brought on the communities that claim human life, displacement and causalities in property. Similarly, in Gambella (Lare and Itang woredas) during community consultations, they expressed their conflicts with the South Sudan Pastoralists, particularly with the Fullani whenever they cross their boundary in search of pasture for their livestock. Besides, looting of livestock is a cause of conflict among the PAP communities. In some areas, pastoralists make cattle raid to show their bravery and courage. In other places, the cause of cattle raid is historical inter-communal enmity that has passed from generation to generation. This is prevalent, for example, between ethnic groups of the Hamar and Dassench, Benna Tsemai and Maale, Karayu (Fentale Woreda) and Afar, in Gumbi Bordode between Somali and Oromo. However, in some places, cattle raid is the outcome of marriage practices of the community. Among the ethnic groups in Hamar and Benna, for a man to marry a girl, he has to pay about 30 to 100 cattle as bride wealth. Thus, it can be very difficult for those families and/or individuals who are poor to pay the necessary bride wealth. Their only option to get a wife is to go somewhere and steal or loot a nearby ethnic group’s livestock. This act is also encouraged and commended by the local elders because after the person or group successfully robs livestock, he prepares a party by slaughtering animals and invites elders from his ethnic group, who afterwards bless him and praise his courage and bravery. In this regard, an elderly from Benna Tsemai stated the conflicts they had with the Maale due to the looting of the cattle by a young Benna from the Maale. As a result of this, the Maale also came to the Benna land in a group in order to return their looted cattle. Hearing their revenge, the Benna were also ready to protect themselves. Then elders and administrators from the two sides intervened and settled the issue. This shows how the formal alongside informal local institutions are functional in resolving conflicts. Generally, the factors that lead to conflict within pastoral and Agro-pastoral communities are discussed below. 36 Rangeland Based Conflict: the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities understood the ability of rangeland to replenish itself from soil seed bank reserves and they used to exercise careful timing of grazing of safeguard plants during seed production. However, due to the aggravating pressure on the rangelands, currently they are unable to apply this. In principle, the pastoral and agro- pastoral communities are culturally alien to cutting of trees that serves as browse and source of edible fruits for humans. For instance, in Afar, Ziziphus spina christi, Grewia erythrea, G.tenax, Dobera glabra, Balanites aegyptica, Adansonia digitat are given special treatment to protect them from being cut. In occasions, when tree cutting is necessary such as for feeding animals during drought only the branches are cut so that regenerative capacity of the trees is maintained. This gradually started to change 5-6 decades ago when cultivation encroached onto prime grazing lands of the pastoralists by the non-pastoralist people. At the same time there were a few pastoralists with good exposure to and interaction with non-pastoralist who started cultivation in the plain rangelands. Fortunately, their action was regarded as an anti-pastoralist culture and abandoned it immediately after 2-3 years of cultivation. Such conversion of prime rangelands into arable lands inevitably reduced the vegetation cover, increased number of people who wanted to cultivate land, contracted the traditional migration routes, and further pushed the pastoralists to less potential lands. Consequently, no single micro-patch in PAP areas can be categorized as being in good state and large proportion of the hitherto rangeland areas in PAP areas are converted to flood based crop production fields. In the last 13-14 years the need to cultivate rangelands is being introduced to various pastoral territories. In some areas a large proportion of communal prime grazing lands are already individualized in response to the increase in the deteriorating food security situation of the PAP communities and other large lands already apportioned among the pastoral members. Divergent interests on the use of the PAP rangeland are also observed between pastoralists themselves. Participants uncovered that such eagerness for expanding cultivation emanated emotionally by individuals without consulting the broad pastoral mass that has little or no skills of cultivation. Apparently the pastoral groups from the various territories are interested in rangelands and avoid share cropping while the some other PAP communities have keen interest on cultivation with the support of the non-pastoral people on the basis of agreed share cropping. Paradoxically, the pastoralists of other areas see these farmers as rivals of the range resources and it is in the presence of such latent tension of resource competition that the rangeland is privatized for arable farming. The need to initiate cultivation is justified by the fact that traditional pastoral livelihood strategies are becoming inadequate to address current complex pastoral social security needs. However, such expansions need to be effective on the basis of mutual consultation and land use principles and should consider longer-term ecological and social costs. The current attempt has far reaching consequences for the pastoral people of the various regional states. Firstly, the land, which originally was planned for cultivating crops, is only seldom used due to 3-4 multi-year droughts and inability of the local administration structure to solve such differing interests of the local pastoral groups. Secondly, the pastoralists that depend on farmers for cultivation are becoming more dependent as a result of increasing arable land. Major transformation in the socio-economics of the pastoral culture started to take a different shape with emphasis on cultivation of land on the basis of share cropping with farmers. Many PAP community members started to migrate to the emerging towns nearby and other areas and begun to follow different livelihood strategies as daily laborers, civil servants, traders and others. 37 Surprisingly, at least some PAP communities in the past were not involved in charcoal and firewood selling but recently they are seen involving in such off pastoral activities triggered by combined effects of human and climatic induced pressures. All this undoubtedly resulted in increased pressure on the scarce and dwindling rangelands resources and served as agents of environmental destruction, which is beyond the capacity of the pastoral community. These changes are accompanied not only by shifts in herd size that are required to satisfy the maintenance requirements of a pastoral household, but also the composition of the herd. In the past people were herding camels and cattle but today except some rich families the majority maintain small stock. With changing times and situations they tried to maximize small stocks notably goats. In line with this people also started to diversify their livelihoods from other means such as seasonal and long- term migrations, inland trades, crafts, etc. Pastoralist Livelihood System as source of Conflict: In Ethiopia, pastoralist livelihood systems are becoming increasingly vulnerable to various forms of conflict. Human population is rising, the climate is changing and international markets are setting ever-high barriers for access. Infrastructure is poorly developed, education and literacy levels remain very low and competition for scarce resources is increasing. Generally speaking, pastoralist livelihood system is increasingly becoming as a source of conflict in all regions that hosts pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. For instance, conflict and tensions in the Somali region is complex, and are centred on competition over resources (for example, access to water and pasture) as mobile pastoral communities struggle for access to, and ownership of, increasingly scarce resources. The formation of the Somali Regional state left borders in key areas undefined, for example, the Shinile border with Afar, contributing to conflicts between the pastoral Issa and Afar, as well as between Issa and the Agro- Pastoral Hawiya. Thus, it challenges the pastoralist livelihood (caused by change, increasing frequency of drought, in appropriate land tenure and resettlement policies and programs), and the adoption of more sedentary forms of agro-pastoralist communities have heightened these tensions. Traditional coping strategies and resources management systems are becoming loose. The Clan System as a Conflict Multiplier (positive social capital): The clan system can be both a stabilizing and destabilizing force. It’s potential for destabilization lies primarily in the capacity of the clan system to serve as a conflict multiplier. The communal nature of the clan system means that an affront to an individual clan member can be interpreted as an affront to the entire clan, which draws the entire clan into what may initially be a minor dispute. “An individual clan member is guaranteed with economic, social and physical security for being born into the clan and has to defend the clan’s interest.” As a result, conflicts between individuals are easily transformed into wider clan conflicts”. Thus, the potential for conflict escalation within the clan context is substantial. The ingrained sense of retaliation within some clans can lead to an escalating series of retaliations, and soon enough “a small clash may give birth to a huge conflict that incites the involvement of the whole clan” (Ahemd 2005). The strength of the clan system and individuals’ commitment to the prescribed responses to certain actions–“norms of reciprocity” – heighten the likelihood of violent conflict. Social capital is conventionally regarded as a positive asset, and in many instances it is (see the section on traditional conflict management mechanisms below), but when it serves this function it can be a divisive element. These kinds of conflicts are widely mentioned by the FGD and community consultation participants in the case of all five target regions (Afar, Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR and Somali). According to the participants such kinds of practices are in some areas of the regional states; despite of the existence of the practice in all 38 regions it was strongly mentioned in the case of all four target regions and Afar is an exception in terms of the severity of the problem. The Unstable Situation of the Youth: youth are a conflict resource in the sense that they can be a restless, frustrated, easily mobilized group eager for opportunity and advancement but often disadvantaged. With the demographic pressures cited above, the Somali Region currently has a particularly large youth cohort; research suggests “a strong correlation between large youth cohorts and political violence.” One of the consequences of the ongoing livelihood transition in any region is increased rural-urban migration, especially among youth. Even after their sub-clan settles in a particular place, many youth – especially boys – are leaving their rural communities for the (relatively) urban towns of their respective regional states, both of which have grown substantially in recent years (many youth are also going further afield to neighboring countries, middle east countries and elsewhere, though few go to Addis Ababa). They come to these towns in search of economic opportunity, as drought and other factors diminish the feasibility and appeal of pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods. Evidence suggests that they are likely to remain in urban areas, as “even persecuting urban youth cannot extinguish their resolve to remain in cities.” This urbanization “concentrates precisely that demographic most inclined to violence: unattached young males who have left their families behind and have come to the city seeking economic opportunities.” Consequently, there exists a large pool of unemployed and underemployed youth in the urban areas that are susceptible to recruitment to various causes and inducement to violence. They come looking for economic opportunities but in most cases all they find jobs such as shoe shining, loading and unloading, or minor construction – or no employment at all. They have little or no access to education; informal estimates are that only some youth in the regions are enrolled in a secular school, most of them in relatively urban areas, and many schools are closing due to the drought. These factors deepen youth frustration and resentment at the lack of opportunity. With the time they have on their hands, youth increasingly engage in activities that generally negatively affect their outlook on life, such as whittling away the day chewing khat and joining groups watching violent and sometimes pornographic videos at night. Increasingly there are stories of youth engaging in petty crime, such as small-time looting, probably in part to pay for khat and for admission to the videos. In previous generations such behavior was almost entirely absent from the society of the target regions. The youths’ outlook on their lives and prospects is cause for concern. “Youth are always looking towards the future” because their present prospects are so bleak, we were told. Youth are in increasingly dire straits, which leave them more inclined to accept support or employment from any source, even if it comes with ideological strings attached. Recognizing this, extremist elements often prey on youth vulnerability in various parts of the world. These target regions are a strong candidate for such predatory activity. As one informed observer told us, the youth situation is “a latent problem that could explode at any moment.” The principal risk is that “a deprived, frustrated or traumatized youth cohort, if left without help, can continue to foment violent conflict for decades. Information and Misinformation: Despite limited access the lowland dweller communities are remarkable consumers of information. A Somali saying asserts that “a man is a person with 100 camels, more than one wife, one gun and a radio.” In towns and even small villages, activity often comes to a halt at 5 pm when the different radio and television Service comes on the air and people old and young, primarily men, gather around a radio to listen. But this is virtually the only media outlet available beyond cities or some towns and, consequently, many pastoral and agro-pastoral communities have an impressive knowledge of world events but limited exposure to news of 39 events closer to home. There is almost no access to newspapers beyond some towns, no radio stations other than the Ethiopian based radios, and no television beyond Ethiopian state television (satellite dishes are the exclusive province of the elite, the UN and NGOs). This creates an information vacuum. That vacuum is filled, to some extent, by the highly social and oral nature of pastoral and agro-pastoral society – men spend hours every day drinking coffee or chewing khat while in long, winding conversations, frequently leaning in close to one another to whisper. Women surely maintain similar levels of conversation in other, less public venues. Inevitably, much of the information traded is rumor, half-truths and blatant falsehoods, all of which can contribute to conflict. The dearth of media means that there is virtually no way to verify the accuracy of things heard through conversation, so there is a tendency for information acquired through word of mouth to be accepted as accurate. Combined with the almost automatic responses to certain actions prescribed by the clan system, rumours and falsehoods can quickly lead to conflict. Exacerbating the situation is limited or no information about the opposing side in a conflict; the participant cites an instance of inter-clan conflict in which “either side never knew about the condition of the other hand, as result, conflict ensued.” This information vacuum is not a primary driver of conflict, but it aggravates the situation and increases the likelihood both of conflict being triggered and violence quickly escalating. Available Conflict Management To sum up, Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral modes of livelihoods passed through significant dynamism due to ecological, social and political pressures and the resultant decline in their economy. Such changes have had an impact on the pattern of relations among Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral clans on one hand and between the Pastoral and agro-pastoralists and non-pastoral neighboring communities on the other hand. Among the Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral, the old philosophy of pastoral communal land gave way to territorial claims of land for cultivation purposes. Sedentary life and the decline in livestock size together with institutional changes in the regions set a limit to the extent of Pastoral and Agro-pastoral mobility, which in turn reduced the frequency of inter- community conflict with highlanders. Sedentary life also gave the Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral community more opportunities to diversify their income for sustainable livelihoods. Conflict is an inherent part of the social structure. Thus conflict, be it within the Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral or involving neighboring cultural groups, will continue to occur in the future too. However, crosscutting ties and growing economic interdependence among people in the region enables them to contain conflict through non-violent means. The local institutions, together with formal legal machinery, provide the mechanism for redressing conflict although high-level participatory government and NGO interventions are still needed in order to establish sustainable peace and post-conflict reconstruction. 40 B. Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms among PAP Communities Whenever drought coverage and intensity increases, pastoralists are forced to migrate to other neighboring pastoralists territories. This type of migration is often a source of inter-clan conflict. In this circumstance, the traditional conflict management mechanism is through the traditional elders without the involvement of government officials. First of all, elders from the migrating community will approach the host elders and with the permission of the host elders migrating animals are allowed to graze and use the water. In some pastoral areas there could be an agreement to pay cash or livestock for the resources utilized. This type of inter-ethnic interaction follows a reciprocal strategy where both groups have access to each other’s resources. PAP communities have their own traditional conflict resolution mechanisms even though the approach of redressing and managing it differ according to the cultural or traditional practice of a certain ethnic group. In SNNPR, for instance, the PAP communities of the Hamar and Benna Tsemai manage conflicts by way of the Denb system, which is performed whenever conflict prevail among the ethnic group. In Hamar and Benna Tsemai Woredas, the Hamar, Benna, Tsemai, Kara, Bashadha and Arbore have their own traditional Denb system that is used to solve various issues such as if a person kills a fellow ethnic group member or commits adultery. Regarding this, if a person kills somebody from the above same ethnic group, he runs away and hides in other areas to save himself from immediate revenge from relatives of the dead person. The daily livelihoods of PAP communities have Denb system, which is a local institution that play role in socio-cultural, political and legal aspects. In addition to the traditional inter-ethnic grievance redress mechanisms, the participation of regional, zonal, Woreda and Kebele government officials play vital role in solving conflicts. More than this, the involvement of community committee comprised of elders and balabats from the two conflicting parties take part and try to settle the problem as much as possible by cooling down the family of dead person. The Hamar and Kara ethic group have a tradition of correcting the perpetrators through whipping them seriously using a traditional Baraza stick and pay compensation for the relatives of the dead person. Likewise, cooperation among the Afar people is based on the local community structure of clan, sub-clan, family, etc. Each clan or sub-clan is highly organized and cohesive. Clan leaders play a key role in maintaining social order, coordinating social activities, and managing common property resources such as pasture and water. Collective action is embedded in Afar culture. In Afar ethnic group, there is also a conflict resolution system known as Makboon. They have developed this longstanding traditional conflict resolution system though the name given to such a longstanding local institution varies across clans in Afar. In the context of Kori and Dubti Woredas, the source of conflict could be grazing land, water; unexpected killing of a person and looting of livestock. Such conflicts may be experienced in intra-clan, inter-clan or inter-ethnic. The conflict may also be among individual pastoralists of households. The tradition of Makabon is helpful in resolving most of the disputes in the Afar community. Through this traditional law, resource conflict, divorce and theft cases are handled. Whenever this traditional law fails to resolve the conflict, the community leaders and the Woreda administrative bodies will handle it together, for example, the issue of sexual abuse of women and any type of death. In Gambella like in Afar, there are conflicts: internal (Anyawa and Nuer) and external (Ethio- South Sudan boarder). Conflict can be resulted due to cattle theft, unarranged or unapproved marriage and murder crimes. In both circumstances, the role of customary conflict resolution 41 mechanism is essential. But, there are also instances whereby the formal litigation process is sought to solve the conflict. In the case of murder, the defendant is supposed to eat a mixture of milk, oxen feces and blood. It is believed that this will prohibit him/her from engaging in similar practices again. Whenever conflicts prevail regarding dowry and unapproved marriage by parents of male and female, conflict is resolved by elders’ intervention from various Kebeles owing to the values of the customary laws. This process of solving conflicts by elders of the Nuer traditionally called ‘Duol’. Among the Somali pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in Harshin and Gursum Woredas, the traditional conflict resolution system is known as ‘odiyash deganka’. According to this system, when conflict happens, the community informs the clan leader. Clan leaders manage inter-clan and intra-clan conflicts through Ola system by bringing together the two foes in order to reconcile and stopover their enmity. The time of settling conflict depends on the criticality of the conflict. The perpetrator is expected to pay compensation that varies from clan to clan. However, if the conflict was with other non-Somali ethnic groups, it is handled and settled by the Ugas. Ugas is the leader of clans in Somali ethnic groups. He has the supreme power and any decision made by the Ugas is automatically accepted by the ethnic group. The Ugas has a meeting room and a schedule for discussion with clan leaders on peace and security issues and about any agenda that impacts the community. The Ugas together with clan leaders are responsible to resolve inter-ethnic conflict. In Oromia regional state of Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas, the Oromo have their own traditional conflict resolution called Jarsuma (conciliation of elderly) which is under the bigger umbrella of the Gada system. The Oromo in general uses Gada system as a socio-political organization. Parallel to resolving issues through the Gada system, more specifically Jarsuma, conflicts in the area are resolved through the formal government structures from Kebele to higher judiciary system whenever the issue is beyond Jarsuma. In general, in the process of conflict management, there are some major lessons that we learned: - First, clearly understand the root causes and magnitude of the conflict; - Discuss ways to resolve the conflict with group leaders, elders, and regular members. Be as inclusive as possible. Make sure you have not omitted anyone who is directly or indirectly part of the conflict; - Identify members having extremely negative positions and work with them individually; - Stress repeatedly that group members must be immune from bias in the process of managing conflict and that the common enemy is poverty, not each other; - Give a chance for group members to resolve the conflict themselves using their own problem solving mechanisms. If this fails, then outside mediators can become involved; - Changing anything linked with religion or culture needs a slower process, but progress can be achieved. The support of community leaders must be sought at the start; - In some cases conflicts cannot be resolved and some people may have to leave their groups. Such a process needs to be formalized and include recovery of outstanding resources and other property that belongs to the group. 42 4.2.3. Grievance Redress Mechanism during Project Implementation Grievance redress mechanism is commonly used to receive and act on grievances or complaints reported by affected groups or concerned stakeholders to enable them get prompt actions from program implementers on issues of concern or unaddressed impacts and risks. Grievances can take the form of specific complaints for damages/injury, concerns about routine program activities, or perceived incidents or impacts. Identifying and responding to grievances supports the development of affirmative relationships between project and affected groups/communities, and other stakeholders. According to World Bank Grievance Redress, communities and individuals who believe they are adversely affected by a Bank-supported project may submit complaints to existing project-level grievance redress mechanisms or the Bank’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints received are promptly reviewed to address project-related concerns and impacts. Project affected communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the Bank’s Independent Inspection Panel, which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of the Bank’s noncompliance with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have been brought directly to the Bank’s attention and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the Bank’s corporate GRS, see http://www.worldbank.org/GRS, and Bank’s Inspection Panel, see www.inspectionpanel.org In the implementation process of the LLRP, there should be a grievance redress mechanism established to allow pastoral and agro-pastoral communities, project beneficiaries and stakeholders to complain/request about any decision of activities regarding inclusion in the census, eligibility and temporary or permanent loss of their land, assets or sources of income and their compensation. It is thus imperative to build up and practice traditional conflict resolution mechanisms during the implementation of LLRP. However, there is a need to consider context dependent format of traditional conflict redress mechanism of the six regions: Afar, Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR, Somali and Benishangul Gumuz. The traditional forms of managing issues can even be recognized and used by the government structures. In this respect, the lowland communities’ traditional conflict resolution mechanisms have acknowledged more than the formal structure by the local communities. Various informants discussed this idea during community consultations, mainly in: Somali, SNNPR, Afar, and Oromia. Relating to this, key informants depicted the denb system in Hamar and Benna Tsemai of SNNPR, odiyash deganka in Harshin and Gursum Woredas of Ethiopian Somali region, Jarsuma, Aadaa, Safuu, Seera and Sinqee (which is common in the Gada system) in Fentale and Bordode Woredas of Oromia region, Makaboon in Afar, Wilokin Nuer and Carlok in Anyawa in Gambella region. These traditional institutions were often used as a common customary practice to solve particularly interethnic conflict, mainly caused by grazing and water resource. In order to make use of these traditional conflict resolution mechanisms among PAP communities, it is viable to provide suitable or culturally sensible trainings to respective stakeholders. Organizing or recruiting committees that are trusted and heard by communities of a certain ethnic group is a good precondition. This committee should also play substantial role in resolving conflicts that cross their boundary. They should further work strongly in the protection of conflicts within and outside their border before it intensifies and claim life and property. 43 In Hamar and Benna Tsemai, many of the conflicts have been solved through the balabats who are the main go-betweens in conflict resolution. They play significant role in the daily activities of the community. The problem of participating balabats in the LLRP may be their absence during the frequent consultations and meetings in capacity building trainings provided by LLRP. This is because the balabats have different roles they are expected to convey in the community. It also requires consultation of the community at large during the implementation of the project in order to see a recognized cultural conflict resolution mechanism. So what is important in this regard is the selection of Zarsi–a collection of Donnza/elders committee that might be accountable to the balabats. Moreover, selected communities for the implementation of LLRP need to have constant awareness creation in a culturally sensible form about the GRM and project implementation. They should also take trainings on the design and deliberation process of the project. Besides, it is necessary to consider national, regional, zonal, and Woreda levels discussions and forums among PAP communities to strengthen their solidarity and integrity. This should be done by the MOP from the Federal down to the Woreda levels in collaboration with World Bank and IFAD. This SA for the future suggests various areas to be studied particularly areas such as the rhetoric relationships, coexistence, interethnic conflicts and its impacts in PAP communities. Key Considerations for LLRP GRM Procedure Disclosure of the GRM: GRM uptake location (assign focal person) need to be established at all levels (Federal, Regional, Woreda, and Kebele levels). Safeguard focal persons or experts should be responsible to establish the uptake location and work on its disclosure. The existence and condition of access to register (how, where, and when) shall be widely disseminated within the Project implementation areas at Kebele and Woredas where there may be grievances regarding any Project activities implementation. Expectation When Grievances Arise: When affected or concerned persons who have a concern present their grievance, they expect to be heard and taken seriously. Thus, the MOP and other respective regional, Woreda and Kebele levels implementing agencies and stakeholders, particularly safeguard experts or focal persons are requisite to provide adequate information to people that they can voice grievances and work to resolve without fear of retaliation or some sort of social retribution. Grievance Submission Method: Complaints can use both formal and informal ways: telephone, e-mail, MoP websites, program staff, text message (SMS), in person, or strategically placed complaint boxes as necessary. But, once the complaint is received, it will have to be documented in writing using a standard format containing detailed timeline for resolving conflict/complaint. Registration of Grievances: complaints will be transcribed, recorded in a log using standard format, examined; investigated and remedial actions will be taken to settle. Any grievance that may arise from the operation will be filed in the first instance settlement procedure. Management of Reported Grievances: The procedure for managing grievances should be as follows: i. The affected or concerned person files his/her grievance, relating to any issue associated with the LLRP activities and/or environmental and social impacts and risks in writing or phone to the focal person. Where it is written, the grievance note should be signed and 44 dated by the aggrieved person. And where it is phone, the receiver should document every detail. ii. The safeguard specialist or focal person will act as the Program Liaison with affected persons to ensure objectivity in the grievance process. iii. Where the affected or concerned person is unable to write, the focal persons or experts will write the note on the aggrieved person’s behalf. iv. Any grievances reported should be documented. v. At the Kebele levels, Kebele administrators will play a key role in managing complaints and disputes in close collaboration with the assigned/focal staffs at Regional and Woredas environmental and social focal person and PCIUs. To this end, the Kebele administrators need to be given awareness rising training on the procedures of grievance redress, documentation, and reporting. Grievance Log and Response Time: The process of grievance redress will start with registration of the grievance to be addressed, for reference purposes and to enable progress updates of the cases. The Register should contain a record of the person responsible for an individual complaint, and records of date for the complaint reported; date the Grievance Logged; date information on proposed corrective action sent to complainant (if appropriate), the date the complaint was closed out and the date response was sent to complainant. The Kebele, Woreda and regions should compliant lodger keep a journal with recording all grievances, date and results of the closure with all supporting documents available (completed compliant logging forms, decision minutes, emails, etc.) and ensure that each complaint has an individual reference number, and is appropriately tracked and recorded actions are completed. The response time will depend on the issue to be addressed but it should be addressed with efficiency. Accordingly, the grievance at Kebele, Woreda and Regional levels should be addressed with in 20, 20 and 20 working days, respectively. Grievances Reporting Mechanism: The focal person or responsible body at all levels (Kebele, Woreda and Regions) will be responsible for compiling submitted and processed complaints/grievances on regular basis and report to relevant stakeholders every quarter. The Kebele should report the complaints registered and addressed to the Woreda Office for Pastoral Development every month. Following the structure hierarchical to the Woredas will report to the regions within two weeks after they received from the Kebele. The regions will report quarterly federal level to MOP safeguard experts. The following steps will be followed in complaints handling and dispute management: 45 Figure 2: Proposed Grievance Redress Mechanisms Registration of the grievance or dispute by social audit committee, Woreda focal person, cluster level focal person, Regional safeguard personnel or R-PCIU Activities Internal assessment of the nature of the grievance or dispute Decision as to method of addressing the grievance or dispute No Yes Complaint resolved At Kebele level through Traditional Resort to Woreda Office for Institutions/Social Audit Pastoral Development Final closure with records logged into If not solved, Grievance the journal processed by Cluster level Committee Complaint resolved The case resort to Regional No Final closure Level Steering Committee Yes Final closure with records logged into the journal NB. For cases related with gender-based violence, sexual exploitation and abuse, the Woreda Women and Children Affairs office will be the first level reference. The project will allocate adequate resources for awareness creation on this GBV GRM. The Woreda Women and Children Affairs Office will be provided with capacity building and orientation on the basic principles of GBV case management encompassing confidentiality, non-judgmental, service referrals for survivors, etc. The office will have a working procedure regarding the standards for services, referral, data collection, maintaining the best interest of the survivor. The details of the GBV GRM will be further elaborated in the project PIM and defined with the specific contexts of the respective Woreda Women and Children Affairs Office. The LLRP will not provide any resources for the 46 respective Woredas without training/awareness regarding GBV/SEA to the Woreda Women and Children Affairs Office. 4.2.4. Livelihood Activities Chambers and Conway (1992) defined livelihood that it “comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living.” Livelihood diversification is “the process by which rural households constructs an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their standards of living” (Ellis, 2000:15). The main livelihood activities of lowland communities in the study areas depend on livestock production and a limited level of crop production. Livestock production is the principal means of livelihood for pastoralists. This is to mean that there is a practice of traditional and extensive livestock rearing system (cattle, camels, goats and sheep). The agro-pastoralists also make their livelihood out of mixed agriculture, mainly those households residing along the permanent rivers. However, there have been vulnerabilities due to recurrent drought, chronic water shortages, conflicts, market shocks (livestock and cereals price fluctuations), animal and human diseases. The livestock herd size per household is reducing radically as a result of shortage of pasture. Massive livestock death and reduced animal fertility rates have also become common trends in the study areas. Livelihood activities in Dubti Woreda depend on Agro-pastoralism (maize, sorghum and vegetables and fruits using rain fed and irrigated agriculture) and pastoralism (rearing of goats, cattle, sheep, etc) while the communities in Kori Woreda were pure pastoralists (rearing of livestock). Livelihood activities in Itang special woreda and Lare woreda depends on Agro- pastoralism and pastoralism. The Anyawa and Nuer in these areas practice crop cultivation during the rainy season mainly sorghum and maize, fishing, livestock rearing as well as hunting and gathering as the major subsistence. The Anyawa uses fishing as important survival mechanism essentially in the dry season that is practiced in Baro, Gillo, Alwero and Akobo rivers. The Oromos in Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas, apart from livestock herding, they have been practicing both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture. In the Ethiopian Somali, livestock rearing is predominantly practiced although there is a practice of agriculture. As indicated by Harshin Woreda administrator, the Woreda’s livelihoods of the community depend on pastoralism (85%), agro-pastoralism (10%) and petty trade (5%). The community in Gursum Woreda also depends on agro-pastoralism and petty trade. The livelihoods of the Hamarand Benna Tsemai Woredas in SNNPR are dependent on pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. They are dependent on livestock rearing and farming.The Hamar and Benna raise cattle, goats, and sheep. Cattle-keeping is the most valued of Hamar and Benna socioeconomic practices. In other words, cattle are a symbol of wealth and a necessity for the bride price as well as for having a successful marriage. Additionally, they engage in hunting and gathering as well as raiding. The thorny bush scrub of the Hamar and Benna lands are favorable for keeping goats. The Hamar people do not depend on all of the resources in the same way. This means, they use goats mostly as a survival strategy, and regard goats as the most important source of their economy. The Hamar and Benna manage goats efficiently and whenever they face problems they share or support each other. 47 Agricultural activities among the Hamar and Benna Tsemai are shared between men and women. They practice slash-and-burn cultivation. On a shifting slash-and-burn basis, sorghum, maize, beans, and pumpkins are cultivated in smaller quantities along the sandy river courses of Keske. The Hamar and Benna women practice metal hoe and wooden digging stick before Hamar men started plowing with oxen while men are responsible for planting seeds. Beekeeping and honey collection by young men has been and still is a major economic activity among the Hamar while gathering of leaves, wild fruits and roots are a female activity. Since the last two decades informants also added that recently young men, women and girls are engaged in different tourism related activities. Some of the activities are the making and selling of traditional Hamar and Benna objects, participating in some rituals and performances prepared for tourists, and working in the lodges and hotels. This shows that the emergence of tourism in Hamar and Benna have brought livelihood diversification and shifts. As key informant interviews with PCDP officers indicated, Hamar and Benna-Tsemai Woredas were affected by frequent droughts thus lost most of their cattle herds. Thus, their livelihood started to transform from pastoral to agro-pastoral way of life. The Hamar were challenged to be resilient by the recurrent drought in the area and were included in PRLRP (Pastoral Regional Livelihood Resilience Program). The same is true for Benna Tsemai where they have been benefiting from DRSLP. It is also important to mention that both Woredas were beneficiaries of PCDP I and II. But, recently, the Woredas were hit by recurrent drought and the government involved the community to produce fodder, bile and store it thus can be used for commercial purposes. Since their livelihood capacity is deteriorating as a result of the recurrent drought, the government cabinet decided to include them on the upcoming LLRP. However, during community consultation, participants complained the unsuccessful resettlement and irrigation programs planned by the government along Omo river basins where some Hamar who live alongside the Kara and Arbore were part of these programs. Besides the common livelihoods of livestock rearing and small farming activities, there were other complementary incomes among the households of PAP communities in the study areas. Some of the supplementary activities include, not limited to are traditional bee keeping (among selected Woredas of Gambella and SNNPR), fishing along the Baro and other Rivers of Lare and Itang special Woredas of Gambella; charcoal production mainly in Somali (Harshin and Gursum Woredas), Afar (Dubti Woreda), and Oromia (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode), collecting and selling of firewood (mainly among the Somali and SNNPR pastoralists), tourism related activities in Hamar and Benna Tsemai, and petty trading for all of the Woredas consulted. In Somali region, Gursum Woreda, during community consultation, participants of Araaks Kebele explained their being ex-pastoralists or pastoral drop outs who lost their livestock due to drought and now depend largely on performing low-skilled labor intensive activities, for instance, collection and sale of bush products. The participants of Woredas scrutinized for this study showed that their areas were highly fertile and there is enormous water sources from permanent rivers such as Baro, Alwero in Gambella region, Awash in Afar and Oromia regions, Omo in SNNPR and Wabe Shebele, Genale-Dawa in Somali region and these rivers could be used for farming. But, there were dearth of capacity and awareness as well as inadequate irrigation practices among the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists selected for the study. Moreover, there is little experience in growing vegetable and fruit seeds among the local communities. During FGDs with the local communities in all Woredas, 48 participants included in the study sincerely claimed the need to engage in small scale irrigation activities to diversify their livelihoods. 4.2.5. Natural Resource Use and Control in the Study Areas The type of natural resources used by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists for their livelihoods appears to be similar although differences were observed in terms of their levels of use. There are several kinds of natural resources found and used in the Woredas selected for the study of LLRP, which are also linked with their livelihoods. In almost all of the Woredas selected for this study, the ways of accessing resources seems similar that are dictated mainly through the prevailing customary systems of communal use rights of PAP communities. In this regard, it is good to mention the role membership plays in a certain ethnic group in order to access resources. Some of the main natural resources found in the study areas include, but not limited to: water, rangelands or grazing land, agricultural lands, forests, wild animals, fruits and vegetables, minerals, and aquatic life. Despite the presence of these natural resources in the study areas of PAP communities, there are various factors that threaten their existence. Few of the factors that challenged natural resources as mentioned by Key informants, participants of FGDs and community consultations in the study sites were drought, deforestation, soil erosion, expansion and salinity of Basaka lake and ProsopisJuliflora, to mention a few. Water was one of the vital natural resources mentioned again and again by the PAP communities included in the Social Assessment. Although there have been a serious shortage of water for both animals and humans, participants indicated the presence of permanent rivers in the study areas such as Awash in Afar and Oromia, Woito and Omorivers in SNNPR, Baro and Alwero rivers in Gambella, Wabe Shebele and Genale-Dawa in Somali that are used to serve PAP communities for themselves and their livestock. Participants during community consultations stated that forests have various benefits for the PAP communities directly and indirectly. Some of the main ones includes gathering of some edible fruits, incense, and bee keeping in SNNPR, Afar, Somali and Gambella. Forests are also used for house construction, fence, animal shed, charcoal, and firewood. These resources were communally owned by respective ethnic group and individual members of a given ethnic group or clan. In certain cases in Afar, it deserves a full access to use natural resources for various purposes. However, deforestation, for example, listed as one of the serious problems in the Ethiopian Somali, Afar (Kori and Dubti Woredas), Oromia (Fentale and Gumi Bordode Woredas) due to the use of forests for various reasons including production of charcoal and collection of firewood for market. Besides, participants of the study pointed out that in the areas there have been inconsistent rainfall and recurrent drought that leads to high deforestation. In Gambella, Oromia, Somali, SNNPR and Afar among the Woredas selected for the SA, informants mentioned the challenges of flooding in the rainy season that in turn brought severe soil erosion in the areas. Soil erosion also was a result of cutting trees for charcoal production and firewood. In Afar, in many parts of the Woredas, Prosopis juliflora has been expanded and created several problems despite the fact it was introduced in the region 20 years ago in order to control soil erosion (UNDP 1996). Participants in this Social Assessment from Dubti, Kori, Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas explained the negative impacts of Prosopis juliflora brought on the local communities: destroying indigenous trees, restriction of livestock movement, damaging farm and 49 grazing land, making soil surface crack and letting water trickle underground and pierces animal’s legs or damage to the body of animals as well as reducing the fertility and affecting the soil texture. The encroachment or expansion of the tree is in a faster rate and the communities in the aforementioned Woredas called the plant as “Weyane” relating it to the coming to power as part of the EPRDF coalition in Ethiopia. The invasion of Prosopis juliflora deteriorated and reduced the diversity of forage and pasture species in Afar (Dubti and Kori Woredas) and Oromia region (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas) by reducing their abundance, distribution and by changing grazing land ecosystem to Prosopis thickets. This effected the decrease of a number of livestock per head of the pastoralists due to shortage of feed, decreased productivity of the livestock in terms of milk, meat and other products. Informants also mentioned migration of pastoralists with their livestock to another place in search of feed source. However, the communities and government officials described mitigation measure that can be used to control Prosopis such as using more labor-intensive methods by cutting and burning and application of chemical. In more remote locations, where exploitation is not possible, Prosopis continues to spread. 4.2.6. Type and Use of Land Tenure The lowland communities take into account land as their main natural resources in the process of sustaining their livelihoods even if there exists all the time variation across socio-economic groups over how to access and control land. The land tenure system of the PAP communities was absolutely under the customary land tenure system. It is imperative to consider land resource not only in terms of their physical, economic and legal entity but also their socio-cultural values that attached with the local people’s emotion. Thus, during planning and implementation of sustainable development in PAP communities of selected Woredas, it is advisable that besides considering economic value of land, the need to consider particular socio-cultural values of land. Regarding this, the best example is that the Hamar and Benna say that Banna Pe or Hamar Pe, which literally means the land of the Hamar or Benna. This shows that they highly attached themselves with the area or land they have occupied as well as how the groups have constructed their identity, history, and culture. The communities participated in the study revealed that in the lowland communities the issue of land and its boundary is a socially constructed aspect having economic and social values as well as ethnic identity marker. Pertaining to this, in most of the areas during the study, people associate themselves with their particular land and boundary that distinguish them from the other ethnic groups. According to the discussions with various stakeholders in the study areas regarding land tenure system, by and large, they categorized PAP communities’ lands into grazing land and farm land uses. A. Land Use for Grazing The landholding pattern/land use types in the study areas include cultivated lands, grazing land, homestead lands and fallow land. Majority of the rangelands that are used for grazing in all lowland communities are communally owned and governed by customary law and dictates communal land use right.In this respect, it can be said that all households in the PAP communities has equal access and use right as far as they are part of certain clan member in the community. Thus, they would be able to hold onto keeping their livestock and small ruminants everywhere inside the lands of their clan. Regarding this, it is imperative to raise the relevance of clan membership as a key criterion to confer on local households getting the right to access pasture land. In light of this practice in the 50 area, whenever LLRP requires land for commercial, it should follow the Ethiopian law and polices as well as relevant World Bank polices. This is because in the process of acquiring land for the stated purposes, there is a possibility of farm households and community groups that will be affected by the loss or restriction on the use and access of assets held by individuals or community as practiced in clan/communal use right. However, during the community consultations in all the Woredas, participants unanimously agreed to provide land without hesitation if the project needs land for whatever component or sub-components of the project. They also reflected their full support during project implementation process. As it was stated in the discussion, for example, in Afar pastoral communities, they do not practice fire for range management, because their grazing and browsing territory is small and fully grazed or browsed on an annual basis. In some areas, they tend to have surplus browse at the end of the dry season (when the browse balance is assessed by local breeders), but traditionally no artificial browse control methods have even been attempted by the indigenous range managers. The likelihood that range-fire be adopted in the future are minimal, since they do not have surplus fodder be it in the form of browse or grass. The Afar clans in Dubti exploit the annually flooded areas of Berahle, Galifage and the uncultivated lowlands of Afambo Woredas, along the terraces of Awash River valley. The clans of the Woreda do not have a wet season grazing area of their own. Instead, they move into the wet season grazing areas of northwestern Afar clans, in Chifra and Uwa Woredas. Although the customary landowners raise objections against the intruders, they never try to stop them from using their areas. Informants indicated that Afar pastoralists practice dry and wet rotational grazing. In the wet season, they trek their herds a little away from the river valley toward the higher grounds to make themselves free from malaria hazard and flood. In dry months, herds move to the valley and graze on whatever available crop aftermath and in the patches of uncultivated land at the edge of the river and the swampy or marshy areas along the valley. During discussion with the community, the Kereyu Oromo in Fentale Woreda complained that they have lost their traditional grazing and watering resources for non-pastoral uses. The reason for the land take are several and intricate nevertheless the core ones include state land take for commercial production and demarcated as national parks and ranches for wildlife conservation and border disputes involving inter-ethnic conflicts with the Afar, Argoba, and Somali. Due to this, there are many traditional grazing and watering resources that are no more accessible to pastoral uses. This eventually brought loss of livestock assets that also increases vulnerability of the community to food insecurity and famine. B. Land Use for Farming` In all the discussions held in the five regions of PAP communities, it was found that farmland have been used privately. For instance, pasture land and farm land in lowland communities of Benna Tsemai, Somali, Afar, Keryu, Nuer, Anyawa and Hamar have been governed by customary law. As pasture land was a communal resource, there was no private farmland. A household can clear woods and farm anywhere within the Hamar land and may leave the land and other households can cultivate on the land in the next season. A private use right over farm land is mainly seen from two perspectives in the PAP communities included in this SA that comprise property inheritance system andpatrilocal residence. Regarding property inheritance, key informants and FGD participants expressed that it is based on the patrilineal descent system. This allows only the sons to inherit their father’s property in general 51 and farm land resource in particular explaining that girls will marry and belong to others some years later. Due to this women are not allowed to inherit any property of their family. The second form of private farm land use right in the PAP communities is determined by patrilocal residence. It was argued in this respect that married couples live in husband’s family and upon marriage, a man remains in his father’s locality and consequently the father of the newly married son grant a private use right over a piece of land to cultivate crops to supplement their livelihood. The other form of private land use right in the PAP communities might be shared by the head of a household a certain plots of a farm land to his relatives from what he has. This implies that cultural institution play significant role to be included in the farm land use right. Membership into a certain ethnic group is taken as a precondition whether to get land or not. In almost all lowland communities included in this Social Assessment explained that they follow more or less similar private farm and use right. C. Water Resource Utilization The main sources of water for livestock and human beings in the study Woredas of lowland are are perennial rivers, short-term rivers, ponds and traditional wells. In most of the study Woredas, the water is not clean and there is critical water shortage, particularly during the dry season, which is mainly from April to June. In order to curve the problem of water, the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities included in the study, mainly from Kori Woreda in Afar region, Gumbi Bordode Woreda in Oromia region, Hamar and Benna Tsemai Woredas in SNNPR explained that they migrate to longer distance to get water for their animals. In the dry season, those herders, particularly owning cattle and small ruminants graze their animals for two consecutive days and move their animals on the third day to the watering points. In the wet season, because of availability of water here and there animals drink water depending on their need. In almost all study areas, there are several permanent rivers where pastoralists and agro-pastoralists move with their livestock to these rivers in order to get water, for instance, Awash in Afar (Dubti) and Oromia (Fentale), Baro in Gambella (Lare and Itang), Omo (Hamar) and Woito (Benna Tsemai) in SNNPR. In Somali region, Wabe Shebelle and Genale-Dawa mentioned as perennial rivers. However, they are far from Harshin and Gursum Woredas. Despite its seasonal nature, Fafen River is mentioned as main source of water for Gursum Woreda. The perennial rivers would also be used not only for animal and human beings for drinking but also for large and small scale irrigation so that it could be possible to produce crops, fruits and vegetables along the stated rivers. Regardless of the presence of these great opportunities of having perennial rivers in the Woredas selected for this SA, the finding showed that the PAP communities have encountered serious shortage of water, particularly in the dry season. The rivers used for irrigation was also too small. From the above statements, one can learn that there is lack of sustainable means of utilizing the available water resource and thus this project should address water resource utilization for sustainable development of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in the study area. From the potentials of the permanent rivers in the study areas, intervention in the use of available water resource in sustainable ways is required. This in turn paves the way to use fertile lands for growing sorghum, corn, vegetable, fruit, and palm tree that can enormously supplement the dominant means of livelihoods of lowland communities. It therefore consequently creates diversification of livelihoods and commercialization of resources among the PAP communities under assessment. 52 The LLRP project can also implement the strategic investment in the larger untapped pastoral and agro-pastoral areas using perennial rivers by applying feasible modern technologies. 4.2.7. Livestock Mobility Pastoralists have used various mechanisms to overcome harsh environmental conditions such as mobility and efficient use of periodically changing natural resources, applying the principles of flexibility, complementarity, multi-functionality, reciprocity and sustainable communal resource utilization (Abdulahi, 2007). They are characterized by high mobility and dynamism, complex information systems and a high dependence on indigenous knowledge and their mobility wasdriven by change of seasons. In this respect, informants explained that the mobility of pastoralists is primarily determined by the quantity and quality of water and fodder availability. In addition, they pinpointed other factors that determine their mobility patterns such as excessive heat, lack of shade, presence of animal and human diseases, proximity to markets, territorial boundaries, and social relations with neighbors. Informants from Woredas selected for this study stated that the mobility of livestock within their clan or ethnic group territory is a short distance. Major feed sources available for the entire livestock in the study areas are obtained from natural pasture. Participants of FGDs and community consultations in selected Woredas of this study informed that the availability and use of pasture vary with seasons. They said that there is no noteworthy mobility of livestock during summer season but rather a kind of shifting grazing to prevent the land from degradation and make it regenerate and their mobility was fixed within their own boundary. Pastoralists from the same social group are usually free to use any part of their territory. However, mobility of livestock crossing their boundary is a longer distance and appears during winter season. The major reasons informants mentioned for the mobility of crossing ones own boundary were shortage of pasture and water. Communities in all PAP areas included in this SA described that there are various problems they have been encountering while travelling long distance with their livestock. Some of the major problems they listed include: death of animals and human beings, diseases to humans and livestock, shortage of water and fodder, conflict with other ethnic groups, and absence of vet services. They further stated in general that their mobility has been deterred by settlement, bush encroachment (ProsopisJuliflora), communal rangeland, crop expansion and private enclosure. Key informants and FGD participants from Afar region (Kori Woreda), SNNPR (Hamar and Benna Tsemai Woredas) and Oromia region (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas) clearly stated the recurring problems of drought they encountered in their areas since recent times. In order to overcome problems associated with drought, the pastoralists pursue different mitigation systems. The community together with the clan leaders and elders after assessing the available resources can decide on the number of livestock and length of time to stay at one grazing area. The mobility follow split herd system where male animals and non-milking cows and camels are sent to distance places, while milking cow and camels graze around the village. They sale animals and purchase food grains as well as slaughter few animals in order to prepare dried meat. They decide to take their animals to the market in times they think their livestock will be sold relatively in better prices. Often it is the small ruminants that are used first. PAP communities during community consultations explained the increasing frequency of drought in the past few years that has also increased their vulnerability and it in turn undermined their adaptive strategies. During FGDs with elders of Banti and Galcha Kebeles, some participants expressed that their mobility, area of grazing and kind of livestock included in the travel are decided by the Abba Ganda (head of the village) 53 along with other elders. It is therefore important to consider mapping of mobility patterns of pastoralists in each of the woredas under study before the implementation of the project. 4.2.8. Ethnic Relationships in Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Communities Although there are a number of ways one can define ethnicity, for the purpose of this SA, it is used as the way how people in the study areas identify themselves depending on their common ancestry and cultural heritage. The sense of belongingness and difference one has for the other that may emanate from some cultural traits such as language, clothing style, religion, relationships and the like could be taken into account for grouping a certain people in a defined territory. Considering various ways that people creates relationships within their own and other ethnic group plays a paramount importance in the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in general and during the planning and implementation of LLRP in particular. This helps understand inter-ethnic and intra- ethnic relationships in order to keep sustainability of projects. Thus, this SA discusses the socioeconomic relations created within (intra-ethnic) and between (inter-ethnic) ethnic groups. A. Intra-ethnic Relations The data obtained from the Woredas under study, the PAP communities maintain intra-ethnic relations through a long standing system. They also informed that clan is the smallest deep-rooted socio-cultural arrangement that institutes the intra-ethnic relations and it is a way of classifying within a specified ethnic group itself. For example, in Hamar Woreda, the ethnic groups that have been identified are Hamar, Bashadha, Arbore and Kara. The Benna, Briyle and Tsemai ethnic groups are found in Benna Tsemai Woredas. Various informants described that the historical root of the Hamar communities’ social organization can be traced back to their clans. According to the informants and literature (see Streker, 1979, Epple, 2010), there are twenty-two clans in Hamar that are divided into two moieties: Binnas (Worla, Ba, Gatta, Waran, Dila, Dadaso, Karla, Berda, and Garshima) and Galabu (Adasa, Gasi, Gulet, Olasha, Arka, Babate, Bucha, Ziran, Wolmuk, Lawan, Maize, Misha and Kursi). Key informant elderly from Benna indicated clans of the ethnic group such as Dhimi, Anye Farich and Koch. Another elderly from Tsemai also listed their clans’ name: Ubziko, Algako, Barito, Ezmako and Gitema. However, the above mentioned clans in both Hamar and Benna Tsemai are not unanimously known by all of the people or informants included in the study particularly young generations that have little information regarding the clans. Informants from Hamar and Benna expressed the cooperative relationships of the intra-ethnic groups that have been participating in various socioeconomic aspects. But there are cases that they mentioned prohibition of marriage, meal and drinking with Gitema clan. The communities of both Hamar and Benna label them as Puga (blacksmiths)who belongs to Gitema, Gito clanandareout- casted because of their being involved in the traditional metal work activities. Despite the fact this clan is known in making farming tools such as plow share, ax, digging sick, sickle and spear. There are several clans in Afar that differ from Kebele to Kebele, for example, in Dubti Woreda informants mentioned five clans in one kebele namely: Nesereke, Barhito, Aharosara, Misdee and wadima and from the other Kebele Walwalo, Damhoito, Haisantu, Mutu and Hadarmo. Clan names among the Nuer in Itang Special woreda in Dorong Kebele as listed by informants were three: Chieng kuoth, Chieng yat and Chieng diet. B. Inter-ethnic Relations 54 In this section, the discussion focuses on the relationships of the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities included under this study and their socio-economic relationships with their neighboring ethnic groups who identify themselves differently from them in terms of origin, language, music, religion, dress style, and other customs. In line with this, it is good to mention the diversity of ethnic groups found in South Omo zone. In the zone there are about 16 ethnic groups which are officially registered. The inter-ethnic relations socioeconomically in these areas are a good example. Key informants and FGD participants during discussion in Hamar and Benna Tsemai pointed their socioeconomic relationship with the Maale, Ari, Nyangatom, Borena, Dassenech and Mursi. In Fentale Woreda, there is a socioeconomic inter-ethnic relation of Keryu Oromo with Argoba, Afar, and Amhara. The PAP communities in the Woreda have borders with these ethnic groups. In Gumbi Bordode Woreda, there are Oromo and Somali ethnic groups living together and most of them speak both languages. The other areas of inter-ethnic relationships in PAP communities included in this study as explained by informants are the relationships created on trade and exchange. Trade exchange in the study areas is dominated mostly by local markets. For instance, the Hamar and Benna Tsemai communities have access to local markets of Dimeka, Turmi, Jinka, Key Afer, Omorate and Kangaten. They used to exchange various agricultural products such as grain, fruits, pulses, spices (from highlands), cattle, goat, sheep, and livestock products as well as modern and local industrial products such as clothes, shoes, and other commodities that are displayed for sale. This interdependence and essential market network has played a great role in consolidating social bonds between the communities in South Omo. This view is also shared by some of the Afar elders who state that the Afar have a good memory of mutual respect and interdependence in the local markets with neighboring ethnic groups of the Oromo and Amhara. Similarly, FGDs participants and key informants from Harshin and Gursum Woredas indicated that they have inter-ethnic market relationships with Oromia and Somali land. 4.2.9. Crosscutting Issues in the LLRP Communities Involved for this Social Assessment In almost all community consultations, FGDs and key informant interviews, there are sections of the society that include women, children, the youth, physically challenged people and elderly were considered as vulnerable or disadvantaged groups among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in the study areas. These sections of the community are subjected to cultural influence and ‘harmful traditional practices’. As the project is aimed to empower and involve such community members through community driven demands, it should cautiously target these sections of the community and benefit them from the project. A. Gender Inequalities Gender equality refers to rights, responsibilities and opportunities that do not depend on whether you are born as male or female rather it should consider, favor and value different behaviors, aspirations and needs of women and men equally. However, gender inequality has been a common practice in the areas of accessing productive resources and basic services. This trend is significantly practical among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. In these communities, women have been disadvantaged socially, economically and politically, which is attributed to the traditional structures, cultural beliefs and viewpoints. This in turn undermined women’s social 55 positions and denied their rights to use and access resources and services. However, key informants from various governmental offices during field work claimed the efforts exerted by government in improving land use rights of women. Some of the improvements they mentioned were: creating awareness of different packages of gender sensitive training, land registry book, which is a right to register and certify the land both in the name of husband and wife. An example of such land registry in the name of husband and wife was mentioned by informants in Benna Tsemai. Various committees were also established in order to avert the inequalities between men and women. However, the committee could not be able to benefit women at all stages of the development process and projects despite some efforts considered to curve the inequalities encountered women. In all of the Woredas selected for this SA, participants in Women FGDs and community consultations revealed that women have no rights to property, including land use right. For example, in Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Itang, Lare, Dubti, Kori, Fentale and Gumbi Bordode, women described that they do not have the privilege to property ownership and inheritance instead their male counterparts are the sole owners of all household and other properties. One of the cultural practices that denied women property rights is the traditional marriage system where a woman joins her husband’s home empty handed and the payment for her family during marriage as dowry. As a result of this and other factors, men have exclusive control over resources including cattle, goats, sheep, and honey even though women’s rights are limited to access to low valued properties like chicken, egg, fire wood, vegetables and the like. Thus, women are economically dependent on their husbands in many ways. Women in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities has been denied of main resources but also they are burdened with various house chores such as fetching water, collecting firewood, and taking care of the children and elderly. More to the point, in some instances women and young girls are responsible for herding cows, sheep and goats and milking all animals, while men and/or boys are responsible for herding cattle or camels. For instance, pastoral and agro-pastoral women in Dubti, Harshin, Gursum, Fentale, Hamar and Benna Tsemai are engaged in both household and field- based activities including: livestock production, child upbringing, land preparation, tilling, sawing, and so on. At times of drought women sell firewood and buy food items for their family with the money they earned from the sale. But, women participants in the FGDs pointed that opportunities like skill training, income generating activities, introduction to modern techniques of production for livestock and farming, credit services and small scale businesses are directed to men than women. This reflects that men are beneficiaries at the expense of women. The benefit women mentioned they got from government and non-governmental organizations are somewhat irregular supports. From this, it can be deduced that women in the PAP communities have double burden. Taking into account the burden women have in the community and their vulnerability, participants during FGDs and community consultation unanimously proposed in one way or the other the need to benefit women from the upcoming LLRP during implementation. They also claimed the relevance of participating women in decision-making process during project implementation, for example, the participation of women in water committees. This can promote and empower women, however, this has not been practical in various previous projects instead it needs another strategies to benefit and involve women in a better way. B. Polygamous households 56 The form of polygamy (multiple marriages) which is practiced in Ethiopia is polygyny. Polygyny is a marriage of a man to two or more women at a time. In all of the study Woredas polygyny is practiced. In this marriage practice, a woman joins her husband in his patrilineal village on his ancestral land. It is characterized as a patriarchal society that denied women ownership to properties such as land and other main assets. Because of this and other factors women are vulnerable to economic insecurity and often experience chronic food insecurity. This social assessment depicts that women in polygamous unions are exposed even to higher degree of vulnerability because of lack of finance, household labor deficiency, and not having property entitlements to land and livestock resources. Regarding traditional marriage arrangement practice in the lowland areas of SNNPR and Gambella regions, they follow their custom. Accordingly, key informants stated that an individual can marry as many wives as he could afford, depending on his wealth. To get a wife, the payment is on a number of livestock that he can afford, where the number ranges between 20 and over 100 head of livestock of one or different combination of species. The payment is in full or on installment basis, but the agreed amount has to be given to the parents of the bride. If by some means the marriage is discontinued and the woman is returned back to her parents, all the animals will be returned. The system is mainly used as an accumulation of capital and restocking if done at the time of drought or distress. The weakness of this system is that women married in this way are considered as part of the property of the household head (husband), and she is deprived of all right and privileges. For example, in Benna Tsemai and Hamar such marriage system is called “koyita”. This form of marriage system regards girls/women as wealth for their parents rather than recognizing their rights to own property in general and land in particular. It also indicates the permission of polygamy. From the above discussions it can be implied that marriage practice makes women vulnerable. In the five regions, informants described the inequality between men and women in various socioeconomic spheres of their communities. Regarding this, whenever asked about the relationship of men and women in terms of access and equality to natural resources and property rights during community consultation, an elderly nearly 60 years old man from Lare Woreda, Gambella region forwarded his views ironically as follows: Women are not entitled to any properties of the family. For instance, during the time of divorce, women’s parent is supposed to return the cattle received from bride as a dowry. To the women’s side, she has no right to claim any property of the family. She even has no right to take her children with her. She only forced to turn to her family without anything at hand. If she is a widow, she is forced to marry her brother-in-law. Polygamy is also allowed in our community. A woman from the same place elucidated the double burden women shouldered in the community, i.e., working in the farmland and home. In addition, she mentioned the absence of grind mill in the nearby village. Women during FGD and community consultation in the five regions explained that many responsibilities are assumed by women as men are not responsible and do not take care of children. Thus, they believe that their male counterparts should share their burden of taking care of children and other domestic activities. For example, an old woman about 50 years old from Itang Woreda described her views that: The male is the main holder of the resources and the decision maker. Our husbands did not allow us to go to work. They do not trust us, because they assume that we will involve 57 in adultery. Women and children are affected by various health problems. There is a practice of early marriage and harmful traditional practice in our area. The above quote reveals that men have no trust towards their wives whenever they go out of home for various purposes and activities that require them travel long distance from their home. Young girls also suffered from various practices in the PAP communities. They mentioned the problem of engaging in different activities. They also stated the need to change the perception of the community towards girls and women. A young girl about 18 years old explained her feeling as follows: Being young girls, we are not allowed to attend school, especially if the schools are located in a distant place from our residence. There is a negative perception towards women and young girls. Hence, the project needs to work on changing the perception of the community towards us [girls and women] and promoting educational opportunity for women. If there is seed money available to us, we are ready to involve in milk production and selling. We have even an experience to engage on milk production being organized in a self-help group. Now a day, the milk is being contaminated due to the absence of refrigerator in our household or area. Thus, rather than selling the milk we are gathering one liter each from our milk products and offering to poor households so as to make a living out of it. We want to engage in a market at a larger scale that can improve our livelihood. However, there is a serious problem of market linkages, transportation problem and lack of refrigerators. In this regard, the participation and support of girls and women in the project plays vital contribution to the PAP communities. They can raise small ruminants that have a short breeding cycle and a high marketing off take, while men raise cattle and camels that have low reproduction and marketing rates. In most pastoral areas, the selling of milk, moreover, is a female activity forbidden to men. Through marketing, women generate a large share of the cash revenues of pastoral households. Wives go to the market more often than the husbands, because they must feed the children every day. Furthermore, men are unwilling to sell cattle and camels, because they must own many big animals to occupy as much grazing ground as possible. Women can, thus, contribute significantly to the market strategy implemented by the development plan. Moreover, women engage in additional income generating activities such as handicrafts and petty trading. In Gambella, head of the regional bureau of women and children expressed in the FGDs of the Cabinet of region about gender based violence in the area in the following manner: There is still a practice of rape and ‘harmful traditional practices’. There is no equal access to economic and natural resources and land in the region. There is also polygamy, as the number of cattle increases the man can marry additional women. There is an increase on the rate of HIV/AIDS which is partly exacerbated due to the polygamy and inheritance marriage practices. Generally, the man is the owner of the natural and animal resources. There is a huge socio-economic burden on the women. There is gap on credit and saving related activities, organizing to self-help groups, child labor abuse, cultural barriers and abduction of children. Concerning children, informants from the five regions elaborated several problems that encountered children in their areas. For instance, in Gambella at different times children are taken 58 hostage and till this very moment there are children who are not attending class and last time the attack by the Murelea clan has a devastating effect on the psycho-social makeup of the children and their family. Among others, due to internal and external conflicts, the major victims are women and children. During community consultation with participants in Afar (Dubti and Kori Woredas) and Oromia (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas) regions, the risks that Prosopis brought on children. Participants reported that the plant’s invasion into settlements reduces the number of safe places for children to play. There were concerns about large predators being able to hide in dense Prosopis bushes and more easily attack children. This has increased the anxiety amongst parents and curtailed their willingness to let their children move far from the settlement. Participants in all Woredas included in the SA indicated the challenges that the elderly and female headed households particularly during recurrent drought they encountered. Below are different scenarios that depict the context of women’s property right on various circumstances. Women’s property right: in all five regions, discussion of rights of men versus women to land and livestock animals have received a mixed reaction for the community consultation and FGD participants as land and livestock animals are mainly used for common purpose of securing livelihood. The discussion starts to get hot when the issue of land and animal livestock right in men-women dichotomy is presented in terms of inheritance, separation or divorce scenarios. The participants are aware of the legal property rights of women on benefiting from land and livestock animals; but the social structure limits more women’s right to land and livestock in the communities of Afar, Gambella and Somali than in pastoral and agro-pastoral parts of Oromia and SNNPR. This is because in the case of the first three regional states; the land tenure system and livestock ownership system are embedded in the traditional religion and cultural values which embraces taboos related to sex, marriage, descent, norms of residence, territorialisation of lineages and rules of inheritance. Women’s right to inherit or receive land and livestock animal gifts from their parents: Among the participants in the community consultation from Oromia and SNNPR for a woman to inherit land and livestock from her father and have it in her name is a possibility not a norm. It is highly constrained by exogamous marriage rules and patrilocal residence rules and further complicated by clan territoriality. According to the participants, a father can give a plot of land or a number of livestock to his daughters, particularly to his favorite one. Indirectly, a man may also give a plot of land or livestock to his favorite son-in-law to build a home and settle on such a land or own and rear livestock animals. The participants revealed the cases of son-in-laws living among lineages of their father in laws for decades. Some participants claimed that there is no customary law which explicitly forbids women from having or inheriting parents’ land or livestock animal, get married and reside within the territory of their clan of birth. The only problem may be psychological and social that the husband may feel an outsider, as someone in a place where he is not supposed to be to, being transplanted from one’s clan to live among his in-laws. The situation in Afar, Gambella and Somali seems generally similar. In principle woman can inherit land or livestock or receive them as a gift from her father. But, having a permanent and full-fledged life on such a land is constrained by a complex taboo. There is a strong relationship between descent rules; sex taboos property rights and their implication for women’s property rights. Women are disadvantaged from property rights in their natal family as they are considered outsider from their patrilineal descent groups. They may get property rights in some situations, 59 particularly in the form of gift; when they receive land or livestock as a gift, their privileges are restricted to land or livestock use rights. Moreover, women land rights are confined by taboos related to sex and marriage. Widow’s right to inheritance of the deceased husband’s property: upon a husband’s death, the widow is inherited by the heir-usually by one of the deceased man’s brother. The heir could also be a classificatory brother from the same sub-lineage or lineage. The custom does not allow her to marry with a man from another clan or a man distantly related to the deceased husband even within the same clan, and lives on the land. The practice involves moral and social responsibility for descent continuity. The heir is supposed to inherit both the woman and the wealth, including the land. The heir works on the land, manages the property and brings up young children thereby ensuring the continuity and prosperity of the descent. Ideally, a respected heir is the one who makes the property and homestead of the deceased man flourish rather than consume and diminish it. Practicallly, however, the heir would soon run into conflict of interest of expanding his power and wealth by controlling over the widow’s property on one hand, working for two or more households (including his own) and trying to make both equally prosper on the other hand. This makes the responsibility of the man a demanding exercise that may result widow and the heir (his family) into tension. Such tension could be mediated if the woman has grownup children and/or she has support and follow up from her parents. Widow’s parents’ support and the presence of grownup sons are important conditions for her to maintain the land b y herself. Moreover, widow’s right of inheritance to her late husband’s property is no less complicated among the Afar, Gambella and Somali communities. The difference is basically the guise under which such complication is explained in the context of local custom. Women get access to property through their husband when the latter is alive. The general operation of the norms guiding widow’s access to property among the three mentioned regional states is almost identical with parts of PAP regions of Oromia and SNNPR as stated earlier. As was the case among PAP areas of Oromia and SNNP regional states, the Afar, Gambella and Somali communities have been practicing widow inheritance, which somehow granted widow’s a continued use of property/land of her late husband under the control of the inheritor. Nowadays, this practice is said to be rarely practiced, and a woman has to either leave the land behind and get married somewhere else or give up re-marriage and continue living on her late husband’s land. Women’s rights to land during divorce: in the PAP parts of Oromia and SNNP regional states, divorce was once considered as a rare or non-existent phenomenon in their culture. Recently, it is becoming a reality in the context of women’s rights and state laws. It requires the dissolution of the most fundamental marriage ritual practice. Thus, in some parts of Oromia and SNNPR divorce involves cleansing or erasing the ritual marriage practice. Currently, request for divorce often results from disagreements of various sorts and it is taken before the district court. The court can summon (and coerce) an accused man, ordering him to accept the divorce request filed by his wife. The court can also transfer the case to the local elders, who seek reconciliation between the disputants or facilitate divorce if attempts as reconciliation fail. When disputes end in divorce, women often attempt to get a share of the property, although according to the participants, they rarely succeed. The women’s opportunities are limited by; clan territoriality, patrilineal ideology, departure of women from their ex-husbands’ village following divorce, and the lengthy and complicated litigation process as the major contributing factors. The situation of divorce in Afar, Gambella and Somali areas seems similar. It did not involve a complicated procedure and division 60 of family resources. Based on the customs, women do not claim a division of resources, especially of fixed assets such as land use right when they get divorced. That is instead of focusing on division of key family resources such as land women tend to request upon divorce some of the compensation for the labor they invested in their marital home. In most cases, compensations have symbolic value rather than economic significance, given that the customary practice and the elders focus more on rituals and blessings when settling divorce cases. Overall, the study participants (both male and female) are quite aware of government policies and legislations regarding women’s equality in general and their legal land and property rights in particular. Yet, a few think that these policies and laws are effective in practice. The co-existence of local customary practices and formal laws seems to have compromised the realization of women’s rights as illustrated in legislations and policy documents. This is particularly significant since customary structures often compete with, and at times work against, state structures and legal provisions. As a result, despite of people’s awareness of women’s rights and legal/policy instruments, apparently, implementation of these policies/laws or women’s interest/attempt seeking to secure rights or fight against violation seems limited for a number of reasons. These constraints are manifested in terms of ritual and taboos embedded in the local belief system, norms of residence and territorialisation of lineages and sub-lineages, rules of inheritance in the context of local custom. While social structure issues (kinship and associated rules) largely limit women’s right to land or other property (inheritance) among the Oromia and SNNPR communities; the Afar, Gambella and Somali communities case seems more complex and detrimental to women’s rights as it is embedded in society’s traditional religion (embracing a network of complex taboo system) that significantly limits the right of married women to live and work on land in their village of birth. Yet, the ultimate goal of the system appears the same. The target of exclusion is not in women per se but ‘outsiders’ who could have come and occupy/use land through women. That is in both cluster of the societies (Oromia and SNNP versus Afar, Gambella and Somali); women can generally possess land use-right and other fixed assets, work and live on it in their place of birth of the territory of their father’s patrilineage. But, the difficulty is having husband and children being there. 5. Lessons Learnt The preparation of LLRP is informed by a number of projects that were implemented in the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. Some of such projects include: RPLRP, DRSLP, DRDIP, PCDP, SLMP and AGP2. From these projects, several best practices or relevant lessons/experiences could be adapted by the upcoming LLRP during planning and implementation. A few of them, but not limited to are: establishing a vibrant committee at community level and incorporating people’s knowledge and skills into the implementation process, eases the execution of activities, sharing of information in a transparent ways with all stakeholders, including end users/beneficiaries that ensures smooth program delivery and establish sustainable, proactive and strong monitoring systems that enhance successful implementation. One of the best experiences that the community wants to maintain from previous projects is the approach of CDD that has proved relevant to natural resources management and local development in the rural context. It enables communities to have a say in their affairs, determine priorities, helps actively participate in identifying their prior need, participate in project planning, development and implementation. 61 This is greatly valued by both beneficiary communities and local authorities. Yet, there seems to be a great need for enhanced support in the areas of business development and planning, diversification of income generation, market information, and providing alternatives for the management of identified development problems. 62 6. Community Consultation on LLRP Community consultation is one of the essential tasks of the Social Assessment that ensure participation of broader number of local communities. Each community is a unique group of people with different needs, priorities and relations to their natural resources. Bringing together and consulting an inclusive selection of the community from various sections of the community such as male, female, elderly and youth as well as stakeholders working in different organizations that brings together their different perceptions and needs. Considering communities’ priority areas of development would, therefore, create efficient implementation of projects that maximize value and minimize social costs on an intervention, which in turn, would help the sustainability of a project. Involving local communities in consultation process informs decisions about local priorities and needs, and be considered in determining the overall concept and design of a project. In order to conduct community consultation, a formal letter was written by MOP for the six regions (Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Oromia, Ethiopian Somali and Benishangul Gumuz). Regional level administrators in turn communicated sampled Woredas’s administrators. In collaboration with administrators of the Woredas, Kebeles were selected for community consultation. Participants for the public consultation in each selected Kebeles were pre-informed and called to centers of each Kebele. Participants in the meeting were from all walks of life that include elders, women, men, youths, household heads, and the like. In the Kebeles, separate group discussions were also made with women and youths to give opportunity to express their feeling and aspiration freely on Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP). For LLRP Social Assessment, public consultations were conducted with key segments of the population in Twenty Kebeles of Ten Woredas in the five regions (Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Oromia and Ethiopian Somali). The consultation was intended to know priority development interests, aspirations, concerns as well as potential risks, opportunities and challenges during the implementation of the LLRP. 6.1.Introducing Objectives of LLRP for the Community The consultation has focused on achieving the following objectives: 1. Inform stakeholders about the project objectives and provide adequate information on the project, its components and sub-components in a language, format, and manner that is appropriate for them including using translators; 2. Create a sense of ownership on LLRP activities and allow pastoral and agro-pastoral communities to give their free, prior and informed views in a transparent and participative ways about the project, which are vital to project sustainability and development outcomes; 3. Inform about and discuss with the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities about their various options of resettlement and compensation related to LLRP activities; if involuntary relocation is likely to happen, to identify modalities on how the project can mitigate or avoid any forced relocation and meet the objectives of OP4.10. 4. Get cooperation and support for the project affected people by enabling them understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to LLRP; 5. Captures the views and perceptions of people who may be affected or have an interest in a development project, and provides a means to take their views into account as inputs to 63 improve project design and implementation, thereby avoiding or reducing adverse impacts, and enhancing benefits; 6. Find effective grievance and complaint redress mechanisms on the project; 6.2.Community’s Reflections, Concerns and Aspirations on the LLRP In each of the Kebeles consulted, briefing and awareness creation were made for the community members about the LLRP project objectives, components and subcomponents to be proposed for the five years project period. During the exhaustive open discussion communities’ provided feedbacks and comments. Participants were allowed to reflect their concerns and worries on the likely social, environmental, and economic impacts or risks of the project. The reflections and aspirations of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities on LLRP are summarized based on components and subcomponents of the project in the following ways: Component 1: Integrated Rangeland Development and Management Three of the sub-components under this component aimed to address pastoral and agro-pastoral management of all-natural resources, in particular rangelands, including dry season, wet season and drought reserves; cattle corridors; wetlands; forest/woodlands; water sources for livestock and people; settlements and areas reserved for crop/fodder production, in addition to small-scale irrigation and water conservation schemes. Integrating strategic investment around market infrastructure development is also integral part of broader rangeland development. During FGD with Gambella regional heads of bureaus, agriculture and natural resources directorate director explained the abundant opportunity in the region in natural resources and livestock. He further stated that: The land is extremely fertile and there are a lot of ‘unoccupied’ farm lands that can be used for strategic investment activities. The human power is dominated by youth and productive segment of the population and we are ready to be involved on various development related activities on different sectors that include farming, livestock rearing, fishery, trade and bee keeping. However, there has been untapped or low utilization of livestock, land, vegetation, farming and small scale irrigation opportunities in the region. Due to these and other factors, the region encountered food insecurity related problems. We were supposed to be benefited from PCDP I, II and III projects and we have been presenting our case on different occasions. But now we are ready and happy to support this project [LLRP]. There are different initiatives and projects which are financed by World Bank Group, UNDP, UNICEIF, WFP, local NGOs and others in the region. This can help us to take lessons from these projects and implement the upcoming project [LLRP] in a more organized and effective manner. For instance, DRDIP, WB financed project was launched last year. We have carried out environmental screening as well as environmental and social safeguards activities. Thus, the opportunities are far better than the challenges. Feeding their livestock adequately throughout the year is the most widespread constraint for enhancement of livestock productivity of the pastoralists. In the lowlands, livestock production is almost totally dependent on natural grazing. The community consultation conducted in the five regions revealed that there is a shortage of pasture/animal feed or grazing land for their livestock, 64 particularly in the dry seasons. Participants during public consultation in Kori Woreda (Guyah and Gulubule Kebeles), Hamar Woreda (Kola Keja and Angude Kebeles), Benna Tsemai Woreda (Alka Kibo and Shaba Argamnda Kebeles), Fentale Woreda (Banti and Galcha Kebeles), Gumbi Bordode (Kenteri and Obesale Kebeles), Harshin Woreda (Harshin 01 and Faraha Liben), and Gursum Woreda (Araaks and Golmarodi) stated the recurrent drought they encountered. They also stressed problem of animal diseases that are prevalent in the area and a cause for the death of livestock in mass. The community during consultation in five regions (Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Oromia and Ethiopian Somali) full-heartedly supported the development of pasture and rangelands as they were frequently on the move with their livestock in search of pasture. They also asserted that pasture is one of the main causes of conflict with their neighbors. Consultations of participants in the five regions confirmed their aspiration of LLRP involvement in the development of grazing and/or pasture lands. They also claimed that such engagement would avoid or reduce inter-ethnic conflict and promote peace and stability in their vicinity. Participants also proposed the need to engage in development of fodder if they get training thinking that they can increase their own livestock milk and meat productivity significantly. Besides, they aspired to supply forage and seed to other community groups, which consequently help diversify their livelihood activity. On the way they tend to learn commercialization of their resources. Access to water is the main challenge in many places of the five regions, particularly water supply demand (especially deep borehole) was listed as a high priority area of intervention in almost all Woredas considered in this SA. Shortage of water was raised as a critical problem in KoriWoreda (Guyah and Gulubule Kebeles). Head of the Woreda claimed that 13 Kebeles out of 15 have a very serious water problem. Water as a critical problem was also reflected during the community consultations in Hamar Woreda (Kola Keja and Angude Kebeles), Benna Tsemai Woreda (Alka Kibo and Shaba Argamnda Kebeles), Fentale Woreda (Banti and Galcha Kebeles), Gumbi Bordode Woreda (Kenteri and Obensale Kebeles), Harshin Woreda (Harshin 01 and Faraha Liben), and Gursum Woreda (Araaks and Golmarodi). This reflects how shortage of water is a serious concern in the communities included in this SA and listed it as first priority area to be resolved by the LLRP. Participants during the community consultation also confirmed that people (particularly women) travel long distances in search of water. The discussions held with the community members and consultant’s observation in various locations proves that the water used in most places is not clean. As a result, there could be high probability of waterborne and/or other communicable diseases. Field observation showed that people defecate in open air and this wash away to the rivers and will be contaminated thus spreading water borne diseases in the community. During community consultation in Kori Woreda, participants mentioned the efforts exerted to access water supply by different organizations including PCDP. However, they were not able to succeed. Surface water has been the only source of water supply for the community, which may be used for 2-3 months. Rainfall in the area is also limited and is very scanty, last year, for example it only rained for a day during the usual rainy season. Although the scale of water problem is lower than Koriand Gumbi Bordode Woredas, communities in Dubti, Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Harshin, Fentale and Lare Woredas, during community consultation, forwarded inaccessibility of potable 65 water sources. Thus, the community in this area urges the project to take role in the development of water sources both for humans and animals. The natural resources such as forest and land were threatened due to deforestation, soil erosion, wildfire, and so on among the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. Participants claimed that these are common in their area and reinstated that early prevention and tackling of these challenges are in their best interest and they will fully support the implementation of the project. In Afar (Kori Woreda), Oromia (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode Woredas), SNNPR (Hamar and Benna Tsemai) and Somail (Harshin and Gursum Woredas), FGDs and community consultation participants pointed out the increasing deterioration of trees, forests, bushes and grasses in the area due to natural as well as human factors. As a result of this, they welcomed LLRP with great interest thinking that their natural resource would be protected. Unanimously all the participants during community consultation in all the Woredas consulted appreciated conservation measures to ensure secure access to natural resources. Government built water points like ponds and hand dug-wells have dried. So while in search of water for their livestock, on the way, diseased animals died, and the livestock and people were tired of traveling the inconvenient route. Shortage of water also caused livestock to become emaciated and sold at lower prices. Thus, the community demanded water development activities that should serve their animals on a sustainable basis and they requested that natural resource management particularly rangeland and water development be effective. Regarding natural resource management, in Afar (Dubti and Kori Woredas) and Oromia (Fentale and Gumbi Bordode woredas) community participants revealed high encroachment of ProsopisGulifolera as their primary problem. They strongly demanded that strategies to curb the spread of the plant be devised and requested LLRP to address the worsening problem. Woreda agricultural experts also mentioned expansion of ProsopisGulifolera and stated that it competes with local woods that the community had been using for centuries for cooking and grasses for house construction. In addition, the seasonal outflow of Awash River, and lack of roads and bridges to connect all the Kebeles were other major challenges of the pastoral and agro-pastoral people in DubtiandKori Woredas. Participants of Fentale (Galcha and Bati kebeles) pointed out the serious challenge they encountered from Basaka Lake, Metehara Sugar Factory and Ethio-Djibouti Railway that relocate the PAP communities from their rain fed agricultural land. They in particular mentioned the expansion of Basaka Lake that destroyed several social service infrastructures such as schools, health centers, and houses and displaced more than 800 inhabitants of Galcha Kebele. It is not only the expansion of the lake but also water’s acidic and saline nature brought health problem to humans and livestock. Besides, they criticized Metehara Sugar Factory, Ethio-Djibout Railway and Awash National Park for the fact they could not get fair compensation from the projects and still these projects are negatively affecting the daily livelihoods of the local community in the area. Regarding the concerns and main issues raised during consultation, participants informed that most of their concerns such as shortage of water, lack of grazing land, shortage of fodder, deforestation, etc, would be addressed by LLRP to filter out and target these main challenges of the pastoral and agro-pastoral people. The community also asserted that LLRP should make the community active participants and empower them to find solutions for their problems by themselves. The issue of 66 strategic investment on fodder production and its commercialization was raised by the community as important areas to be engaged where the project has also planned to address. Component 2: Livelihood Improvement and Diversification During community consultation process, the two sub-components of livelihood support were discussed. The sub-components emphases on offering economic opportunities for women, men and youth in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in order to: (a) enhance and diversify the productivity, production and sustainability of their pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems; (b) create alternative livelihood opportunities for people who move temporally or permanently out of pastoralism; strengthen the targeted value chains, market access, trade and access to financial services. The main livelihood activities in the study areas are dependent on pastoralism and agro-pastoralism even if livestock rearing is dominant that shaped and influenced local communities’ life and their life styles. Community consultation of the five regions indicated that due to recurrent drought in their area, some of them are drop outs from pastoral livelihoods as mentioned by, for example, particpants of Gursum and Hamar Woredas. This was because of the fact that drought claimed a large number of livestock and as a coping mechanism they migrated to their nearby towns and have started providing casual labor services. The other reason for changing pastoralism way of livelihoods to agro-pastoralism was due to government lead villagization program. An example is in Afar, two Kebeles of Dubti Woreda transformed from pastoralism to agro-pastoralism. However, they are concerned that land allocation per household in the Kebele is one hectare for agriculture and one hectare for pasture. The participants in the discussion stated that there is scarcity of animal feeds and they argued one hectare for their animals pasture is not enough. As a whole, for example, the agricultural land allocated to Debelina Haliberi Kebele is 343 hectares. The participants during community consultation complained that the size of the canals supplying water to these hectares of agricultural field is inadequate. Thus, they expressed their interest if the project can engage in widening the canals to get water for their agricultural fields. Focus group discussion with the youth and other sections of the community revealed the need for improved cattle breeds that can give more milk and resist disease and drought. The communities need was not only limited to improved cattle and poultry breeds but also improved seeds. The community consultations held with agro-pastoralists in Itang, Gursum, Harshin, Gumbi Bordode, Hamar and Benna Tsemai Woredas revealed their interest in improved cereal crops such as maize, sorghum and vegetables. They also aspired to get modern agricultural technologies like using tractors and small scale irrigation schemes. In addition, they aspired to get fertilizers and insecticides as well as drought resilience crops. Community members showed interest in alternative livelihood activities such as beekeeping, cultivation of fruits and vegetables, and petty trade which are local practices. Livelihood diversification activities were high in demand among the five regions of pastoral and agro- pastoralist communities. During the FGD with women and young people and community consultations in all Woredas included in the study, the major problems that halted them to diversify their livelihood were absence of seed capital to start new business and dearth of skill training in creating businesses. Thus, they were keen towards the LLRP to fill these gaps of women and the youth who are unemployed. They were happy if the project involves them in bee keeping, fishery, pasture production, petty trade and livestock production by organizing them in associations. All of 67 these activities might not be practical in all the Woredas but it is essential to consider the feasibility of activities as some of the activities require place specific investment. For example, fishery requires water source. Informants further claimed the need to get relevant training on income generating activities. Community consultations held in the five regions of consulted Woredas, participants indicated that there have been challenges of serious animal disease and shortage of medicine. They mentioned main animal diseases: Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP), Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), Babsiosis, Pastrolosis, Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), African horse sickness and MANGE, to mention a few. Hence, they are seeking immediate solution for safeguarding the life of their livestock especially from the project. In five regions, the consultation made with the community unanimously proved their need to get support to animal health services such as clinics and posts as well as vaccination programs. Discussion with communities of agro-pastoralist areas such as in Dubti, Itang, Lare, Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Fentale, Gumbi Bordede, Harshin and Gursum Woredas depicted that they required the development of dryland agriculture using small scale irrigation and improved water management schemes. In this regard, youth discussants in Kori Woreda said that they need to visit projects that engage youths with success stories and they are interested to get experience from them if the project arranges it. Market was one of the main demands of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in Afar, Gambella, SNNPR and Somali Woredas that are included in this Social Assessment. Regarding market infrastructure support and information systems, and improving regional trade in livestock and livestock products, which is the subcomponent of market access and trade, the community showed their keenness for an immediate implementation of the project. Among pastoralists and agro- pastoralists in Afar, Gambella, SNNPR and Somali regions of the Woredas consulted in this SA, it was found that there were no enough market centers, where the people could sell and buy their livestock and livestock products. So they are highly looking for market linkages and commercialization activities from the project. Key Informants from Gursum Woreda claimed the relevance of security in the linkage of market particularly they stated the recent conflicts between Oromia and Somali regions that have affected the market interaction between the two ethnic groups. For example, they mentioned the market of Babile as one of the main market center where the Somali and Oromo people exchange goods and services. However, due to the conflict between the two, the market is not functional. Community participants from Harshin Woreda also claimed the challenge of market with Somali land. They said that there is no legal system in order to sale their livestock with the Somaliland. Due to absene of legal procedurces that govern livestock marketing sytem in the PAP areas, people want to sale their livestock in Somaliland in a contraband manner. At this point, the government considers them as smuggler and punishes them. Thus, they complained the government in this regard and showed their willingness to have market exchange in a legal way with the Somaliland if responsible bodies are in a position to facilitate including the LLRP. 68 Component 3: Improving Basic Services and Capacity Building Three sub-components are included under this component alluding to (i) provision of basic social services and infrastructure, (ii) institutional capacity building; (iii) knowledge management, research and policy support. Key informant interviews with officials and experts, FGDs with various sections of the community, community consultation and field observation, generally revealed that there are shortage and in several cases absence of basic social service infrastructures in all the five regions of selected Woredas for this SA. Some of the critical problems mentioned, but not limited to, are related to education, health, water, electricity and roads. Moreover, youths in the discussion commented on the absence of vocational training and administrative skills, lack of appropriate association and credit facilities as well as recreational centers. In Dubti, Hamar, BennaTsemai, GumbiBordode and Lare Woredas, women in particular mentioned the absence of grind mill in their Kebeles that forced them travel longer distance about 25kilometers carrying cereals on their backs. Some of the major issues on the social service providing infrastructures will be discussed in the forthcoming sections. Education Education in pastoralist and agro-pastoralist areas has been challenged in various aspects. Participants during community consultation in the five regions indicated several challenges that encounter education in the PAP communities such as shortage of schools, teachers, and lack of support for school children who are orphan and from low-income parents as well as lack of materials and the necessary services in the schools. Implementing education calendar year according to the plan due to shortage of teachers is another problem. Youth FGD participants in one of the Kebeles consulted in Dubti Woreda explained that there is no support for orphan children and children of low-income parent’s needs. They especially encountered problem to continue their education after completing grade four due to inaccessibility of the school in their Kebele instead they are expected to attend in Dubti town where they don’t have any one to support them. Shortage of teachers particularly in secondary schools was critical in Kori Woreda. In addition, young people in Kori Woreda raised shortage of materials like text books. In Gambella region, while travelling to Lare Woreda students were attending class under tree and take chairs from their homes. During community consultation in Lare Woreda, participants explained that schools are not providing the necessary services due to the fact that they are less durable as they are made from local materials like wood and mud which are easily ruined by heavy rainfall. As a result of this, they have been constructing schools every year. Thus, they required to get schools, which are constructed by bricks and concrete. In the two Woredas of Afar region, participants during community consultation stated that there is a very large number of children continue to be out of school in pastoralist areas and most of those who enroll do not complete and become dropouts, particularly during the dry season (February to April). Education of the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist children, therefore, might benefit from adaptation of the academic year in pastoralist Woredas to these seasonal cycles. As stated earlier, in most parts of the pastoralist areas, example, Kori, Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Gumbi Bordode, and Fentale Woredas, the number of children going to school depends on the availability of food for human and forage for their cattle. Thus, in order to increase the number of 69 children per school and to enhance efficient utilization of the schools participants are eager and hoped that the new project [LLRP] could provide children with foods and water, and the school feeding program. It is common in the area that students interrupt education because of lack of water particularly in case of long drought season. In most cases particularly the water tank or roof catchments are not connected to roofs well or it is not functional. Health Key informants and community consultation participants of the five regions unanimously mentioned shortage of health centers and services for human and animals. They further stated that health posts or centers are not enough and are not equipped with the necessary equipment and medicine. More to the point, the health facilities are below the standard and without vaccine for children and short of water in the centers. Moreover, they mentioned absence as well as inadequate number of ambulance in their Woredas consulted. Participants also described lack of road infrastructure for the women to arrive at health posts for delivery on time. In addition, in many pastoral and agro-pastoral areas of the five regions, people travel long distance walk in search for medical treatment. This is particularly severe for elderly who are not physically capable to do things by their own and travel long distance to get the services. Informants from the five regions also mentioned prevalence of animal disease in their respective areas. They further stated shortage and sometimes total absence of animal health center/posts as well as medicine. In line with this, information obtained from animal health expert revealed that some of the animal health posts do not fulfill the required standard. Regarding animal diseases, key informants from Gambella region explained that the migration of external “tribes” named as Fulani (Flata) from Northern part of Sudan in search of feed for their animal, but, they bring with them some cross boarder diseases. As a result, he informed that last year a lot of cattle were died. Water Participants in the community consultations of the five regions described shortage of water for both humans and animals. The problem of water is critical in some pastoral and agro-pastoral areas; particularly during the dry season as well as when there is absence and erratic rainfall. Moreover, they mentioned frequent drought that resulted in the serious shortage of water. Critical shortage of potable water in Afar region of the two Woredas of the study sites were mentioned by informants as a serious problem, particularly women fetch water by travelling 5-6 kilometers. Although traditionally women in Afar are expected to fetch water, in Gulubule Kebele in Kori Woreda due to seriousness of shortage of water, both men and women are engaged in getting water. The shortage of water in this Kebele has at one time resulted in interrupting education systems of schools. Besides, source of water and pastoral lands are at different locations and this has forced the pastoralists to travel longer distance and spend longer time in providing water for their livestock and providing feed to their animals. There are some boreholes in the Kebele that has been drilled to a depth of more than 300 meters but they were not productive due to unknown reasons. According to the opinion of the community, it is preferable to collect rain water in small Ponds in what is locally called birka instead of trying to drill additional boreholes in this Kebele. Collecting water in the birka or ganda is much safer 70 since it is covered at the top. This is free of water born disease such as bacteria, amitosis, giardia, cholera, typhoid, etc. Road In all the five regions of Woredas selected for this SA, community consultations participants mentioned the problem of transportation related infrastructure and also are characterized by long distance from the center and main highway. The same problem is also manifested in the roads that connect Kebeles with Woredas. An elderly from Itang Woreda, for example, informed during discussion that there is a problem of road that hinders the delivery of fresh fish to potential customers after collecting fishes from the river. In addition, informants described the need to rehabilitate existing roads which are very poor. Electricity In almost all visited Kebeles, there is lack of electric power supply. They expect from the project at least to provide alternative solar. Capacity gaps In respect to solving the aforementioned weak capacities of social service providing institutions, the discussants at different levels (regional, Woreda, Kebele, and community) in all regions (Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Oromia and Somali), claimed that LLRP should be engaged in a committed ways to address the physical, human and institutional capacities while implementing the project. They further demanded the coordination of stakeholders to commit themselves as promised to address problems of social service infrastructures. Gaps in knowledge management, research and policy support Concerning knowledge management, stakeholders’ consultation at the regional level from their previous projects implementation in their respective regions confirmed that there is weak documenting and learning practices from previous projects that have best practices. As a result, the participants required the engagement of the project [LLRP] to focus in areas to fill the gaps of stakeholders. In this regard, it was mentioned by participants in the discussion that resource conservation and development measures can only thrive in the rangelands if full use is made of local environmental wisdom. As it is commonly stated there are symbiotic relations between human being and nature that has taught herdsmen has an immense patrimony of knowledge about natural phenomena. Albeit indispensable for development purposes, however, indigenous know- how is impaired. Only a combination of traditional experience and modern resource technology can mitigate the loss of natural fodder, deforestation, weed encroachment, salinization of irrigated soils and so forth. Research-based extension networks are needed to blend indigenous and imported science in order to jointly find solutions for the ecological problems. Ancestral knowledge was never challenged by demographic problems and is therefore unprepared to face them. A creative mix of indigenous and modern know-how is the only suitable response to manage the environmental risks posed by a saturated physical and human environment. Moreover, participants in the FGDs and community consultations stated the need to consider traditional social institutions and social organizations in pastoral communities during project implementation. They also informed the need to strengthen and empower them through capacity building and training to help achieving these goals. This in turn strengthen their existing enormous 71 role in administering, leading, coordinating, and mediating the pastoral communities that are living at a far distance from modern government institutions. Thus, traditional institutions have a positive impact on the implementation of the projects mobilization in the communities and settling conflicts, whenever it exists. So development endeavors that take social factors such as culture and tradition into consideration will have better chances of success as opposed to ignoring such factors which will result in project failure. It is therefore imperative to identify various indigenous knowledge and customary institutions, which expect to play pivotal roles in further strengthening various development activities among pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. To achieve this, it is important to carry out research related to indigenous knowledge that improves the livelihoods of the PAP communities. Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation As the purpose of this sub-component, the project is to ensure whether it is managed and implemented efficiently, on time and in accordance with the PDO and Financing Agreement, and its performance and impact or not. Thus, it is important to take into account the concerns and views of the community and other stakeholders to reflect on how LLRP project will be managed, monitored and evaluated. During community consultation, participants were informed and briefed about their role and the support provided by LLRP on project management, monitoring and evaluation. During discussion with stakeholders at regional and Woreda levels of the selected regions, it was found out that there was limited support rendered to projects previously implemented although coordination and cooperation with Woreda and zonal sectoral offices is necessary for successful implementation of projects. This requires a considerable improvement of sectoral offices in order to act responsibly for proper implementation and management of the sub-projects. The participants were well-versed about the establishment of Kebele Development Committees (KDCs) through a participatory approach to effectively achieve the success of the project. In this regard, in areas intervened by PCDP project, mainly in Afar region, participants in various discussions notified that only capable community members be selected to be members of KDC, though public meetings and consultations with the concerned Kebele residents were made. As a result of this gap, the communities included in the discussion claimed the need to consider them to involve actively in the project management, monitoring and evaluation activities during the LLRP implementation. They pinpointed out the weakness of the PCDP project in this regard, in areas it was implemented, as follows: o There was weak coordination between the project office and the community representatives o Interventions were not designed to address the concern of the community up to its expectation of local communities lievelihoods endeavor. o Participation of the Kebele community in the implementation of the project was very weak o The community were not able to control and supervise budget expenditure of the projects allocated for projects implementation at Kebele level o Lack of transparency and communication barriers between the project office and the community o Slow implementation of projects and unnecessary expenditure towards the end of the year 72 6.3.Summary of Community Consultation Community consultations were made with lowland communities in five regions: Afar, Gambella, SNNPR, Oromia and Ethiopian Somali. Ten woredas were selected: Dubti, Kori, Itang, Lare, Hamar, Benna Tsemai, Fentale, Gumbi Bordode, Harshin and Gursum for the Social Assessment. From each woredas two kebeles were selected depending on their livelihoods that represent pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. In all the five regions, the community consultations were successfully completed without any resistance towards the upcoming LLRP. Participants unanimously agreed to support the project in any kind during implementation. But they demanded the implementation of the project very soon. They accepted the project after they learnt the LLRP components, subcomponents, objectives and activities that were made clear by consultants. They reflected their concerns, priorities and aspirations towards the LLRP. The project is expected to benefit about 2.5 million people as primary beneficiaries of the project interventions. The principal beneficiaries of LLRP are selected individuals, households, and communities residing in Lowland areas of Ethiopia. This would include (i) pure pastoralists (livestock herders, including camel, cattle, sheep and goats owners) and agro-pastoralists in the targeted rangelands; (ii) those opting out of pastoralism and/or those interested in taking up alternative forms of livelihoods; and (iii) the populations in the selected woredas and kebeles who gain access to social services and public goods (education, health, water, veterinary service, etc.). In addition, private enterprises engaged in commercial businesses in the areas, public institutions delivering public goods and services, cooperatives and MFIs engaged in financial and non-financial service provision and government line department engaged in the region. The following sections discusses about the overall challenges, anticipated social impacts and risks in line with possible mitigations measures to alleviate the issues forwarded during community consultation. A. Challenges The major challenges forwarded by PAP communities during community consultations of the five regions are summarized in the following ways, but not limited to: 1. Recurrent drought and other climate-change related factors that causes the deterioration of grazing/rangeland areas and scarcity of water resources for humans and animals due to natural such as encroachment of invasive plants like Prosopis Juliflora and human-made activities. These reduced production and productivity of grazing/rangeland from time to time. 2. Deforestation of rangeland due to charcoal making and increase in farmland, etc. 3. Prevalence of human and animal diseases, which is exacerbated by lack of health centers/posts and medicines 4. Lack of market facilities or centers and thus there is less practice of market exchange of livestock. 5. Poor social and economic service infrastructures: health, education, potable water, modern grind mills, market facilities, and rural road connection, etc 6. Inter-ethnic conflict over resource competition mainly pastures and water for their livestock and due to cattle raids. 7. Vulnerability of livelihoods and absence of livelihoods diversification, which in turn affects the capacity of resilience due to different shocks 8. Unemployment of lowland youth that include boys and girls 9. Gender inequalities in resources use rights and women’s double burden in various activities 73 B. Anticipated Social Impacts and Risks Some of the major Social impacts and risks (the mitigation measures are listed in the Social Development Plan in the table below) that may occur during LLRP implementation are pinpointed as follows: 1. The benefit via markets and other market based instruments like results-based payments bring risk of pay no attention to elderly, people with disability and poor members of the community who could not afford minimum cash contribution to run income generating activities that further disadvantages vulnerable groups. 2. The project requires 50% participation of female; however, there is a risk of not benefiting female from the Project in equal degree with male, particularly female household heads as they will have double burden with domestic responsibilities and project-related role in the treatment of communal lands. 3. Lessons learned from PCDP show that inadequate attention to the use of locally available indigenous knowledge systems that may undermine the likely positive roles. 4. There may be a risk of technical capacity limitation on the part of implementing offices at Kebele and Woreda levels as well as technical support restraint from the higher hierarchies. 5. There might be a risk of elite capture and/or different interest groups including traditional authority structures in influencing community’s prioritization and manipulation of subprojects. 6. Risk of involving one clan that is more dominant over others during targeting may lead to conflicts during implementation process of the project. 7. Lack of support for beneficiaries to develop business plans and beneficiaries may also receive credit without understanding and readiness to engage in livelihoods activities. In addition, there might be absence of well-organized and properly functioning grassroots financial institutions and credit establishments. 8. The pattern of mobile pastoralism or migration of humans and their livestock may lead to these underserved people not benefiting from the project. 9. The risk of developing dependency syndrome on the provision of seed money for women and youth to launch businesses. 10. There may be a risk of commercialization of the PAP economy that can separate individuals from wider patterns of social and economic reciprocity and lead to new forms of social stratification and may also raise inequalities among PAP households. This means some perhaps get richer at the expense of other. The gaps in turn lead to misunderstanding and increase conflicts. 11. At Woreda level, there was a high rate of staff turnover due to low wages of government civil servants. There is also risk due to the remoteness of most of the Kebeles and lack of well-built roads, close supervision, control, and, hence, provision of technical support would be difficult to project beneficiaries. Looking at service delivery of staff, there was undeveloped extension service and unwillingness of the pastoral communities to accept the advice of extension workers. Extension services in pastoral areas were found to be very weak and ineffective to address pastoral ways of life. LLRP has to provide culturally visible capacity building opportunities and strengthen institutional capacities of implementing organizations. These organizations are active participants during project implementation and they should be well equipped with the necessary project implementation strategies such as participatory approaches. It also needs to build the capacity of the staff through training. 74 Furthermore, there is a need to provide incentives for government staff who will be involved actively in the implementation of LLRP. 12. Another positive social impact is associated with the infrastructure facilities that will be in place by the project are to be shared by different ethnic groups and this can help achieve peace among the ethnic groups in the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities by increasing interaction and fostering cooperation. The project also support appropriate alternative income generating enterprises for the households that will bring positive impact in terms of socio-economic empowerment of the households and in creating food security at household level and employement opportunities. 13. There are also negative social impacts. One of which is associated with livelihoods interventions at household level can fuel instances of domestic violence between woman and men or husband and wives in relation to resource use and ownership of land and properties. In the pastoral and agro-pastoral community it is common practice that men tend to grab resources or properties from women by force to meet their individual needs. To minimize such abuse the community and the local government should put in place appropriate mechanism to protect women from such abuses. Besides, conflicts among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities and between clans may arise due to the use of common resources and facilities. Therefore, there should be meaningful consultation and full participation of the beneficiary communities during planning, design, construction and operational phases of the subprojects. Attempt should be made to resolve conflicts using the traditional way and if this fails to resolve the conflict, government institutions will intervene to settle these conflicts. 7. Social Development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges, Opportunities and Mitigation Measures As stated in the table below, the social development plan will make certain that the Project and its implementing agencies at various levels will respect the dignity, rights and culture of groups meeting the OP 4.10 requirements and ensure that these people benefit from LLRP in a sustainable manner. The plan could be restructured during implementation and further consultations will be undertaken for the underserved and vulnerable groups to ensure their full participation. The matrix in the following table summarizes potential opportunities, social risks and challenges along with their mitigation measures, responsible bodies and budget. 75 Table 4: Social development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges, Mitigation Measures, Opportunities, and Budget Components/Iss Existing Potential Risks and Potential Opportunities Mitigation Measures Responsible Necessary ues challenge Challenges Body Resources / vs. Risk Budget Integrated Challenge Poor participatory rangeland There is a huge opportunity Allocate resources and skills for improved PCU Core activity of Rangeland management and investment of untapped resources in rangeland management, soil and water component 1 Development plans in natural resource and terms of rangeland, natural resources development strategies. and pasture. resources, livestock and It is imperative to follow a CDD approach. Management human power in lowland communities of the two regions. -People in the target regions are willing to support the project Risk Underserved people may not Strengthening inclusion of - Participatory mapping of human and livestock RCST Facilitators, to benefit from the project pastoralists into national mobility patterns with active engagement of logistics, and due to mobile pastoralism or development and pastoralists, including seasonally mobile groups infrastructure migration of humans and community - Development of infrastructure (water) and budget; covered by their livestock. rangeland management procedures to ensure Comp 1 and 4 provision of benefits to pastoralists Challenge Lack of stakeholders’ Improve rangeland Provide training and awareness creation for Woreda Core activity of capacities to manage shared management and thus shared and adjacent rangeland management and extension component 1 or adjacent rangelands and natural resources as key to rehabilitation for the stakeholders. officers consequently lack of increase resilience of local rangeland rehabilitation communities Risk Risk of weaking of Opportunities for - Participatory planning approaches PCU, RCST, Facilitators and traditional rules and enhancing social inclusion - FGD throughout the project lifecycle Woreda researchers and regulations that has held the of youth, females, etc. - Embedded research/anthropologists extension operational clan so far together, - Adaptive Management to integrate community officers, budgets; covered especially with the feedback and adjust project interventions universities/CS by Comp 1.3, 3.3 introduction of privatizations, accordingly Os/firms and 4 commercialization and individualization on PAP communities’ resources like water and grazing land. Challenge Lack of experience in natural - Provision of training in a form accessible to Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of resource management and local stakeholders (language, culturally PCU component 1 rangeland development sensitive, etc.) - Preparation of adequate ICT materials Risks Trainings and further inputs - Development of inclusive training Woredas/RCST/ Mainstreaming in on livelihood diversification methodologies; PCU activities of only accessible to a small - Pro-active engagement of vulnerable component 2 number of households households and groups 76 (richer, formal education, social networks, etc.) Risks Benefits via markets and - Proactive development of inclusive Woredas/RCST/ Mainstreaming of other market based procedures PCU measures instruments like results-based - Participatory assessment of opportunities for throughout payments carry risk of vulnerable groups activities of excluding elderly, people - Affirmative action and material support for components 2 and with disability and poor vulnerable groups 3 members of the community - Ongoing monitoring of project who could not afford implementation and adaptation as necessary to minimum cash contribution include vulnerable groups to run income generating activities that further disadvantages vulnerable groups. Risk Islamic religious followers - Support MFIs in setting up islamic banking Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of may not be interested in packages (available in Ethiopia) PCU component 2 standard credit facilities, e.g., in Afar, Oromia and Somali Risk Risk of commercialization of - Continuing monitoring of social developments Woredas/RCST/ Mainstreaming of the PAP economy that can within communities by researchers PCU measures separate individuals from - Pro-active inclusion and affirmative action on throughout wider patterns of social and trainings, provision of business support, etc. for activities of economic reciprocity and vulnerable groups components 2 and lead to new forms of social - Regular stakeholder engagement to discuss 3 plus additional stratification and may also developments and provision of pilot funds for pilot funds (ca. 5m raise inequalities among PAP pro-poor innovations on social inclusion USD) as part of 3.3 households. This means some perhaps get richer at the expense of other. The gaps in turn lead to misunderstanding and increase conflicts. Risk Weak institutional - Use of a decentralized Community-Driven Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of environment and limited Development (CDD) approach at various levels PCU component 3 implementation capacity (community, inter-community, Kebele and among public and private Woreda levels). service provider institutions - Culturally sensitive capacity building efforts at federal, regional, Woreda, need to be used at different levels to clearly Kebele and community define the process, content and mechanisms for levels, particularly those training. institutions that will have - Consistent and focused capacity building direct contact with LLRP and trainings for members of the various LLRP those providing basic 77 services. There may be a risk related grassroots committees that will be of technical capacity engaged in the project. limitation on the part of implementing offices at Kebele and Woreda levels as well as technical support restraint from the higher hierarchies. Risk Lack of incorporating - Support continuous learning, adaptable Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of indigenous knowledge during knowledge management, and communication PCU component 3.3 previous/earlier/other project on innovative tools and approaches together implementations. with research institutions - Include various indigenous knowledge and customary institutions in development activities by continuous stakeholder engagement - Ensure that relevant policies are implemented in line with pastoralist requests and needs - Ensure adaptation of subprojects to local context including usage of available social capital like traditional and indigenous knowledge of land use and natural resources conservation practices, conflict resolution mechanisms, etc. 78 Risk Lack of industry-university- - MoUs with research and academic institutions Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of research linkages. and higher learning institutions to undertake PCU component 3.3 specific research on topics; such as, political economy of pastoral agro-pastoral communities in the peripheries, perception of lowland groups towards themselves and the state in relation to vulnerability and resilience, identifying and exploiting opportunities for women’s economic empowerment in livestock production, processing and trade, rangeland management and breed improvement to respond to changing climate context/adaptation, rain fed and irrigated agriculture in arid and semi-arid areas, find out options for socio-economic service delivery for the PAP areas in a feasible manner, etc. - Support of research in close collaboration with local subprojects - Annual workshops (at least) linking project, private sector, and research institutions Challenge Lack of pilot innovations to - Funding of research projects Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of solve core bottlenecks related - Establishment of an innovation fund were PCU component 3.3 to production, processing, ideas can be supported following a competitive marketing and business selection process; selection criteria should focus arrangements in the PAP on innovation, economic sustainability, production systems and value community integration, youth and gender, chains. multi-stakeholder collaboration including research institutions, etc. Project Risk Limited use of local Vast indigenous knowledge - Taking lessons from the practice of on-going Woredas/RCST/ Management, knowledge during project in various aspects of approaches in PCDP, RPLRP, DRDIP and PCU Monitoring and implementation and lack of lowland communities, other Bank financed projects Evaluation awareness creation about the including resilience, to be - organizing continuous awareness creation and contribution of Indigenous tapped into sensitization events amongst project staff knowledge of the local - facilitating continuous engagement initiatives community. targeting leadership of IAs (at all levels), technical staff in the various IAs, project staff at the various levels and LLRP communities, including youth, women, elders and opinion leaders at the local level. Challenge Inclusion of new LLRP Continuous training of project staff on social Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of regions and/or Woredas with risk management provisions PCU/WB component 4 limited or no previous experience on social risk 79 management as required by the World Bank Cross-cutting Risk There are risks of clan- and Earlier positive - LLRP will assist cross-border meetings to be Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of Issues community conflicts in the implementation attended by border officials (from Ethiopia and PCU/WB component 1.3 and project area following experiences in related other countries mainly South Sudan and Sudan, mainstreamed grievances over targeting and activities by other projects, Somali Land and Kenya). throughout the adverse impacts on access to e.g., DRDIP, PCDP, etc are - LLRP will facilitate discussions between other components. resources. Also, external opportunities to be community representatives of clan leaders, Requires support border conflicts with replicated, taking into Kebele chairpersons and elders to support from specialized pastoralists neighbouring account the specific peaceful inter-clan and inter-ethnic as well as conflict mitigation countries are possible. There challenges above all of cross-border relations by supporting regular and mediation is a risk that the respective cluster-wide interventions. forums and workshops that promote inter- staff, including ad tensions either lead to an In the Kebeles DAs, health ethnic dialogue. hoc task teams to escalation of conflicts or to extension workers, - The project will also support and strengthen address the abandonment of project veterinary technicians, forums at the zone level that will allow cross- materializing risks. investments. Kebele managers, and Woreda communication and exchange of ideas teachers can be of help for among lowland communities and support proper implementation of appropriate grievance redress mechanisms. the project in a culturally - The project will undertake a careful conflict appropriate manner. situation analysis to underpin the planning process and involve key stakeholders in each Woreda in the planning process including using resource use mapping to show key infrastructure and boundaries; in agreement with all communities on the nature of inclusive use of infrastructure or natural resources. - Mechanisms to ensure broad representation of community members in targeting committees including women and youth as well as ethnic/clan diversity will be outlined in the PIM. Risk There may be a chance of - Support and arrange access for women and Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of increasing discrepancy on youth to get financial and credit services from PCU/WB component 3.3 and existing gender inequality micro-financial institutions and cooperatives to mainstreamed and may also disregard improve productivity. throughout the women, children, youths, - Transparent targeting criteria for trainings and other components. people with disability, poor provision of inputs to ensure participation of Requires support families, female headed women, youth, and other vulnerable groups from specialized households during - Criteria of committee compositions including staff. community consultation and women, youth, and other vulnerable groups project implementation if not - Provision of pilot opportunities for women properly managed. The and youth project requires 50% 80 participation of female; however, there is a risk of not benefiting female from the Project in equal degree with male, particularly female household heads as they will have double burden with domestic responsibilities and project-related role in the treatment of communal lands. Risk Lack of property rights of - Integration of all adult household members in Woredas/RCST/ Mainstreamed women in polygamous consultations PCU/WB throughout unions in the PAP areas may - Additional slots for more than one wife per components 1,2, lead to overproportional family and 3 impacts on part of the - Focus on compensation in kind rather than families. cash benefitting the whole family Challenges Unemployed youths and - Ensure equitable access of women, youth Woredas/RCST/ Core activities of women; inaccessibility to ethnic minorities, and underserved peoples to PCU/WB components 1 and better market and business social and economic benefits from different 2 opportunities; and lack of LLRP sub-components to enhance their financial facilities are raised economic and social negotiating power. as challenges in the PAP communities. Risk There is a high risk of gender - Awareness campaigns for male and female Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of based violence, including representatives of the communities on gender PCU/WB component 3.3 and physical and sexual abuse of equality and the rights of women and children. mainstreamed girls and women - Awareness campaigns for communities on throughout the gender equality and the rights of women and other components. children. Requires support - Embedded social development specialists via from specialized respective research arrangements and conflict staff. management - Culturally sensitive capacity building efforts need to be used at different levels under the project components to clearly define the process, content and mechanism for training. - Development of participatory, site-specific inclusion strategies to identify vulnerable segments of the communities and empower in consultation process through a participatory approach and find ways to provide project benefit to these groups in cluster and kebele level. 81 - Strengthening of the Woreda Bureaus of Women and Children Affairs as first contact points for GBV cases Risk Limited participation of - FGD with women Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of women in the design, - Quota for women in different project PCU/WB component 4 and implementation as well as committees mainstreamed monitoring and evaluation of throughout the project activities due to the other components cultural values and norms. Risk There might be a risk of elite - Awareness raising on inclusive project targets Woredas/RCST/ Core activity of capture and/or different - Transparent consultation, targeting, and PCU/WB component 4 and interest groups including project selection processes mainstreamed traditional authority - Transparent reporting on project interventions throughout the structures in influencing - Affirmative actions for vulnerable groups other components community’s prioritization and manipulation of subprojects. 82 Disclosure Policies and Procedures This SA will be disclosed at the World Bank’s external website and at the Government’s website to make it accessible to any person interested to refer this document. The Ministry Ministry of Peace will also distribute this document to relevant government institutions for any feedback. The executive summary of the SA will be translated into local language as culturally appropriate (language, Afar, Somali, Oromiffa) manner and publicly disclosed. lxxxiii References Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://www.smallstock.info/reference/IDS/dp296 Central Statistical Authority. 2007. Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census Results. Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Authority. Economic Commission for Europe. (2004). Guidelines on Real Property Units and Identifiers. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Epple, Susanne. 2010. The Bashada of Southern Ethiopia: A Study of Age, Gender and Social Discourse. Koeln: Ruediger Koeppe Verlag. FDRE. 1994. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Masuda, Ken. 2009. “Situating the Banna: An Ethnographic Description of Ethnic Identification.” Nilo-Ethiopian Studies 13:47-62. Strecker, Ivo. 1976a. Traditional Life and Prospect for Socioeconomic Development in the Hamar Administrative District of Southern Gamo Gofa. (On line publication at www.uni- mainz.de/Organisationen/SORC/content view/58/41). USAID. 2009. Country Profile: Ethiopia-Property Rights and Resource Governance Profile 1. Retrieved from www.usaidlandtenure.et/country-profiles/ethiopia/updates World Bank. 2013. Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Objectives and Scope. Retrieved from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAF EPOL/0,,contentMDK:23277451~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:58443 5,00.html Yohannes, Gebre Michael., Kassaye Hadgu and Zerihun Ambaye. 2005. Addressing Pastoralist Conflict in Ethiopia: The Case of Kuraz and Hamar Sub-Districts of South Omo Zone. Addis Ababa: Africa Peace Forum, Ethiopian Pastoralist Research and Development Association, InterAfrica Group, Saferworld. Expropriation of Land Holdings for Public Purpose and Payment of Compensation Proclamation. (2005). Proclamation No.455/2005. NegaritGazeta. Year 11, No.43. Ahmed Ali Gedi, “Herder-farmer Conflicts in the Dawa-Ganale River Basin Area: The Case of Intra-clan Conflict Among the Degodia Somali of Dollo Ado District in the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia,” 2005, NCCR North-South, Bern.http://www.nccr-northsouth.unibe.ch/ publications/Infosystem/Online%20Dokumente/Upload/AAGHerderfarmer Conflicts. Pdf lxxxiv Annex 1. Community Consultation Social Assessment Checklist - LLRP i. Community Consultation Record form a. Name of Region_________Woreda ____________________ Kebele_____ b. Date of consultation conducted: __________________ c. Consultation Start Time:_______________________ d. Consultation End Time: _______________________ e. Venue: _______________________ f. Name of Consultation Moderator: _______________________ g. Name of Consultation note taker _______________ h. Number of Males:____________ Number of Females _______ Total ______ List of participants in the community consultation for the SA No Name Sex Age Signature 1 2 3 4 5 II. Brief description of the project and project components o The Livelihoods Resilience Project (LRP) is an integrated and comprehensive development program planned to be signed among the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). o The proposed project will be implemented using both a top down and CDD approach along pastoralist routes targeting the Afar, Somali, SNNRP, Oromia, Benshangul Gumuz and Gambella regions with the inclusion of selected Woredas identified based on woreda- selection criteria. o The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to Enhance Livelihood Resilience, Productivity and Commercialization Systems among PAP communities in Ethiopia. o The LRP will contribute to a number of Focus Areas and strategic objectives includingPromote Structural and Economic Transformation through Increased Productivity and broad-based economic growth, reduction of vulnerabilities and improved environmentalsustainability is expected to contribute to the GoE’s policies for development of the country’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lowlands (ASALs.) o The proposed LRP is expected to benefit approximately 2 million male and female pastoralists and agro-pastoralists (PAP) through implementing basic tasks of each project components. Besides, communities will have access to improved economic and social lxxxv services (Includes both strategic & community sub projects) and significant proportion of the targeted PAP communities’ benefits from sale of the production volume and value created. o The project is financed by WB and IFAD, and includes the matching fund contributions from the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) and the beneficiary communities. The total project cost, over the five years period, is USD 550 million. III. Major Guiding Questions for Community Consultations a. What is your view towards the LLRP project? b. How do you evaluate the development activities in your area? c. What is the existing status and major challenges related to health, education, agriculture, livestock and market services in the area? d. What are livelihoods related challenges faced by the community? e. Could you list down development priorities of the community? f. Are women actively engaged on the community’s development activities? g. Are women equally entitled to control natural resources and land? h. Are you willing to donate your land if it is needed for community development? i. How is land or other asset compensation effected? j. What are the major economic activities of the community? k. Is customary law dominant in your area compared to formal law? l. Is there a prevalence of GBV in your area? m. What types of economic options are available for youth? n. What development priorities do both male and female youths have? o. How do you explain the involvement of civil society organizations in the area? p. You are cordially invited to suggest if there is any additional idea. 2. Observation Checklists for Social Assessment - LLRP a. Social service providing infrastructures constructed by other projects? b.Physical cultural heritages of the local community c. Living condition of the community and their livelihood activities d. Commercialization and existence of markets e. The situation of pasture and water in the area f. Community based organizations like micro-financial institutions, etc 3. FGDs and Key Informant Interview Guide Questions for the Social Assessment - LLRP 1. Background information Date ___________Region _______________Woreda___________ Age: _______ Sex: ____________ 2. Socio-economic Activities 1. What are the livelihood activities that the community carries out to make a living? 2. Is there difference in the role of men and women at home and in the economic activities? 3. What are the types of land tenure? What are the status of land use and the status of land tenure systems? How is the use of natural resources? 4. In the household, who have the right to own land? lxxxvi 5. Do women have culturally the right to save money? 6. Do women sale household products by their own decision? 7. Do both women and men have equal access to resources and services? If women have differential (low) access to resources compared with men, why? Are there cultural factors affecting women’s’ access? 8. Were women actively participated and consulted for the sub-project identification and planning process? What do you suggest for improving the participation of women in leadership in community participation? 9. Are there vulnerable nations, nationalities and peoples, and other vulnerable and marginalized groups in the project areas? a. Do specific groups (minorities, women, FHHs, youth, children with disabilities, elderly, poor of poor, elderly, youth headed families, ) are likely to lose-out from specific types of development in pastoral and agro-pastoral areas? b.How will, for example, the introduction of modern irrigation affect the poorest and landless? c. What are the existing gap in entrepreneurial skill and how LLRP could redress or reinforce this gap? 10. Are there religious and/or ethnic biases (if any) against the vulnerable nations by the dominant groups within a woreda, and the subsequent relationship as a result of these biases? 11. Is there gender inequality/equality and how development projects have been appropriated to reinforce gender equality 12. Where there have been resettlement programs (previous or currently on going)? If so, what are the impact of resettlement: a. on the dynamics of change on the social networks and community relationships and b. On the livelihood and economic wellbeing of resettled and host community households. 13. Are there physical cultural resources that have or will likely to be impacted? If so, a. The name, type, age, ownership, short description of the cultural resource, etc b. What is the nature and extent of potential impacts on these resources (this should include locally recognized sacred and religious place c. How will it be monitored, and managed? 14. Are there existing micro-credit programs? If so? What was their experience in the project target areas in terms of their cultural appropriateness? Are they accessible to vulnerable nations, nationalities and people as well as other vulnerable and marginal groups? 15. Is there social cohesion or lack thereof among pastoralist and agro-pastoral communities, and with other social groups? 16. What are the technical training programs to be carried out under the project (LLRP) in terms of the cultural appropriateness and their likely ability to respond to the specific needs of the vulnerable nations, nationalities and people, other vulnerable and marginal groups, women and youth? 17. Do you think that the institutional capacity of the institutional arrangements proposed under the project (LLRP) designed to manage and monitor environmental and social safeguard issues; lxxxvii a. if training is envisaged to build human resource capacity to monitor and implement safeguard instruments, what type of training should be arranged? b. Do you think that the training programs is valid c. Do you think that the training be gender-sensitive. 18. What appropriate capacity building measures to be taken ensure participatory and community development approaches that effectively involve vulnerable and marginalized groups. 19. What should government, donor and NGO support to community development and livelihood improvements in the areas likely to participate in the project (as well as the synergy or competition among them) 20. If some of the institutional arrangements woredas overlap with the government’s program of “villagization”, a. What are the woredas overlapping with the project area b. What are the impact of traditional institutions and social organization in the study area and conversely, the impact of the villagization on the traditional and social organizations? c. What are the most significant social and cultural features that differentiate social groups in the study area and does this differences will result in exclusion of vulnerable groups? d. What are the social dynamics of the groups, their characteristics, intra- group & inter-group relationships, and the relationships of these groups with public and private (eg. Market) institutions (including the norms, values and behavior that have been institutionalized through those relationships). e. Are there opportunities and conditions for participation of stakeholders– particularly the poorest, women and vulnerable – in the development process (contributing in sub-project identification)? f. How was the consultative planning process applied by the government’s social mobilization teams and the project Mobile Support Teams (MST) in the sub- project identification and implementation? a. How was the capacity and understanding of the MSTs of the consultative process in the “commune centers” g. What is the impact of the newly settled on the host communities and confluence of large numbers of animals on natural resources? h. What are the drivers of conflict and the influence the sub-projects may have on either exacerbating conflict and or creating cohesion within the communities i. Are there institutions in the area; consider both the presence and function of public, private and social institutions relevant to the operation? j. What type of adverse social and economic impacts do the project have in terms of the following key indicators: i. Loss of cultivated land ii. Loss of grazing and other resources including water, iii. Loss of structure, iv. Loss of livelihood, and v. Loss of crops/trees; vi. Loss of traditional livelihood lxxxviii lxxxix