SFG1888 Development Response to Displacement Impact Project (DRDIP) In the Horn of Africa (P152822) Social Assessment Report Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Government of Federal Republic of Ethiopia February 2016 i Table of Contents ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ v 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 2.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1 2.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 12 2.3. SCOPE OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 12 2.4. METHODOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ................................................. 13 2.4.1. Methods of Data Collection ........................................................................................ 13 2.4.2. Data Collection Tools .................................................................................................. 15 3. REVIEW OF LEGAL FRAMEWORKS RELATED TO REFUGEES AND VULNERABLE/ UNDERSERVED GROUPS .................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. National Laws and Regulations in Relation to Refugees ................................................ 15 3.2. Legal and institutional framework related to underserved and vulnerable groups .... 20 3.3. Ethiopian Legislation and World Bank Policies on Social Impacts of Projects ........... 21 4. KEY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .................................................................................... 22 4.1. Socio-demographic features of the population under study........................................... 22 4.1.1. GAMBELLA PEOPLES REGIONAL STATE ....................................................... 22 4.1.2. BENISHANGUL-GUMUZ NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE ............................. 28 4.1.3. TIGRAY NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE ........................................................... 33 4.1.4. AFAR NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE ................................................................ 35 4.1.5. ETHIOPIAN SOMALI NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE ................................... 37 4.2. CHALLENGES OF THE HOST COMMUNITIES ....................................................... 38 ii 4.3. LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 41 4.4. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS ..................................................................... 43 4.5. VULNERABLE GROUPS OF SOCIETY ....................................................................... 45 4.6. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION PROCESS ................... 46 DRDIP PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ....................................................................... 46 5. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: POTENTIAL RISKS, CHALLENGES AND SUGGESTED MITIGATING MEASURES.................................................................................................................... 49 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE SA ................................................................................................ 52 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 54 iii ACRONYMS ARRA Administration for Refugee and Returnee Agency BoANR Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources BoFEC Bureau of Finance and Economic Cooperation BP Bank Procedures CBOs Community-Based Organizations CSA Central Statistical Agency DRDIP Development Response to Displacement Impact Project DRDIP-CU Development Response to Displacement Impact Project Coordination Unit EPLAUA Environmental Protection, Land Administration, and Use Agency ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FGD Focus Group Discussion FPCU Federal Project Coordination Unit GDP Growth Domestic Product GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program GoE Government of Ethiopia GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism HOA Horn of Africa KII Key Informant Interview M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources MoFEC Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation OP Operation Policy PAPs Project Affected Persons PCDP Pastoral Community Development Program PCUs Project Coordination Units PDO Project Development Objectives PSNP Productive Safety Net Program RPCU Regional Project Coordination Unit SA Social Assessment SDP Social Development Plan SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project ULD Unidentified Liver Disease UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations Higher Commission for Refugee WBG World Bank Group WoANR Woreda Offices of Agriculture and Natural Resources iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to the impacts of forced displacement on refugee hosting countries and communities in the Horn of Africa (HOA), Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP), a multi- country development response by the respective Governments of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda has been under preparation. The project addresses the unmet social, economic and environmental needs primarily of the local host communities and secondarily the refugees in project target areas of these countries. As part of the preparation for DRDIP, this Social Assessment (SA) was conducted in five major refugee hosting regions of Ethiopia, namely (i) the Afar Regional State; (ii) the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State; (iii) the Gambella Regional State; (iv) the Somali Regional State; and (v) the Tigray Regional State. The SA helps to make the project more responsive to social development concerns, including seeking to enhance benefits for poor and vulnerable people while minimizing or mitigating risks and adverse impacts. The SA report also describes the characteristics (social and economic) of the possible project affected persons; reveals their opinions and perceptions on the project; the implications for project design and implementation; and provides practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified. With the intention to reduce poverty and achieving sustainable development with peace and security in the Horn of Africa (HOA), the World Bank launched a regional initiative to support refugee hosting countries (Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda) in East Africa understanding displacement as the main challenge of the region. Displaced populations are a direct target group under Pillar One of the HOA initiative and it seeks to “enhance the productive capacities and coping mechanisms of displaced populations to allow them contribute to the local economy in their areas of displacement, and promote durable social and economic reintegration for voluntary returnees”. In response to the impacts of forced displacement on refugee hosting countries and communities in HOA to address unmet social, economic and environmental needs of the host local communities and displaced (refugees and returnees), the World Bank proposed a project in these three countries. Ethiopia is the largest refugee hosting country in Africa. Ethiopia hosts the largest population of refugees in Africa as a consequence of droughts, conflicts, political events and civil wars in neighboring countries, such as Somalia, Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sudan. At the end of December 2015, 733,644 refugees were distributed across the five National Regional States of - Afar, Tigray, Ethiopian Somali, Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz; in 23 refugee camps located in 15 woredas and 23 kebeles (UNHCR 2015). The majority of refugees in Ethiopia are hosted in the five regional sates of the country, namely Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Somali, and the Tigray regions. Except Tigray regional state, other regions are among the least developed regions in the country, characterized by harsh weather conditions, poor infrastructure, extremely low capacity, high level of poverty and very poor development indicators. v The presence of refugees puts strains on the already weak public services and economic opportunities, jeopardizing the resilience of communities hosting the refugees. To improve access to social services, strengthen economic opportunities, and develop livelihood activities of host communities and refugees including the sustainable environmental management. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will contribute directly to the GTP-II objectives of expanding access to and ensuring quality of social services, and thereby achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the social sector. The proposed project will also contribute to establishing suitable conditions for sustainable nation building through the creation of a stable, democratic and developmental state through the provision of basic social services for the underserved communities in the Refugee hosting Regions (Gambella, Ethiopian Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, Afar and Tigray). Additionally, by supporting the development and active engagement of local governments and grassroots institutions in local development as well as by promoting participation of local communities in local decision- making processes and oversight of public services and infrastructure, the GOE envisages that the proposed project will support the establishment of suitable conditions for sustainable nation building. The project also contributes to the objective of maintaining a high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate by helping strengthen the economic opportunities and livelihoods of refugee hosting communities and their integration into the national economy. The development objective of DRDIP is to improve access to social services, expand economic opportunities and enhance environmental management for host and forcibly displaced households in the targeted areas of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda. The DRDIP seeks to demonstrate a fundamental shift in the way forced displacement is addressed in the HOA; first as a developmental challenge in addition to a humanitarian and security challenge; second a government-led and implemented development response complementary to traditional humanitarian agencies; and third as a long-term response to address systemic and structural constraints impeding development in marginalized refugee hosting areas further exacerbated by refugee presence. Given that the major impacts of forced displacement and categories of investments across the three DRDIP countries is comparable, the four major components described in detail below will be implemented in all three countries: (i) in a modular fashion focusing on mobilization and capacity building for communities and local governments; and (ii) through an implementation process that is responsive to community priorities. Project Components DRDIP has five main components and six sub-components intended to benefit refugee hosting communities, and are discussed hereunder. Component 1: Social and Economic Services and Infrastructure (approximately US$ 86.25 million) Refugee hosting areas in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda are characterized by huge development deficits, including low human capital, and limited access to basic social services and economic vi infrastructure. The service delivery capacity of local authorities in the three countries is also weak. Component 1 aims to improve access to basic social services and economic infrastructure and improve service delivery capacity of local authorities at the target subnational and local levels by financing community and strategic investments as well as capacity building initiatives. Community investments will be matched by community contributions, both cash and in-kind (materials and/or labor), and the process will follow a community-driven development approach. Component 2: Sustainable Environmental Management (approximately US$ 32 million) Refugee-hosting areas face severe degradation of their environmental and natural resources, including deforestation and devastation of agricultural and range lands. The continued presence and influx of refugees exacerbates already severe environmental conditions, turning localities into fragile ecosystems. Component 2 aims to ensure that environmental and natural resources are carefully and sustainably managed so they can support current and future needs and livelihoods. The implementation of demand and supply-side interventions will be supported by the component. Supply-side interventions will support and enhance sustainable environmental and ecosystem services including integrated natural resources management and small, micro and household-scale irrigation schemes. Demand-side interventions, such as alternative energy sources, will aim to reduce unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, including risks mitigation and other challenges faced by crisis- affected host communities. Component 3: Livelihoods Program (approximately US$ 38.75 million) People from refugee-hosting communities derive their income either from traditional livelihoods, including agriculture, fisheries, pastoralism and/or agro-pastoralism; and/or non-traditional livelihoods, including skills-based jobs, service enterprises and small businesses. Each type of livelihood is characterized by low-level technologies and skills, leading to inherent low productivity. The lives and livelihoods of people from refugee hosting communities are impoverished and their incomes levels are low and unsustainable. Component 3 seeks to improve livelihoods and increase incomes in refugee-hosting communities based on the market system approach. It will support interventions aimed at improving the productivity of traditional and nontraditional livelihoods. Component 4: Project Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation (approximately US$ 15 million). Project management and implementation will follow a decentralized approach using existing government structure at the national, subnational and local levels and community institutions to be established at the local level. The objective of this component is to ensure enhanced and effective project management, coordination, and implementation; and support the design of the project’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to be detailed in the M&E Manual. Component 5: Regional Support for Coordination, Capacity and Knowledge (approx. US$ 5 million). The key objective of the component is to support the establishment of a Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration primarily for the HOA but with relevant linkages with the Great vii Lakes Initiative that will: (i) Spearhead the advancement of the development approach to displacement in the HOA; (ii) Facilitate the creation of knowledge with partnerships with relevant think tanks and/or universities in the three project countries of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda and the HOA emerging from the implementation of the DRDIP with respect to Durable Solutions to Forced Displacement; (iii) Ensure annual learning and sharing workshops for all the HOA countries; and (iv) Contribute to the better understanding of the nexus between socio-economic development, forced displacement and mixed migration in the HOA by commissioning studies and/or focused research. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT The objective of the SA is to assess the impact of the proposed interventions in Ethiopia on the more vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in the participating five regions of the country stated above. The study focused on identifying the key stakeholder groups in the project area, including their socio- economic characteristics the population; assessing the potential social impact of the project on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups; determining how relationships between stakeholder groups will affect or be affected by the project; and identifying expected social development outcomes and actions proposed to achieve those outcomes. The Social Assessment report also described the characteristics (social and economic) of the possible project affected persons/population; their opinions and perceptions on the project; the implications for project design and implementation; and provide practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified, including a communications and consultation strategy that can serve to address the risks and manage expectations and dissent, if any. The Social Assessment has taken place in the five regional states of Ethiopia that are currently hosting refugees from neighboring countries. These are; Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella Ethiopian Somali and Tigray National Regional States. A total of eleven Woredas and seventeen kebeles hosting refugees were visited for the purpose. Regarding the selection of study woredas and specific kebeles that hosted refugees were identified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources in consultation with the World Bank and stipulated in the terms of reference (TOR) prepared for the mission. Among the proposed study sites, having the discussion at the planning stage, and in consideration for the allocated time frame, it has been decided to attend the stated coverage at this particular assessment. The overall intent of the Social Assessment was geared to provide the necessary information for the DRDIP in Ethiopia. Hence, the Social Assessment report, specifically describes the social and economic characteristics of the possible project affected persons/population (particularly underserved people); their opinions, perceptions and conclusions on the project; and discusses implications for project design and implementation, as well as provides practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified in due process. For the purpose of undertaking the Social Assessment, Primary and Secondary techniques have been utilized. Prior to the field data collection as well as in due course of the assessment, a number of secondary materials have been reviewed in order to grasp the contemporary discourse on refugee viii related matters at micro and macro contexts. Besides, it aimed at designing and structuring the possible information generation and synthesis strategies for the Social Assessment. To this effect, earlier Social Assessment documents developed for the World Bank supported projects in Ethiopia, such as, GEQIP, PCDP-III, SLMP-II, WaSH, GSDP, PSNP-IV, RPLRP on one hand and DRDIP concept stage documents and associated studies have been taken for the desk review. Moreover, World Bank OP/BPs, National and International Laws and Proclamations as well as Ethiopian government rules and regulation related to underserved and vulnerable groups and refugees and similar matters have been consulted. The Social assessment has also undertaken a review of legal frameworks related to refugees and vulnerable/ underserved groups of the study area. In this section the following are entertained. Moreover, published and unpublished documents on socio-economic characteristics of project affected population at study Woredas have been considered so as to collate and assemble both qualitative and quantitative information that are useful to the Social Assessment. On the basis of this, detailed analysis has been made to address issues such as socio-economic characteristic, vulnerable segments of the population, community consultation and participation. All interviews have been conducted using semi-structured questionnaires. Semi-structured guiding questions and observation checklists have been prepared and utilized to collect relevant information and ease the discussions and interviewing processes (see Annex 1, 2 and 3). In addition, digital photo camera has been used to supplement information intact to integrated analysis and writing up of the report. This has been cautiously followed the procedure in acquiring informants’ prior consent and approval. Refugee Related Legislations of Ethiopia Ethiopia is party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, its 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa; and Ethiopia is a signatory to other international and regional human rights conventions. Refugee Proclamation No. 409/2004 outlines Ethiopia's legal framework for refugees and respects key protection principles. Ethiopia has enacted refugee Proclamation No. 409/2004 that shall be implemented with no- discrimination as to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The proclamation is a derivative of the various international and regional refugee conventions, protocol and adapted to the objective realities of the country. It is designed with a commitment for safe reception, promote peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and return refugee when conditions in countries of origin is safe. The proclamation promotes relationship between refugees hosting communities, and peoples of neighboring countries. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of December 1994 contains a clearly stated provision concerning the status of international instruments in Ethiopia. Article 9 sub 4 of The FDRE Constitution states : “International agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the laws of the country ". According to the constitution, therefore, the refugee conventions that Ethiopia has ratified or a signatory have become an integral part of the laws of the land. In which case whatever right is contained in the instruments ix The Social Assessment for the DRDIP covers regions, Woredas and Kebeles/Communities hosting refugees across Ethiopia. With the exception of Tigray Regional State, the other locations are categorized by the Ethiopian Government as Emerging/Developing States; Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella and Somali Regional States. As to common features of the refugee hosting areas are known by harsh weather conditions, poor infrastructure, extremely low capacity, high level of poverty and very poor development indicators. The arid environment in Afar and Somali regions and the small and scattered pastoralist populations make it more challenging to provide services. The presence of refugees puts strains on the already weak public services and economic opportunities, jeopardizing the resilience of communities hosting the refugees. This section intends to present the Country’s legal and institutional framework in respect to refugee affairs as well as the general implication on effects on the population who have been historically denied equal access to socioeconomic and political rights and privileges living in the developing regions where the project intends to intervene. Besides, the World Bank Safeguard Operational Policies and Procedures, OP/BP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples, referred in Ethiopia as Underserved and Vulnerable Groups will also be discussed in brief in this section. According to the constitution, therefore, the refugee conventions that Ethiopia has ratified or a signatory have become an integral part of the laws of the land. In which case whatever right is contained in the instruments could be invoked before the judicial bodies of the state by a refugee who may be aggrieved due to an act or omission of one or the other administrative body or person. Nevertheless, in order for this to be streamlined, it is necessary that procedural rules are established to clarify matters and create awareness to the refugees in the exercise of their rights and the public at large. The refugee-specific law of Ethiopia, (Refugee ProclamationNo.409/2004) mainly focuses in regulating the asylum and refugee status determination process and setting up national refugee agency, in this case, the Administration for Refugee and Returnee Affairs (ARRA) which is part of the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority (SIRA) is responsible in dealing with refugees issues. Article 21 of the Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation explains the Rights and Obligations of Recognized Refugees: 1. Every recognized refugee shall be: a. Permitted to remain within Ethiopia in accordance with the provision of this Proclamation; b. Issued with identity card attesting to his refugee status; c. Issued with a travel document for the purpose of traveling outside Ethiopia in accordance with international agreement; d. Entitled to other rights and be subject to the duties contained in the Refugee Convention and the AU Refugee Convention; e. Except to the extent that the provisions of any other law may be inconsistent with the purposes of this Proclamation, be subject to the laws in force within Ethiopia; and x 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article (1) (d) of this Article, the Head of the Authority may designate places and areas in Ethiopia within which recognized refugees, persons who have applied for recognition as refugees, and family members thereof shall live, provided that the areas designated shall be located at a reasonable distance from the border of their country of origin or of former habitual residence. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article (1) (d) of this Article, Every recognized, refugee, and family members thereof shall, in respect to wage earning employment and education, be entitled to the same rights and be subjected to the same restrictions as are conferred or imposed generally by the relevant laws on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. Article 22 of the proclamation, on the other hand, states, Special Protection to Vulnerable Groups; The Authority shall take measures to ensure the protection of women refugees, refugee children elderly refugees and People With Disability (PWD) who needs special protection. SUMMARY OF KEY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The development-related provisions of the Ethiopian refugee law in respect to property rights, freedom of movement, right to work, and access to services is examined in association with the findings of the present Social Assessment and related UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951), particularly with Articles 17, 18, 21and 22. Property Rights The refugee law of Ethiopia makes no mention of the property rights of refugees. It stipulates that at the time of registration of the particulars of a refugee, the particulars of all movable properties brought by the refugee into the host country will be registered so that they will be permitted to take them upon return to his/her country of origin. While it could prohibits the user right of land and immovable property. The act did not explicitly deal with the right of the refugees to own movable property while they are in displacement, although it could be implied that refugees can own moveable property provided they do not take it with them when leaving the country hosting them to return to their own or another asylum country. It also provides for the right to transfer assets held and declared by a refugee at the time of entry, including those lawfully acquired at time of being a recognized refugee. Freedom of Movement Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and an indispensable condition for the development of a person. It is also an essential element in finding durable solutions to displacement. Freedom of movement is often a precondition for other development-related rights, including rights to health, shelter, food, water, education, employment and property restoration. Article 26 of the 1951 convention deals with the freedom of movement of refugees; it requires member states to provide refugees with the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Ethiopia’s domestic refugee legislation, the 2004 Refugee Proclamation, does not provide for freedom of movement in a manner provided overtly. However, Article 21 gives the head of the Security, xi Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority the power to designate places and areas within which refugees and asylum seekers live. Until 2009, Ethiopia enforced a strict policy of encampment for all refugees with the exceptions of those who demonstrated reasons for staying out of camps, such as on medical, protection, and humanitarian grounds. Freedom of movement from the camps is subject to the grant of exit permits, issued by government officials in the camp. Since 2009, Ethiopia introduced a new policy known as the “Out of Camp Policy,” which currently benefits refugee students enrolled in the Ethiopian Universities. Ethiopia has also adopted an urban policy for vulnerable refugees in order to respond to their specific protection and/or medical needs that cannot be properly addressed in a camp setting. Looking at these conditions, refugees in most of the visited areas, such as in Asayita, Afar and the three Woredas in Tigray as well as in Benishangul-Gumuz, though Ethiopian Authorities made a curfew for exit and entry to the camps, loosely respected by the refugees. Key informants under discussions for the Social Assessment noted that, safety and security issues are desisted due to refugees conditions against the regulation set by the authorities. In many instances of the discussions, participants of the assessment commend the restricted timeframe modality to be exercised. Right to Work Forced displacement affects the ability of the displaced to independently pursue livelihoods and economic activities. However, steps can be taken to ensure that displaced persons do not fall into long- term dependency on outside aid during displacement and to facilitate their economic integration or reintegration into society. Article 17 of the 1951 convention requires States to accord to refugees the most favorable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances, as regards the right to engage in wage earning employment. With regard to self- employment, however, as stated in Article 18, contracting states are required to treat refugees as favorably as possible and, in any event, not less favorably than aliens generally in the same circumstances. In this regard, Ethiopia, effectively limit the refugees’ right to work by imposing the same restrictions and conditions applicable to aliens. Article 21 of the 2004 Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation provides that refugees and their families are entitled to the same rights and can be subjected to the same restrictions imposed generally on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. However, FGDs and KII of this assessment prevailed, regardless of the legal provision of the country, that refugees in visited areas are actively involved in the informal economic activities, (wage for host communities in farming/ harvesting, livestock rearing for market, handicrafts/ wood work and production of furniture in particular to Kunama Eritrean refugees, commerce such as butcheries, petty trading, engage in gainful employment/ wage labour at and around the camp sites, etc.). The unstructured involvements of these refuges in to business engagements seem to some extent compete and compel the local employment opportunities. This has attributed as a source of conflict, as evidently manifested in Jewi Kebele of Abol/ Gambella Zuria Woreda: There are some youths from the host community organized and registered/ licensed by the woreda for loading and unloading materials/stuff coming for the refugees. However, after xii a while the refugees themselves started doing the loading and unloading by their own. This brought a conflict between the host community and the refugees, in due course of time, ARRA, Woreda offices and Kebele administration representatives both from refugees and host community (5 from each party) sit and discussed the issue and eventually decided in favor of the refugees. Youths from the host community are not happy of the decision, may be a source of conflict again in the future. Moreover, Key Informants from Government offices, in visited sites condemned the situation where refugees engaged in business activities utilizing their tax free privilege that clearly affects the fair playing ground with the local traders in the respective areas. In sum, such a condition discloses the existing practice in such visited sites seem to be against the Ethiopian legal framework. Provision of Services Including Education, Health and Housing The 1951 Convention also protects other rights of refugees, such as the rights to education, access to justice, employment and other fundamental freedoms and privileges similarly enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties. Access to basic services, including health and education, is a fundamental human right. The 1951 convention has provisions dealing with service delivery. Article 21 of the 1951 convention deals with housing and provides that refugees shall receive treatment as favorable as possible and, in any event, not less favorably than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Article 22 of the 1951 convention deals with refugees’ right to public education; Ethiopia, in this regard, made reservations to Articles 22 (public education) and Article 17, treating these articles as recommendations rather than obligations. However, as observed in the field in most of the sites prevailed in meeting the services for refugees either within their own camps or in many occasions as to this assessment observed, in sharing the education service together with children of the host communities in the public education facilities. To some degree, affects the school class ratio standard of the hosted communities, mostly pronounced by Afar FGD with government officials. This is due to the fact that such services are historically in deficit to most of the developing regions where majority of the refugees in Ethiopia are located. With regard to primary education, Article 22 (1) requires host countries to accord refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals. The convention sets a different standard for non- primary education. States shall accord treatment as favorably as possible to refugees, and, in any event, not less favorably than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. This standard is also applicable to access to studies, the recognition of foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees, and the award of scholarships. The 2004 Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation has a clear provision in dealing with the delivery of services to refugees. Article 21 of the proclamation stipulates that refugees will be entitled to the same rights and be subjected to the same restrictions imposed on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. Legal and Institutional Framework Related to Underserved and Vulnerable Groups xiii The Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the presence of different socio-cultural groups, including historically disadvantaged and underserved communities, pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and minorities as well as their rights to socioeconomic equity and justice. Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the rights of groups identified as “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples”. They are defined 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 identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” This represents some 75 out of the 80 groups who are members of the House of Federation, which is the second chamber of the Ethiopian legislature. The Constitution recognizes the rights of these Nations, Nationalities and Peoples to: self-determination, including 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 government in the territory that they inhabit and equitable representation in state and Federal governments. As noted above, the majority of the DRDIP prospective target communities belong to these population groups. The Constitution also recognizes another group called “national minorities”. Article 54(1) 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’. Owing to their limited access to socioeconomic development and underserved status over the decades, the Ethiopian government has designated four of the country’s regions, namely: Afar, Benishangul- Gumz, Gambella and Ethiopia Somali as Developing Regional States (DRS). In this respect, Article 89(2) of the Ethiopian Constitution stipulates: ‘The Government has the obligation to ensure that all Ethiopians get equal opportunity to improve their economic situations and promote equitable distribution of wealth among them’. Article 89(4) in particular states: ‘Nations, Nationalities and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development shall receive special assistance’. In connection with institutional framework designed to ensure equity between regions, the government has set up the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Pastoralist Area Development (MoFAPD). The responsibilities of this Ministry include promoting equitable development, with emphasis on delivering special support to the developing regions. The main purpose of the special support is to address the inequalities that have existed between the regions over the decades, thereby hastening equitable growth and development. Federal Special Support Board, which consists of relevant sector ministries including the MoANR, was reorganized in March 2011. The MoFAPD acts as Vice Chair and secretariat of the Board. A Technical Committee (TC) composed of sector Ministries constituting the Board were also set up under the MoFAPD to monitor and report the implementation of special support plans. As its main aim, the Board coordinates the affirmative support provided to the developing regions by the different organs of the federal government, and ensures the effectiveness of the implementation process. xiv In addition, Equitable Development Directorate General has been set up within the MoFAPD, with Directorates put in place to operate under it for the respective developing regions. Among many other activities, the Directorate General coordinates and directs case teams to collect, organize and analyze data in relation to the gaps in capacity building, social and economic development, good governance, gender and environmental development in the regions in need of special support. In view of these, with the exception of Tigray, all of the regions where DRDIP will be implemented are the Developing Regional States, namely Afar, Benishangul-Gumz, Gambella and Somali regions and selected Woredas with in. Among the potential project beneficiaries in these Woredas are the population groups such as Agnuwaha, Nuer, Opo and Komo from Gambella Region, Berta, Gumuz, Mao and Komo from Benishangul-Gumuz as well as Kunama and Saho from Tigray Region, are the ethnic groups to be affected by the project. Ethiopian Legislation and World Bank Policies (OP/BP 4.10: Indigenous Peoples) on Social Impacts of Projects The objective of this policy is to ensure that (i) the development processes foster full respect for the dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness of indigenous peoples; (ii) adverse effects during the development process are avoided, or if not feasible, minimized, mitigated or compensated; and (iii) indigenous peoples receive culturally appropriate and gender and intergenerational inclusive social and economic benefits. The Constitution takes a human rights approach to the environment; "a clean and healthy environment is a right of every Ethiopian". This may be understood as encompassing both biophysical and human/social aspects in the "environment". However, beyond these general principles, the laws (proclamations) and the technical guidelines available provide little guidance on what measures to take regarding the social impacts of projects and how to assess their impacts. Therefore, OP/BP 4.10, OP/BP 4.11, and OP 4.12 Bank policies guide the preparation and complement this Social Assessment of DRDIP. As indicated, the Social Assessment covers five regions and eleven Woredas. These areas give a living space for a variety of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples. The SA denotes a section to present the main social, physical, economic and demographic features of the regions and respective Woredas visited for the purpose of this Social Assessment. Challenges of the host communities: The SA result shows that the refugee hosting areas are often neglected. Since most of the refugee camp establishments are located in the periphery and historically disadvantaged regions of the country, also known as emerging/developing regions, they are often characterized by deficit in social and economic service infrastructures. Besides, they are occupied by minority (underserved) ethnic groups who were neglected by the past regimes of Ethiopia; insecure and mostly unstable areas in terms of peace. The situation is exacerbated by the presence of refugees effecting to the various social, economic and environmental conditions of the inhabitants in those locations- refugee host communities. The challenges identified during the SA in refugee hosting xv communities as the result of accommodating refugees from neighboring countries are summarized as follows: Major challenges on host communities Magnitude of challenges evident in Visited Kebeles triggered by the presence of refugees High and continued deforestation1 (for the  Prevalent in all visited sites. In some instances trees are removed purpose of constructing shelter, fire wood for from their roots (e.g. Gambella and Somali) at nights. refugees’ consumption, firewood for the  Products/furniture from timber and Bamboos are made and sold market, charcoal production for refugees’ by refugees. E.g. Eritrean Kunamas in Tigray and refugees consumption as well as for the market) (unidentified, as very diversified in these camps) in Homosha and surrounding areas are known for it.  Charcoal production was not known in some of the visited areas before the arrival of refugees (e.g. Sherkole in Benishaguel- Gumuz, Asayita in Afar, etc) There is a high risk of extra burden to social  Apart from the usual form, refugees were caught red handed in amenities, theft/ looting of farm produces, robbing chairs, radio, stationery materials of two primary livestock and other properties of host schools in Shoshore Butuji Kebele in Mao-Kommo Special communities, risk of rape and gender based Woreda. violence on school girls as well as environmental degradation in all visited sites as cited by participants of the SA. Illegal hunting of wild animals by refugees  Cases reported in Homosha in Benishanguel-Gumuz, Dollo Addo in Somali, and Asayitta in Afar region Fishing by refugees without the consent and  Cases mentioned in Wamba Kebele of Bambassi Woreda, willingness of the host communities refugees are illicitly engaged in fishing at “Dabas” river. Their attempt had been confronted by members of host community- led to conflict Burden on existing social amenities/  Host communities use of the social services constructed for the infrastructures refugees varies from region to region, and within the same region from one woreda to another. Relatively, in Benishanguel-Gumuz and Somali regions, the host communities have better access to service prepared for refugees. In Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions, the refugees have been using the social services infrastructures of the host communities such as schools and health facilities. In general, the SA reveals that refuge hosing communities have low education and health outcomes, face lack of potable water and equipped with poor and in accessible and seasonal roads. Hence, hosting communities highly demanded the expansions and upgrading of service giving infrastructures in their kebeles. 1 There is an indication that host communities are also involved in the deforestation/ cutting of trees ever than before, as it can be blamed on the acts of refugees. Woreda level stakeholders in Benishangul-Gumuz and Tigray identified such cases. xvi  Some schools are shared with refugees, often high schools (though limited access vice-versa, except few cases as Tselemet refugee high schools), market, roads etc. One extraordinary case, however is, the road taking from Tongo town (Woreda capital) to Shoshore Kebele is blocked for any public transportation, including Bajaj and also merchants/ traders vehicles. This is because of the location of the refugee camp in between the stated areas. Farmers are in problem of taking their produces to the market. Diminishing size of communal grazing land and  In all the five regions of refugee hosting communities overgrazing due to refugees keep animals and use the host communities grazing land Peace and security matters- such as conflict  Woreda Administration and Police forces in some visited areas between refugees and host communities become busy/ engaged in extra duties due to the safety and security issues or disturbances caused by refugees (Eg. Asayitta, Homosha,Abol, Dollo Addo and Asayitta)  On the other hand, host communities and government officials reported for the existence of refugees moving in groups at night to hunt wild animals, cutting trees and alcoholism. There are also robbery incidents in most woredas of the study committed by the refugees in such manner. There is also fear of the intrusion of terrorists and Islamic extremists such as Alshebab in the name of refugee into their woredas. Price inflation  There is market price soaring or rise after the coming of refugees in almost all woredas visited. The host communities indicated that they were unable to buy edible materials because of price inflation Gender based violence  Rape cases are reported in Gog woreda in Gambella, Homosha woreda in Benishanguel-Gumuz, and Asayitta Woredas in Afar regions could be sited as an example. Physical harm/ injury due to stick beating on girls and women (e.g. in Homosha woreda) are the other side of violence committed by refugees in visited areas. Lack of access to some basic social service  Refugees have electric power in their homes in the camps infrastructures that the refuges are getting (house bulbs from solar power or otherwise), but not at host community houses. They are also provided with modern household utensils and better health care.  In the course of this SA process, host community discussants said “we are the refugees, not the refugee themselves” they said this because refugees get special benefits not rendered to the host communities such as good school, potable water, electricity, etc.  Participants of the SA in Tigray noted that “our children are discriminated in a way that refugee students are attending the education with well-constructed buildings and better class facilities while our children in the next compound sat in stones under poorly installed shades, locally called “Dass” and under tree shades.” Potential behavioral changes of members of  Offensive acculturation/ behavior assimilation exist from host community, especially of children and refugees to host communities in particular to children sharing youth through cultural diffusion similar schools (theft, use of ‘shisha’, alcoholism, gender based violence/violence against females). This is typically identified xvii by SA participants in Afar and Somali regions. Adding to the issue, Afar and Somali culture highly respects and dignifies the rights of females. But refugees are polluting such standard norms and cultures of the host communities. Such behaviors threatened the elderly community members for spoiling the succeeding generations. Livelihood activities: Refugee hosting communities are located in the border areas of the country with arid and semi-arid temperature conditions. Almost all areas have erratic rainfall and prone to the risk of nature. Hence, the host communities are mainly farmers, agro-pastoralists, and pastoralists. Farmers are dominating in Tigray, Gambella, and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions. Agro-pastoralists and pastoralists are mainly found in Ethiopia Somali and Afar regions. Compared with pastoralists, in these two regions, agro-pastoralists are less in number. In the regions where farming is the dominant economic activity, the community members are also involved in animal husbandry to supplement their income as their secondary means of livelihood. In the course of the discussions with potential end- users/ beneficiaries of DRDIP, certain project ideas were suggested in line with their major livelihood strategy as well as prior experiences and anticipated results to their respective livelihoods. Conflict and conflict redress mechanisms: In refugee hosting areas, some forms of conflict between the refugee and local communities, within refugee members, and within host community members was prevalent. However, the conflicts between refugees and host communities are not serious. The conflicts are minor which did not claim people’s life. The major causes of conflict or disagreement of the two parties are theft of host communities crops and small ruminants by the refugees; restriction of access to resources such as farmlands, forest and forest products, etc.; straying of refugee animals into host communities crops and irrigation land; competition over resources such as firewood, grass, and grazing land; the damage refugees cause to environment; and the like. The conflicts between the refuges and host communities has been addressed by a committee composed of the host community members, refugees conflict handling committee members, ARRA, and Kebele and woreda administrators. Most Vulnerable and Underserved Groups: The most vulnerable groups identified in the five regions are older people who do not have supporters and caregivers; and usually they depend on support from their relatives and farming from nearby farmlands. Most of the older people keep small ruminants such as goats and hens to get income. Women and women headed household were also categorized under the vulnerable groups. In all areas women are subordinate to their husbands and do all the domestic chores, child rearing, many of the farming activities, house construction (in pastoral areas of Afar and Somali), etc. Youths were vulnerable in refugee host communities. Most youths, particularly those who completed their high school and fail to get pass mark to join government universities and TVET were unemployed and involved in some deviant acts such as chewing chat, alcoholism, gambling, and illegal ways of getting income. People with disabilities (PWDs), though not large in number, are among the vulnerable groups. PWDs are more in number in Tigray region because the area is the past has been a battle ground of the Derg regime. In Tigray region of Tselemt and Tahetay Adiaybo, there are a large number of veterans, after xviii the fall of Derg regime, were reintegrated to the community and still being supported by the community and the government. People with Unidentified Liver Disease (ULD) are found in Tigray region and are among the vulnerable groups. The cause of the disease is a wild plant, locally called “Kech Arem”. Since abdomen of victims of ULD get bulged and become un-proportional to size of their head and leg, they are easily identified. They are weakness and inability to walk. Ethnic groups and ethnic minorities: All project target areas are dominated by underserved ethnic groups or ethnic minorities. The two Woredas in Gambella region are inhabited by the Nuer, Agnuah, and Opo ethnic groups. Berta, Mao, and Komo are residents in Benishanguel-Gumuz which are ethnic minorities. The Somali ethnic group dominate the Ethiopia Somali region; and Afar ethnic group in Afar region. The Somali and Afar ethnic groups are divided by clan. Besides the Tigray ethnic groups there are ethnic minorities such as Kunama ethnic group in project target areas in Tigray region. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS Community consultations were conducted with different community groups in each woredas with the objective of informing the refugee hosting communities about the project and receiving their views and opinions about the project sub-components. The host communities were also consulted on the RPF’s implementation procedures. The host communities expressed their support for the project and indicated that if implemented well the activities in the components could address their pressing problems. Host communities indicated that no project has been implemented to ease their problems as a result of hosting refugees and bearing the resulting burden/impacts. Besides, in most areas, even though they were promised by the government to receive 25% of the support given to the refugees by the UNHCR, they did on get as much as expected. Consultation with Process Key Stakeholders As one of the major tasks of the Social Assessment, community consultations have taken place with all visited kebeles that are hosting refugees. Woreda and Kebele government stakeholders were also part of the process. In due course, communities have been informed about DRRIP, its objective and the different components. Women Men, youths and elders have taken part and actively participated in the consultation process. In all instances, DRDIP is very much welcomed, as the communities were referring, to date many organizations coming to their Kebele and villages chiefly focusing on the concerns and needs of refugees, often promised to allocate some portion of their budget host communities. Little has been done even with such attitudes. They hoped DRDIP would properly address their problems and concerns and help them gain better income, protect their environment and access to improved education and health care. By the process, community members were allowed to reveal their pressing problems and the suffrage they encounter and the benefit they acquired including their concerns and worries during the implementation of the proposed project and as summarized below. All consultation participants were encouraged and allowed to reflect on and give their views regarding the project sub-component activities so as to reflect their opinions whether or not the project would address their pressing problems they faced as a result of hosting refugees. xix Although, there is a slight relative difference between rural and semi-urban settings in terms of adequacy, quality and access to the social services, almost all visited sites have serious shortage of social service giving infrastructures. In terms of project priorities, the problem of social services are not uniformly patterned, in some urban and semi-urban settings the pervasiveness of degree of the problem slides down in comparison to very rural ones, e.g. Okedi, Tongo, Mai Ayni, Homosha/ Jimma kebele, Hitsats, Melkadida in Dollo Ado, and others there is relatively in improved position in the scale and magnitude to shortage of facilities. Critical deficiency of school class rooms where students attend their education seated under sheds and trees; there is lack of potable water for humans as well as livestock. Thus, communities consulted were highly demanded the construction of new class rooms, water points to be developed and animal health centers, roods and foot paths to connect Kebeles and villages. They also demanded the upgrading of the health services to an improved level where there exist, constructing for new health services both for human and livestock were the demands among the kebeles with the constrained status. The community members at the consultation process were also requesting for the introduction of fuel saving stoves and solar technologies. As already participating in various soil and water conservation activities by regular government programs, they are also keen to get involved in DRDIP sustainable environmental rehabilitation and improvement programs. Similarly, communities also envisioning to improve their livelihoods through the designed DRDIP livelihood diversification project activities particularly small scale irrigations, poultry, sheep and goat fattening, beekeeping, petty trading, bakery, tea and coffee shops, etc. As evidence of their keenness to DRDIP, community groups disclosed their readiness to avail their land, labor and locally available materials as they truly believe that the benefit is worthy for them and for their children. In relation to land allocation for the project land demanding activities, no hesitations have been observed in all the cases under this SA consultation process. OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS DRAWN FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS This section is attempted to present some of the general concerns and opportunities that have been expressed during the communities’ consultation processes as a reflection to the proposed project, DRDIP. As to the specific project concerns and associated mitigation measures, the section on the social management plan is dedicated. General concerns, threats and opportunities:  In Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz, women are actively participating in social and economic activities, e. g., in both cases women are members of the traditional conflict redress mechanisms. In Gambella, Watgach kebele/Itang, there are some (20) women organized by their own and save cash on monthly basis engaged in buying and selling goat initiative. Moreover, in most of the visited kebeles water committees were led by women management capacities. No gender restriction/ influence to express views in public occasions observed in the mission and also witnessed by Key Informants and Woreda officials. xx  Coordination could make a better result not only for the refugees but also the host communities, with wise planning and coordination. For DRDIP, a strategic and synchronized intervention directly on the refugees, it would not be a full-fledged kind of effort. Because, some of the challenges facing by host communities emanated from the level of awareness, behavior and attitude of refugees. e.g. environmental degradation, gender based violence, etc. possible interventions could be; in collaboration with concerned bodies, organize prior sessions to before refugees settlement to host communities, this include the culture, laws, rules and regulations of the host communities. Discouraging sell of items from the refugees (fuel saving stoves, solar lights/ bulbs, cooking utensils, etc.) as well as Ethiopian laws and legislations on various aspects, etc.  The role of Kebele Cabinets, Development Agents (DAs), and health extension workers is facilitating the overall development process in the Kebele. This is an enabling opportunity for DRDIP, if handled systematically with strong supervision and M&E.  Prior experiences involved/ participating in diverse livelihood programs, e.g. Tigray, Tselemti Woreda (120 youths were targeted, took some vocational/ technical trainings and provided with few tools; not sufficient to start a business) electricity, wood work hair dressing, etc for a year training program supported by NGOs.  There are some cooperatives in Tigray, Tselemti Woreda known as specialized cooperatives organized on improved, high yield, and high quality produces such as rice, milk, irrigation, bee keeping/ honey production. Woredas like Tahetay Adiyabo and Tselemit are known for livestock husbandry as well as specialized poultry.  In Afar, participants were suggesting to use traditional institutions for targeting purpose, as needed in DRDIP implementation phases.  Appropriate/ tailor made training for responsible Woreda and kebele officials on participatory approach and M&E. Threats:  No Micro financial institutions were observed in most of the visited Woredas, except in Tigray. This is may be related to Islamic religious aspects. Participants explained that for any business or other emergency cash need, the only option they have is selling their livestock. Livestock is also one form of saving mechanism.  Human and livestock diseases are common in almost all sites visited, malaria is the commonest threat for the community in the arid regions of developing regions.  Scope of the effects refugees could bring in the target regions and Woredas may not end only in the kebeles hosting them but also the surrounding communities as well. In Mao-Komo Woreda, Shoshore-Butuji Kebele is not direct host for refugees but suffers a lot by the situation. Thus DRDIP area targeting need to consider such widened effects in and around host kebeles.  Inadequate staff at Woreda level and high staff turn-over as many of the unserved regions and Woredas do possess not conducive and harsh environment  Group fighting, rape and other forms of gender based violence are threats for female students and women to actively participate in development works, including DRDIP. xxi The following section presents the Social Development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges and Suggested Mitigating Measures This social development plan as outlined below will ensure that the project and its implementing agencies will respect the dignity, rights and culture of groups meeting the OP 4.10 requirements and ensure that these people benefit from DRDIP in a sustainable manner. The plan could be redefined during implementation and further consultations undertaken for the underserved groups to ensure their full participation. In light of what has been outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, the Matrix in table below provides the summary of potential risks and challenges and recommendations. xxii Social Development Plan: Potential Risks, Challenges and Suggested Mitigating Measures Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations Cross-cutting  There is a high risk of extra burden to  Awareness raising and behavioral change  Welcoming attitude of the host community social amenities, theft/ looting of farm education need to be designed for refugee towards DRDIP as stated by the community Issues produces, livestock and other properties communities to ensure that the overall groups during consultation, is the first of host communities, risk of rape and social, economic, environmental as well as attempt to address the refugee problems and gender based violence on school girls as other related impacts as stated by host diverse impacts on the host communities. well as environmental degradation in all communities and the refugees themselves  Existing/established committees both from visited sites as cited by participants of the will be mitigated and or minimized. refugees and host communities. In some SA.  Culturally sensitive capacity building visited sites, e.g. Abol, Tahetay Adeyabo,  Limited technical capacity of efforts need to be used at different levels Homosha and others. These committees implementing offices at Woreda and under the project components to clearly meet regularly and discuss outstanding kebele levels and back up/ technical define the process, content and mechanisms issues and devise solutions jointly and support from the higher hierarchies. for training monitor the progress. This might need to be  There may be a tendency to overlook the  Benishangul Gumuz, Homosha Woreda, reinforced through involving administrative needs of people with disability and Sherkole Kebele - discussants suggested to as well as legislative bodies (in both elderly people or not clearly anticipated at identify specific groups of refugees who are refugees and host community levels and the design of the project PIM while also involved in illegal acts quite often. As an responsible government bodies). Reporting at targeting process during example, “Oudug” ethnic group from South and monitoring mechanisms in effecting implementation phase. Sudan refugees are frequently involved in decisions need to be designed.  Limited participation of women in the such undesirable deeds.  Existence of land and Water management design, implementation and M&E of  Site specific project activities, budget committees in various visited Kebeles will project activities/ in areas like Afar. allocation and specific emphasis needs to be strengthened.  Perspectives and attitudes of refugees considered based on stress levels, type and  Earlier positive implementation experiences have not been assessed in this SA (for magnitude of negative impacts on host as a in related activities by other projects, e.g., services designed for shared utilization result of refugees. Population of refugees in SLMP, AGP, PSNP are opportunities and among host and refugee communities as the different camps and respective host will be replicated. well as implications to the designed communities might also be taken in to  Good stock of civil servants in the Kebeles project ideas). Integrated approaches account for proportion of budget allocation visited; DAs, Health Extension Workers, likely to be compromised. as well as focus areas under the proposed Veterinary technicians, Kebele Managers,  Weak integration between partners project. and Teachers committing themselves for working in refugees and host  The project will establish a strong proper implementation of the program in a communities coordination and integration of the project culturally appropriate manner.  Community prioritization of subprojects partners from the outset and at all levels, might be manipulated by different interest including in the design, implementation, groups and monitoring and evaluation phases; and xxi Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations  Many organizations came with similar through regular, joint planning and review kind of promises, but disappeared after a forum will ensure community engagement; while. The perception that the project will and effective participatory targeting follow the same trend, as noted by mechanism. Successive training and participants during the consultation procedures/guidelines will be developed meetings. with the active involvement of community representatives from diverse social groups (utilizing existing customary institutions as entry points) as well as relevant partners at all levels.  Facilitation skill to promote community participation will be designed through appropriate training and guideline development for project implementers  Innovative project ideas need to be encouraged.  The agenda for developing responses to displacement impacts may deserve extensive studies and research deliberations. The project shall incorporate activities that can serve such research needs. This could also help design an integrated/ synchronized approach to a sustained solution. A careful identification and involvement of academic and research institutions for the generation of pragmatic solution ideas; as potential stakeholders to DRDIP. Component 1:  Existence of many investors and large  Participation of the end users and top level  Prior experience and practice as well as proportions of land are allocated for decision making in the land allocation current keenness of consulted communities Social and private investors in potential target process to investors will be intensified. for contributing to the project in the form of Economic Services Woredas and kebeles in Gambella and Moreover, institutionalization labour and locally available construction Benishangul-Gumuz Regions that affect (mainstreaming projects and sub-projects materials. In some instances communities and Infrastructure the construction of roads. with the appropriate government structure) contributed cash for the construction and  During summer Baro River overflows and and clear handing over strategies will be expansion of schools in their villages. ruins the social service infrastructures built in to the project. such as roads, schools, health centers in xxii Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations Itang Special Woreda of Gambella  Organizing management Committees in the region. respective project target areas for  There is a concern that refugee children responsible and sustainable management of will share schools which in turn persists the developed infrastructures. the pressure to students class room  The project will liaise with refugee accommodation ratio. organization to provide targeted basic  Heavy trucks coming to refugee camps services to the camps. are likely to damage the roads or impact  The project will provide “on the job” durability/long-term service (e.g. the training for youths and will equip them with roads in Bambasi and more pronounced the necessary/basic tools and equipment for in Asayita visited areas). sustainable management and maintenance  Unsustainable use of developed of the infrastructures, including damaged infrastructures has been experienced in roads. prior initiatives. There are some non-  Identify together with the host communities functional infrastructures due to lack of sites for the construction of social service appropriate consultation and infrastructure. incorporation of community concerns.  Roads need to be constructed as per the standard of Ethiopian road authority for rural graveled roads and communities will be consulted in doing so. Component 2:  Huge number of livestock holding by the  Prior identification of land for the project  Integrating this component, in particular to refugees will affect the attempts at with the involvement of all concerned sub component 2(b) Access to Energy, with Sustainable environmental rehabilitation. stakeholders. appropriate institutions such as existing Environmental  Conflicts or tensions are likely to occur  The project will use conflict filter and TVETs around target Woredas can be taken between refugees and host communities incorporate a careful study on the feasibility as good potential hubs for the purpose. Management in managing water for irrigation as of sub projects such as land/soil feature,  Taking in to account the other projects observed in Benishangul, Bambassi, viability, etc (e.g. in Itang Special Woreda, already involved in this category. The Wamba kebeles. some areas are identified as sliding and lessons learned, including best practices  Durability of appliances is at risk due to smash lands). and/or failure from prior projects on their sensitivity to easy damage, including  The project will introduce appropriate and if environmental rehabilitation programs will maintenance and spare-parts for the possible local technologies during be incorporated in the DRDIP during introduced technologies is also implementation. Further, members of the implementation. questioned to the degree of affordability community (such as youths with TVET and accessibility at local markets. certification or similar skill acquaintance)  As a result of the immense deforestation, trained with basic application and springs are drained in some localities management skills will be incorporated into xxiii Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations such as SA Shoshore Kebele in the project for self-reliance and livelihood Benishanguel-Gumuz region activities.  The project in consultation with host communities will introduce measures to stop deforestation, particularly through participatory forest management approaches. The process will also be discussed with the refugee community. Component 3:  Targeting/identification of the right  A well-developed and genuine participatory  Existing primary/ multi-purpose cooperative beneficiaries/end users is often biased, approach and working guidelines need to be in most visited areas facilitates the smooth Livelihoods and may exclude vulnerable and needy utilized for the purpose of effective implementation of project activities under Program groups of the community. targeting. this component. There are a number of  Illegal acts such as theft, robbery by  Behavioral change communication cooperatives already established in some of refuges might negatively impact education for refugee communities on the the sites, (e.g., Improved poultry, milk implementation of livelihood activities in culture, value and norms of communities processing, livestock fattening, horticulture the host communities. will ensure harmony and avoid conflicts. through irrigation schemes)  Due to cultural issues, women are less  Concerned government bodies will be  Some host community member youths likely to participate in livelihood consulted to provide protection and received vocational and technical trainings activities and are more prone to gender measures against the perpetrators of gender from ARRA (e.g. Tselemet woreda of based violence especially by some violence. Tigray region, Bambasi Woreda of refugee members Benishanguel-Gumuz) and are provided with tools, though not adequate to start their own business. Component 4:  Trainings are often directed to technical  Capacity gap assessments will be  Utilization of existing data/ information staffs. But the decision making body at undertaken prior to intervention. Both need to be taken into account. As disclosed Project different offices lacks the required skill in technical as well as management bodies of by the FGD participants, some offices Management, and project management, M & E, particularly, project stakeholders must be targeted as already have data base and plan for staff cultural and social sensitivities training appropriate and will be equipped with training needs assessment in the respective Monitoring and  Capacity limitation in targeted Woredas, training in Project management. core processes (e.g., Itang Woreda) Evaluation both human/skill and material including  Training on the project safeguard vehicles for better mobility for project instruments to help create common purposes. understanding among actors at all levels on the project safeguard instruments (ESMF, RPF and SA), will be undertaken to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented and potential risks are managed. xxiv 1. INTRODUCTION With the intention to reduce poverty and achieving sustainable development with peace and security in the Horn of Africa (HOA), the World Bank launched a regional initiative to support refugee hosting countries (Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda) in East Africa understanding displacement as the main challenge of the region. Displaced populations are a direct target group under Pillar One of the HOA initiative and it seeks to “enhance the productive capacities and coping mechanisms of displaced populations to allow them to contribute to the local economy in their areas of displacement, and promote durable social and economic reintegration for voluntary returnees”. In response to the impacts of forced displacement on refugee hosting countries and communities in HOA, a multi-country development response by the respective Governments of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda to address unmet social, economic and environmental needs of the host local communities and displaced (refugees and returnees), the World Bank proposed a project in these three countries. Ethiopia is the largest refugee hosting country in Africa. Ethiopia hosts the largest population of refugees in Africa as a consequence of droughts, conflicts, political events and civil wars in neighboring countries, such as Somalia, Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sudan. At the end of December 2015, 733,644 refugees were distributed across the five National Regional States of - Afar, Tigray, Ethiopian Somali, Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz; in 23 refugee camps located in 15 woredas and 23 kebeles (UNHCR 2015). The majority of refugees in Ethiopia are hosted in the five regional sates of the country, namely Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Somali, and the Tigray regions. Except Tigray regional state, other regions are among the least developed regions in the country, characterized by harsh weather conditions, poor infrastructure, extremely low capacity, high level of poverty and very poor development indicators. The presence of refugees puts strains on the already weak public services and economic opportunities, jeopardizing the resilience of communities hosting the refugees. To improve access to social services, strengthen economic opportunities, and develop livelihood activities of host communities and refugees including the sustainable environmental and social management, a concept stage ‘Regional Operation on Development Response to Displacement Project in the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia project’ was developed and steps have been taken establishing a task force from the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR) and the World Bank to review for its final appraisal. As the requirement and the base for the appraisal this Social Assessment (SA) was conducted to facilitate and support the project appraisal. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1.PROJECT DESCRIPTION In response to the impacts of forced displacement on refugee hosting countries and communities in HOA, the proposed operation is a multi-country development response by the respective Governments of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda. The proposed regional operation, in titled Regional Operation on Development Response to Displacement Impacts in the Horn of Africa- AFCC2/RI, (DRDIP), addresses the unmet social, economic and environmental needs of the local communities both host and displaced (refugees and returnees) in targeted areas of the three proposed project countries. 1 The Government of Ethiopia (GoE) has completed implementing its ambitious Growth and Transformation Plan –I (GTP; 2010/11-2014/15), which sets a long-term goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2025, with growth rates of at least 11.2 percent per annum during the plan period. To achieve the GTP goals and objectives, GoE has followed a “developmental state” model with a strong role for the government in many aspects of the economy. It has prioritized key sectors such as industry and agriculture, as drivers of sustained economic growth and job creation. The second phase of the GTP also reaffirms GoE’s commitment to human development and development partners have programs that are broadly aligned with GTP-II priorities. The proposed project will contribute directly to the second generation of the GTP objectives of expanding access to and ensuring quality of social services, and thereby achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the social sector. The proposed project will also contribute to establishing suitable conditions for sustainable nation building through the creation of a stable, democratic and developmental state through the provision of basic social services for the underserved communities in the Refugee hosting Regions (Gambella, Ethiopian Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, Afar and Tigray). Additionally, by supporting the development and active engagement of local governments and grassroots institutions in local development as well as by promoting participation of local communities in local decision-making processes and oversight of public services and infrastructure, the GOE envisages that the proposed project will support the establishment of suitable conditions for sustainable nation building. The project also contributes to the objective of maintaining a high GDP growth rate by helping strengthen the economic opportunities and livelihoods of refugee hosting communities and their integration into the national economy. The development objective of DRDIP is to improve access to social services, expand economic opportunities and enhance environmental management for host and forcibly displaced households in the targeted areas of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda. The DRDIP seeks to demonstrate a fundamental shift in the way forced displacement is addressed in the HOA; first as a developmental challenge in addition to a humanitarian and security challenge; second a government-led and implemented development response complementary to traditional humanitarian agencies; and third as a long-term response to address systemic and structural constraints impeding development in marginalized refugee hosting areas further exacerbated by refugee presence. Given that the major impacts of forced displacement and categories of investments across the three DRDIP countries is comparable, the four major components described in detail below will be implemented in all three countries: (i) in a modular fashion focusing on mobilization and capacity building for communities and local governments; and (ii) through an implementation process that is responsive to community priorities. DRDIP has five main components and six sub-components intended to benefit refugee hosting communities, and are discussed hereunder. Component 1: Social and Economic Services and Infrastructure (approximately US$ 86.25 million) Refugee hosting areas in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda are characterized by huge development deficits, including low human capital, and limited access to basic social services and economic infrastructure. The service delivery capacity of local authorities in the three countries is also weak. 2 Component 1 aims to improve access to basic social services and economic infrastructure and improve service delivery capacity of local authorities at the target subnational and local levels by financing community and strategic investments as well as capacity building initiatives. Community investments will be matched by community contributions, both cash and in-kind (materials and/or labor), and the process will follow a community-driven development approach. Subcomponent 1(a): Community Investment Fund (approximately US$ 78.6 million). Subcomponent 1(a) seeks to improve community access to basic social services and economic infrastructure providing investment funds that, together with community contributions, will expand and improve service delivery and build infrastructure for local development. Investments will be identified, prioritized, implemented, and monitored by beneficiary communities. Potential investments (subprojects) include the construction, upgrading, rehabilitation and/or expansion of basic social services, such as education, water supply, human health, and veterinary care; and economic infrastructure such as rural roads, market structures, and storage facilities. The target community will identify and prioritize the specific social services and economic infrastructure to be funded under this subcomponent through the community-driven development approach. Only those subprojects which are currently functioning and/or have budget for staff and materials provided by the respective administration will be supported. This is to ensure the sustainability of the interventions. Subcomponent 1(a) will also support strategic investments, that are larger in scope and impact than typical community-level investments (subprojects), and that will serve a cluster of project beneficiary communities. These investments will be identified through the community prioritization process and will employ local labor, especially women and youth, during construction. Local governments will be responsible for operation and maintenance. An information and communication technologies (ICT) platform composed of a network of mobile phones/applications in the hands of beneficiaries and those managing the fund could be linked to a web-enabled dashboard, which could be used to upload data on investments and implementation status on a close to real-time basis. The process for planning, implementation and monitoring of the subcomponent 1(a) will be detailed in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) for each participating country. Area of Strategic Investments Community level Investments Intervention  Construction, repair or extension of existing  Upgrading/Expansion of Primary Health Posts only where health personnel Health Centers or Hospitals Health are already present. with additional  Purchase of furniture or equipment for existing wards/operations theatre  Installation of solar power supply systems  Expansion of Water Treatment  Construction or repair of (non-motorized) hand- Plants pumps, tanks, dug wells, boreholes and haffirs.  Upgrading piped water supply  Motorizing of existing high-yielding water sources system WASH  Construction of solid waste lagoons  Repair of flood protection infrastructure (drainage, guttering, dykes etc.)  Construction, upgrading or rehabilitation of existing  Expansion of Secondary Education primary schools, including the construction of Schools with additional additional class rooms, furniture and water supply. classrooms Social  Establishment of community centres 3  Opening of community access roads  Construction of inter-  Rehabilitation of existing community access road community rural roads for Roads improved connectivity  Construction or rehabilitation of foot paths, culverts and bridges.  Construction and Market  Construction of market places and stalls rehabilitation of multipurpose infrastructure  Construction of community storage facilities markets and warehouses Livestock  Construction and/or  Construction and/or rehabilitation of existing rehabilitation of primary and veterinary clinics, including procurement of basic secondary livestock markets furniture and medical equipment  Construction and/or  Construction and/or rehabilitation of cattle trough, rehabilitation of feed stores livestock treatment and vaccination facilities (crush) Subcomponent 1(b): Capacity Building for Local Planning and Decentralized Service Delivery (approximately US$ 7.65 Million). The objective of this subcomponent is to improve the service delivery capacity of local level government authorities. It will support capacity-building interventions for local government authorities, the local implementing institutions for the community-driven planning process, local development management, service delivery capacities enhancement, mainstreaming of project interventions with government development planning and budgeting process, coordination of potential development stakeholders at local-level and community local-level development learning. Capacity-building activities to be financed under the project, will be explained in detail in the PIMs, but will include: (i) critically needed items, such as office equipment and facilities, field gear, vehicles, and technical resources, etc.; (ii) preparation, multiplication and dissemination of technical training materials; (iii) training, and knowledge and skills development at all levels, including for technicians and host communities; (iv) experience sharing tours; and (v) short-term overseas study tours and South-South exchange programs. The project will also support technical assistance to reinforce the capacity of specialized implementing agencies, including the recruitment of national and international technical assistants to help with planning, engineering design, procurement, construction management and technical monitoring of physical investments. Component 2: Sustainable Environmental Management (approximately US$ 32 million) Refugee-hosting areas face severe degradation of their environmental and natural resources, including deforestation and devastation of agricultural and range lands. The continued presence and influx of refugees exacerbates already severe environmental conditions, turning localities into fragile ecosystems. Component 2 aims to ensure that environmental and natural resources are carefully and sustainably managed so they can support current and future needs and livelihoods. The implementation of demand and supply-side interventions will be supported by the component. Supply-side interventions will support and enhance sustainable environmental and ecosystem services including integrated natural resources management and small, micro and household-scale irrigation schemes. Demand-side interventions, such as alternative energy sources, will aim to reduce unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, including risks mitigation and other challenges faced by crisis-affected host communities. Demand-side interventions will also seek to address gender issues by reducing drudgery (time and energy spent on collecting fuel wood) and exposure to risks and violence and by improving health and indoor air pollution through the use of cleaner fuels and fuel-saving cooking technologies. These aspects will be detailed in the individual country PIMs. 4 Sub-component 2(a): Integrated Natural Resources Management (approximately US$ 26.25 million). Subcomponent 2(a) intends to enhance the productivity of environmental and natural resources, including arresting the degradation of fragile ecosystems in forest, range and agricultural lands. It would support soil and water conservation biological and physical activities on individual farms and communal lands, including the construction of soil bunds, stone bunds, artificial waterways, cut-off drains, check dams (gully rehabilitation), bench terraces, hillside terraces, trenches, area closures, planting of multipurpose trees, and groundwater recharge interventions. The sub-component will also enhance irrigation water use and management thereby increasing irrigated land, production and productivity for host communities. Key activities to be supported include rehabilitation/improving/upgrading existing traditional and modern Small Scale, Micro and Household Irrigation schemes. The use of remote sensor technologies installed on water pumps at the farm-level could be considered to monitor water use to inform water management decisions. Capacity-building activities that enhance the implementation of Integrated Natural Resources Management and Small Scale Irrigation Development and Management will be supported in each participating country, with technical assistance to service providers at multiple levels and support to communities. Sub-component 2(b): Access to Energy (approximately US$ 5.75 million). Subcomponent 2(b) seeks to improve access to energy by host communities, promoting the better use of energy resources and access to alternative sources of energy. Support will be given to interventions that address the host communities’ energy requirements, such as domestic cooking and lighting; social services such as schools and health services; and productive activities, including lighting for small shops/businesses and manufacturing/processing. Household cooking is currently based on firewood and charcoal. To address this concern, improved cook-stoves will be introduced with appropriate community consultations about methods of cooking and baking and what types of firewood are locally available. Training would be provided on the use of the new stoves, including the preparation of fuel wood. Attention would be given to monitoring use, regular maintenance, and repairs. Solar lanterns and lamps are among the options for meeting home and street lighting as well as mobile phone charging needs. Establishing connections to grids -where possible- and off-grid decentralized energy supplies based on renewables and diesel engines will be explored in cooperation with other projects (World Bank and other funding sources) for meeting these and other productive energy uses. Component 3: Livelihoods Program (approximately US$ 38.75 million) People from refugee-hosting communities derive their income either from traditional livelihoods, including agriculture, fisheries, pastoralism and/or agro-pastoralism; and/or non-traditional livelihoods, including skills-based jobs, service enterprises and small businesses. Each type of livelihood is characterized by low-level technologies and skills, leading to inherent low productivity. The lives and livelihoods of people from refugee hosting communities are impoverished and their incomes levels are low and unsustainable. Component 3 seeks to improve livelihoods and increase incomes in refugee-hosting communities based on the market system approach. It will support interventions aimed at improving the productivity of traditional and nontraditional livelihoods. Traditional livelihoods will be informed by detailed technical, behavioral and performance market assessment for increased production, improved market interconnections and adoption of best practices. Non-traditional livelihoods will be identified based on market assessment to impart skills for increased employability, enterprise development 5 and promote other income-generating activities. The component will strengthen existing community-based organizations (CBOs) and also support formation of new ones. Sub-component 3 (a): Support to Traditional and Non-Traditional Livelihoods (approximately US$ 34.3 million). Subcomponent 3(a) aims to increase the production and productivity of agriculture (crops and livestock), pastoralism (livestock), agro-pastoralism (crop and livestock) and fisheries; and commercialize livelihood activities for improved incomes, employment, and self-reliance. Intervention areas were identified based on key stakeholder and community consultations, but in-depth technical and market system assessment will inform implementation. Support will be provided to key activities based on the results of the market system assessment combined with the region and locality’s potential and the traditional forms of livelihood practiced, including improved production practices; access to technology, equipment, storage and processing infrastructure, and finance; and access to input and output markets. Nontraditional livelihoods will be identified based on market assessment to provide skills training for increased employability, and enterprise development and to promote other income-generating activities. Based on key stakeholder consultations, a number of livelihood options were identified, but market system assessments will inform implementation. The proposed interventions will be informed from lessons learned from existing projects, build on the experience of implementing agencies, tailored to country contexts. The subcomponent will follow a process-driven approach for systematic implementation with three phases: (i) preparatory phase, (ii) livelihood business plan subproject generation and approval phase; and (iii) livelihood business plan subproject implementation, follow-up mentoring, and commissioning phase. The subcomponent will also support innovations that could include technological, institutional and process innovations to be determined during implementation. Support programs for youth and women in technological innovations like digital commerce as well as in IT-enabled services that require computer/digital literacy could support modern and salaried jobs. The relevant department ministry will support the implementation of the livelihoods activities. Sub-component 3 (b): Capacity Building of Community-Based Organizations for Livelihoods (approximately US$ 4.45 million). Subcomponent 3(b) is intended to improve the service delivery capacity of farmer, pastoral, or agro-pastoral organizations, including CBOs. Establishing and building the capacity of CBOs will be supported due to the project’s CDD approach, which involves CBOs being inclusively involved in the implementation and sustainability of project investments. CBOs involved in livelihoods promotion include farmer organizations, cooperatives, Savings and Credit Co-Operatives (SACCOs) and common interest groups (CIGs), will receive training in group management, savings, financial literacy, and book keeping. They will be encouraged to practice regular meetings, savings, and inter-loaning; timely repayment; and up-to- date accounting. The traditional and nontraditional livelihood activities will be implemented by CIGs and will receive capacity building on Group Management, Enterprise Selection, livelihood business plans preparation, procurement management, and technical and computer/digital skills. Local administration technical committees and/or facilitators will undertake these efforts. Component 4: Project Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation (approximately US$ 15 million). Project management and implementation will follow a decentralized approach using existing government structure at the national, subnational and local levels and community institutions to 6 be established at the local level. The objective of this component is to ensure enhanced and effective project management, coordination, and implementation; and support the design of the project’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to be detailed in the M&E Manual. The component will support the establishment of institutions with different roles and responsibilities at multiple levels, including oversight, coordination, and technical bodies. Steering Committees (SCs), and Technical Committees (TCs) will be established at national, subnational and local levels. Project Coordination Units (PCUs) will be established at the National, subnational and local levels in Ethiopia and Djibouti; and a Project Implementation Support Team at the National level in Uganda; both will be adequately staffed with technical experts recruited in a competitive process. They will play a coordination and facilitation role. The project will build on existing community-level structures, such as Community Development Committees, and will establish new local-level institutions as needed, including Community Facilitation Teams, Community Project Management Committees, Community Procurement Committees, Social Audit Committees, etc. The component will support the designing of the project Management Information System (MIS) for monitoring inputs, outputs and processes; evaluation of outcome and impacts; environmental and social safeguards monitoring; and participatory monitoring and evaluation and internal learning. M&E activities will also include regular monitoring of implementation progress and performance, independent process monitoring, including inter alia regular assessments of community-level planning and review of the effectiveness and quality of capacity-building efforts; outcome and impact evaluations at baseline, mid-term and end-of-project; and annual thematic studies. The project’s Results Framework (RF) will be used as a basis for reporting progress against indicators, including progress towards achieving the PDO and Implementation Progress (IP). The project will consider the use of mobile technologies to increase the reach and frequency of data capturing at local level and aggregating in a platform that could serve as a dashboard; such a tool would provide near real-time monitoring and ability to visualize and/or geo-localize activities supported by the project in the three countries. Component 5: Regional Support for Coordination, Capacity and Knowledge (approx. US$ 5 million). The key objective of the component is to support the establishment of a Regional Secretariat on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration primarily for the HOA but with relevant linkages with the Great Lakes Initiative that will: (i) Spearhead the advancement of the development approach to displacement in the HOA; (ii) Facilitate the creation of knowledge with partnerships with relevant think tanks and/or universities in the three project countries of Djibouti, Ethiopia and Uganda and the HOA emerging from the implementation of the DRDIP with respect to Durable Solutions to Forced Displacement; (iii) Ensure annual learning and sharing workshops for all the HOA countries; and (iv) Contribute to the better understanding of the nexus between socio- economic development, forced displacement and mixed migration in the HOA by commissioning studies and/or focused research. The Regional Secretariat will be anchored in IGAD, a regional organization with convening and political mandate for the 8 countries of the Horn and also in a good position to initiate regional conversations around FD and MM. In addition to its role of commissioning research, generating knowledge, capturing lessons, and coordinating sharing and learning both in the project countries and at the regional level; the Regional Secretariat will host the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) to be constituted by representatives from the National Steering Committees of each project 7 country. The RSC will play an important role of: (i) providing oversight of implementation of the Regional program, and (ii) guide, advice and support regional policy dialogue. Finally, the Regional Secretariat will work towards building the capacities of the executing agencies in the three project countries on the development approach to displacement. This will ensure harmonization and set up some standards for future similar projects. The details of the proposed trainings, study tours as well as the other activities of the Regional Secretariat will be detailed in the PIM that will be prepared by IGAD. Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements Implementation of DRDIP activities in Ethiopia will rely on existing government structures and existing and/or new community institutions. Thus, all levels of governments will have roles in providing oversight function; and government and community institutions in providing technical and implementation support. Implementation will follow a decentralized approach and local communities will assume the primary responsibility for executing project activities, including identifying, prioritizing and implementing community investments. Government implementing agencies and community institutions will be supported by project teams i.e. Federal Project Coordination Unit (FPCU) at the federal, RPCUs at regional, and WPCUs at woreda levels. Project teams will also be responsible for coordinating implementation of the project, managing fund flows, ensuring fiduciary and safeguards obligations, monitoring performance, maintaining timely and regular physical and financial reports, and documenting best practices/lessons learnt. National Level Project Oversight, Backstopping and Implementation Support Oversight: A Federal Steering Committee (FSC) chaired by the Minister of MoANR or his/her designee and constituted by Heads of relevant implementing agencies and Directors of relevant Directorates within the MoANR but also of other relevant ministries and federal level implementing agencies, including from MoFEC will be established. The main responsibility of the FSC is to provide strategic guidance and oversight to project management, coordination and implementation, including approving annual work plans and budget (AWP&B). The Terms of Reference of the FSC, including the structure and membership will be included in the Project Implementation manual (PIM). Backstopping: a Federal Technical Committee (FTC) chaired by the Director of Emerging Regions Coordination Directorate of the MoANR and constituted by technical experts drawn from relevant Directorates within the MoANR but also from other relevant ministries and agencies will be established. The main responsibility of the FTC is to provide technical backstopping to the FSC, including technical review of AWP&B and implementation issues that require the attention and decision of the FSC. The Terms of Reference of the FTC, including the structure and membership will be included in the Project Implementation manual (PIM). Implementation support: The Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR) will host the project and will be the lead implementing agency (IA). It will support project implementation through a Federal Project Coordination Unit (FPCU) to be established and housed in its jurisdiction. The FPCU structure and Terms of Reference (TIOR) for each position within the FPCU will be included in the PIM. The FPCU will perform the following functions: 8 (i) Coordination of the implementation of project activities at the federal level; (ii) Ensure fiduciary and safeguards compliance, including supervision, monitoring and capacity building of agencies involved in the implementation of project activities at regional and woreda levels; (iii) Monitoring overall performance, providing regular financial and progress reports to MoANR and the World Bank, and evaluation of the project’s impact and assessment of progress towards the PDO; (iv) Liaise with other stakeholders and involve in public communication; (v) Strengthening capacity to implement and monitor project activities at all levels; and (vi) Mobilizing external technical support as necessary Directorates in the MoANR and other project implementing ministries and agencies will assist Regional Bureaus and Woreda Offices, as appropriate, in implementation of project activities and will also engage in capacity building activities. The support will include inter alia sensitization and awareness creation on the project in general but also in CDD principles, fiduciary and safeguards management, monitoring and evaluation, gender issues and facilitation skills. Capacity building initiatives around development learning and knowledge management and identification and development of livelihood opportunities, and design, construction and quality assurance of social and economic infrastructure will also be part of the support. Regional Level Project Oversight, Backstopping and Implementation Support Oversight: a Regional Steering Committee (RSC) chaired by the Head of Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BoANR) and/or Bureaus/Commissions of Pastoral Development or his/her designee and constituted by Heads of relevant (project implementing) sector offices (Bureaus), including Bureau of Finance and economic Cooperation (BoFEC) will be established. The main responsibility of the RSC is to provide strategic guidance and oversight to project management, coordination and implementation at a regional level, including approving annual work plans and budget (AWP&B) of the region. The Terms of Reference of the FSC, including the structure and membership will be included in the Project Implementation manual (PIM). Backstopping: a Regional Technical Committee (RTC) chaired by the Process Owner of relevant Process and constituted by technical experts drawn from relevant Processes within the BoANR and/or Bureau/Commission of Pastoral Development but also from Processes of other sector offices will be established. The main responsibility of the RTC is to provide technical support to the RSC, including technical review of AWP&B of the region and implementation and coordination issues that require the attention and decision of the RSC. The Terms of Reference of the RTC, including membership will be included in the Project Implementation manual (PIM). Implementation Support: The Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BoANR) and/or Bureau/Commission of Pastoral Development will support project implementation through a Regional Project Coordination Unit (RPCU) to be established and housed in its jurisdiction. The RPCU structure and Terms of Reference (TOR) for each position within the RPCU will be included in the PIM. The RPCU will perform the following functions: 9 (i) Coordination of the implementation of project activities at the regional level; (ii) Ensure fiduciary and safeguards compliance, including supervision, monitoring and capacity building of agencies involved in the implementation of project activities at regional and woreda levels; (iii) Monitoring overall performance, providing regular financial and progress reports to BoANR and FPCU; (iv) Liaise with other stakeholders and involve in public communication at regional level; (v) Strengthening capacity to implement and monitor project activities at regional and woreda levels; and (vi) Mobilizing external technical support as necessary Sector bureaus/offices at regional and zonal levels will assist woreda and kebele level offices and institutions in implementation of project activities and will also engage in capacity building activities. They will provide support to woredas in relation to all activities carried out at this level. This will include inter alia sensitization and awareness creation on CDD principles, facilitation of community level planning, establishment/strengthening of community institutions, procurement and financial management, social and environmental assessments, identification and development of livelihood opportunities, and design, construction and quality assurance of social and economic infrastructure. Woreda Level Project Oversight, Backstopping and Implementation Support Oversight: At woreda level, project oversight will be provided by the Woreda Council (WC), which will serve as woreda level Steering Committee (WSC). The WC, chaired by the Woreda Administrator (WA) or his/her Deputy comprises of heads of various sector offices, including pastoral development and/or agriculture, water, education, health, rural roads, small and micro enterprises agency, cooperative promotion, finance, and representatives of NGOs active in the woredas as well as representative from microfinance institutions, if available. The WC is ultimately responsible for all woreda level project activities, including approval of woreda level AWP&B. The WC will closely collaborate with RPCUs to deliver on Project activities, including facilitating capacity building activities. Backstopping: Technical backstopping will be provided by Woreda Technical Committee (WTC) to be established by drawing/assigning dedicated technical staff (Focal Persons (FPs)) from the various sector offices responsible for project implementation at woreda level. The main responsibility of the WTC is to facilitate local level planning, supervise implementation of sub- projects, support identification and development of livelihoods, and promote community level learning. The Terms of Reference (TOR), including membership and periodic meeting schedules of the WTC will be included in the PIM. Each woreda will also establish a Woreda Project Appraisal Team (WPAT) with membership from the various sectoral offices, including from woreda offices of finance. The WPAT is separate from the WTC (so that its members have no facilitation responsibilities under the project and can maintain a certain measure of independence). The main responsibility of the WPAT is to appraise community investments (sub-projects), particularly in terms of social and environmental issues, technical soundness, gender equity, consistency with the Woreda Development Plan, and any issues raised by the community audit committees. They will check readiness of community 10 institutions to implement sub-projects and as sub-projects are implemented, the achievement of milestones against which funds will be disbursed. Implementation Support: The Woreda Offices of Pastoral or Development or Woreda Offices of Agriculture and Natural Resources (WOoANR) will support project implementation through a Woreda Project Coordination Unit (WPCU) to be established. The WPCU structure and Terms of Reference (TOR) for each position within the WPCU will be included in the PIM. The WPCU will perform the following functions: (i) Coordination of the implementation of project activities at the woreda level; (ii) Monitoring overall performance, providing regular financial and progress reports to WOoANR and RPCU; (iii) Liaise with other stakeholders and involve in public communication at woreda level; Most of project’s implementation will be decentralized to the community level, with beneficiary communities assuming primary responsibility for executing many project activities (as discussed further below). However, a few activities will be implemented at the woreda level e.g. strategic investments and capacity building activities of sector offices; support to advisory services, including strengthening Farmers/Pastoralists Training Centers, animal health clinics, etc.; and support to the promotion of SACCOs and micro enterprise development (if available). These supports will be handled by relevant sector offices under the guidance of the WC. Community Level Project Oversight, Backstopping and Implementation Support The project will follow a Community Driven Development (CDD) approach. Communities themselves will be the true implementing agencies of the project. As such, they will identify, prioritize, appraise, implement, monitor, and evaluate sub-projects which are financed through the project. In addition, they will participate in participatory monitoring, evaluation and internal learning. Successful implementation of DRDIP’s core interventions will depend on strong community institutions. The Project will pay particular attention to strengthening existing community institutions and build on these. Where necessary, however, it will support the establishment of new community institutions. As such, a participatory assessment will be undertaken in each kebele to identify community institutions, leadership structures and groups representing specific interests (women, youth, environment, culture, etc.). The analysis will also include assessment of the way community organizations/groups are organized; i.e., their representation, how they give voice to women and the poor, transparency in their operations and internal relationships, potential for elite capture, etc. Oversight: One of the existing community institutions at kebele level is the Kebele Development Committee (KDC). The KDC, as the developmental arm of the GoE’s lowest level administration structure, will provide general implementation oversight and will liaise with and coordinate support from WPCU but also woreda sector offices or implementing agencies. The Project will not establish a parallel KDC structure for its purposes but rather provide support to strengthen existing KDCs. However, in the view of some of Project’s peculiar features, some members of the 11 community will be attached to the KDC for specific functions. For example, representatives from sub-kebele levels will join with the KDC to participate in oversight roles and responsibilities. Backstopping: Technical backstopping will be provided to community institutions by experts (Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs)) of the various woreda sector offices; Woreda Technical Committees (WTCs) as well as Woreda Project Appraisal Committees (WPACs). The support will include inter alia facilitating local level planning, supervising the implementation of sub- projects, support communities in the identification and development of livelihoods, and promote community level learning. It will also include capacity building of community institutions for better service delivery as well as social accountability. Implementation Support: Implementation of project activities at the community level will be supported by community institutions, including existing but also new institutions to be established. Such community institutions as Community Procurement Committee (CPC), Community Project Management Committee (CPMC); Social/Community Audit Committee (SAC), Community facilitation team (CFT); and others, as deemed necessary, will be established to support project implementation. The Project will provide support to strengthen these institutions. The Terms of Reference (TORs) of the various community institutions, including membership will be included in the Project Implementation manual (PIM). 2.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT The objective of the SA is to assess the impact of the proposed interventions in Ethiopia on the more vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in the participating five regions of the country stated above. The study focused on identifying the key stakeholder groups in the project area, including their socio-economic characteristics of the population; assessing the potential social impact of the project on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups; determining how relationships between stakeholder groups will affect or be affected by the project; and identifying expected social development outcomes and actions proposed to achieve those outcomes. The Social Assessment report also described the characteristics (social and economic) of the possible project affected persons/population; their opinions and perceptions on the project; the implications for project design and implementation; and provide practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified, including a communications and consultation strategy that can serve to address the risks and manage expectations and dissent, if any. 2.3. SCOPE OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT The Social Assessment has taken place in the five regional states of Ethiopia that are currently hosting refugees from neighboring countries. These are; Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella Ethiopian Somali and Tigray National Regional States. Within these five regions, a total of eleven Woredas and seventeen kebeles hosting refugees have been visited for the purpose. Regarding the selection of study woredas and specific kebeles that hosted refugees were identified by the World Bank and stipulated in the TOR prepared for the mission. Among the proposed study sites, having the discussion at planning stage, and in consideration for the allocated time frame, it has been decided to attend the stated coverage at this particular assessment. The following table, therefore, 12 represents the Regions, Woredas and Kebeles covered by the present Social Assessment for- Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in Ethiopia. Table B.1.1. Areas Covered by the Social Assessment Region Woreda Visited Kebele Abol Jewi Itang Special Pulkod Gambella Region Watgach Puchalla Gog Okedi Bambassi Wamba Benishangul-Gumuz Region Homosha Serkole/Jimma Mao and Komo Special Woreda Shoshore-Butuji Tongo-01 Tselemet Mai Ayini Hudet Tigray Region Asgede Tsimbla Hitsats Tahetay Adiyabo Mai Kullie Afar Region Asayitta Hinellie Dollo Ado Melkadida Ethiopian Somali Region Bura-Amino Hilaweyn The overall intent of the Social Assessment was geared to provide the necessary information that can be used to appraise the DRDIP. Hence, Social Assessment report, specifically describes the social and economic characteristics of the possible project affected persons/population (particularly underserved people); their opinions, perceptions and conclusions on the project; and discuss implications for project design and implementation, as well as provide practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified in due process. 2.4.METHODOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT 2.4.1. Methods of Data Collection For the purpose of undertaking the Social Assessment, Primary and Secondary techniques have been utilized. Prior to the field data collection as well as in due course of the assessment, a number of secondary materials have been reviewed in order to grasp the contemporary discourse on refugee related matters at micro and macro contexts. Besides, it aimed at designing and structuring the possible information generation and synthesis strategies for the Social Assessment. To this effect, earlier Social Assessment documents developed for the World Bank supported projects in Ethiopia, such as, GEQIP, PCDP-III, SLMP-II, WaSH, GSDP, PSNP-IV, RPLRP on one hand and DRDIP concept stage documents and associated studies have been taken for the desk review. Moreover, World Bank OPs, National and International Laws and Proclamations as well as Ethiopian government rules and regulation related to underserved peoples and refugees and similar matters have been consulted. 13 Moreover, published and unpublished documents on socio-economic characteristics of project affected population at study Woredas have been considered so as to collate and assemble both qualitative and quantitative information that are useful to the Social Assessment. On the basis of this, detailed analysis has been made to address issues such as socio-economic characteristic, vulnerable segments of the population, community consultation and participation. Through the primary data collection technique, qualitative data have been collected and appropriately analyzed to meet the objectives anticipated by the Social Assessment. Cognizant to the approach, the following complementary methods of primary data collection have been deployed under the current Social Assessment undertaking. Data Collection Issues Entertained Type and Number of Participants Method Key Informant  Obtain local community members’ rich knowledge  Community members who are Interview (KII) and experience on socioeconomic features; supposedly affected by the Project adequacy, quality, access, affordability of social  Government officials and/or experts service giving infrastructures; natural resource use at Regional, Woreda and Kebele and management, livelihood activities, vulnerable levels who are responsible to, and groups, land issues, project sustainability issues, concerned with, refugees hosting conflict redress mechanisms, their relation and communities in the study areas. experience with refugees, their culture and other relevant and related issues have been dealt.  Assess the type and system of support mechanisms directed towards host communities; identify the type and adequacy of social services as well as assess institutional capacity to effectively implement the project; identify vulnerable groups, use of grievance redress mechanisms; land acquisition; etc. Focus Group  Assess most important issues such as the major  Those community members who are Discussion (FGD) challenges and concerns in relation to hosting directly and indirectly be affected by refugees; interest and priority areas of the the project, including community community; voluntary land donation, consultation elders, bureau/department heads, process, community participation, etc. frontline experts/ staffs, etc. were participated.  Women and men groups, youths, government staffs Field Observation  With the view to acquire clear understanding of the social and environmental settings/ situations; status and conditions of existing social service giving infrastructures such as schools, water points, health institutions, etc. Public Consultation  Public consultations have taken place in each of the  Public consultations have been held kebele representative community groups with the with men and women mixed in study aim to solicit their perception and opinions related areas other than Afar and Ethiopian to refugees and more importantly of the approach Somali that has been conducted in and components of DRDIP. Their views and separate gender groups/ gender opinions on each of the project components as well disaggregate consultation due to the as the overall contribution of the project to their fact that in such communities life have been discussed. cultural norms constrained women to express their views openly in the presence of male members. 14 2.4.2. Data Collection Tools All interviews have been conducted using semi-structured questionnaires. Semi-structured guiding questions and observation checklists have been prepared and utilized to collect relevant information and ease the discussions and interviewing processes (see Annex 1, 2 and 3). In addition, digital photo camera has been used to supplement information intact to integrated analysis and writing up of the report. This has been cautiously followed the procedure in acquiring informants’ prior consent and approval. 3. REVIEW OF LEGAL FRAMEWORKS RELATED TO REFUGEES AND VULNERABLE/ UNDERSERVED GROUPS 3.1.National Laws and Regulations in Relation to Refugees Ethiopia is party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, its 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa; and Ethiopia is a signatory to other international and regional human rights conventions. Refugee Proclamation No. 409/2004 outlines Ethiopia's legal framework for refugees and respects key protection principles. Ethiopia has enacted refugee Proclamation No. 409/2004 that shall be implemented with no-discrimination as to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The proclamation is a derivative of the various international and regional refugee conventions, protocol and adapted to the objective realities of the country. It is designed with a commitment for safe reception, promote peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and return refugee when conditions in countries of origin is safe. The proclamation promotes relationship between refugees hosting communities, and peoples of neighboring countries. As already indicated above, Ethiopia hosted the largest refugee population in Africa. The majority of these refugees mainly from neighboring countries are camped in five regional States of the country, holding 84% of the refugees registered in Ethiopia. This is mainly resulted from their proximity to fragile and conflict-affected states of Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. The Social Assessment for the DRDIP covers regions, Woredas and Kebeles/ Communities hosting refugees across Ethiopia. With the exception of Tigray Regional State, the other locations are categorized by the Ethiopian Government as Emerging/ Developing States; Afar, Benishangul- Gumuz, Gambella and Somali Regional States. As to common features of the refugee hosting areas are known by harsh weather conditions, poor infrastructure, extremely low capacity, high level of poverty and very poor development indicators. The arid environment in Afar and Somali regions and the small and scattered pastoralist populations make it more challenging to provide services. The presence of refugees puts strains on the already weak public services and economic opportunities, jeopardizing the resilience of communities hosting the refugees. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of December 1994 contains a clearly stated provision concerning the status of international instruments in Ethiopia. Article 9 sub 4 of The FDRE Constitution states: “International agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the laws of the country ". According to the constitution, therefore, the refugee 15 conventions that Ethiopia has ratified or a signatory have become an integral part of the laws of the land. In which case whatever right is contained in the instruments This section is intends to present the Country’s legal and institutional framework in respect to refugee affairs as well as the general implication on effects on the population who have been historically denied equal access to socioeconomic and political rights and privileges living in the developing regions where the project intends to intervene. Besides, the World Bank Safeguard Operational Policies and Procedures, OP/BP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples, referred in Ethiopia as Underserved and Vulnerable Groups will be entertained in brief in to this section as well. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia of December 1994 contains a clearly stated provision concerning the status of international instruments in Ethiopia. Article 9 sub 4 of The FDRE Constitution states: “International agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the laws of the country ". According to the constitution, therefore, the refugee conventions that Ethiopia has ratified or a signatory have become an integral part of the laws of the land. In which case whatever right is contained in the instruments could be invoked before the judicial bodies of the state by a refugee who may be aggrieved due to an act or omission of one or the other administrative body or person. Nevertheless, in order for this to be streamlined, it is necessary that procedural rules are established to clarify matters and create awareness to the refugees in the exercise of their rights and the public at large. The refugee-specific law of Ethiopia, (Refugee ProclamationNo.409/2004) mainly focuses in regulating the asylum and refugee status determination process and setting up national refugee agency, in this case, the Administration for Refugee and Returnee Affairs (ARRA) which is part of the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority (SIRA) is responsible in dealing with refugees issues. Article 21 of the Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation explains the Rights and Obligations of Recognized Refugees: 4. Every recognized refugee shall be: f. Permitted to remain within Ethiopia in accordance with the provision of this Proclamation; g. Issued with identity card attesting to his refugee status; h. Issued with a travel document for the purpose of traveling outside Ethiopia in accordance with international agreement; i. Entitled to other rights and be subject to the duties contained in the Refugee Convention and the AU Refugee Convention; j. Except to the extent that the provisions of any other law may be inconsistent with the purposes of this Proclamation, be subject to the laws in force within Ethiopia; and 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article (1) (d) of this Article, the Head of the Authority may designate places and areas in Ethiopia within which recognized refugees, persons who have applied for recognition as refugees, and family members thereof shall live, provided that the areas designated shall be located at a reasonable distance from the border of their country of origin or of former habitual residence. 16 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article (1) (d) of this Article, Every recognized, refugee, and family members thereof shall, in respect to wage earning employment and education, be entitled to the same rights and be subjected to the same restrictions as are conferred or imposed generally by the relevant laws on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. Article 22 of the proclamation, on the other hand, states, Special Protection to Vulnerable Groups; The Authority shall take measures to ensure the protection of women refugees, refugee children elderly refugees and People With Disability (PWD) who needs special protection. The development-related provisions of the Ethiopian refugee law in respect to property rights, freedom of movement, right to work, and access to services. It is believed worth to discuss this aspect, as there observed, practical implications to the conditions of refugees and host communities vis-a-vis with or without encoding the acts below in to the Ethiopian proclamation and related laws and regulations. Therefore, attempted to be examined in association with the findings of the present Social Assessment with respect to Articles 17, 18, 21and 22 of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Property Rights The refugee law of Ethiopia makes no mention of the property rights of refugees. Such a framework may stipulate that at the time of registration of the particulars of a refugee, the particulars of all movable properties brought by the refugee into the host country will be registered so that they will be permitted to take them upon return to his/her country of origin. While it could prohibits the user right of land and immovable property. The act may not explicitly deal with the right of the refugees to own movable property while they are in displacement, although it could be implied that refugees can own moveable property provided they do not take it with them when leaving the country hosting them to return to their own or another asylum country. On the other hand, such a framework may also provide for the right to transfer assets held and declared by a refugee at the time of entry, including those lawfully acquired at time of being a recognized refugee. Freedom of Movement Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and an indispensable condition for the development of a person. It is also an essential element in finding durable solutions to displacement. Freedom of movement is often a precondition for other development-related rights, including rights to health, shelter, food, water, education, employment and property restoration. Article 26 of the 1951 convention deals with the freedom of movement of refugees; it requires member states to provide refugees with the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Ethiopia’s domestic refugee legislation, the 2004 Refugee Proclamation, does not provide for freedom of movement in a manner provided overtly. However, Article 21 gives the head of the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority the power to designate places and areas within which refugees and asylum seekers live. Until 2009, Ethiopia enforced a strict policy of encampment for all refugees with the exceptions of those who demonstrated reasons for 17 staying out of camps, such as on medical, protection, and humanitarian grounds. Freedom of movement from the camps is subject to the grant of exit permits, issued by government officials in the camp. Since 2009, Ethiopia introduced a new policy known as the “Out of Camp Policy,” which currently benefits refugee students enrolled in the Ethiopian Universities. Ethiopia has also adopted an urban policy for vulnerable refugees in order to respond to their specific protection and/or medical needs that cannot be properly addressed in a camp setting. Looking at these conditions, refugees in most of the visited areas, such as in Asayita, Afar and the three Woredas in Tigray as well as in Benishangul-Gumuz, though Ethiopian Authorities made a curfew for exit and entry to the camps, loosely respected by the refugees. Key informants under discussions for the Social Assessment noted that, safety and security issues are desisted due to refugees conditions against the regulation set by the authorities. In many instances of the discussions, participants of the assessment commends the restricted timeframe modality to be exercised. Right to Work Forced displacement affects the ability of the displaced to independently pursue livelihoods and economic activities. However, steps can be taken to ensure that displaced persons do not fall into long-term dependency on outside aid during displacement and to facilitate their economic integration or reintegration into society. Article 17 of the 1951 convention requires States to accord to refugees the most favorable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances, as regards the right to engage in wage earning employment. With regard to self-employment, however, as stated in Article 18, contracting states are required to treat refugees as favorably as possible and, in any event, not less favorably than aliens generally in the same circumstances. In this regard, Ethiopia, effectively limit the refugees’ right to work by imposing the same restrictions and conditions applicable to aliens. Article 21 of the 2004 Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation provides that refugees and their families are entitled to the same rights and can be subjected to the same restrictions imposed generally on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. However, FGDs and KII of this assessment prevailed, regardless of the legal provision of the country, that refugees in visited areas are actively involved in the informal economic activities, (wage for host communities in farming/ harvesting, livestock rearing for market, handicrafts/ wood work and production of furniture in particular to Kunama Eritrean refugees, commerce such as butcheries, petty trading, engage in gainful employment/ wage labour at and around the camp sites, etc.). The unstructured involvements of these refuges in to business engagements seem to some extent compete and compel the local employment opportunities. This has attributed as a source of conflict, as evidently manifested in Jewi Kebele of Abol/ Gambella Zuria Woreda: There are some youths organized and registered/ licensed by the woreda for loading and unloading materials/stuff coming for the refugees. However, after a while the refugees themselves started doing the loading and unloading by their own. This brought a conflict between the host community and the refugees, in due course of time, ARRA, Woreda offices and Kebele administration representatives both from refugees and host community (5 from each party) sit and discuss the issue and eventually decided in favor of the refugees. Youths from the host community are not happy of the decision, may be a source of conflict again in the future. 18 Moreover, Key Informants from Government offices, in visited sites condemned the situation where refugees engaged in business activities utilizing their tax free privilege that clearly affects the fair play ground with the local traders in the respective areas. In sum, such a condition discloses the existing practice in such visited sites seem to be against the Ethiopian legal framework. Provision of Services Including Education, Health and Housing The 1951 Convention also protects other rights of refugees, such as the rights to education, access to justice, employment and other fundamental freedoms and privileges similarly enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties. Access to basic services, including health and education, is a fundamental human right. The 1951 convention has provisions dealing with service delivery. Article 21 of the 1951 convention deals with housing and provides that refugees shall receive treatment as favorable as possible and, in any event, not less favorably than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Article 22 of the 1951 convention deals with refugees’ right to public education; Ethiopia, in this regard, made reservations to Articles 22 (public education) and Article 17, treating these articles as recommendations rather than obligations. However, as observed in the field Social Assessment, in most of the sites, Ethiopia prevailed in meeting the services for refugees either within their own camps or in many occasions as to this assessment observed, in sharing the education service together with children of the host communities in the public education facilities. To some degree, affects the school class ratio standard of the hosted communities, mostly pronounced by Afar FGD with government officials. This is due to the fact that such services are historically in deficit to most of the developing regions where majority of the refugees in Ethiopia are located. With regard to primary education, Article 22 (1) requires host countries to accord refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals. The convention sets a different standard for non-primary education. States shall accord treatment as favorably as possible to refugees, and, in any event, not less favorably than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. This standard is also applicable to access to studies, the recognition of foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees, and the award of scholarships. The 2004 Ethiopian Refugee Proclamation has a clear provision in dealing with the delivery of services to refugees. Article 21 of the proclamation stipulates that refugees will be entitled to the same rights and be subjected to the same restrictions imposed on persons who are not citizens of Ethiopia. 19 3.2.Legal and institutional framework related to underserved and vulnerable groups The Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the presence of different socio-cultural groups, including historically disadvantaged and underserved communities, pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and minorities as well as their rights to socioeconomic equity and justice. Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the rights of groups identified as “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples”. They are defined 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 identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” This represents some 75 out of the 80 groups who are members of the House of Federation, which is the second chamber of the Ethiopian legislature. The Constitution recognizes the rights of these Nations, Nationalities and Peoples to: self- determination, including 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 government in the territory that they inhabit and equitable representation in state and Federal governments. As noted above, the majority of the DRDIP prospective target communities belong to these population groups. The Constitution also recognizes another group called “national minorities”. Article 54(1) 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’. Owing to their limited access to socioeconomic development and underserved status over the decades, the Ethiopian government has designated four of the country’s regions, namely: Afar, Benishangul-Gumz, Gambella and Ethiopia Somali as Developing Regional States (DRS). In this respect, Article 89(2) of the Ethiopian Constitution stipulates: ‘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’. Article 89(4) in particular states: ‘Nations, Nationalities and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development shall receive special assistance. In connection with institutional framework designed to ensure equity between regions, the government has set up the Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFAPD). The responsibilities of this Ministry include promoting equitable development, with emphasis on delivering special support to the developing regions. The main purpose of the special support is to address the inequalities that have existed between the regions over the decades, thereby hastening equitable growth and development. Federal Special Support Board, which consists of relevant sector ministries including the MoANR, was reorganized in March 2011. The MoFA acts as Vice Chair and secretariat of the Board. A Technical Committee (TC) composed of sector Ministries constituting the Board were also set up under the MoFA to monitor and report the implementation of special support plans. As its main aim, the Board coordinates the affirmative support provided to the developing regions by the different organs of the federal government, and ensures the effectiveness of the implementation process. 20 In addition, Equitable Development Directorate General has been set up within the MoFA, with Directorates put in place to operate under it for the respective developing regions. Among many other activities, the Directorate General coordinates and directs case teams to collect, organize and analyze data in relation to the gaps in capacity building, social and economic development, good governance, gender and environmental development in the regions in need of special support. In view of these, with the exception of Tigray, all of the regions where DRDIP will be implemented are the Developing Regional States, namely Afar, Benishangul-Gumz, Gambella and Somali regions and selected Woredas with in. Among the potential project beneficiaries in these Woredas are the population groups such as Agnuwaha, Nuer, Opo and Komo from Gambella Region, Berta, Gumuz, Mao and Komo from Benishangul-Gumuz as well as Kunama and Saho from Tigray Region, are the ethnic groups to be affected by the project. 3.3.Ethiopian Legislation and World Bank Policies on Social Impacts of Projects OP/BP 4.10: Indigenous Peoples The objective of this policy is to ensure that (i) the development processes foster full respect for the dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness of indigenous peoples; (ii) adverse effects during the development process are avoided, or if not feasible, minimized, mitigated or compensated; and (iii) indigenous peoples receive culturally appropriate and gender and intergenerational inclusive social and economic benefits. The Constitution takes a human rights approach to the environment; "a clean and healthy environment is a right of every Ethiopian". This may be understood as encompassing both biophysical and human/social aspects in the "environment". However, beyond these general principles, the laws (proclamations) and the technical guidelines available provide little guidance on what measures to take regarding the social impacts of projects and how to assess their impacts. Therefore, OP/BP 4.10, OP/BP 4.11, and OP4.12 Bank policies guide the preparation and complement this Social Assessment of DRDIP. 21 4. KEY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 4.1.Socio-demographic features of the population under study As indicated above, the Social Assessment covers five regions and eleven Woredas. These areas give a living space for a variety of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples. The following section is devoted to present the main social, physical, economic and demographic features of the regions and respective Woredas visited for the purpose of this Social Assessment. 4.1.1.GAMBELLA PEOPLES REGIONAL STATE The Gambella Peoples National Regional State Oppo and Komo (GPNRS) is one of the nine 0.4% People from Mejenger Federal States of Ethiopia 4% other parts of that are provided with power Agnuwaha Ethiopia of autonomy under the 21% (Degegna) 28% Federal Government of Ethiopia. The region is Nuer located in the southwestern 47% part of the country bordering Oromia Regional state in the East, and SNNPRS in the Underserved People and Other Groups Living in Gambella South East. Jonglei and Regional State Upper Nile State of South Sudan are its most Western frontiers borders. The region has a land area of 34,063 km2. As to the 2007 census from Central Statistics Authority of Ethiopia, the total population of the region is known to be 358,511; male constitute 186,532 and female 171,951. From this population, 25.4% are living in urban areas while the remaining 74.6% found in rural areas. Gambella is also home for people who came from different parts of Ethiopia at various times. Their ethnic composition include, Oromo, Amhara, Tigray and SNNP; who are referred by the generic term “Degegna” (Highlanders in a local maxim), in reference to their place of origin that is the highland regions of the country. Since the 1980s, Gambella has witnessed a huge influx of diverse ethnic groups from the central/highland parts of the country. People from this category live in settlement areas in Abobo, Gambella and Itang Woredas practicing sedentary agriculture. However, many highlanders reside in town as businessmen and employees (CSA, 2007). The main ethnic groups in the region are the Nuer (46.66%), Agnuwaha (21.16%), Amhara (8.42%), Kafficho (5.04%), Oromo (4.83%), Majanger (4%), Shakacho (2.27%), Kambata (1.44%), Tigrean (1.32%) and others (4.86%).The underserved groups/nationalities are known to be the Nuer, Agnuwaha, Mejenger, Oppo and Komo. The graph-Pie chart shows population distribution of the underserved people and other inhabitants of Gambella, as per the 2007 Census by CSA, (For visual ease and detail analysis). The common produced cereals in the region are maize and sorghum, widely grown by Agnuwaha people along the Baro, Gilo and Akobo rivers. Sesame, ground nut, rice, cotton as well as different 22 fruits and vegetables are also produced in the region. As the region is generally not cereal self- sufficient, alternative sources such as fishing are important sources of food. The GPNRS has a substantial and varied natural resource base. It has suitable agricultural land and a considerable number of livestock, which is not yet utilized to the expected level. The region also has vast water resources like rivers (Baro, Alwero, Akobo and Gilo rivers, which flow throughout the year), lakes and streams. Various types of minerals that could be used for industrial and construction purposes, gold and petroleum are also found in the region. Gambella National Park, which covers approximately 5061 square kilometers or 19.6% of the region‘s territory is the other natural resource base for the region. Woredas, some are refugee hosting communities and proposed for DRDIP, such as Akobo, Abobo, Abol, Gog, Jor and Itang Special Woreda are known to be among the bordering positions for the National Park. Some of the refugee camps are also at close vicinity to this park, as reported by Deputy Head of Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Gambella Region. The Gambella Peoples National Regional State is characterized by different climatic features; divided into three agro-climatic zones namely, Woina-dega, Kolla and Bereha. Godere and part of Dimma woredas falls in Woina-dega zones while Gambella town, Abol, Abobo, Itang and Gog Woredas falls in Kolla zone. Jor, Lare, Jikawo and Akobo Woredas are found in the Bereha climatic zones. The region is currently divided into three administrative zones, eleven Woredas, one special Woreda and one town administration. The three zones are the Agnuak zone the Nuer zone and Mejenger zone. The special Woreda goes to Itang Woreda because of its mingled settlement. Itang woreda is inhabited by the Nuer and Agnuwaha communities. There are five refugee camps in four Woredas of Gambella Regional State hosting refugees mainly from Sudan and South Sudan. Agnuwaha Zone Nuer Zone Mejenger Zone Gambella Zuria (Abol) Lare Godere Abobo Jikawo Mengeshi Gog Wanthoa Jor Akobo Dimma 23 Distinct Characteristics of the Underserved Nationalities in Gambella Region The Nuer The Nuer people are largely livestock dependent, though they sometimes resort to small farming, hunting and fishing. Most of the Nuer population reside along the Ethio-South Sudanese border (Lare, Akobo and Jikawo Woredas), where it is too dry for rain fed agriculture. Therefore, livestock constitutes the primary source of income. Their language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan African language family like their neighbors the Agnuwahas. They are mostly found in Lare, Akobo, Jikawo Woredas and parts of Itang Special Woreda in the Gambella Regional State. During rainy seasons, Akobo and Jikawo become flooded and the people therefore migrate to the highlands with their cattle until the river banks recede. The Nuers are the majority group, representing 46.7% of the population of Gambella Region (CSA, 2007). The Nuer living pattern changes according to the seasons of the year. As the rivers flood, the people have to move farther back onto higher ground, where women cultivate millet and maize while the men herd the cattle nearby. In the dry season, the younger men take the cattle herds closer to the receding rivers. Cooperative extended family groups live around communal cattle camps. Parallel to territorial divisions are clan lineages descended through the male line from a single ancestor. These lineages are significant in the control and distribution of resources, and tend to coalesce with the territorial sections. Marriages must be outside one's own clan and are made legal by the payment of cattle by the man's clan to the woman's clan, shared among various persons in the clan. The Nuer are egalitarian people with no single individual holding power, but rather political authority is loosely bestowed up on informal council of married men. The Nuers have indigenous institution called “Lowok” through which they help one another and the outsiders. Lowok is an indigenous based Nuer self-help institution by which the poor, elderly people, women, orphans and helpless strangers are helped. That is, those households that are relatively economically better take the poor and the week category of people to their home and provide care as deemed necessary. The Agnuwaha The Agnuwahas are Nilotic people who inhabit the Gambela region and the land across the Ethio- South Sudan. Most of the Agnuwahas live in the Southwestern part of Ethiopia, Gambella Region, whereas a minority of them live in South Sudan mainly in areas adjacent to the border with Gambella Region. They are mainly crop (sorghum and maize) dependent people with fishing in the Baro and Akobo Rivers mainly in the dry season and hunting are used as their supplementary dietary and income sources. Recession riverside agriculture is a common practice by Agnuwaha people along the Baro, Gilo and Akobo rivers. The Agnuwahas are polygamous society and favor living in extended family groups in settlements established here and there in isolated pockets on the banks of the Baro River, in front of their agricultural fields. A grass-roofed main hut for sleeping, a smaller version for grain storage and chicken coops comprise typical Agnuwaha family holdings. The Agnuwaha worship ‘Ochudho’. For them, Ochudho or god of the river is responsible for the origin of their kings and chiefs. Like 24 many other Nilotic people, Agnuwahas have a complicated age-system in which different generation groups bear names, which signify major happenings in their past. The Agnuwaha constitute around 21.2% of the total population of the region and live along the river banks. Most of the Agnuak are found in Abobo, Dimma and Gog woredas The Mejenger The other underserved group accounting for the third largest in Gambella; belonging to the Nilo- Saharan linguistic group, majority of the Majanger live in Majanger Zone Godore and Mengeshi Woreda. The Majanger also live in in some pocket areas of Gambella Zuria/ Abol and Abobo Woredas though numerically in small size. Shifting cultivation is still widely practiced among the Majanger in Gambella Zuria Woreda. They slash and burn the forest and cultivate it for two to three years then leave it for another forest site to do the same. What is important is that this mechanism does not affect the forest as they slash only the leaves of the wood that the forest regenerates itself within short time after they leave cultivation of that forestland. Other livelihood activities include beekeeping, especially wild bee in the forest and hunting and gathering, with their lifestyle highly attached to the forest and forest products. They Majangers represent 4% of the total population in the Gambella region. They have no political leaders, the only individuals of any authority being ritual leaders whose influence is restricted. Domestic groups tend to farm plots adjacent to those of friends or kin, but the settlements remain small and constantly change in composition (as well as in location). In resource management and land use, the Majanger have an indigenous institution called “Jung”. They also have a traditional forestland-related dispute settlement mechanisms, which they call “Guten” and it comprises elders and religious leaders. The Majanger have also an indigenous self-help association called “Kokony”. According to “Kokony”, the poor can be helped as he/she has the rights to use the resources of the rich. There is no strong concept of private ownership among the Majanger. The same resource can be used by multiple users. Thus, bundle of rights concept of property rights do work for the Majanger. What governs the social and economic relationships of the Majanger is sharing and reciprocity. Oppo and Komo Oppo and Komo represent minority ethnic groups in Gambella Gegional State; they represent 0.4% of the total population in the region (Population and Housing Census, 2007). According to the 2007 census, the Oppo is numbered less than 1,000 and lives in Itang Special Woreda and few also reside in Akobo and Jikaw Woredas. The other group Komo, with a population of 8,000 live dispersed in Gambella Zuria/ Abol Wereda. Abol (Gambella Zuria) Woreda Abol (Gambella Zuria) is one of the woredas in the Gambella Region that is Part of the Agnuwaha Zone. The Woreda is bordered on the south by Abobo Woreda, on the west by Itang special woreda, and on the north and east by the Oromia National Regional State. Gambella, which is the capital of the Region, is surrounded by this Woreda. 25 Elevations in the Woreda range from 400 to 600 meters above sea level; the high point is Mount Mesengo den Ch'aka. Rivers include the Baro. According to the Atlas of the Ethiopian Rural Economy published by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), around 20% of the Woreda is forest. A notable landmark is the Gambella National Park, which covers the Woreda south of the Baro and west of the Gambella - Fugnido road. Gambela Zuria Woreda’s economy is predominantly agriculture. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the CSA, this Woreda has a total population of 10,590, of whom 5,069 are men and 5,521 women; with an area of 3,118.79 square kilometers; with population density of 3.40, which is less than the Zone average of 4.83 persons per square kilometer. While 1,096 or 10.35% are urban inhabitants, a further 264 or 2.49% are pastoralists. A total of 2,595 households were counted in this Woreda, which results in an average of 4.1 persons to a household, and 2,528 housing units. In respect to religion, the majority of the inhabitants were Protestants, with 75.72% of the population, while 9.28% of the population practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, 5.19% were Catholic, 1.79% practiced traditional religions and 1 .48% were Muslim. The five largest ethnic groups of Gambella Woreda were the Agnuwaha (48.03%), the Oromo (20.13%), the Amhara (9.89%), the Nuer (7.83%), and the Tigray (4.65%); all other ethnic groups made up 9.47% of the population. Agnuwaha is spoken as a first language by 48.1 5%, 20.21% speak Oromiffa, 10.77% Amharic, 7.78% Nuer and 4.42% speak Tigrigna; the remaining 8.67% spoke other languages. Itang Special Woreda Itang is one of the Woredas in the Gambela Region. The Woreda is not part of any Zone in the Gambella Region; it is considered a Special Woreda, an administrative subdivision which is similar to an autonomous area. It is bordered on the south and southeast by the Agnuwaha Zone, on the west by the Nuer Zone, on the northwest by South Sudan, and on the north by the Oromia Region; part of the southern boundary is defined by the Alwero River. The terrain is mostly flat; the altitude of this Woreda ranges from 350 to 480 meters above sea level; rivers include the Baro, which the Alwero is a tributary to it. According to the Atlas of the Ethiopian Rural Economy published by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), 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 is one of the highly affected Wordas by floods. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this 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. Itang has a population density of 16.31. While 5,958 or 16.7% are urban inhabitants, a further 278 or 0.78% are pastoralists. A total of 6,578 households were counted in this woreda, which results in an average of 5.4 persons to a household, and 6,248 housing units. The main ethnicities of this Zone are the Nuer (63.96%), Agnuwaha (25.17%), and foreigners from Sudan (4.62%), Shita (2.66%), and all other ethnic groups 3.59%. The major languages spoken in 26 this Woreda include Nuer (68.72%) and Agnuwaha (25.75%). The religion with the largest number of believers is Protestant with 81 .63% of the population, while other groups with sizable followings are traditional beliefs (7.54%), Orthodox Christian 6.27%, and Roman Catholic 2.62%. The two largest ethnic groups in Itang Special Woreda are the Nuer (47.74%) and the Agnuwaha (46.68%); all other ethnic groups made up 5.58% of the population. Nuer is spoken as a first language by 47.74% and 46.73% speak Agnuwaha; the remaining 5.53% spoke other languages. Gog Woreda Gog is one of the Woredas in the Gambella Region. Part of the Agnuwaha Zone, Gog is bordered on the south by Dimma Woreda, on the southwest by the Akobo River which separates it from South Sudan, on the west by Jor Woreda, and on the north by Abobo Woreda. The major town in Gog is Fugnido. The terrain of Gog is predominantly flat, with the elevation ranging between 400 to 600 meters above sea level; high points include Mount Masango (552 meters). Major bodies of water in this Woreda include the Gilo River and Lake Tata. According to the Atlas of the Ethiopian Rural Economy published by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), around 30% of the woreda is forest. A notable landmark is the Gambella National Park, which occupies the land west of the Fugnido - Gambella road. The economy of Gog is predominately agricultural. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this Woreda has a total population of 16,836, of whom 7,751 are men and 9,085 women; with an area of 3,250.25 square kilometers, Gog has a population density of 5.18, which is greater than the Zone average of 4.83 persons per square kilometer. Reportedly 5,617 or 33.36% are urban inhabitants. A total of 3,633 households were counted in this Woreda, which results in an average of 4.6 persons to a household, and 3,450 housing units. The majority of the inhabitants followed the Protestant religion with 77.52% of the population, while 15.08% of the population practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, 2.6% were Catholic, and 1.82% practiced traditional religions. The four largest ethnic groups in Gog Woreda were the Agnuwaha (95.59%), the Amhara (1.17%), the Oromo (1.11%), and the Mezhenger (1.01%); all other ethnic groups made up 1.13% of the population. Agnuwaha is spoken as a first language by 95.67%, 1.16% Oromiffa, 1.09% Amharic and 1.01% speak Majang; the remaining 1.11% spoke all other languages. The largest religion category of the inhabitants said they were Protestant, with 39.58% of the population, while 17.29% Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, 4.96% practiced traditional religions and 4.95% were Catholic. 27 4.1.2.BENISHANGUL-GUMUZ NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE The Benishangul-Gumuz Region is located in the Western part of Ethiopia. The Amhara, Oromia and Gambella Regional States are bordering the region in the north, east and south respectively. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), the Benishangul-Gumuz Region has a total population of 784,345, consisting of 398,655 men and 385,690 women. 93.22% of the population inhabits in the rural parts of the region. With an estimated area of 50,380 square kilometers, this Region has an estimated density of 15.91 people per square kilometer. For the entire region 174,445 households were counted, which results in an average for the region of 4.5 persons to a household, with urban households having on average 3.6 and rural households 4.7 people. The underserved population of Benishangul-Gumuz consists of 5 ethnic groups, Berta (25.9%), Gumuz (21.1%), Shinasha (7.5%), Mao (1.8%) and Komo (0.96%). Other groups include Amhara (21.3%), Oromo (13.3%), and Agaw-Awi (4.2%). Main languages are the Berta (25.1 5%), Amharic (22.46%), Gumuz (20.59%), Oromo (17.69%), Shinasha (4.58%) and Awngi (4.01 %). Concerning religion, 45.4% of the population were Muslim, 33.3% were Orthodox Christians, 13.53% were Protestant, Catholic Christian (0.6%) and 7.09% practiced traditional beliefs. Berta is spoken in the Sherkole Woreda, Gumuz is spoken along the western boundary of Guba and Dangur Woredas and in the Sirba Abbay woreda, and the Shinasha are a displaced people of Kaffa scattered across Welega and Gojam. The Berta, Gumuz and Shinasha, are the underserved people who tend to have more in common with the people of neighboring Sudan, while the Amhara and Tigrayans, who are known as “Habesha” (highlanders), are recent arrivals, who began to settle in the region during the Derg regime. Over 60% of this Region is covered with forest, including bamboo, eucalyptus and rubber trees, incense and gum forests. However, due to increased population these natural resources of the region have faced to a widespread destruction. The region is sub-divided into 3 administrative zones, (Asosa, Kamashi and Metekel), eighteen Woredas People from Underserved People and Other Groups Living in and two Special Woreda other parts Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State (Mao and Komo and Pawe of Ethiopia Special Woredas). (Habesha) Berta, 25.9% 38.8% The region is endowed with rich natural resources, which Komo, include fertile land, water, 0.96% forest, minerals, and fish. Abay River and most of its Gumuz, Mao, 1.8% Shinasha, major tributaries flow across 21.1% 7.5% the region that can be used for irrigation. Temperature in the region is generally suitable for crop production, but agricultural production remains below subsistence level due mainly to lack of human resource and infrastructure. 28 Benishangul- Gumuz Regional State hosts refugees from neighboring countries in three Woredas and four refugee camps. Asossa Zone Kamashi Zone Metekel Zone Asossa Agato Mite Bulen Bambassi Belo Jegonfoy Dangur Homesha Kamashi Dibate Kormuk Sirba Abbay Guba Menge Yeso Mandura Oda Godere Wenbera Sherkole Distinct Characteristics of the Underserved Nationalities in Benishangul-Gumuz Region Berta The Berta is an ethnic group living along the border of South Sudan and Ethiopia. They speak a Nilo-Saharan language that is not related to those of their Nilo-Saharan neighbors (Gumuz, Uduk). Their total Ethiopian population is about 183,000 people. Their origins are to be found in eastern Sudan, in the area of the former Funj sultanate of Sinnar (1521-1804). During the 16th or 17th century, they migrated to western Ethiopia, in the area of the modern Benishangul-Gumuz Region. Their arrival in Ethiopia was marked by strong territorial conflict among the diverse Berta communities. For this reason, and for protecting themselves from slave raids coming from Sudan, the Berta decided to establish their villages in naturally-defended hills and mountains, amidst rocky outcrops. Due to this harsh topography, houses and granaries were raised over stone pillars. After conflicts and raids receded during the 20th century, the Berta people moved to the valleys, where their villages are located today. After several centuries of Arab Sudanese influence, the Berta became mostly Muslim and many speak fluent Arabic. The Berta people are slash-and-burn agriculturalists. Their staple food is sorghum, with which they make porridge in ceramic vessels. When somebody wants to build a house or cultivate a field, he calls his neighbors for help and provides beer and food. Gumuz Metekel Zone comprises six Woredas: Bulen, Dangur, Wombera, Dibate, Guba, and Mandura. Originally, most of Metekel was occupied by the Gumz people, a cultural group that belongs to the Nilo-Saharan language family. The Gumz grow a variety of crops such as cereals, oil seeds, legumes and root crops. The most commonly grown cereals include finger millet, sorghum and maize. Finger millet and sorghum are staple crops. Sesame and niger seed are oil seeds often used 29 as cash crops. Depending on the type of soil, plots are cultivated for a few years (often 3-4) and then allowed to lie fallow for several years (often 5-7 years) for the restoration of soil fertility. During this period, the Gumz move to other places to practice shifting cultivation there. In times of food shortage, the Gumz resort to the more ancient practices of hunting, fishing, and gathering. They also engage in honey collection (apiculture). The land tenure system of the Gumz has been a ‘controlled access’ system, combining individual possession with communal ownership. Members of the society enjoy equal access to communally owned land, such as cultivable virgin lands, forested areas, grazing land, and riverbanks as a matter of right. Thus, accordingly, these resources are owned by the Gumz society in general. Gumz settlements are comprised of dwellings clustered together, with pastureland outlying the clustered villages and farmland situated away from residences. In most cases, settlements are compact and the number of households may range from 20 to 100. The nuclear family, consisting of married couples and their children, constitutes the basic unit of Gumz family. Shinasha The Shinasha are Omotic language speaking group who are living in Metekel administrative Zone of Benishangul-Gumz region. They are part of the Gonga population, which in earlier years used to live on both sides of the Abay River. Historically, pressure from the Christian kingdom and the Oromo expansion forced many Shinasha of the current administrative zones of Gojam and Welega to move to the lowland parts of Metekel in general and Wombera in particular. The Shinasha have been called by different names of Boro, Dangabo, Sinicho and Gonga. Shinasha is their widely known name mainly by outsiders, and it is a non-derogatory Amharic designation. Nevertheless, the people prefer to call themselves Baro, which is a recent usage. They have their own cultural identity and language called Borenona’a. The Borenona’a is widely spoken by those Shinasha who inhabit the lowland part and those who have less interaction with others. In Wombera, since there are strong historical relations and cultural adaptations with the Oromo. They practice the ‘gada’ system (a generation-based traditional system of local governance among many Oromo groups in Ethiopia) and mostly speak Afan Oromo language. They have also adopted many cultural traits from both the Amhara and the Agaw. They intermarry with others, mainly with the Oromo and the Amhara. The main economic activity of the Shinasha is agriculture. They produce crops like sorghum, millet, corn, pumpkins and cotton. In addition, they rear animals (cattle, sheep and goats) to satisfy their food requirements and for market purpose. A small number of the Shinasha supplement their diet by hunting wild animals and gathering fruits and roots. They overcome hardship by consuming root crops such as godarre, anchote and dinicha, which are deliberately left to stay in the soil even after their maturation time to be used in times of depletion of cereal crops at home. The Shinasha have indigenous land and resource based dispute handling institution called “Nemo”, which has four hierarchical structures. The lowest level is Bura at which minor cases are handled by one elder. The next is Nemma, two elders deal with new cases or appeal cases from Bura. The third is Terra/Tsera, a setting chaired by three elders dealing particularly appeal cases from other lower levels of the Nemo. The last and the highest authority in Nemo judicial structure is Falla. 30 Appeal cases from the lower three levels of Nemo whereby cases which are serious by their existence such as homicide are dealt at Falla to get final resolution. The Mao-Komo Mao and Komo are two minority groups speaking Nilo-Sahran language. Some Mao live in Mao and Komo Special Woreda, while others reside in Begi of Oromia region and Bambasi woreda of Assosa zone. The population of Mao-Komo is estimated at 51,330 (43,535 Mao and 7795 Komo). 19,208 of these live in Benishangul-Gumz and 24,626 in Oromia. Historically, the Mao and Komo are the most underserved group inhabiting the marginal areas in western Ethipia. The major livelihood activity of the Mao and Komo is agriculture and the crops produced include teff, maize and millet. Goats, sheep and cattle are the major livestock in the area. Coffee and Chat (its scientific name is Catha edulis) are the main cash crops that the Mao Komo produce. Besides, the Mao-Komo in the Special Woreda are involved in traditional gold mining. Bambassi Woreda Bambassi is one of the 20 Woredas in the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, part of the Asossa Zone. The Woreda is bordered by the Mao and Komo Special Woreda on the southwest, Asossa in the northwest, Oda Buldigilu in the northeast and by the Oromia Region in the southeast. This Woreda and its only town, Bambasi, are named for the tallest point in this Zone, Mount Bambasi. The Dabus River is also originates from this Woreda. The 2007 National Census reported a total population of this Woreda as 48,694, of whom 24,720 were men and 23,974 were women; 9,146 or 18.78% of its population were urban dwellers. The majority of the inhabitants said they were Muslim, with 66.69% of the population, while 29.26% of the population followed the Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, and 3.83% were Protestant. Based on figures from the Central Statistical Agency in 2005, this Woreda has an estimated area of 2,210.16 square kilometers. The Woreda has a population density of 21.4 people per square kilometer which is greater than the Zone average of 19.95. The five largest ethnic groups reported in Bambassi were the Amhara (42%), the Berta (33.8%), the Oromo (12.4%), 12.3% Fadashi, the Tigray (5.7%), and the Mao (3.7%). Amharic is spoken as a first language by 42.7%, 33.7% speak Berta, 13.4% Fadashi 12.2% Oromiffa, 5.6% Tigrigna, and 3.7% speak Mao one of the northern group of Omotic languages. There is one refugee camp in this Woreda, Wamba Kebele. Homesha Woreda Homesha is another Woreda in the Benishangul-Gumuz Region under the Asossa Zone Administration. The Woreda is bordered by the Asossa on the south, Kormuk on the northwest and Menge on the east. According to the 2007 National Census the Woreda has a total population of 21,744, of whom 11,219 were men and 10,525 were women; 875 or 4.02% of its population were urban dwellers. The majority of the inhabitants belongs to Muslim religion, with 69.28% of 31 the population, while 19.03% of the population were Protestant, 7.03% were Catholic and 4.39% practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. Based on figures from the CSA in 2005, this Woreda has an estimated area of 645.78 square kilometers, Homesha has a population density of 20.1 people per square kilometer which is greater than the Zone average of 1 9 .95. The largest ethnic group reported in Homesha was the Berta with 99.5% of the population; an equal share spoke Berta (99.5%). Based on figures from the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) in 2005, has an estimated area of 1,792.66 square kilometers, Mao-Komo has a population density of 10.4 people per square kilometer which is less than the Zone average of 19.95. There are two refugee camps operating in the Woreda, two Kebeles for the refugees mainly from South Sudan and Sudan, but others as well, reported by KII and FGD participants. Mao-Komo Special Woreda Mao-Komo is one of the Woredas in the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, is considered as a Special Woreda, an administrative subdivision which is similar to an autonomous area. The southernmost Woreda in the Region, Mao-Komo is bordered on the west by Sudan and South Sudan, on the north by the Asossa Zone, and on the east and south by the Oromia Region. Tongo is the main town of the Woreda. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this Woreda has a total population of 50,061, of whom 25,055 are men and 25,006 women. 3,392 or 6.78% of the population are urban inhabitants. A total of 9,844 households were counted in this Woreda, which results in an average of 5.08 persons to a household, and 9,503 housing units. The five largest ethnic groups reported in the Mao-Komo Special Woreda were the Oromo (35.1%), the Mao people (26.42%), the Berta (18.8%), the Komo (1 4.46%), and the Fadashi (4.12%); all other ethnic groups made up 1.1% of the population. Main languages are Oromo (47.51 %), Berta (17.47%), Mao (15.61 %), Komo (13.7%), and Fadashi (4.91 %). The majority of the inhabitants were Muslim, with 94.56% of the population, while 2.64% were Protestant and 2.13% practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. Tongo refugee camp is found in this Woreda hosting refugees from South Sudan. 32 4.1.3.TIGRAY NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE Tigray Regional State is the northernmost of the nine regions of Ethiopia, containing the homeland of the Tigray people. The region is bordered by Eritrea to the north, Sudan to the west, the Afar Region to the east and the Amhara Region to the south and southwest. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), the Tigray Region has a population of 4,316,988, of whom 2,126,465 are men and 2,190,523 women; urban inhabitants numbered to 844,040 (19.55%) of the population. With an estimated area of 41,409.95 square kilometers, this region has an estimated density of 100 people per square kilometer. For the entire region 992,635 households were counted, which results in an average for the Region of 4.4 persons to a household, with urban households having on average 3.4 and rural households 4.6 people. Tigray Regional State has a land area of 53,000 km2 and consisting of 6 administrative zones and 35 Woredas. At 96.55% of the local population, the region is predominantly inhabited by the Tigrigna speaking Tigray people. The Tigrinya language is classified as to the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Most other residents belong to other Afro-Asiatic speaking communities, including the Amhara (1.63%), Irob (0.71%), Afar (0.29%), Agaw (0.19%) and Oromo (0.17%). There are also a minority of Nilo-Saharan-speaking Kunama Nilotes (0.07%). Concerning religion, 95.6% of the population is Orthodox Christians, Muslim, 4.0%, Catholics 0.4% and Protestant 0.10%. The Kunama are an ethnic minority living in Tahtay Adiyabo Woreda, on the border with Eretria. Not having much experience in agriculture, they rent their land to others for cultivation. Their livelihood is largely based on the sell firewood, charcoal, and other forest product. There are four refugee camps in three Woredas of North Western Zone in Tigray Regional State are hosting the refugees from Eritrea. Tselemeti Woreda Tselemti is one of the Woredas in the Tigray Region located as part of the North Western Zone of the region. Tselemti is bordered on the south by the Amhara Region, on the west by the Western Zone of Tigray, on the north by Asigede Tsimbela Woreda, on the northeast by Medebay Zana, and on the east by the Central Tigary Zone. The Tekeze River also defines the boundary of the Woreda; other rivers in this Woreda include the Abata, a tributary of the Tekeze. The administrative center of this Woreda is May Tsemrie. Based on the 2007 National Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia (CSA), the Woreda has a total population of 138,858, of whom 70,108 are men and 68,750 women; 8,623 or 6.21 % are urban inhabitants. With an area of 3,858.66 square kilometers, Tselemti has a population density of 35.99 people per square kilometer, which is less than the Zone average of 40.21. A total of 30,485 households were counted in this Woreda; resulting in an average of 4.55 persons to a household and 29,805 housing units. As to the religion of the inhabitants of Tselemti, the majority (98.47%) practiced the Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity while 1.51% of the population was Muslims. 33 The two largest ethnic groups reported in Tselemti were the Tigryan (89.12%) and the Amhara (10.63%); all other ethnic groups made up 0.25% of the population. Tigrigna is spoken as a first language by 87.18% and 12.73% speak Amharic. The majority (88.76%) of the farmers of the Woreda engaged both in crops production and animal husbandry. Two refugee camps in Mai Ayni and Hundet Kebeles of this Woreda are hosting refugees from Eritrea. Tahtay Adiabo Woreda Tahtay Adiyabo is the other Woreda in the North Western Zone of Tigray Regional State. The Woreda is bordered on the south by Asgede Tsimbla, on the southwest by the Tekeze River which separates this Woreda from the Western Zone, on the north by Eritrea and on the east by Laelay Adiyabo Woreda; part of the northern border with Eritrea is delineated by the Mareb River. The northernmost point of this Woreda is the northernmost point of Ethiopia. Towns in this woreda include Addi Awuala, Addi Hageray, and Badme. The administrative center of the Woreda is Shiraro. Based on the 2007 National Population and Housing Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, the Woreda has a total population of 90,144, of whom 45,834 are men and 44,310 women; 6,377 or 7.07% are urban inhabitants. With an area of 3,841 .51 square kilometers, Tahtay Adiyabo has a population density of 23.47 people per square kilometer. A total of 20,553 households were counted in this Woreda, resulting in an average of 4.39 persons to a household, and 19,141 housing units. The majority (95.59%) of the inhabitants practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, while 3.15% of the population was Muslim. The three largest ethnic groups reported in Tahetay Adiyabo were the Tigrayan (71.36%), the dominant ethnic group in the Woreda, while foreign residents from Eritrea (26.23%) and the Kunama (1.41 %); Saho and other ethnic groups made up 1 % of the population. Tigrigna is spoken as a first language by 97.35% and 1.39% speak Kunama; the remaining 1.26% spoke all other languages. Agriculture and livestock raising constitute the major economic activities in the Woreda. The main consumption crops grown are sorghum, maize and millet. Sesame is the main cash crop cultivated for export market. The Woreda’s economic advantages are low population density, arable lowlands, fertile soils and reliable rainfall patterns. Kafta-Shiraro National Park is found in this Woreda, where refugees from Eritrea camped at close location to it. One refugee camp is found in this Woreda, Mai Kulie Kebele, for the Eritrean refugees. Asgede Tsimbla Woreda Asgede Tsimbla is one of the Woredas in the Tigray Regional State, part of the North Western Zone. The Woreda is bordered along the south by the Tekeze River which separates the woreda on the south from Tselemti and to the west by the Mierabawi Zone, then on the northwest by Tahtay Adiyabo, on the north by Laelay Adiyabo, on the northeast by Tahetay Koraro and on the east by Medebay Zana. The administrative center of this woreda is Inda Abaguna; other towns in Asgede Tsimbla include Kisadgaba, Mayhansse, Adigebru, Dedebit, Adi Mehameday, Hitsats, Debre Abay, Idaga Hibret. 34 Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, Asgede Tsimbla has a total population of 135,621, of whom 69,143 were men and 66,478 women; 10,111 or 7.46% were urban dwellers. The Woreda has an area of 2,815.05 square kilometers, with a population density of 48.18, which is greater than the Zone average of 40.21 persons per square kilometer. A total of 29,677 households were also counted in this Woreda, resulting in an average of 4.57 persons to a household, and 28,574 housing units. The majority of the inhabitants practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 97.51%, while 2.47% of the population was Muslim. The largest ethnic group reported in Asgede Tsimbla was the Tigrayan (99.21), and Tigrigna was spoken as a first language by 99.57%. Hitsats refugee camp is found in this Woreda hosting refugees from the neighboring Eritrea. 4.1.4. AFAR NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE Afar is one of the nine regional states situated in the north-eastern part of Ethiopia, it borders Oromia region in the south, Tigray Region and Eritrea in the north. Djibouti and Ethiopian Somali Region in the east and Amhara region in the west are also bordering Afar Regional State. The altitude of the region ranges from 1500 meters above sea level in the western highlands to -120 meters below sea level in the Danakil/Dallol depression. Afar is characterized by an arid and semi- arid climate with low and erratic rainfall. Temperature varies from 20’C in higher elevations to 48’C in lower elevations. Rainfall is bimodal throughout the region with a mean annual rainfall below 500 mm in the semi-arid western escarpments decreasing to 150 mm in the arid zones to the east. According to the 2007 National Population and Housing Census, the population of the region was 1,390,273, comprising 775,117 men and 615,156 women. In Afar Regional State, about 95% (1,324,854) of the people are followers of Muslim religion. The ethnic groups found in the region are; Afar (90.03%), Amhara (5.22%), Argoba (1.55%), Tigray people (1.15%), Oromo (0.61%), Wolayta (0.59%) and Hadiya (0.18%). The Afar people are engaged in pastoral and agro pastoral (along the Awash riverbanks) economic activities as their main source of livelihoods. They draw their main livelihood from rearing animals such as camel, cattle, sheep, goats and donkey. In some Woredas where there is access for water, they practice both crop farming and livestock rearing to support their livelihood. The agro- pastorals in Afar region are located mainly in the Woredas adjacent to the neighbouring highland regions, specifically in Argoba, Dulecha, Fursee, Semurobi, Abala and Afambo woredas and their livelihood is based mainly on crop production (Sorghum, maize, teff and cotton along the riverbanks using traditional irrigation methods), honey production and livestock production. The communities are chronically food insecure. Furthermore, the region exhibit vulnerable characteristics in terms of the various forms of shocks, seasonality and trends affecting the lives and livelihoods of people. Water shortages, frequent drought, shortage of grass/fodder, outbreak of human disease, malaria and livestock disease, are among others. Afar Region is a home for the Aar ethnic group of Ethiopia that constitutes 90% of the people residing in the region. The Afar ethnic communities are differentiated from the neighboring communities because of their cultural features and customary life style and the nature of the 35 ecology. They are predominantly pastoral in their way of life. The Afar communities have an original, distinctive information exchange system called Dagu and possess an oral, interpersonal communication which they perform when one meets another. In Afar region, Dagu is a common form of information sharing among various segments of the population. Religion and clan/family membership are the key social ties keeping the social cohesion of the pastoral people. The communities are organized in clans (Mela), local community (Kaido), lineage group (Afa), extended family (Dahla) and the household (Burra). As one of the key clan based institution, marriage, divorce and resource sharing are governed by Islamic principles. The Kadis and Shekas implement Islamic religious rules, regulations and teach the faith. The Afar practices exogamous marriage and polygamy in accordance with Islamic laws. Marriage, divorce and inheritance are determined by their religious beliefs. Women do not have equal rights over resources, during marriage, at divorce, and inheritance at the death of their spouse. It is uncommon for women to speak and share concerns and life experiences in Afar without the permission of male clan members. They shy away to speak, as they consider their male counterparts as their spokesperson. This is also reflected in the leadership positions in formal and informal institutions, in the area of participation and memberships of clan institutions. There are 2 refugee sites found in Afar Regional State hosting refugees from Eritrea. Asayita Woreda Asayita is one of the Woredas in the Afar Region part of the Administrative Zone 1. Asayita is bordered on the south by Afambo, on the west by Dubti, then on the north by the Awash River which separates it from Elidar and on the east by Djibouti. Part of the shoreline of Lake Gargori is also lie within the boundaries of this Woreda. The major town, administrative center of the Woreda is Asayita. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, this Woreda has a total population of 50,803, of whom 27,284 are men and 23,519 women; with an area of 1,678.28 square kilometers, Asayita has a population density of 30.27. While 16,052 or 31 .60% are urban inhabitants, a further 9,358 or 18.42% are pastoralists. A total of 11,096 households were counted in this Woreda, which results in an average of 4.6 persons to a household, and 11,404 housing units. In terms of the religion of the population, 95.12% were Muslim and 4.61% were Orthodox Christians. Asayita Woreda has 13 Kebeles, of which 8 are pastoralists, 3 agro-pastoralists and the remaining 3 are considered as urban centers. A refugee site named Hinale is found in this Woreda hosting Eritrean refugees. 36 4.1.5.ETHIOPIAN SOMALI NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE The Ethiopian Somali Region is the easternmost of the nine regions of Ethiopia. It is the second largest region in Ethiopia. The Region borders the regions of Oromia, Afar and Dire Dawa to the west, Djibouti to the north, Somalia to the south, north and east and Kenya to the southwest. The capital of the Somali Regional State is Jigjiga. The region is divided in to nine Administrative Zones and 54 Woredas. The Zones of Ethiopian Somali Region are: Afder, Degehabur, Fik, Gode, Jigjiga, Korahe, Liben, Shinile and Werder. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), the Somali Region has a total population of 4,445,219, consisting of 2,472,490 men and 1,972,729 women; urban inhabitants numbered to 623,004 or 14.02% of the population, a further 1,687,858 or 37.97% were pastoralists. With an estimated area of 279,252 square kilometers, this region has an estimated density of 15.9 people per square kilometer. For the entire region 685,986 households were counted, which results in an average for the Region of 6.8 persons to a household, with urban households having on average 6 and rural households 6.5 people. Ethnic groups include Somalis (97.2%), Amhara (0.66%), Oromo (0.46%), foreign-born Somalis (0.20%) and Gurages (0.12%). Somali was spoken by 96.82% of the inhabitants. Other major languages included Amharic (0.67%), and Oromifa (0.51 %). 98.4% of the population is Muslim, 0.6% Orthodox Christian and 1.0% are followers of all other religions. Ethiopian Somali Region is characterized by linguistically and religiously homogeneous population Four generic livelihood types exist in the region: pastoralism, agro-pastoralism, farming (sedentary and riverine) and urban. Pastoralism is the most prevalent, comprising about 60% of the region’s rural population. Agro-pastoralism comprises about 25% of the total rural population and is a mixture of extensive livestock rearing and rain-fed crop production; some may be better described as pastoralists with opportunistic farming activities – as in Fik and some parts of Liben Zone. The remaining 15% of the rural population comprises sedentary (Jigjiga zone) and riverine (Shebelle and Dawa-Ganale) farmers. Both farming and agro-pastoral groups keep some livestock but farmers’ herds do not migrate and are sometimes hand-fed, only migrating with other groups if there is a severe drought. The society is highly structured, anchored in the system of clans and sub-clans that bind people together. The core social institution and norm of traditional Somali society, including personal identity, rights of access to local resources, customary law (xeer), blood payment groups (diya), and support systems are anchored on the clanship. Each community within the clan system is differentiated and unique, and tend to live in extended families, sharing resources for basic subsistence; and well established social capital and network, which is used to support needy individuals—which is either obligatory (religious duty or clan obligation) or voluntary (helping others out of benevolence). The community has strong social capital based on traditional relationships within the community that entirely depends on kinship ties, marriage relationship and other social obligations. The clan and religion leaders are responsible in resolving conflicts through norms and traditional laws. However, such kind of social interdependence is being restrained or in decline due to the limited overall assets base of households. 37 There are 8 refugee camps in Ethiopian Somali Region housing refugees from Somalia. Dollo Ado Woreda Dollo Ado is one of the Woredas in the Ethiopian Somali Region, part of the Liben Zone. Dollo Ado is located in the angle formed by the confluence of the Ganale Dorya with the Dawa River and bordered to the northwest by Filtu, on the northeast by Afder Zone, on the southeast by Somalia and on the south by Kenya. The altitude of this Woreda ranges from 200 to 1000 meters above sea level. Other rivers in this Woreda include the Mena. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this Woreda has a total population of 111,511, of whom 60,778 are men and 50,733 women. While 37,404 or 33.54% are urban inhabitants, a further 33,869 or 30.37% are pastoralists. 95.69% of the population was Muslim by religion. The people of Dollo Ado are identified as agro-pastoralists (50%), transhumant pastoralists (30%), urban dwellers (15%) and sedentary farmers (5%). This Woreda is primarily inhabited by the Degodia and Hawadle of the Hawiye and the Garre of the Rahanweyn Somali clans. Irrigation agriculture was introduced to the riverine inhabitants of this Woreda by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) in the late 1970s. The largest ethnic group reported in Dolo Ado was the Somali 133,987 (96.8%). There are 5 refugee camps in five Kebeles housing refugees from Somalia, located in Dolo Ado Woreda. 4.2.CHALLENGES OF THE HOST COMMUNITIES The SA result shows that the refugee hosting areas are often neglected. Since most of the refugee camp establishments are located in the periphery and historically disadvantaged regions of the country, also known as emerging/ developing regions, they are often characterized by deficit in social and economic service giving infrastructures. Besides, they are occupied by minority (indigenous) ethnic groups who were neglected by the past regimes of Ethiopia; insecure and mostly unstable areas in terms of peace. The situation is exacerbated by the presence of refugees effecting to the various social, economic and environmental conditions of the inhabitants in those locations- refugee host communities. The challenges identified during the SA in refuge hosting communities as the result of refugee accommodation from neighboring countries are summarized as follows: 38 Major challenges on host communities triggered by Magnitude of challenges evident in Visited Kebeles the presence of refugees High and continued deforestation2 (for the purpose of  Prevalent in all visited sites. In some instances trees are constructing shelter, fire wood for refugees’ removed from their roots (e.g. Gambella and Somali) at nights. consumption, firewood for the market, charcoal  Products/ furniture from timber and Bamboos are made and production for refugees’ consumption as well as for sold by refugees. E.g. Eritrean Kunamas in Tigray and refugees the market) (unidentified, as very diversified in these camps) in Homosha and surrounding areas are known for it.  Charcoal production was not known in some of the visited areas before the arrival of refugees (e.g. Sherkole in Benishaguel-Gumuz, Asayita in Afar, etc) Theft/ group looting of ripe crops, fresh maize,  Apart from the usual form, refugees were caught red handed vegetables and fruits such as banana, Mango, Papaya, in robbing chairs, radio, stationery materials of two primary etc. Besides it is reported for organized looting at schools in Shoshore Butuji Kebele in Mao-Kommo Special night into host community houses. Woreda. Illegal hunting of wild animals by refugees  Cases reported in Homosha in Benishanguel-Gumuz, Dollo Addo in Somali, and Asayitta in Afar region Fishing by refugees without the consent and  Cases mentioned in Wamba Kebele of Bambassi Woreda, willingness of the host communities refugees are illicitly engaged in fishing at “Dabas” river. Their attempt had been confronted by members of host community- led to conflict Burden on existing social amenities/ infrastructures  Host communities use of the social services constructed for the refugees varies from region to region, and within the same region from one woreda to another. Relatively, in Benishanguel-Gumuz and Somali regions, the host communities have better access to service prepared for refugees. In Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions, the refugees have been using the social services infrastructures of the host communities such as schools and health facilities. In general, the SA reveals that refuge hosing communities have low education and health outcomes, face lack of potable water and equipped with poor and in accessible and seasonal roads. Hence, hosting communities highly demanded the expansions and upgrading of service giving infrastructures in their kebeles.  Some schools are shared with refugees, often high schools (though limited access vice-versa, except few cases as Tselemet refugee high schools), market, roads etc. One extraordinary case, however is, the road taking from Tongo town (Woreda capital) to Shoshore Kebele is blocked for any public transportation, including Bajaj and also merchants/ traders vehicles. This is because of the location of the refugee camp in between the stated areas. Farmers are in problem of taking their produces to the market. Diminishing size of communal grazing land and  In all the five regions of refugee hosting communities overgrazing due to refugee owned animals and use the host communities grazing land Peace and security matters- such as conflict between  Woreda Administration and Police forces in some visited refugees and host communities areas become busy/ engaged in extra duties due to the safety and security issues or disturbances caused by refugees (Eg. Asayitta, Homosha,Abol, Dollo Addo and Asayitta) 2 There is an indication that host communities are also involved in the deforestation/ cutting of trees ever than before, as it can be blamed on the acts of refugees. Woreda level stakeholders in Benishangul-Gumuz and Tigray identified such cases. 39  On the other hand, host communities and government officials reported for the existence of refugees moving in groups at night to hunt wild animals, cutting trees and alcoholism. There are also robbery incidents in most woredas of the study committed by the refugees in such manner. There is also fear of the intrusion of terrorists and Islamic extremists such as Alshbab in the name of refugee into their woredas. Price inflation  There is market price soaring or rise after the coming of refugees in almost all woredas visited. The hsot communities indicated that they were unable to buy edible materials because of price inflation Gender based violence  Rape cases are reported in Gog woreda in Gambella, Homosha woreda in Benishanguel-Gumuz, and Asayitta Woredas in Afar regions could be sited as an example. Physical harm/ injury due to stick beating on girls and women (e.g. in Homosha woreda) are the other side of violence committed by refugees in visited areas. Lack of access to some basic social service  Refugees have electric power in their homes in the camps infrastructures that the refuges are getting (house bulbs from solar power or otherwise), but not at host community houses. They are also provided with modern household utensils and better health care.  In the course of this SA process, host community discussants said “we are the refugees, not the refugee themselves” they said this because refugees get special benefits not rendered to the host communities such as good scholl, potable water, electricity, etc.  Participants of the SA in Tigray noted that “our children are discriminated in a way that refugee students are attending the education with well-constructed buildings and better class facilities while our children in the next compound sat in stones under poorly installed shades, locally called “Dass” and under tree shades.” Potential behavioral changes of members of host  Bad culture/ behavior assimilation exist from refugees to host community, especially of children and youth through communities in particular to children sharing similar schools cultural diffusion (theft, use of ‘shisha’, alcoholism, gender based violence/violence against females). This is typically identified by SA participants in Afar and Somali regions. Adding to the issue, Afar and Somali culture is highly respects and dignifies the rights of females. But refugees are polluting such standard norms and cultures of the host communities. Such behaviors threatened the elderly community members for spoiling the succeeding generations. 40 4.3.LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES Livelihood activities: In the five regions, refugee hosting communities are located in the border area of the country with arid and semi-arid temperature conditions. Almost all areas have erratic rainfall and prone to the risk of nature. Hence, the host communities are mainly farmers, agro-pastoralists, and pastoralists. Farmers are dominating Tigray, Gambella, and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions. Agro-pastoralists and pastoralists are mainly found in Ethiopia Somali and Afar regions. Compared with pastoralists, in these two regions, agro-pastoralists are less in number. In the regions where farming is the dominant economic activity, the community members are also involved in animal husbandry to supplement their income as their secondary means of livelihood. In the course of the discussions with potential end-users/ beneficiaries of DRDIP, certain project ideas were suggested in line with their major livelihood strategy as well as prior experiences and anticipated results to their respective livelihoods. Identified Activities for Livelihood Improvement Component: In the five regions, refugee hosting communities are located in the border area of the country with arid and semi-arid temperature conditions. Almost all areas have erratic rainfall and prone to the risk of nature. Hence, the host communities are mainly farmers, agro-pastoralists, and pastoralists. Farmers are dominating Tigray, Gambella, and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions. Agro-pastoralists and pastoralists are mainly found in Ethiopia Somali and Afar regions. Compared with pastoralists, in these two regions, agro-pastoralists are less in number. In the regions where farming is the dominant economic activity, the community members are also involved in animal husbandry to supplement their income as their secondary means of livelihood. In the course of the discussions with potential end-users/ beneficiaries of DRDIP, certain project ideas were suggested in line with their major livelihood strategy as well as prior experiences and anticipated results to their respective livelihoods. The following table is dedicated to present some of the activities identified during the community consultation processes. 41 Project ideas suggested during community consultation process Woreda Kebele Felt Needs and Selected Project Type  Improved poultry, sheep and goat rearing, petty trading  Grinding mill (they have to go to Gambella city for grinding mill and expend about 300 birr for a quintal of grain Abol Jewi with public transportation, hotel expense, etc.). The intimidation/ hustle is also a problem facing women going for grinding. Fuel saving stoves (one organization introduced) and toilets (started by the keblee health extension workers but not well constructed)  School expansion, potable water Watgach  Human health institution, none in the kebele. They frequently emphasized the establishment of health post in their kebele. They were even dreaming if a private health service could come to the village even with expensive fees; desperate demand/ need.  Water for livestock is the other big demand of the community in the kebele. Especially during dry season they have to take their livestock to Baro River in search of water for their livestock; 4 hours for a round trip from the Itang Special village. Woreda  Foot paths/ rural roads taking to Baro River either with their livestock or themselves  Bakery, tea room targeting refugees and the host community as in such process urbanization is an emerging phenomenon with the coming of refugees.  Maize extractor  Grinding mill is their usual request for supporting organization. Women are still using the traditional wooden mill  Serious problem of livestock disease, locally known as “Jagide ruoth” Pulkod  There is a cooperative organized for milk marketing, but stopped due to Woreda’s capacity and follow up. So if re-strengthened by DRDIP. Puchala Kebele  There is an irrigation scheme designed to cultivate 200 ha of farm land constructed in the Woreda, but need to be Gog finalized. If project can involve on this project. Finalizing the construction and organizing and strengthening management of the scheme. In all visited Woredas  Bee keeping Tselemti and others  Specialized cooperatives organized on improved, high yield, high quality produces such as rice, milk, irrigation, bee keeping/ honey production… Tahetay Adiyabo  Known milk cow improved breed locally known as “Begayit”  Sand Marketing for construction Asayita  Petty trading, dairy farms (prior experiences with youth groups) Dollo Oda Melkadida  Fish production from Genale River  Milk and milk products  Petty Trading 42 4.4.GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS The project will develop and implement cost effective and accessible grievance handling mechanism. Grievances will be actively managed and tracked to ensure that appropriate resolution and actions are taken. A clear time schedule will be defined for resolving grievances, ensuring that they are addressed in an appropriate and timely manner, with corrective actions being implemented and the complaints handled as early as possible to address specific concerns raised by the project affected persons in a timely fashion and in an impartial manner. Specifically, in the case of grievances arising in the course of project implementing activities, traditional and quasi-formal dispute settlement arrangements would be invoked to deal with the issues. Under these arrangements, in the first instance, aggrieved parties are encouraged to bring their complaints to the attention of local elders, who consult with the parties involved to resolve the dispute in an amicable fashion. Complainants not satisfied with the decision of village leaders are advised to resort to quasi-formal structures of kebele judicial tribunals, whose verdicts on the matters will be final. Although such grievance handling mechanisms exist, there are little signs of them being used by local people. Owing to lack of capacity or other problems, gaps are noticeably observed in all visited woredas. The project will make sure that such traditional and quasi formal structures are consistently resorted to in the interest of smooth or fair settlement grievances. The ‘arbitration or reconciliation by elders’ is a widely used indigenous mechanism in resolving conflicts in many parts of the country. Although the term has different names among different ethnic groups it has a common characteristic in that elders are the main people involved. For instance, among Gumuz ethnic group it is called Mangima. It is the most important traditional institution for preventing, resolving and managing ethnic conflicts of different scales and levels in different parts of the country. Through the application of the Mangima institution, the inter-ethnic conflict between the Gumuz and other ethnic groups that were resettled in Metekel was somehow settled. Gradually, however, these traditional conflict resolution mechanisms have started to erode for various reasons. According to some elders, Ethiopian State administration took conflict management responsibilities from clan and group leaders and placed it in the hands of the local ‘Kebele’ administrations. Conflict and conflict redress mechanisms in visited areas: In refugee hosting areas, some forms of conflict between the refugee and local communities, within refugee members, and within host community members was prevalent. However, the conflicts between refugees and host communities are not as such serious. The conflicts are minor which did not claimed people’s life. The major causes of conflict or disagreement of the two parties are theft of host communities crops and small ruminants by the refugees; restriction of access to resources such as farmlands, forest and forest products, etc; straying of refugee animals into host communities crops and irrigation land; completion over resources such as firewood, grass, and grazing land; the damage refugees cause to environment; and the like. The conflicts between the refuges and host communities has been addressed by a committee composed of the host community members, refugees conflict handling committee members, ARRA, and Kebele and woreda administrators. 43 Conflict Redress Mechanism Members Composition Community/ Ethnic Group (Traditional) Agnwaha in Abol woreda “Juatut” is the traditional Recognized elders from the mechanism to solve conflict. If community, representing both excels from this level, will follow the males and females formal mechanism starting from Kebele to the highest level judiciary structures. Nuer in Itang Special “Ruach” is the primary mechanism. Recognized elders from the Woreda If it is beyond the control of the community, representing both elders, it will follow the formal males and females mechanism starting from Kebele to the highest level judiciary structures. Berta in Homosha woreda “Mebi Lowendi”- arbitration through Community elders mediation of elders, both sexes are represented in this case as well. Mao-Komo special woreda ”Jarsuma” - arbitration through Community elders mediation of elders as the main traditional mechanism, if excels from this level, will follow the formal mechanism starting from kebele to the highest level judiciary structures Afar “Mebloo” in Afar- dispute settlement Elderly people and Clan leaders among the afar communities Somali The dispute resolution is locally Clan leaders called “Ugas”. If called “Odiyash Deganka” in the case is not settled by the Somali. “Ugas”, the highest leader of all clans called “Wamber” will be involved 44 4.5.VULNERABLE GROUPS OF SOCIETY Vulnerable and Underserved Groups: The most vulnerable groups identified in the five regions are older people who do not have supporters and caregivers; and usually they depend on support from their relatives and farming from nearby farmlands. Most of the older people keep small ruminates such as goats and hens to get income. Women and women headed household were also categorized under the vulnerable groups. In all areas women are subordinate to their husbands and do all the domestic chores, child rearing, many of the farming activities, house construction (in pastoral areas of Afar and Somali), etc. Youths were vulnerable in refugee host communities. Most youths, particularly those who completed their high school and fail to get pass mark to join government universities and TVET were unemployed and involved in some deviant acts such as chewing chat, alcoholism, gambling, and illegal ways of getting income. People with disabilities (PWDs), though not large in number, are among the vulnerable groups. PWDs are more in number in Tigray region because the area is the past battle ground of the Derg regime. In Tigray region of Tselemt and Tahetay Adiaybo, there are a large number of veterans, after the fall of Derg regime, were reintegrated to the community and still were being supported by the community and the government. People with Unidentified Liver Disease (ULD) are found Tigray region and are among the vulnerable groups. The cause of the disease is a wild plant, locally called “Kech Arem”. Since abdomen of victims of ULD get bulged and become unproportional to size of their head and leg. They are weak and cannot walk. All project target areas are dominated by underserved ethnic groups or ethnic minorities. The two Woredas in Gambella region is inhabited the Nuer, Agnuah, and Opo ethnic groups. Berta, Mao, and Komo are residents in Benishanguel-Gumuz which are ethnic minorities. The Somali ethnic group dominate the Ethiopia Somali region; and Afar ethnic group in Afar region. The Somali and Afar ethnic groups are divided by clan. Besides the Tigray ethnic groups there are ethnic minorities such as Kunama ethnic group in project target areas in Tahetay Adiyabo Woreda of Tigray Region. Table showing ethnic minorities in the project areas Regions Woreda Visited Kebele Main Ethnic groups in the Kebele (but have other ethnic groups from the region or other parts of the country) Abol Jewi Agnuwaha Itang Special Pulkod Nuer, Opo Gambella Watgach Nuer Puchalla Agnuwaha Gog Okedi Bambassi Wamba Berta, Amhara Benishangul-Gumuz Homosha Serkole/Jimma Berta Region Mao and Kommo Shoshore-Butuji Mao, Komo, Oromo Special Tongo-01 Mao, Komo, Oromo, and Berta Tselemet Mai Ayini Tigray Hudet Tigray Tigray Region Asgede Tsimbla Hitsats Tigray Tahetay Adiyabo Mai Kullie Tigray, Kunama Afar Region Asayitta Hinellie Afar Dollo Addo Melkadida Somali Ethiopian Somali Region Bura-Amino Somali 45 Hilaweyn Somali 4.6.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION PROCESS Public Consultation: Community consultation was conducted in each Woredas with the objective of orienting the refugee hosting communities and understanding their views and opinions of towards DRDIP and its sub-components. Besides, the hosting communities were oriented about the RPF and to work accordingly following set procedures. The host communities have welcomed the DRDIP and indicated that its components could address their pressing problems that they have been facing as a result of hosting the refugees. Host communities indicated that no project has been implemented to ease their problems as a result of hosting refugees and bearing the impacts. Besides, in most areas, even though they were promised by the government to share 25% of the support given to the refugees by UNHCER, they did on get as much they expected and promised by the government officials. DRDIP PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS As one of the major tasks of the Social Assessment, community consultations have taken place with all visited kebeles that are hosting refugees. Woreda and Kebele government stakeholders were also part of the process. In due course, communities have been informed about DRRIP, its objective and the different components. Women Men, youths and elders have taken part and actively participated in the consultation process. In all instances, DRDIP is very much welcomed, as the communities were referring, to date many organizations coming to their Kebele and villages chiefly focusing on the concerns and needs of refugees, often promised to allocate some portion of their budget host communities. Little has been done even with such attitudes. They hoped DRDIP would properly address their problems and concerns and help them gain better income, protect their environment and access to improved education and health care. By the process, community members were allowed to reveal their pressing problems and the suffrage they encounter and the benefit they acquired including their concerns and worries during the implementation of the proposed project and as summarized below. All consultation participants were encouraged and allowed to reflect on and give their views regarding the project sub-component activities so as to reflect their opinions whether or not the project would address their pressing problems they faced as a result of hosting refugees. Although, there is a slight relative difference between rural and semi-urban settings in terms of adequacy, quality and access to the social services, almost all visited sites have serious shortage of social service giving infrastructures. In terms of project priorities, the problem of social services are not uniformly patterned, in some urban and semi-urban settings the pervasiveness of degree of the problem slides down in comparison to very rural ones, e.g. Okedi, Tongo, Mai Ayni, Homosha/ Jimma kebele, Hitsats, Melkadida in Dollo Ado, and others there is relatively in improved position in the scale and magnitude to shortage of facilities. Critical deficiency of school class rooms where students attend their education seated under sheds and trees; there is lack of potable water for humans as well as livestock. Thus, communities consulted were highly demanded the construction of new class rooms, water points to be developed and animal health centers, roods and foot paths to connect Kebeles and villages. They also demanded the upgrading of the health 46 services to an improved level where there exist, constructing for new health services both for human and livestock were the demands among the kebeles with the constrained status. The community members at the consultation process were also requesting for the introduction of fuel saving stoves and solar technologies. As already participating in various soil and water conservation activities by regular government programs, they are also keen to get involved in DRDIP sustainable environmental rehabilitation and improvement programs. Similarly, communities also envisioning to improve their livelihoods through the designed DRDIP livelihood diversification project activities particularly small scale irrigations, poultry, sheep and goat fattening, beekeeping, petty trading, bakery, tea and coffee shops, etc. As evidence of their keenness to DRDIP, community groups disclosed their readiness to avail their land, labor and locally available materials as they truly believe that the benefit is worthy for them and for their children. In relation to land allocation for the project land demanding activities, no hesitations have been observed in all the cases under this SA consultation process. OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS DRAWN FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS This section is attempted to present some of the general concerns and opportunities that have been expressed during the communities’ consultation processes as a reflection to the proposed project, DRDIP . As to the specific project concerns and associated mitigation measures, the section on the social management plan is dedicated. General concerns, threats and opportunities:  In Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz, women are actively participating in social and economic activities, e. g., in both cases women are members of the traditional conflict redress mechanisms. In Gambella, Watgach kebele/Itang, there are some (20) women organized by their own and save cash on monthly basis engaged in buying and selling goat initiative. Moreover, in most of the visited kebeles water committees were led by women management capacities. No gender restriction/ influence to express views in public occasions observed in the mission and also witnessed by Key Informants and Woreda officials.  There are multiple organizations working on refugees. Coordination and integration could make a better result not only for the refugees but also the host communities, with wise planning and coordination. For DRDIP, a strategic and synchronized intervention directly on the refugees, it would not be a full-fledged kind of effort. Because, some of the challenges facing by host communities emanated from the level of awareness, behavior and attitude of refugees. e.g. Cutting plants from their roots, gender based violence, etc. possible interventions could be; in collaboration with concerned bodies, organize prior sessions to before refugees settlement to host communities, this include the culture, laws, rules and regulations of the host communities. Discouraging sell of items from the refugees (fuel saving stoves, solar lights/ bulbs, cooking utensils, etc) as well as Ethiopian laws and legislations on various aspects, etc.  The role of Kebele Cabinets, Development Agents (DAs), and health extension workers is facilitating the overall development process in the Kebele. This is an enabling opportunity for DRDIP, if handled systematically with strong supervision and M&E.  Prior experiences involved/ participating in diverse livelihood programs, e.g. Tigray, Tselemti Woreda (120 youths were targeted, took some vocational/ technical trainings and provided with few tools; not sufficient to start a business) electricity, wood work hair dressing, etc for a year training program supported by NGOs. 47  There are some cooperatives in Tigray, Tselemti Woreda known as specialized cooperatives organized on improved, high yield, and high quality produces such as rice, milk, irrigation, bee keeping/ honey production. Woredas like Tahetay Adiyabo and Tselemit are known for livestock husbandry as well as specialized poultry.  In Afar, participants were suggesting to use traditional institutions for targeting purpose, as needed in DRDIP implementation phases.  Appropriate/ tailor made training for responsible Woreda and kebele officials on participatory approach and M&E. Threats  No Micro financial institutions observed in most of the visited Woredas, except in Tigray. This is may be related to Islamic religious aspects. Participants explained that for any business or other emergency cash need, the only option they have is selling their livestock. Livestock is also one form of saving mechanism.  Human and livestock diseases common in almost all sites visited, malaria is the commonest threat for the community in the arid regions of developing regions.  Scope of the effects refugees could bring in the target regions and Woredas may not end only in the kebeles hosting them but also the surrounding communities as well. In Mao-Komo Woreda, Shoshore-Butuji Kebele is not direct host for refugees but suffers a lot by the situation. Thus DRDIP area targeting need to consider such widened effects in and around host kebeles.  Inadequate staff at Woreda level and high staff turn-over as many of the unserved regions and Woredas do possess not conducive and harsh environment  Group fighting, rape and other forms of gender based violence are threats for female students and women to actively participate in development works, including DRDIP. This social development plan as outlined below will ensure that the project and its implementing agencies will respect the dignity, rights and culture of groups meeting the OP 4.10 requirements and ensure that these people benefit from DRDIP in a sustainable manner. The plan could be redefined during implementation and further consultations undertaken for the underserved groups to ensure their full participation. In light of what has been outlined in the foregoing SA, the Matrix in the table below provides the summary of potential risks and challenges and recommendations. 48 5. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: POTENTIAL RISKS, CHALLENGES AND SUGGESTED MITIGATING MEASURES Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations Cross-cutting  There is a high risk of extra burden to  Awareness raising and behavioral change  Welcoming attitude of the host community social amenities, theft/ looting of farm education need to be designed for refugee towards DRDIP as stated by the community Issues produces, livestock and other properties communities to ensure that the overall groups during consultation, is the first of host communities, risk of rape and social, economic, environmental as well as attempt to address the refugee problems and gender based violence on school girls as other related impacts as stated by host diverse impacts on the host communities. well as environmental degradation in all communities and the refugees themselves  Existing/established committees both from visited sites as cited by participants of the will be mitigated and or minimized. refugees and host communities. In some SA.  Culturally sensitive capacity building visited sites, e.g. Abol, Tahetay Adeyabo,  Limited technical capacity of efforts need to be used at different levels Homosha and others. These committees implementing offices at Woreda and under the project components to clearly meet regularly and discuss outstanding kebele levels and back up/ technical define the process, content and mechanisms issues and devise solutions jointly and support from the higher hierarchies. for training monitor the progress. This might need to be  There may be a tendency to overlook the  Benishangul Gumuz, Homosha Woreda, reinforced through involving administrative needs of people with disability and Sherkole Kebele - discussants suggested to as well as legislative bodies (in both elderly people or not clearly anticipated at identify specific groups of refugees who are refugees and host community levels and the design of the project PIM while also involved in illegal acts quite often. As an responsible government bodies). Reporting at targeting process during example, “Oudug” ethnic group from South and monitoring mechanisms in effecting implementation phase. Sudan refugees are frequently involved in decisions need to be designed.  Limited participation of women in the such undesirable deeds.  Existence of land and Water management design, implementation and M&E of  Site specific project activities, budget committees in various visited Kebeles will project activities/ in areas like Afar. allocation and specific emphasis needs to be strengthened.  Perspectives and attitudes of refugees considered based on stress levels, type and  Earlier positive implementation experiences have not been assessed in this SA (for magnitude of negative impacts on host as a in related activities by other projects, e.g., services designed for shared utilization result of refugees. Population of refugees in SLMP, AGP, PSNP are opportunities and among host and refugee communities as the different camps and respective host will be replicated. well as implications to the designed communities might also be taken in to  Good stock of civil servants in the Kebeles project ideas). Integrated approaches account for proportion of budget allocation visited; DAs, Health Extension Workers, likely to be compromised. Veterinary technicians, Kebele Managers, 49 Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations  Weak integration between partners as well as focus areas under the proposed and Teachers committing themselves for working in refugees and host project. proper implementation of the program in a communities  The project will establish a strong culturally appropriate manner.  Community prioritization of subprojects coordination and integration of the project might be manipulated by different interest partners from the outset and at all levels, groups including in the design, implementation,  Many organizations came with similar and monitoring and evaluation phases; and kind of promises, but disappeared after a through regular, joint planning and review while. The perception that the project will forum will ensure community engagement; follow the same trend, as noted by and effective participatory targeting participants during the consultation mechanism. Successive training and meetings. procedures/guidelines will be developed with the active involvement of community representatives from diverse social groups (utilizing existing customary institutions as entry points) as well as relevant partners at all levels.  Facilitation skill to promote community participation will be designed through appropriate training and guideline development for project implementers  Innovative project ideas need to be encouraged.  The agenda for developing responses to displacement impacts may deserve extensive studies and research deliberations. The project shall incorporate activities that can serve such research needs. This could also help design an integrated/ synchronized approach to a sustained solution. A careful identification and involvement of academic and research institutions for the generation 50 Project Suggested Mitigation Measures/ Potential Risks and Challenges Potential Opportunities Component Recommendations of pragmatic solution ideas; as potential stakeholders to DRDIP. 51 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE SA No. List of contacted persons Position Cell Phone 1 Ato Owar Obang Itange special woreda Administrator Delegate 0917318821 Bambasi Woreda Administrator Delegate and Information management officer and delegate of the 2 Ato Ayalew Mola core process 0910437732 3 Ato Teshome Tsgaye Emerging regions coordinator in BoA (Gambella) 0917179717 4 Ato Ojilu Loia Gambella Region BoA Vice head 5 Ato Tewab Mekonon Gambella Region NERDP coordinator 0911319910 6 Ato Obar Obong Itange special woreda Agriculture Office Delegate 7 Ato Gach Kong Irrigation Officer (Itang Worda Agriculture Office) Technology Development Core Process Owner 8 Ato Desta Zenget (Itang Woreda Agriculture Office) 9 Ato Aydahis Afike Asayita Woreda administrator 0929439249 Asayita Woreda pastoral agriculture development 10 Ato Mehamed Abdulkadir office head Aseged Tsimbla Agriculture Developemnt Offce 11 Ato Haile Tarekegn Head 0914101930 Tatay Adiabo Woreda Agriculture Developemnt 12 Ato G/hiwot G/hanes Office Head 0914776869 13 Ato G/medihen Hadus Tslemt Woreda Agricture Developemnt Office Head 0914225269 14 Ato Geday Desalegn Community elder (Mai Aini kebele) 15 Ato Geday Asefa Community elder (Mai Aini kebele) 16 Ato Mersh Tesafy Community elder (Mai Aini kebele) 17 Ato Jama Abdunasir Dolo Ado Administrator 18 Ato Jama Bedel Dolo Ado Administrator Secretary (Assistant) 19 Ato Teshome Tsgaye Special support to Benishanguel-Gumuz 20 Ato Obang Omod Woreda Agriculture Office Expert (Agronomist) 0935118429 21 Ato Obang Oboya Puchala Kebele Chairperson 0942360996 22 Ato Ojulu Kiru Puchala Kebele Manager 23 Ato Getaneh Akuma Ukedi kebele secretary 24 Ato Omud Olok Ukedi kebele chair person 25 Ato Alual Obo Gog Woreda Agriculture Office Head 0910960897 Wamba kebele Chairperson 26 Ato Abdukasim Mohammed 27 Ato Abdulahi Ibrahim Wamba kebele community elder 28 Ato Aseres Moges Homosha Woreda Natural resource expert 0917458183 29 Ato Kamile Hammed Homosha Woreda Administrator 0917431432 30 Ato Haji Osman Sherkole/Jima Kebele chairperson 52 31 Ato Mohammed Islaman Sherkole/Jima Kebele Community elder 32 Ato Ababeker Alhusin Sherkole/Jima Kebele Community elder 33 Ato Sadik Abdulahi Mao-komo Special Woreda Administrator 0910119295 Benishanguel-Gumuz Region Agriculture and Rural 34 Ato Abdurazak Saheli Development Bureau Vice head 0917179717 Regional Natural Resource Core Process Owner 35 Ato Demese Mera (Benishanguel-Gumuz 0910291117 Tslemt Woreda Agriculture Development Office 36 Ato G/Medihen Hadus Head 0914222569 37 Ato Hagos Berhie Htsats Kebele Community elder 38 Ato Mekonon Gebru Htsats kebele chairperson 39 W/ro Medhin Mezegeb Htsats kebele community elder Tatay Adiabo Woreda Agriculture Development 40 Ato Huluf G/Selasie Office Vice Head 0910444372 41 Ato Kiros Mai Kule Kebele Chairperson Afar Region Agriculture Vice Bureau Head and 42 Ato Ibrahim Mehamed Bureau Head Delegate 0919981474 Afar Region Environmental Protection, Land use and 43 Ato Abdukadir Mehamed Adminstration Agency Head 0913084083 Asayita Woreda pastoral agriculture development 44 Ato Mehammed Abdukadir office head 0910078950 45 Ato Jama Abdunasir Dolo Ado Woreda administrator 46 Ato Jama Bedel Dolo Ado Woreda administrator Secretary 0938718360 47 Abdulahi Aden Melkedida Community elder Dolo Ado Woreda Agriculture Development Office 48 Ato Nur Mahamed Head 0921651770 Natural Resource Development Core Process Owner 49 Ato Mewulid Abdi (Dolo Ado Woreda) 0939073142 Animal Development Core Process Owner (Dolo 50 Hassen Mohamed Ado) 0912870364 53 ANNEXES Annex 1: Social Assessment Key Informant Interview (KII) guiding questions for government officials 1. How is the living standard of the people in your locality? 2. What are the livelihood activities that the community carries out to make a living? Is there difference in the activities/ role of men and women at home and in the economic activities? 3. Are there social service giving infrastructures such as schools, water points, sanitation centers, health centers, etc. in this area? If so, are they adequate enough? How was their status (sustainability, quality, accessibility, affordability etc.)? 4. What types of activities or social service infrastructures do you want to be implemented in this area? How do you think that benefits of the project will be equitably shared? 5. Are there vulnerable nations, nationalities and peoples and other vulnerable and marginalized groups in the area? 6. 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? 7. Do specific groups (minorities, women, FHHs, youth) are likely to lose-out from specific types of development in your area? 8. What impact do the proposed interventions will have on the more vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in your area? Were there special provisions need to be made for vulnerable persons such as households headed by women and youth, elderly, PWDs, terminally ill, etc.? 9. 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? 10. Are there NGOs, private organizations or other groups operating in this area? If so, in what activities are they engaged? 11. Do local people have customary or cultural, social institutions/organizations that makes them unique/ different? 12. What do you suggest for improving the participation of women in leadership and community participation? 13. Are there physical cultural resources in the community? 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? What activities need to done to protect the cultural heritages? 14. What type of capacity building, training and technical assistance need to be given for officials at higher, middle and lower level to ensure the proper implementation of the project? 15. What additional opinions do you have about the project in general? 54 Annex 2: Social Assessment Key Informant Interview (KII) guiding question for local community members 1. Are there social service giving infrastructures such as schools, water points, sanitation centers, health centers, etc. in this area? If so, are they adequate enough to you? How was their status (sustainability, quality, accessibility, affordability etc.)? 2. Do refugees use social infrastructures with you? 3. What types of activities or social service infrastructures do you want to be implemented in this area for you? If social infrastructures are built, can you use together with refugee? 4. Are there NGO or private organization operating groups in this area? If so, what services do you get from them? 5. In case where the project demands land, can you donate your private holding to implement project activities? 6. 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? 7. Do specific groups (minorities, women, FHHs, youth) are likely to lose-out from specific types of development in your area? Do you think that they will benefit as equal as other? If no, how they should be treated? 8. How is your relation with the refugees and other neighbors: social cohesion and conflict? Have conflicts happened between refugees and host communities? If so, what is the cause of the conflict? How was the conflict redressed? Who has involved in settling the conflict? 9. Do the local communities have traditional ways of conflict resolution? If so, how it operates? 10. In the household, who owns land and how it is used? How is the use of natural resources? 11. Do local people have customary or cultural, social institutions/organizations that makes you unique/ different? 12. The proposed project have: (i) Social and Economic Investments (infrastructure for local development including the construction/expansion of schools, health centers, water supply, and all-weather roads, etc.); Sustainable Environmental Management (constructing or rehabilitating physical structures for water catchment management such as check-dams, and water harvesting structures; and biological measures like afforestation, etc.); (ii) Livelihoods Program (understanding the potential for each of the major livelihoods; the opportunities along the value chain and required inputs in terms of the information, finance, technology, tools, and technical assistance; skills enhancement for jobs and employment; etc.); (iii) Project Management including Monitoring and Evaluation, and Regional and National Institutional Support (Strategic Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation arrangements – Management Information System (MIS), independent process monitoring, and outcome/impact evaluations at midterm and end of project; and measures for enhanced transparency and accountability; Knowledge generation, dissemination and learning; etc.); so what is your reflection and opinion with the proposed project? 13. What type of business activities do you need? 14. If the proposed project requires some land for subproject activity implementation, how would it acquire? Do you think that community members could voluntarily donate? If so, what procedures would be followed to ensure voluntary donation by landholders? 55 15. How do communally lands such as grazing areas, social congregation areas, etc., is administered? 16. Are there physical cultural resources in the community? 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? What activities need to done to protect the cultural heritages? 17. What will be your role for the sustainability of the project? 18. How do you think that all community members participate in project design and implementation? Do men and women equal saying and discuss together? 19. How best be the community could be managed to be involved in the monitoring and evaluation? 20. If you have any additional opinions and suggestions you have, please. 56 Annex 3: Issues and major points to be raised during Focus Group Discussion and public consultation 1. Communicating and Sensitization of the proposed components of the project? 2. Are there social service giving infrastructures such as schools, water points, sanitation centers, health centers, roads, market center etc. in this area? If so, are they adequate enough to you? How was their status (sustainability, quality, accessibility, affordability etc.)? 3. What do you think of the gaps/ deficits in regard to social service giving infrastructures? 4. Are you sharing social service giving infrastructures with refugees? If no, why? Are you willing to share social service giving infrastructures with refugees in the future? 5. What are the major problems or needs of the community? Prioritize the needs of the community? 6. Are you willing to contribute for the construction, maintenance, future management (land (how, communal land or privately owned lands), labour, cash, locally available materials), if needed, for the execution of the project? 7. Do the local communities have traditional ways of conflict resolution? If so, how it operates? 8. In the household, who owns land and how it is used? Do local people have land certificate? What is the status of land use and the status of land tenure systems? How is the use of natural resources? Are there people who rented and used local people’s land? 9. If the proposed project requires some land for subproject activity implementation, how would be acquired? Do you think that community members could voluntarily donate? If so, what procedures would be followed to ensure voluntary donation by landholders? 10. If compensation for land is required, how it should be managed? In case where compensation is to be made, who are eligible people for compensations identified? What criteria will be used? What are the types of compensation need to be made? (Probe: payment in cash, payments in-kind, etc.) How do the preference and interest of project affected people regarding type of compensation be accommodated? 11. How do communally lands such as grazing areas, social congregation areas, etc., is administered? Who have access to it? 12. Are there any groups that you think deserve a special focus in the project, who, why and what should be done? 13. How is the general condition of the NRM in your locality? What has to be done by the supposed Project? 14. Issue of sustainability (How do you think that the process and impact of the project sustained in the future?) What will be your role in this regard? 15. Any suggestion on the planning, implementation, M&E exercises of the projects. 57