SFG3502 THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES ETHIOPIA RURAL SAFETY NET PROJECT ENHANCED SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION Food Security Coordination Directorate 22 June 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 10 2. SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 15 3. POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................... 28 4. POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS FOR ERSNP DESIGN ............. 31 4.1 TARGETING ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 TRANSFERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 4.3 PUBLIC WORKS AND LINKAGES TO SOCIAL SERVICES ................................................................................. 53 4.5 DIRECT SUPPORT (DS) ................................................................................................................................... 62 4.6 LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT SERVICES .................................................................................................................. 63 4.7 GRADUATION .................................................................................................................................................. 68 4.8 SOCIAL COHESION ......................................................................................................................................... 70 4.9 SOCIAL CONFLICT.......................................................................................................................................... 71 4.10 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS............................................................................................................. 73 4.11 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 75 4.12 CAPACITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 76 4.13 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 78 4.14 INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT .................................................................................................................... 79 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 80 6. ERSNP SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............................................................................................... 85 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 89 ANNEX 1: GUIDANCE FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS................................. 90 ANNEX 2: SIGNED COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PARTICIPANT LISTS .................................................................... 95 2 ACKRONYMS BDP Business Development Plan CBPWD Community Based Participatory Watershed Development CFSTF Community Food Security Task Force CSA Central Statistical Agency DA Development Agent DRS Developing Regional States DS Direct Support EPD Ethiopian Pastoralist Day FGD Focus Group Discussion FSP Food Security Program FY Fiscal Year GoE Government of Ethiopia GSD Gender and Social Development GTP Growth and Transformation Plan HABP Household Asset Building HEW Health Extension Worker KAC Kebele Appeals Committee KFSTF Kebele Food Security Task Force KII Key Informants Interview KM Kebele Manager MFI Micro Finance Institutions MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoFA Ministry of Federal Affairs MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development MoH Ministry of Health OFSP Other Food Security Program PCDP Pastoral Community Development Project PCHC People’s Complaints’ Hearing Committee PDO Project Development Objective PIM Program Implementation Manual PME Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation PSNP Productive Safety Net Program PW Public Work ERPSP Ethiopia Rural Productive Safety Net RRM Rapid Response Mission RUSACCO Rural Saving and Credit Cooperative SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region TC Technical Committee WFSTF Woreda Food Security Task Force WST Woreda Steering Committee 3 Executive Summary The Ethiopia Rural Safety Net Project (ERSNP) will continue to finance the activities already underway under the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) 4 together with some design improvements. As part of the preparation for the ERSNP, the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) has prepared documentation to address World Bank social safeguards requirements in respect of OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples. This Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation (ESAC) will ensure that the design of the ERSNP is inclusive and equitably supports the most vulnerable and historically underserved populations in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Rural Safety Net Project The ERSNP will support the GoE rural safety net that brings together the PSNP and the humanitarian food assistance provided to meet the food needs of people negatively affected by drought. It will operate in eight regions (Afar, Amhara, Dire Dawa, Harare, Oromiya, Somali, SNNP and Tigray). The ERSNP has been designed to contribute directly to the development priorities of the GoE. GTP II (2015 – 2020) highlights the GoE’s commitment to ensure food security and strengthen disaster risk management (DRM), which are elaborated in the social protection and DRM strategies. In particular, the ERSNP will support the GoE’s aim of putting in place a safety net that scales up in response to shocks in rural areas. Specific higher level objectives for the PSNP that aim to improve food security and asset creation in rural areas, while also contributing to efforts to transform the natural environment and improve nutrition include the following key indicators: (1) average number of months of household food insecurity; (ii) average increase in crop productivity due to public works compared to 2010; and (iii) percentage of households getting water from safe sources within 1km. The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to support the GoE in improving the effectiveness and scalability of its rural safety net system. Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation: Objective The objective is to ensure that the proposed ERSNP meets the needs of all beneficiaries in the appropriate manner with a particular focus on the most vulnerable and historically underserved populations, including: women in male headed and female-headed households, polygamous households, pastoralist households, unemployed rural youth, labour-poor households, the elderly, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIVs) and labour-poor households, new residents to a woreda and children. This ESAC assesses the progress towards implementation of the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan, prepared as part of the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC, and the impact of interventions of PSNP 4 on the most vulnerable and historically underserved populations (with a particular emphasis on groups with distinct socio-cultural characteristics. This ESAC will therefore also serve as an updated ESAC for PSNP 4. Methodology This Assessment employed a multiple case-study research design. Data was studied on the status of implementation of the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 in five communities, of which four were principally pastoral, and one that was culturally-distinct. The Assessment was based on primary data collected through Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) during fieldwork conducted from 10 – 27 May 2017. Efforts were made to include all categories of community members in all FDGs, including women, youth, public work and direct support beneficiaries, the elderly, PSNP non- beneficiaries. Both KIIs and FDGs were guided by a list of questions that sought to cover all aspects of social safeguards in the ERSNP and the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan. The woredas selected are recognized for their high vulnerability to chronic food insecurity and being home to the most vulnerable and historically underserved groups in Ethiopia. While these woredas are inhabited by distinct socio-cultural groups, each with distinct culture and language, a number of social and cultural traits are shared across these groups. Among these similarities is the role that traditional authority structures still play in the social organization of these communities, a predominantly pastoral 4 mode of livelihood (with the exception of the Konso), the strength of the traditional social protection systems, low levels of urbanization, large household sizes and common polygamous family structures, and a conception of wealth/ poverty which appears to be primarily tied to depth and multiplicity of social ties and secondarily to acquisition of material wealth. In addition, all groups have experienced and/or continue to deal with social conflict with neighboring socio-cultural groups and, in some cases, among clans within the same socio-cultural group. These social conflicts are mainly economic, largely due to competition over natural resources (especially water and pasture) and which may involve cattle raiding. Strategic Findings The consultations revealed that the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries feel that the PSNP is going a long way to meeting their needs. The communities involved in the consultations are basically very happy with PSNP and consider it a “lifesaver”. However, it was found that although the PSNP as a whole continues to be appropriate for the purpose intended, some of the most vulnerable and culturally distinct groups require some degree of design modifications and implementation improvements in order to adapt the PSNP to local requirements. Nine strategic issues are listed below. Regarding the Social Development Plan, it was found that the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan is still basically valid but some adjustments are proposed for the ERSNP to take into account the necessary modifications, resulting in a new ERSNP Social Development Plan. • Changes since 2014: The consultations revealed a number of significant changes since the previous ESAC in 2014. Notably: - There have been significant changes, which are still ongoing, in terms of mobility and changing settlement patterns. More men are having to migrate for longer periods of time and equally many families having lost their livestock are more inclined to take up settlement or semi-pastoralist options. In turn, this has led to a serious problem vis-a-vie the PSNP in that some of the settlements into which families have moved are now being classed as urban. Thereby, rendering the household no longer eligible to be PSNP beneficiaries. - A common response throughout the consultations was that droughts have become more severe and more frequent which has put more pressure on the PSNP. - Communities consulted complained that in some areas, the communities are so exhausted coping with the recurrent drought which brings for example, increased walking distance, etc. As a result, their physical capacity to do PWs is much reduced. - Some PSNP beneficiaries commented that “the rich are no longer rich” due to loss of livestock and “are now down to our level” which demonstrates that food insecurity in the pastoral areas is not a question of chronic versus transitory – the situation can change dramatically in the short term resulting in a situation in which there are reportedly far more food insecure people in the pastoral areas than there were a few years ago. - The situation of women, particularly in the pastoral areas, has been exacerbated by the increased migration of men which has increased the workload on women, in some areas the 50% workload rule for women may tend to encourage the men to send more women to do the PWs. - There has been increased demand in pastoral areas for livelihoods support services, most likely due to the failing economic viability of pastoralism due to the drought situation. • Traditional Authority Structures: In the case of pastoral communities, the consultations revealed that the role of traditional authority structures was not fully taken into account in the design of the PSNP. As a result of their distinct modes of livelihood, and their remoteness from the center – pastoral communities have maintained distinct traditional systems of social organization in which the hierarchy of clan leaders plays a central role. While PSNP has interacted with community structures such as women and youth associations, it has not fully recognized the status of the clan leaders within the communities. The result has been in some cases negative outcomes, and in other cases PSNP has 5 not maximized the value that the clan leaders could contribute in the operations of the project. A related finding is the tension between PSNP principles and traditional systems over the question of sharing and diluting of transfers and also in terms of the definition of poverty for which the communities place greater emphasis on social ties than on material wealth. • Insufficient Coverage: Communities such as those visited during the consultations are among the hardest hit during the current drought and the most common concern in this connection is insufficient coverage of food insecure households. Communities commonly complained that, despite the significant increase in the PSNP 4 caseload, many of their community members are chronically food insecure. They also pointed out that the food insecurity situation has been getting worse in recent years due to recurrent droughts. • Household Size: In pastoral areas, where the households are typically larger, a common complaint is that the cap of five beneficiaries/household for PSNP transfer purposes has resulted in food shortage in larger households. • PSNP and HFA Coordination: An important concern among community members is an inconsistency between the operations of the PSNP and Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA). This issue covers the food basket which is more generous in the case of HFA, the fact that HFA covers all members of a targeted household whereas PSNP has a cap of 5 beneficiaries/household, and the labour requirements of PSNP, while HFA often has none. • Transfer Schedule: In some pastoral woredas, the transfer schedule does not coincide with the seasons when the food gap is the severest. • Delay in Transfers: Delays in the receipt of the transfers especially in pastoral areas are common, resulting in some cases in the sale of assets and other negative coping strategies. • Capacity Limitations: There is a significant problem in Afar and Somali regions of capacity limitations at woreda and kebele level which are having a negative impact on the benefits which clients would otherwise be enjoying. The analysis of the reasons for this shortage of capacity was outside the scope of the community consultations, but, factors suggested by community members included low remunerations, working conditions, low morale, high staff turnover, etc. • Lack of Flexibility: Although there is a great deal of commonality on several of the major issues arising, it was noted that PSNP does not seem to have the flexibility to adapt to area-specific conditions. This anomaly results in sometimes in a mismatch between the Project and the beneficiaries which could be relatively easily resolved. Specific Findings Additional challenges and risks are discussed below under the three project components. Targeting The PSNP targeting system in pastoral areas has experienced challenges in recent years, and this led to a recent retargeting exercise in may pastoral woredas. Notwithstanding these improvements, it was noted that: - The new provisions regarding community-based targeting are not always rigorously followed. - The new Proxy Means Testing as a means of strengthening targeting has not yet been introduced in the communities studied. - The PSNP targeting procedure is felt not to be taking into account rapidly changing poverty and livelihood dynamics. 6 Some of the findings were specific to pastoral areas, including: - The dilution of PSNP transfers due to inter-household sharing is common in the pastoral areas. Since the PSNP is intended to support the poorest households, which traditionally are not expected to share, this could suggest sub-optimal targeting. - There is a perception in some communities that the Kebele Appeals Committee (KAC) is not entirely independent of local influence and therefore is not always entirely trusted. - The prospects for graduation from the PSNP in pastoral areas continues to be limited by a lack of sustainable water supply. - The procedure for addressing polygamous households is not universally followed. In addition, the following woreda/region specific findings were noted: - In SNNP and Oromia, there is a perception that the authorities are implementing a ‘quota’ which may be overriding the graduation benchmark system. - In some woredas of Afar Region, the prescribed steps for targeting direct support beneficiaries are not always being followed. - Clients cards were not distributed in some woredas of SNNP. - There is a lack of clarity regarding the eligibility of households in rural settlements that have become urbanized. - Newcomers in some woredas are not considered eligible for PSNP. Transfers The following findings apply to most or all of the communities. - Complaints of delays in transfers resulting from delays in the completion of Public Works are quite common and in some cases were affecting the receipt of transfers by Direct Support beneficiaries. - In some areas, there are complaints that the food transfer is unsuitable for the communities concerned. The following findings were specific to particular communities, - A shortfall in the provision of the mandated 15 kg of cereals and 4 kg of pulses. - A degree of reported coercion for PSNP beneficiaries to spend their transfers on items such as the purchase of fertilizers, or unauthorized deductions being made from the transfer at source. - Traditional gender based roles giving men undue control over the transfers. Public Works and Linkages with Social Services The following findings apply to most of the communities visited, - The enforcement of Health and Safety Regulations on PW sites frequently falls short of the required standard. - The age-based rule prohibiting children under the age of 16 from working on PW is difficult for some communities to enforce due to the physical appearance of some children and lack of birth certificates to verify age. - Tools for implementing PW are not always available, leading the beneficiaries to have to use their own tools. - There is inadequate collaboration between agriculture sector and health sector extension works in implementing BBC on health and nutrition. - In pastoral areas, women tend to suffer a disproportionately high work burden, due to factors such as public works clashing with the local labour season, or with the seasonal male migration patterns. Area specific findings include the following, - In Konso woreda a lack of coordination between Public Works and the Mass Labour Mobilization Program has contributed to an unacceptable work burden on the part of some Public Works participants. 7 - Despite generally good community involvement in PW planning, there are some communities in which local knowledge is not fully taken into account in the planning process. - The rule excluding pregnant and lactating women working on PWs in some cases has not been properly enforced, leading to health and safety risks. Livelihoods Strengthening In areas where the livelihoods strengthening component has been operating, the following are general findings: - PSNP beneficiaries generally have low awareness regarding this project component. - There is a shortage of capacity to provide the required quality of livelihood support services - Due to local customs, women tend not to be targeted for these services. - There is a common complaint that the credit and livelihood transfers are insufficient for the purpose intended. - In some cases, there are complaints that even after reductions the interest rates being charged on the loans are too high for some of the beneficiaries and further, that charging interest is in itself a breach of religious norms. Project Management The following three findings were common to all the communities studied: - Low remuneration and motivation have results in high staff turnover and lack of staff resulting in low implementation. - There is a perception among project staff that the PSNP monitoring and evaluation systems do not take into account their opinions. - Inadequate transport capacity for woreda staff The Current Situation in Konso Particular observation was made of the current situation of Konso Special Woreda which was selected as one of the five reviewed woredas given the fact that implementation of the PSNP had been suspended last year due to political unrest. Consequently, PSNP beneficiaries did not collect their transfers during that period. Consultations found that political tension has now subsided and that the PSNP came back into operation four months before the community consultations took place for this ESAC. Observation during the field visit has also confirmed participants’ report that a state of normalcy has been restored in the woreda. On the other hand, the suspension of PSNP for a year appears to have caused the woreda to fall behand in implementation of such activities as roll-out of the Livelihoods Strengthening component and implementation of BCC on nutrition. Recommendations The recommendations arising from the findings include a number of strategic actions and a number of detailed actions that need to be taken. The strategic actions are summarized below; the detailed actions are set out in the Social Development Plan. • Changing settlement and migration patterns calls for a review of the targeting formula used for pastoral areas which is based on a concept of chronic food insecurity which appears not to reflect the current dynamics in the pastoral areas. • Drought: The increased frequency and severity of droughts has given rise to a number of concerns that are covered by the recommendations below. Particularly the recommendation that the PSNP model needs to operate in a more flexible manner in the pastoral areas in order to respond to short term weather patterns, and to ensure that transfers experience no delays. • Gender issues: The deteriorating situation for women in pastoral areas needs to be urgently addressed. This will require a multi-pronged approach including a review of Public Works labour requirements in terms of both timing, extent and nature of the work. 8 • Livelihoods Support. Consideration should be given to the significant demand for livelihoods support services in the pastoral areas. • Traditional Authority Structures: Consider developing an evidence base to inform a possible re- design of the PSNP to ensure that the PSNP is relevant and appropriate to pastoral communities. • Insufficient Coverage: Expand the PSNP in pastoral areas to the extent possible. • Household Size: Consider reinstating full-family targeting to ensure the program’s objective of smoothening consumption and protecting asset depletion were to be achieved. • PSNP and HFA Coordination: It is recommended that the PSNP and HFA harmonize all operating procedures, including targeting structures, processes and transfer values to improve on the effectiveness of current arrangements for a continuum of response • Transfer Schedule: Recommend a closer study be made of the seasonal variations between different parts of Afar and Somali regions so that the transfer schedule can be adjusted in due course to match the requirement of the beneficiaries. • Delay in Transfers: Ensure beneficiaries receive transfers on time by addressing capacity gaps and root causes of service providers. • Capacity Limitations: It is recommended that the capacity in all respects to implement the PSNP in Afar and Somali Regions be studied in detail and an Action Plan should be developed. • Lack of Flexibility. It is recommended that the PSNP M&E system should be more responsive to area specific needs and should involve a feedback loop whereby the design of the PSNP can take into account inter-regional and in-woreda variations. A Social Development Plan which incorporates all the detailed recommendations as well as the major recommendations, above, sets out a structured action plan with indications as to the responsible body and the timeframe of implementation. 9 1. Introduction Food insecurity has long been one of the defining features of rural poverty, particularly in drought-prone areas of Ethiopia. Poverty has been widespread in both rural and urban areas, but the magnitude has been much greater in drought-prone rural areas than in urban areas. The GoE decided that there was an urgent need to address the basic food needs of food insecure households via a productive safety net system financed through multi-year predictable resources, rather than through a system dominated by emergency humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the GoE sought to shift the financing of the programme from food aid to cash. On this basis, within the framework of the national Food Security Programme, which emphasized the three interrelated pillars of food security that address food availability, access to food and utilization, the Government decided to develop a Productive Safety Net Project (PSNP). Following the launch of the PSNP in 2005, the food insecurity situation has shown gains in recent years, attributable to the PSNP and other, related programmes and activities. However, with rapid population growth, the absolute number of Ethiopians living in poverty is still high. PSNP 4 built on the successes and lessons learned from the previous and current phases of the PSNP. It also supported the transition to a system of integrated social protection, and the integration of the two previous programs [PSNP and Household Asset-Building Programme (HABP)] into a single program, and scaling up to a national rural program, in all regions. The Ethiopia Rural Safety Net Project (ERSNP) will support the Government of Ethiopia’s rural safety net, that brings together the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and the Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA) that is provided to meet the food needs of people negatively affected by drought. It will operate in eight regions (Afar, Amhara, Dire Dawa, Harare, Oromiya, Somali, SNNP and Tigray). Through the PSNP, the GoE provides predictable safety net support to 8 million chronically food insecure people. These people are selected into the program through a community-based targeting process. Households with able-bodied adult members are asked to work on community planned public works in exchange for their transfers, which they receive each month for six months of the year. These adults participate in PW that rehabilitate the natural resource base, build health posts and schoolrooms, construct and rehabilitate roads, and build other public infrastructure as prioritized by the community. Women are exempt from PW during pregnancy and the first-year postpartum, during which they are linked with the Health Extension Program to receive antenatal counselling, growth monitoring, and other services. Labor- constrained households 1 receive unconditional transfers (PDS) and are linked with complementary social services where possible. Transfers are provided in cash or food through the GoE’s financial management and food management systems. Livelihoods activities (in some cases provided through NGOs) aim to enable PSNP clients to diversify and increase their incomes thereby moving out of poverty (and graduating from participation in the PSNP). The PSNP has been designed so that safety net support can be expanded in response to drought. The program has flexibility to provide extended months of support to existing clients and include additional households as temporary clients. To date, this scaling-up has only been financed through contingency budgets that were held within the Program at woreda and federal-level. Under the rural safety net, the Government will use the systems and procedures of the PSNP for “emergency” food or cash support to households affected by drought and other crises in the eight regions. In this way, the scaling-up of safety net support in response to drought will be through funds allocated to drought-response, be these humanitarian or development funds. The Project Development Objective is to support the Government of Ethiopia in improving the effectiveness and scalability of its rural safety net system. Improved effectiveness is defined as progress in the performance of the core aspects of a safety net that are central to achieving results, particularly 1Labor-constrained households are defined as households without able-bodied adults or female-headed households with a high dependency ratio (four or more dependents). 10 selecting the correct people into the program, delivering transfers on time and in a predictable manner, and using robust payment systems to ensure that transfers reach the right people. Improved scalability refers to the expected impacts of consolidating the PSNP and Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA) delivery systems and procedures into a single framework led by the Government. The key results for the proposed operation are the achievements that are most necessary to improve the effectiveness and scalability of the rural safety net system in Ethiopia. The effectiveness of the safety net can best be measured through progress in the accuracy of targeting, the timeliness of transfers, and the robustness of payment modalities. The scalability of the safety net can be measured through progress made in putting into practice the common framework for transfers that are delivered in response to drought. Strengthening the performance of the rural safety net along these parameters is anticipated to improve the impacts on food security and contribute toward poverty reduction. The key results are as follows: • Targeting accuracy. This indicator will assess whether the safety net transfers are reaching eligible households. Targeting is largely effective at identifying chronically food insecure households in the highland regions for regular support from the PSNP. However, the targeting accuracy of the PSNP has been considerably weaker in pastoral regions (specifically Afar and Somali). Regarding the targeting of humanitarian food and cash resources, there is no robust evidence. • Timely transfers. This indicator assesses the extent to which clients receive their transfers on time, as set out in a payment calendar. This indicator focuses on the percentage of safety net payments meeting performance standards, which will vary for (a) regular transfers as compared with transfers in response to transitory need and (b) payments in cash or food. 2 • Robust payment modalities, specifically for cash. This result focuses on planned improvements to the payment systems for transfers for regular safety net transfers and those provided in response to drought. In particular, it measures the expansion in the use of e-payments for cash transfers. • Common standards for PW planning. At present, planning of PW subprojects, which are funded through the PSNP or HFA, is carried out separately, with limited use of common standards. This indicator assesses the application of common standards through the percentage of rural safety net PW subprojects that have been screened using the GoE’s Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). To support the Government to improve the delivery of an effective and scalable safety net, the ERSNP will include three components. • Component 1: Safety net transfers for food insecure households in rural areas is focused on the delivery of predictable and timely transfers (both regular transfers to core clients and transfers to households in response to shocks). It comprises the PW that most clients work on in exchange for their safety net transfers and the nutrition-sensitive interventions that supplement these PW conditions. • Component 2: Enhanced access to complementary livelihood services aims to improve the access of PSNP clients to technical and financial livelihoods support services. • Component 3: Institutional support to strengthening systems for the rural safety net will provide technical support to the institutional and system reform required to deliver an effective and scalable safety net in rural areas. It will also support the development and enhancement of key instruments and tools, capacity building, and the management and administrative budgets for implementing the system. 2014 Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation 2 Timeliness of payments in cash to core beneficiaries has largely met performance standards, and most of the improvements expected will be seen in pastoral regions where food has been the predominant mode of transfer and for transitory clients. 11 In preparation for the PSNP’s fourth phase (2015 – 2020), an ESAC was undertaken in 2014 to ensure that the design of PSNP 4 was inclusive and equitably supported the most vulnerable and underserved populations in Ethiopia in the most appropriate manner. Key stakeholder groups in the Project areas were identified (including their livelihood, socio-cultural characteristics, etc.); their opinions and perceptions about the proposed Project were recorded; potential social impacts were assessed; how relationships between stakeholder groups will affect or be affected by the Project were determined; implications for Project design and implementation were discussed; and practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified were provided. The ESAC also recorded any cases encountered of voluntary or involuntary resettlement (including loss of assets or access to assets). Any procedures that were used to address such cases of resettlement were identified. All regions, including Dire Dawa City Administration, in which PSNP 4 is implemented, were represented by at least by one woreda and attempts were made to include as many diverse agro-climatic and livelihood conditions as possible. The identification and selection of sample woredas included the following: Table 1: Communities consulted for (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC Region Woreda Kebele Tigray Alamata Gerjale, Limat Tabia Amhara Meket Kebele 14, Kebele 4 Oromia Fantale Galcha, Kanifa Ngangatom Nargoy SNNP Kangate, Hado, Gure Dassanetch Narama Afar Awash Boloyta, Dadub Somali Babile Dendema, Biko Dire Dawa Beke Hallo, Adada Harari Burqa, Harewie While communities discussed a wide range of topics, there were a number of issues which were common in all consultations. These include the importance of timely transfers, suitable foods, targeting, health and safety, timing of public works, local knowledge, social conflict, etc. It was found that overall PSNP 4 would need only minor adjustments to meet the needs of the most vulnerable and the communities were in general happy with the design and accepted proposals for PSNP 4. Regarding involuntary asset loss, no examples were found and no complaints were made in the woredas visited. Social impacts were found to be generally positive. Community consultations revealed that a large number of the rural population need transfers, environmental rehabilitation activities and social infrastructure. However, to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable are met, some adjustments were recommended in certain areas, as set out in the following lists, below. Risks and challenges were incorporated into the design of PSNP 4, in order to maximize positive and minimize negative impacts. 2017 Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation: Methodology This Assessment employed a multiple case-study research design. Data was studied on the status of implementation of the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 in five communities, of which four were principally pastoral, and one that was culturally-distinct. Fieldwork included a review of progress towards implementation of the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan and impact of the PSNP 4 on the most vulnerable and underserved populations (with a particular emphasis on groups with distinct socio-cultural characteristics) with a view to ensuring that the design of the ERSNP is reflecting the needs of these beneficiaries in the most appropriate manner. Primary data was collected from Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) during fieldwork conducted from 10 – 27 May 2017. Efforts were made to include all categories of 12 community members in all FDGs, including women, youth, public work and direct support beneficiaries, the elderly, PSNP non-beneficiaries. Both KIIs and FDGs were guided by a list of questions that sought to cover all aspects of social safeguards in the ERSNP and the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan. KIIs were held with implementers in charge of implementation of the PSNP in each of the five reviewed woredas. In order to verify and enrich information sought through KIIs, at least two implementers were interviewed in each woreda. Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) were held with community members. Efforts were made to include all categories of community members in all FDGs, including women, youth, public work and direct support beneficiaries, the elderly, PSNP non-beneficiaries. Fifteen to twenty community members participated in each FGD. Both KIIs and FDGs were guided by a list of questions that sought to cover all aspects of social safeguards in PSNP 4 and its Social Development Plan. The guides sought to capture information on the extent to which the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan has been implemented, including the appropriateness of the recommendations and possible areas for strengthening in addition to impacts of PSNP 4 activities to date. To the extent possible, woredas and communities that were not already covered by previous community level consultations and FGDs were not included. Selected woredas and regions, included: Amibara in Afar, Mieso in Oromia, Hammer and Konso in SNNPR and Afdem in Somali. Table 2: ERSNP ESAC Community Consultations Region Woreda Kebele Afar Amibara Serkam Konso Doha SNNPR Hamer Fayo Somali Afdem Afdem Oromia Mieso Engude The focus was on identifying the key stakeholder groups in the Project areas (including their livelihood and socio-cultural characteristics, etc.); recording their opinions and perceptions about the Project; assessing the social impacts; determining how relationships between stakeholder groups affected or be affected by the Project; assessing implications for Project design and implementation; and providing practical recommendations for dealing with the challenges and risks identified. The assessment also attempted to identify opportunities for strengthening the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan for the ERSNP. As described in detail in the next section, the selected woredas were recognized for being home to vulnerable and historically underserved groups. The Assessment also included a review of information from secondary sources since the start of PSNP 4, including: JRIS Aide Memoires, Rapid Response Mission Reports, Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas, PSNP Impact Assessment, etc. Community consultations undertaken as part of these other recent PSNP included the following regions and woredas: Table 3: Additional Community Consultations 2017 Gender Assessment 2017 PSNP 4 Safeguards Implementation Region 2016 PSNP Impact Assessment 34 of Lowland Areas 5 Verification Report Afar Abeala, Elidear, Ewa, Gewane Berhale, Asaita Elida’ar, Dewe, Berahle Somali Errer, Gursum, Hudet, Shinile Gursum, Harshin Harshin, Aysha Dewele, Adhadile Oromia Chiro, Kuye, Zeway Dugda Yabello,Fentalle SNNPR Boloso Sore, Loko Abaya, Humbo Hamer, Nyangatom Tigray Ahiferom, Endamekoni, Kulomekeda, 3 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 4 Please note that list of woredas included are those where qualitative assessment for the study which included focus group discussion and key informant interviews. 5 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV: Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. Addis Ababa. 13 Amhara Angelela Tera, Legambo, Libo Kemke 14 2. Socio-Cultural Context The following provides a description of the vulnerable and historically underserved communities with a focus on their livelihoods and traditional institutions which were consulted during the Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation for the ERSNP. These are Amibara in Afar Region, Mieso in Oromia Region, Hammer and Konso in SNNP Region and Afdem in Somali Region. Map 1: Sample woredas visited during the ERSNP Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Afdem Amibara Somali Afar Mieso Oromia Hammer Konso SNNPR These woredas are recognized for their high vulnerability to chronic food insecurity and being home to historically underserved groups. They are inhabited by distinct socio-cultural groups, each with distinct culture and language. However, a number of social and cultural similarities may be identified among these groups. Among these similarities is the role that traditional authority structures still play in the social organization of these communities, a predominantly pastoral mode of livelihood (with the exception of the Konso), the strength of the traditional social protection system, low levels of urbanization, large household sizes and common polygamous family structures, a conception of wealth/ poverty which appears to be primarily tied to depth and multiplicity of social ties and secondarily to acquisition of material wealth. Moreover, all groups have experienced and/or continue to deal with social conflict with neighboring socio-cultural groups - in some cases, among clans within the same socio-cultural group. These social conflicts are mainly economic - largely due to competition over natural resources (mainly water and pasture) and which may involve cattle raiding. A brief description of each woreda and the socio cultural features of the ethnic group it houses are provided below: Afdem, Ethiopian Somali Afdem is one of the woredas in Shinile Zone of the Somali Region. The woreda shares a border on the south and southwest with Oromia Region, on the north with the Afar Region and on the east with Erer woreda. The administrative center of this woreda is Afdem; other towns in Afdem include Alejer and Bike. 15 Afdem’s average elevation is between 1200 – 1400m above sea level but there are high peaks including Mount Afdem which is about 2000 meters above sea level. The climate is arid with annual rainfall of 604mm and average temperature is 340c. According to the Woreda Administration, this woreda has a total population of 124,000, of whom 52% are male and 48% female. Afdem woreda has 15 kebeles. 98% of the population of Afdem is Muslim, and 1.29% practice Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. The main livelihood activity is livestock. However, livelihoods are subject to numerous shocks and stresses, including recurrent drought, livestock marketing constraints and Figure 1: Typical Somali House mobility due to conflict and insecurity. Afdem is primarily inhabited by the Issa clan, which one of the eight clans of the Somali ethnic group. The other clans are Ogaden, Isaaq, Dir, Hawiya, Ajuran Sheikhal and Gadabursi. Somali society is highly structured, anchored in the system of clans and sub-clans that bind and divide Somalis. The clan system forms the basis for most of the core social institutions and norms of traditional Somali society, including personal identity, rights of access to local resources, customary law (xeer), blood payment groups (diya), and support systems. Hundreds of clans, sub-clans, sub-sub clans and so on exist and allegiances are complex. One sub-clan generally resides in one kebele, meaning woredas are home to multiple sub-clans, sometimes of the same overall clan, sometimes of different clans. Although all Somalis profess strong allegiance to Islam, they hold stronger primary loyalties to the self, family and clan. The Somali language is a member of the Eastern Cushitic family of languages. Linguists analyze several languages among the Somali peoples, which are not mutually intelligible. These pastoral people have a culture primarily centered around camels with a few cattle and goats in the more productive areas. Women and young children care for sheep and goats while the young men and boys are responsible for herding the highly esteemed camels. Families live in portable huts; each wife has her separate hut made of bent saplings and woven mats. Home building and home making are the women's responsibility. A man is allowed four wives under Islamic law and polygamy is widely practiced. Divorce is the prerogative of men only and is easy and common among the Somali. In case of divorce, the children are divided by gender, boys to the father and girls to the mother. Figure 2: Afdem Women Amibara, Afar Amibara is one of the woredas in the the Administrative Zone 3 of Afar Region. It is bordered on the south by Awash Fentale woreda, on the west by the Awash River which separates it from Dulecha woreda, on the northwest by the Administrative Zone 5 of Afar Region, on the north by Gewane woreda, on the east by the Somali Region, and on the southeast by Oromia Region. Towns in Amibara include Awash Arba, Awash Sheleko, Melka Sedi and Melka Were. Amibara has a total population of approx. 63,378, of whom 35,374 are men and 28,004 women; with an area of 2,007.05 square kilometers, Amibara has a population density of 31.58. While 44.40% are urban 16 inhabitants, 10.34% are pastoralists. The Afar are predominantly Muslim. They have a long history of association with Islam through the various local Muslim polities. The Afar practice clan-based power structure. Individuals identify themselves as members of a specified clan and local community. Amibara houses the Afar clans of both Deble and Woyima. All Afar clans are divided into lesser inclusive units. The higher units are clan (mela) and the level below it is the local community (kaidoh), and the next lower level is the extended family (dahla), followed by the household (burra). Within the local community, elders arbitrate disputes, and the overall problems are dealt with the committee members of the grazing associations. Although intra-clan relationships are less Figure 3: Afar Homestead hostile, animosity and fighting sometimes occurs due to scarcity of water. The Afar speak the Afar language as a mother tongue. It is part of the Cushitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family, and is spoken by the Afar in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, as well as in southern Eritrea and northern Djibouti. As the case is with people living in other woredas of Afar, the people of Amibara depend mainly on subsistence livestock production. Afar land is extremely harsh. Its ability to support the pastoral population is largely dependent on the Awash River, which is the main source of water for the region. Until the 1950s, the Awash Valley was mainly used by semi-nomadic Afar for extensive livestock production. After this period, the first major step taken was the adoption by the imperial government of the river valley development policy in the late 1950s. The penetration of foreign capital into the region in the following years had a tremendous effect on the traditional resource use patterns there. The biggest single impact was, and continues to be, that groups who, in the past, would have had free access to unlimited natural resources, are now subject to limited access to the natural resource base. In addition to irrigation development, the establishment of the Awash National Park in 1966 covering an area of 830 square kilometers in the Middle Valley also represented major changes in natural resource use in the Awash Valley. These changes have together seriously affected the lives of the Afar pastoralists through expropriation of Figure 4: Camels are at the center of the household grazing land and changes to the Awash flood economy for many Afar regime. Hammer, SNNPR The Hammer woreda is one of the six pastoral and agro-pastoral woredas found in South Omo Zone of the SNNP region. It is bordered by Bena Tsemay in the north, Dassanetch (SNNPR) in the southwest, Ngangatom (SNNPR) in the northwest, Kenya in the south, and Borena and Konso in the east. The total area of the woreda is estimated to be 731,565 hectares: 9,095 hectares cultivated land; 250,709 hectares covered with bushes; 225,434 hectares grazing land; 10,000 hectares forest land; 99,260 hectares irrigable land; and the remaining 137,067 hectares covered by different organizational and residential areas. In 2013/14, the total population of the woreda was estimated at 71,489 (49.9% male and 50.1% female). The woreda has 35 administrative kebeles: 11 inhabited by pure pastoralists; 21 by agro-pastoralists; and the 17 remaining three by settled farmers. The Hammar, the Arebore and the Kara constitute the major ethnic groups of Hammar Woreda. The woreda has experienced recurrent drought in recent past, which has become the main obstacle in the pastoralists’ effort to build household assets and produce enough for family consumption. The agro-ecology of the woreda can be categorized in such a way that 8% is dry woina dega, 37.5% is partially dry kolla, 54% is kolla, and the remaining 0.5% is bereha. Mean annual rainfall of the woreda is 764 mm. The average annual temperature of the woreda ranges from 30c to 35c while the altitude ranges from 371 to 2084 meters above sea level. Among the main crops produced and consumed in the woreda are maize and Figure 5: Hammer Village sorghum. While the Hammar depend on keeping livestock and rain-fed crop production, the Arbore and the Kara depend on livestock and flood retreat agriculture, using the waters of the Weito and Omo Rivers, respectively. The Hammar ethnic group, which is the demographic majority in the woreda, is structured along clan lines. The clan leadership structure is organized in such a way that Bita is the ultimate decision maker. The other important man in the clan structure is the Perko. He is a religious figure (i.e. praying so that the plants flower to help the bees collect the materials they want to make honey). Under Perko, there is another traditional leadership called Jilo. The lower structure in the leadership is occupied by the Donza (elders of the land). It is the Donza that are involved in the day to day activities of the Hammar. The Donza institution leads the day to day life activities like organizing people for PW activities. Gender roles are arranged in such a way that livestock keeping is mainly taken as men’s activity. The decision about where to graze on and where and when to move the household livestock for better management is assumed by the male household head. In relation to livestock the role of women is limited to minor tasks such as milking cows and looking after those livestock around residence areas. Farming is women’s responsibility. Men’s role is mainly to help women selecting a good farm site and assisting them during clearing the land. Afterwards, the remaining tasks such as hoe digging, sowing seeds, weeding and harvesting are done by women. The rules that govern gender relations and the means of its institutions are predominantly determined through customary law. Patrilineal descent system and patrilocal residence pattern govern gender relations and access to basic resources. The Arbore are a small group of about 7,000 people living in south-eastern part of South Omo in southern Ethiopia. They inhabit the hot open plains south of the Sagan – Woito confluence, north of Lake Stephanie (Chew Bahir). Linguistically, the Arbore are part of the ‘Omo – Tana’ cluster (previously known by the name Macro – Somali) of low land East Cushitic (Hayward 1984). The Arbore land lies at a very low altitude, approximately 450 meters above sea level, and the climate is generally arid and harsh. Average temperatures are high throughout the year. The dry season extends from June to September and from December to March with daily mean temperatures of 30 – 35 degrees respectively. The rainfall is bimodally distributed with the big rains in March-April and the small Figure 6: Vast and isolated Hammer landscape rains in October-November. The other months are 18 virtually dry. The area has an annual rainfall of less than 600 mm. The Woito and Sagan rivers are the sources of the water on which the livelihood of the people and the cattle depend. These two rivers join at a point some 50 km north of Chew Bahir and the combined waters below the confluence are known as Glana Dulei. The water is then diverted onto the flood plains and used for irrigation. The Arbore have a mixed economy based on flood-retreat cultivation and animal husbandry. Agriculture provides the staple food, sorghum and maize. Their pastoral economy which follows a pattern of transhumance is also central to their subsistence, rituals and values. When the condition of the rivers allow, Figure 7: Hammer Ritual fishing is also practiced as supplementary source of food. The Arobre are grouped largely into four major compact, neatly structured and partially endogamous villages. These villages are Gandareb, Kulaama, Murale, and Eegude. Each village is made up of 10 to 12 exogamous clans which are scattered throughout the four villages but at the same time spatially localized and proximate to one another. Here, the majority of the population (women, children and most of the men) live in compact and stable homesteads. A large part of the arable flood plain is also situated not far away from these fixed communities. Except for the domestic herd which remains in the homesteads most of the cattle and small stock are kept in separate mobile camps and are taken care of by boys and youths. The Arbore have an active age grade system which has an important role to play in the social, political, judicial and economic life of the people. Each village settlement (dir) has its own age set. Konso, SNNPR Konso Special Woreda is one of the eight special woredas in SNNPR. It is located 50 56’ North Latitude, and 370 69’ East Longitude. The total population of the woreda is approximately 250,750 of whom 120,693 are males and 130,057 are females. The woreda settlement pattern shows that 239,422 people live in rural areas while 11,328 people live in urban areas. The capital of Konso Woreda is Karat Town. Agriculture is the major economic activity of the Konso. Konso farmers practice crop production, livestock rearing, and beekeeping activities. Based on the climatic zones of the woreda, crops like barley, wheat, sorghum, maize, cotton, coffee, kidney beans, and cow peas Figure 8: Konso Village are grown. Sorghum is the major staple of the people. The agricultural practices of Konso have some unique features. The landscape demonstrates the shared values, social cohesion and engineering knowledge of its communities. All the hills and valleys of the Konso highlands have been terraced in order to hold running water and prevent soil erosion. The practice of terracing, together with their use of animal and human fertilizers, enabled Konso farmers to produce sufficient food for an ever increasing population. 19 Konso is known for its industrious people who are endowed with extraordinary skill and knowledge, especially in water and soil conservation practices. They managed to survive in the marginal environment using indigenous knowledge and skills that enabled them to make optimal use of unfavorable terrain and climatic conditions in innovative manner as a survival strategy over centuries. The construction of terraces in addition to their conservation value also helps to get additional farm lands by converting the rugged and hilly landscape into more plain farmlands. Konso’s intensive agriculture is also supported by selection Figure 9: Konso Market of plant genes, which could withstand the weather condition of the area. All of this is evidence of the skills of Konso farmers in developing adaptive techniques that suit their natural environment. Konso’s agriculture, which had been subsistence in nature, has been supported by the labor of family members. However, labor intensive activities like construction of elongated terraces across the valleys and mountains, transporting compost fertilizers, and tilling the land are beyond the capacity of family labor. As a result, the Konso prefer working in groups or parga (working party) 6. The Konso social organization is based on clan or lineage where age grade is an important element. Konso society is classified into nine exogamous clans. Each clan bears the name of its founding father. The Konso people live in densely populated and defensive walled villages. They are dominantly Protestant Christians followed by traditional worshipers, and Orthodox Church believers. The tradition of dispute settlement among the Konso dates back to the early 14th century. Women were active in settling disputes as men often went away for farming, hunting, and fighting neighboring enemies. However, this tradition was gradually reversed in which men took over the responsibility of dispute settlement. In relation to this, the traditional judiciary system evolved from the existing dispute settlement practices in which elders, religious leaders, and clan heads play key roles. The Poqala institution is an important aspect of Konso traditional authority. In religious context, the term Poqala refers to priesthood. The Poqala acts as an intermediary between God and the people. Craftwork is also important in Konso life. Konso also features anthropomorphic wooden statues - grouped to represent respected members of their communities and particularly heroic events - which are an exceptional living testimony to funerary traditions that are on the verge of disappearing. Stone steles in the towns express a complex system of marking the passing of generations of leaders. The walled towns and settlements (Paletas) of the Konso cultural landscape is located in a dry, hilly environment, Figure 10: Konso Funeral Statues including high plains or hill summits selected for their strategic and defensive advantage. Indeed, Konso had always been a relatively isolated area of the country, where life has remained largely unchanged for at least 400 years. The people live in closely-packed communities of wood-and-mud built, thatched dwellings from which they travel out to their fields of millet on a daily basis. The local chief’s hilltop ‘Palace’ comprises a collection of dome-shaped thatched rooms, with covered meeting and work 6 Wondu Argaw Yimam, 2011. A History of Konso Woreda from 1941-1991. Addis Ababa. 20 areas, all surrounded by a heavy wooden ‘stockade’ with narrow gates. In nearby forest clearings, collections of anthropomorphic statues are maintained, one group of them kept under a pagoda-style shelter. Overall, Konso villages feature tightly packed houses, small raised gardens, and narrow stone walled paths. Konso was inscribed as a UNESCO cultural landscape in 2011 because of the fact that the Konso Figure 11: Konso Cultural Landscape landscape demonstrates the shared values, social cohesion and engineering knowledge of its communities. Mieso, Oromia Mieso is one of the woredas in Western Hararghe Zone of the Oromia Region, which extends from west to east and to the southern borders of the country and is the largest regional state with an area of approximately 353,000km2. Mieso has a latitude and longitude of 9 of 9°14′N 40°45′E. It is bordered on the south by Guba Koricha, on the west by the Afar Region, on the north by the Somali Region, on the east by Doba and on the southeast by the town of Chiro. Towns in Mieso woreda include Arba, Bordode, Asabot, Mieso and Mulu. The altitude of Mieso ranges from 1107 to 3106 meters above sea level; the highest point is Mount Asabot which 1523 meters above sea level. A survey of the land in Mieso shows that 11.5% is arable or cultivable (10.7% of the total area was under annual crops), 23.7% cultivable if water were available, 8.9% pasture, 28.7% forest or brush land, and the remaining 27.3% is considered hilly, built-up or otherwise unusable. The total population for this woreda is 130,709, of whom 66,891 are men and 63,818 are women; 25,388 or 19.42% of its population are urban dwellers. With an estimated area of 2,573.44 square kilometers, Mieso has an estimated population density of 53.3 people per square kilometer. There are four ethnic groups in Mieso: the Oromo (88.09%), the Somali (5.77%), the Amhara (3.46%), and the Argobba (0.66%); all other ethnic groups made up 2.02% of the population. Mieso inhibited predominantly by the Ittue tribe of the Oromo ethnic group, which dominates the Western Hararghe zone of the Oromia region. The Oromo people are divided into two major branches: Boarana and Barentu. These two major groups are in turn subdivided into an assortment of lesser inclusive sub-clans who settled from west to east and north to south. The Ittu of Mieso belong to a subdivision of the Barentu Oromo. Ittus are further divided into ten clans: Baye, Wayye, Addayyo, Aroji, Babo, Gadula, Wachale, Alga, Gamo and Qalu. The Barentu Oromo people in Arsi, Bale and Hararghe regions were converted to Islam in the 19th century. In eastern regions close to Somalia, about 98.5% of the Barentu people now follow Islam. They are geographically closest to the Afar people from the Afar Region, who were the two first ethnic groups to accept Islam in Africa. Mieso has seen recurrent conflicts between the local Oromos and Somali in Mieso which has killed and displaced thousands from their homes. Figure 12: Milk Market inThe Ittu Oromo occupy the western part of Harerghe highlands. Their home Mieso Woreda area is called Carcar or Ona Ituu. They are the people who are very close to the assembly of Caffee Odaa Bultum under which the tradition of the Barentuma Oromo administration system is kept. The Oromo of Harerghe speak the Oromo language called Afaan Oromo. However, they retained a unique Ittu dialect. 21 The Ittu Oromo social structure is organized by indigenous Oromo socio-cultural system called the Gada system, which guides the socio-cultural and political life of the Ittu Oromo. The term of Gada officials is eight years. They resolve conflicts through a system of council of elders. Land and other natural resources are administered by customary law. This indigenous democratic socio-political system of the Oromo people was inscribed in 2016 on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The Gada system regulates political, economic, social and religious activities of the community dealing with issues such as conflict resolution, reparation and protecting women’s rights. It serves as a mechanism for enforcing moral conduct, building social cohesion, and expressing forms of community culture. Gada is organized into five classes with one of these functioning as the ruling class consisting of a chairperson, officials and an assembly. Each class progresses through a series of grades before it can function in authority with the leadership changing on a Figure 13: Oromo Gada System rotational basis every eight years. Class membership is open to men, whose fathers are already members, while women are consulted for decision-making on protecting women’s rights. The classes are taught by oral historians covering history, laws, rituals, time reckoning, cosmology, myths, rules of conduct, and the function of the Gada system. Meetings and ceremonies take place under a sycamore tree (considered the Gada symbol) while major clans have established Gada centres and ceremonial spaces according to territory. Knowledge about the Gada system is transmitted to children in the home and at school. Regarding livelihoods, sesame and haricot beans are important cash crops. However, in 8 of Mieso’s 37 kebeles, the predominant livelihood practice is pastoralism; some pastoralists are sedentary and other migrate with their herds in search of forage and water. Cattle and goats are the most common livestock, and the vegetation is primarily acacia with grass cover beneath. Mieso reportedly has become, since 2003, one of the major markets of goats supplying the slaughterhouses in Mojo and Metehara which export mutton. Food security situation has been volatile in the predominantly pastoral Mieso due to water and pasture shortage, rising in prices of cereals and drastic fall in livestock price, especially cattle price in drought affected parts in east and west Hararghe resulted in increased request for relief food assistance by the region. West Hararghe zone of which Mieso is a part is one of the food deficit zones of Oromia regional state, which falls in the second drought prone belt. Figure 14: Dry river of Mieso Woreda Most Vulnerable and Historically Underserved Groups As with previous phases of the PSNP, the Government’s PSNP, phase 4 (PSNP 4), which is supported through the Ethiopia Rural Safety Net Project,will target the poorest of the poor, the chronically food insecure. The Program thus captures this population within its caseload and is designed to meet the needs of this group. In order to focus the Assessment further, the most vulnerable and underserved have been identified as: - Women in male headed and female-headed households - Women in polygamous households - Pastoralist households - Unemployed rural youth 22 - Households unable to provide PW labour. These beneficiaries receive ‘Permanent Direct Support (PDS)’. They include, for example, the elderly, People living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIVs) and labour- poor households - New residents in the woreda - Children Women in male-headed and female-headed households Understanding gender based social exclusion, restriction, discrimination or differential treatment is important to consider during PSNP 4 design and implementation. In many communities, women become vulnerable because of lack of education, gender bias, tradition and culture, and their triple roles i.e. reproductive, productive and community roles. Thus, it is important to understand the place of women in PSNP communities to inform how gender issues can be mainstreamed into the PSNP activities. The status of Ethiopian women can be seen in terms of: societal attitudes towards women; their socio- economic status; their educational status; women’s awareness of their rights; their productive and reproductive roles, etc. More specifically, societal attitudes towards women (e.g., they are meant to care for the domestic chores, namely childcare, preparation of food, etc.); their socioeconomic status (e.g., limited property ownership rights); no/little education (with all its ramifications such as low awareness of their rights both at micro and macro level); and their roles and statuses in the family (e.g., in polygamous unions, female-headed households) deserve closer examination in view of the objectives of PSNP 4. There is no doubt that previous phases of the PSNP have immensely improved the livelihood of female- headed households, enhanced the empowerment of women both at the household and community levels, and their “participation in public works (PWs) earned them greater respect in their communities” 7. A female informant in Hammar woreda noted, “I was elected to the Kebele Food Security Task Force in a meeting which I did not attend and I served with full commitment and dedication much more than some of the male members of the committee”. Assessments undertaken during previous phases also show that there are some areas that need more attention, despite the efforts made to address them. For example, women experience difficulties in balancing participation in PWs and their other household responsibilities. As compared to male-headed households, female-headed households: (i) were less likely to lodge a complaint if they perceived that selection processes were unfair (e.g., Boloyta and Dudub kebeles of Awash (Afar) woreda, Afar) 8; (ii) had less contact with DAs (e.g., Hado and Nure Narama kebeles in Dassanetch (SNNPR) woreda); and (iii) were less likely to use the credit facilities established under the previous HABP. Field data also show that male out-migration can exacerbate the vulnerability of women as observed in Konso, depriving the household of male labour for agricultural work and leaving the whole burden of the household’s participation in PWs on women. In terms of the impact of patriarchal structure on women, field data show that in most of the communities visited, women actively participate in the KAC and there was no problem for women in lodging complaints if they have any. Nonetheless, in some Afar kebeles, women complained that the KAC does not listen to them and their words are not taken seriously. The attitude that the husband is the head of the family and the sole provider of the family’s needs makes women vulnerable as they often handover the transfers to their husbands, who often use some of the cash transfer to buy drinks (e.g., Hammar) or khat (e.g., Karrayu, Afar). Field data are consistent that the chance of transfers being abused by male household heads increases with cash transfers and the principle 7 MoA, Government of Ethiopia, 2012. Strategic Assessment of the Impact of the Implementation of the Productive safety net Program (PSNP) on Venerable Program Beneficiaries. Addis Ababa. p.31. 8 See also MoA, Government of Ethiopia, 2012. Strategic Assessment of the Impact of the Implementation of the Productive safety net Program (PSNP) on Venerable Program Beneficiaries. Addis Ababa. p.32. 23 of PSNP 4 to move toward more cash transfers and less of ‘in kind’ transfer involves higher risk of the transfers missing the intended goal of addressing the problem of chronic food insecurity. Interviews with beneficiaries confirm that beneficiary households and especially women have a relatively poor understanding of the objectives of the PSNP and as a consequence are in a weak position to challenge targeting decisions. 9 Polygamous households The form of polygamy (multiple marriages) which is practiced in Ethiopia is polygyny (a marriage of a man to two or more women at a time). Among the Ethiopian societies where polygyny is practiced (e.g., Afar, Dassanetch (SNNPR), Hammar, Somali, Oromo) 10, a woman joins her husband in his patrilineal village on his ancestral land, the characteristic of a patriarchal society. Women in Ethiopia are legally entitled to own land but in practice this is not yet fully materialized in some parts of the country, including in pastoral woredas. Women also have issues over owing other major assets, and are vulnerable to economic insecurity and often experience chronic food insecurity as the man often lacks resources to provide for the basic needs of his wives and their children. In many PSNP communities, the co-wives and their children are dependent on one male household head and therefore are treated (irrespective of the number of dependent children each of them has) as one family during the targeting for PSNP 11 (as observed in Hammar, Awash (Afar), Babile (Somali) and rural kebeles in Harari Regional State and Dire Dawa City Administration). Pastoralist Households Pastoral and agro-pastoral groups have historically been among the underserved communities in Ethiopia. An estimated eight to ten million people, 10% of the country’s total population practice pastoralism as their predominant mode of livelihood across the lowlands of Ethiopia. The rangelands where pastoral practices are extensively carried out represent two-third of the total national land area. Pastoralists are mainly living in Somali, Afar, the Borana Zone of Oromia Region, and the South Omo Zone of the SNNPR. Pastoral and agro-pastoral populations belong to some twenty-nine ethno-linguistic groups that are classified as Cushitic, Omotic and Nilotic. The main pastoral nomadic ethnic groups in Ethiopia are geographically located as follows: the Afar, Issa, and Karrayu in the northeast and east, the Somali in the southeast, the Borana in the south, and the Hamar, Benna, Arbore, Tsemai, Mursi, Bodi, Dassanecth, Ngangatom (SNNPR), Karro, and Nuer in the southwest. Beset as it is by a range of adverse conditions, migratory pastoralism continues to sustain an increasing population. Since the recent past, the herding populations in the lowlands have largely been impoverished and food insecure. The arid climate of the region characterized by frequent cases of drought has been a principal contributory factor to the prevailing conditions. Resource degradation and water scarcity aggravated by steady increases in human and livestock population and the conversion of sizable areas of pastoral territory into dry land agricultural zones have resulted in the reduction of rangelands in terms of both quality and size. Poverty among the nomadic populations extends far beyond food insufficiency. They also have little access to socioeconomic benefits like health and education services and opportunities to income generating activities outside of the livestock domain. The situation of pastoral communities was further compounded by lack of due policy attention by previous government administrations. The needs and interests of pastoral groups were, in previous times, not given the attention they deserved in the design and implementation of development policy interventions, as compared to smallholder agricultural communities in the highlands. As a result, a substantial portion the development investment was devoted to the promotion of the non-pastoral sector 9 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 10 The list of the Ethiopian communities which practice polygyny could be longer than what is cited here as an example. 11 This finding is in line with the (2012) Strategic Assessment of the Impact of the Implementation of the Productive safety net Program (PSNP) on Venerable Program Beneficiaries, which notes, “...the second wife and her children are regarded as dependents on the first wife”. (p. 36). 24 of the economy. Thus, in addition to the ecological stress that pastoralists suffered, they also experienced economic and political marginalization. Table 4: Pastoral Livelihoods 12 Livestock- Livestock-based livelihoods are the most common, where households rely on rearing camels, cattle, sheep based and goats. The survival, quantity and condition of these livestock determine a household’s wealth and livelihood ability to continue their traditional livelihood patterns. Mobility (usually within recognized and well defined long-standing migration routes) and the ability to access natural resources, such as pasture and water, are fundamental to the continuation of this livelihood. Those households engaged in livestock-base livelihoods are often referred to as ‘pure’ pastoralists. Agro-pastoral Agro-pastoral livelihoods combine extensive livestock rearing and rain-fed cereal production (typically livelihood sorghum, wheat, and barley) for household consumption. The area under agricultural cultivation is mainly restricted by the availability of labour within the household. Mobility remains important for these households. Sedentary Sedentary farmers practice mixed farming, cultivating food crops (sorghum, wheat or other cereals) along farmers with modest flocks of sheep and goats. Wealth is determined by land holdings and oxen ownership. Ex-Pastoralist Ex-pastoralists are households who have lost their livestock and now depend largely on the ‘sale’ of family labour. Ex-pastoralists are settled on the periphery of major urban centres and in internally displaced person camps. The majority remain on the margins performing low-skilled labour intensive activities value activities such as casual labour and the collection and sale of bush products. Ethiopia’s pastoralists are distributed as shown on the following map. Map 2: Ethiopia’s Pastoralist Zone Pastoralists remain vulnerable to food insecurity because they have been seriously affected by recurrent drought and other climate-change related factors. The sources of vulnerability in pastoral areas of Ethiopia include: - Deterioration of grazing/range land due to natural (encroachment of grazing land by invasive plants) and human-made factors (population pressure and competition of grazing land for crop land), - Drought: production and productivity of grazing/rangeland diminishes from time to time, - Deforestation of rangeland due to charcoal making and increase in farmland, - Epidemic diseases: human and livestock diseases, 12Hoddinott, J. et al. 2011. The Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme in Afar, Somali and selected lowland woredas in Oromiya Washington, D.C. and Addis Ababa: IDS, IFPRI Dadimos. October 15. 25 - Market failure (lack of market facilities and failure of market function due to different factors) - Poor socio-economic infrastructures: health, education, and market facilities, and rural road connection, - Conflict over resource competition; and deterioration of customary institutions (such as networks and linkages, trust and solidarity, cooperation and generosity). - At present, human population increases pressure on natural resources while conflict and insecurity often make these resources inaccessible. 13 Ex-pastoralists or pastoral “drop-outs” Ex-pastoralists are herding groups who were predominantly involved in pastoral pursuits, and can hence be described as well off by local standards of wealth and social differentiation. However, they have over the years lost their livestock wealth to recurrent droughts, veterinary diseases, and inter-group conflicts to the point of being ejected from the pastoral livelihood system. Impoverished and desperate, the ex- pastoralists move from distant pastoral areas looking for survival alternatives in the surroundings of small woreda towns such as Dendema (Babile (Somali)), Awash Sebategan (Awash Fentale), Metehara and Addis Ketema (Karraryu Fentale), and Kangate (Ngangatom (SNNPR)). As a result of their former status as better off livestock keepers, they were not included in PSNP during the targeting and retargeting process. Not finding what they have hoped for in most cases, they seek being included in the Program as the poorest of the poor. Although Program implementers appreciate their difficulties, they say there is little they can do about it because of the fixed beneficiary quotas. Unemployed Rural Youth Unemployed rural youth include boys and girls who have dropped out of school for various reasons at secondary or preparatory levels. Others are youths who have returned to live in their natal villages because of not finding work after completing technical and vocational training or university/college education. The unemployed are rural youths who live with their parents assisting mainly in farming activities that no longer fully engage them because of the ever declining land/man ratio. The problems are most evident particularly in the study PSNP communities (Konso, Meket (Amhara), Alamata (Tigray), and kebeles in Harari and Dire Dawa), where land scarcity and land fragmentation are at their highest. Focus Group Discussions in Harari revealed that farmland fragmentation is a critical problem in the area. In years past when household size was not a concern, father and sons worked and lived together on household plots which supported the family rather well. However, as the size of households grew and the sons old enough to marry left the family, fathers had to share with them parts of the plots. In this process, household plots continued to be divided among a growing number of young household heads, with the result that the piece of land shared out became too small to feed them. This has led to deepening poverty and food insecurity in the kebele. Such households depending on increasingly diminished pieces of farmland and therefore need support through PSNP transfers. More than half of the population in Afar and Somali regions is less than 15 years old. 14 Community members eligible for Direct Support (DS) For households whose adults are unable to participate in PWs or who are labour-poor and cannot undertake PWs, the PSNP gives grants. This group constitutes approximately 20% of the PSNP caseload. Beneficiaries include orphans, pregnant and lactating mothers, elderly households, and other labour-poor, high-risk households with sick individuals, such as people living with HIV and AIDS, and the majority of female-headed households with young children. New residents to the Woreda There are reports that newly displaced populations have found it difficult to access the PSNP resources. In past years, inhabitants of a woreda sometimes received access to food aid only after being resident for three years. 13 Hoddinott, J. et al. 2011. The Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme in Afar, Somali and selected lowland woredas in Oromiya Washington, D.C. and Addis Ababa: IDS, IFPRI Dadimos. October 15. (Chapter 3: Livelihoods and Wellbeing, p.13-49). 14 Central Statistics Agency. 2007. Population Census. Addis Ababa. 26 Children Due to labour constraints in some PSNP households, children may be at risk of having to occasionally engage in PWs or their work at home may increase through transfer of household responsibilities to children under 18 years old by parents who are engaged in PWs. 27 3. Policy Context PSNP has implications for a wide range of policies and strategies issued by the Ethiopian government since 1991. A more comprehensive review of policies and strategies that are relevant for PSNP is beyond the scope of this section. Below is short description of some of the most important policies and strategies that provide a more specific framework in which ERSNP is embedded. National Social Protection Policy (NSPP) NSPP is a cornerstone of Ethiopia's National Social Protection Policy (NSPP). Issued in November 2014, the policy aims to provide an overall system and to create an enabling environment in which citizens have equitable access to social protection services that will enhance their growth and development. The NSPP has identified five key strategic focus areas; namely, (1) Social Safety Nets; (2) Livelihood and employment promotion; (2) Social Insurance; (3) Access to Health, Education and other Social services; and (5) Addressing violence, abuse and neglect and providing legal protection and support. Overall, the policy commits the Government to move beyond the partial, and fragmented, provision of social protection to establish a social protection system. The policy also provides a framework for the coordination and provision of social protection services in Ethiopia. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the Government at federal, regional and local levels in managing the social protection system to progressively fulfill the constitutional rights of citizens. Of critical importance is the commitment to extend the coverage of national safety net programs beyond the current rural areas through the PSNP, and to include urban and other areas. The policy also recognizes that not all households will graduate from the PSNP in rural areas, thus requiring a long-term safety net for the poorest in the country, particularly those who are labor poor and particularly vulnerable. Based on the policy, a National Social Protection Strategy has been developed, which sets out a comprehensive framework for taking forward the implementation of the strategic focus areas identified in the policy. National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management The National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management was adopted by the Government of Ethiopia in July 2013. The new Policy amends the earlier National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management implemented since 1993) and marks a paradigm shift away from a system focused on drought and emergency assistance to a comprehensive disaster risk management approach. The policy is guide by a vision of building capacity for withstanding the impacts of hazards and related disasters at national, local, community, household and individual levels; and significantly reducing damages caused by disasters by 2023. To this end, the policy seeks to provide “a framework that enables an effective, people centered, integrated, coordinated, accountable, and decentralized disaster risk management system that focuses on multi-hazard and multi-sectoral approaches as well as measures that need to be taken before, during, and after disaster period”. The main objective of the policy is to reduce disaster risks and potential damage caused by disasters through establishing a comprehensive and coordinated disaster risk management system in the context of sustainable development. Specific objectives include: • Reducing and eventually prevent disaster risk and vulnerability; • Ensuring all disaster affected population is provided with recovery and rehabilitation assistance; • Reducing dependency on and expectations for relief aid by bringing attitudinal change and building resilience of vulnerable people; and • Ensuring disaster risk management is mainstreamed into development plans and programs. PSNP can contribute to the achievement of all of the above objectives. 28 National Nutrition Program (NNP) The revised NNP aims to drastically reduce stunting, wasting and chronic under-nutrition in Ethiopia by 2015. It is overseen by a National Nutrition Coordinating Body that is chaired by the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) and co-chaired by the Ministries of Agriculture (MoA) and Education (MoE). The NNP places more emphasis on: (1) the first 1000 days of life, with a focus on children younger than 2 years, pregnant and lactating women, and adolescent girls to break the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition; and (2) acceleration of stunting reduction by focusing on nutrition-sensitive interventions in other sectors such as education, agriculture, women’s affairs, civil society organisations and the private sector. Social protection was identified as a key sector in which to strengthen nutrition sensitive interventions. The NNP also focuses on the lifecycle approach to map key actions needed to improve the nutritional status of strategic target groups (i.e. women and children) and includes an accountability and results matrix showing how each of the results can be realized and how each NNP implementing sector should contribute to better nutritional outcomes over the course of the lifecycle. The contribution of PSNP for nutrition has also been well recognized in the National Nutrition program II (2016-2010). Recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of nutrition, the NNP is seen as a major element of the enabling environment for a multi-sectoral approach to nutrition and a critical program for helping the country achieve its nutrition targets in both the short and long term. Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Launched in 2011, the CRGE aims to achieve the GTP goal of building Ethiopia into a middle-income country by 2025 in a way that is both resilient to the negative impacts of climate change and does not result in a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. The CRGE comprises two strategies: the Climate Resilience Strategy of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Green Economy Strategy. The Climate Resilience Strategy is overseen by a Ministerial Steering Committee in the Prime Minister’s Office, and is led by a Technical Committee, chaired by the Ministry of Environment & Forests. There are six technical subcommittees: Power Supply, Green Cities, Agriculture, Transport, Industry and Health. PSNP 4 will contribute to the implementation of the Climate Resilience and Green Economy Strategies by developing public works that are responsive to Climate Change, and reduce carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration, and by strengthening household resilience to shocks through increasing food security and livelihoods. The Rural Development Policy The RDP is anchored on a number of pillars some of which can directly relate to public works and livelihood components of PSNP. These pillars are (i) extensive utilization of human labour; (ii) proper use and management of natural resources; (iii) agro-ecology based development approach;.(iv) integrated approach to development (within agriculture and between agriculture and other sectors such as education, health, potable water supply, road infrastructure, trade, industry, and rural financial institutions); (v) targeted interventions for drought-prone and food insecure areas; (vi) encouraging the private sector to engage in agricultural marketing, agro-processing, expanding commercial agriculture and industrialization; (vii) use of Agricultural Technical Vocational Education and Training model. Furthermore, the Rural Development Policy and Strategy and the Proclamation No. 147/1998 have provided for and promoted the establishment of cooperative to solve marketing problems; coordinate their knowledge wealth and labour; promote self-reliance; reduce production cost by providing input or services at a minimum cost; and develop saving and credit services. A Cooperative Promotion Strategy formulated under this policy aims to guide the development of a well-functioning agricultural coop sector that sustainably improves the livelihoods of smallholders. These include specialized saving and credit cooperatives known as Rural Saving and Credit Cooperatives (RuSACCOs) to provide financial services to income generating schemes in rural areas. 29 The Pastoral Development Policy (PDP) PDP has implications for implementation of PSNP in pastoral areas. The PDP has short and long term perspectives on pastoral development. In the short term, all sectors will be required to mainstream pastoralists and agro-pastoralists issues in their policy and planning frameworks. In the long-term, the policy envisions a stable pastoral and agro pastoral community through the facilitation of gradual and voluntary transition towards permanent settlement especially along the perennial river banks. Moreover, the Government is implementing large scale irrigation projects which ultimately enable pastoral and agro pastoral people pursue sedentary life with diversified and sustainable income. The policy calls for an understanding of indigenous resource management techniques and building on their strengths prior to planning interventions for pastoral areas. The National Employment Policy (NEPE) The NEPE provides policy ground to the livelihood component of PSNP 4. It aims to provide special support for business development services. It commits government to provide “private sector development and employment creation through providing business development services, especially to small and micro enterprises and to informal sector operators”. This includes provision of support to public institutions, the private sector and NGOs to provide a more integrated and effective system of business development services. It also includes expansion of such services to rural areas, with special emphasis on emerging regions and remote areas. The NEDP also commits to expanding employment services that can match the increasing size of the workforce and number of jobs. The Micro and Small Enterprises Strategy In order to the realize potential and address the constraints of micro and small enterprises (MSEs) the Ethiopian government formulated a National MSE Development and Promotion Strategy in 1997 (revised in 2011). The primary objective of the strategy is to create an enabling environment for small and micro enterprises that will facilitate economic growth and bring about equitable development and create long- term jobs that are capable of generating adequate income and skill for the entrepreneur. Among its principles are the advancement of the most vulnerable group in society, women in particular, and the provision of support services on cost sharing/fee basis, and training support to entrepreneurs. The MSE strategy is urban focused but as the list of potential interventions show, some are applicable to rural areas: (i) small manufacturers in food, textiles, leather, clothing metal works, and crafts; (ii) self-employment (focus on school leavers, disabled and unemployed youth); (iii) start-up and expanding firms (focus on women-owned); (iv) small enterprises in pastoral and disaster prone areas; (v) agro-business and small scale farming and fishing; (vi) small builders/contractors; (vii) small exporters; and (viii) small-scale tourism operators. The government will provide support during the three major phases of SME development (startup, strengthen and securing stage). 30 4. Potential Considerations for Vulnerable Groups for ERSNP Design 4.1 Targeting In the context of PSNP, targeting refers to the process of beneficiary selection. “Fair and transparent client selection” is the first of eight PSNP principles 15. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC 16, reported that both inclusion and exclusion targeting errors 17 were observed during earlier phases of the PSNP in some woredas of the program. 18 The (2014) PSNP Re-design for Lowland Ethiopia Report identified gaps on targeting as one of the key concerns experienced in pastoral areas. Community consultations conducted for these studies identified causes of targeting errors. The most common causes identified included targeted limited number of clients due to resources issue compared to huge needs in some of the woredas, established patron-client relationships, limited awareness of clients on their rights and responsibilities, not taking into account changing poverty and livelihood dynamics in targeting/ retargeting, unclear status of residents of rural towns and new migrants, negative influence of traditional authority structures on targeting processes and weak appeal and redress mechanisms. The PSNP 4 ESAC Action Plan and the design of PSNP 4 had planned to implement several measures to mitigate risks and address challenges related to targeting errors. Based on cases of the five woredas selected for this assessment, this section assesses the status of implementation of these measure as well as perception of some of the new provisions in the PSNP 4 Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Coverage Community consultations undertaken for the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC19 expressed concern that there were more people in need of inclusion in the PSNP than were included. Cognizant of the shortfall in coverage, the Social Development Plan had set the goal of expanding the caseload to cover additional needs. Recent consultations for this ESAC revealed that PSNP 4 had indeed scaled up the caseload as planned in the communities visited. The scaling up of the program aimed at building on the residual caseload and phase in the introduction of households and woredas experiencing the greatest vulnerability in the existing program regions as long as there are unmet needs in the kebele. Furthermore, kebeles are expected to update the beneficiary list to replace with new clients those who graduate, pass away or leave their kebele. Community members in all reviewed woredas confirmed and expressed gratitude for the significant expansion of the caseload in their respective woreda in PSNP 4 due to the recent widespread drought in the country. They acknowledged that the expanded caseload had allowed covering more food insecure individuals and households in their communities. In particular communities appreciated the critical role PSNP has played in helping them cope with the current drought that has hit their areas. Woreda officials explained that they divided the additional caseload among the various kebeles trying to balance the population and level of food insecurity in various kebeles. Participants in community consultations perceived that, as in the past, allocation the additional number of clients to benefit from the program by the WFSTF among the various kebeles had not been proportional to the level of food insecurity in the kebeles. They explained that while some kebeles with apparently higher level of food insecurity appear to be allocated disproportionately less quota of the existing and additional caseload. The officials, on the other hand, explained that in allocating the additional caseload, they took into account 15 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. 16 MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate. 17 Inclusion errors refers to inclusion of those ineligible individuals or households while exclusion errors refer to exclusion of those who should be targeted. 18 Hoddinott, J. et al. 2011. The Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme in Afar, Somali and selected lowland woredas in Oromiya Washington, D.C. and Addis Ababa: IDS, IFPRI Dadimos. October 15. 19 MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate. 31 complaints they had been receiving regarding allocations of additional number of clients of existing caseload to the kebeles. The PIM further requires the KFSTF use locally-relevant poverty criteria in distributing the additional number of client of the caseload allocated to each PSNP kebele to the various communities within the kebele. 20 Both implementers and community members observed that despite the significant increase in PSNP caseload, a still significant number of their community members are chronically food insecure, an observation also documented in the March 2017 RRM reports to the selected regions. 21 The food insecurity situation has been exasperated particularly in the past two years due to the recurrent drought that has hit their region. The following explanation, below, by a key informant in Afdem (Somali) had been reiterated by officers in all other woredas visited, The PSNP caseload has been expanded from 32,624 in PSNP 3 to 49,078 in PSNP 4. This is a significant increase and we and the communities we serve are very grateful for that. If there was no drought in our woreda, this caseload could somehow cover all food insecure households in our woreda. However, the impact the drought has destroyed the livestock of even household that used to be regarded wealthy by local standard. This has significantly increased the number of food insecure households beyond the capacity of the expanded PSNP caseload to cover. 22 Implementers explained that they have been using other instruments to cover food insecure households not included in PSNP regular transfers. One immediate mechanism that both implementers and community members mentioned is the Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA) being provided by the government and its partners. Communities attested that if it were not for the HFA, many members of their community would have starved to death along with their cattle. And yet, implementers and communities in all reviewed woredas agreed that PSNP and HFA caseload combined could not meet current needs on the ground. For example, a key informant in Hammer (SNNP) explained, A total of 11,879 beneficiaries were on the HFA payroll the previous year in our woreda. However, the 2008 belg crop failure and the consequent increase intensity of the drought had further exasperated the size of communities at risk of hunger. This required PSNP and HFA to take additional measures to cover more community members in need of food assistance. In terms of HFA, the government increased the caseload by an additional 12000. In terms of PSNP, the woreda administration invoked the 5% contingency financing to cover additional needs. 23 Berhane et al (2016) 24 reported that although the significantly expanded caseload in Afar and Somali had eased some pressure, under-coverage nonetheless remained a problem and PSNP contingency budget has been used to cover those who were eligible but excluded in targeting. Furthermore, in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) the 11% contingency budget at the federal level was requested to extend coverage of Public Work participants for additional month(s) when they would otherwise be off PSNP payroll. It was reported that although the 11% contingency budget was requested but not made available in Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar). In sum, communities at large in all reviewed woredas reported under-coverage to have continued as a major issue particularly in the context of the current drought and despite the expansion of caseload by both PSNP and HFA in recent years. However, the extent of under-coverage appears to differ among the reviewed woredas with Hammer (SNNP) being the most covered and Afdem (Somali) – the least. Also of concern to the communities was sub-woreda allocation of PSNP caseload, which they perceived to 20 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia 21 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Afar, Oromia, SNNP and Somali. Regions 22 KII with a PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017. 23 Ibid. 24 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 32 have taken serious account of the relative incidence of food insecurity in the various sub units in the respective woreda. Overall, community consultations in all woredas stressed the need for the ERSNP to cover an even more expanded caseload going forward. Identifying Beneficiaries eligible for Direct Support Following the relevant PIM 25 provision, implementers in all reviewed woredas, with the exception of Amibara (Afar), reported that households eligible for PSNP transfers were first selected and then those with at least one able bodied members are referred to PW, while others having no able bodied member were referred to Direct Support. In Amibara (Afar), implementers’ description of the process differed from the prescription of the PIM. They reported that all selected households are allocated a cap of 4 beneficiaries per household while the remaining one is allocated to a PSNP eligible beneficiary in any household that fulfils the criteria for entitlement to Direct Support. On the other hand, Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 26 found that owing to the provisions of the PIM that gives special consideration for polygamous families and female-headed households, women were particularly well represented in the Direct Support caseload. The study found that in Hammer and Nyangatom (SNNP) and Afar, priority was given to second and third wives who had limited access to resources and at times relied support from the first wives as a key informant noted, There are men who marry more than one wife, and all his assets are in his first wife’s name. The second and third wives get what they need from the first wife. As I have seen myself during the selection process in Hamer, the second and third wives have no possession. So we made the society realize this problem and encouraged them to give priority to those women... The fact that the PIM provision gives priority to women who are very poor, to second and third wives and divorced women; is what made women benefit better. 27 Targeting Vulnerable Women Recent 2017 consultations for this ESAC sought to find the extent of inclusion of women as beneficiaries of PSNP 4. Responses confirmed the findings of Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 28 which reviewed the size of beneficiaries in the four Regional Food Security Offices and concluded that women were almost equally represented in the current caseload. Key informants also noted that women were appropriately targeted in Afar, Somali, Oromia and SNNP due to transparent retargeting process and inclusion of women representatives in targeting and appeal committees. Regarding polygamous households, Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 29 looked into implementation of the PIM provision for polygamous households, which requires husbands to be counted only in one of the households, while the rest of the households are to be considered separate households 30. It found that implementation mechanisms had not been aligned with this prescription in some of the target PSNP kebeles. In areas such as Yabello (Oromia), it was noted that polygamous households were registered under the name of the husband; and wives shared the transfers among themselves. In Yabello, women take up their husband’s name during marriage, and multiple wives were expected to benefit from registration under a husband’s name, resulting in limited access to PSNP transfers and benefits for the separate households. In some areas of the pastoralist communities of SNNP, it was also noted that first wives who are assumed to have more assets, are usually excluded from the PSNP targeting process. In Hamer and Nyangatom (SNNP) and Afar Regions, priority was given to second and third wives who had limited access to resources and at times relay support from the first wives. 25 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. 26 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas 27 Key informants in Jinka zone (SNNP) 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. 33 Household Cap Berhane et al (2016) 31 reported that the PSNP 4 design provision on cap of five beneficiaries per household is the most mentioned and recognized of the new rules that PSNP 4 has introduced. This, according to the survey, is because it has impacted the communities the most. Berhane et al (2016) also noted that implementing the cap was “one of the greatest targeting challenges in the 2015 retargeting exercise”. 32 Similarly, the cap was the most contentious of all the issues discussed during the 2017 ESAC consultation – across all communities. According to this new rule, transfers are provided to maximum of five members per household, replacing the principle of full-family targeting in previous phases of PSNP. Community members and implementers alike expressed their extreme disappointment with this rule – across all woredas visited. The following view of a beneficiary who participated in a FGDs held in Mieso (Oromia), which was in line with similar sentiments arising in other woredas, Before this cap of 5 beneficiaries came into force, we used to receive transfers for all members of our family. Then all members of our family could have something to put in their mouth. Once this cap started, however, we do not anymore have enough to eat. That is particularly the case in families like mine in which there are many mouths to feed 33. We get a ration for 5 persons and share that among 14 members in our family. Since that would not be sufficient to sustain us, we sell goats and cattle to complement the PSNP transfers. 34 This is indicative of the significant aggregate food shortage that the cap has brought about in particularly larger households since within a household transfers are pooled and shared among household members with no consideration of their status in relation to PSNP in the lowlands context. In such context, women and children in a PSNP household could get less out of the transfers if traditional values that structure food sharing within a household disfavor them. On the other hand, implementers reported having a hard time discussing the new rule with communities. They reported that many households initially believed that woreda or kebele implementers were deducting from and appropriating their payments. Implementers of three of the five reviewed woredas further explained that they had covered the remaining members of larger PSNP households from the HFA seeing the significant difficult they are having sustaining themselves particularly under the current drought. In sum, both implementers and community members opposed the cap introduced by PSNP 4 on the ground that it was cutting right against PSNP’s core objectives of smoothening consumption and protecting household assets. Nonetheless, PSNP implementers perceived two advantages in the new rule. First, it allowed inclusion of more households which they cited as an advantage with the caveat that given the same PSNP resources, increasing the number of targeting households could simply redistribute the aggregate level of food insecurity in a kebele without necessarily smoothing consumption in PSNP households. Berhane et al (2016) had documented the view that the household cap had made it possible to expand the program’s coverage to more households but acknowledged that it implied larger households could lose out and make it more difficult for them to graduate. Second and again according to implementers, specifically in Konso (SNNP) in this case, the new rule is perceived to remove any incentive for childbirth that previous phases of PSNP had inadvertently provided. Implementers reported their suspicion of PSNP transfers becoming a factor in households’ reproductive decision, which they expected the new rule could potentially remove. It is notable that there was inadequate community consultation that there were advantages associated with the introduction of the household cap. 31 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. IFPRI. 32 Ibid, pp. 118. 33 That is referring to the number of household members in the family. In all reviewed woreda, household size can reportedly be as large as 15 34 A male participant in FGD held in Engude kebele, Mieso woreda, Oromia on May 25, 2017. 34 Retargeting Consultations held as part of the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC process 35 revealed that one of the key issues often less taken into account in PSNP targeting processes were the livelihood dynamics brought about by ongoing socioeconomic transformations in the different production systems, and associated changes in settlement patterns and social organization. The consultations found that this is somehow overlooked by the PSNP targeting process and is a cause of potential targeting errors. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC36, for example, reported that when the PSNP was first introduced in Konso (SNNP) in 2005, 31 of 45 rural kebeles were included in the PSNP, while 10 woredas were not included at the time because they did not fulfill the community targeting requirements (based on crop production, irrigation land available, etc.). The next phase of PNSP which started in 2010 included the same woredas that were included in the previous phase. Both community members and program implementers reportedly shared the observation that at that time there were households in non-PSNP kebeles that were more vulnerable than those in some of the PSNP beneficiaries. Further, in Konso (SNNP), two communities that were included in the PSNP in the previous phases had greatly increased their crop yields as a result of irrigation development over the years. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC reported that not taking into account rapidly changing poverty and livelihood dynamics as being critical sources of targeting errors in particularly pastoral areas. It, for example, revealed that in both the Ngangatom (SNNP) and the Afar, livestock holdings are traditionally the basis for wealth measurement for these groups. The Ngangatom (SNNP) are divided into two community groups. The first groups who live in the Kibish area along the common border with Kenya are pure pastoralists and are considered to be well off because of their livestock wealth. The second group, agro- pastoralists, inhabit the banks of the Omo River and complement their livestock raising with flood retreat irrigation. Because of their smaller livestock holdings, those agro-pastoral Ngangatom (SNNP) are regarded as poorer due to their smaller livestock holdings and were therefore targeted for inclusion in the PSNP. However, those Ngangatom (SNNP) living in the Kibish area have been hit by both natural and man-made shocks which have depleted their livestock holdings. An increasing number of pastoral households are therefore struggling to maintain their pastoral livelihood in Kibish area and have become increasingly vulnerable. The worst-off of this group are forced to settle temporarily with kinsmen in the agro-pastoral villages or around the edges of woreda town. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC similarly found that the PSNP targeting in Somali was based on the consideration that those who were livestock poor and engage in rain-fed cultivation for household consumption were more vulnerable to shocks than others who were fully engaged in pastoral pursuits. As in Ngangatom (SNNP), the situation of those previously considered livestock rich could change, as had been experienced, due to severe droughts or veterinary disease. In this way, some pastoralist households among Somali living in Babile (Somali) had fallen into food insecurity and were in need of inclusion in the PSNP. In order to mitigate the above described risk, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan planned to monitor changing livelihood dynamics with view to retargeting to include those that may fall into food insecurity PSNP. In any case, targeting errors due to changing livelihood dynamics could be significantly reduced if provision of the PIM that requires retargeting every three to five years is properly implemented. 37 In connection, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan had planned to undertake complete retargeting at the beginning of PSNP 4 - as distinct from updating or rectifying existing list. 35 MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate. 36MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate. 37 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. 35 Berhane et al (2016) 38 sought to understand whether implementers in Somali and Afar used PSNP 3 or PSNP 4 guidelines in undertaking retargeting exercise of 2015. It found that in some woredas guidelines of PSNP 3 were used while in others that of PSNP 4 were used. Berhane et al (2016) also reported that there were fewer efforts to retarget in Afar and existing client list were recertified in many woredas instead of new targeting. The recent consultations undertaken for this 2017 ESAC sought to generate additional insight about how targeting/retargeting process was carried out in 2015 in the reviewed woredas. Implementers were asked to explain whether they undertook retargeting or updated/recertified the PSNP 3 beneficiary list. They gave differing accounts of how retargeting/updating of beneficiary list was carried out. In Konso (SNNP), they reported that the exiting list of beneficiaries was ignored and selection was undertaken afresh to fill both existing and additional caseload. A slightly different approach is employed in Amibara (Afar) where the existing listing was referred but not taken for granted. Accordingly, the additional caseload was first filled with new beneficiaries and then the existing list was reviewed to replace any existing beneficiary who may have become better off than any excluded beneficiary even after the additional caseload is filled. On the other hand, in Hammer (SNNPR), Mieso (Oromia) and Afdem (Somali), the existing list was made to continue into PSNP 4 and new beneficiaries were selected to fill the additional caseload. All woredas reported that removing the names of those beneficiaries who had passed away or moved to another locality and replacing them with that of new beneficiaries as a regular routine that was also undertaken at the beginning of PSNP 4. Implementers in Hammer (SNNPR), Mieso (Oromia) and Afdem (Somali) could not explain what fresh retargeting meant and how it could have been implemented. After it was explained to them, they argued that fresh retargeting would be a futile exercise in their respective context since the assumption that some beneficiaries may have become better off than others who are excluded does not hold in their woreda. The following explanation by a key informant from Hammer (SNNP) is representative of the views of other key informants consulted in other woredas, as well, Current beneficiaries could not graduate or improve their food security situation because the HAPB had not helped beneficiaries to graduate due to recurrent drought or/and the livelihood components of PSNP 4 had not yet been introduced in the woreda. Moreover, the severity of the current drought had affected PSNP beneficiaries the most and brought to naught any effort they might have been exerting to improve their situation. While the drought has driven the better off into poverty and almost leveled off the wealth hierarchy in the community, it has made the poorest of the poor even more vulnerable than they were before and then anybody in the community. In addition, I fear fresh retargeting could also cause conflict in the community because in our woreda. PSNP transfers are regarded a heavenly blessing sent to beneficiaries personally and they would consider it tampering with their divine blessing if a fresh retargeting was to result in their exclusion. 39 In addition, We often have a hard time explaining to community members PSNP’s criteria for selection of beneficiaries. When we tell them that they are to select the poorest of the poor in their communities, they ask us what we mean by ‘poorest of the poor”. When we give them PSNP indicators of the poorest of the poor, they do not wholeheartedly take those indicators. They argue that a person with no materials possession will be ok since he/she will be protected and provided for by relatives and acquaintances. This is because we all have obligations to each other and would never neglect anyone in need. According to our culture, such a person may initially be attached to another person having more livestock. The later enjoys the services of the needy one and at the same time encourages him to build his own livestock. When ready, he will be independent and begin to tend his stock fulltime. So, real poverty for us is when one loses a significant other who could be a source of protection in times of difficulties. 40 38 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 39 KII with a PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017. 40 KII with PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017 36 Strengthening targeting and appeal mechanisms Consultations held during the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC revealed the potential for targeting errors that, as with anywhere where there are unequal socio-economic dynamics, could result from favoritism or corruption (i.e. kebele leadership or other economically influential community members could misuse resources to their benefit). Targeting may be susceptible to abuse in situations where resources are scarce and wealth ranking is not based on community level baseline information or household wealth or food security status 41. Participants in the (2014) PSNP Re-design for Lowland Ethiopia Study, for example, reported that in insecure areas, local groups protected food deliverables and storage facilities and had a role in food distribution. In such situations, those who are in charge may distribute transfers to ineligible community members to fulfill obligations associated with their cliental relationship. Based on recommendations from community consultations carried out in 2014, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan aimed to “introduce more accountability measures to ensure that people feel secure about their rights and entitlements in the programme”. Accordingly, the PIM introduced additional guidelines 42 requiring the establishment of community targeting committees to undertake targeting at sub- kebele level, holding community meetings to verify selection lists, further rollout of Client Card, public posting of beneficiary list to ensure transparency and strengthening grievance redress mechanisms (GRM). In addition, PSNP 4 planned to introduce Social Accountability tools. Community Selection and Verification Berhane et al (2016) 43 found that there was community participation in beneficiary selection in the retargeting exercise held in lowlands in 2015. However, interviews held for the survey found differences in the way ‘participation’ was interpreted. In some kebeles participation it meant community members themselves selecting clients in public meetings, discussing eligibility criteria, and validating and endorsing client lists. In other areas it meant inviting community members to a public meeting to report eligibility criteria and seek community endorsement of decisions made by KFSTFs or traditional leaders. Consultation held for the present assessment also found similarly differing descriptions regarding the selection of new beneficiaries to fill the additional caseload or undertake fresh retargeting44. In Hammer (SNNP), selection of the additional caseload was undertaken by the KFSTF while in Konso (SNNP), Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia) the KFSTF divided the kebele into smaller geographic units variously called “villages’ or ketena 45 from which the ketena targeting committee was appointed as per the PIM, composed of representatives including religious and ethnic leaders, women, youth. The various committees were then trained by the woreda technical experts and led what all identified as a wealth ranking exercise in a community meeting organized at the ketena level. In Konso (SNNP) was described a more elaborate wealth ranking exercise held in a meeting attended by residents of the ketena. Accordingly, local indicators of wealth/ poverty were first identified. All households of the ketene were then measured against the identified indicators and were categorized into four ranks of wealth/ poverty status. Those in the lowest rank were then included as PSNP beneficiaries. Identification of local indicators of poverty/ wealth was not reported in Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia). In Afdem (Somali), the village targeting committee first evaluates the poverty/wealth status of each household based on which it determines a tentative list of beneficiaries. The list is then presented at a community meeting for comments based on which the committee revised the list. In Amibara (Afar), the KFSTF divided the kebele into villages as done in Konso (SNNPR), Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia) ketena but did not establish a targeting committee in each village. Instead, the KFSTF itself went around the various villages and held community meeting in which the poverty/ wealth status of each resident in 41 The PSNP Targeting Guideline explains that PSNP targeting is a method of selecting safety net program beneficiaries by the community based on their own knowledge about the food security situation of their locality area and of each other on individual basis. The major points that need to be taken into account include, among others, asset ownership, access to asset, remittance, family size and food aid recipient for three consecutive years. 42 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, PP. 3-6/7. 43 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 44 As described earlier, in Hammer, Afdem and Mieso, new beneficiaries are selected to fill the additional caseload while in Konso (SNNPR) and Amibara (Afar) complete retargeting for the total caseload was undertaken. 45 A ketena refers to the administrative unit below the Kebele level. 37 the village was reviewed based on which amendments were made to the existing list and new entrants were selected. Posting Beneficiary Lists Berhane et al (2016) 46 reported that, nationally, the record in posting the PSNP participants list as prescribed by the PIM was not satisfactory – with fewer than half of the FSTF’s posting in the kebele or DA offices and much smaller fractions doing so in other public places. It also noted that the performance was the lowest in Afar and Somali. Consultation held for the present assessment found differing account on the extent the PIM’s prescription on posting was followed. Beneficiary lists were reportedly posted in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia), but not in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar). When they are, the beneficiary lists were posted in various places in each kebele, such as the notice board of PSNP, the Pastoral Training Center, Kebele Manager Office or other public offices. On the other hand, implementers in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) reported that they did not post the beneficiary list in kebeles because, as a pastoral community, there was no permanent location where that could be done. Implementers differed in the value that posting beneficiary list added to the transparency in beneficiary selection. Implementers in Hammer (SNNP), Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) found posting of beneficiary list redundant for two reasons (see quote below) - although those in Hammer (SNNP) had reported to have done so in conformity to the requirement of the PIM. The explanation of a key informant in Amibara (Afar) was also heard in Hammer and Afdem as well. Most members of our communities are illiterate. Hence, it would be a waste of time and resources if we were to post the beneficiary list since they would not read it any way. Secondly, our communities did not need the post to know who the selected beneficiaries were. They would use their informal communication channels to gather accurate information about selected beneficiaries 47. On the other hand, implementers and community members in Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) painted a contrasting account. They explained that most households have at least one literate member and given the relative exposure to the functions of and interaction with public offices, they would reportedly consult the beneficiary list posted by the KFSTF. Community members regarded beneficiary list posting as the most reliable medium for them to get the official information about those that were selected based on which they might place complaints if they had any. Client Cards Consultations held in the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC reported that the introduction of PSNP Client Cards during PSNP 3 emboldened beneficiaries to break patron-client relationships and see the PSNP as their entitlement and right, feel more secure about their inclusion in the Program, etc. Community consultations recommended the importance of moving towards introduction of more accountability measures to ensure that people feel secure about their rights and entitlements in the Program. Berhane et al (2016) 48 reported divergent views regarding the status of distribution and use of the new Client Cards in lowland areas. Consultation held for this ESAC sought to understand if any progress had made in distribution and use of the cards in the reviewed woredas. It was noted that PSNP 4 Client Cards have not yet been distributed in Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP). In both woredas, the cards have been prepared and taking photos of beneficiaries but putting them on the cards remain. On the other hand, the card was distributed in Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar). This is significant progress from poor performance in Afar and Somali observed by the March 2017 RRM. 49 The cards have photos of both husband and wife, provide clients with a record of their transfers as well as the 46 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 47 KII with a PSNP implementer in Amibara woreda, Afar Region on May 26, 2017. 48 Berhane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 49 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Afar and Somali Regions. 38 PSNP Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. Communities in these woredas reported that the cards have helped them be clear with what to expect in terms of their transfers, which enabled them to hold implementers accountable. Communities in Amibara (Afar) have also appreciated the cards since it prevented abuse of their transfers by neighbors and relatives who, in previous phases of PSNP, came earlier on payment day and collected the transfers claiming to have been sent by the beneficiaries and then used the transfers themselves. Implementers would give the transfers believing the claim that they were sent by the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries explained that once use of the card was enforced, only those whose picture was on the card could collect the transfers which protected their transfers from abusers. Appeal Mechanisms A more detailed discussion on the status of grievance redress mechanism (GRM) in the reviewed woredas is provided in a later section (see Section 4.10). Here it suffices to mention that targeting related appeals may be logged with the Kebele Appeal Committee (KAC), senior clan leaders, KFSTF or the WFSTF depending on who community perceive as being able to redress his/her grievance. Communities in Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) woredas reported that they log appeals they may have mainly with KAC. In Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP), appeals are made with senior clan leaders as well as the Kebele and Woreda FSTF. The Role of Traditional Authorities FGDs and KIIs held during the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC revealed that the informal authority structures, particularly clan leadership, have influenced targeting decisions in the past. Program implementers working with the Ngangatom (SNNP) and the Afar in Awash Fentale explained how clan structure/hierarchy can influence targeting outcomes in favor of those not eligible for inclusion because of their wealth status. Clan leaders (of senior clans) on targeting committees have a tendency to favor fellow clansmen by targeting them as beneficiaries despite the fact that they are less food insecure than other community members not included in the program. Woreda and kebele FSTF are not in a position to challenge targeting decisions, as they are often led by the clan structure and influenced by clan hierarchy (based on the seniority of one group over another, those belonging to junior clans hardly dare complain and appeal their unfair exclusion from the Program). In particular, women, in these instances, fare badly. Consultations with the Hammer (SNNP) held during the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC revealed that the influence of the Donza (local power structure), is significant, helping to identify potential beneficiaries, PWs activities in collaboration with the PSNP implementers, and mobilizing people for program implementation. Their influence related to both exclusion and inclusion was also noted, although consultations revealed that efforts had been made to rectify those over the years. The PSNP 4 Social Development Plan identified two mitigation measures against negative influence of clan leaders on targeting: (i) creating awareness among traditional authority structures and (ii) information campaign to ensure that purpose and principles of PSNP 4, including those that relate to targeting procedures, etc. are understood and broadening the representation of community members on targeting committees with greater emphasis on women participation. Berhane et al (2016) 50 reported that traditional/clan leaders played a more prominent role in Afar, Somali, and SNNP as members of community targeting committees or appeal committees. The present assessment went further to gather more insight into the nature of the role clan leaders played and the influence they were exerting in the reviewed woredas. To this end, implementers and community members in each reviewed woreda was asked to describe the role clan leaders played in the targeting process. All participants in these consultations agreed that traditional authorities composed of clan leaders of various hierarchies had central role in selection of beneficiaries. The following view of a key informant in Hammer (SNNP) during the 2017 ESAC consultations was reflective of other key informant interviews in other woredas consulted. 50 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 39 Clan leaders carry a great social responsibility in administering the affairs of their respective communities. They are not elected into the office as the case is in the formal leadership but are recognized and trusted as leaders over long years of proven experience, knowledge and qualities of leadership. Since traditionally settlement is based on kinship, those households having closer kinship reside in closer settlement areas and leaders of clans and sub clans are produced through long years of interaction within that area. This means that sub-clan leaders are responsible for smaller settlement areas of the ethnic groups while clan leaders are responsible for groups of sub clans of that ethnic group. The higher an office one occupies in the hierarchy of clan leadership, the greater knowledge, experience, sense of impartiality and quality of leadership one can be assumed to have demonstrated to the people. 51 Despite the general consensus on this portrait of clan leaders and their role in their respective communities, perception on the nature of the role they are currently playing in relation to PSNP varied among implementers and community members in various woredas. In Hammer (SNNP), communities perceived positive role played by traditional leaders in beneficiary selection. The community regarded traditional authorities as divinely appointed to care for and protect zersi (which in Hammer (SNNP) means ‘the people”) and hence, community members asserted a genuine respect for them and believed that they exercised their authority fairly. Consultations revealed that the authorities are deeply conscious of their responsibility associated with their office and aspire to exercise it fairly for fear of divine retribution associated with unjust exercise of their position. In Konso (SNNP), on the other hand, community members perceived that traditional authorities used their power to manipulate the selection process with the intention of favoring relatives, acquaintances and members of their own clan. In Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP), community members distinguished between senior and lower level clan elders. In both woredas, the senior clan leaders are removed from community level activities and, hence, did not participate in actual selection of beneficiaries. In Hammer (SNNP), although senior clan leaders are not directly involved in beneficiary selection, they closely follow up the selection process, as they would other community activities, through their traditionally established communication channels. If they perceived any abuse of power, they reportedly feel obliged to intervene but still indirectly through their juniors in the power structure. In contrast, in Konso (SNNP) the link between the senior and community level clan leaders is reportedly weak at least in the context of beneficiary selection. Communities reported a rotation of power among the various Konso (SNNP) clans and that lower level leaders of the clan in power become influential members of ketana targeting committees or/and the KFSTF to favor their clansmen in the targeting process. This they do by tampering with the list of beneficiaries consulted with and approved by community members based on the wealth ranking exercise. Other members of the katana targeting committee or KFSTF would not publically complain about their action least leaders of the clan in power mobilize the communities to ostracize them. Community members come to know their misdeeds only when the KFSTF announces the names of selected beneficiaries, at which point complaints may be logged with the Kebele Chairman or the WFSTF in private. In Afdem (Somali), clan leaders participated actively as members of community targeting committees. Both implementers and community members were unanimously asserted that the leaders acted fairly and impartially in their participation in beneficiary selection. The Somali of Afdem belonged to the Isa clan, which is composed of several sub-clans. The members of some of the some of the sub-clans inhabit the Afdem (Somali) woreda. However, participants perceived that the etho ‘all are children of Isa’ had been the principle governing sub-clan leaders’ involvement in beneficiary selection and, hence, their impartial treatment of community members. In other words, sub-clan leaders participate in community targeting committee as elders in the community and not as representatives of their respective sub-clans. If this is true about the role clan leaders are playing in other woredas in Somali Region, it may have contributed to the highest success rate (41 per kebele or 67 percent) in successful processing of appeals that, according to Berhane et al (2016), the Somali Region has registered among all other regions. 52 51 KII with a PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017. 52 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 40 In Mieso (Oromia), clan leaders are reported to have shunned membership in community targeting committee. The Oromo of Mieso (Oromia) belonged to the Issuir respective clan, which is composed of several sub-clans, some of which inhabit Mieso (Oromia) woreda. However, it was explained that the leaders viewed their primary role to be protection of the interest of their sub-clans and avoided membership in the community targeting committees in recognition of the conflict of interest it involved. When in rare cases a clan leader is called upon to serve in the committees, the leader generally acts with impartiality since he fears divine retribution known as irbud’a that would otherwise visit him. Community members and implementers in Amibara (Afar) recalled previous times when the traditional and formal systems of public administration overlapped significantly in Afar region. During those times, clan leaders in Amibara (Afar) had played active role in the kebele and woreda matters. The implications of this for targeting in PSNP meant that, during those times, clan leaders had used their power and influence to favor members of their own clan the selection of beneficiaries. It was also noted that in recent years, the Government has made determined effort to separate traditional and formal authority structures, which, participants observed, has circumscribed the influence clan leaders exerted in the administration of the government. Consequently, this has reportedly resulted in the diminishment of clan leaders’ influence in the selection of PSNP beneficiaries and the increased involvement of other actors such as religious leaders and the women and youth associations, to which community members attributed perceived improvement in selection of eligible beneficiaries. The formal public administration has still continued to engage clan leaders in decision making on issues concerning their communities in general, and in selection of beneficiaries, in particular although the clan leaders resent their diminished influence. Households living in rural towns on the fringe of urban areas Community consultations held for the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC revealed that there is an increasing awareness that urban residents, living in towns in the woredas, are not eligible for the PSNP. Those consultations reflected an emerging concern that there are a number of citizens living in those areas that could be considered eligible for participation in the PSNP, especially as Direct Support (i.e. destitute elderly men and women, female- headed household, etc.). Consultations in Konso (SNNP) revealed that although they may live in the areas surrounding towns, there are groups of people that are highly vulnerable and experience food shortages Figure 15: Community Consultation in Konso, SNNP throughout the year. The PSNP 4 Social Development Plan has not identified this as a risk specifically relevant to PSNP as a rural safety net program. Chronically food insecure households in urban areas are to be covered by the Urban Productive Safety Net Program(UPSNP) - which the GoE launched in 2016. At this stage, the program is planning to target over 4.7 million urban poor living in cities and towns. All reviewed woredas, with the exception of Hammer (SNNP), had not excluded small rural towns in the woreda from PSNP benefits. The small rural towns in all woredas visited are home to some of the most extreme poor – many of whom have recently fled from their rural homes for survival. PSNP implementers in all reviewed woredas explained that recurrent drought has had a particular effect on forced out- migration from rural areas to small rural or “emerging” towns. In Konso (SNNP), the poorest people had reportedly migrated to one of four rural towns. When the drought killed livestock, as was such a common story during community consultations, the pastoralists of Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and 41 Amibara (Afar), fled to or congregated in temporary camps in emerging towns - where they were able to receive HFA. Community consultations reveled the following growing phenomenon across the areas visited. With growing populations and limited land to even maintain a subsistence farm in rural areas on the one hand, and more concentrated settlement and commerce in these “emerging” settlements – these settlements are now developing the characteristics of small rural towns. Community consultations revealed that it is likely that drought displaced populations will remain in these new settlement areas. Most kebeles that accommodate these emerging rural towns are targeted by PSNP and, hence, the residents of the towns are regarded equally eligible to PSNP benefits. However, the story is different for the residents of three towns in Hammer (SNNP) woreda, which are excluded from PSNP 4. A key informant in Hammer explained: PSNP 3 had covered the three towns. However, the towns were excluded from targeting in PSNP 4 on the ground that, as a rural program, PSNP 4 no longer covered urban areas. We are told that a new program has started that will cover food insecure people in urban areas. This is concerning because some the poorest residents of these towns (particularly those in Turmi) had left their rural villages after exhausting all options to make ends meet and we do not see the urban program coming to provide them with any assistance. 53 Community members explained that once in towns, such people struggle to survive on meager income they may get out of providing labour to the town’s residents or engaging in petty trade. Because of their new status as town residents, they were removed from the beneficiary list they were part of during the previous phase of PSNP. The exclusion of the three towns of Hammer (SNNP) appears to be problematic for several reasons. First, although the towns are accorded municipality status, they appear to be far less urbanized than towns in Konso (SNNP) which are not accorded municipality status in terms of population size and density, intensity of urban commerce and social activities etc. Secondly, although the government has instituted the UPSNP to cover chronically food insecure households in urban areas, it currently covers only 11 cities, of which 75% of coverage is allocated to Addis Ababa. This means that it may be quite a while before UPSNP could cover small towns in the developing regions. In the meantime, food insecure households in small municipal towns will remain excluded from both PSNP and UPSNP. Third, having taken the initial risk, many rural out-migrants to these small rural towns may decide to return to their rural areas after a time and may be excluded from benefiting from the PSNP. Community consultations also revealed that delays in PSNP transfers made it difficult for residents to stay on their plots – especially in the current drought context. Eligible Newcomers Communities consulted explained how new migrants into their rural communities are regarded in relation to PSNP benefits. In Hammer (SNNP), new migrants are not considered eligible. Community members in Hammer (SNNP) explained that PSNP quota given to the woreda is too small to even cover long-time residents. Hence, in Hammer (SNNP), the needs of new migrants were to be addressed through the HFA. In Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) new migrants are eligible irrespective of the length of their stay in the kebele. Implementers explained that new migrants need to, however, have the Kebele ID to be considered eligible. In Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) regard new migrants as eligible as long as they arrived before retargeting was undertaken. Berhane et al (2016) 54 reported that households that were resident in Afar and Somali for five years or less were less likely to be selected for the PSNP. Community consultations held for the survey reported various reasons for the likely exclusion of recent migrants. Participants in one FDG argued that recent migrants would not be eligible because their fellow members of their clan or family lineages who were indirectly covered would share their transfers with them or because they were to be covered by emergency food aid. Participants of other FGDs explained that those who have settled recently or since retargeting was conducted may not necessarily be covered and have to wait until the next targeting 53 KII with a PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017. 54 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV: Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. IFPRI. 42 exercise. These differing perspectives and practices on the treatment of newcomers by PSNP suggests to the need for the PIM to provide further clarification on the matter. 4.2 Transfers Payment Modalities Hoddinott (2013) found that PSNP beneficiaries were not given the opportunity to express their preference on what type of transfer they wanted to receive or have a say in the decision-making process. Instead, the beneficiaries saw what kind of transfer (cash, food or combination) they are going to receive on the day of payment. Modalities of PSNP transfers were much debated with decision makers and program implementers during the community consultations undertaken for the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC. At that time communities reflected on the three types of payments received during the previous phases of the PSNP: cash, food and a mix of cash and food. Consultations found that most communities would prefer transfers in the form of grain and they emphasized the importance of ensuring that the shift towards cash only in the Program does not make them more vulnerable. The 2014 community consultations found different rationales for community expressed preference of food. One is their past experience when the amount of cash they received only allowed them to purchase 2/3 of the grain required to sustain a person for a month. Another is cash would make them vulnerable to increased prices as a result of short grain supply and large amounts of cash transfers, making beneficiaries vulnerable to grain traders. Hence, communities expressed that if cash only is to be implemented, they need to be paid an amount in cash that will allow them to purchase the required amount of grain. On the other hand, communities in pastoral Ngangatom (SNNP) who participated in the 2014 consultations expressed a preference for transfer of grain. The main reason, as described by both men and women consultation participants, was that grain has become the most important item of food consumption in the area. Although the Ngangatom (SNNP) are a pastoral community, they no longer depend on livestock products because their animals are concentrated in distant cattle camps where it is difficult to access animal yields. In addition, livestock products are in short supply because of the decline in livestock holdings. Besides, Ngangatom (SNNP) is not a crop producing region for which reason grain is scarce on the local market. Coupled with the weak purchasing power of money as a result of rising inflation, cash transfers hardly bring them the amount and quality of grain they need for household consumption. The 2014 community consultations also found that a few communities preferred payments in which cash payments were made for three months when grain was in good supply at the market, and grain transfers during the other three months when food crops are in short supply and had expressed a preference for this to continue in the future. Overall, communities expressed a strong preference for grain as transfer as communities feel that the cash transfer is of lesser value. In any case, communities expressed the importance and interest in being consulted regarding their preference during PSNP 4. To mitigate the above discussed risks related to payment modalities, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan planned to ensure communities are consulted on their preference for cash, food or mix of cash and food. Communities in the five selected woredas differed on whether they were consulted regarding their preferences of transfer payment modalities and how far their preferences have been adopted by implementers. In Hammer (SNNP) woreda, where three ethnic groups reside; namely, the Hammer, the Arbore and the Kara. Of the three, the Hammer community members reported that they were consulted regarding the payment modalities and their choice of a mix of food and cash was respected by PSNP 4 for which they expressed gratitude. Accordingly, they are provided cash for three months and food for the remaining three. Cash and food alternate every three months for Direct Support Beneficiaries. This mix of cash and food was adopted by the woreda to the Arbore and the Kara, who were not able to be consulted as part of the 2017 community consultations. However, it is not clear if the adopted payment modality happened to be suitable to them as well. On the other hand, communities in the Hammer ethnic group complained that wheat was provided despite their expressed preference for sorghum. 43 Implementers and communities in Amibara (Afar) recalled being consulted on their preferred payment modality but complained that their proposal of a mix of cash and food was ignored. They further complained that wheat had been causing them constipation and requested that it be replaced by sorghum or at least maize, which were explained to be much more appropriate to their food culture. On the other hand, both program implementers and community members in Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) reported that they were not consulted on payment modalities. Implementers further explained that decision makers at the higher level simply carried over the cash only modality, which was the case during PNSP 3. A female participant in an FGD in Konso (SNNP) explained the source and wisdom for their preferred option of a mix of cash and food, below. We observe that grain is being provided as emergency response to the current drought in their woreda which is being used appropriately by the recipients and we wish to receive a mix of cash and food transfers. If this option is going to be acceptable to PSNP, I wish to receive cash for three months during the harvest season when we expected grain to be in good supply at the market, and grains during the other three months when food is expected to be in the least supply in the market. I believe this would significantly reduce the current situation where the cash payment we receive could buy less amount of food and presented a temptation for some of our men to misspend it on drinks. 55 On the other hand, based on their experience in emergency response - implementers reported the logistical challenge that would be involved if they use grain as a payment modality. They reported that given the terrain of their woreda and lack of sufficient access road, it would be very expensive to distribute food to the various kebeles of the woreda. They further noted that grain would be highly suitable to various forms of abuse while in store at the destinations and during payment. In Afdem (Somali), communities reported that in the earlier phase of PSNP, they were consulted and their preference for food was adopted. However, they complained that PSNP 4 simply carried forward their earlier preferences for food without checking with them if they would like to make any changes. Community members reported that the all food modality they adopted has increased supply of wheat in their communities. The HFA in response to the current drought has further increased supply of wheat. On the other hand, because no payment is made in cash, there is a huge shortage of cash that is necessary for the purchase of other necessary consumption items. Consequently, the cash value of wheat they could sell to get money to buy other items has reduced for two reasons: (i) because there is an excess in supply of wheat; and (ii) wheat is not a staple food in their culture, hence, is less valued than beans or rice. The inclination towards cash as a payment modality in Afdem is also documented in the March 2017 RRM which found preference for cash among woreda stakeholders and beneficiaries in Somali kebeles covered by the RRM. The reasons for the preference were the following: (i) beneficiaries could buy preferred staples (i.e. rice and pasta), (ii) beneficiaries are able to purchase non-food items like school uniforms, children’s clothes etc.; and (iii) with food they faced less logistics problem as some communities did not have grinding mill in nearby places therefore they used to sell the cereals for a cheap price-at times 50 birr for a sack of cereal. 56 This finding of these recent 2017 community consultations that of the above cited March 2017 RRM are contradictory. Berhane et al (2016) 57 found that there was a near-unanimous view in the lowlands that food was preferable for three main reasons. First, on grounds of price, because the level of likely cash transfer could not purchase the same amount of food, particularly when prices were high due to inflation. The second reason was market failure, and specifically the difficulties associated with accessing food in areas which are not primarily grain-producing and where infrastructure is poor. The third reason was risk, in that cash was more prone to diversion and presented a temptation to spend. The study, on the other hand, found that the food transfer provided during the time of the survey did not meet households’ needs because the quantity was too small, in most places the transfer did not yet include pulses and oil; and, wheat was not generally preferred and had additional grinding and preparation costs. Otherwise, there has 55 A female participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 56 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017, Reports on Somali Regions. 57 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 44 been significant change in preference of payment modalities among Somali communities since Berhane, et al (2016) conducted the baseline survey in 2016. Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 58 explored if there were gender-based preferences in transfer modalities and found difference in transfer modalities among studied woredas but observed no significant difference in the choice of transfer between men and women in a single study area. Transfer Value Communities consulted in 2014 expressed concern that the amount of cash they received only allowed them to purchase 2/3 of the grain and that short grain supply and large amounts of cash transfers would make them vulnerable to increased prices. To mitigate this risk related to inflation and the ability of cash to buy the amount of food, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan planned to benchmark transfers against a transfer value equivalent to 15kg of cereal and 4kg of pulses/month. Accordingly, the PSNP 4 PIM states that “an appropriate transfer also has the same value whether it is provided in cash or food.” 59 Communities consulted noted and appreciated the increase in the size of grain per beneficiary that PSNP 4 provided. All reviewed communities reported receiving the PSNP 4 prescribed transfer value. Berhane et al (2016) found that all payments in the lowlands were made in food. In all lowland woredas sampled for the survey but Abeaala in Afar, the transfers were only of wheat because logistical challenges reportedly led the federal and regional governments to decide that only wheat would be transported to both Afar and Somali and the provision of pulses converted into cash. Community consultations held in 2017 found no change made to this arrangement in all reviewed woredas, other than the reported occasional conversion of pulses into 4 kg of beans in Afdem (Somali). On the other hand, as noted earlier, communities complained that the cap of 5 beneficiaries per targeted household that PSNP 4 had introduced had voided or even reduced the size of transfer effectively available per beneficiary in larger households. The communities recalled that the previous phases of PSNP used to provide each member of a family the designated transfer size and expressed strong discontent with the cap which forced to share the aggregate transfer among all household members irrespective of their status in PSNP. As a result, they argued, PSNP could not achieve its core objective of smoothening consumption and protecting assets in particularly larger households. Moreover, all communities requested additional items to be included in the food basket. Those in Hammer (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) recalled previous phases of PSNP when the food basket included oil in addition to grain. Those in Afdem (Somali) wished supplementary feeding was also provided specially to children and pregnant women. Beneficiaries in Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) based their requests for the additional items in the food basket on their observation that the humanitarian food assistance (HFA), an observation that is also confirmed by the March 2017 RRM undertaken to Somali 60. The following report by participants in FGD held in Amibara (Afar) was shared with FGD findings in Mieso (Oromia) and Afdem (Somali) as well: We receive 15 kgs of wheat and cash in replacement of 4 kgs of pulse. However, our neighbors who were not included in the PSNP but are now provided humanitarian food assistance are given oil and other supplementary food in addition to the wheat and pulse we get. This difference is not fair and makes us wish we were not targeted by PSNP. I do not understand why we are given less since we and they are both subjected to the same crisis situation. In fact, PSNP included us because we were poorer than them. But now they are given better transfers than what is given to us. 61 Distance from Payment Sites 58 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 59 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 2-4. 60 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017, Reports to Somali. Regions. 61 A participant in the FGD held in Amibara woreda, Serkem Kebele, Afar Region on May 27, 2017. 45 The PIM requires that the distribution site should not be further than three hours’ walking distance62. On the other hand, Berhane et al (2016) 63 found that in Afar, the time taken in 2016 ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours, which is within the PIM prescription. The survey nonetheless, found the distance to payment sites entailed financial and time, physical challenges (such as heat, long distances and flooding), and losses or damages caused by rain or split sacks. Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 64 found a contrasting result. Although construction of Food Distribution Points (FDPs) in most of part of the lowland areas reduced the traveling burdens of both women and men, distance traveled to receive food transfers was still one of the gaps in all except Somali region. For example, it found that PSNP clients in Afar were to travel as long as 80 kilometers to receive food payments, which required them to stay overnight at the FDPs and incur high transportation costs to bring the food home. The study also found that in Hammer (SNNP), the woreda administration did not want to take the risk of going to areas where there was ethnic conflict to make cash payments and required clients in the 12 kebeles to come all the way to the Hammer woreda. The Yohannes & Gissila (2017) study noted that distance traveled and time spent to receive payments had putting extra pressure particularly on women who are overburdened with domestic and public work tasks and pregnant women as well as people with disabilities, older people. For instance, the women in Nyangatom (SNNP) complained that they were not able to use animals to transport food transfer and rather had to carry more than 50kgs of grain for a longer distance. Gender and PNSP payments Communities consulted in the 2014 ESAC 65 acknowledged some risk that cash might be spent on the wrong purpose, especially on the part of the male Figure 16: Community Consultation in Amibara, Afar beneficiaries. Communities felt that it was more likely that men spend the transfer on purposes other than household food security. Consultations reveled that there is less risk when transfer is received in the form of grain, since women collect the grain and are in charge of its use for household consumption. Program implementers interviewed during the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC shared their concern that some male household-heads may tend to spend cash transfers on habits such as drinking and khat chewing. They reported that profiteers exploit the situation by delivering alcoholic beverages for sale around collection sites on payment days in Ngangatom (SNNP). Program implementers recommend that educational work, which involves ritual leaders, be undertaken to help deal with the problem. The PSNP 4 Social Development Plan planned to implement participatory community interventions aimed at bringing about behavioral changes through educational measures, introduce savings education. This in order to mitigate the risks of less control over transfer by women and inappropriate use of transfer by men that participants in the 2014 community consultations perceived as associated with the cash first principle. The recent consultations in Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP) revealed similar patterns in 2017 related to decision making and use of PSNP transfers. Participants in these communities reported that during normal times food than cash is more likely used for household consumption. This is because women are more likely to make decisions regarding food which they use to meet household consumption 62 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 17-18. 63 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 64 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 65 MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate 46 needs. In contrast, men are more likely to make decisions on cash a part of which some men are likely to spend on drinks. Consultations also revealed that the gender of recipient of household transfer on transfer days made little difference on these culturally determined decision making prerogatives of men and women over cash and food respectively. The convenience of household members determines as to who (household head, wife or children) may be assigned to collect household transfers but culturally determined decision making roles over the transfers still hold. Consultations also found that in some cases women too have spent some portions of transfers on local drinks (borde in Hammer (SNNP), chika in Konso (SNNP) although the amount is significantly lower than that which men spend on drinks. In Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia), findings from recent community consultations deviated from the above description. The following emphatic statement by a female participant in a FGD in Afdem was shared by other female participants in both woredas, PSNP transfers are intended for household consumption. Hence, women collect the PSNP transfers, which we use to prepare and serve meals to member of the family. Men know do not prepare meals and, hence, they have nothing to do with PSNP transfers. Women receive the transfer and decide the best way it can be used for the benefit of our family members. Our men generally do not interfere in such matters. 66 Women in Afdem (Somali) were asked if this is because only food is the payment modality. Both men and women agreed that even if cash becomes the payment modality and men received the cash, they would still hand it over to their wives because use of PSNP is regarded as a domestic responsibility which traditionally belongs to women. They admitted, however, that women might give a small portion of the cash to men to spend it on khat. Participants in Amibara (Afar) painted a contrasting picture in which men were the primary decision makers in households irrespective of whether cash or food was received as a female participant in the FGD explained: In our culture, men are the ultimate decision-makers on matters concerning all issues of a family. So, men can decide who should collect PSNP transfers and what to do with them. Whether the transfers are received in cash or grain, men can still make the ultimate decision on them. Since the transfer is currently received in grains, some men sell part or all of the grain and spend some of that on khat. 67 But not all men are irresponsible to spend the transfers entirely on khat and starve their family to death. 68 Discussions with communities undertaken as part of Berhane et al (2016) 69 found similar gender differences in decision making related to PSNP transfers among the Afar and the Somali. Interestingly, Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 70 did not investigate if there was gender based difference in decision-making over PSNP transfers. Overall, consultations in all woredas further found that during the current drought, households are more likely to use transfers to address significant consumption gaps irrespective of the gender of recipient/decision maker or the payment modality of the transfer. Sharing Culture Community consultations undertaken in 2014 revealed a dilemma regarding the implications of sharing culture on the PSNP, which is embedded in the cultural norms and value systems of pastoral communities. On the one hand, it is a traditional mechanism for coping with adversities resulting from prolonged droughts and depletion of livestock resources. It is invoked as guarantees of protection and entitlement during periods of livelihood crisis from various causes. The Karayu, for example, have a culture of sharing called walii qicuu. One key informant in the during the 2014 community consultations 66 A female participant in the FGD held in Afdem Woreda, Afdem Kebele, Somai Region on May 22, 2017. 67 An intoxicating drug like leaf. 68 A female participant in the FGD held in Amibara, Afar 69 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 70 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas 47 noted, “We support our weak people keeping them under our armpit”. 71 The key informant explained that, “Our poor people do not go out and beg for a living.” 72 Different criteria apply to the sharing of consumables such as money, food, and tobacco or the borrowing of equipment or pack animals or sharing of labour. Transactions are frequent but of low value and no one is excluded. 73 In distinction to the transfer of valuable livestock assets, the daily sharing of consumables and labour helps to sustain the poor but is insufficient to lift them out of poverty. 74 On the other hand, various literature 75 illustrated “dilution” to have resulted when PSNP beneficiaries share their transfers with their kinsmen who are not included in the Program and hence for whom the resources were not intended. Lowland residents state that PSNP assists in keeping poor households fed, but is, in itself, insufficient to permanently alleviate their poverty. With limited prospects for graduation, the payment of PSNP transfers in the form of consumable good results in widespread sharing and ‘dilution’ of PSNP benefits. 76 Community consultations with the Afar and Somali in 2014 indicated that the reason why households did not complain about exclusion from PSNP, even when there may be reasons to do so, was that the excluded know that relatives, in-laws and neighbors selected to be program beneficiaries would always share their transfers with them. The need for resource sharing and the consequent dilution effect are exacerbated by displacement and loss of animal wealth suffered as a result of inter- group conflicts and cattle raiding. This is particularly typical of Ngangatom (SNNP) pastoralists who are in frequent clashes with the Turkana in Kenya. Driven from their cattle camps by these conditions, the displaced Ngangatom (SNNP) may move to safer areas along the banks of the Omo River looking for the support of fellow clansmen there. Relatives who are PSNP beneficiaries are hence obliged to come to the rescue of these needy pastoralists by sharing their transfers with them. In this sense, the PSNP guidelines have been “adapted” in a way to ensure that the Figure 17: Community Consultation in Afdem, Somali receipt of PSNP transfers does not imperil the future claims of recipients to mutual assistance within their communities. Communities feel that this is a realistic way of operating since the PSNP operates for only half the year and the poor require assistance at other times of the year when the programme is not operational. The community consultations undertaken in 2014 for the PSNP 4 ESAC noted that though sharing was something that should be encouraged, it compromised the effectiveness of PSNP as the transfer, especially when it is in-kind, was divided among several families with little impact on the problem of chronic food insecurity. In other words, PSNP transfers would have limited impact of the transfers in addressing the problem of chronic food insecurity where many people were not able to be included in the PSNP due to caseload limitations and brings attention to the importance of ensuring that there is a “right- sized” caseload moving into PSNP 4. With this background, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan planned to “design targeting structures with careful consideration to the balance between formal and informal traditional authority structures”. The 71 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 72 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 73 Sabates-Wheeler, et al (2011); Devereux (2006). 74 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 75 WFP, 2007. 76 Ibid. p.22. 48 Social Development Plan was not, however, clear how this was to be done and how it could reduce the risk of sharing PSNP transfers. In the meantime, sharing has continued to be a particularly recurrent phenomenon for PSNP transfers. The community consultations undertaken for this ESAC confirmed findings of all previous studies, including (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC, Berhane et al (2016) 77 and Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 78) that sharing PSNP transfers was pervasive among pastoral communities. From these recent community consultations, three broad categories of sharing have been identified: - Inter-household sharing which involves sharing of PSNP transfer of one household with members of another. This is particularly the case in the Hammer (SNNP) woreda where PSNP transfers are regarded as divine blessings of the times poured on to the community. Hence, members of the community feel entitled to especially when one is in need; - Intra-household sharing, which is a consequence of the cap that PSNP 4 has placed on the number of beneficiaries per household. Hence, in targeted households with more than 5 members, the PSNP transfer are pooled and shared among all members of the household according to traditional norms of food allocation within the household. Consultations in all reviewed woredas reported that intra-household sharing reported in all households with members greater than 5 of all reviewed woredas. - Sharing among units of polygamous families. From the perspective of PSNP, if a man has multiple wives, each wife with her children constitutes a household while for all ethnic groups the man, all his wives and children constitute a single family. Hence, PSNP transfers provided to beneficiaries of one of the PSNP households may be shared with other members of the polygamous family. In this connection, the view of a male participant shared in the FGDs held in Hammer (SNNP) is heard in consultations in other reviewed woredas as well: I am a poor person with three wives and their children but PSNP provides transfer in the name of only one of my wives and her children. The amount we get is very small compared with the number of mouths we have to feed in the current drought we are suffering from. Thank God that get humanitarian food assistance in the name of my other wives. If that was not available, the PSNP transfer we get would be far from enough to keep our breath going 79. Given the highly communal ethos of the Somali who inhabit the woreda, it could be surprising to note that inter-household sharing of PSNP transfers was reported as not common in Afdem (Somali). Indeed, implementers confirmed that sharing was a pervasive norm among the Somali. In the context of PSNP transfers, however, sharing among households was not common because beneficiaries were the poorest of the poor from whom nobody expected to receive and that they did not feel obligated to give. Forced spending Beyond issues related to domestic decisions on the use of PNSP payments, some communities complained that they are forced by other entities to spend PSNP payments on things others than household consumption. In Hammer (SNNP), for example, deductions were reportedly made on PSNP transfers on payment day to finance credit given to beneficiaries to engage in income generating activities. A participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda explained, We do admit that some time ago we took a loan to engage in income generating activities. At that time, we had agreed for loan payments to be deducted from our PSNP transfers. However, the drought had destroyed our goats and cattle which we hoped to multiply and pay back our debt. And now we are about to die of hunger if it were not for PSNP transfers. But, our creditors still deduct loan payment from our transfers when they know that we do not have anything else to subsist on. They continued to do so even when we disagreed with their action. 80 77 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 78 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 79 A male participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 80 A male participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 49 In another example, community members in Mieso (Oromia) complained that PSNP beneficiaries were forced by authorities to use part of their PSNP payments for purchase of fertilizers: We are targeted by PSNP because we had very little to subsist on. PSNP transfers are our means of survival. Yet, deductions are made from our PSNP payments to be used for the purchase of fertilizers for our farms, which has gone barren due to the drought. That is, we PSNP beneficiaries are being forced to use our transfers to purchase fertilizers. What is even more unfair is that we are forced to do so while non- beneficiaries are not. 81 Timeliness and Predictability Timeliness and predictability was noted as a risk based on previous experience with unpredictable payments and not receiving transfer on time. Hoddinott (2013) noted that the communities may cope by seeking loan or credit, sale of household assets and consumption of seed reserves which they kept for the next growing season. 82 This contradicts the principle of PSNP (which is to reduce asset depletion) and is likely to affect the graduation capability of the beneficiaries. The community consultations undertaken in 2014 found variations in the experiences of communities related to timeliness and predictability. Overall, delays in payments could be experienced for up to two months regardless of the completion of PW tasks in due time. Program implementers who participated in the 2014 consultations attributed problems to inadequate financial staff [in Konso (SNNP), Awash Fentale (Afar) and Harari], poor storage facilities (Awash Fentale, Afar), lack of transport logistics (Ngangatom in SNNPR and Awash Fentale, Afar), in addition to problems related to procurement and low staff capacity. Both male and female focus group discussants during the 2014 consultations explained that delayed and unpredictable transfers had made the beneficiaries more vulnerable and their reaction to vulnerability is negative coping mechanism. In Dire Dawa, communities expressed concern that household members, especially children, risk going hungry as a result of delayed transfers. Communities also shared that the environment (despite an awareness of damaging impact on forest resources) may be at risk as people may turn to negative coping mechanisms such as the practice of charcoal making and firewood collection for sale to earn money for survival. Other negative coping mechanisms reported in 2014 consultations include taking loans in the form of grain or cash (often with high interest rates) to meet emergency needs. When they repayed loans later, they would not have enough grain or cash left to keep surviving until the next payments. Konso (SNNP) communities shared that beneficiaries may resort to borrowing money from local lenders at high interest rates to meet urgent needs (i.e. purchase of food, fertilizer, or seed). Communities of Dassanetch (SNNP), Hammar and Karrayyu predicted that they may also come under pressure to sell goats that they have raised with PSNP resources at very low prices. In Ngangatom (SNNP), women beneficiaries reported that delays in transfers could result in short of cash to pay medical treatment for the ill, get pregnant women to health facility for delivery and care for them afterwards. Based on 2014 consultations, the PSNP 4 ESAC concluded that delays in transfers led to increased risk of asset depletion and other negative coping strategies. To mitigate this risk, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan sought to ensure beneficiaries receive transfers on time by addressing capacity gaps and root causes, display transfer schedule in the kebele. 81A male participant in the FGD held in Engude kebele, Mieso woreda, Oromia on May 25, 2017. 82Hoddinott, et al. (2013) Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Program and the Household Asset Building Program in the Ethiopian Highlands, 2012: Program Performance Report. 50 Berhane et al (2016) 83 found that with some exception delays in the distribution of PSNP transfers had continued. Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 84 further confirmed the continuation of delay in transfer but noted that the problem was manifested more in Afar and certain woredas of Oromia and SNNP (Hammer) than Somali where the presence of four Hubs or Expanded Delivery Points (EDP) reportedly was successful at supporting the dispatch of food to FDPs. Furthermore, the March 2017 RRM reported delay in all regions represented in the present assessment. 85 Community members consulted expressed gratitude that cash transfers are generally paid within 2-3 weeks which is a significant progress from previous phases of PSNP. However, communities in Amibara (Afar) reported that delay of transfer by two months was common. Moreover, communities in Hammer (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) complained that the most recent cash payment had delayed by two months. Implementers in Hammer (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) explained that this was because the cash was not transferred by federal government as yet. They also reported that the next payment was food, which was already transported and in store. However, they had to hold payment of the food transfer because unpaid cash transfer had to first be paid for the PASS could allow payment of the food transfer. Implementers in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) reported the confusion resulting from payment of accumulated delayed transfers. They explained that payment of accrued transfers on one payroll had misled some beneficiaries into thinking that monthly payments had been increased. Community members in Konso (SNNPR) perceived delays of up to three weeks. Implementers, on the other hand, explained that actual average delay is no longer than one week since the PIM provides for transfers to be made within the first two weeks. In any case, beneficiaries reportedly coped with the delay by borrowing from the able members of their community. They explained that their lenders are generally willing to give loans because they trust that their borrowers will collect their payment from PSNP sooner than later to repay them. Implementers attributed the relative less delay in transfer to the fact that all transfers are made in cash. On the other hand, they identified two major causes for the minor delay. One is delay in transfers of PSNP payments from the regional to the woreda office. The other is the limitation in capacity of the woreda finance office to effect payments to recipient in a timely manner. Communities complained that delay in payment had been unfortunate especially in amidst the current drought. The view expressed by a FGD participant in Hammer (SNNP), below, was share by other FDGs held in other woredas as well. When PSNP transfers delayed, recipients of the humanitarian food assistance (HFA) shared their transfers with us. And when they do not have anything to eat we share our PSNP transfer with them too. Otherwise, we would die of hunger since the drought has absolved us of the livestock we would sell or whose product we would consume to cope with the delay. 86 Implementers explained that given the emergency situation their communities are in, they distributed food as soon as it arrived. They, however, reported experiencing significant delay in transporting food to their woredas. Transfer Schedule 83 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 84 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 85 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017, Reports on Afar, Oromia, SNNP and Somali. Regions. 86 A participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 51 In the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC various communities expressed concern with the PSNP transfer schedule. Consultations in Hammer (SNNPR) found that although the three ethnic groups living in the woreda had different farming seasons, existing PSNP transfer schedule and cash:food split fits perfectly with the needs of the Hammer (SNNPR), who depend on rain-fed agriculture and not with the Arbore and Kara who depended on the flood retreat irrigation from the Weito and Omo Rivers. The food gap among the Arbore and Kara fell between June to October but they reportedly received their transfer when it was their harvest time. Woreda FSTF members interviewed during as part of the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC were Figure 18: Community Consultation in Hammer, SNNP unanimous regarding presence of risks as a result of this inappropriate transfer schedule in Arbore and Kara. They citied that cash transfers may be inappropriately used as a result of the inappropriate timing of the transfers. In Alamata (Tigray) woreda, communities stressed that the design of PSNP 4 include the critical ‘hunger months’ of July and August into the ‘in kind’ transfer months since these are “the months in which grain and water never meet”. 87 It means, after exhausting all the grain with the last sowing season, almost nothing is left to make dough to bake injera or bread. This will also strengthen the argument to move or readjust the current PW months of March to June to May to August. Similarly, in Dire Dawa the incompatibility between the transfer calendar and local food gap season was raised as a serious concern. Beneficiaries indicated that would prefer to access transfers during July, August, and September when food crops are scarce and the time of harvest is still far away. Consultations revealed that being a slack season, beneficiaries would prefer to engage in PWs during this time. Program implementers in Harari and Dire Dawa drew attention to the fact that food gap periods vary in length between kebeles and households. Hence, they suggest that the transfers should not be paid out uniformly for six months to PSNP kebeles or households. Instead, they should be adapted to suit the food gap periods of individual kebeles or households which could vary between two and six months. Based on these perceptions and suggestions by communities who participated in the 2014 consultations, the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 planned to harmonize payment of transfers with seasons when food gaps are experienced and labor demand is less. The PIM prescribes a community specific schedule that provides transfer “during or prior to the period of greatest need” 88. However, it limits the number of transfer schedules that a region can adopt to a maximum of 2-3. Berhane et al (2016) 89 found little use by highland regions and woredas of the provisions in PSNP 4 to adjust the transfer schedule to the preferences and lean months. Recent 2017 community consultations in five woredas sought to find out if communities were consulted regarding transfer schedules and if any changes to schedules were made based on their preferences. Consultations in Hammer (SNNP) confirmed findings of the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC that the existing PSNP transfer schedule represented the preference of the Hammer (SNNP). In Konso (SNNP), Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar), the communities were not consulted about the schedule of transfers. Implementers had simply designed and implemented January to June as the period of transfer for public work beneficiaries for various reasons. For example, implementers in Konso (SNNP) explained that as a community practicing farming, it was obvious and needed no discussion that the 87 Participant in Alamtat Woreda, Tigray, in the FGD held as part of the 2014 ESAC. 88 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 4-1. 89 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 52 period during which transfer were scheduled were the lean months. Implementers in Afdem (Somali) explained that January to June was a dry season when men would drive the cattle to distance places. During this period, PSNP transfers had reportedly filled critical food gaps for women and children who remained behind without the livestock which normally were the sources of their subsistence. Communities were asked which months of the year they had the highest food deficit and, hence, needed PSNP transfers. The choice of communities in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) were in line with the transfer period already under implementation and requested it be continued. However, communities in Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) complained that May – September was the period when they experienced the severest food gap and requested the current schedule be changed to this period. A participant in the FGD held in Mieso (Oromia) expressed the following, We experience a severe food shortage during the summer [April – Sept] than we do at any time of the year. We have no harvest during this time and there is little food in the market. However, we are provided with transfer during the months of January –June, which is a period when we have relatively some food. This PSNP transfer normally come during January – June and we are often happy when the transfer delay and come after June. If we are asked for our preference, we would like to receive cash in the months of April to June and food when food is relatively available in the market and food during July – Sept when the stock of grain depletes in the market. 90 4.3 Public Works and Linkages to Social Services Planning Community consultations undertaken for the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC found that the selection of PW subprojects was participatory and consultative from the start. Community members indicated that they were involved in the identification of priorities and the planning of activities. Consultations found that community participation in planning was essential for communities to choose activities that were relevant to their lives and livelihoods and allowed them incorporate their indigenous knowledge and cultural experience. In the case of Konso (SNNP), PW subprojects undertaken such as soil and water conservation and terracing were in line with traditional practices which the Konso (SNNP) had accumulated centuries of knowledge and experience, making public works and the indigenous practices inter-complementary and mutually reinforcing. Participants in the 2014 consultations hence requested that PSNP 4 continue a strong emphasis on participatory planning. In line with this request, the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 aimed to continue emphasis on strong participatory planning processes. Accordingly, the PIM requires Development Agents to assist communities in planning public works following planning processes prescribed in the Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development Guidelines [CBPWDG] and the Pastoral Public Works Guidelines, which intend to help communities “to identify community needs, prioritize activities based on those needs, and ensure community ownership of the sub-projects as appropriate.” 91 Berhane et al (2016) 92 found that five of the eight KFSTFs in Somali and Afar did not know about the Pastoral PW Guidelines. The survey also asked a general question about whether the community has been involved in the planning of public works. Responses suggested involvement. On the other hand, respondents could not specifically describe the process for selection of PW projects. Moreover, community members shared that they did not participate in decisions on what PW project were to be undertaken by the community. This suggested to the dilemma in community perception regarding the nature ‘participation’. Community consultations held for this ERSNP ESAC specifically asked participants to describe the process involved in selection of PW projects. Communities described a diversity of processes they 90 A male participant in FGD held in Engude kebele, Mieso woreda, Oromia on May 25, 2017. 91 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, PP 6-5. 92 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 53 adopted in planning PW. Community members in Afdem (Somali) described the following bottom up approach to planning PW in their woreda, PW planning meeting is called at the community (sub-kebele) level by a taskforce assigned by the kebele administration. In the community meeting, community members discuss PW projects that they would like to enhance the community assets during the subsequent year. Based on this discussion, an initial list of projects is developed which is then debated on and a final list is agreed upon as priority PW projects. The community level consultations are supported by a map of the community sketched for the purpose. The priority lists of projects that are submitted by all communities in a kebele are then consolidated by the kebele administration to form the kebele PW plan. The consolidated kebele PW plans are similarly aggregated to make up the woreda PW plans. 93 Communities in Konso (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) reported that they participated in planning of PW projects while they recognized that PW projects were within the development plans of the woreda administration. When probed regarding the nature of their actual participation in project selection, they explained that the sometimes woreda administration had given them a list of possible PW activities from which they were asked to prioritize those they would like to given the needs of their communities. They reported that the list of possible PW project provided by the woreda administration coincided with their priorities. They specifically mentioned terracing to conserve soil and water and construction of access roads as projects that were given high priority by them and the woreda administration. In contrast, communities in Hammer (SNNP) reported less participation in selection of PW projects and that they implemented a priority of projects defined by the woreda administration. Consequently, they reported that in some incidents some of the selected projects did not adhere to their needs and which contributed to their poor quality and ineffectiveness. Community members recalled, for example, building enclosures of communal pasture land which had the objective of allowing the land to revive before it is used for grazing. However, community members explained that enclosing communal land was alien to their culture and, hence, community members did not respect the enclosure and trespassed into the designated land at night to let their livestock in for grazing. In this connection, Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 94 found that although PW plans were formulated at the community level, and later integrated in the Woreda and Kebele Plans, final selection of PW projects depended on alignment of the projects with Kebele and Woredas plans which meant that they did not necessarily prioritize projects identified by women. In addition, though many of the projects benefit women and the rest of the community, they were not strategically designed to alleviate the workload of women who were actively participating in PW subprojects. Relatedly, awareness gaps among grassroots implementers as well as female and male clients were reported about the kinds of projects that will reduce women’s workload. Impact of PW workload on women Consultations held in 2014 revealed that PWs had in the past competed for the time and attention that households had to devote to their regular livelihood and domestic activities. Women in particular expressed that they were hard-pressed to manage their household and pastoral work when they had to participate in PWs as well. It was found, for instance, that the majority of people engaged in PWs in Konso (SNNP) were women. So considerable was the load of work on them that PW commitments were competing for their time and attention to domestic and agricultural chores. The Konso (SNNP) shared that as a result of increasing land-scarcity, the out-migration of men to work as migrant labourers 95 is an increasing trend and means that women are left to be solely responsible for the PW labour requirement. A similar situation was reported during 2014 consultations in Hammer (SNNP), Dassenetch (SNNP) and Awash Fentale (Afar). The traditional division of labour in these areas kept male household heads, adolescents, and youths at distant where they stay for extended periods, particularly in dry seasons. 93 KII with PSNP implementer in Afdem woreda, Somali Region on May 21, 2017. 94 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 95 PW payments which amount to Birr 17 per day are too small for Konso men compared to daily wages of up to Birr 50 paid for other kinds of labour in the towns. 54 Women stayed behind at base camps taking care of small stock and domestic responsibilities. PW activities were carried out around the homesteads, and being largely of the nature of work that they were traditionally involved in, the burden of participation often rested on women. Beneficiaries as well as program implementers pointed out that the pressure on women was intense since they were required to cover the workdays of male household members that had migrated with their livestock. In recognition of the fact that participation in PWs may contribute to additional burden on women leaving them with little time to engage in other regular livelihoods or domestic activities, the PIM of PSNP reduced women’s PW load by 50%, which allows them to arrive late and leave early (and adjusting their work commitment to 50% of the standard) 96. In all woredas with the exception of Mieso (Oromia), female participants in the 2017 consultations expressed their gratitude that PSNP had reduced their PW requirements by 50%, which, they said, would significantly reduce their aggregate work burden. That the 50% reduction of workload for women is not reportedly observed in Mieso is also confirmed to be true for some of the woredas covered by Yohannes & Gissila (2017). 97 In all reviewed woredas, communities reported that about half of the participants of PW have continued to be women. In predominantly pastoralist Hammer (SNNP), Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar), 98 women stay behind while the men travel long distances in search of water and pasture for their cattle. This is particularly the case during the current drought that has completely depleted available water and pasture in the woredas. Consequently, women have to meet PW and domestic requirements of the household. In Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia), women are active participants in farming and also management of livestock in addition to other domestic responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, childcare etc. In Konso (SNNP), women also had to assume household responsibilities of men who migrant to towns in search of employment because the increasing land fragmentation has made it difficult for households to survive on farm produce alone. The female participants reported that the additional labor requirements by PW had significantly increased their workload. For example, a participant in the FGD held in Konso had the following to say, During the time when our men are gone in search of employment, we are the men and women of our households. We need to work on our farms, tend to our livestock, maintain our fences – work that our men normally do – and then we are also to do accomplish other set of work that we normal do as women of the household. These two types of work are more than enough to fill our days. But then, we are to shoulder our household’s labour obligations to PSNP. That is not all! We are also expected to participate in the labour mobilization by the kebele administration. If it is only due to the sustaining power of God that enabled us to do all that and still survive. 99 In addition, Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 100 brought attention to the “psychological relationship” that women have with PWs. The Assessment found that especially in Afar and Nyangatom (SNNP), women feel more responsible for PW assignments, which resulted in a disproportionate PW burden on women since the PIM allows either of the spouses to partake in public work activities. Implementers interviewed for the assessment acknowledged their interest to see the PW subprojects accomplished. An understanding that women can be relied upon to complete PWs may have put additional pressure on women. 96 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 8-3 97 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas 98 This is in contrast with the observation of the 2017 RRM to Afar which reported that the 50% reduction in workload for women was not observed in Afar. For details see Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Report on Afar. Regions. 99 A female participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 100 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 55 Health and Safety Communities consulted in 2014 appreciated the importance of ensuring that safety measures are put in place and appropriate compensation mechanisms devised in the event that accidents occur while engaged in PWs. PW activities help the community build communal assets, such as roads, water harvesting ponds, check dams, irrigation canals, area closure, bush clearing particularly of the invasive and thorny tree prosopis julifloa 101 in lowland areas, etc. Some of these activities might involve the risk of endangering the safety of PW participants and unless carefully planned and executed - accidents might happen. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC also found that PW had put pregnant women at particular risk. In Dassanetch (SNNP), FSTF members reported that in the past many pregnant women participated in PWs despite PIM provisions allowing them to switch to Temporary Direct Support for up to 10 months after birth 102. Community consultation in Kanifa kebele of Fantale (Oromia) woreda revealed that a woman experienced a miscarriage 103 while taking part in PWs (digging water harvesting pond). One risk identified in Meket (Amhara) was that implementers may demand certificates [testimonials] from the health facility to approve the maternity leave requests. Based on previous experience, women complained that the Health Extension Worker (HEW) or clinic may refuse to issue certificates unless pregnancy follow-up and vaccination cards can be produced. Many women are unable to produce these due to the fact that they have no access to services, may have never visited a health facility for this purpose or low awareness. In the same consultation, women in Konso (SNNP), Awash Fentale (Afar), and Babile (Somali) reflected on the fact that when different forms of physical harm are caused as a result of participation in PWs activities, the victims themselves cover the medical costs incurred. It is therefore imperative that, in addition to adopting strategies to make sure that appropriate safety measures are introduced, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that PW participants are given medical attention in the event of an accident. Community consultations therefore stressed the need to ensure that pregnant women do not endanger themselves as a result of PW participation. Community consultations in Alamata (Tigray) and Meket (Amhara) woredas emphasized the need for increased awareness of Gender and Social Development PIM provisions. In order to mitigate risk to health and safety involved in participation in PW, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan had set the goals develop health and safety guidelines and ensuring first-aid services are available to beneficiaries in event of accident and ensuring pregnant lactating women are switched to temporary Direct Support. Accordingly, the PNSP 4 PIM requires giving orientation on safety precautions to all PW labourers before starting work 104. It also requires availing a first aid kit at each public works site. It assigns leaders of PW teams the duty of giving advice on safety measures to be taken by laborers. It also requires transiting pregnant woman to temporary direct support on confirmation from the health worker of her pregnancy (or in the absence of this, from the 4th month of pregnancy); and her continued receipt of direct support until her child is 12 months old. 2017 community consultations participants in Hammer (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) reported that no accident had occurred during PW because the works selected have not be similar to what they do as part of their household and community responsibilities. On the other hand, participants in Konso (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) explained that they had been involved in building access roads on the mountain terrain which involved digging hard rock. They reported cases of accidents due to PW in which PW participants had sustained injuries. When accidents occurred in Hammer (SNNP), the victims themselves covered their medical cost while in Afdem (Somali), the woreda administration reported 101 The plant, prosopis juliflora, rapidly invaded vast areas of agro and silvo-pastoral lands, affecting both the biodiversity and socio-economic environment (Dubale, 2008). 102 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 3-7. 103 Scientific studies indicate that the first trimester carries the highest risk of miscarriage. 104 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 8-8. 56 covered its flexible recurrent budget because PSNP 4 did not have any provision to ensure safety in and cover medical cost of injuries sustained as a result of PW participation. On the other hand, female participants in Hammer (SNNP) and Afdem (Somali) were grateful that PSNP 4 has waved PW participation from pregnant women from the time of conception. They explained that this had not only reduced their aggregate workload but also contributed to safe birth. In contrast, community members and implementers in Konso (SNNP), Amibara (Afar) and Mieso (Oromia) were not aware of the waiver of PW requirements for pregnant women from the time of conception and continued practices in PSNP 3 which wave PW frequent only after about the fourth month of pregnancy. Yohannes & Gissila (2017) 105 found similar cases of ignorance of waiver of PW for pregnant women among implementers in other Afar and Oromia woredas. Children Both male and female FGDs held during the 2014 community consultations as part of the PSNP 4 ESAC found that awareness raising regarding the inappropriateness and illegality of children’s participation in PWs was provided. However, the consultations found that the small work force remaining in some households 106 had forced some parents to send their children to participate in PWs - although previous phases of PSNP prohibited the engagement of children in PWs. The same consultations found that PSNP PW supervisors would return and not allow underage children to participate in PWs. In order to mitigate the participation of children in PWs, the Social Development Plan had Figure 19: Community Consultation in Mieso, Oromia planned to further increase awareness on importance of enrollment of children in school and ensure that children are not allowed to participate in PW activities. The PIM stipulates that “children are not expected nor permitted to participate in public works; any children sent will be immediately sent home and a day’s payment forfeited” 107. In all reviewed woreds, communities reported that they strictly observed the PSNP requirement that children should not participate in PW. They explained that when some labour constrained households sometimes sent their children to PW, they had sent them back and recognized the household as absent. However, community members in all woredas debated on the definition of a child. All agreed that younger children were not sufficiently strong to participate in PW. However, probes in FGDs found that communities had a differing definition of what a ‘child’ meant to them, as explained by a community member in Mieso, below. We do not let children to participate in PW not only because PSNP forbids it but also because they do not make much contribution to the work. They are physically weak to do PW activities. We involve stronger men including older boys in targeted households who have the muscles for the work. 108 Implementers noted the difficulty in determining the age of a given children to prevent those younger than 18 years old from engaging in PW since there no one they know in the PSNP areas has birth certificate. 105 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 106 As a result of the migration of Konso men. 107 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 8-10. 108 Male participant in the FGD held in Engude kebele, Mieso woreda, Oromia on May 25, 2017. 57 This appears to have led communities and implementers to determine the age of a child based on height and physical strength than actual years since birth. Timing of Public Works In the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC 109, key informants expressed concern that unless addressed, PWs will not be completed on time during PSNP 4, as a result of the overlap between PWs and regular farming activities. These findings are in line with the fact that it is now widely recognized by PSNP implementers that PWs must be scheduled according to the various seasonal calendars across rural Ethiopia. Mistiming occurred either because a single time 6-month period relevant to parts of highland Ethiopia was applied, or what was actually more likely, that planning and funding was not finalized at the appropriate time for implementing PW in a particular lowland agro-ecological area. Reference to Table 5below shows that the long and short rains occur at distinctly different times of the year, depending on area. Table 5: Rainy seasons in different lowland regions of Ethiopia 110 Region Zone Main rain Minor rain Somali Afder, Liben, Gode, (Deyr) 4th week Sept. to mid- Korahe, (GU) Mid-March to May November Warder, Fik, Degahabur (Karan) Mid-July to mid- Shinile (Hagaa)Late March to mid-July September Afar (Karma) July to 1st week (Sugum) March to April September Oromia (Hagaya) 3rd week Sept to mid- Borana Gana) Mid-March to mid-May Nov SNNPR South Omo March to 1st week June 4th week Sept to Nov The timing of rains and dry seasons was the single major influence on labour availability for pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and farmers. Whether the intended beneficiaries were busy with their animals or fields, or had enough energy to fulfill demanding physical tasks of digging soil and hauling stones was all dependent on the season. 111 Hence, communities in Hammar (SNNP) recommended that PSNP modify the months in which PWs are implemented 112. Similar recommendations came from Harari. 113 In order to address incompatibility between the PW implementation and the local labor seasons, the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 had set the goal of ensuring implementation of flexible PW calendar corresponding to local seasons when labour demand is at the lowest, and does not interfere with the agricultural/pastoral engagements of the concerned communities. Accordingly, the PIM requires that “Public works are expected to be timed to coincide with the labour slack period and during periods when weather conditions are appropriate (avoiding periods of heavy rainfall or extreme heat).” 114 Community consultations in Afdem (Somali), Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP) complained that PW and their household livelihood activities have continued to overlap during the lean months while the MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security 109 Coordination Directorate. 110 Save the Children UK, et.al. 111 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 112 January to June PW months can be moved (or modified) to other months since PW competes with the farming and planting (March), weeding (April) and harvesting (June) activities on their household plots during these months. 113 The months of March, April and to some extent June are the peak farming seasons during which period farmers are fully engaged in their agricultural activities. 114 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 4-1 58 aggregate work requirements become much loose during other months. Implementers said that they were aware of the imbalance in the distribution of aggregate workload this would entail PW participants during the annual cycle. However, they reported that it involves administrative challenge for them and consent of the community to plan PW at a time when participants are less burdened with their livelihood activities. They explained that PWs are planned during lean months so that the transfer may provide to meet household food gaps. Apparently, the lean months are the times when households are relatively busy with their livelihood activities. If PWs are to be planned when participants are less burdened with their livelihood activities, it would require participants to engage in PW but differ payment to months when they have food gaps. Such an arrangement is supported by the PIM which states that, “while public works must be matched with slack labour periods, transfers can be timed to so that clients receive them slightly before the hungry season rather than exactly during that period.” 115 Implementing this provision will require PW participants not to expect payment during the PW months and for implementers to maintain record of PW participation by each participant during the months. However, in some of the communities consulted, communities and implementers had reported consulting on how to overcome this challenge and minimize overlap between labour requirements of household by PW and their livelihood activities. The March 2017 RRM reported that this was already implemented in Arba Minch woreda of SNNPR where the woreda decided to transfer the January wage to the PW clients with a commitment that the PW will be implemented/compensated in later. 116 Mass Labour Mobilization During community consultations undertaken in 2014 in Meket (Amhara) and Alamata (Tigray), 117 communities predicted that engagement in GoE Mass Labour Mobilization118 Program (MLMP) in addition to PWs 119 would have a number of risks for PW and PW beneficiaries. To begin with, the overlap might create the risk that beneficiaries would not have enough time to engage in other important agriculture and livelihoods activities. 120 Consultations further revealed that the overlap could impact on not only the timely completion of PWs activities but also on the quality of the PW subprojects implemented. For example, beneficiaries might only show up to PWs “for the sake of attendance”, which may involve sending physically unfit household members or only one of 3-4 household members registers to participate in PWs. This might have health and safety implications for beneficiaries and might create an impression that PW were similar to DS, and had an overall negative impact on the enthusiasm of the regular PWs participants. The PSNP 4 Social Development Plan has set the goal of ensuring that the overlap between PW and Mass Labour Mobilization does not have negative impact on beneficiaries. It did not, however, set explicit mechanism by which such a goal could be achieved. In the meantime, communities in Konso (SNNP) reported being required to participate in MLMP as explained by a participant in one FGD, below: We participate in both PW and MLMP. They are deliberately scheduled on days when we do not do PW. So, we devote 3 days for PW and 2 days for the MLMP. This means we are working for the community five days a week, which has left us with little time to work on our farms and livestock, attend to market or discharge our social obligations. 121 115 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 4-2 116 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017, Reports on SNNP Region 117 FGD participants in Alamata (Tigray) woreda in Tigray invoked a proverb to emphasize the importance of April in their farming calendar. “And Miyazia ye neqlewun, sabat Miyazia ayiteklwum” (loose translation: what is uprooted by one April cannot be replanted by seven April). What this means is that a farmer cannot afford missing the opportunity which the wet month of April offers, short but adequate rain on the farmland ready for planting their staple crops [e.g., sorghum, maize]. To strengthen the above argument, a Raya educated young man said “in April, even the most devout Orthodox Christians breach religious holidays, such as the veneration of Saints’ days, because April is a critical planting period for farmers.” To illustrate the lack of time to work on their farmlands, a make key informant from Garjale Kebele of Alamata (Tigray) Woreda said, “Ke sagno iske rob natsa zamacha inisaralen, hamus ina arb safty nat inisaralen. Mache lerasachinnin inisra? (Monday to Wednesday, we work the free campaign; Thursday and Friday, safety net. When do we work for ourselves?). 118 Soil and water conservation activities undertaken in January while irrigation activities are undertaken in February. 119 November and December and March to June. 120 Farming and planting in March and April (for both belg [short rainy season between February and April] and kiremt [long rainy season between June and August], harvesting in June for belg crops, weeding in July and August for kiremt crops, and harvesting in October and November for the long season crops. 121 A participant in the FGD held in Konso, SNNP 59 The RRM undertaken in Arbaminch Zuria woreda of SNNP in March 2017 reported that starting PW activities as early as November/December 2016 had helped avoid overlap with MLMP obligations for PW beneficiaries 122, which may be replicated if it is found useful for Konso woreda. With the exception of Konso (SNNP), there is no MLMP implemented by the Government or any other agency in the woredas consulted. Public Works Tools An issue not explicitly discussed during the 2014 community consultations was related to tools used in PW. However, participants in consultations held in the 2017 community consultations reiterated the aim of PW to build communal assets and that they were to contribute their labor but PSNP would provide tools for their work. The PSNP 4 PIM confirms the participants’ perception and provides for purchase of hand tools (i.e. spades, shovels, hoes, crow bars, sledge hammers, rakes, pick axes, and mattocks), equipment and materials from its capital budget to support public works 123. In all reviewed communities, participants explained that in addition to their labour, they also contribute tools that they use to perform the work. PW participants in Hammer (SNNP), Amibara (Afar) and Mieso (Oromia) did not mind using their own tools in PW since, according to them, much of the work was not too heavy to involve quick wear and tear in their tools. In Konso (SNNP), however, participants complained that they were made to do PW using heavy duty tools: Our woreda is mountainous and much of the PW we do involves breaking rocks and digging hard ground. All of these work we do using our own tools. This has resulted in speedy depreciation of our tools, replacement or repairing of which is incurring us costs which are not covered by PSNP. It would spare us these costs if PSNP could buy us tools that we can use for PW activities. Moreover, some of the PW we do would require less labour and save time if they were done with better tools than those we possess. So, we suggest that the PSNP buy tools for PW activities. 124 In Afdem (Somali), communities reported that are have almost exhausted all small-scale community level PW activities and expressed the desire to engage in larger projects for which they did not have necessary tools. Moreover, that they had exhausted PW projects in their own villages meant that they need to travel to more distant areas to identify and implement PW projects. They requested PSNP to assign vehicles to transport them to distant PW sites. In sum, it appears that implementers were not aware of the provision of PIM that allows purchase of hand tools, equipment and materials for PW purpose from the PSNP capital budget or they had not implemented it. Public Works and HFA As reported earlier in connection with transfers in the context of the recurrent drought, PW beneficiaries in all woredas expressed resentment at the inequality their perceived in the transfer size and labour condition of PSNP compared with that of HFA. They argued that overall the HFA provides higher transfer value to households because it does not place a cap on the number beneficiaries per household as the PSNP does. In Afdem (Somali), Amibara (Afar) and Mieso (Oromia), the food basket consists of a further two items in addition to that which is provided under PSNP; namely, oil and supplementary feeding. On the other hand, PSNP places labour requirement on its PW beneficiaries while HFA does not. PW beneficiaries complained that these differences have put them at a disadvantaged position during these times of drought. Nevertheless, they said they would not apply to switch to HFA because PSNP provides the transfers for at least 5 years while HR does so for a maximum for 3-6 months when emergency situation is expected to end. Nutrition Behavioral Change Communication (BCC) 122 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017, Reports on Afar, Oromia, SNNP and Somali. Regions 123 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 12-7. 124 A participant in the FGD held in Doha kebele, Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017. 60 During the consultations undertaken for the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC, the FSTF in various woredas argued that there was a need to harmonize the PSNP component of health with that of the Ministry of Health (MoH). Community members and HEW suggested the provision of nutritious food (almi migib) for under-five children, training of 1 to 5 leaders on how to prepare balanced diet food from what were locally grown and regular awareness raising works for community members in general. In response to these suggestions, PSNP 4 aims to positively change the behavior of nutrition and health- related caring practices of pregnant women and young children. To this end, the PIM prescribes holding nutrition BCC (including monthly cooking and feeding demonstrations) with PW clients at least once a month thereby improving women’s and men’s access to and use of user-friendly information. 125 Recent community consultations in 2017 revealed that the extent to which nutrition BCC have been implemented varied among the study woredas and within kebeles in the same woreda. Communities in Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia) reported regular provision of nutrition education while those in Hammer (SNNP) and Amibara (Afar) did not. PW sites were reportedly the most common venues when BCC on nutrition had been provided. In Konso (SNNP), on the other hand, community members had regretted that they had not yet started implementing BCC on nutrition. This was because implementation of PSNP 4 in the woreda started only four months ago and, hence, they were too preoccupied with other priorities to begin nutrition BCC activities. This was already confirmed by the March 2017 RRM undertaken to SNNPR which observed that in Konso the entire planning for the EFY 2009 began in November/December due to the recent political unrest 126. Similar variation was reported among kebeles in woredas that were implementing nutrition BCC. Participants perceived a higher probability of provision of nutrition education in kebeles where there was some degree of collaboration between HEWs and DAs. Implementers reported that not all kebeles have one or the other or both of these officers. In many kebeles of the reviewed woredas where both the HEW and DA existed, nutrition education was reportedly intermittent and had not been collaboratively planned and implemented between the health office and PSNP program. 4.4 Current drought situation The 2014 ESAC noted that during times of drought in Ethiopia, risks related to malnutrition were high. Among pastoralist communities, children were susceptible to malnutrition and undernourishment during and after the onset of drought. The livestock are the main source of food (milk and other dairy products) for the children. The drought either kills the livestock, or the need to maintain the livestock requires herding them far off-places in search of pasture and water. In this situation, the children barely received two meals a day, often one type of food, nutrition-deficient at that, for several weeks, if not months. Consultations in 2014 reported that during times of drought, parents tried whatever was in their reach to properly feed their children, and yet children may not be have enough nutritious food even when they were fed regularly. The consultation further revealed the view that people would not be [intentionally] lazy about their children if not for shortage of resources. 127 However, there was vulnerability in the face of recurrent drought and this was one immediate consequence – which was common across all communities consulted. With this background, the 2017 ESAC community consultations looked into the implications of the current drought on communities. The consultations further revealed that due to the drought, communities faced a significant risk of malnutrition. Participants in predominantly pastoral woredas of Hammer (SNNP), Afdem (Somali), Amibara (Afar), Mieso (Oromia) explained that formerly when the drought was not a recurrent phenomenon, they were able to feed themselves from the dairy and poultry products from the animals they could keep. In addition, they also grew corn and sorghum that added to their meals. However, the current drought has destroyed all their animals and crops, which has meant that that 125 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 6-11. 126 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on SNNP Region 127 Ibid. 61 rich and poor, young and old, male and female had nothing to eat. Participants in Konso (SNNP), similarly reported that in good times “when the rain kept its regular schedules”, they were able to produce a variety of crops and also could feed their livestock from which they not only feed themselves but also sold at the market of the nearby towns. Nevertheless, the drought that occurred for a second consecutive year meant that they could neither produce crops nor keep their livestock. The following observation of a female participant in a FGDs about the particular impact the drought had on the most vulnerable members of her community, below, 128 The drought had a particular impact on the weaker members of our communities who could not go around looking for some bits to keep their breath going. These include very young children, pregnant and lacerating mothers, the elderly, and the chronically sick. If it were not for PSNP transfers or the emergency relief, most of these people would not live to see the next day. Even then, there are still many among us who had nothing to put in their mouth and yet are not provided for by either PSNP or the emergency relief. 129 In this connection, implementers in Afdem (Somali), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) recommended that the PSNP provide a separate basket of supplementary food for malnourished children and pregnant women and lacerating mothers, which may be prescribed by health officers and managed in collaboration with the health office. The same implementers were asked if they knew about the PIM provision of PSNP 4 regarding the linkages that need to be established with the Therapeutic Supplementary Feeding (TSF) and the Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) services to be provided by HEWs and the Health Office. 130 The overwhelming response was that they were not yet familiar with these provisions of the PSNP 4 PIM. 4.5 Direct Support (DS) It was explained that the most vulnerable members of PSNP communities with would continue to be eligible for DS under the ERSNP. Community consultations in 2014 reported that during the previous phases, there was a quota for Direct Support beneficiaries given to each of the PSNP woredas and kebeles and that Direct Support beneficiaries were reported to be very small compared to the number of potential Direct Support beneficiaries screened by the Kebele FSTF. The ESAC found that this had resulted in those beneficiaries that should be eligible to participate in DS being targeted for PW. Moreover, six months support to DS still left beneficiaries vulnerable to food insecurity. The PSNP 4 Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 had sought to mitigate this risk by removing the cap on number of DS beneficiaries and also increasing support of for DS caseload from 6 – 12 months. Participants in all reviewed woredas expressed gratitude for special provisions that PSNP 4 has made to DS beneficiaries. Implementers noted that removing the cap on the percentage of DS beneficiaries that could be included in a woreda/ kebele had allowed them to cover all eligible members of their communities who would otherwise have nothing to survive on. Similarly, community members expressed gratitude for extending the period in which DS is provided from 6 to 12 months, which, they noted, was in line with PSNP’s objective to smoothen consumption in labour constrained households. Both community members and implementers were also happy about PSNP’s provision of providing DS to those who were temporarily unable to provide labour such as the temporarily sick and pregnant and lactating mothers, which, they further noted, cohered with the same objective. Participants expressed their hope that these provisions will continue in the future as they were. Separate transfer schedule The (2014) PSNP 4ESAC found that delay in DS transfers were partly due to delays in completion of PW. In Hammer (SNNP), FSTF members reported that PW transfers were delayed for reasons such as the monthly PWs plan not completed in time and delayed payroll process from the Finance Department. In 128 A participant in the FGD held in Doha kebele, Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017. 129 A participant in the FGD held in Doha kebele, Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017. 130 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 11-8. 62 this situation, transfers were not made on time. Even if separate payroll for the DS beneficiaries, the DS transfer could not be made because of the logistics problem such as transport to places over 100 km away from Dimeka, the woreda capital. Consultations revealed that these were areas that need closer attention during PSNP 4 because of their impact on the DS beneficiaries, namely aggravating vulnerability and forcing them to resort to negative coping mechanisms. Accordingly, the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 had set the goal of delinking schedules of payments to DS from payment to PW beneficiaries in order to minimize the risk of DS transfers due to delay in completion of PW. As noted earlier in relation to transfers in general, all communities reported delay in transfers to have still continued as a problem in PSNP 4. However, the extent of delay and its impact on DS beneficiaries reportedly varied among communities. DS beneficiaries in Konso (SNNP) perceived delay of up to three weeks. A DS beneficiary who participated in the FGDs in Konso explained how they coped during times of delay, We do not have anything to fall back on during times of delay other than our neighbors and relatives. Some of them show petty for us and feed us and other offered us loan that we could pay back when transfers eventually arrive. They know that PSNP transfer will eventually arrive and are willing to give us loan if they themselves have any. They are sorry for us and would not hold back donating or lending food or money and see us die of hunger 131. In contrast, DS beneficiaries in Hammer (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) complained that their transfers are often delayed for up to two months, which has significant implications for particularly DS beneficiaries. As in the general community, the culture of sharing has been a major resort for DS beneficiaries to cope with the delay in these predominantly pastoralist communities. Community members noted that delay had put DS beneficiaries to a risk of hunger in the context of the drought that was afflicting their community. They observed that DS beneficiaries to be at greater risk of hunger given their physical and health fragility and lack of strength to mobilize other coping strategies. DS beneficiaries in all reviewed woredas reported that there was a separate payroll for DS beneficiaries but they and PW beneficiaries received the payments on the same day. In other words, they asserted that there was no separate payment schedule for DS beneficiaries in those months when both PW and DS beneficiaries received payments. Implementers in all reviewed woredas admitted that there was no separate payment schedule and that such an arrangement would cause additional administrative challenge. A key informant in Konso (SNNP) has the following explanation regarding the administrative challenge that separate payroll would entail, We are not aware of any plan to set separate payment schedules for DS and PW beneficiaries. I do not personally think this is advisable because I guess this would entail additional administrative burden were we to implement it. One of the main causes of delay is the limited number of officers at the Woreda finance office who are assigned to travel to the various kebeles to effect payment. If payments to PW and DS beneficiaries were to be separately scheduled, it would require the same officers to travel to the various kebeles twice during those months when payments are made to both categories of beneficiaries. This will further add to the logistical burden on limited capacity of the finance office. This will entail an even greater logistical challenge if we were to set different schedule transfer of grains to PW and DS beneficiaries 132. 4.6 Livelihood Support Services PSNP 4 was designed to include a livelihood component which is to replace the Household Asset Building Program (HABP). The PSNP’s livelihoods component adopts a number of elements of the HABP, but also differs in several important aspects. The livelihood component has three pathways to graduation: crop and livestock; off-farm income generation and employment. Each pathway is to be 131 A participant in the FGD held in Doha kebele, Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017. 132 KII with PSNP implementers in Konso, SNNP 63 supported with better tailoring and sequencing of interventions. In addition, the use of livelihoods transfers for the most vulnerable households – for whom credit is not an option – is introduced The PIM anticipates the livelihoods component to be rolled out to Somali and Afar beginning in Year 1, 133 where the HABP had previously not been operational. The March 2017 RRM undertaken in Somali and Afar reported that implementation of livelihood component had begun in selected pilot woredas in both regions. 134 Communities in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) explained that, to date, there had never been a history of livelihood support services in their woreda by HABP or PSNP. Communities in Somali and Afar regions explained that they have not benefited from these interventions. Implementers and community members urged the start of livelihood support activities so that beneficiaries may build assets and graduate from PSNP enabling other eligible community members who were excluded because of limited quota to be included. The following remarks made by a female participant in a FGD in Afdem (Somali). PSNP transfers have kept us alive particularly during these times of drought. We are deeply grateful for that. However, we do not want to continue being dependent on it. We want to become self-sufficient and give the opportunity for others who need it. We cannot do so, unless we obtain additional help in strengthening our assets. As it stands now, we are being thought to consider PSNP transfer as salary paid out to daily labourers. No, we want to consider PSNP as a life saver as we believe it is now 135. In Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia), implementation of the livelihood component of PSNP 4 has just started while the HABP has been active during the previous phase of PSNP. Consequently, consultations on livelihood support services with community members were based mainly on the experience that communities in Konso (SNNP), Hammer (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) had with the HABP. Community members and some of the implementers in these woredas said they were aware of the services of HABP and did not know the difference between HABP and livelihood support services in PSNP 4. The initial steps being taken relate to the crop and livestock and off-farm income generation activities. When probed, implementers were not familiar with interventions related to employment pathways. Awareness The PIM prescribes community consultations as a key initial step in the planning of livelihoods interventions each year 136. The consultations aim at informing clients about the livelihoods component of the PSNP, explaining the livelihood pathways (relevant to the community and how PSNP could support them and providing clients with the opportunity to give their input and suggestions on livelihoods interventions. Implementers in Hammer (SNNP) reported that they were just beginning awareness creation. They explained that awareness raising on livelihood support services was intended to generate interest among members of their respective communities to start income generating activities related to their livelihood. Congruent with the prescriptions of the PIM, they reported that awareness raising has been implemented by the kebele manager and his/her staff in collaboration with community level structures such as women and youth associations. 133 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 9-22. 134 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Afar and Somali. Regions. 135 A participant in the FGD held in Afdem, Somali 136 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 9-6 64 Training The PSNP PIM requires implementers to provide technical assistance and training in livelihood activities (crop and livestock, off-farm, and employment) to clients to enable households to increase and diversify their incomes and build their assets 137. Implementers in Hammer (SNNP) woreda reported that rollout of PSNP 4 livelihood related training has started. According to them, in rolling out the training experts at woreda level have selected resource persons from the various kebeles and given them a training of trainers (ToT) on various themes such as value chain, bookkeeping, savings. Participants in the ToT consisted of Development Agents, Kebele manager, who are then expected to cascade the trainings to community members interested in engaging in livelihood activities. Cascading of the livelihood training has not yet started. Overall, implementers confirmed the report of the 2017 RRM undertaken to SNNPR that most planned technical trainings were did not take place due to delay in release of capacity building budget. 138 The situation was further exasperated in Konso (SNNP) where livelihood related training has not started given the fact that targeting of PSNP 4 beneficiaries was undertaken only recently due to the instability that pledged the woreda and implementers had prioritized other more immediate activities in the program. Livelihood transfers and credits The PSNP 4 PIM identifies two ways in which participants in livelihood activities may access capital; namely, a onetime livelihood transfers PSNP aims to provide and referral to credit providers 139 such as micro finance institutions (MFI) and Rural Savings and Credit Cooperatives (RUSACCOs). The livelihood transfer is an equivalent of US$ 200 and is targeted only to the poorest households for whom credit is not an option to help them build their assets more rapidly. Consultation held for the present assessment in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) found that, given the delay in the rollout of the livelihood component of PSNP 4, livelihood transfers were not given out. Nor were clients referred to credit providers. However, community members appreciated the intention of PSNP 4 to provide livelihood transfers to the poorest households. They shared their observation that PSNP beneficiaries lived on a daily basis and any livelihood activity they may engage in making use of credit would not generate sufficient income to finance their credit and, at the same, save enough to eventually graduate out of PSNP. They hoped that free transfer that PSNP may provide could help them avoid a cycle of indebtedness to build enough assets and graduate from PSNP. On the other hand, based on their experience with the HABP, implementers and community members in the same woredas identified a number of issues they anticipated to surface when provision of credit would begin in their woreda under PSNP 4, all related to the potential inaccessibility or unfriendliness of credits to PSNP beneficiaries. To begin with, consultations revealed that available loans per household amounting to Birr 5,000 in Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP) and Birr 4000 in Mieso (Oromia) and associated bank deductions and block savaging would leave creditors with very little to initiate a viable income generation scheme. A key informant in Konso (SNNP) explained, The gross loanable amount might have been sufficient to start a small income generation activity when it was instituted years ago. However, given the high rate of inflation since then, that amount is hardly enough to enable recipients invest it on profitable business and pay their debts. Furthermore, a block guarantee saving of 8% is deducted upon receipt of the loan, which further reduces the size of capital available for actual investment by the client. As a business area, trade is highly competitive and reasonable size of capital is required to succeed in business. 140 137 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 18-115 138 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on SNNPR Regions. 139 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. 140 KII with PSNP implementers in Konso, SNNP. 65 Another challenge that implementers noted concerns the limited financial capacity of credit providers to provide credit to a greater number of PSNP beneficiaries and the consequent quota assigned to kebeles as explained by an informant in Hammer (SNNP): When Omo was providing credits to PSNP beneficiaries, only a few of PSNP beneficiaries were able to access the credit. This was because Omo did not have sufficient capital to provide credit to all PSNP beneficiaries who were interested to take the credits. Hence, a quota had to be placed on the various kebeles regarding the number of beneficiaries that can have access to the credits 141. The observed limitation in the financial capacity of credit providers appears to be responsible both for small amount of loan they can provide per beneficiary and also for small number of beneficiaries that can access the credits per kebele. In this connection, implementers argued that distributing the available limited credit resources for the sake of reaching a great number of beneficiaries would not serve the purpose. They opted for making the limited credit resource available to fewer eligible clients, no matter how few, to enable them manage their business ventures successfully. They anticipated that, in this way, the debt payments from such ventures might be used to expand the credit capital and use it as a revolving fund to make a larger number of PSNP beneficiaries become credit beneficiaries as well. Other issues raised during consultation relate to interest rates and service charges. Participants in Mieso (Oromia) and Hammer (SNNP) expressed fear of default because of interest rate that is too high for PSNP beneficiaries. A key informant in Mieso (Oromia) explained, Credit providers normally charge interest rates of 18% but they have reduced that to 12% for PSNP beneficiaries. However, the 12% interest is still very high to encourage PSNP beneficiaries to utilize. Moreover, creditors charge a 3% as service charge is in addition to interest. Payment of interest on loans and services charge have proved to be tough for and beyond the means of PSNP beneficiaries as vulnerable and resource poor as they are 142. In addition to fear of default, beneficiaries in Mieso (Oromia) reported avoiding loans on interest, which is considered a breach of religious norms or ‘haram’. Implementers reported that some clients had consented to take loans on interest when the interests they avoid the word ‘interest’ and used “fees” for provision of credit. Nonetheless, implementers reported that the majority were not persuaded by that. Hence, participants requested exploring possibilities of making available credits to PNSP beneficiaries with no interest and service charge. Gender Gender equality is one of the nine principles of PSNP, which seeks to respond to women’s responsibility for both productive and reproductive work and the differential access of female-headed households to resources. The focus of the livelihood component of PSNP 4 is on individual clients rather than households as a whole and is designed to increase participation of women and youth. Accordingly, PSNP 4 aims to reach the target of 50% women clients for livelihood support services in each community. Community members participating in the 2017 consultations agreed that in addition to their reproductive role, local women play key productive functions in all households. The participants distinguished between two categories of productive roles women played in the communities. Women support men and in livestock management and agricultural activities. When men leave the household in search of paid employment in other areas as the case often is in Konso (SNNP), women carry the entire responsibility of livestock management or/and agricultural activities. In addition, women engage in other off farm activities such as petty trade to supplement household income. 141 KII with PSNP implementer in Hammer, SNNP. 142 KII with PSNP implementer in Mieso, Oromia. 66 Participants explained that in recognition of the significant productive role women play in a household, the HABP had been geared towards making sure that women are targeted as main beneficiaries. Although in earlier phases of PSNP, male beneficiaries collect PSNP cash and HABP credit money, participants could recall no challenge posed by men as a result of wives being targeted as HABP beneficiaries during PSNP 3. This was probably because men did not mind HABP supporting women because they appreciated the critical role their wives play in supplementing household income. Hence, there was consensus among community members and implementers regarding the stronger emphasis that PSNP 4 lays in ensuring greater inclusion of women when the livelihood component begun to roll out in their respective woredas. In this connection, a FGD participant in Afdem (Somali) has the following to say: Men are lousy and spend much of their time idling around. Women in our communities are very strong. They are bedrock of their households. They are active and responsible participants of our public work projects as much as they are for taking care of their household’s needs. At this time when the livelihood component has not started in our woreda, they consider the transfers as salary for the PW they do. But, they don’t want to continue to be dependent. They want to generate more income than they get out of public work. If only they are provided access to the livelihood support services that the livelihood component could provide. 143 Capacity PSNP 4 intends to provide clients with a carefully sequenced combination of technical and financial support, beginning with receipt of safety net transfers and followed by savings participation, financial literacy, livelihoods training, access to finance and tracking of client participation in each activity in order to ensure that s/he is ready for the next step and that significant capacity has been built before a business plan is developed. Provision of these business development and financial services with quality to the greatest number of beneficiaries requires significant institutional capacity. Implementers in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) reported placement of human resources at the kebele and woreda level to provide clients with financial literacy and technical training, coaching and mentoring on specific livelihood activities (crop and livestock, off-farm, and employment). A separate assessment is need to determine if available human resources are enough or the right experts to help the beneficiaries identify feasible/potential business areas and support them in the development of business plans (BDPs). Lack of well-organized credit institutions at the grassroots level - a serious challenge faced by HABP implementers - has continued to be a major problem in the reviewed woredas that have started livelihood support services. In Hammer (SNNP) in particular, implementers reported that currently there were no credit providers in the woreda. Formerly, Omo Micro Finance used to provide credit through agents it had placed in the rural areas. However, the agent, who were not natives and were from outside the woreda, had left because of the natural resource driven conflict that arose among the various Ethnic groups in the woreda. Moreover, as noted earlier, consultations in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNPR) and Mieso (Oromia) complained that existing credit providers could avail only a limited amount of credit to a limited number of beneficiaries compared to demand for credits. They requested setting up more RUSACCOs in the kebeles with sufficient capital to provide PSNP beneficiaries and graduates with credit facilities. Livelihood activities in the context of recurrent drought Consultations with community members in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) explored the challenges of engaging in livelihood activities (particularly in crop and livestock production) in the context of the recurrent drought. It was reported that in Hammer (SNNP), for example, rain has increasingly been erratic and unreliable over the past ten years, which has significantly diminished water and pasture for livestock consumption. Absence or insufficient rain over the past two years had resulted in crop failure and killed over 60 thousand cattle. Similar stories of the destruction of livestock and crops have been heard in consultations held in all reviewed woredas. Participants in these consultations recognized that PW activities aim at community assets that can reduce vulnerability to drought harness 143 KII with a PSNP implementer in Afdem woreda, Somali Region held on May 21, 2017. 67 available water and converging vegetation and soil protection. On the other hand, they requested capital intensive interventions such as digging of ground water or construction of larger irrigation dams to complement PW initiative if loss of particularly livestock to drought is to be minimized. They argued gains from engagement in livelihood activities (whether or not supported by PSNP) could easily be destroyed as the case has increasingly been in these areas. Finally, implementers and community members reported that recurrent drought has weakened household saving and exasperated credit default. They explained that the drought had killed livestock that household bought with the credit they collected from credit providers in the hope that they would generate more income from the livestock and be able to finance their loan. However, many such households lost their livestock due to the current drought and, hence, were forced to default payment of loans. In this connection, implementers requested for guidance as to how to deal with an entire livelihood group that declared defaulted due to external shocks such as drought. 4.7 Graduation As noted in the previous section, the PIM anticipates introduction of livelihoods component to pastoral areas along with ongoing implementation of public works and safety net transfers, 144 which is expected to result in some graduation from the PSNP in lowland implementation areas. Reviewed woredas differed in their experience of graduation. Implementers in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) regretted that since the HABP had not been implemented and the livelihood component of PSNP has not yet been introduced, it is not reasonable to expect any graduation in their woreda. In Konso (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Hammer (SNNP) where the HABP had been implemented and initial steps were being taken to implement the livelihood component of PSNP 4, there were differing expectations and experiences of graduation. Mieso (Oromia) and Konso (SNNP) had seen graduation during the previous phases. On the other hand, community members in Hammer (SNNP) had been extremely pessimistic regarding the possibility of any beneficiary graduating given the absence or highly erratic rain that had increasingly characterized their woreda over the past ten years. They argued that predictable supply of water and pasture for their livestock was a condition in order for graduation to happen since it could enable them grow crops and build their livestock to eventually become independent of PSNP transfers. Hence, they requested that investment in the livelihood component of PSNP to be complemented with major water projects (ground water or/and irrigation schemes) to enable beneficiaries engage in productive activities and graduate from PSNP. A FGD participant in Hammer (SNNP) explained: In order for graduation to truly happen, there should be a favorable environment. If the current drought situation continues, how can we ever graduate anyone from PSNP? The main problem of pastoralists is water. If water is available, then they can take loans and build livestock since there will pasture and water for their livestock. They may also engage in farm and other business development activities. The reality is rain has been erratic over the past several years for the community to do any sustainable livelihood activities. Hence, the primary intervention should be a real investment by the federal or/and regional level to supply sustainable water which, I guess, is beyond the PSNP’s capital budget. Once that happens, graduation from PSNP and self-sufficiency becomes very easy. Complementarity Implementers in Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) reported that previously PSNP and HABP were separate projects. Although PSNP and HABP were expected to coordinate so that they could add value to their objectives, this had not happened always or effectively. Hence, PSNP implementers did not have control over decision on who should benefit from HABP and what that benefit should be. The 2017 consultations community members identified a few scenarios in which PSNP and HABP misaligned with each other. One scenario is when PSNP beneficiaries were not simultaneously included in HABP. In this 144 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 3-21. 68 scenario, PSNP beneficiaries could smooth consumption and protect their assets but were not able to build assets towards graduation. In another scenario, PSNP beneficiaries were forced to graduate but were enrolled under HABP. In this scenario, withdrawing PSNP transfers before households could achieve food insufficiency had resulted in the households sliding back to food insecurity. On the other hand, giving credit or livelihood transfers to food insecure households by HABP had reportedly resulted in the household using the credits or transfers for consumption purposes, which eventuated in defaulting credits. In order to mitigate the risks to graduation in not implementing livelihoods support activities in parallel with transfers, the PSNP 4 Social Development Plan has sought to ensure that the safety net and livelihood components of PSNP 4 in an inter-complementary and mutually reinforcing way from the outset. Implementers in all reviewed woredas, including in Afdem (Somali) and Amibara (Afar) where the livelihood component of PSNP 4 had not yet been imitated, appreciated the plan to implement safety net and livelihood support services to the same households, at the same time and for sufficient period so that beneficiaries could effectively use the livelihood transfers or credits for asset building rather than using it simply for consumption. They expressed optimism that when such an arrangement is fully implemented, it would truly and permanently graduate PSNP beneficiaries into self-sufficiency. Challenges to evidence based graduation Community consultations in 2014 documented concerns expressed by communities that graduation criteria be appropriate, considering the time and resources required for asset building. Potential risks identified included problems such as valuation of the asset of the prospective graduates, the potential for unrealistic “quotas” to be met. Based on previous experience with HABP, one focus group participant in Konso (SNNP) expressed concern that beneficiaries were forced to graduate prematurely before they fulfilled the graduation criteria. It was heard that emphasis was given to the assigned quota for the number of program graduates rather than to the fulfillment of what was required or expected of the beneficiaries for graduation. An implementer in Oromia who participated in the consultations held for the 2016 Baseline Survey reported the following: There were 24,034 safety net beneficiaries; we were given a 60% graduation quota by the region. As a result, 14,785 beneficiaries graduated from the program. Currently the safety net beneficiary number for the woreda is 9,329. The current caseload for the woreda is total number of PSNP 3 beneficiaries minus the number of graduates. We proportionally allocated caseload to kebeles based on the socioeconomic data we have after deducting the number of graduates. 145 The same challenges have been reported in the consultations undertaken for the present assessment. In Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) where graduation experience was reported, implementers and community members identified a few challenges to graduation they experienced during the previous phase of PSNP. One such challenge identified was the unrealistic plan on the number of potential beneficiaries to graduate from the program. Hence, implementers reported that the wealth ranking exercises aimed at identifying the less poor out of the poorest of the poor irrespective of their status of food security or ownership of productive assets. In other words, the emphasis had been on meeting assigned quota for the number of program graduates rather than to the fulfillment of what was required or expected of the beneficiaries for graduation. Another noted challenge was the appropriateness of criteria for measuring food sufficiency in their respective woredas. Community members reported that in decisions on their readiness for graduation had been made on mere counting of assets that they had added without taking into account the corresponding increase in household size. Yet another challenge reported particularly in Konso (SNNP) relates to clan leaders attempting to influence the community wealth ranking exercise to prematurely graduate some beneficiaries and replace them with relatives and members of their own clan. To this end, the clan leaders deliberately overvalued the assets of those beneficiaries they schemed to exclude. On the other hand, some beneficiaries who 145 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. 69 satisfied graduation criteria had reportedly resisted graduation. Implementers regretted that they had not undertaken systematic monitoring and evaluation regarding the extent to which graduated households had slid back into a status of chronic food insecurity. Based on their observations, however, they expressed concern that many graduated PSNP beneficiaries might not still satisfy the PSNP eligibility criteria. Community members expressed hope that these challenges related to graduation would be addressed when the livelihood component of PSNP was fully implemented in their woreda. It is to be noted that the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 has planned to implement evidence based graduation in order to mitigate the above described risk of beneficiaries graduating before they are ready. Implementing an evidence based graduation is expected to ensure that beneficiaries have reached benchmark before graduating. Accordingly, the PIM expects that only households whose food security status has improved sufficiently and achieved food sufficiency in the absence of external support to graduate from PSNP transfers. 146 The PIM also expects to introduce tools and processes for evidence based graduation (such as the Graduation Prediction System (GPS), wealth-ranking and verification procedures) to these areas alongside appropriate training and capacity building. However, these provisions of the PIM are yet to be rigorously implemented in the reviewed woredas. 4.8 Social Cohesion Community consultations held in the 2014 identified various ways in which PSNP had facilitated social cohesion, all of which were confirmed by interviews and focus group discussion held as part of the present assessment. Participants, for example, observed that PSNP could reduce people’s need to move away from their home village because of food insecurity, which enable them to spend more time interacting with their family and communities. They recounted that since the advent of PSNP, deaths because of hunger were on the decline. As a result, they called PSNP a “lifesaver” and “second to God” - since it was saving their lives. Families forced to move away from their villages had now been able to return and settle back. Women and youth who risked their lives by traveling long distances, including conflict prone border areas, to collect wild fruits - no longer do so. Participants also noted stronger ties developing among themselves as result of participation in PWs to build community assets. This is particularly the case in pastoral communities where there is very little occasion for community members to engage in collaborative work on communal land. Participants in all reviewed woredas noted that because of PSNP there were able to regularly meet to identify, prioritize, plan and implement activities, which has strengthened their social ties. Participants also observed social acceptance and trust of individuals who used to be socially excluded from participation in traditional institutions such as iddir and ikub due to their relatively low economic status. Participants reported that when such individuals were able to build some assets (owning large and small stock, dwellings, farm oxen, and farm implements) because of the combined support by PSNP and the HABP, they were able to pay the membership dues required to participate in these institutions. Increased income had also restored the trust of fellow residents which gave them access to informal sources of credit such as for the care and medication of sick family members. Increased income as a result of support from PSNP and the HABP had also enhanced the social standing of the poorest members because they were able to participant in social activities like average members of their communities. Participants identified a number of ways in which PSNP has done so. They noted, for example, that poor men without small stock had found it difficult to marry a girl of their choice for lack of a goat to pay as bride price. PSNP has helped male beneficiaries to build assets, which they could use for the purpose of marriage. In another example, participants reported that PSNP beneficiaries were able to support their children to complete their education and graduate from colleges, were able to participate in social institutions such as equb and iddir, became involved and contributed financially and materially to 146 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 2-3. 70 clan events and rituals, meet their financial obligations to the various activities managed by the kebele, were able to buy fertilizers and seed varieties to enhance farm productivity. Participants also reported PSNP to have catalyzed important behavioral change in the communities. The most repeated example in this regard was the saving culture that was initiated due to PSNP. Participants recalled that the trend before PSNP was to spend what was earned without planning. PSNP had brought about a positive change by training beneficiaries to properly manage the assets that they had built and the transfers received. In addition, female participants reported a number of social benefits that PSNP had brought for women in particular. A female participant in an FGD held in Hammer had succinctly summarized the multiple social benefits that PSNP has brought to women, Because of PSNP, we are able to become members of public institutions such as the KFSTF and the KAC, participate in consultations and decision on public matters, worked side by side with our men in building community assets. We also appreciated that the new Client Cards recognized our equal entitlement to PSNP benefits by requiring inclusion of our photos along with that of our husband. 147 In addition, female participants in the focus group discussion held for the present assessment identified a number of social benefits that PSNP had brought for women in particular. They testified that because of PNSP they were able to become members of public institutions such as the KFSTF and the KAC, participate in consultations and decision on public matters, worked side by side with their men in building community assets. They also appreciated that the new Client Cards recognized their equal entitlement to PSNP benefits by requiring inclusion of their photos along with their husband. Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017) 148 also reported that participation of women and men in PSNP activities have been instrumental in positively influencing gender norms and perceptions about women. It also noted that PW had improved the work culture in some of the studied communities, and enabled women to demonstrate that they could handle activities that used to be considered as men’s. This is facilitating changes in traditional gender roles although this, the study noted, had to be carefully watched least such changes could entail negative outcomes, especially since in the absence of measures to reduce women’s workload, it can only add to the already busy daily routine of women. The study also found the changes in the priority given to female-headed households and women’s enhanced participation had improved access to and control over resources by women in the selected study sites. The study, for example, found that women in Somali and Oromia Regions stressed their improved decision-making in the household because of their improved access to cash. It also found that in Gursum (Somali), women made plans on how to use the money for household consumption, and choose to give small amounts for men. 4.9 Social Conflict Community consultations that took place in 2017 noted three main sources of social conflict and/tension. First, consultations revealed disappointment among both implementers and community members regarding the cap of five beneficiaries per household introduced by PSNP 4, which they argued resulted in aggregate food shortage in particularly larger households. In addition, implementers reported having a hard time explaining to communities the rationale behind the new rule and households initially believed implementers were deducting from and appropriating their payments. Secondly, community consultations revealed resentment among community members due to inequality they perceived in the transfer value and labour condition of PSNP compared with that of HFA. In Afdem (Somali), Amibara (Afar) and Mieso (Oromia), the food basket of HFA reportedly consisted of both oils and pulses in addition to the standard grain or food transfer, whereas the PSNP transfer included only the grain food transfer. Moreover, HFA covers all members of a targeted household while PSNP places a cap of five on the number beneficiaries per household. On the other hand, PSNP places a labour requirement on its PW beneficiaries while HFA does not. PSNP beneficiaries complained that these 147 A FGD participant in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 148 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 71 differences have put them at a disadvantage despite the fact that both PSNP and HFA beneficiaries are exposed to the same drought situation. The following voice a male participant in the FGDs held in Adfem has recurred in all reviewed woredas: During this times of difficulties, we are all in poor. There is no difference in our situation. We all are terribly hurting because of the drought. And yet, the government treats us worse than those who were not PSNP beneficiaries in that they are provided with more items, are not subjected to a cap of 5 and they are not required to participate in PW. If either of us are to be favored, it should have been we PSNP beneficiaries because we are suffering more because our situation had already been very bad even before the drought which the drought has made even worse. But, at least let us be treated equally during these terrible times. 149 Finally, consultations also revealed some feelings of resentment that PSNP PW beneficiaries in Konso had regarding the work obligation they had for the Mass Labor Mobilization Program (MLMP) in addition to PSNP PW. They explained that they meet PSNP PW obligation three days of the week but that they are also obligated to meet a two day labour obligation to MLMP – along with any able bodied members of their woreda in line with the Government policy. Because the MLMP is deliberately scheduled on days when PW is not implemented means that PSNP households spend 3 days for PW and 2 days for the MLMP. This, they explained during community consultations, has left them with little time during the week to meet their household labour requirements. In the meantime, communities in Konso (SNNP) reported being required to participate in MLMP as explained by a participant in one FGD, below, We participate in both PW and MLMP. They are deliberately scheduled on days when we do not do PW. So, we devote 3 days for PW and 2 days for the MLMP. This means we are working for the community five days a week, which has left us with little time to work on our farms and livestock, attend to market or discharge our social obligations 150. Among the cases of social conflict arising from the 2014 community consultations were tensions between PSNP beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The non-beneficiaries complained that when targeting was done, they were not included in the Program as a result of having been found to be slightly better off than those selected as beneficiaries. Since then, there had been no retargeting. In the meantime, PSNP beneficiaries had improved in their status of income and assets built, whereas their conditions deteriorated to the point of being the worse off. Such feelings had led to growing tensions in the local communities between PSNP beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Furthermore, those not included in the Program complained that they were being treated as if they were not community members and that they were not given care and attention. Consequently, when asked to make contributions by the local government for community development, they reportedly reacted by referring to themselves as less advantaged and left out, and to PSNP beneficiaries as the favored of the administration. Not appreciating that PSNP and HABP are inter-complementary, there was a tendency in non-PSNP kebeles to assume that they were excluded from both interventions. Thus, they complain that the same communities are given access to all Program benefits. Communities in 2014 also reported cases in which activities or community assets built by PWs might become sources of resource based conflict, which one of the cases of vulnerability for pastoral people in Ethiopia. The (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC noted that conflicts could easily erode community assets built through PSNP support or individual assets. 151 A case in point was the incidents involving the Karraryyu and Afar in Dudub kebele. These were neighboring pastoral groups who inhabited either side of the Awash National Park. Conflicts have happened when the Karrayyu crossed over to have access in times of difficulties to the water pond and area closure built through Public Works in Afar. The conflict had previously been managed and things returned to normal through the interventions of the concerned local administrations and traditional leaders. 149 A participant in the FGD held in Afdem woreda, Afdem Kebele, Somali on May 22, 2017 150 A participant in the FGD held in Doha kebele, Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017 151 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 72 Moreover, communities consulted in 2014 had also noted intra-clan conflicts that had occurred among the Afar as a result of public works. For example, communities in the Dudub kebele prevented public works intended to clear silt deposits from a water pond and make it functional once again. Their reason being the public works was fear of conflicts that had usually happened. They were worried that, when the water pond became operational, youths from other clans in neighboring kebeles would come over to water their animals and get into conflict with their young men. In order to deal with such risks, the implementers suggested that consultations be held with local elders and ritual leaders involving the concerned clans to identify public work sites that would not be potential sources of conflict between communities. The (2014) Pastoral Re-Design Report noted that it was essential for PSNP to mainstream conflict management and peace-building and that conflict sensitivity analysis needed to be done before implementing PSNP supported Public Works in areas where different ethnic groups could have potential competing claims of ownership. 4.10 Grievance Redress Mechanisms During community consultations held in Afar, Somali and in Alamata (Tigray) in 2014, positive experiences were heard from community members who had engaged with KAC structures during previous phases. On the other hand, consultations held in other areas revealed the perception of communities that KAC lacked independence from the KFSTF, fell under negative influence of clan leaders or/and lacked capacity to process appeals they may log with them. Communities reported that they may not use KACs due to lack of trust or confidence in KACs to fairly review their grievances. The community consultations in 2014 also found that instead of appealing with the KAC, community members may sometimes prefer to jump the KAC and appeal to the woreda office. In Dire Dawa, it was heard that community members may prefer to take their appeals to the office in the City Administration. In the same consultations was suggested for PSNP 4 to focus on strengthening the capacity of KACs so that they can be more active and investigate complaints as well as building confidence and trust of beneficiaries to follow the appropriate appeal procedure. These suggestions pointed to the importance of capacity building work through educational and awareness raising programs, to enable appeal structures to earn the confidence and trust of community members to be more effective during PSNP 4. The (2014) PSNP Re-design for Lowland Ethiopia Report had also recommended for KACs to receive adequate training on social accountability principles and the PIM in order to function effectively. 152 Based on these suggestions, the Social Development Plan of PSNP 4 aimed to provide capacity building and awareness raising for KAC members, especially members of the informal leadership who are said to wield strong authority and influence decisions, concerning the objectives of PSNP. Accordingly, the PIM requires making adjustment to the composition of the Kebele Appeals Committee (KAC) to ensure its independence from Kebele and Community Food Security Taskforces. Consultations in all communities in 2017 reported that a KAC is established in all PSNP kebeles of their respective woredas. Reported membership of KAC in all is largely consistent with the prescriptions of the PIM of PNSP 4. They also confirmed findings of Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017) 153 that women were adequately represented in the KAC. On the other hand, consultation with implementers revealed differences among reviewed woredas regarding whether the kebele chairman is also a member of the KAC. Implementers in Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia) reported making sure that the kebele chairperson was not a member of the KAC. They explained that exclusion of the kebele chairman from KAC prevented the chairman from potential interference in reviewing decisions made by the KFSTF. In Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Amibara (Afar), on the other hand, reported that the kebele chairperson may be a member of the KAC in 152 Behnke, R. et al. Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March, 2014. 153 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 73 at least some of the PSNP kebeles. Implementers also explained that the kebele chairman in many kebeles of these woredas actively engaged in and, in some kebeles, coordinated both the KAC and the KFSTF. Moreover, community members participating in community consultations responded differently when asked if they knew what a KAC is and what its functions were. In Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia), participants recognized the KAC and its functions. In Afdem (Somali), in particular, participants were prompt in claiming knowledge of KAC and describing some of its functions. Most participants in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Amibara (Afar) could recognize the KAC but could not describe at least some of its functions. Some of the participants in Hammer (SNNP) and Konso (SNNP) reported they are unaware of the KAC. Thirdly, implementers reported that given the context of drought and other pressing activities that need to be implemented particularly in the context of the current drought, they had undertaken little sustained effort to raise awareness among communities regarding the KAC and its roles, which was also noted in the 2017 Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas 154. Functioning and use of KAC As noted earlier, KAC in Afdem (Somali) and Mieso (Oromia) were established according to the prescriptions of the PIM and there is a relatively widespread recognition regarding their function. In Afdem (Somali) community members reported that they had no problem presenting their grievances to KACs. In Mieso (Oromia), some community members expressed fear of unanticipated sanctions by local authorities that may result from appeal although others confirmed implementers’ claim that community members had generally felt free to appeal before the KAC. However, the KAC in both woredas did not seem to follow prescription of the PIM regarding regularity of meetings. 155 Implementers in the woreda reported that KAC were active after retargeting when there tended to be a larger number of appeals. Once they address the appeals made immediately after retargeting, the KAC begun to be less and less active. In other words, KACs in these woredas did not wait for quarterly meetings to review appeals as prescribed by the PIM and met irregularly when appeals were presented to them. A PSNP implementer in Amibara woreda noted the following, Generally, KACs are functional just after selection of beneficiaries when there are complaints against perceived exclusion from the beneficiary list. Some community log complaint directly to the KAC while other complain with us but we refer them to the KAC. Once final decision is reached on the beneficiary list. The KAC rarely functions and we need to reconstitute it next year if updating or recertifying the beneficiary list is needed. 156 On the other hand, consultations in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP), Mieso (Oromia) and Amibara (Afar) revealed much less tendency among community members to approach KAC with appeals. In Konso (SNNP), community members who were aware of the KAC reported not appealing before the KAC least they were ostracized by the leaders of the clan in power who influenced targeting decisions. From the consultations in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Mieso (Oromia) could also be deciphered other underlying reasons for low functioning of and appeal uptake by KAC in these woredas. To begin with, the idea of an independent institution with the sole aim of holding service providers accountable is alien to traditional social organization of the ethnic groups in woredas. Traditionally, appeals are logged to higher structures of the same hierarchy of institutions. This has disallowed communities in these woredas to easily understand the KAC and their functions. Secondly, the engagement of the kebele chairman in the activities of both KFSTF and the KAC appears to have compromised KAC independence from the KFSTF and eclipsed its power. When the greater role KFSTF plays in the day to day implementation of the PSNP is factored in, the KAC could appear redundant or meaningless to communities and discouraged KAC members from taking their responsibilities seriously. 154 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. 155 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, pp. 4-10. 156 KII with an implementer in Amibara woreda, Afar region held on May 26, 2017 74 Thirdly, as noted earlier, implementers regretted being able to exert little effort in raising awareness among communities regarding the KAC and its vital roles. Alternative Appeal Mechanisms In the absence of or a poorly functioning and little recognized or/and trusted KAC, communities in Hammer (SNNP), Konso (SNNP) and Amibara (Afar) reported that most appeals have continued to be logged with senior clan leaders, KFSTF or/and the WFSTF. Participants in the consultations explained that an individual may log compliant with senior clan leaders or FSTF depending on his determination of who can best redress his/ her grievance. In Konso (SNNP) senior clan leaders have limited connection with communities and, hence, communities often logged appeals with KFSTF or WFSTF instead of communities. In contrast, in Hammer (SNNP), complaints may be logged with senior clan leaders as well as the Kebele and woreda FSTF. When an appeal is logged with a senior clan leader in Hammer (SNNP), the clan leader reportedly instructed his socially recognized and respected aides to go to the appellant’s community and investigate the validity of the appeal and correct if any wrong doing is committed. Alternately, the clan leader may refer the case to the Kebele or Woreda FSTF. The findings from the 2017 consultations are similar to the findings of consultations undertaken by Berhane et al (2016) in Afar regarding the strong role that clan leaders play in hearing and processing appeals, The clan leader is more influential and accepted than the KAC. The KAC is simply established as a formality. The main decision-makers are the clan leaders. The people go to the clan leaders to give their appeal. The clan leaders gather the clan members to discuss the case thoroughly and give the solution. People usually appeal to me because I am their leader and administrator. 157 Types of Complaints Communities distinguished between two categories of grievances. The first consists of grievance against design of PSNP 4 itself although the aggrieved might, at least initially, perceive some issues to be the personal interests of woreda level implementers. The most cited example of this category concerned the cap of 5 that the PIM places on the number of beneficiaries to be include from households. Consultations found that beneficiaries were used to full family coverage during previous phases of PSNP and felt at least initially that the reduction was the doing of implementers who were perceived to have abused their payments. The second category of grievances is related to implementation of the PIM. The most common grievance in this category is claims against inclusion of allegedly ineligible community members or exclusion of those who were perceived to be eligible. Implementers, in fact, perceived that the overwhelming percentage of grievances to have related to perceived targeting errors, which meant that, as noted earlier, the functioning of KAC in any of the woredas is directly proportional to the tendency of community members to appeal against targeting decisions. 4.11 Monitoring and Evaluation Communities in 2014 consultations reported ineffective monitoring and evaluation practices in the previous phases of PSNP and deficiencies in performance reporting. An example given regarding the later was sending PSNP performance reports to the higher level PSNP structures by a woreda before the activities were done. It found that lack of capacity and heavy workload especially at the kebele level contributed to result in ineffective monitoring and evaluation practices. It noted that monitoring of program performance based on information provided by the program implementers at the lower level of the PSNP structure was of little significance when seen from the point of view of the purpose for which M&E system was put in place. It also recommended revising reporting templates to make space for reporting on challenges related to participation in Public Works, the implementation of Gender and Social Development PIM provisions and other challenges is recommended for PSNP 4. 157 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 75 Consultations with implementers held for the present assessment further explored M&E related challenges to effective and meaningful implementation of M&E in PSNP. From these consultations, four core challenges all related to staff competency gaps in the PSNP structure were identified. One challenge is an incomplete understanding of the purpose of M&E. Interviewed implementers explained that purpose of M&E was to hold implementers accountable for bad performance for which they could be reprimanded or punished one way or another. Hence, juniors may submit inaccurate or false performance reports to save face before seniors in the PSNP hierarchy. Such an incomplete understanding may presumably be responsible for deficiencies in performance reporting reported in the 2014 consultations. Implementers, on the other hand, did not readily point out that purpose of M&E which is to build evidence to inform decisions towards the effectiveness and efficiency of the program’s design and implementation, which is a vital and perhaps more important objective when it comes to introduction of PSNP in such challenging context of pastoral Ethiopia. Another related challenge also stemming from the 2014 consultations was skill in implementing effective monitoring and evaluation practices. For any M&E to be effective, it should be an integral part of a knowledge management system with a strong learning agenda. This is essential to do particularly for implementing PSNP in pastoral areas which involves a lot of unknowns regarding the interplay between the design of PSNP and the social, economic and cultural contexts of pastoral communities. A learning agenda in implementing PSNP in pastoral areas would involve (1) operational researches (assessments) to inform design, monitor progress and evaluate effectiveness of the program, (2) putting in place procedures for regular integration of learning and adjustment in the course of implementation; and (3) systematic documentation and wider dissemination of program learning. Effective implementation of these would require skill and experience in related areas especially at the woreda and kebele levels, which is severely lacking. Finally, effective M&E requires leadership at all levels of the PSNP structure that is determined to push institutionalization of M&E in the program, allocate sufficient resources for its operation, ensure utilization of the lesson it generates for program improvement and give significance emphasis on building the skills of its personnel on a range of M&E tools, methods, approaches, and concepts. Interviews with implementers suggested that the PSNP leadership at least at the woreda and kebele level is not demonstrating these qualities. 4.12 Capacity Community consultations in 2014 noted that in the previous phases of the PSNP, the quality of project implementation and outcomes was registered highest where local implementation structures were better organized and staffed with the requisite number and right combination of experts. It reported that in previous phases. capacity was a risk in almost all pastoral communities’ consulted. To begin with, all vacant positions were not filled in the first place particularly at the kebele levels. More specifically, the kebeles were supposed to have at least three experts, namely in the fields of natural resources, plant science and animal science, many have none. For instance, in Dassanetch (SNNP), out of the eleven kebeles on the northern side of the Omo River, only three have experts. In Hammar, the Donzas are organizing the public work since there were not enough number and mix of required experts at the kebele level. Likewise, it was found that the shortage of qualified staff was a serious problem in PSNP structure in Dire Dawa City Administration at higher office level. The structure required nine professionals/experts in the areas of infrastructural development, natural resources management, environment, procurement, and monitoring and evaluation. Such professionals were mostly not deployed, The (2017) Gender Assessment of Lowlands Areas 158 reported that with the exception of Hammer (SNNPR) and four regional bureaus where GSD experts are assigned, gender mainstreaming and monitoring responsibilities tend to be merged with public work activities and pushed into the background in almost all the lowland areas visited and that most of the other Woredas do not have such GSD technical assistants or experts, leading to gaps in gender sensitive implementation and monitoring. 158 Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas 76 The 2014 community consultations also found high staff turnover due to poor incentive package and high workload. In terms of incentives, they argued that benefits were not only unattractive, in some instances some benefit packages that existed for some PSNP woredas under the different regimes were either reduced or totally removed. For instance, they mentioned what was called yebaraha abal (hardship/desert allowance), which was reduced from 40% to 20% in Dassanetch (SNNP); and to 15% in Hammar and Ngangatom (SNNP). The expert attributed the frequent cases of turnover to the failure to pay hardship allowances as one of the incentive packages that were allowed to implementers working in other programs under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). As a result, the kebele managers were doing the job, without the expertise required. In terms of workload, the experts reported that the small staff that woreda and kebele offices had at their disposal, due to staff turnover or unfilled vacancies, were forced to handle workload that should be done by more employees. Though the emphasis varies among the PSNP woredas visited, the data obtained from the 2014 consultations consistently showed that perception towards PSNP affects effectiveness of the program components. PSNP experts and the woreda food security heads complained that PSNP program components were not allocated adequate budget in terms of institutional capacity building such as vehicles, motorcycles, office equipment, fuel, etc. Recent 2017 consultations found that the situation regarding insufficient staff, staff turnover, workload and incentives remained by and large the same especially at the kebele level. In addition, further investigation is required regarding how far professional training and experience of staff matches the positions they occupy. In any case, systematic continuous professional development (CPD) was presumably absent in woredas. No woreda has reported plan for CPD of its personnel. The majority of personnel reported attending no in-service training over the past one year. A short training that a few officers had reported attending was organized to introduce the woreda officers to the new PSNP procedures. Moreover, professional supervision as a structure that provides for reflection on one’s work, offers practical and emotional support of staff members was virtually absent. What existed instead was managerial supervision in which supervisors’ aim was evaluation of the performance of assigned duties and less emphasis on educational for subordinates. Absence of CPD and professional supervision are proxy indicators of burnout and weak performance by staff members. The following perception of a participant in Somali documented in Berhane et al (2016) succinctly summarizes the multiple staffing challenge that exist at the woreda and kebele levels in all reviewed regions: There is a tiresome working system and staff turnover. People had been constantly working from the start up, but innovations and creativity in the program management is insignificant. Risk management staff are also limited in number; there is very poor capacity building training and exposure visit to transplant successful practices, which are beyond reachable. 159 Finally, it may be noted that the RRM undertaken in Afar, Oromia, SNNP and Somali regions in March 2017 already documented the above listed challenges related to shortage, timely recruitment, training staff and staff management. 160 Absence of minimum means of transportation was also noted as a challenge in 2017 community consultations. Woreda technical officers are expected to undertake outreach activities to over 35 kebeles. While some kebeles are nearer to the seat of the woreda, others are far, some, according to interviewees, requiring travel for two days to reach. Moreover, the kebeles are connected with gravel road, most of which are not covered by public transport. Woreda officers complained that they do not have sufficient means of transportation at their disposal to research out to the woredas for supervision. All of the above implies that the implementation structure, especially at the grassroots levels, must be well organized, nurtured, and sustained through targeted capacity building work, and proper reward and 159 Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance 160 Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Afar, Oromia, SNNP and Somali. Regions. 77 incentive schemes put in place for the staff. Mitigating measures recommended during the consultations included the creation of a conducive working environment and provision of improved incentive packages, professional training and means of transportation to make it easier to travel to communities. 4.13 Institutional Arrangements The 2014 consultations found two concerns regarding institutional arrangements of PSNP; namely, multiplicity of committees and overlap of their constituent members and fragmentation of responsibilities among various sectors. 2017 community consultations confirmed that most of these challenges have continued into PSNP 4 in the visited communities and woredas and could remain challenging through the ERSNP. Fragmentation of mandates Experts who participated in the (2014) PSNP 4 ESAC noted the challenges involved in coordination of various PSNP activities that were dispersed under different offices or processes, namely PSNP Coordinator under the Food Security, PWs Coordinator and Planning and Monitoring under Natural Resources, M&E and Agro-business under Extension processes within the Office of Agriculture; Cooperatives expert under the Cooperatives Office; Accountants and Cashiers under the Office of Finance and Economic Development. Other than the contract workers such as PSNP coordinator, PWs coordinator, M&E specialist, and few other experts in the Finance Department (accountants and cashiers), officers in all other PSNP implementing organs tend to regard PSNP as an ‘add on’ to their other regular duties for which they were principally evaluated. Hence, the experts observed, PNSP related issues were given less priority by other implementing organs. The implementers did recognize the value of allocating specific responsibilities to organs with relevant specialty but complained about the absence of a strong coordination mechanism that is sufficiently empowered to integrate the services provided by multiple organs into a seamlessly coordinated and unified set of services to client. Recent 2017 consultations found that this historical coordination challenge within PSNP had grown even more due to addition of more implementing agencies such as the health office, Micro and Small Enterprise Office, the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Agency and the Labour and Social Affairs Office. Multiplicity of committees and overlap of membership As documented in the 2014 consultations, implementers observed efficient decision making in PSNP 4 being limited by two factor. First, the number of committees that had to decide on a certain issue and overlap of membership in various committees. For example, the 2014 consultations held in Hammer (SNNP) found that the same people are members of three different structures or committees, namely the woreda Council which approved the budget, woreda Steering Committee and woreda FSTF. In another example from the same woreda, most KFSTF members of PSNP were also members of the committee that undertakes targeting for humanitarian food assistance (HFA) as an implementer in Konso has explained: Membership of the same individuals in multiple committees that have similar mandates has taken up the time and has come in the way of efficient decision making. Take, for example, the targeting committee for the humanitarian food assistance and the KFSTF of PSNP. Most but not all the members overlap, which means that the same individuals need to set up different meetings times to discuss very related issues. They cannot handle issues of both humanitarian food assistance and PSNP because the membership does not completely overlap. It would have been more efficient if the same committee could manage targeting related issues of both programs. 161 The above describes how the same individuals had to have time to sit in three different committees at three different times to discuss and decide on the same issue. Similar the multiplicity of committees and 161 KII with PSNP implementer in Konso woreda, SNNP on May 15, 2017. 78 duplication of responsibilities or overrepresentation on the part of members of the leadership was also identified in Konso (SNNP). Being stretched by the pressure of work and overlap of commitments, the leadership often had difficulties meeting to discuss issues and make decisions as regularly as they should. Such an overlap in committee membership and important competing responsibilities had reportedly resulted in postponement of meetings for making vital decisions and, hence, dragged the activities and impact on the services provided to the beneficiaries, including timely transfers. Hence, program implementers hold the view that for the structures to be effectively functional, they need to be trimmed so that they had fewer but more committed members Perceived/ apparent redundancy of taskforce/committees Both the 2014 consultations and the recent consultations in 2017 found that some of organs of PSNP are being overshadowed by others to the extent that they seemed redundant to communities and implementers. For example, the 2014 consultation in in Alamata (Tigray) woreda found the WFSTF was felt by some of its members as redundant given their observation that at the woreda level PSNP was run almost exclusively by the Steering Committee. The ESAC found that the majority of its members felt that the WFSTF was redundant since most of the members were also members of the Woreda Steering Committee, which was the principal structure in charge of PSNP at the woreda level. In Fantale (Oromia), both the Steering Committee and the WFSTF were chaired by the Woreda Administrator, and the explanation given by the person who was supposed to chair the latter was that the Woreda Administrator was responsible for everything that took place in the woreda. From the discussion it was possible to gather that the WFSTF members were not aware that the Task Force was supposed to be chaired by the Pastoral Development Office Head. Recent 2017 consultations revealed similar debates in relation to the WFSTF and the Woreda Steering Committee. In addition, similar observations have been made in terms of KAC and KFSTF as well as CFSTF and KFSTF. Of particular interest in this connection is the overlap in the management structures of PSNP and humanitarian food assistance in the recurrent drought. Reviewed woredas have coped differently with the dilemma of maintaining distinctions between the two programs while making effective use of their human and institutional resources. For example, in Konso (SNNP), a committee has been set up to meet the targeting needs of both program but the committee is given different labels in the minutes depending on whose targeting it may be discussing at the time. In Afdem (Somali), the same committee with the same label is assigned to undertake targeting as long as it is clear in the minutes whose targeting it is undertaking. In Mieso (Oromia), Amibara (Afar) and Hammer (SNNP), different committees assume targeting responsibilities of respective programs although some of the membership overlaps. 4.14 Involuntary Resettlement Consultations held for this 2017 ESAC found no cases of asset loss or access to assets. This is in line with the ineligibility of such subprojects as in the PSNP. The implementation of PW subprojects, in any case, such as area closure and bush clearing in villages, land is communal, and settlements were often dispersed and did not lead to the complaints or claims of having been affected by PW activities. 79 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Community consultations found very strong support for PSNP among vulnerable and historically underserved groups in all communities visited. All communities consulted provided their informed consent for the implementation of the PSNP, which the World Bank will support through the ERSNP. Community consultations focused on explaining the PSNP to community members, gauging their concerns and reaction and securing their acceptance, trust and support to for the program. Consultations found very strong support for PSNP among the most vulnerable and historically underserved groups in all reviewed woredas such that some communities regarded it as a “heaven-sent blessing from God” especially in the context of the recurrent drought they have been struggling with. They also appreciated it is as a ‘lifesaver’ and recognized that many members of their community would have perished together with their livestock if it were not for the PSNP and HFA. Field visits revealed that the PSNP is still the most widely known program not only in the PSNP woredas but throughout rural Ethiopia. Known simply as ‘safety net’, it is a household name that is easily described by all community members, beneficiary and non-beneficiary alike. Participants in FGDs explained that in view of their vulnerability to shocks caused by the deficiency and erratic nature of rains in their areas, the aim of the transfers was to fill household food gaps, build family and community assets, and to be used to prevent the depletion and wastage of resources. Besides, participants affirmed that able- bodied community members were supposed to actively participate in PWs whereas labour-poor households would be entitled to Direct Support. Moreover, they were fully aware that the transfers and livelihood support services, where they existed, were meant to help lift them out of food insecurity by encouraging them to build assets and that they had to work with diligence towards graduation from the Program, at which time the transfers would cease. Communities consulted believe that the PSNP is serving their needs and described a number of ways in which the PSNP had positively impacted their lives. For example, communities reported that: - Significantly reduced the risk of hunger; - Reduced their need to move away from their home village to cope with risks of food insecurity; - Enabled them spend more time with their family and communities (as a result of not having to migrate); - Facilitated the development of stronger community ties due to joint participation in PWs; - Resulted in social acceptance and trust of vulnerable community members who used to be socially excluded from participation in traditional institutions such as iddir and equb due to their relatively low economic status; - Restored the trust of fellow residents which gave them access to informal sources of credit such as for the care and medication of sick family members; and - Encouraged a saving culture. In addition, female community members identified a number of social benefits that PSNP had brought for women in particular. For example, women shared that were now able to become members of such PSNP structures as the KFSTF and the KAC. Women shared that they also participate in consultations and decision on public works matters, worked side-by-side with their husbands and other men in the community to build community assets. Women also appreciated that the new Client Cards recognized their equal entitlement to PSNP benefits by requiring inclusion of their photos along with that of their husband. Non-beneficiary participants in the FGDs expressed high level of support for PSNP in that it helped feed the food insecure households in their communities while at the same time helped to protect and build assets for the entire community. Nonetheless, members of vulnerable and historically underserved populations who participated in consultations requested PSNP to take a number of measures in order to further maximize its benefit for 80 them. Most of these measures entail only stricter adherence to existing provisions of the PSNP PIM or strong collaboration with critical stakeholders outside PSNP, both of which could be achieved in the short - medium term. However, community consultations revealed in some cases a mismatch between various elements of PSNP’s design and the beliefs, values, norms and practices of the most vulnerable and historically underserved communities. Evidence-based redesigning of PSNP is recommended to address this risk to making PSNP more relevant and appropriate specifically to pastoral communities. This can be achieved in the long term and informed by an evidence base - through systematic research on traditional social protection system of pastoral communities and the implications of PSNP’s historical interaction with the social organization and social protection mechanisms of these communities. In sum, it is recommended that the PSNP adopt a strong learning agenda, which implies integrating a robust knowledge management strategy in the design and implementation of PSNP in pastoral communities, a strategy that needs to go beyond the traditional practices of monitoring and periodic evaluation. Strategic recommendations are outlined in the following while specific recommendations can be found in the detailed Social Development Plan in Section 5. Changing Settlement and Migration Patterns There have been significant changes, which are still ongoing, in terms of mobility and changing settlement patterns. More men are having to migrate for longer periods of time and equally many families having lost their livestock are more inclined to take up settlement or semi-pastoralist options. In turn, this has led to a serious problem vis-a-vie the PSNP in that some of the settlements into which families have moved are now being classed as urban. Thereby, rendering the household no longer eligible to be PSNP beneficiaries. For example, “PSNP 3 had covered the three towns. However, the towns were excluded from targeting in PSNP 4 on the grounds that, as a rural program, PSNP 4 no longer covered urban areas. We are told that a new program has started that will cover food insecure people in urban areas. This is concerning because some the poorest residents of these towns… had left their rural villages after exhausting all options to make ends meet and we do not see the urban program coming to provide them with any assistance”. 162 This finding calls for a review of the targeting formula used for pastoral areas which is based on a concept of chronic food insecurity which appears not to reflect the current dynamics in the pastoral areas. Drought A common response throughout the consultations was that droughts have become more severe and more frequent which has put more pressure on the PSNP. Communities consulted complained that in some areas, the communities are so exhausted coping with the recurrent drought which brings for example, increased walking distance etc., that, as a result, their physical capacity to do PWs is much reduced. The increased frequency and severity of droughts has given rise to a number of concerns that are covered by a number of recommendations outlined in this report. The recommendation that the PSNP model needs to operate in a more flexible manner in the pastoral areas in order to respond to short term weather patterns, and to ensure that transfers experience no delays – is particularly important. Gender Issues The situation of women, particularly in the pastoral areas, has been exacerbated by the increased migration of men which has increased the workload on women, in some areas the 50% workload rule for women may tend to encourage the men to send more women to do the PWs. Community consultations heard, for example, “During the time when our men are gone in search of employment, we are the men and women of our households. We need to work on our farms, tend to our livestock, maintain our fences – work that our men normally do – and then we are also to do accomplish other set of work that we normally do as women of the household. These two types of work are more than enough to fill our days. But then, we are to shoulder our household’s labour obligations to PSNP. That is not all! We are also expected to participate in the labour mobilization by the kebele administration. If it is only due to the 162 KII with PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017. 81 sustaining power of God that enabled us to do all that and still survive….163 The deteriorating situation for women in pastoral areas needs to be urgently addressed. This will require a multi-pronged approach including a review of Public Works labour requirements in terms of both timing and extent and nature of the work. Livelihoods Support There has been increased demand in pastoral areas for livelihoods support services, most likely due to the failing economic viability of pastoralism due to the drought situation. The demand is particularly strong among women. Community consultations heard, for example, “women in our communities are very strong. They are bedrock of their households. They are active and responsible participants of our public work projects as much as they are for taking care of their household’s needs… They want to generate more income than they get out of public work. If only they are provided access to the livelihood support services...” 164 The Assessment recommends that consideration should be given to the significant demand for livelihoods support services in the pastoral areas. Traditional Authority Structures In the case of pastoral communities, the consultations revealed that the role of traditional authority structures was not fully taken into account in the design of the PSNP. As a result of their distinct modes of livelihood, and their remoteness from the center, pastoral communities have maintained distinct traditional systems of social organization in which the hierarchy of clan leaders play a central role. While PSNP has interacted with community structures such as women and youth associations, it has not fully recognized the status of the clan leaders within the communities. For example, “If I were in charge of the PSNP, I would first approach senior clan leaders and explain to them the objectives of PSNP including who it is intended to benefit. I would engage with them genuinely on several challenges they would certainly pose regarding the objectives, beneficiary selection criteria, etc. I am hopeful that after such an engagement, a consensus will be reached on general principles and approaches, based on which I would work with them about details of a PSNP design that is appropriate to the culture... In the absence of these, we are simply imposing structures such as selection committee and appeal committees that may not resonate well with the way the ethnic group handles its affairs, which has made the PSNP ineffective”. 165 The result has been in some cases negative outcomes, and in other cases, PSNP has not maximized the value that the clan leaders could contribute in the operations of the project. A related finding is the tension between PSNP principles and traditional systems over the question of sharing and diluting of transfers and also in terms of the definition of poverty for which the communities place greater emphasis on social ties than in material wealth. There is a need to consider developing an evidence base to inform a possible re-design of the PSNP to ensure that the PSNP is relevant and appropriate to pastoral communities. Insufficient Coverage Communities such as those visited during the consultations are among the hardest hit during the current drought and the most common concern in this connection is insufficient coverage of food insecure households. Communities commonly complained that, despite the significant increase in the PSNP 4 caseload, many of their community members are chronically food insecure. Some respondents commented that “the rich are no longer rich” due to loss of livestock and “are now down to our level” which demonstrates that food insecurity in the pastoral areas is not a question of chronic versus transitory, the situation can change dramatically in the short term resulting in a situation in which there are reportedly far more food insecure people in the pastoral areas than there were a few years ago. For example, “The PSNP caseload has been expanded from 32,624 in PSNP 3 to 49,078 in PSNP 4. This is a significant increase and we are very grateful for that. If there was no drought in our woreda, this caseload could somehow cover all food insecure households in our woreda”. 166 Community consultations pointed 163 A female participant in the FGD held in Hammer woreda, Fayo Kebele, SNNP Region on May 13, 2017. 164 KII with a PSNP implementer in Afdem woreda, Somali Region held on May 21, 2017 165 KII with PSNP implementer in Hammer woreda, SNNP Region on May 12, 2017 166 KII with PSNP implementer in Afdem woreda, Somali Region on May 21, 2017 82 out that the food insecurity situation has been getting worse in recent years due to recurrent droughts. It is therefore recommended that the PSNP expand its caseload in pastoral areas to the extent possible. Household Size In pastoral areas, where the households are typically larger, a common complaint is that the cap of five beneficiaries/household for PSNP transfer purposes has resulted in food shortage in larger households. The communities consulted often wanted to understand why there is a cap of five beneficiaries/household, given that many not find it hard to meet their needs. As one community member explained, “Before this cap of five beneficiaries came into force, we used to receive transfers for all members of our family. Then all members of our family167 could have something to put in their mouth. Once this cap started, however, we do not anymore have enough to eat. That is particularly the case in families like mine in which there are many mouths to feed…” 168 The Assessment recommends that the program consider reinstating full- family targeting to ensure the program’s objective of smoothening consumption and protecting asset depletion were to be achieved. PSNP and HFA Coordination An important concern among community members is an inconsistency between the operations of the PSNP and HFA. This issue covers the food basket which is more generous in the case of HFA, the fact that HFA covers all members of a targeted household whereas PSNP has a cap of 5 beneficiaries/household, and the labour requirements of PSNP, while HFA often has none. For example, “… we are treated worse than those who are not PSNP beneficiaries in that they are provided with more items, are not subjected to a cap of five beneficiaries/household and are not required to participate in PWs… at least let us be treated equally during these terrible times”. 169 It is therefore recommended that the PSNP and HFA harmonize all operating procedures, including targeting structures, processes and transfer values to improve on the effectiveness of current arrangements for a continuum of response. Transfer Schedule In some pastoral woredas, the transfer schedule still does not coincide with the seasons when the food gap is the severest. The perception that the food gap seasons are similar in all communities needs reconsidering, since these vary from place to place. For this reason, rather than using this assumption as a basis for processing the payment of transfers for six months uniformly in every PSNP region, consideration should be given to the variations in food gap periods. For example, “This PSNP transfer normally comes during January – June and we are often happy when the transfer is delayed and comes after June. If we are asked for our preference, we would like to receive cash in the months of April to June when food is relatively available in the market and food during July – Sept when the stock of grain depletes in the market”. Furthermore, the payment of transfers should be harmonized with seasons when good gaps are experienced and labour demand is less. It is recommended that a closer study be made of the seasonal variations between different parts of Afar and Somali regions so that the transfer schedule can be adjusted in due course to match the requirement of the beneficiaries. Delay in Transfers Community consultations reported a high demand for payments within the agreed timeframe. Delays in the receipt of the transfers especially in pastoral areas are common, resulting in some cases in the sale of assets and other negative coping strategies. The Assessment recommends ensuring beneficiaries receive transfers on time by addressing capacity gaps and root causes of service providers. Capacity Limitations There is a significant problem in Afar and Somali regions of capacity limitations at woreda and kebele level which are having a negative impact on the benefits which clients would otherwise be enjoying. The 167 That is referring to the number of household members in the family. In all reviewed woreda, household size can reportedly be as large as 15. 168 A male participant in FGD held in Engude kebele, Mieso woreda, Oromia on May 25, 2017. 169 A participant in the FGD held in Afdem woreda, Afdem Kebele, Somali on May 22, 2017. 83 analysis of the reasons for this shortage of capacity was outside the scope of the community consultations. But, factors suggested by consultations included low remunerations, working conditions, low morale, high staff turnover, etc. It is therefore recommended that the capacity in all respects to implement the PSNP in Afar and Somali Regions be studied in detail and an Action Plan should be developed. Lack of Flexibility Although there is a great deal of commonality on several of the major issues arising, it was noted that PSNP does not seem to have the flexibility to adapt to area specific conditions. This anomaly results in sometimes in a mismatch between the Project and the beneficiaries which could be relatively easily resolved. It is recommended that the PSNP M&E system should be more responsive to area specific needs and should involve a feedback loop whereby the design of the PSNP can take into account inter-regional and in-woredas variations. 84 6. ERSNP Social Development Plan Strategic Challenges Recommendations Responsible Body Timeframe Changing settlement and migration patterns: Some of the settlements into which PSNP households have are now being Undertake review and tailored targeting approach for pastoral areas to Regional Food Short Term classed as urban and rendering the household no longer take into account the current dynamics in the pastoral areas. Security eligible to be targeted by the rural PSNP. Federal FSCD and NRMD-PWCU with Drought: Some communities are so exhausted coping with PSNP model needs to operate in a more flexible ‘PWs-vs-transfer’ Regional and Medium – recurrent drought that as a result, their physical capacity to do manner in the pastoral areas in order to respond to short term weather Woreda Food Long Term PWs is much reduced. patterns, and to ensure that transfers experience no delays. Security and PWFUs Federal FSCD and Gender issues: Women are experiencing increasingly heavy Undertake multi-pronged approach including a review of PW labour Federal NRMD- Short- workload in pastoral areas which may make PW participation requirements in terms of both timing, extent and nature of the work for PWCU, with Region medium Term difficult. PW participating women. and Woreda Food Security Federal FSCD and Livelihoods Support. Increased demand in pastoral areas for Consideration should be given to the significant demand for livelihoods Medium – Regional FS livelihoods support services. support services in the pastoral areas. Long Term bureaus Federal FSCD and Study capacity to implement PSNP in Afar and Somali in detail and NRMD-PWCU with Capacity Limitations: Insufficient capacity in Afar and Somali Short Term develop Action Plan Regional Food Security Household Size: Cap of 5 beneficiaries/household has caused Work closely with HFA to address household members who are beyond significant food shortage in pastoral areas where the the PSNP cap and collect evidence base on appropriateness of Federal FSCD Short Term households are typically larger household cap Insufficient Coverage of the PSNP of food insecure Expand the capacity of the PSNP in pastoral areas to the extent Short – Federal FSCD households possible Medium Term Consider informed engagement with senior clan leaders on how they Regional and Traditional Authorities: In pastoral communities, the role of Medium - and the traditional system of social organization could help in reducing Woreda Food traditional authority structures is not fully taken into account. Long Term targeting and addressing the dilution problem. Security PSNP and HFA Coordination: Inconsistency between Federal FSCD and Medium – operations of the PSNP and HFA could result in social tension Harmonize implementation modalities for PSNP and HFA NRMDC Long Term between PSNP and HFA households Transfer Schedule: In some pastoral woredas, transfer Undertake close of the seasonal variations between different parts of Federal FSCD with schedules do not coincide with the seasons when the food Afar and Somali regions so that the transfer schedule can be adjusted Regional and Short-Term gap is the most severe to match the requirement of the beneficiaries. Woreda Food 85 Security Federal FSCD and Delay in Transfers: Delays in receipt of the transfers NDRMC with especially in pastoral areas are common, resulting in some Ensure beneficiaries receive transfers on time by addressing capacity Short – Regional and cases in the sale of assets and other negative coping gaps and root causes of service providers Medium Term Woreda Food strategies. Security Lack of flexibility: PSNP is not flexible enough to adapt to area PSNP M&E system should be more responsive to area specific needs Federal FSCD and Medium- specific conditions. and should involve a feedback loop whereby the design of the PSNP NRMD-PWCU Long Term can take into account inter-regional and in-woredas variations. Specific Challenges Recommendations Responsible Body Timeframe Targeting Proper PIM procedures for targeting and re-targeting of Regional Food Ensure compliance with PSNP PIM during targeting and re-targeting to Short- women in polygamous households are not universally Security and NRMD- address the needs of women in polygamous households Medium Term followed. PWFU Consider role of regional and zonal level structures in building capacity New provisions regarding community based targeting Regional Food of relevant bodies and provide supportive supervision to woreda level Short Term procedures were not always rigorously followed Security implementers PIM prescribed steps in PSNP targeting of Permanent Direct Ensure the provision of the PIM that eligible households are first Regional Food Short Term Support beneficiaries were not followed in some woredas selected and then assigned to either PW or DS is adhered. Security and BoLSA Ensure retargeting is done at least every 2-3 years as per the design. Monitor changing in livelihood dynamics and retarget when significant Regional Food Short -long PSNP targeting and re-targeting procedure not to be taking change is observed even before the lapse of two years since the latest Security and BoLSA term into account rapidly changing poverty and livelihood dynamics re/targeting. Ensure understanding between periodic retargeting and annual Regional Food Short Term updating/recertification of beneficiary list. Security and BoLSA Reduce inclusion and exclusion errors such that the poorest of the Regional and Dilution of transfers due to inter-household sharing is common poor, from who other community members are not expected to receive Woreda Food Medium term in the pastoral areas. anything and who are not expected by others to give, are targeted. Security TF Provide adequate training to members of the KAC social accountability Woreda Food Short- Perception in some communities that the KACs were not principles, the PIM and the roles and responsibilities of the KAC Security Task Force medium Term entirely independent of local influence and therefore not Involve where useful senior clan leaders as core members of KAC to Woreda Food Medium-long always trusted. win trust of the community. Security Task Force Term Regional and Perception the implementation of a ‘quota’ may be overriding Ensure adherence to the principles and procedures of evidence based Short-Long Woreda Food the graduation benchmark system graduation outlined in the PIM of PSNP 4 Term Security Regional and PSNP 4 Client Cards were not distributed in some woredas Ensure that Client Cards are distributed to all clients Woreda Food Short Term Security 86 Newcomers to woredas were not considered eligible for PSNP Provide informed guidance on the eligibility status of newcomers, based Federal FSCD Medium Term in some woredas on the available resources Transfers Regional and Traditional gender based roles may give men undue control Implement community based BCC interventions that discourage misuse Short - Long Woreda Food over the household transfers of PSNP transfers and encourage appropriate use and savings. Term Security Task Force Complaints that the food transfer is unsuitable for some Consult with communities and undertake sound market analysis to Regional Food Short Term communities inform context appropriate transfer modalities Security Coercion for PSNP beneficiaries to spend their transfers on Regional and Ensure that PSNP beneficiaries have full control over their PSNP Short - such items as the purchase of fertilizers, or unauthorized Woreda Food payments and implement program of Social Accountability Medium Term deductions being made from the transfer at source Security Federal FSCD with Regional and In some woredas, transfer schedule did not overlap with the Consult with communities with the view to harmonizing schedule of Short - Woreda Food seasons when their food gap is the severest transfers with seasons when food gaps are experienced Medium Term Security Task Forces Delays in transfers resulting from delays in the completion of Regional Food PW and in some cases affect the receipt of transfers by DS Delink Permanent DS payment schedule from PW payment schedule Short Term Security beneficiaries Public Works and Linkages to Social Services Ensure adherence to provision of the PIM that require implementation PW implementation schedules have tended to clash with the of flexible PW calendar corresponding to local seasons when labour Regional and local labour seasons contributing to an increased work burden Short Term demand is at the lowest, and does not interfere with the Woreda PWFUs of PW participants, especially women agricultural/pastoral engagements of the concerned communities Ensure strict adherence to provision of the Health & Safety Guidelines Enforcement of Health and Safety Guidelines on PW sites of the PIM including making first-aid services available to beneficiaries Regional and Short Term frequently falls short of the required standard in event of accident and covering treatment cost of PW participants in Woreda PWFU event of injury Age-based rule prohibiting children under the age of 18 from Regional and Facilitate birth registration, ensure strict adherence of the PIM work on PWs is difficult for some communities to enforce due Woreda PWFUs and Short - provisions regarding age rule for PW participation and raise awareness to the physical appearance of some children and lack of birth Woreda Labour and Medium Term on importance of enrollment of children in school certificate to verify age. Social Affairs Office Tools for implementing PW are not always available, leading Purchase tools from PSNP capital budget for demanding PW work Regional and Short Term the beneficiaries to have to use their own tools activities in some woredas Woreda PWFU Regional and Inadequate collaboration between agriculture sector, health Ensure greater coordination and collaboration between PSNP and Woreda Food Short- and social sectors mainly among the DAs, HEWs social Woreda health office Security, Health, medium Term workers in implementing BCC on health and nutrition issues and WoLSA Inadequate coordination between PWs and Mass Labour Ensure that PW and Mass Labour Mobilization do not have negative Regional and Medium Term 87 Mobilization Program contributed to unacceptable work impact on beneficiaries and the quality of community assets, Woreda Food burden on PW participants in some of PSNP woredas Security Ensure adherence to public work planning processes outline in There are some communities in which local knowledge is not Regional and Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development Guidelines Short Term fully taken into account in the planning process. Woreda PWFUs [CBPWDG] and the Pastoral Public Works Guidelines Regional and The rule of pregnant and lactating women working on PWs in Ensure strict adherence to provision of the PIM that require switching of Woreda Food Short Term some cases has not been properly enforced pregnant and lactating women to Temporary Direct Support Security Task Force Livelihoods Support Awareness raising to ensure communities understand the livelihood Regional and PSNP beneficiaries generally had low awareness regarding component, its objectives, specific services/ intervention areas, Woreda Food Short Term the Livelihoods Support activities in pastoral woredas eligibility to and procedures in accessing the services and providers of Security Task Force, specific services. Livelihood TCs Regional and Shortage of capacity to provide the required quality of Invest in technical capacity at the woreda and particularly kebele level Woreda Food Medium Term livelihoods support services to support beneficiaries to engage in livelihoods support activities Security and Livelihood TC Regional and Due to local customs, women tend not to be targeted for Ensure awareness around importance of targeting women for Woreda Food Short Term livelihoods support services livelihoods support activities. Security and Livelihood TFs Reduced interest rates were still high for beneficiaries or/and Regional Food Medium-Long interests on loans was considered breach of Consider the possibility of making credit available without loan interest Security Bureaus Term religious norms Available credit and livelihood transfers combined did not Regional Food Increase available credits and livelihood transfers to satisfy demand Medium Term satisfy demand for access to capital Security Bureaus Regional Food Loanable amount to beneficiaries may be too small to invest Security and Consider increasing the loanable amount by financial service providers Medium Term in a meaningful livelihood activity Livelihood Stakeholders Project Management Introduce participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) mechanisms, Regional Food Ineffective monitoring and evaluation Short Term including Social Accountability tools Security 88 References Behnke, R. et al. (2014). Final Report on PSNP Re-Design for Lowland Ethiopia. March. Addis Ababa. Behrane, G. et al. (2016). The Productive Safety Nets Programme IV – Baseline Survey Report 2016, Program Performance. IFPRI. Washington, D.C. Central Statistics Agency. 2007. Population Census. Addis Ababa. Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Afar Regions Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Oromia Regions Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on SNNP Regions Food Security Coordination Directorate. (2017). PSNP Joint Rapid Response Mission, March 6 – 11, 2017. Reports on Somali Regions Hoddinott, J. et al. (2011). The Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme in Afar, Somali and selected lowland woredas in Oromiya Washington, D.C. and Addis Ababa: IDS, IFPRI Dadimos. October 15. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2014). Productive Safety Net Programme Phase IV, Programme Implementation Manual. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia. MOA (2014), PSNP 4: Enhanced Social Assessment and Consultation Report, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Food Security Coordination Directorate MoA, Government of Ethiopia, (2012). Strategic Assessment of the Impact of the Implementation of the Productive safety net Program (PSNP) on Vulnerable Program Beneficiaries. Addis Ababa. p.31. Natea, Sorssa (2017). PSNP 4: Safeguards Implementation Verification Report for Afar and Somali. Addis Ababa. WFP (2007) Evaluation of the Mid-Term Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) 10362.0: Enabling Livelihood Protection and Promotion in Ethiopia, A Report Commissioned by the Office of Evaluation, Rome. Wondu Argaw Yimam, (2011). A History of Konso Woreda from 1941-1991. Addis Ababa. World Bank. Ethiopia Poverty Assessment. (2014). Washington D.C.: World Bank, 2015. Yohannes, T. & Gissila, N. (2017). PSNP IV Gender Assessment of Lowland Areas. Addis Ababa. 89 Annex 1: Guidance for Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions Table 1: KII Guidance Vulnerable Populations 1. Who are the most vulnerable and underserved groups? [Probe for: the poor, the poorest of the poor, women, orphans, children, girls, elderly, disabled, female-headed households; polygamous households, PLHIVs, outcast and underserved occupational or livelihood groups, households facing conflicts over natural resources, particular cultural, religious groups, new residents, others…] A. Systems Development 2. Has the caseload of the woreda expanded in PSNP 4 compared to PSNP 3? Give numbers? Did it cover all the needs? If not, is there anything you are doing to cover eligible people who are not included in PSNP 4? How are those not covered in any way coping? 3. How severe is the current drought in your woreda? What is the impact on targeting? Is PSNP linking with humanitarian response in addressing the drought? How is this being done? 4. What are the implications of cap on the number of household members to be included in a household? What positive and negative outcomes have you observed? How are households who lost qouta adjusting to this new rule? 5. Are there migrants in your area? Are they eligible for PSNP transfers? If not why? Is there any other way they obtain needed assistance? 6. Have you received training on the PSNP 4 guidelines? What are the new targeting rules in PSNP 4? How differently are you doing targeting compared to PSNP 4? 7. Are communities targeting committees established in the woreda? What is the average number of members of the committees? What are the most common members? Which groups/ institutions are represented in the committees? How many are women members? 8. Have you held community meeting to verify selection list? Has the list been published in public places? If yes, where have they been published? 9. What are client cards? What is their purpose? Are they distributed in your woreda? If yes, have communities reported any benefits? If not, why have they not been distributed? 10. How are humanitarian aid beneficiaries selected? Has there been any conflict in the parallel implementation of humanitarian aid and PSNP? 11. Have you completed retargeting at the start of PSNP 4? When did you complete targeting? What steps did you follow in retargeting? Did you use the PSNP 4 or 3 manual when targeting? Do you think the targeting was fair and transparent? Have there been complaints about the targeting? 12. What is the role of clan leaders in targeting? Do they influence targeting in any way? Are leaders of some clans more powerful than others in influencing targeting? 13. What do you do to ensure that clan leaders do not favor their fellow clansmen in targeting? 14. Has there been any attempt in the past two years to raise awareness of or training clan leaders regarding targeting rules? If yes, could you describe all awareness raising activities undertaken? When was each undertaken? 15. Has there been any attempt at educating community members about their rights and responsibilities under PSP 4? What has been done? When? 16. Do you think that PSNP beneficiaries are still benefit even thought their income status has become better than yours? 17. Do PSNP beneficiaries share their transfers with non-beneficiaries? How pervasive is it in a scale of 1-5? What are the positive and negative consequences of sharing transfers? What do you think could PSNP do to strengthen the positive and minimize the negative consequences of sharing? 18. Have KACs been formed in all kebeles of your woreda? What is the average size of membership in KACs that are formed? Who are the most common members? What is the average number of women included in the membership? Have they been provided training on the objectives and operations of PSNP and their roles and responsibilities? If not, why? If yes, when? 19. In Kebeles where the KACs are not formed, why are they not formed? How hears complaints? How are complaints managed? 20. Has there been training to communities on the KAC and its functions? If not, why? If yes, when? 21. What are some of the challenges that KACs face in discharging their responsibilities as per the PSNP manual? What kind of 90 help do they need? Have these supports been provided? If yes, who has provided the support? If not why not? 22. How trusted are KACs by the communities they serve? Why are they trusted/ not trusted? What do community members do when they don’t trust KAC? What measures have been taken to build trust of KAS among communities? 23. Are there PW beneficiaries that should have been targeted for DS? Can you give examples of such people? Why were they targeted in PW instead of DS? 24. Is their cap on the number of people that could be included in the Permanent Direct Support? If yes, what do you do in situations when more people are eligible for DS than the maximum number allowed for inclusion in DS? If not what is the proportion of PW relative to DS in your woreda? 25. Are social support services for DS in the kebeles of your woreda other than transfers? If yes, what specific services are available? 26. What is graduation from PSNP? What are your concerns with graduation? Do you think that graduation has happened at the appropriate time? If not, why have they not been? In your view, what are the risks of untimely graduation? Is the livelihood support provided simultaneously with transfer? B. Productive safety nets and enhanced access for PSNP households to livelihoods services 27. What types of payments are you receiving now: cash or food? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the cash first for you? 28. Have communities been consulted on transfer modalities, cash or food? What were their preferred payments options? What type of grain is culturally preferred? Are they culturally able to process the food transfers? 29. Which months are transfers payments made in your woreda? Why was those months selected? Have communities been consulted in selection of transfer seasons? Is the timing of transfer payments appropriate to your food gap season? What are the risks of inappropriate schedule of transfers? 30. Are transfers schedules displayed? If yes, where are they displayed? If not, why not? 31. Have transfers been delayed? Up to how many months of delay have you experienced? 32. How do you cope when transfers are delayed? What are the risks of delay for various members of your household? Who takes advantage of delays in PSNP transfers? 33. Do you know what kind of transfer you are going to be given next payment? 34. Have the causes for delays been identified? Have measures been taken? What were the measures? 35. Has the DS benefits increased from 6 to 12 months in PSNP 4? If yes, what are the perceived outcomes? If not, why not? 36. Is there a separate payment schedule for DS? If not, why not? 37. How do men use the transfer when they are recipients? How about women? Which type of transfer is susceptible to inappropriate use? What kind of inappropriate use have been observed? 38. Has there been a BCC activity directed at educating communities on the rights and entitlements of women? Are beneficiaries being made aware of in/appropriate use of transfers and also about the value of savings? 39. What are your recommendations to avoid or minimize inappropriate use of transfers? 40. Does PW affect your livelihood or/and domestic activities? If so, how? 41. Has the workload for women in PW reduced by 50% as per the PSNP manual? If not, why not? 42. What is the size of women participating in PW? 43. How does PW affect women in particular? 44. Which seasons are the hardest in term of PW, livelihood and domestic work? 45. Has there been a BCC activity directed at educating communities on importance of developing quality community assets? 46. Are pregnant and lactating women being switched to temporary DS? If yes, How do pregnant women in PW prove they are pregnant? Are they required to produce certificate from a health institution? What if such services are not available? How long will they remain in TDS? If not why not? 47. Where there any accidents while in PW during the PSNP 4? Who covers treatment cost when accidents happen at PW? 48. What safety measures are put in place for PW activities of PSNP 4? 49. Are children participating in PW? Why do household send children to participate? What has been implementers’ response? 50. Which months of the year does PW happen in your woreda? When are the pick faming/ heading seasons of the woreda? What do you do when/ if the two overlap? 51. Do communities have other public work (mass labour) or other non labour requirements other than that which they have to PSNP? Who requires them? What do communities do to cope when the two overlap? 52. Have any community member lost asset for PW activities? What was the lost asset? Was there disput arising from the lose? Who managed the dispute? How was the disput managed? Were the members losing the asset satisfied with the way the dispute was managed? 91 53. What are the most common types of PW project selected? How are PW project selected? Who selects them? Why are they selected? 54. What unanticipated social benefits and shortcoming have PW projects resulted in? Has there been any issue in relation to PW that resulted in conflict? How were conflicts resolved? 55. What are you unhappy about PSNP? 56. Has there been competition among various groups over community assets built though PW? 57. Had you prevent PW in anticipation of conflict it may provoke? 58. Has implementation of PSNP in areas where similar safety net programs are implemented resulted in conflict? 59. Is PSNP being implemented parallel with humanitarian aid? Have you observed any challenges and strengths in their parallel implementation? 60. Do you know what livelihood support services are? 61. Have you been given any training in the past one month from PSNP? What was the training about? 62. What is the difference between credit or grants? Have you received any or both of the two from PSNP? 63. Has there been a BCC activity directed at educating communities on the difference between grants and loan? 64. If you have received training grants or/and credit from PSNP who in your household was the recipient? Why? 65. Has there been a BCC activity directed at educating communities on the importance of targeting women for livelihoods support activities? 66. Have women in the household received any of this? Why? What was the result? 67. Does the woreda or kebele has enough capacity to provide business development support services? Does it have sufficient experts and infrastructure? 68. What are the implications of the current drought on the livelihood activities supported by PSNP? Has it forced you to use the credits/ grants to buy food? 69. How much credit have been given to PSNP beneficiaries in your woreda? How was the amount of credit/ grant determined? Has it been sufficient to finance your business and pay back the loan? 70. What is the value related to interest on credits in your woeda? Have you been giving credit without interest? 71. Are transfer beneficiaries simultaneously provided with livelihood support services? 72. Are there credit institutions in the woreda? Have RUSACCOs set up on the kebele’s of the woreda? 73. How large is the interest rate of 12% compared to the capcity to pay it back? Did that discourage households from taking credit? C. Institutional and Management Development 74. What PSNP committees exist in the kebeles? Has there been capacity building trainings for their members? 75. How many expert positions are available at the kebele offices occupied? Which positions are occupied? 76. Are qualified and high performing personnel retained? PROBE: how long have most personnel served in the office? What are some of the reasons for leaving/ staying? Has there been hardship allowance? Has any measure taken to minimize turnover? Table 2: FGD Guidance Vulnerable Populations 1. Who are the most vulnerable and underserved groups? [Probe for: the poor, the poorest of the poor, women, orphans, children, girls, elderly, disabled, female-headed households; polygamous households, PLHIVs, outcast and underserved occupational or livelihood groups, households facing conflicts over natural resources, particular cultural, religious groups, new residents, others…] Systems Development 2. Are more food insecure people being covered in your kebele by PSNP 4 compared to PNSP 3? Did it cover all food insecure members of your community? If not, how are those not covered coping? 3. How severe is the current drought in your woreda? Is PSNP providing all the support you need? Are there humanitarian supports in addition to PSNP? What is the difference between the two? 4. What is your valuation of the PSNP cap on the number of household members that can be in a household? Is it good or bad? Why? How are households who lost qouta adjusting to this new rule? 5. Are there food insecure migrants in your community? Are they eligible for PSNP transfers? If not, how are they coping with food insecurity? 6. Are communities targeting committees established in your kebele? What is the average number of members of the committees? What are the most common members? Which groups/ institutions are represented in the committees? How many are women members? 92 7. Do you know of a community meeting held to verify selection list? Do you know if the list of selected beneficiaries are posted in public places? If yes, where have you seen them? 8. Do you know what client cards are? Do you have one? If yes, of what purpose was it to you? 9. Are you or do you know community members who benefit from humanitarian aid? How were you or them selected? 10. When do you remember the most recent targeting took place? Do you think the targeting was fair and transparent? Did you have complaints about the targeting? Do you press complaint at any institution? Which institution was that? 11. What is the role of clan leaders in targeting in your kebele? Do they influence targeting in any way? Are leaders of some clans more powerful than others in influencing targeting? 12. Do you think clan leaders select the poorest or the poor in you kebele? Do you think they favor their fellow clansmen? 13. Do you remember any event where your rights and responsibilities under PSP 4 was explained to you by implementers? If yes, hen was that? 14. Do you think that PSNP beneficiaries are still benefit even thought their income status has become better than yours? 15. Do you share your transfers with non beneficiaries? How often do share? Why do you share? 16. To whom do you complain if you have any issues regarding targeting? 17. Do you know what KACs are? Do you know if they exist in your kebeles? What is their roles and responsibilities? Do you have trust in their fairness? 18. Do you know PW beneficiaries that should have been targeted for DS? Can you give examples of such people? 19. Do you know any social support services being provided DS beneficiaries in your kebeles other than transfers? If yes, what specific services do you know? 20. Do you know what is graduation from PSNP is? What are your concerns with graduation? Do you think people are graduating from PSNP at the appropriate time? In your view, what are the risks of untimely graduation? Is the livelihood support provided simultaneously with transfer in your woreda? Productive safety nets and enhanced access for PSNP households to livelihoods services 21. What types of payments are you receiving now: cash or food? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the cash first for you? 22. Have your community been consulted on determining transfer modalities, cash or food? What were their preferred payments options? 23. If PSNP was to transfer a grain of your choice, what would that be? Why do you prefer it? 24. When is your worst food gap season? Which months are transfers payments made in your woreda? Are you ok with the timing of transfer payments? Have you been consulted in selection of transfer seasons? What are the risks of inappropriate schedule of transfers? 25. Are transfers schedules posted? If yes, where are they displayed? If not, why not? 26. Have transfers been delayed? Up to how many months of delay have you experienced? 27. How do you cope when transfers are delayed? What are the risks of delay for various members of your household? Who takes advantage of delays in PSNP transfers? 28. Do you know what kind of transfer you are going to be given next payment? 29. Has the DS benefits increased from 6 to 12 months in PSNP 4? If yes, what are the perceived outcomes? 30. Is there a separate payment schedule for DS? If not, why not? 31. How do men use the transfer when they are recipients? How about women? 32. Have you been informed about appropriate and inappropriate use of PSNP transfers by the implementers? 33. Have you been informed about the rights and entitlements of women? 34. What are your recommendations to avoid or minimize inappropriate use of transfers? 35. Does PW affect your livelihood or/and domestic activities? If so, how? 36. Has the workload for women in PW reduced by 50% three years ago? If not, why not? 37. How does PW affect women in particular? 38. Which seasons are the hardest in term of PW, livelihood and domestic work? Which months of the year does PW happen in your woreda? When are the pick faming/ heading seasons of the woreda? What do you do when/ if the two overlap? 39. Have you been informed about the importance of developing quality community assets? 40. Are pregnant and lactating women being switched to temporary DS? If yes, how do pregnant women in PW prove they are pregnant? Are they required to produce certificate from a health institution? What if such services are not available? How long will they remain in TDS? If not why not? 41. Were there any accidents while in PW during the PSNP 4? What happened? Who covered treatment cost when accidents happen at PW? 93 42. What safety measures are put in place for PW activities of PSNP 4? 43. Are children participating in PW in your kebele? Why do household send children to participate? What has been implementers’ response? 44. Do communities have other public work (mass labour) or other non labour requirements other than that which they have to PSNP? Who requires them? What do communities do to cope when the two overlap? 45. Have any community member lost asset for PW activities? What was the lost asset? Was there dispute arising from the lose? Who managed the dispute? Were the members losing the asset satisfied with the way the dispute was managed? 46. What are the most common types of PW project selected? How are PW project selected? Who selects them? Why are they selected? 47. What unanticipated social benefits and shortcoming have PW projects resulted in? Has there been any issue in relation to PW that resulted in conflict? How were conflicts resolved? 48. What are you unhappy about PSNP? 49. Has there been competition among various groups over community assets built though PW? 50. Had you prevent PW in anticipation of conflict it may provoke? 51. Has implementation of PSNP in areas where similar safety net programs are implemented resulted in conflict? 52. Is PSNP being implemented parallel with humanitarian aid? Have you observed any challenges and strengths in their parallel implementation? 53. Do you know what livelihood support services are? 54. Have you been given any training in the past one month from PSNP? What was the training about? 55. What is the difference between credit or grants? Have you received any or both of the two from PSNP? 56. Has you been informed about the difference between grants and loan? 57. If you have received training grants or/and credit from PSNP who in your household was the recipient? Why? 58. Have you been informed about the importance of targeting women for livelihoods support activities? 59. Have women in the household received any of this? Why? What was the result? 60. What are the implications of the current drought on the livelihood activities supported by PSNP? Has it forced you to use the credits/ grants to buy food? 61. Has the credit/ grant given to you been sufficient to finance your business and pay back the loan? 62. Are you willing to pay interest on credits? Are you willing to receive interest on savings? Have you been giving credit without interest? Are you able to save without receiving interest? 63. Are transfer beneficiaries simultaneously provided with livelihood support services? 64. Are there credit/ saving institutions in the woreda? Have RUSACCOs set up on the kebele’s of the woreda? 65. How large is the interest rate of 12% compared to the capacity to pay it back? Did that discourage households from taking credit? 94 Annex 2: Signed Community Consultation Participant Lists 95 96 97 98 99 100