ministry of agriculture (moa) - world bank · 2016. 7. 13. · 1 executive summary as a successor...
TRANSCRIPT
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (MoA)
SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT
PROJECTPHASE - II SOCIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Final
August 18, 2013
Addis Ababa
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
ii
Table of Contents
ABRRIVATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and Context .................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Scope of the Social Assessment ....................................................................................... 9
1.3 General and Specific Objectives .................................................................................... 10
1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11
2. Review of institutional and legal frameworks .................................................................. 14 2.1 Organizational structure and implementation arrangements .......................................... 14
2.2. Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 15
2.3. Grievance Redress Mechanisms ........................................................................................ 17
3. Assessment of Key Social Issues ............................................................................................ 17 3.1 Legal and Institutional Framework ................................................................................ 18
3.2. Profile of Underserved Target Communities ................................................................. 20
3.3. Potential Implications on the Vulnerable Groups .......................................................... 23
3.4. Community Consultation and Involvement ................................................................... 26
3.5. Capacity building ........................................................................................................... 30
3.6. Land Acquisition and Compensation ............................................................................. 31
3.7. Proper Utilization of the Social Capital in the Catchments ........................................... 31
3.7.1. Traditional Mutual/Self-Help Institutions ............................................................... 32
3.7.2. Customary Land-related Dispute Settlement Institutions/Mechanisms .................. 33 3.7.3. Indigenous Land Use and Conservation Knowledge and Practice ......................... 34
3.8. Cooperative Societies as a Vehicle for Enhanced Access to Marketing and Credit ...... 35
3.9. Women Involvement in the Project ................................................................................ 36
3.10. Non/off farm employment .............................................................................................. 37
4. Risks and Mitigating Measures ......................................................................................... 40 4.1. Anticipated Risks ........................................................................................................... 40
4.2. Mitigating Measures ....................................................................................................... 41
5. Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 42 6. Possible Risks, Challenges and Recommendations .......................................................... 43
6.1. Possible Risks and Challenges ....................................................................................... 43
Annex I: Checklist for Discussion in the Social Assessment Study ........................................ 47
Annex II: Community Consultation Attendance Sheet ........................................................... 50
iii
ABRRIVATIONS AND ACRONYMS BoA Bureau of Agriculture
CBPWDG Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline
CDD Community Demand driven
CRGE Climate Resilient Green Economy
CSO Civil Society Organization
CWT Community Watershed Team
DA Development Agent
DPs Development Partners
DRS Developing Regional States
EIAR Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global Environment Facility
GGWI Great Green Wall Initiative
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
KWDC Kebele Watershed Development Committee
KWT Kebele Watershed Team
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MIS/IT Management Information System/Information Technology
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoFA Ministry of Federal Affairs
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoWE Ministry of Water and Energy
NFE Non-Farm Economic Enterprises
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NSLMSC National Sustainable Land Management Steering Committee
NSLMTC National Sustainable Land Management Technical Committee
PAD Project Appraisal Document
PAP Project Affected People
PDO Project Development Objective
PIM Project Implementation Manual
RED&FS Platform Rural Economic Development and Food Security Platform
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
SAWAP Sahel and West Africa Program
SLM Sustainable Land Management
SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project
SLWM Sustainable Land and Water Management
SNPPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regional State
SU Support Unit
WB World Bank
WOA Woreda Office for Agriculture
WSC Woreda Steering Committee
WWDC Woreda Watershed Development Committee
1
Executive Summary
As a successor to the first phase of Sustainable Land Management Project, the Ministry of Agriculture
(MoA) is presently finalizing the preparation of the second phase of the project (SLMP-II). The Project is
planned to be implemented in six regions of Ethiopia (Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, SNPPR, Gambella,
and Benishangul-Gumz). The Project covers 135 woredas (90 new and 45 existing) with a total
number of 937 kebeles.
Land degradation has been recognized as the leading cause hampering Ethiopia’s agricultural led
development strategies, and the country is fully committed to addressing the issue in a
comprehensive manner as clearly elaborated in the Ethiopian Strategic Investment Framework
(ESIF) for Sustainable Land Management. In line with this, the main objectives of SLMP II are
to reduce land degradation and improve land productivity in selected watersheds of the project
regions. The Project encompasses four components: (i) Integrated Watershed and Landscape
Management; (ii) Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development and Knowledge
Management; (iii) Rural Land Administration, Certification and Land Use; and (iv) Project
Management.
Based on the framework of SLMP-I, and taking into account its principal features and aspects, it
was found necessary to conduct a social assessment to produce inputs for the preparation of
SLMP-II. As a result, this social assessment has been carried out with the following major
objectives in focus:
Assess key socio-economic factors that require consideration;
Identify vulnerable and historically underserved groups that may be exclude from the
project and be adversely affected as a result, and the necessary impact mitigating
measures.
Assess any potential adverse social impacts of SLMPII, and determine whether the
project is likely to trigger the World Bank social safeguards policies.
Recommend in the early stage of project preparation the appropriate measures towards
addressing World Band requirements on social safeguards triggered by the project
(OP/BP 4.10 and OP/BP 4.12).
For the purpose of the social assessment, purposive sampling was done on the existing and the
new project woredas, whereby twelve were selected (two from each of the six regions), on the
basis of ‘the poorest of the poor’ as the main selection criterion. A mixed method approach was
employed to generate qualitative information through focus group discussions/community
consultations, key informant interviews, and the review of secondary sources.
2
In line with the Ethiopian Government’s decentralization policy, organizational structure and
implementation arrangement of SLMP-II are designed to operate at federal, regional/zonal,
woreda and kebele levels, beneficiary communities at the grassroots assuming the main
responsibilities for executing many of the Project activities. The monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) and reporting systems of the project are in-built in the implementation arrangement to be
executed at all levels of the organizational structure. The institutional arrangement also includes
SLMP-related conflict/grievance redress mechanisms, which are committees established from
zone to kebele administration levels. In addition, traditional as well as formal legal institutions
are employed in the settlement of disputes arising from the implementation of SLMP.
In the context of the sample woredas, community groups identified as vulnerable and
underserved/disadvantaged are the elderly, female-headed households, families with members
living with HIV or other chronic illnesses, and historically disadvantaged ethnic groups.
According to the findings of the assessment, the implementation of SLMP has, to a large extent,
been accommodative of the needs and circumstance of these population groups. Thus, it was
ascertained that issues related to gender, age, social status, occupational factors and income
levels were given proper consideration in respect to the inclusiveness of participation and fair
access to benefits.
According to the findings, preliminary community consultations were carried out in the newly
selected woredas/watersheds at grassroots level. In the course of the consultations, the
communities have reiterated their interest and readiness to actively participate in the project from
planning to implementation and monitoring stages. In fact, the local population have already
been involved in the containment and reversal of natural resource degradation as part of the
government-led social mobilization initiative. Similarly, in the existing Project
woredas/watersheds, community consultation and mobilization was found to be consistent and
inclusive. Hence, community members were sufficiently informed concerning the Project and
efforts were made to include them in consultation meetings regardless of their various
backgrounds.
In regards to Project implementation capacity, local government and community structures were
in evidence at woreda and grassroots levels that contributed significantly to the successful
execution of Project activities. The structures include one-to-five organizational arrangement,
Woreda Steering/Technical Committees, Kebele Watershed Teams, and Community Watershed
Sub-Team. The coordination of this three-tier arrangement created an immense opportunity for
the enhancement of project implementation capacity and effective execution. However, there
were also capacity constraints particularly related to inadequate facilities (office space, office
equipments, and field vehicles), delay in budget disbursements, and workload of local
3
government officials. But the single most important constraint relates to turnover of experienced
staff due to low pay and poor incentives.
Regarding land acquisition, the findings of the consultancy indicate that no displacement of
households, loss of assets or income or source of livelihoods took place during implementation
under SLMP-1 that necessitated the resettlement of the affected or the payment of
compensations.
It is evident that there is a wealth of social capital in the Project woredas that SLMP may
capitalize on for the successful implementation of the Project and the achievement of expected
outcomes. The social capital exists in the form of self-help groups, mutual assistance
mechanisms, land-related dispute settlement institutions, and indigenous land use and
conservation knowledge and practice. The institutions may vary in their names, functions,
structures, and modes of operation in different socio-cultural and linguistic contexts. Yet,
although such social capital has the potential to contribute to the success of the project, it has so
far not been exploited to the desired extent. The failure to do so may have resulted from the
tendency to depend heavily on implementation guidelines that do not allow enough room for the
use of local knowledge and customary institutions.
The findings also point to the presence of formal and informal cooperative societies in the
Project communities which can be utilized for the purpose of sustainable land management
practice. Saving and credit, marketing, and multi-purpose service cooperatives are the kinds of
formal cooperative societies established and operated by relevant government sector offices,
NGOs, women and youth associations. The informal societies refer to the kinds of long-
established rotating credit associations (equb), burial associations (iddir), and socio-religious
groups (mahiber and senbete). Although the latter institutions are intended to serve their own
traditional propose, they still perform certain economic functions that SLMP may properly
exploit. Thus, cooperative establishments - formal and informal alike - can be instrumental in the
efforts made at watershed and micro watershed levels to enable smallholder farmers cope with
problems related to marketing and finance in the context of the relevant SLMP components and
sub-components.
Besides, the social assessment has shown that a wide range of non/off-farm activities are
practiced in the Project areas that employ a large number of local women and youths. Among the
common non/off-farm activities are tannery, weaving, basketry, blacksmithing, milling, petty
trade, the brewing and sale of local drinks, and agriculture-based income generating activities
(beekeeping, poultry, animal fattening, and fodder/forage development). In view of their
relevance to the main component of SLMP-II ‘Homestead Development, Livelihood
Improvement and Community Infrastructure’, these non/off-farm activities may be nurtured and
expanded to contribute to employment opportunities and income growth for community
4
members in the project woredas/watersheds. To that effect, there is a need to focus on capacity
building work and the creation of an enabling environment for community members engaged in
non/off farm activities. This can be done through knowledge and skill enhancement trainings,
expanded access to financial support in the form of credits, and institutional innovation by
organizing them under various functional cooperative societies.
It was found to be one of the strengths of the SLMP that gender issues have been properly
addressed. Women informants acknowledged having been consulted about the Project, as well as
their active participation in different stages of the project management and equal access to
benefits. Yet, the non-involvement of women in leadership positions in grassroots project
structures such as watershed teams and sub-teams was identified as a constraint. In addition, due
to the emphasis on the younger and physically energetic women folk, it was found that the
elderly and those with disabilities were less advantaged as project beneficiaries. With a view to
addressing gender issues in fuller measure, SLMP-II needs to take into account the needs of
different women groups and respond to their situation within its framework.
Anticipated risk factors that may be faced in the implementation of SLMP-II include: Low
capacity in local government (woreda and kebele) and community grassroots structures;
weaknesses observed in area of monitoring and evaluation system and knowledge generation and
management; and staff turnover as a result of poor motivation and low remuneration. As
mitigation measures, consideration should be given to capacity building and institutional
strengthening activities targeting all stakeholders, and the implementation of the livelihood
component with concerted efforts to the economic benefit of poor and vulnerable community
groups.
Recommendations:
Component 1: Integrated Watershed and Landscape Management
1. Devise a mechanism to include hunters and gathers’ livelihood strategies into the SLMP
program. One example is their traditional beekeeping, though largely takes the form of
wild honey collection, which can be integrated into the SLMP activities, but with an
injection of modern beekeeping technology as the latter is more productive, sustainable
and environmentally friendly.
2. It is recommended that the project, through consultation with the beneficiary
communities, devise possible mechanisms on how to make the old, the sick and disabled
benefit from the project even when they might not afford to contribute either labour or
cash to the project implementation. For example, the elderly people can be used as
advisors, the disabled as timekeepers, etc.
3. The project should devise a mechanism (e.g., interest free loan) by which watershed
community members who are likely to be left out due to the inability to meet the
minimum membership requirement can also benefit from the scheme.
5
4. Especial support needs to be provided to women playing the dual role of mothers and
household heads, and active participation in the Project with male community members.
Arrangements may be made in consultations with watershed committees in this respect.
Suggested ways to help them balance their competing responsibilities may be allowing
them to a certain number of hours or days off from the minimum required time of labour
contribution to the Project.
Component 2: Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development and Knowledge
Generation and Management
1. Traditional institutions of self-help and dispute settlement mechanism are well embedded
into the social fabric of the Ethiopian society. It is highly recommended that locally
available social capital, which takes the form of traditional institutions of self-help and
dispute settlement mechanisms, be used as community mobilization and grievance
redress mechanisms to facilitate and speed up the implementation of relevant project
components and sub-components.
Component 3: Rural Land Administration, Certification and Land Use
1. Care needs to be exercised to make sure that the ‘Rural Land Administration and
Certification’ sub-component of the Project is not implemented on wholesale basis in all
Project woredas/watersheds, and instead takes into account the unique landholding and land
use characteristics of the historically underserved population groups in the developing
regional states (DRS).
2. The Project should consider consolidating grassroots institutions such as rural land dispute
adjudication and grievance redress structures. Strengthening such establishments plays an
important role in making sure that women who lease their land in sharecropping
arrangements will not unfairly lose their landholding rights as a result of the breach of
agreements in the land registration and certification process.
Component 4: Project Management
1. It is crucially important to staff the project implementing units with the right mix of
6
experts at all levels. This may be done by hiring professionals and introducing an
incentive mechanism to motivate and retain the personnel from different sector offices
assigned to support the Project as Steering Committee members.
2. Lack of facilities such as filed vehicles and motorcycles is reported to have adversely
affected the conduct of regular watershed site visits and on-site observation and follow-
up of project implementation. Proper attention should therefore be given to providing
regional and woreda Project staff with the necessary facilities to enable theme regularly
visit watershed sites and effectively monitor project execution.
7
1. Program Description
1.1 Background and Context
Pursuant to the agreements signed between the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) and the World
Bank (WB) on June 13, 2008 and July 16, 2008, a five-year Sustainable Land Management
Project (SLMP-I) has been under implementation in six regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromia,
SNPPR, Gambella, and Benishangul-Gumz). With the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and
regional bureaus as the responsible government bodies, the project has been implemented in 42
woredas at grassroots level.
The national objectives of the Project are to reduce land degradation in agricultural areas and
improve the productivity of smallholder farmers. The global environmental objective of the
project is to protect and/or restore ecosystem functions and diversity in agricultural landscapes
through the reduction of land degradation. Under SLMP-I, a wide variety of activities relevant to
sustainable land management have been undertaken as part of five interrelated components,
namely: Watershed Management, Land Administration, Knowledge Management, Improved
Framework Conditions, and Project Management. Project planning and implementation were
guided by three major instruments: Project Appraisal Document (PAD), Community-Based
Participatory Watershed Development Guideline (CBPWDG), and Project Implementation
Manual (PIM).
SLMP-I has made remarkable progress in rehabilitating degraded areas targeted for intervention.
By the end of October 2012, over 175,510 hectares of degraded communal land, farmland and
homesteads have been treated and managed successfully, by adopting physical and biological
measures. In order to stabilize soil, over 26 million slips of predominantly vetiver and desho
grasses have been raised and planted on communal and farmlands. Over 380,000m3 of cut-off
drains and waterways have been constructed to reduce run-off. Moreover, over 900,000m3 of
compost have been produced and applied on farmlands and homesteads. The area covered with
animal manure is about 53,000 hectares. Nearly 37,000 hectares of communal lands have so far
been put under enclosures to allow natural regeneration to occur, while nearly 1,500 hectares of
communal pastures have been managed and improved through, for example, rotational grazing
and by incorporating various species of indigenous fodder grasses in to the system.
The implementation of various income generating activities including bee keeping and honey
production using modern beehives, livestock fattening, supply of better breeds of small
ruminants, and poultry have contributed towards improvement of income and asset building at
household level. By the end of October 2012, over 53,000 households have benefited from
improved livestock production using cut-and-carry system, stall feeding, improved breeds, and
livestock fattening. The Project has also made progress in providing small-scale infrastructure
8
facilities to boost the supply of drinking water for both human and animal consumption, and
farm irrigation through watercourse diversions and construction of canals.
SLMP-I is nearing its completion, and the preparations for the launch of its successor - SLMP-II
– are in the process of being finalized. With a view to expanding and consolidating the success
from SLMP-I, the national development and global environmental objectives of the SLMP-II are
to reduce land degradation and improve land productivity in selected watersheds in six regions in
Ethiopia. The objectives are planned to be achieved through the provision of capital investment,
technical assistance, and capacity building for smallholder farmers and government institutions
at national, regional, and grassroots levels. The Project covers 135 woredas/watersheds in six
regions (90 new and 45 existing) in 937 kebeles. The Project has four components: (i) Integrated
Watershed and Landscape Management; (ii) Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development
and Knowledge Management; (iii) Rural Land Administration, Certification and Land Use; and
(iv) Project Management.
As indicated in the draft Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the total number of Project
beneficiaries (direct as well as indirect) is estimated at 1,850,000. Disaggregated by project
component, the beneficiary estimates are: (i) 832,500 people belonging to households and
benefiting directly from watershed and landscape management interventions at the site level; (ii)
344,800 people benefiting directly from the different stakeholder training and capacity building
activities; (iii) 950,000 people benefiting directly from the rural land administration and
certification schemes; and (iv) 1,020,000 people benefiting indirectly from improved watersheds
and landscapes such as improved water flow downstream, reduced siltation to reservoirs, or
reduced risk to erosion and mudslide.
The proposed project is designed in such a way as to contribute to high priority national
objectives as well as regional and sub-regional initiatives. In alignment with the national Growth
and Transformation Plan (GTP 2010/11-2014/15), which considers agriculture as one of the
main drivers to promote sustained economic growth and job creation, the proposed project
contributes to the GTP’s objective particularly of attaining an average real gross domestic
product (GDP) growth rate of 11 percent per annum within a stable macroeconomic framework.
Furthermore, the proposed Project is also in harmony with the Government’s Climate Resilient
Green Economy (CRGE) strategy. The Project is aimed at contributing to all three key objectives
of CRGE: Foster economic development and growth; Ensure abatement and avoidance of future
emissions; and Improve resilience to climate change.
In addition, SLMP-II is part of the Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP), which is in
support of the Great Green Wall Initiative (GGWI). The SAWAP, approved by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) Council in May 2011, supports the implementation of a country-
driven vision for integrated natural resource management for sustainable and climate-resilient
9
development in 12 countries in West Africa and the Sahel. Thus, SLMP-II is designed to
contribute to the following SAWAP's key program performance indicators:
Increase in land area with sustainable land and water management (SLWM) practices in
targeted areas.
Changes in vegetation cover in targeted areas.
Targeted institutions with increased adaptive capacity to reduce risks and respond to
climate variability.
Change in carbon accumulation rates in biomass and soil.
The project is also planned to build on the TerrAfrica Platform for SLWM. TerrAfrica is an
African-driven global partnership program to scale up sustainable land and water management
across sectors in over 23 Sub-Saharan countries.
As part of the preparation for SLMP-II, it has been found necessary to conduct this social
assessment based on the framework of SLMP-I, by taking into account the salient features and
contents of SLMP-II.
1.2 Scope of the Social Assessment
This social assessment covers the following activity areas:
Review the project background and project appraisal document: As the follow-on project, full
understanding is required of its various elements including its location, schedule of
implementation arrangements, and life span.
Review the socio-cultural, institutional, historical and political context and identifying gaps in
previous documents: Describe the socio-cultural, institutional, historical and political contexts
with respect to the SLMP-II on the basis of available sources of information.
The focus of the description is on the qualitative portrayal of the constraints and opportunities of
the project by giving particular emphasis on.
• Socio-cultural context: Describe the most significant social and cultural features
that differentiate social groups in the project area. Portray their different interests in
the project, and their levels of influence. Explain any particular effects the project
may have on the poor and excluded. Examine any opportunities that the project
offers to influence the behavior of such groups and the outcomes thereof.
Understand any known conflicts among groups that may affect project
implementation.
10
• Institutional context: Describe the institutional environment; consider both the
presence and function of public, private and civil society institutions relevant to the
operation. Find out possible constraints within existing institutions and
opportunities to utilize the potential of these institutions
Assess legislative and regulatory frameworks: Review national legislations and regulations
relevant to sustainable land management practice. In addition, the social assessment refers to the
Ethiopian legislations to highlight the covenants supporting equitable opportunities to ethnic
populations and link the results to the proposed project design.
Identify key social issues: The social assessment determines what the key social and institutional
issues are in relation to project objectives; identifies the key stakeholder groups in this context
and determine how relationships between stakeholder groups will affect or be affected by the
project. It also identifies expected social development outcomes and actions proposed to achieve
those outcomes. Social development outcomes are the socially relevant results the project is
expected to achieve such as poverty reduction, equity and inclusion, strengthening of social
capital and social cohesion, and promotion of accountable and transparent governance, as well as
the mitigation of adverse impacts arising out of the project
1.3 General and Specific Objectives
General Objective
The overall objective of the social assessment is to identity key areas of social concern and
significance, and appropriate implementation strategies/approaches for SLMP II, based on the
assessment made for the predecessor project (SLMP I).
In the light of this, the social assessment seeks to meet the following specific objectives stated
hereunder:
i. Assess key socio-economic factors that require consideration;
ii. Identify vulnerable and historically underserved groups that may be exclude from the
project and be adversely affected as a result, and the necessary impact mitigating
measures.
iii. Assess any potential adverse social impacts of SLMPII, and determine whether the
project is likely to trigger the World Bank social safeguards policies.
iv. Recommend in the early stage of project preparation the appropriate measures towards
addressing World Band requirements on social safeguards triggered by the project
(OP/BP 4.10 and OP/BP 4.11).
11
1.4 Methodology
The identification and selection of sample woredas constitutes the fist step in the conduct of the
social assessment. Accordingly, the study team set the criteria on the basis of which the
identification and selection of sample woredas was made:
Two sample woredas were identified and selected from each of the six regions, bringing
the total to twelve sample woredas.
One sample woreda in each region was selected from existing project woredas, and the
other from the newly added woredas for SLMP-II. This was done to assess the lessons and
experience from the predecessor project, and capture fresh social developments in the
newly added project communities.
All sample woredas were selected from among the poorest of the underserved
communities in the six regions. The purpose of this is to enable assessing the potential
impacts of SLMP-II on the various impoverished and disadvantaged community groups in
the sample woredas.
The identification and selection of the sample woredas was carried out during a
consultative meeting held with the project coordinators at national and regional levels. The
discussions focused on determining which woredas met the criteria mainly on the basis of
the magnitude of poverty.
Thus, the sample woredas depicted in the following table were purposively selected in line with
the above-mentioned criteria.
Table 1: List of Sample Woredas Visited for the Social Assessment
Region Zone Woreda
Tigray Maekelay Qola Teben (Existing)
Eastern Zone Atsbi Womberta (Newly
added)
Amhara West Gojjam Dega Damot (Existing)
East Gojjam Enebsie Sarmidir (Newly
added)
Oromia East Wollega Gobu Sayo (Existing)
West Showa Dandi (Newly added)
SNNPR Kembata Tembaro Angacha (Existing)
Sidama Hawassa Zuria (Newly added)
Benishangul Assosa Assosa Zuria (Existing)
12
-Gumz Assosa Mao Komo (Newly added)
Gambella Special Godare (Existing)
Majenger Mengeshi (Newly added)
Focus group discussions (FGD)/community consultations and key informant interviews (KII)
comprise the main data gathering methods of the social assessment. Moreover, community
consultation was conducted with several groups of woreda/watershed community members who
participated in the annual performance review workshop held in Adama from August 08- 11,
2013. The study team thus summarized the profile of FGD participants and KII, and issues
focused upon during those discussions and interview sessions. See Annex 1 for the Check List in
the Discussion for the Social Assessment Study.
Table 2: List of Visited Woredas, Profile of Informants and Key Issues
No
Data Gathering Tools for Social Assessment
Woreda Focus Group Discussions/ Community Conservations
Key Informant [KII]
Profile of participants
Issues discussed Profile Interviewees
Issues Interviewed
1 Qola Tenben FGDs with kebele and woreda officials, and selected community members
Overall activities & practices of the SLMP
With regional SLMP Coordinator, Woreda & Kebele Officials
On the overall activities & Progress of SLMP
2
Atsibi Womberta
FGDs: with Kebele & Woreda Officials & Community Members
Overall activities & practices of the SLMP
With Regional SLMP Coordinator, Woreda and Kebele Officials
On the overall activities & progress of SLMP
3 Dega Damot
2FGDs: Majority
attendants were Male, the Poor, Youth
Environmental challenges,
grassroots institutions, vulnerable groups, causes &
mechanisms of conflict
resolution
3Members of Woreda
Technical Committee, 3 Kebele Leaders, 3 DAs,
4Comminuity Elders,
5Women & 3 Youths
Capacity constraints, mobilization strategies;
stakeholders interaction, local institutions; traditional land conservation knowledge; self-
help groups, integration with local
institutions; vulnerable groups; equity, inclusiveness, marginalization, sustainability,
monitoring & evaluation; disputes/grievances
& its handling mechanisms
4 Enebsie Sarmidir
Community
consultation which
comprised 29 members including men and
women.
On Community Consultation,
marginalized groups,
Traditional method of resource conservation, Land-
related grievance settlement
mechanisms and social impacts of the project
woreda Respondents
from agriculture, land
administration &
Environmental
protection Offices, 7 would be community
beneficiaries.
Capacity constraints, environmental issues,
lower social institutions, self-help
associations, vulnerable groups, traditional ways of resource utilization, causes and
methods of conflict resolution mechanisms
5 Gobu Sayo 3FGDs held with
woreda Technical&
Steering Committee,
Kebele & Community Watershed
Committees and
constituted women, men, youth, disabled
and elderly people
About SLMP overall
activities, strengths and weaknesses
SLMP officials at
Kebele and woreda levels, Community
Leaders and elders
On local knowledge and practices, mutual/
self-help associations, land use and managements systems, changes in
environment and in the livelihood patterns
diachronically
13
6 Dandi 2Discussions held with
DAs, kebele administration staff &
Community members.
As the site is new, issues
discussed focus on community related activities
Community Leaders,
kebele and woreda SLMP representatives,
and elders
On indigenous knowledge and practices,
mutual/self-help associations, land use and management system in the area, changes in
environment and in the livelihood patterns of
the society.
7 Angacha 6FGDs held with Steering Committee &
Technical Committee
members, Watershed Teams, DAs and Other
community members.
On Community Consultation, underserved groups,
Traditional method of
resource conservation, Land-related grievance settlement
mechanisms and social
impacts of the project.
SLM Project coordinator, Kebele and
woreda officials.
About the general activities of the project, livelihood of local community, traditional
practices on resource conservation &
management, social impacts of the project, community role from planning down to
implementation stages.
8 Sidama Zuriya
3FGDs administered
with Steering
Committee & Technical Committee
members, Watershed
Teams, DAs and notable members of
the community
Community Consultation,
underserved groups,
Traditional practices for resource conservation, Land-
related grievance settlement
mechanisms and social impacts of the project.
Woreda & Kebele
Officials and SLMP representative
Assessing respondents’ information and
feedback on community consultation about
selection and launching of the project in the locality.
9 Assosa Zuriya
3FGDs Kebele,
Community & Watershed members&
Local Residents,
project beneficiaries & SLMP streaming &
technical committee.
Community consultation,
economic opportunities for women and overall
progresses of the project
Woreda & Kebele
Officials and local
communities , DAs,
SLMP focal person at
woreda level, watershed
and agricultural experts, chairman and manager
of rural kebeles and
community representatives (women,
elders and youths)
Community consultation, Vulnerable groups,
economic bases for women, and indigenous grievance redress mechanisms.
10 Mao Komo 2FGDs with Regional Steering Committee &
Regional facilitators
Community awareness about the need to begin SLM
project in the area
Experts on the selected
woreda within the zone,
SLMP focal person , DAs, watershed and
agricultural experts,
Kebele administrators,
Local communities such
as elders, women
&youth living in and around watershed areas.
Socio-economic and environmental patterns of the study site, vulnerable groups and
proposed project plans to address problems.
11 Godare 4 FGDs With woreda/ Zone officials, watershed committee,
kebele & community
watershed, vulnerable Women.
Duties of each committees
and their access to the
beneficiaries, Vulnerable group, opportunities and
challenges of the SLM
project
Regional Steering &
Coordinating officials,
Regional Agricultural Development head,
woreda Streaming and
technical committees,
Zone & woreda officials,
woreda, kebele and
community watershed committees and
vulnerable and
beneficiary communities.
Community consultation, indigenous land-
related conflict resolution mechanisms and the
overall practices of SLMP in the district.
12 Mengeshi 5 FGDs conducted
with Zone and woreda officials, woreda, kebele & Community watershed committees,
vulnerable group
Vulnerable groups such as
women headed households, youth and disabled and
benefits likely to be brought
by the project and the challenges it might face.
woreda and Kebele
officials and beneficiary
communities
Community consultation, vulnerable groups,
socio-economic an environmental patterns of the study area.
In addition, desk review was conducted to examine pertinent policies and regulations, project
appraisal documents, and assessment reports and field observations used to augment the data
obtained through the aforementioned instruments.
14
The team used a mixed method approach, triangulating qualitative data from focus group
discussions/community consultations, key informant interviews, and secondary sources. The
focus group discussion checklist and key informant interview guide were semi-structured with a
range of open-ended questions (see annex – for the FGD checklist and KII guide).
2. Review of institutional and legal frameworks
2.1 Organizational structure and implementation arrangements
SLMP-I organizational structure and implementation arrangement will be maintained, with some
improvements in human capacity, for the execution of SLMP-II. Accordingly, the project will be
implemented at four levels in line with Ethiopia’s decentralization policy – Federal,
Regional/Zonal, Woreda, and Kebele. In this implementation arrangement, beneficiary
communities at grassroots will assume the main responsibility for executing many of the
activities in SLMP-II.
Project administration mechanisms
Federal Level: As in the case of SLMP-I, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will play a
leading role in the coordination, supervision and implementation of the project, working in close
cooperation with other relevant sector ministries: Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development (MoFED), Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE), and the Environmental
Protection Authority (EPA). The institutional arrangements already in place to provide oversight
and policy direction to sustainable land management (SLM) initiatives and activities will be
strengthened and maintained. These implementation arrangements, based at MoA, are: The
Rural Economic Development and Food Security (RED&FS) Platform, National Sustainable
Land Management Steering Committee (NSLMSC), National Sustainable Land Management
Technical Committee (NSLMTC), and the SLM Support Unit (SU).
The Rural Economic Development and Food Security (RED&FS) Platform: Chaired by the
Minister of Agriculture, this Platform includes high-level representatives from MoFED, MoWE,
EPA, and development partners (DPs), and supports mainstream agriculture, food security and
disaster/risk management. Of the three federal level committees operational under RED&FS
Platform, SLM Technical Committee is the relevant unit for the implementation of SLMP-II.
The National SLM Steering Committee: Chaired by the State Minister for Natural Resources
Management in MoA, this Committee consists of high profile representatives from MoFED,
MoWE, EPA and DPs. The Steering Committee is responsible for the following functions of
15
SLMP-II: (a) Provide policy guidance, oversight and overall supervision for project
implementation; (b) Review and approve the composite annual work, procurement, and budget
plans; (c) Review and approve annual performance report, and oversee the carrying out of
corrective actions.
The National SLM Technical Committee: Chaired by the State Minister for Natural Resource
Management of MoA, the Committee is composed of senior technical staff representing MoA,
MoWE, MoFED, EPA, Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR), and DPs
supporting SLM projects/initiatives, as well as civil society and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) actively engaged in SLM activities. In general, this Committee is responsible for
providing technical advice to MoA on SLM issues. With particular reference to SLMP-II, this
Committee is entrusted with the responsibility of providing technical advice concerning the
quality of performance reports, policy-related studies, draft legislations, financial and audit
reports, documentation of best practices, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports.
The SLM Support/Coordination Unit: Based in MoA, this Unit will continue to play a key role in
the management and facilitation of the day-to-day implementation of the project. Specific tasks
of the Unit include: (a) Consolidating regional annual work, budget and procurement plans; (b)
Facilitating and supervising the implementation of work plans, the execution of corrective
actions, and the adoption of safeguards instruments; (c) Processing the procurement of goods and
services; (d) Monitoring overall project implementation, safeguards instruments, mitigation
plans, and evaluating project impacts; and (e) Preparing progress reports.
Regional level: The Bureau of Agriculture (BoA) will lead the implementation of the project, in
close collaboration with the relevant government sector offices. Serving as a bridge between the
Federal and Woreda implementation arrangements, the BoA will review and consolidate annual
work, budgets, and procurement plans submitted by the Woredas.
Woreda and Kebele levels: At the grassroots, the planning and implementation of project
activities will be undertaken jointly by the Woreda Office for Agriculture (WOA), the Kebele
Watershed Development Committee (KWDC), Development Agents (DAs) and local
communities. Thus, these structures will assist local communities in: (a) Developing annual
work, procurement and budget plans to be submitted to the BoA for review and endorsement; (b)
Facilitating and mobilizing community participation in watershed planning and rehabilitation; (c)
Conducting training and awareness raising campaigns; (d) Carrying out participatory project
monitoring and evaluation; (e) Delivering extension service and dissemination of best-fit
technologies and innovations.
2.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
16
In alignment with the implementation arrangements for SLMP-II, the monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) is organized at four levels. The overall M&E responsibility rests with the M&E specialist
of the SLM Program Support Unit in MoA, who will be supported by an MIS/IT specialist. M&E
officers and MIS/IT specialists at regional level report to the M&E specialist in the SLM
Program Support Unit, and to the regional coordinator. Project impact evaluation, thematic
studies, and process monitoring will be carried out by external consultants selected on a
competitive basis.
Reporting Mechanisms: As in the case of SLMP-I, SLMP-II will have four levels of reporting,
which require the use of simple reporting formats containing a set of indicators to track and
report the progress and results achieved:
(a) Kebele level: Under close supervision of the Woreda Project Focal Person, project
monitoring and reporting will be conducted by the Woreda Watershed Development
Committee (WWDC) and the concerned development agent (DA) on monthly basis.
The Woreda Project Focal Person is responsible to compile reports on project
activities under implementation in the project kebeles of the woreda.
(b) Woreda level: Based on kebele-level data, Woreda Project Focal Persons prepare
woreda wide monthly reports. The content of the reporting will focus on project
performance covering the issues such as safeguards compliance, finance and
procurement, implementation bottlenecks, best practices and innovations, and
success stories. Woreda level reports will be submitted to the Woreda Steering
Committees (WSC) for review and endorsement, and to the BoA for compilation
and inputting into the Project MIS at regional level.
(c) Regional level: Woreda Project Focal Persons submit woreda level reports to the
Regional M&E officer in BoA, who works closely with the Regional MIS officer to
enter information into the MIS. Based on data received, the Regional M&E officer
produces quarterly reports of the region. The reports review project performance at
woreda level, document the progress made against plans, and identify region wide
implementation issues and best practices. In turn, Regional Project Coordinators
submit quarterly region level reports to the SLM Program Support Unit in MoA.
(d) Federal level: Under the supervision of the National Project Coordinator, and on the
basis of regional project data, the Federal M&E Officer prepares quarterly and
annual progress reports, which are shared with MoA, MoFED, and the World Bank.
The national level information is entered into the MIS by the Federal MIS officer.
17
2.3. Grievance Redress Mechanisms
SLM Project-related conflicts are handled by different committees established for the same
purpose starting from zonal administration to the kebele levels. With the exception of the newly
launched SLM project sites, grievance redress mechanisms are designed as part of the project
activities and are, therefore, inherently built into the project’s institutional arrangement. For
instance, in the case of Qola Tenben at kebele level, members of these committees constitute
people coming from different social groups such as women, youth, religious leaders and notable
people in the project sites. This committee is the lowest grievance handling structure to which
people report their complaints. If there are cases that sought compensation and resettlement, for
instance, there is no separate structure for the project affected people (PAPs) to file their
complaints. It is to the Tabia Administration and Woreda Agriculture and Natural Resource
Office that one can file his/her complaints.
Although this is the norm, practices vary slightly from place to place. For instance, in Angacha
Woreda, there was no as such well-organized grievance redress mechanism put in place during
the last five years of the project’s lifetime. However, the project has been using traditional and
modern legal instruments to address matters arising from the SLMP project. When complaints
related to land measurement, elephant grass allocation and sale arise, in most of the cases the
project office uses either arbitration through the mediation of elders or grassroots government
structures like kebele Ferd Shengo, the Mediation by Kebele Watershed Team (KWT), and
Community Watershed Team (CWT). If such complaints are from the members of the watershed
association, it can be addressed through the rules and regulations of their respective association.
Moreover, in Dega Damot Woreda indigenous institutions such as Mahber and Iddir are often
resorted to as viable grievance redress mechanism. The most commonly cited example in the
area is Yeferes Mahiber (an association of horse owners in which members help one another as
per their mutually agreed bylaws). In some of the other woredas, indigenous institutions are
weakened because the formal arrangements override the informal means. Though the widely
practiced indigenous institutions such as the “Jaarsumma”, Elaafi Elaamee, and Guma
institutions among the Oromo are not given much attention by the project office, they continued
to serve as vital institutions in handling grievances related to watershed management in the Gobu
Sayo catchment areas.
3. Assessment of Key Social Issues
The awareness and understanding that land is an asset to be conserved for present and future
generations is increasingly gaining acceptance and attention at global and national levels. Thus,
land degradation and the ensuing social and environmental problems have become serious
concerns that are forcing policy and decision makers to introduce program interventions,
18
designed to promote improved land management practices. It is with this goal in perspective that
the government of Ethiopia has made SLM a core component of the national agricultural policy.
Hence, SLMP-I and its successor, SLMP-II, are major government initiatives driven by this
policy imperative.
However, there are social dimensions to such initiatives that can have positive or negative
implications for the target communities, which need to be taken into serious consideration in the
design, planning, and implementation stages of the interventions. Accordingly, a number of
social issues requiring consideration in the preparation of SLMP-II have been identified in the
course of the social assessment carried out in sample project woredas.
Some of the target communities that may be affected by SLMP II are historically disadvantaged
and underserved groups living in the developing regions of the Project (Gambella and
Benishangul-Gumz). Specific provisions have been incorporated by the government into the
national legal and institutional frameworks, designed to empower population groups that have
historically been denied equal access to socioeconomic and political rights and privileges.
3.1 Legal and Institutional Framework
The Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the presence of different socio-cultural groups, including
historically disadvantaged and underserved communities, pastoralists, and minorities, as well as
their rights to socioeconomic equity and justice.
Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution recognizes the rights of groups identified as “Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples”. They are defined as “a group of people who have or share a large
measure of common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a
common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable,
predominantly contiguous territory.” This represents some 75 out of the 80 groups who are
members of the House of Federation, which is the second chamber of the Ethiopian legislature.
The Constitution recognizes the rights of these Nations, Nationalities and Peoples to: self-
determination, including the right to secession; speak, write and develop their own languages;
express, develop and promote their cultures; preserve their history; and, self-government, which
includes the right to establish institutions of government in the territory that they inhabit and
equitable representation in state and Federal governments. Most of the Project target
communities belong to this population group.
The Ethiopian Constitution also recognizes the rights of pastoral groups inhabiting the lowland
of the country. The constitution under article 40 (4) stipulates ‘Ethiopian pastoralist have a right
to free land for grazing and cultivation as well as a right not to be displaced from their own
lands’. The Constitutions under Articles 41(8) also affirms that “Ethiopian .. pastoralists have the
right to receive fair prices for their products, that would lead to improvement in their conditions
19
of life and to enable them to obtain an equitable share of the national wealth commensurate with
their contribution. This objective shall guide the State in the formulation of economic, social and
development policies.” Pastoralist regions/areas recognized by the government are: Afar; Somali;
Borena Zone and Fentele Woreda (Oromia); South Omo Zone, Bench-Maji Zone, and parts of
Decha Wereda in Keffa Zone (SNNPR); and, Nuer Zone (Gambella).
The pastoralists comprise approximately 12-15 million people that belong to 29 groups of
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples1. Whilst government policies have strengthened and resource
allocations increased over the last decade2, pastoralist areas are still amongst the least served in
terms basic services. Education indicators for pastoralist areas are among the lowest in the
country: lowest literacy rates, highest dropout rates and greatest distance from schools (Jennings
et al., 2011). Some pastoral households view fformal education as a threat to the contributions
that children make to the household and the pastoralist way of life. The access of girls in
pastoral areas to education is also constrained by the perceptions of parents that schooling
compromises girls’ reputation, makes them less compliant which, in turn, reduces their worth as
marriage partners (Brocklesby et al. 2011).
The Constitution also recognizes another group called “national minorities”. Article 54 (1) states
that: “Members of the House [of Peoples Representatives], on the basis of population and special
representation of minority Nationalities and Peoples, shall not exceed 550; of these, minority
Nationalities and Peoples shall have at least 20 seats.” These groups have less than 100,000
members and most live in the ‘Developing Regional States’.
Owing to their limited access to socioeconomic development and underserved status over the
decades, the Ethiopian government has designated four of the country’s regions, namely: Afar,
Somali, Benishangul-Gumz, and Gambella as Developing Regional States (DRS). In this respect,
Article 89 (2) of the Ethiopian Constitution stipulates: ‘The Government has the obligation to
ensure that all Ethiopians get equal opportunity to improve their economic situations and to
promote equitable distribution of wealth among them’. Article 89 (4) in particular states:
‘Nations, Nationalities and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development shall
receive special assistance’.
In connection with institutional framework designed to ensure equity between regions, the
government has set up the Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFA). The responsibilities of this
Ministry include promoting equitable development, with emphasis on delivering special support
to the developing regions. The main purpose of the especial support is to address the inequalities
1Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia, http://www.pfe-ethiopia.org/about.html
2 PASDEP (2005 -2010), the previous five year poverty reduction plan to GTP promoted more targeted assistance
to marginalised areas – the emerging regions and pastoralist/agro-pastoralist areas (MOFED 2010).
20
that have existed between the regions over the decades, thereby hastening equitable growth and
development. Federal Special Support Board, which consists of relevant sector ministries
including the MoA, was reorganized in March 2011. The MoFA acts as Vice Chair and
secretariat of the board. A Technical Committee (TC) composed of sector ministries constituting
the Board was also set up under the MoFA to monitor and report the implementation of special
support plans. As its main aim, the Board coordinates the affirmative support provided to the
developing regions by the different organs of the federal government, and ensures the
effectiveness of the implementation process.
In addition, Equitable Development Directorate General has been set up within the MoFA, with
directorates put in place to operate under it for the respective developing regions. Among many
other activities, the Directorate General coordinates and directs case teams to collect, organize
and analyze data in relation to the gaps in capacity building, social and economic development,
good governance, gender and environmental development in the regions in need of special
support.
Two of the six regions where SLMP II is planned to be implemented are the developing regions
of Gambella and Benihangul-Gumz. In Gambella Region, three woredas/watersheds located in
three zones have been identified and selected for SLMP II. These are Mengeshi, Majenger Zone;
Itang, Itang Zone; and Maquway, Nuer Zone. Among the potential project beneficiaries in these
woredas/watershed are the population groups of Majenger, Anuak, and Nuer. Similarly, four
woredas/watersheds located in two zones in Benishangul-Gmuz Region have been selected for
SLMP II. These are: Wombera, Bullen, and Dangur, in Metekel Zon; Mao Komo in Assosa
Zone. Would-be project beneficiaries in these woredas/watersheds are the Gumz, Mao, and
Komo population groups.
The above-mentioned population groups in the two developing regions are different from the
mainstream smallholder agricultural communities of the Project in their livelihood
system/strategy, land and resource management, patterns of settlement, and farm technology.
SLMP II is expected to be effective and successful in achieving its stated objectives, if it gives
due consideration to the special characteristics of these population groups in its design, planning
and implementation phases. The socioeconomic and cultural profile of the population groups
described as underserved and selected for SLMP is presented below.
3.2. Profile of Underserved Target Communities
The Majenger
Inhabiting the thickly forested slopes of the south-western edge of the Ethiopian plateau,
between the Anuak of the plains and the Oromo of the highlands, and belonging to the Nilo-
Saharan linguistic group, the Majanger are a population of 12,280 (6,036 male and 6,244 female)
in Gambella Region. They reside mainly in the Majenger Zone, in Mengshi and Godare woredas.
21
Leading a non-sedentary way of life, the livelihood of the Majanger is mainly based on
beekeeping, especially wild bee in the forest. Other livelihood activities include hunting and
gathering and shifting cultivation, with lifestyle highly attached to the forest and forest products.
The Majenger have no political leaders, the only individuals of any authority being ritual leaders
whose influence is restricted. Domestic groups tend to farm plots adjacent to those of friends or
kin, but the settlements remain small and constantly change in composition (as well as in
location). In resource management and land use, the Majanger have indigenous institution called
Jung. They also have a traditional forestland-related dispute settlement mechanisms, which they
call Guten and comprises elders and religious leaders (protestant) also play important role in this
regard.
The Anuak
The Anuak are Nilotic people who inhabit the Gambella region and the land across the Ethio-
South Sudan border. Most of Anuak live in the Southwestern part of Ethiopia, Gambella Region,
whereas a minority of them live in South Sudan mainly in Akobo and Pochalla counties adjacent
to the border with Gambella Region.
The Anuak are mainly crop dependent people with fishing, hunting and gathering as their
supplementary income sources. For the Anuak, while crop production (sorghum and maize) is an
important activity of the rainy season, fishing in the Baro and Akobo rivers becomes a vital
means of subsistence in the dry season. Recession riverside agriculture is common and practiced
by Anuak people along the Baro, Gilo and Akobo rivers. Wild food consumption is part of the
daily dietary intake given the still partly untouched bush land and natural forest resources.
The Anuak are polygamous society and favor living in extended family groups in settlements
established in isolated pockets on the banks of the Baro River, in front of their agricultural fields.
A grass-roofed main hut for sleeping, a smaller version for grain storage, and chicken coops
comprise typical Anuak family holdings. The Anuak worship Ochudho. For them, Ochudho or
god of the river is responsible for the origin of their kings and chiefs. Like many other Nilotic
people, Anuaks have a complicated age-system in which different generation groups bear names
that signify major happenings in their past.
The Nuer
The Nuer people, who live on the plains around the Baro River in the Gambella region of
Ethiopia, are traditional cattle herders, although they sometimes resort to small farming, hunting,
and fishing. Their language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan African language family like their
neighbours the Anuak. The Nuer people are largely livestock dependent and are mostly found in
Akobo, Jikawo and parts of Itang woredas. During rainy seasons, Akobo and Jikawo become
22
flooded and the people therefore migrate to the highlands with their cattle until the riverbanks
recede. According to the 2007 census, the population of the Gambella Region was 300,000, 46
per cent of which were the Nuer.
The Nuer are preeminently pastoral, though they grow more millet and maize than is commonly
supposed. They not only depend on cattle for many of life’s necessities but they have pastoral
mentality and the herdsman’s outlook. Cattle are their dearest possession and they gladly risk
their lives to defend their herds or to pillage those of their neighbours. The attitude of Nuer
towards, and their relations with, neighbouring peoples are influenced by their love of cattle and
their desire to acquire them.
The Nuer living pattern changes according to the seasons of the year. As the rivers flood, the
people have to move farther back onto higher ground, where the women cultivate millet and
maize while the men herd the cattle nearby. In the dry season, the younger men take the cattle
herds closer to the receding rivers. Cooperative extended family groups live around communal
cattle camps. Parallel to territorial divisions are clan lineages descended through the male line
from a single ancestor. These lineages are significant in the control and distribution of resources,
and tend to coalesce with the territorial sections. Marriages must be outside one's own clan and
are made legal by the payment of cattle by the man's clan to the woman's clan, shared among
various persons in the clan. The Nuer are egalitarian people with no single individual holding
power, but rather political authority is loosely bestowed up on informal council of married men.
The Gumz
Metekel is one of the three administrative Zones of Benisahngul-Gumz Regional State, located in
Western Ethiopia. The other two administrative Zones are Kamashi and Assosa. Metekel Zone
comprises six woredas: Bulen, Dangur, Wombera, Dibate, Guba, and Mandura. Three of the six
woredas/watersheds of the administrative Zone are SLMP woredas.
Originally, most of Metekel was occupied by the Gumz people, a cultural group that belongs to
the Nilo-Saharan language family. The Gumz practice shifting cultivation with the use of hoes, a
single family often having a number of fields, sometimes at considerable distance from its living
quarters. Shifting cultivation (also called slash-and-burn agriculture or horticulture) is a system
of production common in topical forest environments and savannas, where clearing the land
requires extensive labour. In order to clear a plot of land for planting, the Gumz cut down or
slash bamboo trees and bushes beginning in November and then burn them immediately before
the rainy season begins in April. The Gumz grow a variety of crops such as cereals, oil seeds,
legumes, and root crops. The most commonly grown cereals include finger millet, sorghum and
maize. Finger millet and sorghum are staple crops. Sesame and niger seed are oil seeds often
used as cash crops. Depending on the type of soil, plots are cultivated for a few years (often 3-4)
and then allowed to lie fallow for several years (often 5-7 years) for the restoration of soil
fertility. During this period, the Gumz move to other places to practice shifting cultivation there.
23
In times of food shortage, the Gumz resort to the more ancient practices of hunting, fishing, and
gathering. They also engage in honey collection (apiculture).
The land tenure system of the Gumz has been a ‘controlled access’ system, combining individual
possession with communal ownership. Members of the society enjoy equal access to
communally owned land, such as cultivable virgin lands, forested areas, grazing and/or browsing
land, and riverbanks as a matter of right. Thus, according to tradition, these resources are owned
by the Gumz society in general. Gumz settlements are comprised of dwellings clustered together,
with pastureland outlying the clustered villages and farmland situated away from residences. In
most cases, settlements are compact and the number of households may range from 20 to 100.
The nuclear family, consisting of married couples and their children, constitutes the basic unit of
Gumz society.
The Mao-Komo
At present, the Mao Komo live in Benishangul-Gumz Region, Mao Komo special zone, Mao
Komo special woreda/watershed, one of the newly added project woredas. Mao and Komo are
two minority groups speaking Nilo-Saharan language. Some Mao live in Mao Komo woreda,
while others reside in Begi of Oromia region and Bambasi woreda of Assosa zone. The
populations of Mao-Kome is estimated at 51,330 (43,535 Mao and 7,795 Komo). 19,208 of these
live in Benishangul-Gumz and 24,626 in Oromia.
Historically, the Mao and Komo are the most underserved group inhabiting the marginal areas in
western Ethiopia. Because of their small population size, the Mao and Komo are represented by
2 seats out of 99 in the regional state council.
The major livelihood activity the Mao and Komo is agriculture, and the crops produced include
teff, maize, millet and dagusa. Goats, sheep and cattle are the major livestock in the area. Coffee
and kha3t are the main cash crops the Mao Komo produce. Gold is present in the region, and the
Mao-Komo in the Special Woreda are involved in traditional gold mining. The Mao and Komo
have customary conflict management institutions, referred to as Shumbi and gives orders for the
settlement of conflicts, in line with which the council of elders gather to deliberate and
adjudicate dispute issues
3.3. Potential Implications on the Vulnerable Groups
As discussed above, the 1995 FDRE Constitution recognizes that Ethiopia is a country of
nations, nationalities and peoples with diverse cultures and languages, and different socio-
3 Khat, Cathula edulis, is a narcotic plant chewed as a stimulant.
24
economic development experiences. Put differently, not all Ethiopians have benefitted equally
from the development programs of both the Derg and Imperial regimes and this was one of the
major factors that led the EPRDF Government, after the demise of the Derg regime in 1991, to
introduce the Federal state structure. The Constitution recognizes this historical development
imbalance and the Federal Government which came into being with the parliamentary approval
of the constitution vowed to redress this historical development imbalance and injustice. The
FDRE, through its constitution and many other subsequent policies and programs has committed
itself to redress the injustice experienced by the people of the Developing Regional States.
SLMP is one of such development programs which the government initiated to address the
development problems of the communities in the DRS. Development programs aim to have
lasting positive impact on the life of the intended beneficiaries through specific projects that set
out to accomplish measurable outcomes. Such development programs/projects often have
adverse impacts on the target communities, at times having differential impacts on different
categories (e.g., women, poor, ethnic minorities, migrants, youth, etc) of the intended beneficiary
communities. That is why thinking of appropriate mitigation measures in the event of any
adverse impact of the development project becomes one of the major principles guiding
development programs.
In light of this, it is important to closely examine the potential adverse impacts of SLMP-2 on
different categories of beneficiaries with particular focus on the historically underserved
communities in the project woredas of Benishangul Gumz and Gambella, both DRS. To
accomplish this task, we will focus on following issues.
Livelihood strategies – SLMP-II is a project that focuses on smallholder farmers and aims to
scale up and adopt best-fit sustainable land and water management technologies and practices.
The ‘Integrated Watershed and Landscape Management’ component of the project primarily
focuses on smallholder farmers. As a result, it may not be equally inclusive of communities who
pursue different livelihood systems and natural resource management and use strategies. Such
communities include foragers who engage in hunting and gathering, traditional beekeeping and
shifting cultivation. Despite the focus of the project on smallholder farmers, SLMP is designed
in such a way that it is flexible and adaptable as circumstances may require. Besides, being
community-demand driven (CDD) project, SLMP accommodates the livelihood and land use and
resource management systems of project communities such as those mentioned above.
It was also learned that watershed community members who due to age and/health (sickness and
impairment) do not have the full physical ability to participate in the ‘Integrated Watershed and
Landscape Management’ component activities are likely to be left out during the planning and
implementation of the project. In the language of one of SLMP Regional Coordinators, “even the
PIM does not say anything about the physically weak old, the disabled and the bed-ridden
25
people”. The apparent explanation is that SLMP is an “environmental project, not an entitlement
project”.
Land acquisition – Due to the minimal risk of SLMP II-induced land acquisition,
However, there is a possibility for
degraded lands held by some households in the woredas/watersheds to be temporarily acquired
for rehabilitation. In such events, the restoration of usufruct rights to the original landholders are
to be ensured in line with the provisions in Ethiopian laws and the relevant policies of the World
Bank.
Land certification – the implementation of the ‘Rural Land Administration and Certification’
sub-component of the project is expected to give consideration to the peculiar landholding and
land use systems of the historically underserved communities in the woredas/watersheds selected
for SLMP-II, and where individual land possession by households is not the norm. Designed to
ensure the tenure security of smallholder farmers, and thereby motivate them to adopt sustainable
land management, this component may not be applicable in the context of hunting and gathering
and shifting cultivating groups on wholesale basis. It is reported that, cognizant of these
landholding and land use variations and peculiarities, the Rural Land Administration and Use
Directorate of MoA is currently piloting land registration and certification practice in Dabus
Woreda, Benishangul Gumz Regional State, which is appropriate to the circumstances of the
these communities.
Gender – SLMP-II targets female and male, young and old, and poor and better-off community
members as beneficiaries. No community members in the selected woredas/watersheds are
intended to be excluded from the Project. However, one of the lessons learned from the
implementation of SLMP-I was that there were cases in which female household heads found it
difficult to balance their twofold roles competing for their equal attention. On the one hand, their
role as mothers and carers demanded their involvement in domestic chores. On the other, their
responsibility as household heads required them to engage in the treatment of communal lands as
part of SLMP implementation. The difficulty of balancing these equally important
responsibilities resulted in the risk of losing project benefits in varying degrees.
Field observations and community consultations indicate that local women also experience
challenges in connection with land registration and certification. In many rural parts of Ethiopia,
women, particularly female household heads are compelled to lease their landholdings to men in
sharecropping arrangements. They are forced to do so mostly due to lack of farm capital and
farm oxen. Cases were reported in one of the social assessment woredas in Tigray that some men
who leased farm plots from women community members for sharecropping registered the lands
in their own name, and obtained landholding certificates. As a result, the women who were the
rightful landholders lost their plots to the men who were collaborating with them as
26
sharecroppers. A study conducted by the Ethiopia - Land Tenure and Administration Program
(ELTAP) in 2010 found that the breach of land transactions and exchange agreements
constituted one of the major causes of land-related disputes between farm households. The
findings revealed that women were among the less advantaged community groups who were
compelled to temporarily transfer their landholdings through different forms of sharecropping
arrangements for lack of capacity and resource to work their plots on their own. The
sharecroppers, however, tended to renege on the agreements after a certain period of time.
Indeed, they sometimes breached the arrangements and claimed to be the rightful holders, to the
extent of registering the land in their own name.
Such cases deserve mention to alert the Project to the risks that women in the selected
woredas/watersheds may face, and adopt the necessary precautionary measures to make sure that
the ‘Land Administration and Certification’ component of SLMP-II will meet its stated
development objectives.
Among the major components of SLMP-II is ‘Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development
and Knowledge Generation and Management’. This component is vitally important to the
successful implementation of the Project and the achievement of its development objectives. In
connection with this, traditional institutions of self-help and indigenous knowledge systems of
the diverse communities in the project woredas also contribute immensely to effective Project
implementation and sustainability. The experience from SLMP-I shows that the social capital
available in local communities has not been used to the fullest possible extent to enhance Project
implementation. A similar risk may be experienced in the case of SLMP-II. Hence, efforts
should be made to introduce appropriate technology and knowledge systems in a manner that is
compatible with the time-tested local adaptation strategies, indigenous knowledge systems and
community-based institutions. The tendency on the part of woreda and kebele administrations
not to give emphasis to the use of traditional dispute settlement mechanisms such as the
yegelegel shemagele in Amhara and jaarsumma in Oromia, as they do to the kebele development
team (yelimat buden) or one-to-five community organization (shane) is a possible risk that can
be faced in the course of SLMP II implementation.
The summary of the potential risks and challenges and the proposed recommendations are
provided in Section six of this report.
3.4. Community Consultation and Involvement
An integrated and sustainable land management project requires community consultation and
involvement as one of the prime prerequisites for its realization. To galvanize the support and
participation of the populace towards the initiative, Community-Based Participatory Watershed
27
Development Guideline (CBPWDG), and Project Implementation Manual (PIM) has been
prepared for use in the course of implementation.
The extent to which communities understand and appreciate the impact of land degradation and
the degree of commitment they show to become part of the solution is key to the successful
management of SLM Project. Thus, the process of community consultation begins with
popularizing a project initiative to community members, gagging their concerns and reactions,
and securing their acceptance, trust, and support for it. In this regard, recognizing land
degradation as a problem of far-reaching consequences, and that it can best be dealt with by
working together as a community is crucially important to address the issue. The sense of
ownership and responsibility that comes with such recognition plays a vital role in identifying
practical measures to mitigate the problems under local conditions. Community consultation also
enables the local population to prioritize their felt needs and concerns, thereby strengthening and
expanding their participation in the planning and management of activities by combining local
and external resources.
As can be established on the basis of the field data, preliminary community consultations were
carried out regarding the second phase of SLMP in the 90 newly selected and added
woredas/watersheds. Professionals from SLMP Office at the Federal MoA held discussions with
SLMP personnel in the Bureaus of Agriculture at regional levels. The discussions centred on
explaining to the project personnel the selection criteria for beneficiary woredas/watersheds. The
major criteria were clear signs of land degradation, interest shown by potential beneficiary
communities in natural resource management, and proximity to existing SLMP woredas, among
others. Similar consultation meetings were held with the personnel of agricultural offices at zone,
woreda, and kebele levels. At woreda level, agricultural and rural development offices conducted
community consultations by organizing meetings with farmers holding land in the
bounded/delineated watersheds.
Among the many results of the community consultations was that community interest in the
project was ascertained. First and foremost, community members asked, verbally and in writing,
in the course of the consultations why their watersheds were not selected and included in Phase I
of SLMP. They expressed that the changes brought about by the Project in the adjacent Project
woredas and the benefits it delivered in terms of land rehabilitation caused them to feel that they
missed the opportunity. They said that they gained lessons about the practical value of the
Project from the successes achieved in neighbouring localities, and wanted to be beneficiaries as
well during the second phase.
Secondly, the local communities have gained ample experience in carrying out self-initiated
natural resource management activities, in response to government executed extensive mass
mobilization drive. This is strong proof of the interest of the communities in the kinds of
28
activities promoted by SLMP, and their potential to contribute significantly of their own
initiative, if included as project woredas. When asked about their interest and support for the
project, the local people said during the consultations that they had already shown their desire
and commitment even before being considered for selection and inclusion. Thus, many of the
woredas/watersheds selected for SLMP II are those which have proven their interest and
initiative to participate in and support the kinds of activities and ideas promoted by SLM
approaches and technologies.
Some of the woredas where community consultation were carried out (Dandi Woreda/Jamjem
Watershed for example) have gone a step further and established watershed committees.
Members of the watershed committee from Dandi Woreda, along with the staff of the Woreda
Administration and Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office, made experience
sharing visits to woredas where similar projects were being implemented. During the visits, the
watershed committee members were highly impressed by the work being done on the ground and
the achievements they witnessed. Motivated by this, they resolved to embrace SLMP when it
started as they were promised. Thus, they have shown their readiness to contribute to and benefit
from the second phase of the initiative, despite the uncertainties about donor support. During the
FGD sessions, the representatives of the Woreda Administration and Woreda Agriculture and
Rural Development Office stated: “We have observed that land degradation is a real problem in
the selected watershed area. Likewise, experience sharing visits have given us lessons that there
are possibilities to rehabilitate degraded lands to productivity. But we are not sure that the World
Bank will this time round provide support to the project. However, provided that support is
secured, we are confident that present community motivation and enthusiasm will translate the
vision and goal of the Project into reality in a short time. In addition, in the event of donor
support, our Woreda is committed to providing whatever is within its means in the form of
material support and human labour.
In a like manner, community members of Jamjem Watershed in Dandi Woreda have reiterated
their interest and readiness to contribute to the success of SLMP to the best of their abilities and
means in the form of material, labour, land, and other resources, if the Project is approved. They
confirmed their interest and readiness for active participation during consultation meetings held
with the researchers in this way: “We are experiencing land degradation and are witnesses of its
consequences. Our children and we are suffering from the loss of productivity because of it. It
will be much worse during future generations unless something is done now. Hence, we will not
hesitate to support and cooperate with any initiative that can help in solving this problem. Yet,
we recall a number of promises that were made for us but not fulfilled towards mitigating various
community problems. We are, therefore, not sure whether it will be different in this case. But if
the rhetoric translates into action, and the project starts, we are ready to participate as individuals
and associations, by mobilizing our various community institutions such as Iddir, dabo, wonfel,
and mahiber.
29
Besides, joint pre-appraisal visits were made by a mission team to a sample of the newly selected
woredas/watersheds in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNP regions. The objectives of the pre-
appraisal visits were to evaluate the magnitude of land degradation, and assess the present status
of newly selected woredas implementation capacity, institutional arrangements and their
willingness. During the visits, the mission team found that land degradation is a serious problem
in the sample woredas/watersheds in all its manifestations, and that emphasis is given as a result
to natural resource management to rehabilitate degraded lands through mass mobilization
campaigns. Accordingly, it was observed that local communities exhibited a high degree of
willingness, motivation, and commitment to participating in SLMP. This is shown by the
structural arrangements (extension and development unit) that were put in place, the conduct of
SLMP focused community awareness and information dissemination, and the adoption of
watershed management approach.
Based on the results of the preliminary community consultations, it was communicated to the
concerned local leadership and woredas/watersheds that they were selected for SLMP II.
Nonetheless, they were not given promises about their inclusion in the initiative, since doing so
would be premature prior to approval by the donor. If and when the Project has been accepted,
however, this will be shared with the local leadership and the selected woredas/watersheds in
due course. In that case, intensive community consultation will be embarked on in earnest, by
using the Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline (CBPWDG) and
Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Likewise, other activities that require community
consultation and involvement such as participatory watershed development planning (PWDP)
and the establishment of structures (grassroots watershed and micro watershed committees and
planning teams) will be executed.
As for SLMP-I, it was found that community consultations were consistently conducted in all the
woredas included in this social assessment study. The mechanisms used and the quality of the
consultation exercises varied from place to place. In Qola Tenben, for instance, they were
consulted on the implementation of some details of merely small-scale projects, and the meetings
were conducted to make them aware of the already planned projects by the SLMP staff who had
close links with administrative officials. In Angacha Woreda, on the other hand, the target
population and the project owners were expected to sign agreements to carry out the project in
the selected kebeles. At the outset, the project passed through a lot of ups and downs to ensure
the consent and participation of the community. To this end, committee members were in charge
of raising awareness and conducting discussions with the local communities. In general, as the
steering committee members and other participants in the FGDs said, the project utilized formal
mechanisms to get consent and mobilize the community.
With regard to the inclusiveness of community consultation, the study participants confirmed
that all community members were equally informed to attend community consultation meetings
30
regardless of their ethnic background, sex, age, and health status. For instance, in Tabia (Menji),
Qola Tenben, all local residents above the age of 18 were represented at tabia council
consultation meetings.
Thus, as the findings of the social assessment indicate, the community consultations carried out
by all relevant bodies for both phases of the project have established beyond reasonable doubt
that the concerned local communities have shown interest and commitment not only to
participate in, but also to actively support and contribute to the success of the SLMP
intervention. It was also ascertained that the consultations were carried out on the basis of prior,
free and informed consent of the community members involved.
3.5. Capacity building
The desire for implementing SLM poses a number of challenges. If project activities intended to
result in a positive impact on SLM, it would be appropriate to consider not only technological
options, but also actions that promote awareness, improve knowledge, land management skills
and local planning procedures, support training and education, and enhance grassroots
institutional development. The sum total of this is to strengthen the human capabilities of the
communities to make use of their own resources-skills, knowledge, and ability to work; their
social capabilities as regards the relationships of organisations and groups within the community
and political structure.
Such capacity assessment, however, is important to carry out both at the time of needs
assessment initially when SLM projects are designed with the participation of the communities
and during performance evaluation later at the time of project completion.
The results of this social assessment study show that in most of the project sites, the issues of
capacity building, opportunities and constraints related to the project are important that need
close investigation at all levels of the project implementation structures, namely the grassroots,
woreda and regional levels. For instance, in the case of Angacha Woreda, at the grassroots level,
the presence of DAs and other development teams, government arrangements like one-to-five,
Hiwass (cell), Watershed Teams and Watershed Committees, and other government structures
enhanced the capacity of the project and thus contributed their part to the success of the project.
In a similar manner, in Gambella Regional State at grassroots level the existing institutions that
have been established for this purpose are the Kebele Watershed Team and Community’s
Watershed sub-team. These two institutions are active and committed to coordinate the project.
At a woreda level, the Steering Committee (assembly of stakeholders) and the technical team
(mainly from the woreda land Administration office) were the major sources of building capacity
and opportunities to the success of the project. Besides, the predominance of young officials at
31
different offices of the stakeholders also gave an impetus to the project implementation in
Angacha Woreda.
In general, the coordination between the three level structures provided immense opportunities
and created capacity for the project in the last five years. However, there were some constraints
that challenged the success of the project in Angacha Woreda. Some of the members of the
Steering Committee, Technical Committee and FGD participant members of the community
claimed that the inadequacy of the necessary facilities (including office and office equipments,
and field vehicles), staff turnover (especially of experienced workers due to low pay and
incentives), logistics, delay in budget disbursement, and workloads of officials were some of the
institutional constraints of the project. With varying degree of seriousness, most of these
problems were also reported from other watershed woredas covered in this study
3.6. Land Acquisition and Compensation
As most of the participants in the community consultation affirmed, the project did not
expropriate much of the land and other assets of the farmers in the target kebeles. The only
reported case in this regard is in Qola Tenben Woreda of Tigray Regional State, where few
households who had unproductive land covering one-third of their holdings willingly put it under
the project until its productivity improved. Similarly, in the Assosa Zuria Woreda of
Benishangul-Gumz Regional State, farmers with their full consent ceded the eroded and
unproductive land to be treated by SLMP until its fertility is recovered. Then the land is brought
under communal and thus protected from grazing and other activities. The locals participate
during the recovering stage and for that they are paid 20 Birr per day. Some informants from
Gobu Sayyo Woreda indicated that, although at the outset they resisted management of
unproductive fields, they finally found it beneficial and started using products of trees and
communal grazing lands.
Therefore, the project office was not obliged to pay compensation and apply resettlement
schemes. However, to compensate their lost communal grazing land (albeit most of these lands
were rocky as in the case of Angacha Woreda), the project offered them equal chance of
benefiting from the elephant grass grown on these rehabilitated lands. This type of compensation
has been effective and seen as fair by most of the participants of the FGDs from members of
watershed associations. In relation to this, neither resettlement nor displacements was underway
in all project sites that are affected by the project in the catchment areas.
3.7. Proper Utilization of the Social Capital in the Catchments
Exploiting long-established and in-built traditional institutions and practices is deemed important
to enhance the implementation of SLMP-II. This social capital may take various forms such as:
32
institutions of self-help and mutual assistance; institutions of land and water resource
management; land-related dispute settlement mechanisms; and indigenous land use and
conservation knowledge and practice. Capitalizing on these social resources is essential to bring
about and maintain community involvement, which is a crucial element needed to institute SLM
firmly on the ground for broader and long-term strategic aims and goals.
3.7.1. Traditional Mutual/Self-Help Institutions
Traditional support systems (iddir, kire, debo, jiggie, wofera) may be capitalized on to strengthen
and expand SLM activities. Self-help groups such as iddir and kire are institutions which their
members fall back on in times of distress for assistance in kind or in cash. Thus, these
institutions come to the rescue of those in need like the bereaved, the sick, the elderly, and the
disabled, and may also be called on to assist in reconciling conflicts and differences. As for
mutual assistance groups (debo, jiggie, wofera), they are meant to serve as work parties to
mobilize labour exchange and reciprocation during peak agricultural seasons and occasions of
labour intensive work such as house and fence construction.
Ethiopians have a strong tradition of helping one another and getting organized in mutual and
self-help association of similar nature which are known by different names in various languages
spoken in the country. These include, among others, Iddir/Kire, Equb, Debo and Wofera4,
Mahiber, dehe and Sera (equivalent of debo and Iddir, respectively, among the Sidama), which
are the commonly used grassroots level traditional mutual and self-help institutions. In many
instances, an individual may be a member of two or more Iddirs, mahibers, or Equbs, depending
on what means he/she has at his/her disposal to meet the minimum membership requirement and
it, of course, widens one’s social support network and greater chances of risk aversion or
insurance against sickness and death of a family member. Recently, however, there are also
government introduced grassroots level organizations such as Yelimat buden (development
group/unit), which is organized by 20 to 30 people depending on the settlement pattern and
environmental condition of a given area. Even though the aforementioned traditional grassroots
level mutual and self-help institutions are still functioning, they are now seen as less effective by
the government structures and therefore dominated by the government introduced structures. But
still there were times when Iddirs were used by the local SLMP structures to make the
community, which was suspicious of the motive of the project when it started, understand the
objectives of the SLMP and secure their involvement in its implementation as was demonstrated
in Angacha Woreda SLMP-1 implementation.
4 A labor exchanging or sharing culture at the time of harvesting and threshing practiced in Qola Tenben Woreda.
33
3.7.2. Customary Land-related Dispute Settlement Institutions/Mechanisms
Customary institutions have traditionally played an important role in the settlement of disputes
involving rural land in the catchement areas. The designation and composition of these
customary/informal conflict mediation institutions may slightly vary between
regions/catchments. Community trust and respect are crucial requirements that mediators must
meet to be effective in land dispute settlement process. As a result, elders, family
councils/trusted relatives, religious leaders and iddirs have won increased community acceptance
and recognition in the settlement of land-related disputes. In fact, courts - regular as well as
quasi-formal – refer disputants to these institutions to seek resolution for their disagreements in
the first instance.
As shown by the results of the key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs),
held with community members in the catchments, a vast proportions of land-related disputes find
resolution in these institutions. This is attributed to the following perceived advantages of the
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms:
i. Because of their trust and confidence in the traditional dispute settlement institutions,
disputants are by and large the ones who take the initiative to reach a settlement
through these alternative mediation mechanisms. For this reason, they tend to
consider themselves bound to respect the decisions of the mediators, whatever the
outcome.
ii. Customary dispute resolution procedures minimize cost as well as time. In such cases,
financial and other costs incurred as result of appeals forcing disputes to pass through
all legal channels up to the highest level in the judicial system are avoided.
iii. These institutions also contribute to the lessening of the burden on the judicial system
by handling a vast portion of legal disputes which otherwise would have been seen in
the regular courts.
Rural Land Administration, Certification, and Land Use comprises one of the four components
of SLMP-II. In connection with this, customary land-related dispute settlement mechanisms such
as the council of elders of Angacha and Dega Damot Woreda, the Gutern (composed of
community leaders, elders and religious leaders and handles all types of conflict) of the Godare
and Mengeshi woredas, the Jaarsumma and Guma of Gubo Sayo and Dandi weredas, and the
council of religious leaders in Qola Tenben Woreda, to mention but a few, will contribute to the
smooth implementation of the Project in the settlement of potential disagreements arising from
the activities to be undertaken in this project component.
34
3.7.3. Indigenous Land Use and Conservation Knowledge and Practice
This study uncovered that the communities in and around the SLM project sites possess
indigenous knowledge and practices that have contributed a lot to the businesses of their daily
lives in general and to the success of the project in their respective areas in particular.
Accordingly, informants in Qola Tenben Woreda pointed out that they practiced indigenous
knowledge of using land and conservation techniques. For instance, the community in this site
discovered the importance of a plant locally known as momona (fihderbia albeda) that they use
for enhancing the fertility of the soil. Moreover, in the same community during the rainy season
peasants used to dig small canals crossing their plots of farm called megedi wuhig, to protect
their farms and soil from being eroded.
Similarly, in Assosa Woreda the community maintains local knowledge on how to conserve
natural resources and multiple ways of using land for different purposes. Some of these
indigenous knowledge are terracing, gully rehabilitation, shifting cultivation, crop rotation, and
fallowing are among the few to be mentioned. For instance, in Assosa Woreda the community
employed traditional land conservation methods called Gidad, which can be used to prevent
water runoff and soil erosion.
Furthermore, in Godare and Mengashi woredas of Gambella Region traditional land use and
conservation knowledge and practices are widely used in SLM project. For instance, the
Majenger people have traditional knowledge and institution in forestland management and forest
protection. They have also a local institution called the “Jung”, for governing forestland
distribution and ownership assurance among the community.
In addition, in the Dega Damot project site peasants used indigenous knowledge on communal
grazing lands to use it for a longer time and grazed by large number of livestock. They
mentioned that from the beginning of June up to the first half of September they do not allow
their livestock to openly graze on the whole area of such a land. Instead, they divide the grazing
area into different sections and they allow grazing on a shift basis.
Similarly, the Gobu Sayo Woreda community has effective and time-tested knowledge and
practices of replenishing soil fertility, erosion protection, and forest and tree management.
However, the practice of using indigenous knowledge is gradually declining due to shortage of
arable land and the subsequent effects of deforestation, land degradation, low fertility, and poor
productivity.
On the other hand, for the traditional land use and conservation knowledge in the newly launched
projects like Dandi and Mao-Komo, it is premature at this stage to draw any conclusion that they
are excluded or implemented in integration with project manuals.
35
By way of commenting on the potential contribution of the traditional land use and conservation
practices to the SLMP project, one can safely argue that although the project does not contradict
with these knowledge and practices, it has not used them at least during the first phase of the
project life primarily because the project implementation relies on the written guidelines for
implementation and evaluation.
3.8. Cooperative Societies as a Vehicle for Enhanced Access to Marketing and Credit
Vibrant cooperative organisations are considered a vehicle for sustainable agricultural
development which, in turn, closely correlates with sustainable land management. Higher
productivity of smallholder farmers is an important goal of agricultural development, which
leads to the achievement of food security through increased food production and distribution. In
the Ethiopian context, where narrowing down the gap between food supply and demand is a
high priority issue, increased agricultural production depends largely on raising the productivity
of both the land and the farmers. In this process, farmers need to be supported to make small-
scale investment on agriculture and improve the levels of their consumption.
Promoting cooperatives and organizing farmers under multi-purpose agricultural cooperatives is
essential to mobilize resources scattered across individual households. Establishing marketing
cooperatives is of paramount importance to farmers in facilitating market access for their
products and maximising their profits by avoiding their dependence on exploitative and
profiteering intermediaries. Marketing cooperatives may be established at micro watershed level
and serve the membership as conduits for the buying and selling of inputs and outputs.
Saving and credit cooperatives can be instrumental in enabling smallholder farmers in the
catchments to cope with seasonal financial constraints that are common in the rural areas. The
objective of these cooperatives is to pool idle and sterile money held by potential cooperative
members and invest it on improving production and productivity. However, the aim of such
cooperatives goes beyond the removal of financial constraints that smallholder farmers may
experience. The provision of credit also facilitates conditions for the adoption of new farm
technologies. Along with saving and credit cooperatives, micro finance institutions meant to
cater for agricultural service cooperatives in the watersheds can contribute to the success of SLM
initiatives. Hence, although banks are known to play a big role in providing loans, it is important
to increase the availability credit through the expansion of micro finance institutions, because of
their flexibility and responsiveness to the needs and circumstances of the local population.
Social assessment study data show that practices vary between regions in this regard. The
Amhara Credit and Saving Institutions try to address economic needs of women by providing
loan to female-headed households. Nonetheless, due to the subsistence nature of agricultural
36
production, borrowers often fail to pay their debts. The existing economic organizations such as
Community Watershed Saving Association, Oromia Saving and Credit Association, and
Farmers’ cooperatives (providing fertilizer and pesticides) that put in place by the government
are meant to address both men’s and women’s economic problems/needs equally. In practice,
however, men are making use of the lion’s share of the services, and the prevailing stiff
competition over loan has reduced women’s chance to address their economic concerns.
Thus, informal credit establishments have a large part to play in promoting sustained production
through sustainable land management. As a result, these establishments offer practical benefits to
smallholder farmers, as well as to women, youths, and artisans (potters, weavers, tanners) in the
catchments. In many of the previously launched project sites, there are different economic
organizations that are intended to alleviate economic problems of women. For instance, in
Enbese Sarmidir and Dega Damot woredas, Equb (rotating credit association) is the main
traditional economic institution through which women in the area support each other. Other
institutions such as the Mahiber, Iddirs and Senbete are essentially intended to address social
matters although they also have some economic functions by helping members who face certain
economic difficulties.
In Dandi and Gobu Sayo woredas, the efforts made by the Women Affairs Offices to organize
women in self-help groups through personal savings and linkage to saving and credit
associations were not successful. However, in Dandi Woreda a local NGO called HUNDEE:
Oromo Grassroots Development Initiatives organizes women into small and micro-groups,
initiates own savings and finally provides seed money depending on accumulated capital from
their own savings and strength of the groups and their leadership. In addition, it provides heifer
for the poorest of the poor women through traditional dabaree (literally, taking turns) system.
When this heifer gives birth to heifer, it will be transferred to another poor woman in their
locality.
In Hawassa Zuria Woreda, there is a Bulchitu Women’s Association, which engages in the
production and marketing of basketry works to address the concerns of its members. This
association produces handicrafts made of silk-thread and sell them in the woreda capital, Dore
Bafana. However, in some other project sites such as Mengeshi, Godare, Qola Tenben, Atsibi
Wonberta, Assosa, Mao Komo and Angacha Woredas, there are no organizations that meant to
address women’s economic concerns.
3.9. Women Involvement in the Project
The rational behind considering of gender issues in this project is that men and women not only
play different roles in society with distinct levels of control over resources, but they often have
different needs too. It is, therefore, important to treat gender issues as an integrated development
37
strategy to reverse natural resource depletion in general, and combat land degradation in
particular. Thus, to address gender inequalities, it is of crucial importance to take into account
the particular needs of women in the framework of sustained land management promotion.
The field data were consistent in showing active role of women in the SLMP activities, both in
the planning and implementation processes. In Angacha Woreda of SNNPR, the focal person of
the woreda asserted that the main target of the project was to empower the people of the district
in general and the most vulnerable women in particular. As a result, the project incorporated 30
percent of women of the target kebeles. Married, widowed and separated women were involved
in the SLM project of the Woreda and have become active participants from the beginning to the
end. Other women informants interviewed not only concurred with the view of the focal person,
but emphasized that they have been benefitting from the project on equal basis with men
participants of the project.
Similarly, women in the Qola Tenben SLM project areas are also encouraged to play an active
role in the scheme’s endeavors in their locality at the tabia, and sub- tabia (qushet) levels. In this
project area, women have a say via their representatives in the steering committees of the SLMP.
Similarly, in the project site of Assosa, like men, women were consulted both prior to the
introduction of the project and during the implementation process. For instance, in Assosa SLMP
the project lends money for women who use it to fatten cattle, sheep, goats and produce crop and
vegetables. Moreover, women, like their men counterparts, actively take part in conserving lands
that are brought under communal use for which they are paid. In relation to this, women decision
making power is said to have been enhanced at the household because they become
economically more independent.
In spite of this, however, elderly and disabled women who could not engage in physical work,
were not beneficiaries of the project. This is because the project’s policy is biased in favour of
those who are physically capable participating in the project. The project left almost empty space
providing cash or material support for those who could not/were not able to participate in the
project. Moreover, although there is growing demand of participation from the side of women,
budgetary constraints held up the project to meet those claims and take account of them.
3.10. Non/off farm employment
The dominant agricultural enterprises in Ethiopia in all agro-ecological zones are small-scale
farms in the highlands and livestock rearing in the lowlands. Although agriculture remains the
primary occupation for the majority of the working population in rural Ethiopia, the non/off-arm
employment sector also makes considerable contributions to the income base of rural households
38
in the country. Accordingly, non/off-farm participation rates in overall non-farm enterprises
(NFEs) are on the rise.
An enabling policy environment is also a very important factor for non/off-farm development.
The Government of Ethiopia’s Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP 2010/11-2014/15)
incorporates NFE development in its strategy:
In addition, those who have very small plots and landless youth and women will be
encouraged to engage in non-farm income generating activities with adequate support in
terms of preparing packages, provision of skill and business management trainings,
provision of credit and facilitating markets, so that they can ensure their food security
(GTP:23)
The predominance of agriculture as a livelihood system for the rural population in Ethiopian has
continued to exacerbate land degradation and the depletion of the natural resources, including
forest reserves. In addition, high population growth rates in the rural areas are beyond the level
where agriculture can any longer absorb the expanding workforce there. On the other hand,
livelihood opportunities related to or outside of the agricultural sector are so limited that they can
at best employ only a small fraction of the excess workforce. The implication of this
phenomenon is that limited availability of livelihood options other than farming and the
consequent reliance on natural resources results in further degradation. It is also worth noting
that, even with intensification, agriculture cannot be expected to absorb the growing number of
the rural unemployed and underemployed women and youths. In this context, non/off-farm
employment enterprise development presents itself as an indispensable alternative for the
alleviation of the situation. Besides absorbing part the growing rural workforce, non/off-farm
employment contributes to household income growth, thereby reducing the pressure on land and
enhancing SLM.
Relevant research suggests that the non/off-farm component in the livelihood portfolio of the
rural poor needs to be developed and expanded as a strategy to diversify income sources other
than agriculture. This has a direct implication for SLM. One of the main ways to ease pressure
on land is by reducing action on it. In this respect, non/off-farm employment development not
only contributes to the diversification of income streams, but it also provides farmers with the
resources they need to improve farm productivity and ensure livelihood sustainability.
In view of this, non-farm activities that produce agricultural inputs (micro and small-scale rural
enterprises putting out farm tools and accessories); that process agricultural outputs for domestic
consumption and export; and that manufacture handicrafts produce for urban and foreign markets
can contribute significantly to rural income diversification and investment potential towards
realising SLM.
39
Social assessment in the sample woredas/watersheds shows that people in the catchments are
engaged in non/off-farm activities such as grain milling, tannery, weaving, basketry,
blacksmithing, petty trade, cart transport, supplying of construction materials like sand and stone,
sale of local drinks like Tella and Arake (home made beer and liquor, respectively), and
agriculture-based income generating activities (beekeeping5, animal fattening, poultry,
fodder/forage development. Being labour intensive, these non-off-farm activities can be
supported and nurtured to generate employment, income, skill transfers, goods and services, as
well as reducing income disparities among the rural population.
Concerted effort must, therefore, be made to foster the development of off/non-farm enterprises
through rural employment programs. In this connection, SLMP-II encompasses a program sub-
component on ‘Homestead Development, Livelihood Improvement and Community
Infrastructure’. The main objective of the program sub-component is to expand livelihood
opportunities in the selected woredas/watersheds through income generation and value addition
activities. To this end, the program sub-component extends support in the construction and
rehabilitation of community access roads, irrigation and water conservation work, reclamation of
wasteland to increase the size of cultivable land, value chain development and product
marketing, livestock improvement, fodder/forage development, food and income diversification,
water and soil management, and promoting fuel saving and efficient energy technology.
With the view to fostering non/off-farm enterprise development, it is vital to undertake capacity
building work aimed at developing the skills and awareness of the rural population in SLM
relevant areas. In this regard, the provision of applied skill trainings to people in the watersheds,
especially women and youths, will expand their marketable skill sets and job opportunities. The
trainings will increase their awareness of private sector opportunities, enhance their business
management know-how and operational competence, and encourage them to take calculated
risks to embark on non-farm activities as self-employed entrepreneurs, thereby improving their
income earnings and quality of life.
Successful involvement in non/off-farm activities can further be fostered through expanded
access to financial support in the form of credit to community members in the catchments. There
is a need to make sure that the credit supply is dynamic, flexible and responsive to the needs and
circumstances of individual and group borrowers. This helps to encourage small-scale
entrepreneurs to invest time and money in new non/off-farm opportunities.
Institutional innovation is another important way to boost non/off-farm enterprise development
by crating access to benefits for those engaged in such activities. The establishment of producers
and marketing cooperatives is one of the ways to make this happen. Included among the
5 Beekeeping is the major non/off-farm economic activity in Godare and Mengeshi Woredas of Gambella Regional
State.
40
advantages of cooperatives are lower transaction cost of inputs and outputs, improved product
grades and standards, and higher bargaining powers of producers over prices.
Encouraging value addition is an important aspect of non/off-farm enterprise development. This
involves enabling entrepreneurs to add value to raw products by transforming them into semi-
processed or fully processed goods. There are ample opportunities for entrepreneurs engaged in
agriculture-related non-farm activities to add such value to produces of agricultural origin. Value
adding activities offer multiple advantages in the form of better quality products and services,
longer shelf life of products, stronger bargaining power of producers, and increased market
demand among quality conscious prospective consumers. Not least, value addition is also crucial
to the creation and expansion of employment and income opportunities.
4. Risks and Mitigating Measures
4.1. Anticipated Risks
The government has embarked on the adoption of a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE)
strategy, launched in Durban in December 2011. The CRGE strategy proposes the attainment of a
carbon neutral economy by 2025. However, there could be a backlash if the country fails to
successfully promote the agenda in the medium-term.
A number of development partners have shown willingness to provide support to the Ethiopian
Government’s SLM program. The funds are to be administered by the World Bank through a trust
fund arrangement. As experience has shown, challenges may be encountered in the coordination of
activities with donor-supported programs outside of SLMP-II.
The capacity to coordinate, facilitate, and implement SLM-related activities may be reasonably
adequate at federal and regional levels. This is, however, thought to be lacking at woreda and
grassroots levels. The deficiencies are related to implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and
knowledge generation and management, among others. The risk is aggravated by frequent staff
turnovers as a result of poor motivation, low remuneration, and inadequate incentive schemes. To
cite as an example, there is only one project focal person/coordinator for twelve watershed sites in
Assosa Woreda of Benishangul-Gumz Region. In view of the rough terrain and the distances
between the watersheds, it is difficult for a single focal person to manage the project. Local
government employees who participate in the project as steering and technical committee members
tend to view involvement in the project secondary to their regular work, which is a further risk factor
for the implementation of SLMP-II at the woreda and grassroots levels.
When SLMP-I was introduced five years ago, the local people were concerned regarding the
treatment of their degraded lands in communal enclosure for fear of possible expropriation.
41
However, these suspicions were later dispelled through awareness creation, and the local
communities readily embraced and supported the Program. This does not, of course, meant that there
may not be similar suspicions and fears in the newly selected woredas/watersheds, and so awareness
and confidence building measures need to be taken and stepped up to deal with such risks.
4.2. Mitigating Measures
SLMP-II is planned to finance community infrastructure development and income generating
activities as one part of the Integrated Watershed and Landscape Management component of the
Project, which is expected to result in the reduction of land degradation at the community level. The
project design involves community mobilization and consultation as strategies to sensitize affected
communities on how to collaborate closely with engineers and other technical personnel who play
the main role in the execution of specific project activities. It is anticipated that community
mobilizations and consultations will contribute to promoting community trust and reducing
skepticism particularly in the initial stage of the project, which is a key factor in ensuring community
participation.
The project also incorporates capacity development and institutional strengthening activities for
relevant stakeholders: public sector organization, academia and research institutions, rural
communities and smallholder farmers in the areas of sustainable watershed management and
protection, land and water management, biodiversity conservation, and climate smart agricultural
activities. These stakeholders are thus expected to become well-informed about participatory
approach, and take an active part in project implementation. Moreover, they will be able to play a
role in making sure that beneficiaries of the project as well as those affected by are aware of the
impacts and implications of the project. Participatory methods are known to facilitate community
mobilization and involvement in contributing toward effective project management all the way
through the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation phases.
Lessons learned from SLMP-I suggest that livelihood improvement activities are crucially important
to sustainable land management for the benefit of target communities. Accordingly, SLMP-II will be
designed to incorporate livelihood activities in a manner that is adapted to local condition of project
communities, to assist them practice income generating activities in environmentally friendly and
sustainable manner. This social assessment is conducted to use the output in making the project
responsive to social development concerns and will contribute toward directing project benefits to
poor and vulnerable groups, while mitigating risks and adverse impacts. The social assessment
includes gender analysis to focus on gender issues so as to give proper consideration to women’s
role in rural land management.
SLMP-I has not triggered OP 4.12 because it was envisaged that the implementation of the sub-
projects would not result in the loss of land to community members. However, SLMP-II may have
42
minimal site specific such impacts, with insignificant adverse social effect. In recognition of project
activities related to land rehabilitation, civil works, treatment of gully sites, and community
infrastructure development, OP 4.12 will be triggered as a precautionary measure for which reason a
Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) will be prepared and disclosed.
5. Lessons Learned
The preparation of SLMP-II is informed by the lessons drawn from SLMP-I and other similar
initiatives implemented by the Ethiopian Government.
The demand-driven bottom-up approach adopted under SLMP-I has proved relevant to natural
resources management and local development in the rural context in Ethiopia. This development
approach which enables communities to have a say in their affairs, determine priorities, actively
participate in need identification, project planning, development and implementation is greatly
valued by both beneficiary communities and local authorities. However, there still seems to be a
great need for enhanced support in the areas of technical design to implement local development
initiatives such as the design of roads and irrigation schemes, physical and biological rehabilitation
practices, business development and planning, off-farm income generation, market information, and
providing alternatives for the management of identified development problems.
The need to build sustainable institutions at grassroots can never be overemphasized, since they are
crucial for the delivery of service and the attainment of project objectives. Lessons from SLMP-I
show that the quality of project implementation and obtained outcomes were highest where local
implementation structures were established, nurtured, and sustained through targeted capacity
building work, and proper reward and incentive schemes were put in place. Moreover, the active
engagement of woreda leadership in project management was found to be vital to the success of the
project in many of SLMP-I woredas. However, frequent change of woreda leaders is a main
challenge experienced. Hence, there is a serious need to create a system and institutional memory for
effective knowledge generation and management by woreda leaders and sectoral office heads. It is
also important to organize regular experience sharing visits between woredas to enable smooth
transfer of knowledge and sills across project communities.
In the early years of SLMP-I, project implementation was constrained by inadequate M&E capacity
and high staff turnover at woreda level. One of the reasons is that project staff at woreda level felt
that they were not sufficiently motivated and incentivized to properly execute their responsibilities
and deliver quality work. As a mitigating measure, it is necessary to find ways and means of hiring
and placing high calibre staff at woreda and regional levels.
SLM should be considered an integral part of rural development, and a more holistic approach is
needed to support livelihood development in rural communities. Rural households face various
constraints to grow their income and make their livelihoods sustainable. The constraints include:
lack of new ideas and knowledge on income generation; lack of access to new technologies; absence
43
of value addition to increase the shelf life of products for better marketing; and limited access to
production inputs and markets. Under SLMP-I, sufficient attention and financial resource were not
devoted to promoting livelihood options and enhancing household income. Moreover, savings and
credit schemes were not included in SLMP-I. SLMP-II should therefore give emphasis to livelihood
promotion, household income growth, and the investment of savings on productive activities.
Although SLMP-I incorporated gender mainstreaming strategy, it was, however, not implemented
properly. Still, women were adequately represented in local implementation structures. But they
barely maintained leadership positions. Yet, they benefited from the project in most instances. For
example, they were given preferential treatment in the allocation of rehabilitated lands. SLMP-II is
planned to encompass a gender mainstream strategy developed on the basis of the results of gender
analysis designed to ensure their participation and access to benefits in a fair and equitable manner.
6. Possible Risks, Challenges and Recommendations
This section aims to achieve two things. First, to briefly summarize the potential implementation
risks and challenges, and secondly, based on this it proposes the way forward to mitigate those risks
and address the identified challenges.
6.1. Possible Risks and Challenges
The table below presents a summary of possible risks and challenges related to SLMP II by Project
component.
Component Potential risks and Challenges Recommendations
Component 1:
Integrated
Watershed and
Landscape
Management
Focuses on supporting
smallholder farmers to scale up
and adopt best-fit sustainable
land and water management
technologies and practices.
Hence, there is a possible
risk/challenge of not properly
addressing the circumstances of
population groups such as hunters
and gatherers, who peruse
peculiar livelihood systems and
natural resource management
strategies.
The creation of benefit streams
through markets and other
market-based instruments like
results-based payments involve
the risk/challenge of not properly
taking into account the
circumstances of the elderly,
disabled, and poor members of
Devise a mechanism to include hunters and
gathers’ livelihood strategies into the SLMP
program. One example is their traditional
beekeeping, though largely takes the form of
wild honey collection, which can be integrated
into the SLMP activities, but with an injection
of modern beekeeping technology as the latter is
more productive, sustainable and
environmentally friendly.
It is recommended that the project, through
consultation with the beneficiary communities,
devise possible mechanisms on how to make the
old, the sick and disabled benefit from the
project even when they might not afford to
contribute either labour or cash to the project
implementation. For example, the elderly people
can be used as advisors, the disabled as
44
the community.
Watershed community saving is
part of the project activities that
helps Users’ Groups who
voluntarily organize themselves
to engage in IGA suitable to their
respective environment. In
principle membership is open to
all members, but the minimum
cash contribution and active
participation requirement to run
the IGA leaves out some
members of the community. This
involves the risk of further
marginalizing the vulnerable
groups.
Female household heads may
face the risk of not benefiting
from the Project in equal measure
with male counterparts because
of not being able to balance their
domestic responsibilities with
their project-related role in the
treatment of communal lands.
timekeepers, etc.
The project should devise a mechanism (e.g.,
interest free loan) by which watershed
community members who are likely to be left
out due to the inability to meet the minimum
membership requirement can also benefit from
the scheme.
Especial support needs to be provided to women
playing the dual role of mothers and household
heads, and active participation in the Project
with male community members. Arrangements
may be made in consultations with watershed
committees in this respect. Suggested ways to
help them balance their competing
responsibilities may be allowing them to a
certain number of hours or days off from the
minimum required time of labour contribution
to the Project.
Component 2: Institutional
Strengthening,
Capacity
Development
and Knowledge
Generation and
Management
Lessons learned from SLMP I
show that inadequate attention to
the use of locally available social
capital such as indigenous
knowledge systems, time-tested
adaptation strategies, and
community based traditional
institutions constitutes a risk that
can undermine the potential
positive roles the latter might
play as grievance redress
mechanisms during the
implementation of SLMP
activities.
Traditional institutions of self-help and dispute
settlement mechanism are well embedded into
the social fabric of the Ethiopian society. It is
highly recommended that locally available
social capital, which takes the form of
traditional institutions of self-help and dispute
settlement mechanisms, be used as community
mobilization and grievance redress mechanisms
to facilitate and speed up the implementation of
relevant project components and sub-
components.
Component 3:
Rural Land
Administration,
Certification and
Land Use
The implementation of the
‘Rural Land Administration and
Certification’ sub-component
should not be based on wholesale
or universal application in all
Project woredas. This is because
population groups in the
historically underserved project
3. Care needs to be exercised to make sure that the
‘Rural Land Administration and Certification’
sub-component of the Project is not
implemented on wholesale basis in all Project
woredas/watersheds, and instead takes into
account the unique landholding and land use
characteristics of the historically underserved
45
woredas/watersheds exercise
livelihood strategies that require
peculiar landholding and land use
arrangements from those of
smallholder farming
communities. However,
implementing the sub-component
without due regard for these
peculiarities may entail a risk that
interferes with smooth project
implementation.
As previous experience shows,
there is also the risk of female
household heads losing their land
that they have leased to
sharecroppers, who can register
the plots in their name for
certification against the terms of
the sharecropping agreements.
population groups in the developing regional
states (DRS).
4. The Project should consider consolidating
grassroots institutions such as rural land dispute
adjudication and grievance redress structures.
Strengthening such establishments plays an
important role in making sure that women who
lease their land in sharecropping arrangements
will not unfairly lose their landholding rights as
a result of the breach of agreements in the land
registration and certification process.
Component 4: Project
Management
Inadequate project
implementation capacity was
reported in the
woredas/watersheds visited for
this social assessment. The
capacity-related problems
resulted from the shortage or
absence of human resource. In
many woredas/watersheds, only
one project focal person was
assigned to coordinate the
Project, resulting in hard pressure
of work. In addition, it was
observed that members of the
steering committees drawn from
different sector offices showed
the tendency of regarding their
role in the project as secondary to
their regular job commitments.
Moreover, in some of the project
woredas/watersheds, constraints
related to facilities (shortage of
vehicles and motorcycles) and
delay in the release of project
budget were reported to have
negatively affected the process of
project implementation.
3. It is crucially important to staff the project
implementing units with the right mix of
experts at all levels. This may be done by
hiring professionals and introducing an
incentive mechanism to motivate and retain
the personnel from different sector offices
assigned to support the Project as Steering
Committee members.
4. Lack of facilities such as filed vehicles and
motorcycles is reported to have adversely
affected the conduct of regular watershed
site visits and on-site observation and
follow-up of project implementation. Proper
attention should therefore be given to
providing regional and woreda Project staff
46
with the necessary facilities to enable theme
regularly visit watershed sites and
effectively monitor project execution.
47
Annex I: Checklist for Discussion in the Social Assessment Study
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Sustainable Land Management Project Phase II
Social Assessment Study
Interview Guide:
Woreda and kebele officials, woreda SLMP structures, elders, women, youth, poor, and
other underserved people):
1. What are the social and cultural features that differentiate social groups in the project area?
What are their effects on the different social groups?
2. What capacity constraints/limitations are evident on the part of the target communities that
may result in minimal participation in the project and not benefiting from it?
3. Who are the key stakeholders of this project? How may these groups and the project affect
each other in the course of project implementation?
4. What social mobilization strategies were adopted to galvanize community support and
involvement?
5. What grievance procedures exist for individuals/groups to express their complaints? Are
these procedures/mechanisms effective? If yes, in what way? What are the strengths and
constraints of the grievance procedures?
6. Grass root local institutions in the catchment:
i. What farmer organizations exist in the catchment? Do they exercise collective power
to negotiate or influence the project towards their needs and interests? If yes, in what
ways?
ii. What traditional institutions of land/resource/water management exist in the
catchment? How do these contribute to the project? How does the project make use of
such structures?
iii. What traditional land-related dispute settlement institutions/mechanisms exist in the
catchment? How do you see their role in addressing complaints that might arise in
relation to the project (in the event of land acquisition, border disputes)?
48
iv. What traditional land use and conservation knowledge and practice exist in the
catchment? How does the project utilize such resources?
v. What traditional institutions/self-help groups/mutual aid associations/and work
parties exist and function in the catchment with direct or indirect role/involvement in
the project? In what ways do they affect the project (Probe for possible positive and
negative impact)?
7. Are there any known conflicts among different groups that may affect project
implementation? If yes, what possible mechanisms can be used to address the problem?
Officials (Regional, Woreda and Kebele SLMP structures, DAs):
1. Who are the most vulnerable and underserved groups in the SLMP Woreda? (Probe for the
poor; the poorest of the poor; women and children; the elderly; the disabled; female-headed
households; underserved ethnic groups)
2. Do you think the project is inclusive and equitably supportive of vulnerable and underserved
populations? If yes, how so? If no, why so? What special measures are being taken to
promote equitable access to project benefits?
3. What level of capacity and facilities exist in grassroots government structures to support
project implementation? In what ways can low capacity and poor facilities contribute to
further marginalize and exacerbate dependency of vulnerable groups?
4. What mechanisms/methods were employed to enhance community participation?
5. What relevant grassroots (catchment/watershed) structures are in place whereby the
community articulates its needs and concerns regarding the project?
6. What types of non-farm activities (agriculture-related/non-agricultural) carried out in the
catchment? Who are engaged in such activities?
7. What are the socially relevant results of the project (Probe for poverty reduction, equity and
inclusion, strengthening of social capital and social cohesion)?
8. What are the possible risks and adverse impacts of the project? How are especially the
vulnerable and underserved groups affected by these risks?
9. What risk mitigation/minimization measures have been devised to deal with such anticipated
adverse impacts?
10. What project-induced consequences are anticipated to affect the local population (Probe for:
displacement, loss of land and other assets)?
11. What compensation/resettlement measures are designed in case of these consequences?
49
12. What mechanisms exist for obtaining feedback from the grassroots communities on the
benefits and drawbacks of the program?
13. What type of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is in place? What are the strengths
and constraints of the M&E system?
14. What are the challenges and lessons learned from the implementation of Phase I?
Community Groups (elders, women, youth, poor, and other underserved people)
1. Are there persons/community groups who are/will be adversely affected by or particularly
benefiting from project activities? If yes, who are these? In what ways are they adversely or
positively affected? In your opinion, what are the best ways to address the adverse impacts?
2. Were grassroots communities consulted about the project? What was the process followed?
Was their consent secured before the launch? If yes, in way? How did the vulnerable and
underserved groups participate in the project?
3. In what way are women involved in the project? Do they benefit from program activities? If
yes, how? Or are they at a disadvantage as a result of the project? If yes, how?
4. What types of economic organizations (saving and credit cooperatives, service cooperatives,
microfinance institutions) in the catchment, especially for women and the poor? How do
these organizations link up with the project?
5. What are the socially relevant results of the project (Probe for poverty reduction, equity and
inclusion, strengthening of social capital and social cohesion)?
6. What are the possible risks and adverse impacts of the project? How are especially the
vulnerable and underserved groups affected by these risks?
7. What risk mitigation/minimization measures have been devised to deal with such anticipated
adverse impacts?
8. What project-induced consequences are anticipated to affect the local population (Probe for:
displacement, loss of land and other assets)?
9. What compensation/resettlement measures are designed in case of these consequences?
10. What are the challenges and lessons learned from the implementation of Phase I?
THANK YOU!
50
Annex II: Community Consultation Attendance Sheet
Amhara
51
52
Benishangul –Gumz
53
54
55
Gambella
56
57
58
Oromia
59
60
61
62
63
SNNP
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Tigray
72
73
74
75
76