Baseline Report for the Productive Safe Net Program, Ethiopia

Individual Household Method (IHM) Productive Safe Net Program(PSNP) Baseline Report

Ethiopia: Tadesh and Wobel Kebele, Asagirt Wodera 2nd to 13th December 2019

Simon Longa Evaluation Advisor (Zambia)

Table of Contents: Table of Contents:.................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. iii Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.0. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Main Highlights of Findings .............................................................................................. 6 2.0. Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 9 3.0. Methodology - The IHM Approach................................................................................ 11 3.1. The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) IHM baseline Survey .......................... 12 4.0. Study Findings: ............................................................................................................ 14 4.1. Definitions of Key concepts of the IHM approach ....................................................... 14 4.2. IHM Study Results ........................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1. Household Profiling: Demography ............................................................................. 18 4.2.2. Household Profiling: Assets and Disposable Income ................................................ 20 4.2.3. Household Disposable, SToL and Income by Source ............................................... 23 4.2.3.1. Household Disposable and SToL – Tadesh and Wobel Kebeles .......................... 23 4.2.3.2. Sources of Household Food and Cash Income in Tadesh and Wobel Kebeles ... 26 5.1. Households Food Security.............................................................................................. 29 7.0 Main Findings, Broad Conclusions and Proposed next steps .................................. 31 Annexes : IHM Assessment Team ................................................................................................. 34

ii

Acknowledgements First and foremost, the SHA Ethiopia would like to express their deepest appreciation to the donor Irish Aid for making available funds for the implementation of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Asagirt woreda so as to contribute to sustained food and nutrition security for chronically and transitory food insecure (vulnerable) rural of 1500 households in rural Ethiopia. At the same time making funds available for the benchmarking of important impact level indicators using the Individual Household Method(IHM). The assessment and report would not have been possible without the contribution and support of enumerators who worked very well under the supervision the Self Help Africa (SHA) Evaluation Advisor and the in-country Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, all of whom worked tirelessly to complete the data collection.

Special thanks go to the women and men from: Tadesh Kebele – in Timhrtbet, Mahibere and Laygur Villages, and Wobel Kebele – in Enbuacho village who willingly took time out during their activities to participate in the assessment.

Being an IHM baseline report for the project. It is hoped that it will influence the adoption of appropriate and sustainable livelihood interventions for the communities targeted in the PSNP project in Asirgit Wodera.

iii

Acronyms ANRS: Amhara National Regional State DI: Disposable Income DI/AE: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent EfD: Evidence for Development ETB: Ethiopian Birr FHH: Female Headed Household Ha: Hectares HH: Household IA: Irish Aid IHM: Individual Household Method LHZ : Livelihoods Zone Masl : Metres above sea level PSNP : Productive Safety Net Program SHA: Self Help Africa SToL: Standard of Living

4

1.0. Executive Summary The PSNP or otherwise called Unleashing the productive capacity of poor people through Graduation Approach is 2.5 years (July 2019 – December 2021) project located in Asagirt Woreda, North Shewa Zone, Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) and is implemented with funding from Irish Aid(IA). The government executing agency being the North Shewa Zone of ANRS Department of Finance & Economic Cooperation, and ANRS of North Shewa Zone Agricultural and Natural Resource Department through the partnership with Self Help Africa (SHA) who are the implementing agency. The project targets as total of 1,500 poor people under 300 PSNP beneficiary households (% 50 female) The general objective of the project is to contribute to sustained food and nutrition security for chronically and transitory food insecure (vulnerable) rural households in rural Ethiopia. The project’s specific objective is to graduate 600 chronically food insecure households from the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) food support in Asagirt woreda and strengthen their resiliency to cope with income and food related shocks.

Under this project, Livelihood zone mapping was conducted from18-21 August 2019 at Asagirt Woreda. Which has done for the aim of clearly get the in-depth of livelihood zone for evidence of addressing the improvement of food and nutrition security. In addition, understanding the local context of agriculture and its productivity, development constraints and existing resource which helpful for livelihood improvement. And also, assessed the wealth status of different economic class among local community include poor, in-between and better off.

As a build up the LHZ exercise, The IHM study was conducted between 2nd to 13th December,2019 with the aim of establishing baseline information for indicators that will be used as a basis for assessing the project performance. The project adopted the Individual Household Method (IHM), a practical tool developed by Evidence for Development, which is designed to obtain reliable estimates of income from individual households for the purposes of monitoring, evaluation and where appropriate, improving programme interventions. The IHM baseline survey covered the agricultural year November 2018 – October 2019 and included a total of 98 households with 43 households interviewed in the Tadesh Kebele and 55 households interviewed in Wobel Kebele.

The IHM study was conducted to establish baseline data on the following project outcomes indicators: • Increased average disposable income

5

•

•

And equally understand the drivers of sustained food and nutrition insecurity for chronically and transitory food insecure households (Mostly in the lower quintiles 1&2), and. come with conclusions and recommendations on how to improve programme implementation

Below are summarised highlights on key findings on each of the above survey objectives: 1.1. Main Highlights of Findings Average disposable income per adult equivalent The results above show that in both Kebeles, the poorest, are exhibiting a negative disposable income of ETB -543(€16.6). Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose between purchase of a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household. Overall, the weighted average disposable income for those in the lower quintiles (1&2) is not more that ETB 418 (Approximately €13) across the Kebeles and the better offs being ETB 25150(approximately €769). Note also that the weighted average disposable income for all of the poorest and the better off households even reduces further to ETB 6998(about €205).

Minimum food intake per adult equivalent based on 2,100 kilo calories per person per day Overall findings of the study demonstrate that 21% (20HHs) of households were unable to meet their minimum food energy requirements during the reference year comprised of 12 HHs in Tadesh Kebele and eight in Wobel Kebele. Large household sizes, poor soil conditions, frost, hailstorms and limited land contributed to the inability to produce adequate food income from households’ own crops (the main source of household food in the sampled Kebeles). However, 79% of households surveyed met their minimum food intake requirements during their reference year.

Disposable income below minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 39% (37 HHs) of households (18 in Tadesh and 19 in Wobel) did not have sufficient cash income to cover the cost of the basic minimum for non-food items to ensure a minimum standard of living and avoid social exclusion. These households were thus described as below the minimum standard of living threshold during the reference year. Together the results from these two findings indicate that the pattern of poverty (measured by the ability of a household to meet its minimum food intake and afford a basic basket of non-food goods) is relatively high for the people in these areas.

6

Proportion of Households above minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 61% (57 HHs) of all households (24 in Tadesh and 33 in Wobel) had sufficient cash and food income to both cover household energy requirements and to purchase basic non-food items within the minimum local standard of living basket. These households were thus described as above the minimum standard of living threshold.

Broad Conclusions Generally, as can be evidenced through data analysis and as evidenced on the ground most of the households in these kebele are faced with exceedingly difficult situations which continue to impact negatively on their general livelihoods security. These factors range from a combination of fragility to climatic viability (prone to frost and poor soil type), lack of access to affordable agricultural inputs, lack of access to adequate land, limited diversified sources of income (food and cash), plus other factors continue to limit production for both food and cash incomes for these households. Hence, these households are living in constant threat to their food security and have to continue depending on assistance from Government and other agencies. Even though from the results 61% can be said to have been food secure in the baseline year under discussion, there are still 39% of the total households that did not have sufficient disposable income to cover their minimum requirement for non-food items so as to reach a basic and acceptable standard of living.

Of concern to the project are the low crop and livestock production, limited income (Cash and food) diversified sources, coupled with low productive asset endowment and how this would affect the PSNP implementation graduation model. These factors among many others need to be addressed during the project implementation.

Next Steps – Proposed Interventions Summarized below are proposed interventions.

What was found Proposed Intervention How and Why Households with Low disposable Enhanced Access to financial • Primarily linked with financial income and those below the services (credit, loans, institutions as such opportunity standard of living threshold savings, insurance enabling them to create new (mainly Quintile 1&2) and payment services) business options and increase income source.

Less diversification of food Nutrition activities which • The integration of nutrition income sources with a high include training, messaging messaging, trainings, cooking dependence on crops and cooking demonstrations demonstrations would assist in are part of the project averting this challenge interventions

7

Limited access to adequate land Create more livelihood • (hectares). options like off farm activities( petty trade, IGA and employment)

Searching potential employers and facilitate linkage for employment opportunity and provide seed money for starting petty trade.

Susceptible to hazards including Promote climate smart • erratic rainfall, frost, hailstone agriculture, promote and other climatic viabilities irrigation, provide timely metrological information to farmers and deliver preventive crop diseases chemical.

facilitate intensive training for Development Agent on CSA this is enabling them to provide technical support to farmers and establish metrological information channel with respective regional and national agency.

Limited capacity and access to Provide adequate improved • improved agricultural agricultural technology and technologies, practices. provide capacity building training

Strengthening existing cooperatives for providing agricultural inputs and facilitate trainings for them

Inaccessibility to good market Conduct market assessment • and finances and identified marketable commodities and engaged farmers on it. Create financial service access.

Engage selective farmers on identified marketable off farm activities and linked with potential buyers. Encourage membership of finical institutions using any regular events.

8

2.0. Introduction and Background Asagirt Woreda is one of the chronically food insecure woredas of the ANRS and it has a total PSNP beneficiary of 17,554 (50% F) people under 5,577 households (34% FHH). Out of the 5,577 beneficiary households, 4,574 (82%) are public work beneficiaries, 906 (16%) are direct support beneficiaries and the remaining (2%) are temporary direct support beneficiaries. Though PSNP have been implemented in the woreda since 2005, the program was challenged to lift the beneficiary households out of chronic food insecurity due to recurrent drought, frost and other shocks the beneficiaries cannot create assets. Hence, households intervened with PSNP are unable to achieve food and nutrition security as expected and planned.

As a result, SHA has a plan to improve food and nutrition insecurity for PSNP clients with the project entitle” Unleashing the productive capacity of poor people through Graduation Approach. This project, therefore, aims at enhancing sustainable graduation of target ultra-poor households through achieving economic self-sufficiency and eventually moving out of the PSNP. To this end, livelihoods options are designed to create a productive asset base that increases income and spreads risk of the target households. For realizing of such desired result, the project includes the following objective: • The general objective of the project is to contribute to sustained food and nutrition security for chronically and transitory food insecure (vulnerable) rural households in rural Ethiopia.

• The project’s specific objective is to graduate 600 chronically food insecure households from the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) food support in Asagirt woreda and strengthen their resiliency to cope with income and food related shocks.

9

Project Geographical Coverage and local context

Figure 1: Map depicting the Asagirt Woreda Asagirt is one of the twenty-four rural woreda of the north shoa administrative zone of the Amhara region. Located approximately b/n 9 20 6 north latitude and 39 34 30 south longitude at the eastern edge of the Ethiopian highlands in the north showa zone. Asagirt is bordered on the south by Hagere Mariamna Kesem, on the west by the Angolelana Tera, on the north again

by Angolelana Tera, Basona Werana and Ankober and on the east by Afar region and Berhet woreda. (it is located about 126 km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia and 72 KM from Debre Birhan, capital city of Zone.

Population Density: Asagirt has an estimated population of 56,254 and an area of 50563.76 ha.

It has 14 rural Kebele administrations and one urban Kebele. On the contrary, based on the 2007 national census conducted by the central statistical agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this woreda has a total population of 48,371, of whom 24,674 are men and 23,697 women; 1,278 or 2.64% are urban inhabitants. The majority of the inhabitants practiced Ethiopian orthodox Christianity, with 94.92% reporting that as their religion.

Land holding hectares: The total area of the Woreda is estimated at 50563.76 ha hectares; out of which, 29605.39 hectares (58.5%) is cultivable,5868.90 hectares (11.6%) grazing land, 13989.23 hectares (27.66%) bush and forest land, 1056.33 hectares (2.08%) other/degraded and unsuitable /land and 43.89 hectares (0.086%) used for settlement. Its altitude ranges from 1107 to 3,596 meters above sea level. The temperature reaches from 7.5 to 25-degree cent grade and the annual rain fall ranges from 900 to1800 milliliters on average.

Agro-ecological zone: It has four distinct agro-ecological zones of Wurech 3867.74ha/7.6% hectares, Dega 19115.42 hectares (37.8 percent), woynadega 20611.21 hectares (40.8 percent), kola 6968.87 hectares (13.8 percent), Bereha 0.02 hectares (0.00003 percent), (source: Asagirt Woreda Agriculture office, 2010).

10

Topography: The topography of the area is dominated by rugged terrain 9101.5 (18 percent), about 14157.6 (28 %) mountainous and 27304(54 %) plain.

Seasons: Asagirt has two rainy seasons: ‘belg’ which falls from early January to April, and the ‘Maher’ rains, which fall from mid - June to mid-September. ‘Belg’ crops are harvested in the period between May and June and, all ‘meher’ crops are usually harvested in the period between October and December, with the main cereal harvesting months of November to December. Erratic rainfall, frost, pests, poor adoption of agricultural inputs, soil erosion and low soil fertility are among the main factors that reduce agricultural productivity. In this case 17,554 household farmers support by PSNP (productive safety net program).

Livelihood zones: The area is characterized by two distinctive livelihood zones, namely, the Wheat, Teff, Haricot Bean, Onion &Gesho Trading Zone - This zone covered a total area of 27,580.08 hectares (54. 6%) and characterized by mid land and partially lowland. The main crops grown for both consumption and cash in the area is wheat and teff. The highest crop grown for sale is Rhamnus priniodes which is known in local Amharic name ‘Gesho’-use for making local alcoholic drink “Tella”. The other livelihood zone is Livestock (Cattle, Shoat), Barley and Eucalypts Trading Zone which covered a total of 22,983.16 hectares of land which is 45.4%.

The area is characterized by high land and frost. The main crop that produce in the area is barely and favorite staple crop during the agriculture season; approximately 3-4 months. In addition, the livestock population of cattle and shoat are very high and suitable to rearing and fattening of such domestic animals in this livelihood zone. Other mainly produced in the area is eucalyptus tree and highly marketable product and top second income source for the farmers next to “Gesho”.

3.0. Methodology - The IHM Approach The IHM® is a method for measuring household income developed by Evidence for Development. In common with other household budget survey methods, the IHM involves the collection of household income data for the purpose of policy development and planning.

However, the IHM differs from other approaches in (i) the method of data collection (applying a semi-structured interview, rather than a standard questionnaire format) and (ii) the use of specialised software, which allows data checking and analysis to be conducted in the field.

Together these reduce the risk of errors in data collection and allow errors to be identified and corrected.

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

Before any individual household interviews take place, a preliminary survey is conducted involving community leaders and other local key informants. This allows the team to explain in detail the purpose of the assessment, and to refine key research questions. It provides interviewers with basic information on the local economy and economic activities that subsequently allows them to identify inconsistencies in individual household 11

2.

3.

interviews, and to cross-question where appropriate. The preliminary survey also involves mapping the study area and drawing the sample.

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

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

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

3.1. The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) IHM baseline Survey The IHM baseline survey for the PSNP was conducted within the period 2nd to 13th December 2019. Two Kebeles including Tadesh and Wobel from the two identified LHZs were selected for the survey to ensure we would cover the whole spectrum in wealth ranking from poorest of the poor up to the better off.

The selection of these Kebeles was influenced not only the LHZ which they lied in, however, the presence of sufficient numbers of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries played as an important factor in the selection. The a total of 100Households were targeted as the ideal sample.

However, the analysis of the results was only derived from a total of 98 households for the analysis on the household characteristics and productive assets. While only 94 Households were admitted for the main analysis on the disposable income, as the 4 households did not meet the desired data perimeters.

The overall purpose of the IHM study was to obtain reliable estimates of income sources from individual households and establish the minimum requirements for households to attain locallyestablished standards of living and to guide programming options for the PSNP. Throughout the process from training of enumerators to the collection of data rigour and quality in data collection through data checking, in the field and after, including referring enumerators to undertake call backs to collect or clarify any missing information within data collection forms.

This approach was combined with cross-checking food and income sources and comparing them with household size in order to quickly conclude whether households met their disposable income and standard of living thresholds. The conversion of local weights and measures into standard units was also standardised to avoid over-estimation. Finally, constructive feedback was provided in general and to specific enumerators when this was needed to ensure rigour in data collection and find solutions for individual interviewing problems.

One Assessment leader led the data collection after conducting a 2 days’ class-room training.

Data gathered included household membership by age and sex; the educational attainment of household members; asset holdings; income by source including food and cash remittances from relatives, payments and where applicable other charges for the reference year period 12

(November 2018 to October 2019). At the end of each day, data was entered into both the IHM software and the data entry matrix for added questions.

Study Limitations (i) Only two of the 7-member survey team had previous IHM experience. Hence, the lack of prior IHM experience and the combination of additional questions to the IHM assessment and two extra two assessments made data collection time consuming. This equally affected time taken in analysis and report writing. (ii) The prolonged rain season in Wobel affected data collection as in some cases appointments had to be postponed and fresh dates and times agreed as some areas were inaccessible.

13

4.0.

Study Findings:

4.1. Definitions of Key concepts of the IHM approach A household is a group of people resident in a house who were eating from ‘one pot1’ during the reference year.

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

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

Disposable income The IHM defines disposable income as income remaining after a household meets its food needs from its own production (‘food income’) and when own production is insufficient by purchase at a set price of the local staple food, in this case a combination of sorghum and maize (table 1) at the mid-year market price.

The result is standardised by dividing the disposable income by the number of 'adult equivalents' in the household. The number of adult equivalents is calculated as the total household energy requirement/the energy requirement of a young adult (2,600 Kcals/day).

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

Quintiles: When data collection is done and as part of the analysis per Kebele we rank all the households in order of their disposable income per adult equivalent with the poorest of the poor on the left 1

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

14

and the better off on the right. This Kebele data base will then be divided in 5 equal parts: the 5 quintiles. Quintile 1 is representing the poorest of the poor, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 the in between and quintile 4 & 5 the better off.

Quintile 4&5

Quintile 3

Quintile 2

Quintile 1

Table2: Characteristics for the different quintiles of households in selected Kebeles Characteristics for the different quintiles Access to small size of land 0.25 to 0.5 Hectares Assets a few chickens (2-3) and some small agricultural tools like sickle, axes, and hoe No or low cash income Few sheep and goats (1-2) Casual employment especially agricultural labour related Labour power quite similar as quintile 1 Access to small size of land 0.5 to 1Hectares Assets 5 to 10 chicken sometimes a goat and agricultural tools Some cash income Remittances More labour power available in the household Access to larger size of land – 1 to about 3 Hectares 8 and above poultry i.e. chicken a few sheep+goats (above 10) sometimes oxen/cows about 1 and mules.

Have cash income and part is received through small business initiatives Crop sales Access to land – 3 to 6 Hectares A reasonable amount of livestock including cows/oxen, sheep, donkeys, horses and mule. Sheep more than 10; oxen and cows more than 5; donkeys, horse and mule of more than 1.

Cash income is from more than one source. A significant part of the cash income is through sales of the crops and livestock/livestock products. income from a small business- Trade and Transport (e.g. donkey+mules+horse), beef sales, etc.

Provides casual land for the poorer members of the community

15

Table 3: Minimum Diet Local diet + price (Birr) split per Kebele Local staple Wodera Kebele Crop Asagirt Tadesh Barley Wheat Barley Wobel Wheat

% 80 20 70 30

Price in Birr(ETB)/Kg Low High 10 16 17 22 10 14 15 20

Mean 13 19.50 12 17.50

Table 3 shows the local staple diet per /Kebele and the local price in Ethiopian Birr. This information is used to calculate the minimum amount of cash needed for a household to top up their own production, when there is not enough produced to fulfil the household’s energy requirements. Information about the local minimum diet is collected through FDGs during contextual information gathering The standard of living threshold was established in discussion with residents. This is the cost of a basket of goods sufficient to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of living (see Table 4).

There is a very slight difference in terms of the standard of living threshold between the different communities in the 2 Kebeles Table 4: Goods required for Minimum Standard of Living for a household split for the different Kebeles in the three s SToL Cost per year (in Birr) split per and Kebeles

2

Tadesh

Wobel

Salt etc.

Cooking Oil Lighting Matches Clothes - adult male above 14years Clothes - adult female above 14 years Clothes - Child male between 4-14 years

576 1080 360 90 500 500 250

600 1080 600 36 600 600 350

Clothes - Child female between 4-14 years Lotion School cost(7-14) Total(ETB)

250 120 975 4701(2€144)

350 360 1300 5876(€180)

The average exchange rate for the period under review was €1 to ETB 32.7

16

The cost of the minimum standard of living was initially established during collection of contextual information through focus group discussions on various issues such as crop and livestock production, local units of measurements and price information within the main markets. This was validated through specific interviews with relatively poorer households in the sampled Kebeles. The basic non-food cost is allocated per household based on household size and their composition.

17

4.2. IHM Study Results

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

Figure 2a: Population pyramid for Households in Tadesh Kebele

Figure 2a is a demographic profile of the household members in Tadesh Kebele. The profile consists of a total of 43 households representing a total of 200Household members (95 males and 105 females) The results indicated that 9% of the household members were under 5 those aged between 5 and 14 consisted 27%, 36% were aged between 15 and 34 and made up the larger number of the household membership in the kebele. Meanwhile those aged between 35 and 59 made up 23%(46), while 6% are aged between 60 and above.

18

Figure 2b: Population pyramid for Households in Wobel Kebele

Figure 2b meanwhile is representing 52 households, a total of 220citizens 117 male (53%) and 103 females (47%). In this Kebele the children under 5 were 18(8%), those aged between 5 and 15 were 57(26%), those aged between 15 and 34 accounted for 39%(85). Furthermore, 53(24%) of the total household members of the kebele were aged between 35 and 59, while 7(3%)of community members were aged 60 and above.

Table 5: Household Demographics- Proportion of Female and Male-Headed Households among Households sampled in both kebele Female versus male Female Average Male Average Total Average headed households # of HH HH size # of HH HH size # of HH HH size female male total Tadesh (43) Wobel(52) Total (95 HHs) %

11 10 21 22

4 3.8 4

32 42 74 78

5 4 5

43 52 95 100

5 4 5

Table 5 shows that there were more than three times male-headed than female-headed households among the households sampled in the two Kebeles, with the female headed households been 22% and male headed households 78%. It is also noted from the results in the above table that the average household size for female-headed households (an average of 4 household members) was not significantly different that of male-headed households whose average was 5 household members.

19

Spade/shovel3

Plough/Harrow

Bicycle

Brewing equipment

Mobile phone

radio

Brick mould

Solar

Oxcart

TV

Pick

Tadesh (43) HHs Owning Wobel(52) HHs owning Total (95HHs) Total HHs Owning % Coverage

46 34 89 36 135

39 37 41 35 80

34 33 35 33 69

0 0 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 10

34 30 53 36 87

26 26 22 22 48

0 0 2 1 1

12 12 1 1 13

4 4 1 1 5

9 9 8 8 17

9 9 3 3 12

74

70

72

66

1

10

66

48

1

13

5

17

78

74

76

70

1

11

70

51

1

14

5

18

3 2 1 1 4

4 3 4 4 8

12

79 37 84 41 16 3 78

3

7

13

82

32

7

Sickle

Sewing Machine

Hoe

60 34 58 40 118

Assets

Hammer Mill

Axe

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

Table 6: Ownership of assets

Table 6 shows that most of the households have a combination of the smaller agricultural tools to work on the land, this includes sickles (82%), Axe (78%), shovel (76%), Hoe (74%) and ploughs (70%). Bicycle coverage stood at 1%, however it speaks less on their mobility, as the people in these community were dependent on their livestock such as horses, donkeys and mules (see table on livestock ownership). The results in the table show ownership of mobile phones to be at 70%, Coverage of radio (51%) and TV (18%), indicating access to communication.

Table 7: Ownership and Access to Land among Households sampled in the two Kebeles in Lowland (Ha) Upland (Ha) Kebele 0 <1 1 >3 3>6 6>9 0 <1 1 >3 3>6

6>9

Wobel(52HHs) Tadesh(43HHs)

22 19

24 22

4 2

2 0

0 0

4 2

17 24

27 17

3 0

1 0

Total(95HHs)

41

46

6

2

0

6

41

44

3

1

% Coverage

45%

48%

6%

2%

0

6%

45%

46%

3%

1%

20

The above table 7 shows a summary of the size and type of land owned in both Kebele.

Generally, the total land sizes owned by most (48% lowland and 46% upland) is less than one hectare for lowland and between 1 ha and less than 3has for upland. It is worth noting that of the 47HHs (41 no lowland and 6 no upland) that are indicated not having the specific kind of land in the two kebele, it was found that out of these, a total of 3HHs (1HH in Tadesh and 2HHs in Wobel) did not have any land at all.

Table 8: Ownership of Livestock among Households sampled in in the six Kebeles

Cattle(0t hers)4

Goats Sheep

Chicken

Horses/ Mules

Donkey

Exotic Cows

Tradition al Cows

Tadesh (43) Total number of LS Average number Wobel(52) Total number of LS Average number Total(95) HHs owning Total average LS owned % Total Coverage

No LS

Livestock (LS) Ownership

1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2%

37 60 2 42 70 2 79 2 83%

35 83 2 52 174 3 87 3 92%

21 70 3 21 61 3 42 3 44%

3 4 1 16 20 1 19 1 20%

22 27 1 35 46 1 57 1 60%

4 6 1 13 17 1 17 1 18%

22 27 1 22 70 3 44 2 46%

Table 8 shows the majority (92%) of households do have sheep and goats, followed by Cattle (including oxen, heifers, bulls) ownership which is 83% of the two communities. Donkeys and local cows are the next livestock assets that are mostly owned by most households with Donkeys being owned 60% and local cows being owned by 46% of the households. About 18% of the household in the area own exotic cows as opposed to 46% that own traditional cow. In terms of poultry, 44% of the household have chicken. Only 20% of the population own either mules or horses.

There are 2 % of the households which represent two households did not own any livestock. In a community to which mostly dependent on livestock for both consumption and household income, households that do not have livestock are most likely going to be not only extremely affected in times of shocks, but are also prone to be socially excluded, as they not be able to meet some of standard of living needs such as mobility and draught power.

4

Cattle (Others) Include Heifers, bulls and other such as are not used for milking

21

Table 9: Ownership of Trees of economical values among the sampled households Tadesh Kebele (43 HHs)

# of HHs owning

Coverage (%)

Total

Ave

# of HHs owning

Coverage (%)

Ave

Total # of HHs owning Total coverage

Eucalyptus

8110

270

30

70%

12872

390

33

63%

2098 2

333

63

66%

Pine

100

100

1

2%

0

0

0

0

100

100

1

2%

Acacia

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

Average

Both Kebele(95HHs)

Total

Tree Type

Wobel Kebele(52HHs)

The results in table 9 above indicate the main trees that are of economic value in exclusion of fruit trees. In both kebele, an average 66 % of the households (70% in Tadesh and 63% in Wobel) owned eucalyptus trees. The average number of eucalyptus trees owned by households in both Kebeles was 333(270 in Tadesh and 390 in Wobel). Ownership of trees such as Eucalyptus was important as it provided the household with endowment that the household would fall back on in the face of a stress or shock that affect other regular sources of household income such as crops and livestock. Trees were used mostly for construction of both household dwelling and livestock housing. One 1 households in Tadesh indicated owning 100 pine trees.

Table 10: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent split per Quintile for all 2 Kebele in the survey Disposable quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile Average Total Range q1 – q5 Income per Adult 1 2 3 4 5 weighted Equivalent (split average in quintiles) Ethiopian Birr(ETB) Euro (€) Tadesh(42HHs) -684 505.8 2138 5323 25998 6656 2951 (21) - 795 Wobel(52HHs) -428 1245 3244 8010 24471 7309 4048 (13) - 748 All (94) Average -556 875.5 2691 6666 25235 6982.5 6998 (17) -772 All (94) Weighted -543 961 2608 6816 25150 6998 (17) - 769 Average Table 10 depicts the disposable income per adult equivalent split across different quintiles (quintile 1 representing the poorest of the poor to quintile 5 representing the better off). The results above show that in both Kebeles, the poorest, are exhibiting a negative disposable income of ETB -543(€16.6). Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose purchase a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household. Overall, the weighted average disposable income for those in the lower quintiles 22

(1&2) is not more that ETB 418 (Approximately €13) across the Kebeles and the better offs being ETB 25150(approximately €769). Note also that the weighted average disposable income for all of the poorest and the better off households even reduces further to ETB 6698(about €205).

4.2.3. Household Disposable, SToL and Income by Source

4.2.3.1. Household Disposable and SToL – Tadesh and Wobel Kebeles Figure 6a: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent for Tadesh Kebele

Figure 6a presents disposable income per adult equivalent (the money remaining to the household after basic food energy needs have been met) and the cost of the non-food items within the minimum standard of living basket(SToL). Those households with income below the set standard of living are shown in blue, while those above are shown in Orange. Note that nonfood costs used to set the standard of living are allocated per household based on household size and their composition (gender and ages of the household members). For example, households with higher incomes may fall below the threshold because they have higher costs due to having several school-age children or more adults that increases the cost related to clothing, for instance. Overall, 29% (12 households) were unable to meet their minimum food intake compared with 43% (18 households) who were unable to afford the cost of basic nonfood items during the November 2018 – October 2019 reference period.

23

Figure 6b: Household Disposable income for HHs in lower quintile

Figure 6b is an enlarged extract of figure 6a representing the 18 households in the lower quintiles (1&2) who can be considered as constituting poorest and poor households in Tadesh Kebele. In IHM approach, all sampled households are categorised into 5 equal parts(quintiles) based on the disposable income of the household sorted from the lowest to the highest with Quintile 1 represents the poorest, quintile 2 the poor, quintile 3 and 4 in between and quintile 5 the better off. These households (18hhs) in quintile 1&2 are all living under the absolute minimum standard of living and 12 of them don’t even have enough income to fulfil their household’s energy requirements, hence constitutes most of the food insecure households and a critical target as far as the PSNP interventions are concerned. Notably the best off household in this graphic (quintile 2) had an annual disposable income of ETB 1220.32(€37), considering that the annual cost of the basic non-foods for any ordinary household in Tadesh was ETB 4701(€144) on average, this better off household in the lower quintiles, would ordinarily, need an extra ETB 3481(€106.44) to be able to have a well sustained livelihood and not fall into vulnerability.

24

Figure 7a: Disposable Income per Adult Equivalent for Wobel Kebele

Figure 7a presents disposable income per adult equivalent as stated earlier, the costs for nonfood used in setting the standard of living threshold are allocated per household based on household size and their composition. Consequently, households with higher incomes may fall below the threshold because they have higher costs due to having several school-age children or other related non-food costs. Overall, 15% (8 households) were unable to meet their minimum food intake compared with 37% (19 households) who were unable to afford the cost of basic non-food items during the November 2018-October 2019reference period.

Figure 7b: Disposable Income/Adult Equivalent for quintile 1 & quintile 2

Figure 7b, as in the preceding presentation on Tadesh, is an enlarged extract of figure 7a representing the households in the lower quintiles of 1 and 2. There are a total of 22 households in these quintiles, out of which 19 are living under the absolute minimum standard 25

of living, and 8 of them cannot even have enough income to fulfil their households energy requirements. The best off household in this graphic (quintile 2) has a disposable income from 1809.16 ETB (€55.33) which is in deficit of ETB 4067 (approx. €125) to meet the cost of basic non-food requirements. This is just to point out that these households have to struggle to make a choice between meeting the competing need for food and that of the basic non-food needs.

To a larger extent these households are vulnerable to social exclusion and also are bound to be food insecure.

4.2.3.2. Sources of Household Food and Cash Income in Tadesh and Wobel Kebeles Figure 8: Sources of Household Food Income (Kcal) in Tadesh Kebele

Figure 8 above is a presentation of the household income (standardised5) as food (kilocalories) consumed by a household in Tadesh Kebele during the period November 2018 – October 2019.

In the graphic, each source of food (income source) is colour coded with are different colour, with crops depicted by dark blue, employment by orange, Livestock by Grey, Transfers by yellow and wild foods by light blue. The food income pattern in the graph shows that the predominant source of household food income in the Kebele is own crop production which contributed 97% of the total household food income, this was supplemented by utilization of livestock products which accounted for 2.4%, while less that a percent (0.6%) of the total household food income was from transfers. None of the households had income from employment and wild foods. If the results indicated in the graphic, is anything to go by, it is clear that the there is less diversification as far as food income sources and that there is a high dependence on the own crop production as opposed to other sources. Considering the fragility of the area to frost, poor rainfall patterns and poor soils, coupled with limited access to sufficient land and improved seed, dependence on crop production as the almost one single source of food income possess risks of vulnerability to food insecurity.

5

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

26

Figure 9: Sources of Cash Income (Birr) for households in Tadesh

Figure 9 presents household income (standardised6) as cash (Ethiopian Birr) for households in Tadesh Kebele during the November 2018 – October 2019 reference year. In the graphic, each cash income source is depicted by a different colour with crops been depicted with the dark blue colour, Employment by orange, livestock by grey, transfer by yellow and wild fruits by blue (*NB: These colours may look different depending on the default colours on computer being used) The cash income patterns indicate that employment was the most predominant (72%)source of household cash in the Kebele. Household cash incomes are supplemented by some cash income from crops at 11%, livestock at 9% and transfers such as cash remittances at 8%. This implies that much of the crops are grown purely for consumption and not cash and livestock the introduction of interventions that could strengthen livestock production and marketing of livestock products.

In the graphic there are a few gaps (5&9) representing households that have no cash income.

Cash flow is important to purchase basic non-food items. 20 of 29 households have a cash income of less than 6,000 ETB (€ 193.54) which makes it particularly challenging for those households to purchase basic non-food items.

6

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

27

Figure 10: Sources of food Income (Kilocalories)

Figure 10 presents household income (standardised7) as food (kilocalories) consumed by a household in Wobel Kebele during the period November 2018 – October 2019. As in the case of the previous presentation on the food income for Tadesh, each food income sources are depicted by different colour with Crop being dark blue, employment by orange, livestock by grey, transfer by yellow and wild food by blue. The food income pattern in the graph shows that the predominant source of household food income in the Kebele is own crop production which accounted for 90%, supplemented by livestock at 7% and transfers at 3%. None of the households had income from employment and wild foods. If the results shown in the graphic are anything to go by, there is less diversification as far as food income is concerned with a high dependence on own crop production as opposed to other sources.

7

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

28

Figure 11: Sources of Cash Income (ETB) for households in Wobel Kebele

Annual HH Cash Income(ETB)

Household Cash Income(ETB), Wobel Kebele 60000

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

HHs arranged with poorest on the left and the better offs on the right crop

employment

livestock

transfer

wildfoods

Figure 11 presents household income (standardised8) as cash (Ethiopian Birr) for 52 households in Wobel Kebele during the November 2018 – October 2019 reference year. The cash income patterns indicate that employment and crops are the main contributors to household cash income with each accounting for 35% and 31% respectively. Household cash incomes are also supplemented by livestock at 24% and transfers at 10%. There was no cash income recorded from wild foods.

Unlike in the case of Tadesh kebele, the cash income pattern, indicate some sort of diversification as far as cash income sources are concerned. The reasons that could be attributable to are the ready market in Wobel for most of the agricultural products.

5.1. Households Food Security Table 11: Percentage of households that were food secure in the agriculture year Kebele Average Average number Average number % of households number of of difficult of HHs having who are food months months sufficient food secure food from and cash to last throughout the own the all round year production lasting Tadesh(45HHs)

10 Month

3 Months

27HHs

60%

Wobel(52HHs)

9months

4 Months

33HHs

63%

All HHs(97)

10Months

3.5 Months

60HHs

62

8

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

29

Table 11 represents results on the average number of months, food which is derived from a household own production lasted, the average number of months when it was difficult for household whose own food production was not sufficient to meet the household’s food requirement throughout the year and whether the household had sufficient cash to supplement the shortfall. The table show that on average, food from own production lasted for 10 months and that on average the difficult period for about 38% households whose food did not last for 12 months was between 3 to 4 months. 60HHs (approximately 62%)are able to have sufficient food from their own production and or sufficient cash to supplement own production. These results (62%) confirms the earlier results (61%) of the households having a positive DI/AE who are able to meet the basic food energy requirements. This is so, because statistically, the results fall within the same range and using the two results as the lower and upper limit, it can be argued that on average about 62% of the households in the project year were food secure during the agricultural year November 2018 to October 2019.

Figure 10a: Smallholder’s rating of the 2018/19 agricultural year

30

Figure 10b Smallholder’s rating of the 3 agricultural years

The figures 10a represents the smallholder farmers perceptions of the 2018/2019 agricultural year, 52%(51HHs) perceived the 2018/2019 agricultural year as an average year, while 36%(35HHs) perceived the year as good, while 12%(12HHs) rated it a bad year. Furthermore, the smallholders were requested to compare 2018/2019 agricultural year with 2017/2018 and 2016/2017 agricultural seasons, figure 10b above represents the smallholder farmer’s rating of the three agricultural years including 2016/2017, 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons regarding Agricultural production. 41%(40HHs) of the smallholders rated the reference year under review has been best year as compared to 42% (41HHs) that rated the immediate past agricultural year 2017-2018 as the best.

The smallholder farmers intimated that they felt the difference between a good and bad year is mainly availability of good rains, access to inputs, absence of frost and livestock diseases.

7.0 Main Findings, Broad Conclusions and Proposed next steps The following are the main findings, broad conclusions and next steps drawn from the results of the survey: Average disposable income per adult equivalent The results above show that in both Kebeles, the poorest, are exhibiting a negative disposable income of ETB -543(€16.6). Henceforth, these households are struggling on a daily basis, on what to choose between purchase of a full basket of non-food items or buying the needed food for the household. Overall, the weighted average disposable income for those in the lower quintiles (1&2) is not more that ETB 418 (Approximately €13) across the Kebeles and the better offs being ETB 25150(approximately €769). Note also that the weighted average disposable income for all of the poorest and the better off households even reduces further to ETB 6998(about €205).

31

Minimum food intake per adult equivalent based on 2,100 kilo calories per person per day Overall findings of the study demonstrate that 21% (20HHs) of households were unable to meet their minimum food energy requirements during the reference year comprised of 12 HHs in Tadesh Kebele and eight in Wobel Kebele. Large household sizes, poor soil conditions, frost, hailstorms and limited land contributed to the inability to produce adequate food income from households’ own crops (the main source of household food in the sampled Kebeles). However, 79% of households surveyed met their minimum food intake requirements during their reference year.

Disposable income below minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 39% (37 HHs) of households (18 in Tadesh and 19 in Wobel) did not have sufficient cash income to cover the cost of the basic minimum for non-food items to ensure a minimum standard of living and avoid social exclusion. These households were thus described as below the minimum standard of living threshold during the reference year. Together the results from these two findings indicate that the pattern of poverty (measured by the ability of a household to meet its minimum food intake and afford a basic basket of non-food goods) is relatively high for the people in these areas.

Proportion of Households above minimum standard of living threshold Approximately 61% (57 HHs) of all households (24 in Tadesh and 33 in Wobel) had sufficient cash and food income to both cover household energy requirements and to purchase basic non-food items within the minimum local standard of living basket. These households were thus described as above the minimum standard of living threshold.

Broad Conclusions Generally, as can be evidenced through data analysis and as evidenced on the ground most of the households in these kebele are faced with exceedingly difficult situations which continue to impact negatively on their general livelihoods security. These factors range from a combination of fragility to climatic viability (prone to frost and poor soil type), lack of access to affordable agricultural inputs, lack of access to adequate land, limited diversified sources of income (food and cash), plus other factors continue to limit production for both food and cash incomes for these households. Hence, these households are living in constant threat to their food security and have to continue depending on assistance from Government and other agencies. Even though from the results 61% can be said to have been food secure in the baseline year under discussion, there are still 39% of the total households that did not have sufficient disposable income to cover their minimum requirement for non-food items so as to reach a basic and acceptable standard of living.

Of concern to the project are the low crop and livestock production, limited income (Cash and food) diversified sources, coupled with low productive asset endowment and how this would affect the PSNP implementation graduation model. These factors among many others need to be addressed during the project implementation.

32

Next Steps – Proposed Interventions Summarized below are proposed interventions.

What was found Proposed Intervention How and Why Households with Low disposable Enhanced Access to financial • Primarily linked with financial income and those below the services (credit, loans, institutions as such opportunity standard of living threshold savings, insurance enabling them to create new (mainly Quintile 1&2) and payment services) business options and increase income source.

Less diversification of food Nutrition activities which • The integration of nutrition income sources with a high include training, messaging messaging, trainings, cooking dependence on crops and cooking demonstrations demonstrations would assist in are part of the project averting this challenge interventions Limited access to adequate land Create more livelihood • (hectares). options like off farm activities( petty trade, IGA and employment)

Searching potential employers and facilitate linkage for employment opportunity and provide seed money for starting petty trade.

Susceptible to hazards including Promote climate smart • erratic rainfall, frost, hailstone agriculture, promote and other climatic viabilities irrigation, provide timely metrological information to farmers and deliver preventive crop diseases chemical.

facilitate intensive training for Development Agent on CSA this is enabling them to provide technical support to farmers and establish metrological information channel with respective regional and national agency.

Limited capacity and access to Provide adequate improved • improved agricultural agricultural technology and technologies, practices. provide capacity building training

Strengthening existing cooperatives for providing agricultural inputs and facilitate trainings for them

Inaccessibility to good market Conduct market assessment • and finances and identified marketable commodities and engaged farmers on it. Create financial service access.

Engage selective farmers on identified marketable off farm activities and linked with potential buyers. Encourage membership of finical institutions using any regular events.

33

Annexes: IHM Assessment Team Name

Organisation

Role

IHM level

1: Simon Longa

SHA (Zambia)

Supervisor

Level IV

2: Dawit Mergesa

SHA (Ethiopia)

Enumerator

Level I

3: Alemu Gesese 4: Habetemariam Tesfaye 5: Desta Abebe 6: Amsalu Fekadu 7: Sisay Selemon 8: Wagaye Adefres

SHA (Ethiopia) SHA (Ethiopia) SHA (Ethiopia) SHA (Ethiopia) SHA (Ethiopia) SHA (Ethiopia)

Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator Enumerator

Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I Level I

34